Sean Taylor and Rachel Hawkins—both military veterans—allege that Synchrony Bank and its parent, Synchrony Financial, systematically cheated servicemembers out of interest-rate reductions promised under federal law. According to the Complaint—Class Action filed on June 4, 2024, Synchrony not only failed to offer the 6% and 0% rates outlined by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) and the bank’s own Military Benefits Program but also retroactively slapped veterans with exorbitant “penalty” interest rates—some as high as 26.99%—the moment their active-duty service ended. By subjecting returning servicemembers to this “veteran penalty,” the bank allegedly recouped much of what it claimed to have “forgiven” under the SCRA. This practice, the complaint contends, violates federal statutes intended to protect our troops—people placing their lives on the line—from precisely such exploitation.

The lawsuit’s core allegations reveal a multi-layered strategy that appeared to initially reward active-duty servicemembers with 0% interest, no fees, and other contractually promised perks. Yet after these men and women returned from deployments, the bank allegedly jacked up rates and tacked on new fees for existing balances. At times, interest soared by more than 20 percentage points in a single billing cycle, placing unsuspecting veterans into “immediate financial distress,” per the complaint. Rather than supporting those who transition back to civilian life, the complaint asserts, Synchrony effectively pushed these veterans deeper into debt, undermining the SCRA’s policy goal of preventing financial calamity for returning heroes.

The class action not only points to Sean Taylor’s rate spike from 0% to nearly 27% but also details how Rachel Hawkins faced a jump from 0% to 23.99%—all on balances incurred while under the illusion of receiving a permanent interest reduction. These allegations would stand as a glaring indictment of corporate ethics under neoliberal capitalism, where maximizing shareholder profit can overshadow basic obligations toward societal welfare and corporate social responsibility.

Below is a detailed, long-form investigative article—organized into eight sections—exploring these allegations against Synchrony Bank and placing them within a broader context of corporate accountability and economic fallout. We will examine how such alleged practices fit a well-worn pattern in contemporary corporate America: from the profit-obsessed culture that fosters wrongdoing to the lackluster regulatory enforcement that enables it, all the way through the glossy PR spin that corporations often use to blunt the impact of public outrage. Ultimately, we’ll illuminate how these alleged acts harm not just the affected servicemembers and their families but also the public trust in a system that purports to protect its most vulnerable consumers.

---

1. Introduction

For over two decades, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) has stood as a legislative safeguard, ensuring that the men and women who put their lives on hold to serve in the U.S. military do not incur crippling financial burdens. Under the SCRA, any debt—such as credit card balances—incurred prior to a servicemember’s activation must be reduced to 6% interest from the date of deployment orders through the active-duty period, with interest above that threshold permanently forgiven. This law embodies a broader principle: that when the nation calls people to sacrifice their time, skills, and sometimes their lives, the least we can do is spare them from exploitation at the hands of lenders.

Against this backdrop, the class action complaint filed by plaintiffs Sean Taylor and Rachel Hawkins against Synchrony Bank and Synchrony Financial is especially jarring. The bank not only promised SCRA-required benefits but went a step further, touting a “Military Benefits Program” with 0% interest rates and waived fees—a seemingly generous policy that overshadowed the 6% cap mandated by law. However, the complaint contends that this goodwill was largely a façade. Once the plaintiffs finished their active-duty tours, they claim Synchrony abruptly raised interest rates to levels as high as 26.99%—on the very balances they had been told would remain at 0% or 6%.

The bank effectively employed a “bait and switch,” creating the “illusion of SCRA compliance” during active duty, only to impose a “veteran penalty” the moment Taylor, Hawkins, and other returning servicemembers rotated back into civilian life. The lawsuit alleges that this scheme constitutes not just an unfair practice but a systematic violation of several federal statutes, including:

• Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA): For failing to permanently forgive interest above the mandated 6% cap and for retroactively withdrawing interest reductions.
• Credit CARD Act of 2009 (TILA provisions): For illegally raising rates on previously incurred balances, something typically forbidden by law unless specific exceptions apply.
• Military Lending Act (MLA): For allegedly requiring arbitration under certain circumstances where the MLA prohibits forced arbitration.
• Breach of Contract: For reneging on the promised 0% interest rate, effectively nullifying the bank’s own “Military Benefits Program” once veterans returned home.

What stands out in the complaint is the alleged uniformity of these tactics—meaning the plaintiffs suspect thousands, if not tens of thousands, of servicemembers across the country may have unknowingly forfeited huge sums in “recouped” interest fees. At a glance, one might assume that an error of this scale would draw immediate regulatory crackdown. Yet, as so many have observed in the era of neoliberal capitalism, big banks often operate with significant impunity, aided by the complexities of regulations and occasional inaction by watchdog agencies.

Synchrony’s Rise and Focus on Military Markets

The defendant, Synchrony Bank, traces its roots to financial arms of General Electric but now operates as a major consumer financial services provider in its own right, offering store-branded credit cards for Amazon, Sam’s Club, Gap, and many other retail giants. By marketing heavily to servicemembers—promising special perks and low rates—Synchrony positioned itself as an attractive go-to lender for those on active duty and beyond.

Why might a bank offer “generous” SCRA-like perks on top of legal requirements? On the surface, it can build brand loyalty among a demographic widely considered “low risk” in terms of reliability. Military paychecks may be modest, but they’re consistent—paid by the U.S. Department of Defense—and for the credit card industry, that means fewer defaults. This synergy gave rise to specialized “Military Benefits Programs” across various financial institutions, including Synchrony’s. Yet, as the lawsuit demonstrates, these programs can become a double-edged sword, especially when a corporation sees an opportunity to recoup perceived “losses” the moment the law’s spotlight dims.

Echoes of Broader Corporate Misconduct

These allegations against Synchrony underscore a broader phenomenon: profit maximization at the potential expense of vulnerable populations, a hallmark of what critics dub “late-stage” or “neoliberal capitalism.” In such an environment:

1. Regulatory Capture: Financial behemoths, armed with teams of lobbyists, can shape legislation that waters down oversight or, at minimum, ensures the regulatory environment is laden with loopholes.
2. Systemic Deregulation: Over the past several decades, the financial sector has seen repeated calls to “self-regulate,” rolling back the stronger consumer protection rules that historically emerged after economic crises.
3. PR Facades: Companies heavily invest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) campaigns—especially touting support for the U.S. military—to convey goodwill and philanthropic intent, even as internal policies may clash with these outward images.

For many consumer advocates and commentators focused on corporate ethics, the alleged Synchrony fiasco is reminiscent of other high-profile corporate misdeeds—think of the repeated controversies that have hit major banks for illegally robo-signing mortgage foreclosure documents or opening fake accounts without customer consent. The driving logic is often the same: if a profit scheme can be implemented faster than regulators can respond, the subsequent fines or settlements merely become a “cost of doing business.”

Human Stakes: Lives Upended by Illegal Interest Rates

What is too often lost in these discussions of corporate accountability is the personal toll on the families impacted. Indeed, both Sean Taylor and Rachel Hawkins realized only after returning stateside that their interest rates had skyrocketed. Taylor’s statement from one month to the next revealed a ballooning cost on a $7,500 balance, and Hawkins discovered her 0% rates had quietly morphed into a staggering 23.99%. Both were left with mounting debt precisely at a time when veterans often struggle to reestablish civilian careers and stable incomes.

Financial pressure can also exacerbate mental health challenges—like PTSD or depression—carried over from overseas deployments. The SCRA’s statutory requirements exist to mitigate these exact challenges, making the claims of “bait and switch” all the more shocking. When aggregated across thousands of veterans, the complaint argues, these tactics could have massive implications for wealth disparity and the economic health of returning servicemembers.

The Roadmap Ahead

This article aims to dissect and analyze the lawsuit’s claims and to locate them within a broader systemic critique of corporate misconduct under neoliberal capitalism. In Section 2, we’ll examine the internal “Corporate Intent” behind these alleged actions. Section 3 details the “Corporate Playbook” describing how big finance can skirt the law. Section 4 asks, “Does Crime Pay?” as we weigh potential profits from these ill-gotten gains. Section 5 addresses the glaring question: “Why Didn’t Regulators Intervene?” We then explore how this “Pattern of Predation” might be an intentional feature of the economic system (Section 6), before delving into the “PR Playbook” that companies often deploy to shield themselves from backlash (Section 7). Finally, we close with a reflection on “Corporate Power vs. Public Interest” (Section 8), pointing to structural reforms and grassroots movements that could shift the needle toward real consumer protection, especially for America’s veterans.

It’s crucial to note that these are allegations; litigation could stretch for years, culminating either in a settlement or a court judgment that determines whether Synchrony indeed broke the law. Yet even at this early stage, the conflict underscores a vital tension in modern American capitalism: the tension between a corporate environment that demands growth and higher shareholder returns and a moral, legal, and social imperative to protect those who fight under our nation’s flag.

---

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

The first step in dissecting the corporate misconduct is understanding what might drive a massive financial institution—one that publicly proclaims its commitment to corporate social responsibility—to impose what the complaint calls a “veteran penalty.” In simpler terms, how did Synchrony’s internal logic come to see active-duty servicemembers and newly returned veterans as prime targets for profit extraction?

The Allure of Low Default Risk

According to multiple industry analysts, servicemembers often have relatively predictable incomes—guaranteed by the federal government—and unique spending habits that can be highly profitable for credit card issuers. Synchrony Bank, in particular, invests heavily in acquiring “co-branded” retail credit accounts (e.g., Sam’s Club cards, PayPal credit, and more). Once they have a servicemember signed up, the bank can cross-sell various products, from store credit lines to personal loans. The complaint indicates that Synchrony aggressively marketed itself to military communities, promising 0% interest to stand out from competing lenders who generally comply with the mandated 6% under the SCRA.

Yet the moment the active-duty period ends, if the bank reverts servicemembers to a standard or penalty interest rate on preexisting balances, it effectively recoups what it gave away. The lawsuit’s allegations thus highlight a potential contradiction: for the duration of deployment, the bank showcases its patriotic generosity; once that deployment is over, it treats veterans as a sub-population from which it can demand higher rates—and do so in ways that ordinary civilians do not face.

Tactical Oversight or Systemic Strategy?

One might wonder: could this be a matter of incompetent compliance, of some mid-level oversight that inadvertently left a coding error in the bank’s billing software? The plaintiffs strongly dispute that idea. They argue that the widespread “veteran penalty” policy was sufficiently patterned and uniform to suggest it was intentional. Indeed, the complaint quotes from internal documents (where available) or references uniform practices that systematically applied a post-active-duty interest hike.

More tellingly, the complaint references the 2009 Credit CARD Act, which generally prohibits credit card issuers from raising interest rates on existing balances. The only permissible exceptions—such as a specified “introductory period” with clear disclosures in the contract—arguably do not apply here. The complaint points out that active military service is not a standard “introductory period.” No soldier can tell you, with 100% certainty on Day One, exactly how many days or months they will remain deployed; orders change, tours get extended, or end unpredictably. Therefore, for Synchrony to code these balances as “promotional” or “introductory” rates set to expire on a certain date does not match the fluid reality of deployment. This strongly suggests that the policy was deliberately orchestrated, timed to kick in once the bank determined the borrower was no longer on active duty, and intentionally circumventing the normal consumer protections that would forbid a mid-stream interest-rate hike.

The “SCRA Premium” and Upside-Down Incentives

From the vantage point of corporate ethics, offering 0% interest might look philanthropic. But in the context of neoliberal capitalism, it can also look like a cynical gamble. If Synchrony believed that only a fraction of veterans would notice or legally challenge an interest hike after deployment, or if it banked on confusion in the transition from active duty to civilian life, the bank could preserve its brand image as “military-friendly” while effectively clawing back the entire difference in interest.

That difference wasn’t small. Going from 0% to 26.99% amounts to hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in additional annual fees for many families. If the bank imposes that hike the very month a servicemember returns, the sense of shock—and the potential for immediate default—can be enormous. The complaint depicts how both Taylor and Hawkins were blindsided, ironically at the exact time they were readjusting to civilian life.

Evidence of Corporate Greed?

This is yet another example of corporate greed, the kind of short-term profit chase that can overshadow all concerns for consumer well-being or even the law itself. The complaint frames it in precisely those terms, labeling the practice of the “veteran penalty” as not only exploitative but a direct betrayal of a statutory regime meant to honor military service. If proven in court, the claim that the bank “undermined our nation’s commitment to servicemembers and veterans” by pushing them into “immediate financial stress” would be a damning reflection on Synchrony’s corporate accountability.

Critics of the financial industry often note that such conduct thrives under the broader system of neoliberal capitalism, wherein the primary corporate objective is to maximize profits. They argue that, without strong checks, boards of directors and executive management will push policies to the legal or ethical brink if it means capturing additional revenue. Whether couched as “inadvertent oversight” or “standard practice,” the net effect is a calculated approach to extract wealth.

Patterns from Other Industries

It’s not unusual for large corporations to appear altruistic in one breath while quietly undermining the very communities they claim to support in the next. Similar storylines have surfaced in:

• Pharmaceuticals: Companies offering “free” medication to impoverished communities but then inflating prices on the back end or requiring hidden fees.
• Automotive: Manufacturers touting safety records but lobbying against environmental or safety regulations that could reduce profits.
• Agrochemical: Firms donating seeds to low-income farmers, only to lock them into expensive annual contracts for proprietary seeds and fertilizers.

In each context, public-facing corporate social responsibility campaigns paper over underlying profit-driven tactics. Corporate social responsibility—especially championing the military—becomes a veneer that can obscure predatory revenue streams.

Summation of Intent

Synchrony’s top-level strategy was to expand its military customer base with highly attractive terms (0% interest, waived fees) and then recoup that difference later. The uniform application of interest hikes right after active duty ended, the lawsuit claims, is no accident—it’s evidence of conscious planning.

From a consumer-advocacy standpoint, we must ask if this is part of a bigger, institutionalized problem. Are we seeing an extreme example of deregulated financial markets enabling a powerful entity to exploit knowledge gaps among vulnerable populations? Or is this simply a singular corporate outlier? The plaintiffs argue it’s a systemic phenomenon—“This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug,” which we’ll explore in depth in Section 6.

For now, it’s key to recognize the alleged motivation: military customers, ironically, can represent both a desirable risk profile and an easy target for unscrupulous financial maneuvers. Indeed, the complaint suggests that by the time a veteran notices the harm—perhaps months or years after returning stateside—the intricate nature of credit statements and daily compounding interest ensures the bank collects far more than it might have otherwise.

---

3. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It

No corporate misconduct unfolds in a vacuum. When plaintiffs’ attorneys or investigative journalists talk about the “corporate playbook,” they refer to a set of recurring methods companies employ—both to implement questionable practices and to ward off accountability. If the allegations in the complaint against Synchrony hold water, then the bank’s approach checks several hallmark boxes of that playbook.

1. The Illusion of Generosity

The first step is offering an eye-catching deal: 0% interest for active-duty servicemembers, a perk that goes beyond the 6% cap mandated by the SCRA. Such an offer sets Synchrony apart and wins the trust of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines eager to avoid financial stress while deployed. It also fosters a sense of gratitude: “Look at how kind this bank is—giving me a 0% rate they aren’t even required to give!” Indeed, the consumer might become an enthusiastic brand ambassador, telling fellow servicemembers to “choose Synchrony.”

This tactic is reminiscent of other sectors. In the cell phone industry, for instance, carriers promise “free phones” if you sign up for multi-year contracts. The costs show up later as hidden fees or lock-in clauses. In the pharmaceutical arena, “patient assistance programs” can mask the ways in which the company artificially inflates the drug’s retail price.

2. Complex Paperwork and Opaque Terms

Once these 0% offers were extended, Synchrony made minimal, if any, clear disclosures about how or when the interest rates would revert after active duty. Indeed, one core piece of evidence in the complaint is the abrupt jump for both Sean Taylor and Rachel Hawkins to interest rates north of 20%, discovered only after the new billing statements arrived.

If the terms are buried, or simply omitted—especially during the chaos of deployment—the consumer’s ability to challenge them is compromised. The complaint underscores that under the Credit CARD Act, any “introductory rate” must be clearly disclosed in a “clear and conspicuous manner,” stating precisely when it ends and what the subsequent rate will be. Critics say that financial institutions exploit the complexities of regulation, weaving disclaimers into labyrinthine legal documents that few consumers ever read.

3. Reliance on Regulatory Gaps

Allegations in the lawsuit hinge on the notion that Synchrony took advantage of weak oversight mechanisms. The SCRA aims to protect service personnel, but it relies heavily on the assumption that banks either comply voluntarily or that federal regulators (like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the CFPB, or state attorneys general) will intervene. Despite the SCRA’s clear guidelines, Synchrony systematically denied or undermined the legally required interest benefits. While details vary by state, the broad pattern suggests that no single regulator, at least to date, stepped in to comprehensively address these issues—implying that corporations can exploit gray areas or the lack of real-time supervision.

Moreover, the consumer-protection apparatus can be outmaneuvered when a powerful entity invests in top-notch legal counsel. For instance, if Synchrony interprets the 0% rate as a “temporary promotional period” outside the SCRA’s structure, it may claim it can revert to the original rate after deployment. However, the complaint asserts that no standard promotional period can be indefinite in length (since active-duty periods vary) and that the bank must comply with TILA’s rules about not raising interest on an existing balance unless conditions are spelled out in advance.

4. Segment-Specific Targeting

A recurring tactic in questionable corporate behavior is focusing on populations less likely to resist. Military families, especially those deployed overseas, fit this profile. The complaint describes how, once active duty concluded, many servicemembers found themselves incurring “immediate financial stress” the moment they tried to continue paying off their existing balances. They might lack the resources or time to mount a legal challenge, plus the cultural stigma of potentially damaging one’s credit standing in the midst of transitioning to civilian life.

Furthermore, the complaint specifically notes that missing a payment or defaulting could threaten a veteran’s security clearance or future employment in defense-related fields. This makes them more susceptible to paying inflated rates quietly rather than disputing them. In other words, it’s an environment ripe for predation.

5. Strategic Ambiguity

The lawsuit alleges that Synchrony’s letters and statements regarding “enrollment” in the Military Benefits Program were vague about the interest rate’s expiration. The complaint says the bank’s official communications typically mention a 0% or 6% rate but provide no explicit timeline for how or when it might revert to 19.9%, 23.99%, 26.99%, or any other rate. Tellingly, the complaint emphasizes that a bank trying to rely on TILA’s “introductory period” exemption must have explained those specifics “before the commencement” of the reduced rate.

6. Lawyer Up, Pay Up—If You Get Caught

Finally, the corporate playbook often ends with the assumption that if regulators or a consumer class action does come forward, the company will do a cost-benefit analysis. This is the “Does crime pay?” question we’ll explore next. Typically, if the profit from the alleged wrongdoing far exceeds potential fines or settlement payouts—and if brand damage is manageable—then from a purely amoral vantage point, wrongdoing can be rationalized.

For instance, in the event this class action succeeds, the bank might face reimbursement for illegally charged interest and possibly statutory damages under the SCRA and TILA. In the broader scheme of Synchrony’s multi-billion-dollar operations, a settlement or judgment might be dwarfed by the revenue gained from its questionable practices. This cyclical pattern fosters cynicism among consumer advocates, who see settlement after settlement with corporate giants yet minimal signs of changed behavior.

Conclusion of the Playbook

The complaint’s allegations about a “veteran penalty” look heartbreakingly simple: advertise 0% rates, raise them after deployment, hope veterans don’t notice or can’t fight back. But behind that simplicity lies a multi-faceted corporate approach that thrives in the labyrinth of modern finance. Whether it’s the complexities of TILA disclosures or the borderline invisibility of post-deployment rate shifts, the end result—if the complaint is correct—is that Synchrony got away with it for years.

In Section 4, we’ll peel back the layers on how profitable these alleged tactics may have been. Was it “just a glitch,” or was it a mechanism to bolster revenue in ways that overshadow any risk of legal repercussions? As we shall see, the complaint presents a strong argument that the bank’s net gain from the alleged practice dwarfs any fines that typically come from regulatory slaps on the wrist.

---

4. Crime Pays / The Corporate Profit Equation

To fully grasp the stakes of this lawsuit, we must delve into the potential financial upside that Synchrony Bank reaps if the allegations prove accurate. In a system governed by neoliberal capitalism, the pursuit of profits often overshadows moral or ethical constraints. If a corporation can make more money breaking the law than complying with it, what’s to stop them—especially if the fines are negligible compared to the illicit gains?

1. The Profit Margin on “Veteran Penalties”

When interest shoots from 0% to somewhere between 19.99% and 26.99%, the additional revenue for the bank can be substantial. Imagine a returning servicemember who carries a $5,000 balance, having relied on the 0% rate to manage finances during active duty. If that 0% evaporates upon discharge and is replaced by a 20%+ APR, the veteran could face an extra $1,000 or more in annual interest expenses, not to mention late fees or penalty fees that might accompany a missed payment.

Multiply that scenario by thousands (or tens of thousands) of accounts. The bank, in turn, could see millions of dollars in fresh, high-margin revenue. Indeed, the complaint references how both Rachel Hawkins and Sean Taylor each owed thousands of dollars at the moment their interest rates skyrocketed, incurring significant monthly finance charges.

2. Compounding and Fees

Credit card interest isn’t merely a simple annual figure; it compounds daily or monthly, so the cost to the consumer can balloon. If veterans attempt to pay off their balances over several months or years, the total cost could far surpass the difference between 0% and 25% in a single year. Late fees or over-limit fees—especially if the consumer’s finance charges push them close to their credit limit—can also pile on. The complaint asserts that these fees, like interest above 6%, should have been fully waived or permanently forgiven under the SCRA’s broader protections. Instead, the bank collects them, further bolstering its bottom line.

3. The Settlement Trap

In many consumer finance class actions, a cycle repeats:

• The practice is challenged,
• The company denies wrongdoing,
• Eventually, there’s a settlement or ruling,
• The company pays a sum that might seem large to consumers but is often a fraction of the extra revenue generated.

Because the complaint indicates potential thousands of class members, a settlement might yield tens of millions. To the average person, that’s staggering. But for a corporate giant with billions in annual revenues, it’s a mere line item. From a purely amoral perspective, the company could chalk it up as “the cost of doing business.” This cyclical phenomenon, critics argue, is emblematic of a broader corporate culture that would rather break the law for profit and deal with consequences after it has pocketed the gains.

4. Investor Pressure

Under shareholder capitalism, the imperative is to continually deliver quarterly growth. Publicly traded companies like Synchrony Financial face enormous pressure from stockholders to expand loan portfolios, boost interest revenues, and maintain high margins. This environment can incentivize corporate leaders to push the envelope on legal compliance—especially if the potential regulatory pushback is uncertain or likely to come years after the profits are booked.

On the investor side, these “innovative product offerings” or “military-friendly promotions” can appear on earnings calls as strategic expansions. At the same time, the complaint notes that the real money might come from flipping those accounts into higher-interest “veteran penalty” balances the minute active duty ends.

5. Feedback Loops and Market Norms

If other banks or lenders see Synchrony’s approach working without immediate regulatory backlash, they might mimic it, creating a feedback loop in the financial sector. This is how questionable practices spread, becoming quasi-normalized. Over time, it leads to an industry culture that sees compliance with consumer protection laws as optional or negotiable. The complaint underscores how the SCRA, TILA, and MLA provisions were systematically violated. Are these allegations indicative of a broader trend across the credit card industry? That remains an open question, but it’s not a stretch, given parallels in banking controversies over the last two decades.

6. Impact on Wealth Disparity

Another crucial dimension is how these profit-driven tactics exacerbate wealth disparity. Military families, especially enlisted personnel, aren’t typically high earners. When forced to carry higher interest debt, they lose disposable income that could have gone toward homeownership, education, or simply bridging the gap to a civilian career. As debt accumulates, credit scores can plummet, potentially locking families out of favorable financial products in the future.

This vicious cycle fosters a generational impact: those already on the economic margins feel the heaviest burden of exploitative lending practices. Meanwhile, corporate executives and major shareholders reap the monetary benefits. The complaint thus frames this alleged misconduct as both a personal injustice to each servicemember and a public policy issue, where a systematic approach to recouping interest from veterans signals a larger moral failing in the marketplace.

7. Legal and Financial Upshot

If a court decides that Synchrony did, in fact, violate TILA by raising interest rates on existing balances—particularly with no “clear and conspicuous” disclosure—then the bank could face statutory damages. The SCRA also has provisions for punishing willful violations, potentially including punitive damages. However, the central question remains: Are such punishments enough to deter future misconduct? In the annals of corporate ethics, countless examples show that unless penalties outweigh the ill-gotten gains, companies often pay up and continue on a similar path.

Indeed, the complaint suggests that beyond restitution to individuals, the plaintiffs may seek “disgorgement” of Synchrony’s gains from these practices—meaning the bank would have to surrender profits earned from any illegal or deceptive acts. Achieving disgorgement can sometimes shift the economic calculus, forcing the defendant to realize no net benefit from wrongdoing. Historically, though, achieving a robust disgorgement is no easy task, often requiring extensive audits and complex financial modeling.

Summation

In sum, the alleged practice—offering 0% or 6% during service, then jacking it to 20%+ afterward—can generate lucrative revenue streams. In the cutthroat environment of neoliberal capitalism, each new fee or interest charge is an opportunity to pad quarterly earnings, thereby appeasing shareholders. It’s a system in which, unless strong consumer protection measures are enforced by watchdog agencies and the courts, the “crime pays” dynamic can flourish.

As we move into Section 5, we’ll examine why the regulatory system—tasked with preventing such abuses—did not step in effectively, at least not in time to stop thousands of veterans from incurring massive debts. Understanding those systemic failures sheds more light on how corporate wrongdoing not only emerges but also endures in today’s economic landscape.

---

5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing

Where were the government agencies—federal or state—created to protect servicemembers and regular consumers from predatory lending? The United States boasts an extensive regulatory framework intended to shield consumers from unscrupulous financiers: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), state attorneys general, and even specialized offices within the Department of Defense that watch for unscrupulous lending to military families. Why did none step in?

1. Jurisdictional Complexity

One partial explanation can be found in the labyrinthine patchwork of agencies that share or jostle over the same terrain. Synchrony Bank is chartered in a specific state (Utah) but operates across the nation. Federal agencies like the OCC supervise national banks, but the complaint notes that Synchrony is a “federal savings bank” (originally affiliated with GE Capital), which might bring it under a different set of oversight rules. When multiple agencies have partial jurisdiction, no single authority may feel fully responsible for investigating alleged wrongdoing. This “regulatory whack-a-mole” phenomenon often results in slow or absent enforcement.

2. Understaffed and Overstretched Regulators

Consumer advocates frequently highlight how the CFPB and state agencies lack the manpower to examine every complaint or proactively audit all major financial institutions. The exponential rise of digital banking and cross-border transactions intensifies this resource mismatch. Indeed, the alleged wrongdoing here involves a specialized population—servicemembers returning from duty—meaning the complaint might slip under the radar unless a specific complaint triggers an investigation. Without direct whistleblowers, internal bank memos, or repeated consumer complaints, an enforcement action could be delayed indefinitely.

3. The SCRA’s Enforcement Gap

The SCRA does provide mechanisms for government enforcement, often through the U.S. Department of Justice. But historically, large-scale SCRA enforcement actions have focused on mortgage foreclosures or repossessions of vehicles from active-duty military without court orders. Credit card interest rates, while still vital, may not always generate the same headlines or immediate calls for government intervention. This gap can be exploited. The bank found a sweet spot where they could remain outwardly “SCRA-compliant” by granting the 0% or 6% rate during active duty but quietly take it back afterward. Because the meltdown happens once servicemembers are veterans, the specific SCRA oversight might no longer be top-of-mind for regulators.

4. Regulatory Capture and Lobbying

Another piece of the puzzle is regulatory capture—the process by which industries influence or co-opt the very agencies meant to police them. Through lobbying, campaign contributions, and a revolving door of personnel between regulatory bodies and private corporations, the sector can develop an inertia that discourages robust enforcement. Large institutions like Synchrony, allied with powerful retailers, might effectively dull the impetus for investigating complicated issues like post-active-duty interest rate hikes. If lawmakers or agency heads prioritize business-friendly climates, they might inadvertently deprioritize consumer protection initiatives that appear too “strict” or “anti-growth.”

5. Consumer Confusion and Limited Reporting

Anecdotally, many veterans might not realize they were wronged, or if they do, they may attribute it to fine print or personal oversight. The complaint describes how both Sean Taylor and Rachel Hawkins only learned about the interest surge upon reviewing monthly statements they received after returning from deployment. The shock, frustration, and disorientation that accompanies reentry into civilian life can overshadow filing formal grievances. Without a critical mass of complaints, a regulator is less likely to act.

6. Class Actions as a Substitute for Regulation

The very fact that this matter is coming to light in a class action lawsuit highlights how class actions often serve as a last resort for consumer protection. In an ideal scenario, a regulator sees red flags, halts the practice, and secures restitution for affected servicemembers. Here, it appears that was not happening—thus, private plaintiffs’ attorneys stepped in to fill the vacuum. Lawsuits like this can indeed spur changes, but they usually come only after substantial harm has already occurred. The complaint underscores that the potential class includes thousands of people who, in the interim, have been paying inflated interest rates and fees.

7. International Deployment as a Shield

Unlike local consumers who might be quick to notice suspicious charges, deployed servicemembers often have limited communication or capacity to track complex financial statements from halfway around the globe. The SCRA tries to solve exactly that problem by capping interest rates, but if a bank’s policy circumvents those protections the moment deployment ends, a soldier returning from overseas might not catch on until months later, if at all. This time delay can hamper timely enforcement, as well, since regulators rely on prompt reports.

8. Implications for Corporate Accountability

From a macro perspective, the lack of immediate regulatory action underscores how wealth disparity and corporate corruption can deepen unchecked. If major financial institutions can quietly exploit legal gray areas without fear of immediate sanctions, it perpetuates a system where the vulnerable (in this case, veterans transitioning from active duty) are left to fend for themselves. Meanwhile, corporations continue to advertise philanthropic gestures—like “supporting our troops”—as they quietly harvest interest payments from those very individuals.

It’s worth noting that not every regulatory body remains inert indefinitely. Sometimes, high-profile class actions spur parallel investigations. But for that synergy to occur, agencies often need robust evidence. That might come from depositions, internal documents, or data uncovered in discovery during the lawsuit. Unless or until that emerges, and until watchdogs decide to devote resources to it, the alleged wrongdoing can continue.

Summation: A Symptom of a Larger Failure

The story reveals more than a single corporation’s wrongdoing; it underscores a fundamental failing in the system designed to protect consumers—especially those whose service to their country puts them at heightened risk of exploitation. Neoliberal capitalism emphasizes market freedom and minimal regulation, often on the assumption that “free markets” will self-correct. Yet the scenario described here implies the opposite: a sophisticated actor found a way to slip through the cracks of the regulatory safety net, profiting at the expense of those who believed the law protected them.

In Section 6, we’ll argue that these gaps are not simply mistakes but indeed features of a system that, intentionally or not, fosters patterns of predation. The synergy of weak oversight, high complexity, and relentless pursuit of shareholder value can create an environment ripe for exploitation. Once recognized, the question becomes: Are Americans—particularly the men and women in uniform—comfortable living in a society that allows such a risk? The final sections aim to answer that question and explore solutions.

---

6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug (Approx. 900–1,000 words)

Critics of contemporary corporate structures often say that malfeasance—like the alleged “veteran penalty”—is not an aberration but rather an intrinsic element of neoliberal capitalism. In this framework, the system’s primary goal is maximizing shareholder returns, even if that means undermining consumer protection laws. While the SCRA might stand as a moral and legal obligation to protect servicemembers, the complaint suggests that corporate practices at Synchrony—if proven—reveal a deeper truth: the exploitative dynamic is woven into the financial sector’s DNA.

1. Neoliberal Capitalism’s Three Core Ideals

• Deregulation: Over time, the financial sector has undergone waves of deregulation. The premise is that less government interference fosters innovation and growth. But as we’ve seen, it can also create loopholes large enough to permit or conceal predatory practices.
• Privatization: In a privatized, shareholder-centric model, publicly traded companies face pressure to deliver consistent revenue gains. This can mean pushing the boundaries of the law or testing novel ways to squeeze more interest or fees from consumers.
• Individualism Over Collectivism: The onus often lies on the individual consumer or servicemember to read the fine print, lodge a complaint, or take legal action. If that consumer is overseas on active duty—or simply lacking legal sophistication—the corporation holds a power advantage.

2. Case Studies in Similar Predatory Patterns

Across various industries, we find echoes of the same dynamic:

• Mortgage Crisis (2007–2008): Lenders extended subprime loans to consumers they knew might not fully grasp the adjustable rates or balloon payments. When questioned, they pinned blame on “uninformed borrowers.”
• Payday Lending: Companies target low-income areas or military bases with quick-cash loans at sky-high interest rates, often creating cycles of debt that trap borrowers.
• Auto Finance: Dealerships advertise low monthly payments but hide fees and interest surcharges deep in the contract, leading many to pay far more than the vehicle’s fair market value.

Synchrony’s alleged practices—offering a 0% rate and then quickly flipping it to 26.99%—perfectly mirror this archetype: lure consumers with an ostensibly beneficial initial deal, then claw back the difference once attention or legal protections wane.

3. The Built-In “Exploit the Vulnerable” Mechanism

Unfortunately, soldiers, veterans, and their families often make for a prime demographic to exploit. The SCRA itself acknowledges that those called to serve are at a heightened risk of financial instability due to deployments and relocations. The irony is that the same factor that makes them appealing to lenders (a guaranteed government paycheck) also makes them vulnerable to exploitation (harder for them to walk away, or to devote time to contest charges).

The lawsuit contends that Synchrony created and marketed a “Military Benefits Program” that was more generous than the statutory 6% cap, presumably to capture market share and cultivate goodwill. Yet, by swiftly raising interest rates after active duty, the bank allegedly turned that gesture into a funnel for additional profits. This approach capitalizes on the consumer’s trust in the brand’s patriotic façade.

4. Legal Theater vs. Authentic Reform

In many cases, corporate wrongdoing eventually triggers investigations, settlements, or class action lawsuits. But to date, these remedies have seldom reined in the broad impetus for profit-driven exploitation. Critics argue that regulatory agencies frequently perform a kind of theater: imposing fines that appear harsh but remain negligible to the offenders in the grand scheme of their revenues. If the alleged wrongdoing yields more in profit than the cost of the eventual penalty or settlement, the corporation emerges from the ordeal with little impetus to change.

For example, if Synchrony were forced to refund overcharged interest or pay statutory damages under TILA, the total might not offset the bank’s net gains from the practice—especially if it’s been going on for years or affecting a large pool of unsuspecting military families. Such a scenario only reaffirms the notion that “this pattern of predation is a feature,” not a bug. It’s built into how corporations weigh risk vs. reward.

5. Consumer Advocacy and the Hope of Systemic Change

So, is the entire system too deeply entrenched to change? Proponents of corporate accountability argue that class actions can serve as a valuable counterweight when regulators fail to step in, forcing transparency through discovery and imposing larger-scale settlements that might, in rare instances, alter corporate behavior. Moreover, intense media scrutiny—especially when tied to veterans’ issues—can harness widespread public indignation. This can pressure both the corporation and the relevant agencies to act.

Social justice movements also play a role. Advocacy groups that champion consumers’ rights, especially for military service members, can highlight the issue to lawmakers. That may spark legislative fixes to close loopholes, bolster oversight, or stiffen penalties. But historically, such reforms often follow years of harm—long after corporations have already profited.

6. Impact on Public Health and Societal Well-Being

When veterans are saddled with high-interest debt, it isn’t merely an individual’s private affair. The ripple effects can reduce local purchasing power, limit their ability to secure stable housing, or hamper access to higher education. Such economic fallout can lead to greater reliance on public assistance or philanthropic programs. In extreme cases, severe financial stress can compound mental health challenges. Though not as overt as corporate pollution or environmental damage, these financial burdens represent a danger to public health—a form of corporate pollution in the economic realm, one that contaminates the life prospects of entire families.

7. Synchrony’s Possible Retort

While the complaint spells out the plaintiffs’ case, Synchrony Bank has not yet had its day in court to formally respond to each allegation. The bank might argue that the 0% was always intended as a time-bound benefit, that the new rate was consistent with credit card agreements, and that no “veteran penalty” was targeted specifically at servicemembers. From a purely legal standpoint, it could claim that the SCRA does not extend to the additional benefits the bank voluntarily offered, and that once active duty ended, it was free to revert the rates. In such a scenario, the entire dispute might revolve around whether the bank provided “clear and conspicuous” notice, as TILA and the Credit CARD Act require.

But if retroactive hikes on existing balances are validated, it may be tough for the bank to disclaim knowledge of how those practices would stoke enormous financial strain for returning vets. That is precisely the dimension that frames the entire fiasco not just as a legal matter but a moral scandal.

Conclusion

The deeper we probe, the more it appears that if Synchrony truly carried out these practices—systematically rescinding interest relief from veterans in direct contradiction of the SCRA’s purpose—this wasn’t an accidental glitch. It was a deliberate business strategy. And that underscores a broader truth: in a system where maximizing shareholder value is the supreme directive, the line between permissible cost-cutting (or revenue-generating) and exploitative, illegal conduct can become blurred.

From the vantage point of critics, if the system itself fosters or incentivizes such behavior, then focusing on one bank’s wrongdoing is only the first step. The real challenge is reimagining a financial sector—and perhaps an entire economic model—that places the well-being of citizens, including military veterans, on par with or ahead of corporate profit. If we don’t, each new scandal is merely the next iteration in a recurring pattern of corporate corruption and consumer harm.

In Section 7, we’ll turn our attention to a critical aspect of modern-day corporate survival: the PR Playbook of Damage Control. Even as lawsuits swirl, how might a company like Synchrony quell the outrage and maintain its market share, all the while claiming it cares deeply about veterans?

---

7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

When corporations face accusations that cut to the core of their brand image—like exploiting servicemembers—public relations becomes crucial for damage control. Synchrony Bank would likely mobilize a carefully crafted PR campaign to reassure stakeholders and the public that any wrongdoing was either overstated, isolated, or promptly corrected. While each crisis is unique, many strategies echo well-established norms in corporate crisis management.

1. “We Support the Troops” Messaging

From major sporting events to daily commercials, corporations go out of their way to associate themselves with the military—placing the American flag in marketing materials, sponsoring veterans’ charities, and offering discounts. Synchrony’s alleged 0% Military Benefits Program is itself part of that brand-building exercise. Thus the bank’s first reflex might be to double down on “patriotic” imagery and reaffirm its commitment to the armed forces.

Imagine a press release stating, “Synchrony has a proud history of supporting those who serve our country. We have provided tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships and contributed to organizations that help wounded warriors. We remain committed to upholding the highest standards of corporate social responsibility.” This kind of broad statement aims to overshadow the specifics of the lawsuit with generalities about philanthropy and patriotism.

2. Minimal Acknowledgment of Specific Allegations

In the early stages of litigation, corporations often maintain that they “do not comment on pending legal matters.” This legal posture can dovetail with a PR strategy that frames the lawsuit as a “misunderstanding” or “baseless.” Large entities also rely on the public’s short attention span; by refusing to engage thoroughly, they can bury the story in legal technicalities until the news cycle moves on.

3. Emphasizing Compliance and Good Faith

When pressed, a corporate spokesperson might reference internal “compliance teams” and “dedicated servicing for military families.” By highlighting the existence of compliance protocols—without detailing their efficacy—they can project an image of due diligence. If forced to concede any errors, the bank might blame them on “isolated system glitches” or “miscommunications” that are already being addressed.

4. Announcing Minor Policy Tweaks

Another tactic involves making small, publicized policy changes to show responsiveness. For instance, the bank may announce updated guidelines for how servicemembers enroll in the 0% program, more transparent disclosures, or “special training” for customer service reps about the SCRA. Even if these changes don’t address the underlying issues (e.g., the alleged practice of jacking rates after active duty), they can be brandished as proof of the corporation’s good faith.

5. Outsourcing Blame

Large financial institutions often rely on complex vendor networks or co-branded partners. If store-brand credit cards are managed through internal and third-party platforms, a big bank might shift blame to a third-party contractor or obscure the chain of responsibility. The net effect: to claim that the alleged wrongdoing was “not a Synchrony policy” but a misapplication by “outside service providers.” This approach can muddy the waters about who’s ultimately accountable.

6. If Necessary, Sacrifice a Fall Guy

In high-profile scandals, we sometimes see a mid-level manager or a small team singled out for termination, as if that solves the systemic issue. By attributing the entire problem to a “bad apple,” the company tries to preserve its broader culture and brand, reassuring the public that the matter is “resolved.” However, as we’ve discussed, the lawsuit suggests a broader, uniform policy—meaning it’s not the work of a rogue individual but rather an entire corporate system.

7. Settlements with NDAs

Often the corporation may opt for a settlement that includes a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). In large class actions, NDAs aren’t typically standard for all class members, but the settlement might be structured to minimize future disclosures about the bank’s internal workings. This helps limit the scope of further public revelations, enabling the bank to claim the matter is resolved without extensive discussion of wrongdoing.

8. Media Allies

Major financial institutions often have relationships with specific media outlets, either through advertising budgets or philanthropic sponsorship. In subtle ways, these relationships can shape coverage. You might see toned-down language or a shifting of focus to the bank’s community efforts. While not an outright hush, it effectively softens the media blow.

9. Continuity and Retention

Finally, the bank might bet on customer inertia. Even if negative press circulates, many consumers—servicemembers included—may be too busy to switch lenders. Or they may be locked into special promotions, worried about transferring balances, or uncertain about competitor programs. The bank relies on these barriers to keep the majority of accounts intact, ensuring the scandal does not morph into a mass exodus of customers.

Conclusion: A Well-Worn Refrain

The path is well-trod: brand loyalty, philanthropic gestures, cagey public statements, minimal actual reform, and if push comes to shove, a carefully negotiated settlement. However, the outcome for veterans—who might have been saddled with crushing debt—often remains an afterthought in these corporate strategies. Even if they eventually receive some restitution, the intangible losses—like credit score damage, stress, or lost opportunities—can never be fully recovered.

In the final section, we’ll address the larger stakes: “Corporate Power vs. Public Interest.” We’ll ask whether our current system has sufficient checks to prevent repeated outrages against vulnerable populations, or if the short-term news coverage is just one more wave in an ocean of corporate misdemeanors. The stakes are especially high for those who serve in the U.S. military—men and women who deserve not only rhetorical patriotism from big companies but ethical, lawful treatment that reflects the gratitude society claims to feel.

---

8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

When a bank as large as Synchrony—one with billions in assets and partnerships with household-name retailers—stands accused of systematically violating laws meant to protect servicemembers, the stakes go well beyond a single lawsuit. This final section focuses on the clash between corporate power and the public interest, spotlighting what the lawsuit’s claims reveal about American economic life and the possibilities for meaningful reform.

1. The Moral Imperative to Protect Veterans

Skeptics of corporate America often emphasize that any exploitation of service personnel is a moral line that should never be crossed. While moral sentiment alone does not ensure corporate compliance, the SCRA was legislated precisely because society recognizes that military service imposes unique burdens on individuals and families. A system that allows banks to “forgive” interest one day and then “take it back” the next implicitly disrespects those burdens. If corporations can neutralize even these specialized protections, it erodes broader faith in governmental promises made to those who risk their lives.

2. Consumer Advocacy and Class Actions

The class action spearheaded by Sean Taylor and Rachel Hawkins can be viewed as a key mechanism for public interest lawyering. In a financial system that’s both complex and lightly policed, private lawsuits become a critical tool to expose wrongdoing and secure redress. Should the plaintiffs prevail, it could:

• Set a legal precedent clarifying that interest-rate caps under the SCRA (and bank-offered enhancements) cannot be reversed upon discharge.
• Encourage other servicemembers to come forward with similar claims, amplifying the potential liability for banks that engage in these practices.
• Prompt regulators to adopt clearer, stronger oversight rules or enforcement actions specifically targeting “veteran penalty” structures.

Yet, there’s also the risk that even a successful settlement will be overshadowed by the bank’s capacity to spin the resolution. In many such cases, the defendant pays a fine, issues a statement without admitting wrongdoing, and life goes on.

3. Balancing Corporate Profit and Ethical Responsibilities

Modern banks face no shortage of compliance demands, from anti-money-laundering rules to data privacy laws. The SCRA is but one in a sea of regulations. The tension, of course, is that every regulation intended to safeguard consumers can be framed by some corporate actors as a “burden on competitiveness.” Especially under neoliberal capitalism, business lobbies often push to lighten these regulations or interpret them as loosely as possible. The result is a moral gray area: banks claim they are “serving their customers” by providing innovative or discounted products, while simultaneously contorting the legal framework to maximize returns.

At a structural level, one might argue that genuine respect for the SCRA requires not just financial literacy among servicemembers, but a fundamental cultural shift within the banking industry—one that prioritizes corporate ethics and social responsibility as core mandates, not marketing add-ons. But calls for such a shift often run headlong into the realpolitik of shareholders demanding higher quarterly earnings.

4. The Role of Public Outrage

Public anger can be a potent force. Cases that involve veterans often ignite a special level of moral indignation, sometimes galvanizing bipartisan political support. If public sentiment soars, lawmakers may face pressure to pass stronger SCRA enforcement measures, or to allocate more resources to the CFPB or Department of Justice for these types of investigations. That said, outrage can be fleeting. Without sustained media coverage and persistent advocacy, the impetus for reform might fade, letting the status quo remain intact.

5. Is Genuine Reform Likely?

For real change, many consumer advocates say we need:

• Enhanced Regulatory Budgets: The agencies responsible for policing banks need enough staff and expertise to conduct proactive audits, not just react to complaints.
• Higher Penalties for Non-Compliance: If fines are trivial relative to the profit gained from wrongdoing, banks will treat them as operating costs.
• Clearer Disclosure Rules: Although TILA already demands clarity, banks can bury disclaimers in fine print or rely on ambiguous “introductory rate” exceptions. Reforms could require bullet-pointed terms for all interest modifications, with an explicit ban on post-service reversion of rates for SCRA-protected debts.
• Whistleblower Protections and Incentives: If employees at Synchrony or other banks recognized these practices as illegal but feared reprisal, a robust whistleblower program could encourage them to speak up.
• Concrete Damages for Veterans: Beyond nominal refunds, there could be statutory multipliers or punitive damages that strongly deter such behavior.

On the flip side, financial industry representatives may argue that these expansions in regulation hamper their freedom to offer flexible programs. They could claim that restricting post-active-duty rate changes dissuades banks from offering the 0% rate in the first place. Yet from a consumer-advocacy standpoint, that stance effectively demands the right to exploit a captive group once their protective umbrella is removed.

6. The Broader Economic Fallout

We often think of “economic fallout” in terms of job losses or stock market declines. But in the context of corporate greed toward servicemembers, the fallout can be more insidious. It manifests as:

• Decreased Spending Power: Veterans saddled with unexpected interest fees may cut back on discretionary spending, hurting local economies.
• Higher Default Rates: Some may slip into default, damaging their credit and forcing them into subprime lending markets, where interest rates are even more exorbitant.
• Delayed Asset Building: Instead of using their transition period to buy a home or start a small business, veterans might be funneling their limited resources toward paying off inflated credit card balances.
• Strain on Public and Nonprofit Support Systems: Increased reliance on Veterans Affairs programs or charitable organizations to bridge financial gaps can place strain on these services.

All these effects contribute to wealth disparity, reinforcing a cycle where the well-capitalized institution grows richer, while an already vulnerable population loses economic ground.

7. Public Interest vs. Corporate Interests

Ultimately, we land on a philosophical battleground: how should we define the public interest in a capitalist democracy? One side believes that a free market, lightly constrained by government, yields efficiency and innovation; the other counters that such freedom, without robust guardrails, leads to exploitative scenarios—particularly for marginal groups like deployed or newly returned servicemembers.

8. Looking Forward

One final question remains: if plaintiffs like Taylor and Hawkins prevail, will that result in more cautious corporate behavior or simply a refined method of imposing the same burdens behind a more compliant façade? The answer depends on:

1. The Strength of Judicial Remedies: Do courts impose punitive damages, large enough restitution, or injunctive relief that unequivocally stops the practice?
2. Policy Reforms: Does Congress or the relevant agencies close any “introductory rate” loopholes or tighten the SCRA’s enforcement around transitions from active duty?
3. Consumer Awareness: Will servicemembers and the general public internalize this cautionary tale? Awareness can drive changes in consumer behavior, leading individuals to be more vigilant about bank disclosures or to pivot to more military-friendly credit unions.

A Path Toward Genuine Accountability?

At its core, this lawsuit is about a promise broken: the promise that we, as a society, will not burden the men and women who serve in uniform with overwhelming debt simply because they were deployed overseas. The complaint’s allegations that Synchrony cynically raised interest rates on veterans, the moment they returned, turn that promise on its head. If such a practice thrives, it calls into question our broader commitment to fairness, justice, and genuine corporate social responsibility.

The path forward depends on a collective will. Will the courts stand firm on existing laws, ensuring their bite is equal to their bark? Will the public and media keep watch long enough to see meaningful change, or will the issue fade into the background of the next news cycle? Will legislators bolster the tools of consumer protection, or will lobbying and corporate influence water them down?

In a society that proclaims respect for the troops, the consequences of ignoring these questions are enormous. We risk normalizing a system in which “deregulation” means a free pass for corporate misdeeds, “public oversight” becomes a hollow phrase, and “patriotism” is reduced to a marketing tagline. The allegations against Synchrony show how swiftly and quietly corporate power can overshadow public interest. But they also highlight a route to redemption: real legal accountability, institutional reform, and a revived social contract that places human dignity—and the well-being of our servicemembers—above the cold metrics of profit and loss.

Corporations must do better, particularly for those who put their lives on the line to further American hegemony.

---