Consumer complaint received 2025-08-15 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem when making payments — Problem during payment process
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
I have held a Capital One credit card since XX/XX/XXXX. For years, your mobile app displayed a Pay Remaining Statement Balance option, which updated in real time after mid-cycle payments and allowed me to pay exactly what was necessary to avoid finance charges. I reasonably relied on this feature, as it was represented in your official platform as the amount needed to avoid interest. I successfully avoided interest for years using this method, including every month in XXXX, as confirmed by my year-end statement showing XXXX interest charges. 

In approximately XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX, without any prior notice in the app, via email, or in my billing statements, this feature was removed. The change may have taken effect at different times for different users depending on when they updated their mobile app. The current payment interface now only shows : Statement Balance A static figure from the closing date, which does not adjust after partial payments. 

Current Balance Includes post-statement transactions and is not the amount required to avoid interest. 

Previous posted payment Other payment Minimum payment The removal of the Remaining Statement Balance feature has eliminated the only clear, accurate, and dynamically updated figure that allowed customers to make interest-avoiding payments after partial payments or statement credits. Requiring customers to manually calculate this amount is not equivalent, as it is error-prone, burdensome, inconsistent with industry best practices, and contrary to the transparency obligations under the CARD Act and Regulation Z. 

This removal functionally altered my ability to comply with the accounts own terms for avoiding finance charges. Under Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.9 ( c ) ), card issuers must give 45 days advance written notice of any significant change in terms. Even if Capital One seeks to characterize this as a non-substantive XXXX change, the removal materially changed how a consumer must act to avoid interest, and therefore should have been disclosed in advance. 

Harm Experienced XX/XX/XXXX statement I was charged {$23.00} in interest despite making payments I believed would avoid it. 

XX/XX/XXXX I called Capital One approximately week before my XXXX due date to confirm the exact amount needed to avoid interest. I followed the representatives guidance. 

XX/XX/XXXX statement I was still charged {$8.00} in interest, which your representative attributed to revolving or trailing interest and refunded as a courtesy. 

My payment history before the removal shows I was able to follow your own guidance you dont need to pay your entire current balance to avoid paying interest, just the statement balance without error. This guidance is now inaccurate in practice for any consumer who makes partial payments, because the Statement Balance in the app no longer updates to reflect the amount still owed from the statement. 

Evidence of Widespread Impact This is not an isolated incident. In the last XXXX months, multiple consumers have publicly reported the same change, some stating they called Capital One and had the removal confirmed by your representatives. I have preserved PDF copies of XXXX threads showing : Confirmations from users that the option was recently removed. 

Reports that they now have to do the math themselves after partial payments. 

Statements that Capital One representatives admitted the change and provided no replacement feature. 

These contemporaneous public reports demonstrate this is a systemic change, not an error on my account. This change applies universally to Capital One credit card customers using the mobile app, making the potential scope of consumer harm both widespread and foreseeable. 

Proof of Prior Capability I have preserved dated screenshots of the Capital One app showing the Remaining Statement Balance feature as it existed prior to its removal. This confirms the technical capability was present and functioning for years without issue. The decision to remove it was deliberate, and there has been no technical justification provided for doing so. 

Potential Dark Pattern Design The removal of this feature operates as a dark pattern a deliberate interface change that increases the likelihood of consumer error and thereby generates avoidable interest revenue. Both the FTC and CFPB have identified such design practices as unlawful when they manipulate consumer behavior to the detriment of the consumer. 

Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Every credit card agreement includes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This removal frustrates my ability to perform under the terms of the cardholder agreement and undermines the purpose of the interest-avoidance provision, constituting a breach of that covenant. 

Disparate Impact on Vulnerable Consumers This design change disproportionately harms vulnerable consumers, including those with limited financial literacy or numeracy, who are more likely to rely on clear, updated payoff amounts rather than attempting error-prone manual calculations. The CFPB and other regulators have consistently flagged such disproportionate impacts as a significant consumer protection concern. 

Conflict with the Truth in Lending Acts Purpose The Truth in Lending Acts core purpose is to ensure meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that consumers can avoid the uninformed use of credit. By removing the Remaining Statement Balance display a clear, functional, and long-standing tool for avoiding finance charges Capital One has undermined this purpose, leaving only static or inflated figures that no longer communicate the actionable amount needed to avoid interest. 

Competitive Disadvantage and Marketplace Deception Many competing card issuers continue to display an updated payoff figure equivalent to the Remaining Statement Balance. The removal of this feature from XXXX XXXX  app, without notice or explanation, misleads consumers who reasonably expect that all major issuers provide accurate, updated payoff information to avoid interest. This creates a competitive disadvantage for informed consumer choice and risks misleading the public about the consistency of industry practices. 

Regulatory Context and Precedent CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX  ) : The XXXX required {$34.00} XXXX in restitution after finding that consumers were harmed by unclear interest-related disclosures. While the context differs, the principle is the same : removing or obscuring payoff information harms consumers and violates transparency obligations. 

CFPB XXXX XXXX on XXXX : The removal materially interferes with consumers ability to understand key account terms namely, the amount needed to avoid interest and therefore qualifies as abusive. 

Recent CFPB Warnings : The Bureau has cautioned that obscuring important account features, even if technically legal under another statute, can violate XXXX standards. Removing the Remaining XXXX XXXX falls within this logic. 

Why This Change Meets the XXXX Standard Unfair Causes substantial monetary harm by making interest-avoidance materially harder, with no offsetting benefit to the consumer and no reasonable way to avoid the harm. 

Deceptive Leads reasonable consumers to believe they have paid enough to avoid interest when they have not. 

Abusive Removes a long-standing clarity feature, interfering with understanding of a key account term, and takes unreasonable advantage of reliance on your interface. 

XXXX XXXX  removal of this feature satisfies all three prongs of XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief