Synchrony Bank class action overview:
- Who: Plaintiff Iman Habel is suing Synchrony Bank.
- Why: Habel claims Synchrony Bank unlawfully attempted to collect an alleged debt from her.
- Where: The Synchrony Bank class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court.
- How to get help: If you experienced debt collector harassment, you may be eligible to join a debt collection lawsuit investigation.
A new class action lawsuit claims Synchrony Bank unlawfully attempted to collect on an alleged debt by using an artificial or prerecorded voice.
Plaintiff Iman Habel’s class action lawsuit alleges Synchrony Bank’s actions violated both the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Habel claims Synchrony Bank’s alleged unlawful collection practices invaded her privacy and caused her damages.
“The California legislature determined that unfair or deceptive collection practices undermine the public confidence, which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking and credit system,” the Synchrony Bank class action lawsuit says.
Habel argues the California legislature enacted the RFDCPA to prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts.
Habel wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who Synchrony Bank allegedly called using a prerecorded voice after they had revoked consent to be called using such a method.
Synchrony Bank ignored cease-and-desist letter, class action alleges
Habel claims she fell into financial hardship in November 2025 and was unable to maintain regular monthly payments on a PayPal credit account she had with Synchrony Bank.
Habel argues she sent a cease-and-desist letter to Synchrony Bank in January 2026 to inform the company she had retained counsel and that she was revoking any prior consent to call her via the use of a recorded voice.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff revoked her consent to receive prerecorded calls and retained legal counsel regarding the debts on Jan. 12, 2026, but Synchrony representatives allegedly continued calling her cellphone with prerecorded voice messages more than 100 times afterward.
Habel claims Synchrony Bank violated the RFDCPA and TCPA and is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual and statutory damages for herself and all class members.
In 2024, Synchrony Bank began issuing settlement payments in a class action lawsuit alleging it violated federal telemarketing laws by calling consumers about accounts that did not belong to them.
What do you think of the claims made in this Synchrony Bank class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiff is represented by Ahren A. Tiller and Brett F. Bodie of BLC Law Center APC.
The Synchrony Bank class action lawsuit is Habel v. Synchrony Bank, Case No. 3:26-cv-03349-AJB-BJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
- Honda recalls nearly 100,000 vehicles over airbag sensor defect
- Ford issues urgent Do-Not-Drive advisory for certain Bronco Sport and Maverick models
- 7-Eleven class action lawsuits claim data breach exposed customer information
- Another Lunazul class action claims tequila falsely labeled as 100% agave
