Consumer complaint received 2021-05-25 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Opening an account — Didn't receive terms that were advertised
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
In XX/XX/XXXX, Respondent marketed a new checking account promotion to me, which offer provided that if I opened a new checking account with them, signed up for e-statements by XX/XX/XXXX, and within 60 days of account opening made at least two direct deposits of {$4000.00} or more each, I would receive a {$300.00} promotional bonus. The plain language of the terms did not limit " direct deposits '' to deposits that did not originate from another checking account, or to those that originated from an employer in whom I owned no equity and was not an authorized signatory of or other government program. The only time limit specified was for the original two deposits, which already meet the definition of recurring by being more than one such deposit. 

At some point between offer receipt and XX/XX/XXXX I inquired with Respondent about whether disbursements from the distinct legal entity of the PLLC I perform my XXXX  through, which holds a business checking account in its own name ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), to me would be qualifying, and they indicated they would be.

This offer induced me to change banks for personal checking at considerable hassle and effort by opening the new account on XX/XX/XXXX prior to the posted offer expiration and using the promo code advertised ( XXXX ), then timely sign up for e-statements and then through that reasonable reliance, manage the timing of membership disbursements of the PLLC to me as well as obtain financing at some expense to arrange for the payor bank of the PLLC to make two separate {$4000.00} direct deposits into my new personal checking account with Respondent, which were dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, and so were timely made within 60 days of account opening. 

Respondent 's marketing materials had indicated that the {$300.00} credit could take 2-3 months after completing the offer to post. When the {$300.00} credit had not issued by XX/XX/XXXX, I called XXXX 's general customer service line to inquire. This initial call lasted at least 48 minutes and included 4-5 transfers between departments before a representative was willing to look into it. The final representative I spoke with on XXXX did extensive research and agreed with me that I had met all of the promotion 's terms for the bonus, but could not manually submit it to issue as they could not find the original promo code I had entered, which at that time I did not have access to either. I was then told I'd need to call " Cafe Deposits '' at a specified direct line during certain hours the next day as they would be able to tell what promo code was used and issue the credit. I did so on XX/XX/XXXX, and the direct line redirected me to the automated phone system, then to customer support. Eventually, someone was able to manually transfer me to a representative from " XXXX XXXX, '' who felt they had the promotion identified, but noted that their in-house backend system had classified the deposits the payor bank had sent as " real-time transfers. '' The representative accepted a misclassification had occurred and the terms of the promotion satisfied, but believed that if they submitted the credit request, it would be rejected unless this classification was overridden. Though the account was opened online, they believed the manager of the branch assigned to the account would need to help them approve this, and said they'd email the branch manager and then either take care of getting me the credit or let me know if it needed to be escalated further. This second call lasted at least another 53 minutes.

When I didn't hear back from the branch manager or the last representative over the next more than 2 weeks, still with no credit issued, I tried to call the " XXXX XXXX '' " direct '' line on Friday XX/XX/XXXX. I was redirected again to the automated phone system, then to customer support. The customer support agent found notes from the XXXX calls, but not the XXXX references to contacting the branch manager. They could not locate the promo code just as the XXXX rep could not, and could not transfer me to " XXXX XXXX '' as that department had closed. He instead put in a request for me to get a call back from that department today, XX/XX/XXXX. This call took another 33 minutes. 

A representative from a new department in XXXX followed-up on this and called me today, XX/XX/XXXX. Today 's representative had no issue seeing what code had been entered ( XXXX ), but in contradiction to the information provided to me and the written terms of the offer insisted that because the system classified it as " transfers '' and had originated from another checking account on which I was a signor ( despite that being in my capacity as manager of the PLLC that owned that account ) and that " recurring '' direct deposits meant more than 2 deposits, as well as asserting new terms not provided anywhere in the written agreement that deposits that were not payments from unrelated ( not one 's own company ) employers or government programs did not qualify. Consequently, today 's representative provided me the code that was used and a reference number of XXXX, but indicated that Respondent would refuse to honor the offer. 

I believe this is a contract breach being done pursuant to an efficient breach policy that may also violate Federal consumer protection regulations.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation