Consumer complaint received 2026-06-11 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: UT

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint as a follow-up to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, which was closed without adequate resolution. Goldman Sachs Bank USA 's response to that complaint requested closure on the grounds that their investigation found no bank error and that I failed to provide sufficient evidence of return. That characterization is factually incorrect, and I am requesting this matter be escalated. This dispute concerns a transaction with merchant XXXX ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) on my Apple Card, Dispute Case No. XXXX, transaction date XX/XX/XXXX, in the amount of {$360.00}. I disputed this charge on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. Goldman Sachs ruled in favor of the merchant each time. The facts are as follows : On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted the merchant at XXXX to initiate a return of Order # XXXX. The item received was defective upon arrival, with a broken belt piece included in the shipment. On XX/XX/XXXX, the merchant responded with return instructions. Within that single email, the merchant twice instructed me to commit customs fraud by declaring the package value at under {$20.00}, despite the actual purchase price being {$360.00}. The instruction appeared first mid-paragraph : " please declare the package value under {$20.00}, which will be helpful to expedite the clearance '' and was then repeated as a standalone notice : " Important : Please declare the package value under {$20.00}, which will be helpful to expedite the clearance. '' This is customs fraud under 18 U.S.C. 542, a federal crime. Deliberately undervaluing a {$360.00} shipment as {$20.00} on a customs declaration is not a technicality or a cultural misunderstanding. It is a deliberate instruction to falsify a federal document. I refused to comply. Additionally, the merchant 's return shipping cost was nearly equivalent to the original purchase price, making the return economically impossible even setting aside the illegal customs requirement. Under the Fair Credit Billing Act, I am only required to make a good faith effort to return defective merchandise. I made that effort on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, in documented written communications. The merchant 's only return pathway required me to break federal law. No merchant terms and conditions supersede federal statute. This documented evidence, including the merchant 's XX/XX/XXXX email with the customs fraud instruction appearing twice, was submitted to Goldman Sachs during the dispute process and was also attached to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX. Goldman Sachs ' response to that complaint does not reference, acknowledge, or address this evidence in any way. A financial institution that receives documented proof of a merchant instructing a consumer to commit federal customs fraud and proceeds to rule in that merchant 's favor four consecutive times has conducted a materially incomplete investigation and has failed its obligations under the FCBA. I am also requesting that the CFPB examine whether Goldman Sachs has a broader pattern of failing to properly review consumer-submitted evidence in transaction disputes of this nature. If their investigation process allowed customs fraud documentation to be submitted, reviewed, and dismissed four consecutive times in a single case, it is reasonable to conclude that other consumers may have experienced the same outcome. A systemic failure to engage with evidence of illegal merchant conduct would represent a serious institutional compliance issue that warrants regulatory scrutiny beyond my individual dispute. I am requesting the following : 1. That the CFPB escalate this matte r and not accept Goldman Sachs ' prior closure as resolution. 2. That Goldman Sachs be directed to conduct a new investigation that specifically addresses the customs fraud instruction documented in the merchant 's XX/XX/XXXX email. 3. That the {$360.00} charge be permanently credited to my account. 4. That the CFPB consider whether Goldman Sachs ' dispute review process warrants a broader examination for similar consumer complaints. I was on XXXX XXXX military service during a significant portion of this dispute period and pursued this matter diligently despite those obligations. I have now been fighting this for over seven months across four dispute rounds and one prior CFPB complaint. The evidence is documented, specific, and unambiguous. I am asking the CFPB to hold Goldman Sachs accountable for ignoring clear proof of illegal merchant conduct.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation