Consumer complaint received 2026-02-19 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: IL

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It XXXX Concern, I am filing this formal complaint regarding Goldman Sachs Bank USA XXXX  the Apple Card dispute teams improper handling XXXX  denial of my fraud dispute involving an unauthorized {$1500.00} XXXX XXXX transaction on XX/XX/XXXX. 
This case reflects not only an unreasonable denial, but also a failure XXXX  take timely action XXXX  mitigate fraud after I reported it immediately. 
XXXX. Transaction Details Merchant : XXXX XXXX ( Online California ) Amount : {$1500.00} Date/Time : XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX AM My physical location at time of transaction  : XXXX, Illinois This transaction was NOT authorized by me. 
XXXX. Immediate Fraud Reporting ( Within XXXX Minute ) At XXXX AM XXXX minute after the transaction appeared I : Replaced my card immediately. 
Filed a fraud dispute immediately. 
This immediate action demonstrates clearly that the charge was unauthorized. If I had authorized the purchase, there would have been no reason XXXX  replace my card within XXXX minute. 
XXXX. Continued Fraud Attempts After Card Replacement After the card replacement, the same unauthorized party attempted additional transactions using my old card information : {$55.00} at a XXXX 's ( declined : card replaced ) {$130.00} at XXXX XXXX XXXX ( declined : card replaced ) These attempts were declined because the card had already been replaced. I submitted documentation of these attempted fraudulent charges XXXX  Apple Card as further proof that the XXXX XXXX transaction was part of ongoing fraud activity. 
XXXX. Failure XXXX Act XXXX  Mitigate Loss ( Critical Issue ) Despite the fact that : I reported the fraud within XXXX minute, XXXX The transaction was made within the XXXX ecosystem ( XXXX XXXX purchase on an Apple Card ), Goldman Sachs XXXX/or XXXX did NOT take timely action XXXX  suspend, flag, or prevent fulfillment of the suspicious XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX 
Instead, they waited nearly XXXX months before issuing a response ( first response on XX/XX/XXXX ). They updated this dispute with a email sent on XX/XX/XXXX, after XXXX  months, XXXX  request more edvience ( title : 'We request information that XXXX help with your Apple Card transaction dispute ' ). 
This failure XXXX  act promptly allowed the fraudulent order XXXXo proceed XXXX shifted the financial burden onto me the fraud victim. 
As soon as a card issuer receives immediate fraud notice, it has a responsibility XXXX  investigate XXXX  mitigate further harm. Allowing an XXXX XXXX order XXXX  proceed when fraud was reported within XXXX minute raises serious concerns regarding internal coordination and fraud prevention procedures. 
XXXX. No XXXX XXXXe Activity History I also provided evidence that I had made no XXXX XXXX purchases in the prior XXXX months. There was no pattern of similar purchasing behavior. 
XXXX. Improper XXXX Contradictory Denial Reasons XXXX  Denial : Merchant Refusal Documentation Required I was told I needed XXXX  provide proof that the merchant refused XXXX  cancel or refund the order. 
This requirement is inappropriate XXXX  illogical in a fraud case : This was an unauthorized transaction. 
I did not place the order. 
I do not know who placed the order. 
Therefore, I can not reasonably have merchant correspondence. 
Requiring merchant refusal documentation improperly shifts the burden onto the victim of fraud XXXX  reflects misunderstanding of an unauthorized transaction dispute. 
XXXX  Denial : Transaction Was Authorized The XXXX denial claimed I authorized the transaction. 
This conclusion contradicts the evidence : XXXX replaced within XXXX minute. 
Additional fraudulent attempts immediately after. 
XXXX occurred in California while I was physically in XXXX. 
No prior XXXX XXXX purchase history. 
I never received any product. 
There is no factual basis for concluding authorization. 
XXXX. Lack of Transparency XXXX  Failure to Provide Evidence Goldman Sachs has refused XXXX  provide : Merchant documentation relied upon Delivery confirmation details XXXX  address information Any evidence of authorization Any explanation of investigative standards applied Multiple representatives stated they were not back office XXXX could not explain the denial reasoning. 
This lack of transparency raises serious concerns about whether a reasonable investigation occurred. 
XXXX. Regulatory Concerns Under the Fair Credit Billing Act and Regulation XXXX, creditors must conduct a reasonable investigation of disputed unauthorized charges. 
In this case, Goldman Sachs appears XXXX  have : Failed XXXX  conduct a reasonable investigation Ignored material evidence Applied improper dispute standards Shifted burden improperly XXXX  the consumer Failed XXXX  mitigate loss after immediate fraud notice Failed XXXX  provide a clear written explanation XXXX. Harm I have spent over XXXX hours attempting XXXX  resolve this matter. 
I am being forced XXXX  pay for a product : I did not purchase I did not authorize I never received This is unacceptable. 
XXXX. Requested Resolution I formally request : Immediate reopening of the dispute A  written explanation of the investigative findings A copy or detailed summary of merchant documentation relied upon Reversal of the {$1500.00} charge Removal of interest XXXX  fees Confirmation that my credit report will not be negatively affected This matter should not require further unreasonable burden on the fraud victim. 
I expect a formal written response. 
Sincerely,

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief