Consumer complaint received 2025-09-12 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: MA

Complaint narrative:
Complaint summary The issuers response to my billing-error claim was incorrect and non-compliant with Reg Z . They treated my dispute as a merchandise return rather than a pre-shipment cancellation and relied solely on irrelevant evidence - delivery proof and a statement that I did not return the merchandise - ignoring the actual billing error I reported. Their written explanation did not address the cancellation issue, violating 12 CFR 1026.13 ( f ). 

Facts On XX/XX/year>, I purchased pants from XXXX. A discount code appeared in my cart but disappeared when using Apple Pay. I placed a second order with the discount applied. 

After the first order, I requested cancellation through XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. The agent confirmed in writing that the order would be canceled and refunded. 

XXXX XXXX did not cancel the order. They issued a partial refund and shipped the item. At the time of my cancellation request, the package was still in the warehouse and had not been accepted by the carrier. 

After shipment, I offered XXXX options only : full refund, or merchant pickup from my address with full refund upon pickup. They declined. I still possess the merchandise. 

I disputed the {$110.00} transaction with the issuer. They applied a temporary credit, then reversed it and closed the dispute in favor of the merchant, stating sufficient evidence has not been provided showing the merchandise was returned to the merchant. 

This dispute is not a return claim ; it is a pre-shipment cancellation. Despite being explicitly informed of this, the issuer only reviewed the merchants return evidence and delivery confirmation. 

On XX/XX/year>, I requested a written explanation and all documents relied upon under 12 CFR 1026.13 ( f ) ( 1 ) and ( f ) ( 2 ). The issuer provided the merchants representment package, which was limited to delivery proof and a statement that I did not return the merchandise irrelevant to my claim and did not provide a meaningful explanation specific to the cancellation dispute. 

Regulatory issues presented Failure to provide a written explanation addressing the actual billing error claim. 

Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation into a pre-shipment cancellation, relying instead on evidence relevant only to a return dispute. 

Misclassification of the dispute as a return and reliance on irrelevant evidence. 

Requested CFPB action Require the issuer to provide a Reg Z-compliant written explanation specifically addressing the cancellation claim. 

Require the issuer to reopen the dispute under the correct billing-error category and conduct a proper investigation considering the evidence I provided, including XXXX XXXX confirming cancellation and shipment dates. 

Restore the {$110.00} credit or complete a fresh investigation using the correct framing. 

Evidence available XXXX  transcript with XXXX XXXX confirming cancellation. 

Both order confirmations. 

Tracking history showing carrier acceptance after my cancellation request. 

Partial refund record from XXXX XXXX. 

Screenshots of XX/XX/year> XXXXXXXX XXXX requesting written reasons and documents. 

Issuer-provided representment package. 

If you want, I can also tighten it further so the opening paragraph emphasizes the procedural failure in XXXX XXXX paragraph that CFPB reviewers immediately understand this usually increases impact. Do you want me to do that next?

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation