Consumer complaint received 2026-03-26 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: AR

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is submitted in the context of an active congressional inquiry and addresses new material conduct in Goldman Sachs Bank XXXX XX/XX/year> response ( third denial ), including mischaracterization of the consumers position and continued failure to demonstrate a Regulation Zcompliant investigation. This complaint concerns whether Goldman Sachs Bank USA conducted a reasonable and compliant investigation under Regulation Z in response to a written billing error notice covering approximately XXXX transactions totaling ~ {$180000.00}. The Bank issued XXXX separate denial responses ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/year> ), each relying on different and inconsistent analytical frameworks, including a holistic review, a claimed second investigation, and most recently a reissued prior response with no new analysis. Across all responses, the Bank has produced no transaction-level investigative findings, no documented methodology, and no evidentiary file supporting its conclusions. Additionally, the Bank introduced a material mischaracterization of the consumers position in its XX/XX/year> response, asserting that the consumer claimed the transactions were associated with online gaming activity. This statement is not reflected in the consumers written submissions. The Bank did not contact the consumer at any point during its claimed investigation ( s ) to clarify the dispute, despite having access to a complete written record. This raises concerns regarding whether the Banks determinations are based on an accurate evaluation of the consumers actual billing error claims. The timeline of events further calls into question whether any reasonable investigation occurred. Approximately {$180000.00} in provisional credits were issued and then reversed in a compressed timeframe, without any transaction-level findings provided prior to reversal. This is not consistent with an individualized, transaction-by-transaction investigation as required under Regulation Z. Rather than addressing the specific billing error claims raised, the Bank relied on generalized assertions such as authorization and digital authentication, without evaluating issues related to merchant identity, transaction description, or classification. Authorization alone does not resolve a billing error dispute and does not satisfy the requirements of 12 C.F.R. 1026.13. At present, the record contains conclusions but no verifiable evidence demonstrating that a reasonable investigation was conducted. The absence of any documented investigative methodology or transaction-level findings prevents independent verification of the Banks determinations. These deficiencies raise concerns regarding compliance with federal law, the integrity of the Banks investigative process, and the ability to verify whether any Regulation Zcompliant investigation occurred. This also raises potential supervisory concerns regarding whether similar disputes are being handled under a non-compliant framework. This matter can not be considered resolved or closed on the current record. In the absence of a demonstrable, documented investigation consistent with 12 C.F.R. 1026.13, the Banks conclusions are not reliable and can not support closure of this complaint.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation