Consumer complaint received 2026-01-14 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Other problem
Company: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
In 2025, I made multiple transactions totaling approximately {$1000.00} with the app XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, developed by XXXX XXXX XXXX. I later discovered that the app violated Virginia law by offering cash-based competitions in a jurisdiction where such activity is illegal. I disputed the transactions with my Apple Card ( Goldman Sachs ) multiple times, beginning on XX/XX/year>, and followed up on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/year>. My latest follow up was XX/XX/XXXX, after having one of the temporary credits removed. Despite multiple attempts to resolve this matter through standard dispute channels, the disputes remain unresolved, and the handling has been inconsistent and legally questionable. 

The bank temporarily credited my account for the disputes, but then reversed the credits after claiming that the merchant provided evidence that I had agreed to the terms and conditions and used the apps services. I have submitted extensive documentation showing that : A. The merchants Terms & Conditions explicitly state that cash competitions are prohibited in jurisdictions where they would violate state gaming laws. 
- Virginia law classifies unregulated online skill games as illegal gambling. Despite this, the app permitted play within Virginia. 
- The XXXX XXXX XXXX were unclear and shifted responsibility to the user to determine whether they were in a restricted jurisdiction. I was unaware that Virginia was considered restricted until after participation. 
- Changes to XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX were made post-dispute without notification, and disclaimers contradicted previous promises. 

B. Merchant Misclassification - Transactions were processed under a Merchant Category Code ( MCC ) for online games or " other '' rather than gambling, bypassing internal safeguards intended to block unauthorized gambling. 
- Misrepresentation of transaction nature constitutes grounds for dispute under Regulation Z and the Fair Credit Billing Act, as the agreement was based on fraudulent or misleading data. 

C. Inconsistent and Unlawful Dispute Handling - Temporary credits were applied and reversed despite evidence that the merchant violated state law and engaged in deceptive practices. 
- Comparisons with another Mastercard issuer ( XXXX ) indicate inconsistent handling ; XXXX issued full refunds without requiring merchant verification. 
- Apple/Goldman Sachs disputes cite acceptance of XXXX XXXX XXXX as justification for denying the refund, despite the merchants violation of state law and deceptive conduct.

- Partial credit of {$300.00} was applied by Apple for one dispute, while {$610.00} remains unresolved, demonstrating inconsistent application of dispute resolutions despite evidence of merchant misconduct.

D. Legal Invalidity - Under Virginia Code 11-14, contracts related to unregulated gambling are void. Therefore, reliance on the merchants XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX to deny a refund is legally invalid. 

Despite providing all supporting documentation, Apple and Goldman Sachs have denied my disputes, citing that I authorized the transactions and agreed to the XXXX XXXX XXXX. This is inconsistent with other Mastercard issuers, such as XXXX, who reviewed similar evidence and resolved disputes fully in my favor within two months. I gave adequate information. I believe the merchants actions and the banks handling of my dispute violate federal law, including Regulation Z, and fail to protect consumers from illegal gambling activity.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation