Consumer complaint received 2026-02-03 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers — Confusing or misleading advertising about the credit card
Company: Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
In XX/XX/XXXX, I was shopping in-store at XXXX XXXX for a wedding ring. During checkout, the sales associate presented financing through the XXXX XXXX credit card issued/serviced by Comenity Bank XXXX The associate represented the promotion as 18 months interest-free, explaining that interest would begin accruing only after 18 months if a balance remained. Based on that point-of-sale representation, I opened the account and completed the purchase. The material distinction between interest-free and interest-deferred financing was not clearly explained at origination. 

After opening the account, I managed my payments through the online account home and payment screens ( the interface used to make payments ). Throughout the promotional period, those screens consistently displayed a low minimum payment ( generally ~ {$43.00} {$88.00} ) and showed the account as current. I made consistent payments of {$100.00} per month, well above the stated minimum, in good faith reliance on the payment interface cues. The payment experience did not provide clear, actionable guidance that my payments were insufficient to avoid retroactive interest, did not provide a required payoff amount to avoid retroactive interest ( e.g., you must pay $ XXXX per month to avoid deferred interest ), and did not provide meaningful alerts ( email/inbox/push ) that the promotion would result in a substantial retroactive finance charge if not paid in full by the promotion end date. 

I did not become aware of the deferred-interest risk or the magnitude of accrued deferred interest until XX/XX/XXXX, when approximately {$1400.00} in retroactive interest charges were applied after the promotional period ended ( promotion expiration noted as XX/XX/XXXX ). At that point, the harm had already occurred and was no longer reasonably avoidable. The retroactive charges also caused my balance/utilization to spike, negatively impacting my credit profile despite my consistent payment history. 

When I contacted Comenity to dispute the retroactive finance charges, Comenitys responses focused solely on the position that the charges are valid because deferred-interest terms appear in monthly statements. Comenity did not address the core issues raised : ( 1 ) the point-of-sale representation that the plan was interest-free, ( 2 ) my reliance on the account UI/payment screens that presented low minimum payments and account current status, and ( 3 ) the lack of clear, timely, actionable notice in the payment experience that a specific payoff amount was required to avoid a large retroactive interest assessment. Instead, Comenitys customer service repeatedly asserted that finance charges are valid and pointed to statement language as their defense. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, after delays, my inquiry was escalated to a Senior Account Specialist, who again denied relief and stated that Comenity sends a statement each month and that typically page 3 of 4 shows the plan information, and that because the balance was not paid by the expiration date, the finance charges from day one accrued and are valid. This response still relied primarily on statement references and did not address the point-of-sale misrepresentation and did not explain how the payment interface and minimum payment cues reasonably allowed a consumer to avoid the harm. It also did not address why the payment experience did not provide clear payoff guidance or warnings commensurate with the risk ( e.g., showing a required payoff amount or heightened notice as the expiration approached ). 

Although the final statement contained a highlighted notice referring the promotional plan expiration, the notice did not alter the payment experience or require any specific payoff action. In practice, the account payment experience repeatedly signaled that I was managing the account appropriately ( low minimum payment, account current, payment accepted ), while failing to provide a clear indication that a full payoff was required to avoid substantial retroactive interest and I was not aware of the significance of the statement language until after the interest charge was applied. The result was a sudden and significant consumer injury that was not reasonably avoidable.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation