Consumer complaint received 2026-06-03 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns three consecutive billing disputes on my OnePay XXXX XXXX issued by Synchrony Bank. Federal law gives consumers the right to a reasonable investigation of a disputed charge and a clear written resolution stating what was decided and what it means for their account. Across three consecutive disputes I have received neither a completed investigation nor a clear final answer. What I have received are letters that describe an ongoing process, a portal that contradicts the letters, and in one case a letter that calls itself a resolution while pointing to a temporary credit as its only evidence without ever stating what was decided or what happens to my money. A resolution requires a closed file a statement of what was investigated, what was found, and what it means for the account with no conditions attached. What Synchrony has provided instead are letters that describe a process still in motion, using conditional language that preserves their ability to reverse the credit at any time. DISPUTE 1 {$110.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : I filed a dispute on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, the institution issued a temporary credit letter characterizing the adjustment as subject to reversal pending further review. No final determination followed. I made repeated contacts, including a chat on XX/XX/XXXX ( Ref # XXXX ) and a call with a supervisor on XX/XX/XXXX, neither of which produced a resolution. On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a CFPB complaint ( Case XXXX ). Only after that federal complaint was filed did the institution issue a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX stating we have completed our review. That letter does not state what the investigation concluded or what the decision means for the credit on my account. It points to the temporary credit applied on XX/XX/XXXX as if that act constitutes a resolution but that same credit had been characterized as subject to reversal since the day it was issued. The letter also cites the CFPB filing date as the sole inquiry date while omitting documented contacts on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX that preceded it. The account portal shows two entries for this dispute one marked Dispute Completed and one marked Under Review. A consumer looking at their own account can not determine from that whether the dispute is closed or still open. There is no written correspondence that resolves that contradiction. DISPUTE 2 {$130.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : I filed a dispute on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, the institution issued a temporary credit letter using identical language to the {$110.00} dispute characterizing the credit as subject to reversal pending further review. No final determination was ever issued. The written record stops at the temporary credit letter. As of XX/XX/XXXX, this dispute has been open for 91 days, exceeding the maximum investigation period permitted under federal law, and no final determination has been issued. The account portal shows two entries for this dispute for the same date and amount one marked Dispute Completed and one marked Under Review. A consumer looking at their own account can not determine from that whether the dispute is closed or still open. There is no written correspondence that resolves that contradiction. DISPUTE 3 {$70.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : I filed a dispute on XX/XX/XXXX. The institution acknowledged the dispute on XX/XX/XXXX and committed in writing to provide the outcome within 60 days. As of XX/XX/XXXX, that deadline has elapsed. The only written correspondence I have received is a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX characterizing the adjustment as a temporary credit subject to reversal. The institution has not provided the outcome it committed to provide. The account portal shows this dispute as Under Review. This institution has demonstrated across three consecutive disputes that a final written determination only materializes under pressure, arrives with facts selectively presented, or never arrives at all. Dispute 1 required a federal complaint to produce any final letter, and that letter distorted the timeline by omitting documented prior contacts and pointed to a temporary credit as a resolution without stating what was actually decided. Dispute 2 has no final letter the written record stops at the temporary credit. Dispute 3 blew past the institutions own committed deadline with nothing but a temporary credit letter that still leaves the door open to reversal. Synchrony has demonstrated a consistent pattern of avoiding clear, timely, final written determinations and when one is finally forced, presenting a selective account of the facts rather than a straight answer about what was decided and what it means for the consumers account.

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