Consumer complaint received 2024-12-05 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Getting a credit card — Card opened without my consent or knowledge
Company: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
1. Failure to Provide Conclusive Proof of Authorization The Bank claims that I authorized the Apple Card account opened on XX/XX/year>. This assertion is wholly unsubstantiated. To date, the Bank has failed to provide : Evidence of my explicit consent to open the account, including the specific device, IP address, and geolocation data tied to the application process ; Proof that any identity verification measures were employed during the account application process, as required under anti-fraud regulations and industry best practices. 
The mere existence of a transaction history and a generic cardholder agreement does not constitute evidence that I authorized this account. If the Bank is unable to demonstrate unequivocally that I opened and authorized the account, the account and any associated debts are invalid and must be removed immediately from all records. 

2. Flawed and Insufficient Investigation The Bank alleges that it conducted an investigation and determined no Bank error occurred. However, this investigation lacks transparency and appears cursory at best. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Bank is obligated to conduct a thorough investigation of any disputed information. Specifically, the Bank must : Verify the legitimacy of the account by examining the authorization process ; Consider the possibility of identity theft or fraud, given my explicit denial of authorization ; Provide clear and documented evidence supporting its findings. 
The Banks failure to meet these requirements renders its investigation legally inadequate. A generic statement of no Bank error is insufficient under the law and unacceptable in this case. 

3. Violation of Credit Reporting Obligations The Bank claims it is obligated to report accurate information to credit reporting agencies. While this is true, the obligation to report accurate information applies only to accounts that are legitimate. Reporting information on an account that was not authorized by me constitutes a blatant violation of FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ). The law explicitly prohibits the furnishing of inaccurate or incomplete information to credit reporting agencies. 

By continuing to report this account despite my explicit denial of authorization, the Bank is compounding its violation of federal law. The existence of this unauthorized account on my credit report has caused me significant harm, including : A decrease in my creditworthiness ; Financial damages related to higher interest rates and lost opportunities ; Emotional distress resulting from the Banks actions. 
4. Failure to Address or Prevent Fraud The Bank claims to have sent account statements, payment reminders, and other correspondence to the email address on file. However, as I have denied any authorization or involvement with this account, any such email address was likely associated with a fraudster. This raises serious questions about the Banks diligence in verifying the identity of applicants and monitoring for unauthorized account activity. 

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) and other relevant regulations, the Bank is required to take reasonable measures to protect consumers from fraud. The Banks reliance on email notifications and its failure to detect or address potential fraud represent a breach of its duty to safeguard my personal information and mitigate unauthorized activity. 

5. Insufficient Debt Validation The Bank claims to have validated the debt by providing transaction records and a copy of the Apple Card Customer Agreement. However, this is insufficient under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Debt validation requires more than a generic agreement or a list of transactionsit requires proof that I : Authorized the account and incurred the alleged debt ; and Received the goods or services for which the debt was incurred. 
The documents provided by the Bank fail to meet this standard. Without proof of my consent, the Banks claims of debt validation are baseless. 

6. The Banks Inability to Contact Me The Bank asserts that it attempted to contact me but was unsuccessful. This claim is irrelevant and does not absolve the Bank of its responsibility to resolve this dispute properly. I have made multiple efforts to dispute this account, including through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). The Banks failure to contact me is not the result of my inaction, but rather its own inadequacy in handling this matter.

7. Demands for Immediate Action Based on the foregoing, I demand the following actions : Immediate Removal of the Account from All Credit Reports : The Bank must cease reporting this unauthorized account and ensure its deletion from all credit reporting agencies. Reporting an account that I did not authorize constitutes a willful violation of the FCRA.

Compensation for Damages : I reserve the right to seek compensation for actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages under FCRA 1681n for the harm caused by the Banks willful noncompliance.

Full Documentation of the Investigation : Provide all records, notes, and communications related to the Banks investigation of this dispute, including evidence relied upon to determine that no error occurred.

Failure to comply with these demands will leave me with no choice but to escalate this matter further, including filing a formal complaint with federal and state regulators and pursuing legal remedies. Please consider this letter a formal notice of my intent to take legal action if the matter is not resolved promptly. 

I expect a detailed response to this letter within 14 days.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief