Consumer complaint received 2025-12-04 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA
State: NV

Complaint narrative:
Re : Formal Billing Error Notice Under 15 U.S.C. 1666 Apple Card Account Ending : XXXX Customer : XXXX XXXX CFPB Complaint Reference : ( insert number ) To Whom It May Concern : This letter constitutes a formal notice of billing error and a demand for investigation under the Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1666, and a dispute of liability under 15 U.S.C. 1643, as well as a dispute of credit reporting accuracy under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I was taken into custody and remained incarcerated during the period when the transactions that created the current balance occurred. Any transactions appearing on this account after XX/XX/XXXX were not authorized, could not have been authorized, and are categorically fraudulent. I did not have physical access to the Apple Card, the device necessary to use Apple XXXX, the credentials required to authenticate transactions, or any means to authorize purchases while in custody. 

Your written response through the CFPB platform dated XX/XX/XXXX states, without any supporting evidence, that the Bank conducted an investigation and confirmed no Bank errors occurred, and that the account was reported accurately. That conclusion is not supported by any factual findings, does not address the core issue raised in the complaint, and does not meet the Banks obligations under federal law. 

You did not answer the question : How could any transaction be authorized by me after XX/XX/XXXX if I was incarcerated? 

You have provided no proof of authorization, no authentication records, no device logs, no IP data, no identity verification materials, and no evidence of card-present usage. Simply restating the Apple Card Customer Agreement is not a legal substitute for an investigation of unauthorized use under federal statute. 

Liability Challenge 15 U.S.C. 1643 Under 15 U.S.C. 1643, liability for unauthorized use is limited to {$50.00}, and the burden of proof rests on the issuer, not the consumer. The Bank has produced zero evidence demonstrating that I personally authorized the disputed transactions. The existence of a customer agreement does not override federal law limiting liability for unauthorized use. 

Until the Bank produces actual authorization evidence, this debt remains unverified and improperly attributed.

Billing Error 15 U.S.C. 1666 Unauthorized charges are a billing error under 1666. This notice compels the Bank to : conduct a good-faith investigation suspend collection of the disputed amount refrain from negative reporting tied to the disputed amount produce supporting documentation of authorization Your current position we sent statements and reminders is not a valid FCBA investigation and does not satisfy federal requirements.

Credit Reporting Inaccuracy 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.

Reporting a charged-off balance that is derived from unauthorized transactions is inaccurate and incomplete under the FCRA. As a furnisher of consumer data, Goldman Sachs Bank USA has an affirmative obligation under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 to report accurate information and correct or delete unverifiable data once a dispute is raised. 

You can not reasonably claim the reporting is accurate when you have not verified the authenticity of the transactions that created the derogatory status. 


-- - Demand for Evidence and Remedial Action I am requesting specific evidence, not summary conclusions : 1. Complete transaction-level authorization records for all charges posted after XX/XX/XXXX, including : device IDs IP addresses location data merchant authentication logs token authorization records any identity verification procedure used 2. A reversal of all unauthorized transactions posted after XX/XX/XXXX and removal of all interest, fees, and charges derived from those transactions. 


3. Correction of credit reporting, including removal of the charged-off status and any negative information arising from unauthorized use.

4. A written explanation describing the Banks investigative steps, evidence reviewed, and the legal basis under which you assert I could have authorized charges while incarcerated. 



I am prepared to provide official incarceration records establishing that I was not physically capable of using the Apple Card during the period in question. 


-- - Reservation of Rights This dispute is made without waiver of any rights under the FCBA, FCRA, or any other applicable state or federal law. A failure to conduct a proper investigation, a failure to suspend adverse reporting during the dispute process, or continued reporting of unverified debt may constitute willful violations of 15 U.S.C. 1666 and 1681, with statutory damages available. 

Until the Bank provides verifiable authorization proof, you do not have a legitimate basis to assert that this debt is valid or properly reported. 

I expect a complete written response within the statutory time limits mandated by the FCBA. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief