A lawsuit has been filed against a major financial institution for allegedly exploiting vulnerable consumers with high-interest loans during critical medical and veterinary emergencies. The complaint, filed by S.G. on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, was lodged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on August 19, 2024, targeting Synchrony Bank.
The plaintiff alleges that Synchrony Bank's CareCredit product imposes exorbitant interest rates on loans provided to consumers at their most vulnerable moments—when they are seeking urgent medical or veterinary care. These loans reportedly carry interest rates as high as 32.99% annually, with penalties pushing rates up to 39.99% for late payments. This is significantly above the legal limits set by New York’s state usury laws, which cap interest rates at 16% annually and consider anything above 25% to be criminally usurious.
S.G., a resident of Washington D.C., recounted his own experience in March 2021 when he was forced to take out a CareCredit loan to pay over $2,000 for emergency veterinary treatment for his cat, Pumpkin. He describes being under duress and feeling like he had no other option but to accept the loan terms presented by Synchrony Bank at the emergency veterinary center in Connecticut. Additionally, between 2021 and 2023, S.G. used CareCredit for various medical expenses such as optometrist visits and chiropractic care due to financial constraints.
The complaint quotes former Consumer Finance Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray's remarks from December 2013 about the importance of transparency and fairness in financial products offered during healthcare transactions. "It is particularly important that a credit card company offering personal lines of credit to pay for health care is doing everything to the letter of the law—that they are treating people fairly, with dignity, and with the utmost transparency," he said.
Plaintiff S.G. seeks actual and treble damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits into a constructive trust, injunctive relief, declaratory judgment stating that Defendant’s lending practices violate usury laws and that any arbitration clauses in agreements made by Plaintiff and Class members are void for public policy reasons. The lawsuit also demands pre- and post-judgment interest along with reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees.
Attorneys representing S.G. include Javier L. Merino from DannLaw; Jennifer Czeisler, Edward Ciolko, Arturo Pena from Sterlington PLLC; Adam Pollock and Anna Menkova from Pollock Cohen LLP. Case No. 2:24-cv-5788.