in Newswire Published on March 17, 2020

Class Action Claims PayPal Credit, Synchrony Bank Mismanaged ‘Promotional Purchases’ Credit Accounts

Dermer v. PayPal Credit et al.

Filed: March 12, 2020 ◆§ 2:20-cv-02378

A man claims in a proposed class action that PayPal Credit and Synchrony Bank misled him as to the terms of his “Promotional Purchases” credit account and failed to properly credit a return.

Defendant(s)

Synchrony Bank PayPal Credit

Law(s)

Truth in Lending Act Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act

State(s)

California

Categories

False Advertising

PayPal Credit and Synchrony Bank have been named as defendants in a proposed class action lawsuit in which a man claims he was misled as to the terms of his “Promotional Purchases” credit account and not properly credited for a return.

The plaintiff alleges he opened a credit account with PayPal Credit and/or Synchrony Bank in 2019 based on the defendants’ representations that certain “promotional purchases” would not accrue any interest if they were paid in full within six months. According to the suit, the plaintiff made multiple purchases from “JOSBANKCLOT” in June 2019 and subsequently returned the merchandise the next month. Despite returning his purchases, the plaintiff was not properly credited for the returns, the case says.

After disputing the remaining charges with the defendants, the plaintiff allegedly found that despite his efforts, the companies failed multiple times to properly credit his account. The suit argues that the resulting “Miscellaneous Adjustments” and notations on the plaintiff’s billing statement were so “confusing, misleading and unclear” that the man could no longer keep track of the purchases on his account to avoid paying interest on promotional items.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated several California state laws by misrepresenting how the plaintiff’s account would be maintained and failing to make the proper adjustments to his credit.

Further, the case claims the defendants overstepped the federal Truth in Lending Act by:

Failing to make proper and timely adjustments to the plaintiff’s account;

Failing to “clearly and conspicuously” provide certain disclosures, including those regarding finance charges and the calculations of such;

Failing to “clearly and concisely” disclose how certain fees are calculated and the period of time to which they apply; and

Failing to provide required information about “introductory” or promotional rates.

According to the case, the defendants’ “untrue and misleading” representations regarding the plaintiff’s credit account and the companies’ “promotional purchases” offer caused the plaintiff to suffer “substantial injury.”

The case looks to certify a class of California residents who opened a credit account with the defendants with the “Promotional Purchases” offer and had various “adjustments” reflected on their account statements due to improperly credited returns.

Case Spotlight

Hair Relaxer Lawsuits

Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.

Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits