Case overview
A putative nationwide class action, Habel v. Synchrony Bank, Case No. 3:26-cv-03349-AJB-BJW, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 17, 2026. Plaintiff Iman Habel alleges that Synchrony Bank used an artificial or prerecorded voice to collect on an alleged consumer debt despite her explicit revocation of consent and retention of legal counsel. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, statutory damages, and actual damages on behalf of Habel and a proposed nationwide class.
According to the lawsuit, Habel revoked consent to be contacted with prerecorded calls and informed Synchrony that she had retained an attorney on January 12, 2026. Despite this, Synchrony representatives allegedly continued to call her cellphone using a prerecorded voice more than 100 times after that date, including calls placed to collect on the alleged debt. Habel claims these practices invaded her privacy, caused emotional distress and other damages, and constituted unlawful debt collection and telemarketing conduct.
Alleged unlawful collection practices
The complaint centers on two interrelated theories: unlawful collection conduct under the RFDCPA and unlawful prerecorded-voice calling under the TCPA. Habel alleges that Synchrony Bank persisted in using artificial or prerecorded voice calls as a collection tool after she withdrew consent and asserted her right to representation, effectively ignoring her attempts to limit contact. She contends that these repeated prerecorded-voice calls—more than 100 after revocation—were abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices within the meaning of California’s Rosenthal Act.
On the TCPA side, the lawsuit asserts that Synchrony’s use of a prerecorded or artificial voice to call a consumer’s cellphone for non-emergency purposes requires prior express consent and that continued calls after consent is revoked are unlawful. The complaint further alleges that Synchrony’s practices were not isolated but part of a broader pattern affecting similarly situated consumers nationwide who received prerecorded-voice calls after revoking consent. Based on that allegation, Habel seeks to certify a class of consumers who were called with prerecorded messages by Synchrony after they had told the bank to stop.
Class definition and requested relief
Habel proposes to represent a nationwide class of consumers who allegedly received prerecorded-voice calls from Synchrony Bank for debt collection purposes after revoking consent. The putative class would include individuals who received calls to their cellphones using an artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with Synchrony consumer accounts, where the consumer had previously withdrawn permission to be contacted in that manner. The plaintiff also seeks to represent subclasses as appropriate based on state law, although the complaint’s initial focus is on California’s Rosenthal Act in combination with the federal TCPA.
The lawsuit asks the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order barring Synchrony from continuing the challenged calling practices. Habel seeks actual damages for herself and class members, along with statutory damages available under the TCPA and RFDCPA, which can quickly escalate when calls are repeated over time. The complaint requests a jury trial and also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs, as is typical in consumer protection and debt collection class actions.
Regulatory and litigation context
The new class action arrives against a backdrop of prior enforcement and litigation involving Synchrony’s collection and contact practices, which may heighten industry interest in the case. In 2021, a multijurisdictional team of California district attorneys secured a $3.5 million civil judgment against Synchrony Bank over allegations of unreasonably frequent and harassing collection calls to California consumers, including calls that allegedly continued after consumers requested that the calls stop or when calls were placed to wrong numbers. That judgment, entered without an admission of wrongdoing, required Synchrony to implement and maintain policies and procedures limiting call frequency and honoring consumer requests to cease contact.
Separately, Synchrony and its affiliates have seen TCPA and class litigation before, including a 2018 proposed class action alleging the use of an automated telephone dialing system to place unsolicited calls attempting to collect on a debt the plaintiff said she did not owe. In addition, a later class action led to settlement payments beginning in 2024 over claims that Synchrony violated federal telemarketing laws by calling consumers about accounts that did not belong to them. While those matters involve different fact patterns and legal theories, they underscore the ongoing exposure large card issuers face around calling, consent management, and third-party outreach in collection and servicing contexts.
Implications for collectors and creditors
For creditors and third-party agencies, the Habel lawsuit reinforces the operational and compliance risks around consent revocation and automated calling technologies. Allegations that more than 100 prerecorded-voice calls followed a clear revocation highlight the need for robust processes to capture, document, and immediately propagate cease-contact requests and attorney-representation notices across systems and vendors. The RFDCPA and TCPA claims illustrate how plaintiffs’ counsel continue to pair state debt collection laws with federal telemarketing statutes to seek class-wide relief where call campaigns are managed at scale.
The case also illustrates that first-party creditors—like Synchrony Bank—are not insulated from debt collection and telemarketing exposure, particularly in states that extend Rosenthal-type protections to original creditors. Given prior California enforcement actions and ongoing private class litigation, collectors can expect continued scrutiny of call frequency, wrong-number handling, and post-revocation contact, especially where prerecorded or artificial voices are used. As the Habel action progresses, industry participants will likely watch for rulings on class certification, treatment of revocation evidence, and the interplay between the TCPA, RFDCPA, and internal call-management practices.
Upcoming Events
