I applied for the Barclays Arrival Plus card on XXXX XXXX, under what I believed to be a 0 % introductory APR for 12 months on all purchases. In reliance on that perceived 0 % APR, I spent approximately {$8000.00} on the card while paying down other cards. I was shocked to review my statements and find that I had been charged {$130.00} in interest over the past XXXX statement cycles. The statements made no mention of the 0 % APR I believed I had applied for. 

I called Barclays customer service and spoke to XXXX. She claimed that the Schumer box on my application made no mention of an introductory APR for purchasesXXXX I always read Schumer boxes, and would not have applied for the card if the box indicated otherwise. XXXX claimed the burden of proof was on me to provide a screenshot of the box on the initial application - a ridiculous standard. No consumer should ever have to systematically record every interaction with a financial institution in anticipation of being deceived! 

There are XXXX possibilities here. The first possibility is that the Schumer box did mention a promotional APR of 0 %, but a glitch in the system at Barclays led this to drop off the application. In this case, I am clearly entitled to a resolution of a refund on all interest paid, plus the application of the original 0 % APR. 

The second possibility is that the Schumer box did not mention a promotional APR on purchases, but that the marketing materials for the card were in some way deceptive or abusive. In the case of a XXXX violation, I am also clearly entitled to a resolution of a refund on all interest paid, plus the application of the original 0 % APR. 

I have attached the application landing page currently used to promote the card. In bold font, this page clearly calls out a " 0 % Introductory APR for 12 months. '' Additional copy mentions that the offer only applies to balance transfers made within 45 days of account opening. But the use of bold font, combined with the exact phrase " 0 % Introductory APR for 12 months, '' XXXX strongly imply that the promotional APR applies to purchases as well as balance transfers. I believe this meets all XXXX prongs of the test of Deceptive Practices per XXXX regulations:1. The act or practice misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer ; ( I have clearly been mislead in some way, since I reasonably believed I had a 0 % promotional APR on purchases. ) 2. The consumer 's interpretation is reasonable under the circumstances ; XXXX I develop similar XXXX assets for a living and am well-versed in XXXX compliance, and have never had a negative experience with another bank or card issuer until now. ) 3. The misleading act or practice is material. ( I have been charged {$130.00} in interest, and would be charged over {$1000.00} in the next year given my current balance. ) I would encourage a full audit of all marketing assets used to promote this card, and demand appropriate resolution of my case. 
