Synchrony Bank Faces Scrutiny Over Alleged TCPA and Debt Collection Violations
Synchrony Bank is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the financial institution continued to make debt-collection calls using prerecorded voice technology after a consumer revoked consent and retained legal representation.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, was brought by plaintiff Iman Habel, who claims the bank violated both the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA).
The complaint alleges that Synchrony continued contacting her through prerecorded calls despite receiving written notice that she no longer consented to such communications.
The case highlights ongoing scrutiny of debt collection practices and the legal obligations financial institutions face when communicating with consumers regarding delinquent accounts.
Allegations Center on Prerecorded Collection Calls
According to the complaint, Habel experienced financial hardship in late 2025 and was unable to maintain payments on a PayPal Credit account serviced by Synchrony Bank.
The lawsuit alleges that on January 12, 2026, Habel sent a cease-and-desist letter to Synchrony, informing it that she had retained legal counsel regarding the account and was revoking any prior consent to prerecorded calls. Despite that notice, the complaint claims that Synchrony representatives continued to contact her on her cellphone via prerecorded voice messages.
Court filings allege that more than 100 prerecorded calls were made after the revocation of consent. Habel argues that these communications violated consumer protection laws designed to regulate how debt collectors interact with consumers.
The complaint further contends that the alleged conduct interfered with her privacy and caused damages, forming the basis for claims under both state and federal law.
Consumer Protection Laws at Issue
The lawsuit relies heavily on provisions of the TCPA and the RFDCPA, two laws frequently cited in litigation involving debt collection communications.
The TCPA restricts certain automated and prerecorded calls made to consumers without proper consent. The law has been a significant source of litigation involving telemarketing and debt collection activities, particularly when consumers allege that consent was revoked or never provided.
Meanwhile, California’s RFDCPA prohibits debt collectors from engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive collection practices. The statute was enacted to protect consumers while promoting confidence in the state’s credit and banking systems.
According to the complaint, Synchrony’s alleged actions ran contrary to those consumer protections by continuing collection efforts through prerecorded messages after receiving notice that consent had been withdrawn.
Proposed Nationwide Class
Habel is seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers who allegedly received prerecorded debt-collection calls from Synchrony Bank after revoking their consent to receive such communications.
The lawsuit requests declaratory and injunctive relief, along with actual and statutory damages for the plaintiff and any class members ultimately included in the litigation. Habel has also demanded a jury trial.
At this stage, the allegations remain unproven, and the court has not determined whether the case will proceed as a certified class action.
Synchrony Previously Faced TCPA-Related Litigation
The newly filed lawsuit comes after Synchrony was involved in other consumer communication litigation in recent years.
In 2024, the company began issuing settlement payments in a separate class action that alleged violations of federal telemarketing laws. That case centered on claims that consumers received calls regarding accounts that did not belong to them.
While the circumstances differ from the current allegations, both matters underscore the legal risks financial institutions face when consumer communications are challenged under federal calling regulations.
As the case moves through the court system, industry observers will be watching closely to see how the claims are evaluated and whether the litigation provides additional guidance on consent revocation and prerecorded debt-collection calls.
The case is Habel v. Synchrony Bank, Case No. 3:26-cv-03349-AJB-BJW, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
