Consumer complaint received 2023-02-21
Company: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA
State: OR
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Sub-issue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement

Complaint:
On XX/XX/2022, I purchased a truck accessory from a company advertising on social media for a vehicle I had just purchased, and as part of a larger plan to establish self-employment income and reduce my reliance on disability. The rack was advertised by XXXX XXXX, who is owned by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX, NY. 



I was primarily searching for a rack capable of carrying a few hundred pounds above the bed for longer materials or recreational equipment, and built in storage to expand the range of tools I could bring with me when I could begin working for myself. 



I selected this XXXX XXXX rack and cargo chest combination because the customer service team was very responsive pre-purchase, and because it was advertised as being capable of carrying a 350lbs dynamic load or hold a 700lbs static load with tonneau brackets. This is at just 51lbs weight for the rack itself. That performance for the weight was what led me to believe the high cost was justified. Seemed too good to pass up. Possibly, too good to be true in hindsight. 


XXXX offered discounts that I qualify for and they are an American business advertising American made goods that are advertised as made with local, American materials from Western New York. 


I also purchased their cargo chests for the rack which were advertised as weather-resistant and shown as good storage for a wide variety of items. 


These boxes show no attempt in any way to make them weather resistant. 
For one, the sides overlap the top panel of the box ; there is a reason the roofs of our homes extend past the walls. Every hardware penetration in the box is open. No nylon washers, no rubber, no gaskets. The panels are all joined metal-to-metal, and when fully assembled, the boxes keep out very little moisture or dirt. Light is visible between the door and body of the cabinets. The lids are affixed to the boxes using painted, basic 3-hole hinges. These were attached with bolts and nuts for some reason, which leaves raised hardware exposed on top of the boxes. The latches and lock for the boxes are not labeled for outdoor use, nor are they weather resistant. 


The option from XXXX XXXX is considerably more expensive than competitive products I had been considering like ; the XXXX XXXX Series Aluminum rack, XXXX truck bed boxes ( not available at the time ), and various options available from the dealer. One of the reasons a significantly higher weight capacity was not attractive ; the truck would be an earlier limitation on total payload than the rack. 


It became apparent almost immediately upon using the rack, that it would not be capable of meeting any claimed performances. It was obviously dangerous to continue its use. 


After a particularly bad experience with one of the first loads of lumber I carried, I contacted the company to relay my experience and ask if they would take the rack back. The company has a strict zero return policy ( I now see why ), and was generally combative and dismissive in their initial response. 


I decided to pursue a chargeback through my credit card provider ( Apple Card via Goldman Sachs Bank ), as this seemed to me like a clear case of someone trying to sell overpriced goods to under-educated consumers online. I requested a chargeback based on the product being far below the expected quality based on the companies description and product pricing. 


Goldman Sachs Bank initially sided with the seller based on criteria that seemed unrelated to my claims. 


The seller provided some token responses to my claims that can be summarized as " nuh uh! '' There was no evidence provided by the seller to refute any of my points. In some cases, their responses contained provable falsehoods, like their cargo boxes being made " weather resistant ''. They relied primarily on their success at preventing any previous returns to justify preventing a refund on this purchase. 


I offered a few times to work with the seller while simultaneously working with Goldman Sachs Bank to cancel the transaction. 


Communication from XXXX XXXX during this process was at times combative and dismissive. There were instances peppered in of polite service as I tried to salvage some usability from this product. 


At one point, the company implied I would not be able to pursue any warranty claims, despite the product being within their warranty coverage. I forwarded this to Goldman Sachs Bank as evidence the seller is not upholding their end of the purchase. They have reached the same conclusion two additional times, despite more and more evidence that the company is not responding to me and has preemptively denied me warranty service. 

I sent a final attempt at communication to a different employee at the company whose social media showed them to be a current employee at a senior level. 


In this communication, I provided a clear case for what I was trying to accomplish. I shared a substantial amount of evidence showing failures of the product, and offered to concede the cost of shipping for a partial return. 


This was met with zero response. 


I forwarded that communication to GSB, along with a written summary detailing my experience to date. I included communications from the seller, and accounts from other customers who had also noted the rapid failure and seemingly dubious claims made by the company. Many of these accounts from other customers documented examples of where XXXX had clearly chosen lowest-possible-cost options in production that led to almost immediate failure of either parts of products or entire products. 

It is important to note here, that I have repeatedly offered throughout this process to provide video evidence to GSB, as seeing the product in motion makes it abundantly clear that this is not what it is claimed to be. 

Again, my request for a chargeback was denied with no specific responses to my evidence or summary given. Just the same exact response I had received the previous 2 times. Whenever I requested evidence regarding the request ( all three requests in total ), they kept sending the same initial response from the seller, which was primarily baseless dismissal of each of my documented problems with the product. 

When I was calling to discuss options that might lead to a resolution, I did mention filing a CFPB complaint as my planned next step. The representative on the phone quickly transferred me to a manager, and they began a sort of scripted phone process that seemed to lead nowhere ultimately. It concluded with the manager informing me that my appeal had been re-opened. As of time of writing this, it has not been re-opened and I have not been credited. 



I believe that GSB is choosing to deny a legitimate complaint simply because they can. I do not believe they have fairly addressed my claim, and their limited forms of evidence accepted are preventing a more convincing contest of this charge. Goldman Sachs Bank has established a recent history of denying customer claims despite their legitimacy and veracity. I wish I had researched more before doing business with them. 



I want other consumers to know about the experience I have had with this seller and Goldman Sachs Bank. I hope that, should this be made public, any readers have found it informative and chose not to do business with Goldman Sachs Bank until they change their behavior toward their customers. 



In addition to this complaint, I have submitted a request for assistance from the NY State AG 's Office in dealing with the seller.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief