Consumer complaint received 2026-01-21 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Fees or interest — Charged too much interest
Company: Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
I am an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I opened a XXXX XXXX credit card serviced by Comenity Bank in connection with an XXXX promotional financing offer. I had no prior experience with a deferred interest credit structure in which interest is retroactively applied to the original purchase amount rather than the remaining balance. 

This account was opened solely for the purchase of wedding rings for my wife and mean emotionally significant life event that was represented at the point of sale as a positive and manageable financial transaction. Instead, the retroactive application of deferred interest transformed what was presented as interest-free promotional financing into a significant and unexpected financial burden.

During the promotional period, I made good-faith payments totaling over {$3500.00}, reducing my balance from approximately {$5300.00} to {$1900.00} before the promotion expired. Despite these substantial payments, Comenity applied deferred interest calculated on the original purchase amount, effectively restoring my balance close to its original level and negating the majority of my payments.

At the time of application, the sales associate described the promotion as interest-free for 18 months, with interest beginning only on the remaining balance if not paid in full. At no point was it disclosed that interest would retroactively accrue on the original amount financed. Had this material term been clearly conveyed, I would not have applied for or used this credit product. 

Comenity asserts that the deferred-interest terms were disclosed in monthly billing statements. However, disclosures provided after the account was opened can not cure or justify misleading or incomplete representations made at the point of sale. By the time billing statements were issued, I had already been locked into the credit agreement based on false or materially incomplete guidance. Post-sale billing disclosures should not be considered meaningful consent to terms that were not clearly explained prior to account opening. 

I contacted Comenity Bank to dispute the deferred interest and request relief based on misleading disclosure, good-faith payment history, and my active-duty status. My dispute reference number is XXXX. During these communications, I specifically requested that my case be reviewed under any available military hardship or accommodation programs. This request was denied. I was advised that the only potential relief available would be to submit a request under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ) to reduce the interest rate.

I submitted the requested SCRA documentation in good faith. However, Comenity subsequently denied the SCRA request as well, leaving no avenue for relief despite my active-duty status, substantial payments made prior to the promotion expiring, and the misleading nature of the deferred-interest disclosure. 

This conduct occurred during a period of heightened financial pressure marked by inflation and affordability challenges affecting military families. In this environment, the retroactive application of deferred interest disproportionately harms service members and exacerbates financial instability. Enforcing such lending practices under these conditions is inconsistent with responsible lending standards for military consumers. 

The retroactive application of high-APR deferred interest after substantial principal reductioncombined with the refusal to consider military hardship or grant SCRA reliefis predatory in effect and constitutes an unfair and deceptive lending practice. 

I am continuing to make timely minimum payments under protest while disputing the deferred interest charges

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation