Consumer complaint received 2026-05-26 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Trouble using your card — Can't use card to make purchases
Company: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: UT

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this as a new complaint because Synchrony Banks response to CFPB Case XXXX did not resolve the underlying issue and instead relied on a vague internal fraud strategy explanation while leaving the account unusable for eligible retail purchases. Beginning in early XX/XX/year>, I attempted to use my newly approved and fraud-verified CareCredit card at XXXX and XXXX for eligible health and personal-care items, including XXXX XXXX shakes shelved in the OTC/pharmacy section and hand soap. Every transaction was declined, even though XXXX and XXXX are described by CareCredit as accepting the card for eligible items. I completed XXXX highest level of fraud verification, including identity-verification steps requested by the company. After that process, XXXX fraud department advised me that the account was verified and good to go. Even after that clearance, the next attempted transaction was still declined. On XX/XX/year>, while standing at XXXX checkout, I spent about XXXX minutes on the phone with CareCredit and spoke with XXXX different representatives. During that call, an account XXXX stated they had been told that cards must be used at a provider before retail purchases can be made. No one could point to any written term in the cardholder agreement disclosing such a requirement. CareCredit then sent a replacement card, implying the problem might be the physical card itself. On XX/XX/year>, after receiving that replacement card, I attempted to purchase a bottle of hand soap for about {$3.00} at XXXX. The transaction was declined again. On XX/XX/year>, Synchrony responded to my prior CFPB complaint and stated that the transactions on XX/XX/year>, and XX/XX/year>, were denied due to its internal fraud strategy. In that response, Synchrony also cited the cardholder agreement language stating that purchases may be made from dealers, providers, and retailers that accept the card, and that the bank may limit the number or dollar amount of purchases and may decline any particular charge on the account for any reason. On XX/XX/year>, at XXXX a.m. XXXX, I again attempted to purchase hand soap at XXXX in XXXX, Oregon, and the card was declined again. This was another low-dollar attempt for an eligible personal-care item at a retailer Synchrony says accepts CareCredit. XXXX explanation remains inadequate. XXXX, the fraud rationale does not make sense because I had already passed the highest level of fraud verification and was affirmatively told the account was cleared. XXXX, the dollar-amount limitation language does not plausibly apply to repeated attempts to buy a single bottle of hand soap for about {$3.00}. Third, the company still has never identified any written provider-first requirement in the cardholder agreement. Based on the companys own statements and the repeated retail declines, the most reasonable conclusion is that Synchrony is using the broad may decline any particular charge for any reason language as a hidden operational restriction while its representatives verbally communicate a provider-first rule that is not disclosed in the agreement. In other words, the company appears to be enforcing an undisclosed policy while refusing to acknowledge it in writing. This practice is unfair and deceptive. The account was approved, verified, and represented as usable, yet it has never successfully processed even a small eligible purchase at XXXX or XXXX. The account has never accrued interest and has never had a late payment because the card has never worked. That is not a functioning revolving account as represented. I also want to note that this pattern of unexplained denials, circular escalation, non-answers, and after-the-fact reliance on vague fraud language is behavior more typical of a subprime lender managing a suspect account than of a lender dealing with a prime consumer profile. I no longer need or desire to tolerate an unusable tradeline created through a XXXX inquiry and then defended with boilerplate.

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