Consumer complaint received 2025-06-14 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
Transaction Amount : {$160.00} Initial Dispute Date : XX/XX/XXXX Card Issuer : Goldman Sachs ( Apple Card ) I have attempted numerous times to resolve the dispute utilizing the process Goldman Sachs provided. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I initiated a dispute regarding issues I was having with a merchant who refused to honor their refund policy. The reason for the refund request was the merchant misrepresented the weight of the items they sold. When I contacted them, they refused a monetary refund because the items were purchased during a holiday sale. Instead, they offered an exchange but required an additional payment of nearly {$30.00}. I was dissatisfied with this, especially since the error stemmed from the merchants own inaccurate product descriptions. 

To give a brief description, I ordered XXXX hats. The website shows the hats are weighed in grams and sold as such. Upon receiving my hats, I noticed they did not weigh anywhere near what was listed on the website. The website listed the hats weighing XXXX grams and XXXX grams. Upon weighing mine, it showed XXXX grams and XXXX grams. I pointed this out to the merchant and they told me in an email initially they do weigh total net grams. However, I was then told in a follow-up email they are weighed in Grams per square meter ( GSM. ) However, this is shown nowhere on their website.

To this day, the website still reflects everything in grams ( GMS ) even after I pointed out the issue. They refused to give me a refund, even though their TOS states if it is their error, then they will provide a shipping label on their own dime, as well as provide a monetary refund and not a simple exchange. 

Shortly afterward, I received an automated message stating they would be out of office for the rest of XXXX, but that the exchange period would be extended through the end of XXXX. 

I also provided Goldman Sachs the email stating the actual return/exchange period, which was extended to XX/XX/XXXX. However, they ignored that in their determination. I have attached the photo of it. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I followed up and asked if any additional information was needed. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I asked how to add additional evidence to the dispute. I submitted screenshots, links to the website showing the false item specifications, and weighed the items myself to prove the discrepancy. I was told I would be contacted before XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email stating the dispute was resolved in the merchants favor with a generic explanation : Based on available information, we determined the goods or services were not returned within the timeframe described by the merchants terms and conditions. I immediately contacted support again and pointed out that the merchant violated their own terms, and that I initiated the dispute within the eligible return window. 

The agent informed me my only option was to reassert the dispute and provide additional information. I was frustrated that none of my previous evidence seemed to have been considered and that the reasoning contradicted the facts. I asked for a copy of the merchants evidence, and was told I could only receive this after reasserting the dispute, despite the Fair Credit Billing Act stating I have a right to request such documentation. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email stating, We further investigated the dispute and reviewed any additional information that may have been provided. Based on our review, the original decision will remain because there is no evidence to substantiate the claim. This was even more confusing, as it conflicted with the earlier reason regarding return timeframes. 

I contacted support again on XX/XX/XXXX and was connected with a representative named XXXX. I explained that I had still not received a valid explanation and asked for clarification. XXXX told me : As of now no, perhaps there will be more with this reassertion The only information we have is the information that was already sent to you unfortunately, I know this can be frustrating. 

At this point, I asked to speak to a supervisor and stated : I would like to exercise my rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) to request a full written explanation and copies of all evidence used in deciding my dispute. 

XXXX then transferred me to a supervisor named XXXX. XXXX responded professionally and agreed to escalate the issue internally, offering to send a mailed copy of the requested materials. I accepted and clarified I needed all evidence from every dispute stage and a complete written rationale for the decision. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I followed up. I was told the request had been submitted XX/XX/XXXX and should arrive within 7 days. Again, I reiterated this mailing needed to include all evidence and a full written explanation, as required by the XXXX Credit Billing Act. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received the mailed packet. It was XXXX pages long, most of which consisted of partial merchant email threads. Only one image of my submitted evidence was included. Crucially, there was no written explanation of the decision or rationale provided, nor a copy of all the documentation I had submitteddespite being told by XXXX this would be included. 

I contacted Apple Card support again. I was connected with a supervisor named XXXX. She confirmed that the request had apparently only been set up for merchant evidence, not the complete file or a written explanation. I pointed out that XXXX had stated the written rationale would be mailed. XXXX acknowledged this inconsistency and promised to escalate it again and resubmit the request for all documentation and reasoning. 

Despite XXXX reassurances, the second mailing I received again did not include a written explanation of the decision. It also did not contain all evidence, but instead repeated the exact same contents as the first packetpartial email threads with the merchant and one image. This second failure demonstrated a continued refusal or inability by Goldman Sachs to comply with what I explicitly requested and what is required under the Fair Credit Billing Act. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a voicemail stating a XXXX wanted to discuss a resolution. When I followed up, I made it clear that I required all further communication in writing. A support representative told me that managers do not make dispute decisions and that they could not discuss anything further. I was then transferred to a supervisor named XXXX, who again offered a callback, which I declined in favor of written communication. 



Goldman Sachs XXXX Under the Fair Credit Billing Act Based on my research, I believe Goldman Sachs has failed to fulfill multiple legal obligations under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) : 1. Failure to Provide a XXXX XXXX : Despite multiple requests and escalations, I never received a formal written determination explaining why my dispute or reassertions were denied. 
2. Failure to Provide Complete Documentation : Goldman Sachs failed to provide a full copy of all evidence used in the decision, including evidence I submitted and the merchants return policies, despite telling me it would be included. This occurred not once but twice, even after escalations by supervisors.

3. Improper Withholding of Information Until I Cited the Law : Goldman Sachs specialist XXXX initially claimed no further information could be shared. Only after I explicitly cited my rights under the FCBA and asked for a supervisor did the company agree to mail any documentation.

These failures have prolonged my resolution for over five months and denied me the transparency and due process guaranteed by federal law. I have made every reasonable effort to resolve this directly and respectfully with Goldman Sachs and the Apple Card support team. I feel as if they purposefully have tried to prolong my disputes in hopes I will be detered from seeking a continued resolution.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief