“Earn 70,000 Bonus Miles plus 40 XP (Experience Points) after you make $3,000 or more in purchase within the first 90 days of your account opening. Plus, get 60 XP upon approval!”

💡 This is the exact offer Bank of America advertised and that induced the plaintiff to apply for the card.

“Bonus Miles and XP Offer. Receive 60 XP upon account opening. Limit one opening of account XP bonus offer per Flying Blue member. You will qualify for 70,000 bonus miles and an additional 40 XP if you use your new credit card account to make any combination of purchase transactions totaling at least $3,000 (excluding any fees, such as the annual fee) that post to your account without 90 days of the account open date.”

💡 The written terms and conditions matched the advertisement, creating a binding contract for the higher reward.

“Defendant, while on the phone with Plaintiff, informed Plaintiff that numerous other individuals had spoken to them about this bait-and-switch. Nevertheless, Defendant refused to honor the original agreement.”

💡 A bank representative acknowledged this was not an isolated incident but a pattern affecting many customers.

“Consumers fail to receive promotional rewards when financial institutions impose vague or hidden conditions: Consumers indicate that requirements detailed in the fine print of rewards programs’ terms and conditions do not match marketing materials, turning sign-up offers or other promotional rewards into a ‘bait and switch.'”

💡 Federal regulators documented this exact type of deceptive practice as a recurring problem in the credit card industry.

“The CFPB found in an enforcement action that one issuer, Bank of America, violated the law when it offered sign-up bonuses only through online applications without clearly disclosing this limitation in marketing materials.”

💡 Bank of America has been caught and punished before for nearly identical deceptive rewards practices.

“According to our research, the account was opened with 2 promotional bonus offers attached. You met the spending criteria of $2,000 within the first 90 days and received 40,000 in bonus points and 10,000 in bonus points. The total of 50,000 in bonus points were received in April 30, 2024, and the points were transferred to Air France account at the end of the billing cycle.”

💡 The bank essentially confessed it applied a different offer than what was advertised and agreed upon.

“Please note that it is the customer’s responsibility to review and understand the terms of the offer before applying for a credit card. We have confirmed that no bank error occurred regarding the offer.”

💡 Rather than take responsibility for contradictory marketing, the bank deflected blame onto the consumer.

“Over the course of ninety (90) days, Plaintiff spent $6,972.26 on the Card, well over the $3,000 required to claim the offered Bonus Miles and XP.”

💡 The plaintiff fulfilled his end of the bargain by more than double, yet the bank still refused to honor the deal.

“Nevertheless, Plaintiff did not receive the original offer; rather, Defendant unlawfully superseded Plaintiff’s original contract and applied the Bonus Miles and XP terms related to the second advertisement—a monetary difference valued at $200 or greater.”

💡 The plaintiff discovered the bait and switch only after it was too late to change his spending strategy.

“During the course of Plaintiff’s communications with Defendant, he requested, multiple times, that Defendant provide him with a copy of his application and contract. Defendant repeatedly refused to provide these documents without explanation.”

💡 By withholding the original agreement, the bank prevented the plaintiff from proving his case and forced him to sue.

“Any violations by Defendant were knowing, willful, and intentional, and Defendant did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such violation.”

💡 The plaintiff alleges this was not a mistake but a deliberate business practice by Bank of America.

“Defendant’s bait-and-switch tactics harmed Plaintiff. Not only did Plaintiff financially suffer, but Defendant’s actions caused Plaintiff frustration, annoyance, time lost investigating, and lost opportunity to use a different credit card.”

💡 The harm extends beyond dollars to include emotional distress, wasted time, and foregone opportunities.

“As a result of each and every violation of the Act, Plaintiff is entitled to any actual damages, treble damages, and injunctive relief pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A, § 9(3); and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A, § 9(4).”

💡 If the bank is found to have willfully violated consumer protection law, it could face triple the actual damages plus legal fees.

“All consumers who applied for a Mastercard with an offer to earn 70,000 bonus miles + 40 XP after making $3,000 or more in purchases within the first 90 days of opening their account, and were not provided those rewards.”

💡 The proposed class could include thousands of consumers nationwide who were victims of the same alleged bait and switch.

“In 2023, the CFPB received over 1,200 complaints involving credit card rewards, some of which reflect perennial issues involving the administration of credit card rewards, such as consumers claiming credit card companies denied them benefits after they met program requirements.”

💡 More than a thousand complaints in a single year shows this is an industry-wide problem, not an isolated incident.