Consumer complaint received 2021-09-17 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Trouble using your card — Can't use card to make purchases
Company: DISCOVER BANK
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Your pre-prepared catagorization of complaints doesn't well fit my complaint, which I will express below by ( 1 ) & ( 2 ) expressing absolute facts about consumer credit, then ( 3 ) asking what should be rhetorical question and provide what I think is an reasonable and appropriate answer. 

( 1 ) Canceling a credit card damages a person 's credit rating. This is an absolutely accurate statement, although certanly not an intuitive or obviously logical fact.

( 2 ) A credit card user agreement is imposed as terms by a credit issuing company for the customer to voluntarily accept. This is also an accurate and factual statement.

( 3 ) Do you think it is appropriate, in good faith, or even legal for a user agreement to essentially state that credit extending company reserves the right to tangibly damage a card holder 's credit for any other reason than non-payment? Such a condition likely fails a reasonable consideration of appropriate, good faith, or legal activity. 

Discover 's user agreement doesn't say outright that they reserve the right to damage the customer 's credit rating, but that is the factual and inevitable impact of their agreement stating a card will be canceled if it isn't used often as often as they want. Said a different way, their " agreement '' essentially hides the authority for them to damage their customer by canceling their credit card for reasons other than non-payment. 

My two points are very simple. ( 1 ) Discover 's user agreement literally allows them to damage a customer for reasons other than non-payment, something no customer would likely agree to, so Discover disguises the deliberate intent to harm and the customer 's so-called permission to allow Discover to cause harm through accepting the user agreement. 

( 2 ) It is predatory, not in good faith, and hopefully illegal to intentionally craft a user agreement knowing that hidden implications could be used to tangibly harm the other party, and to not very clearly and up-front expose and express such threats. 

There is a difference between the cost of doing business and harming someone. Choosing to not use an available credit card may represent to the credit card company a temporary small cost of doing business, but NO certain harm to anyone. However, canceling a credit card causes CERTAIN harm to card holder 's credit rating. Further, Discover considers that supposedly sending a routine, non-accountable postal mail letter notification to use or lose my card ( a letter that I never knowingly received ), represents that I intentionally allowed them to cancel my card and hurt my credit rating by not using my card. 

In summary, these are the facts : I was a good customer, paid my balances on time, but my credit card was canceled without my knowledge and my consumer credit was harmed because I chose to use credit priviledges infrequently. Credit regulations and simple contract law should never allow contracts that give one party the ability to damage the other without reasonable due cause, and simply electing to use credit infrequently should never qualify as due cause.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation