Consumer complaint received 2025-01-14 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
This letter addresses widespread violations of federal consumer protection laws that have affected not only me but millions of Americans. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and Goldman Sachs Bank USA have systematically failed to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ), and related statutes. The consequences extend beyond my own financial harm to a broader undermining of trust in institutions entrusted with safeguarding the financial futures of American consumers. 

The inclusion of a fraudulent Goldman Sachs Bank USA Account : Account Name : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXX Balance Owed : {$8100.00} High Balance : {$8400.00} Account Status : Closed on my credit report, tied to an address where I have never XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX CAillustrates these failures. Despite multiple disputes, this account remains inaccurately reported, with conflicting transactional data, fabricated late payments, and unverifiable details. 

In my disputes, Goldman Sachs has inappropriately referred to an old XXXX account that I once held, which was previously shut down. However, the fraudulent account reported is not the XXXX account in question. This is a distinct XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX account, which has no legitimate connection to me. The ongoing conflation of the fraudulent business account with the unrelated XXXX account represents a clear failure on the part of Goldman Sachs to validate and distinguish account information, further compounding the inaccuracies in my credit file. 

The broader implications are deeply concerning : inaccuracies like this are not isolated mistakes but symptoms of systemic failings within the credit reporting industry. XXXX and XXXX have allowed entities like Goldman Sachs Bank USA to access and report on my credit file without adhering to the strict permissible purpose requirements outlined in 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( a ). This raises critical questions about their compliance practices. Who authorized this access, and on what grounds? If permission was claimed, where is the evidence of my consent, including signed agreements, timestamps, or digital proof such as IP addresses and GPS data? 

In Dalton v. Capital Associated Indus., Inc. , 257 F.3d 409 ( 4th Cir. 2001 ), the court ruled that consumer reporting agencies must ensure reports are furnished only for legitimate, permissible purposes. By failing to verify permissible purpose, XXXX and XXXX facilitated unauthorized access to my credit file, an act that also constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ), the federal statute on identity theft.

In addition, Cushman v. TransUnion Corp., 115 F.3d 220 ( 3rd Cir. 1997 ) provides critical guidance regarding reinvestigation procedures. The court emphasized that a consumer reporting agencys duty to ensure accuracy is not satisfied by merely parroting information received from furnishers. The refusal of XXXX and XXXX to meaningfully reinvestigate my disputes demonstrates a clear violation of this standard. 

The absence of meaningful oversight in granting such access facilitates identity theft, as noted in the CFPB lawsuits against XXXX and XXXX. Coupled with the data breaches affecting millions of consumers, these systemic lapses leave countless Americans vulnerable to fraud and financial instability. When sensitive personal information is exposed, as it was in the XXXX breach of XXXX and the XXXX breach of XXXX, how can consumers trust that unauthorized access wont lead to further exploitation? 

In addition to failing to safeguard permissible purpose, XXXX and XXXX have violated their duty to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of credit reports, as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). The fraudulent address tied to my credit file not only perpetuates inaccuracies but also creates a fertile ground for identity theft. Creditors and service providers rely on accurate address data to verify identity and assess creditworthiness. Inaccurate addresses, therefore, increase the risk of fraud while undermining consumer trust in credit reporting systems. 

Why has XXXX persisted in reporting this fraudulent address, despite my disputes? Why has no meaningful investigation occurred to verify the legitimacy of this data? The CFPB lawsuit against XXXX ( XXXX ) highlights systemic issues in handling disputes, including failures to adequately investigate inaccuracies. If XXXX and XXXX can not verify basic data such as an address, how can they credibly claim to uphold their legal obligation to ensure accuracy across more complex credit file elements? 

Courts have reinforced this obligation. In Henson v. CSC Credit Services, 29 F.3d 280 ( 7th Cir. 1994 ), the court affirmed that failing to mark accounts as disputed or conduct meaningful investigations into inaccuracies violates the FCRAs accuracy requirements. Additionally, Saunders v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., 526 F.3d 142 ( 4th Cir. 2008 ) held that furnishers violate 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) when they fail to report disputes accurately. These failures by XXXX, XXXX, and Goldman Sachs are not just procedural lapsesthey are statutory violations with profound implications for millions of consumers. 

A particularly troubling aspect of this case is the inclusion of transactional data tied to the fraudulent Goldman Sachs account. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ), certain types of transactional data are excluded from credit reports unless they pertain directly to creditworthiness. Yet, my credit file reflects fabricated transactional information, including conflicting date opened and date of last activity details. Whether accurate or fabricated, transactional data that falls outside the scope of credit reporting exclusions should not appear in my file at all.

In Gillespie v. Equifax Info. Servs., L.L.C. , 484 F.3d 938 ( 7th Cir. 2007 ), the court stressed the importance of ensuring only permitted data appears on consumer files. 

Given this, XXXX and XXXX must answer for their actions. Why was this data reported in violation of federal law? What safeguards are in place to prevent the inclusion of excluded data? The CFPB lawsuits have consistently exposed lax reinvestigation procedures and insufficient safeguards at CRAs, which allow unverifiable data to persist. Coupled with data breaches, these practices amplify the risks to consumers, as bad actors gain access to incomplete or falsified information that undermines financial security. 

The inclusion of fabricated transactional data, fraudulent address information, and unauthorized accounts on my credit file also violates the Truth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666b ). This statute requires creditors to provide accurate and transparent billing information. Goldman Sachs Bank USAs failure to validate this fraudulent account underscores their noncompliance, while XXXX and TransUnions repeated refusal to investigate these inaccuracies highlights their complicity. 

Recent FTC rulings against consumer reporting agencies further highlight the systemic failures that plague these entities. These rulings underscore the importance of compliance with reinvestigation requirements, accuracy obligations, and permissible purpose mandates. XXXX and XXXX actions are in direct violation of these standards, exacerbating the harm to consumers like myself. 

If XXXX and XXXX can not fulfill their obligations to ensure accuracy, their only remaining option under the law is to remove unverifiable or inaccurate accounts from consumer reports. Why, then, does the Marcus by Goldman Sachs GM Business Card account remain despite clear violations of 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), which mandates the removal of unverifiable data after a reasonable investigation? How do these entities reconcile their continued reporting of this account with the legal requirements outlined in the CFPBs lawsuits, FTC rulings, and applicable case law? 
The inclusion of a business credit card in a personal consumer report violates statutory requirements for accurate reporting. Business credit cards are not intended to appear on consumer reports unless explicitly authorized and tied to permissible consumer credit activity. 
Furthermore, FCRA 1681a ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ) excludes transactional data tied to business accounts from appearing in consumer credit files. This raises a critical question : Why is a business credit card being reported under my personal credit file, in direct violation of the statutory exclusion Equally concerning is the question of permissible purpose under FCRA 1681b ( a ). XXXX and XXXX are required to ensure that any information appearing in a consumer report is furnished for a permissible purpose. How do you justify including a business credit card on my personal credit file without verifiable evidence of my explicit consent or authorization? Additionally, why is this fraudulent account linked to an outdated and incorrect address that I have never resided at? This violates not only FCRA 1681e ( b ) but also the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Acts requirements to safeguard consumer data from unauthorized access or fraudulent use.

Experians reporting of this account demonstrates not just inaccuracies but a systemic failure to comply with FCRA requirements. Fabricated transactional data, such as conflicting dates of account opening and activity, further exacerbates the issue. These inaccuracies violate FCRA 1681c and 1681i, which mandate timely correction and dispute resolution for errors.

To resolve this matter without litigation, I demand : 1. Immediate removal of the fraudulent Marcus by Goldman Sachs GM Business Card account from my credit file This includes proof of permissible purpose, as required under FCRA 1681b ( a ), and evidence of compliance with Metro 2 reporting standards. Additionally, any discrepancies regarding the account type must be corrected, and safeguards must be implemented to prevent such errors in the future. 
The Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provide for statutory damages of {$1000.00} per violation, in addition to actual and punitive damages for emotional distress, financial harm, and reputational damage. I reserve the right to pursue these remedies if the outlined issues are not resolved within 30 days. 
As a pre-litigation notice, this letter serves to highlight the systemic failures that have occurred and the immediate actions required to safeguard my consumer rights. Failure to act will result in immediate legal action and the filing of formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and state attorneys general. 

I demand written confirmation of the following within 30 days : Removal of the fraudulent account from my consumer report. 
Correction of reporting discrepancies and proof of compliance with Metro 2 standards. 

Implementation of safeguards to prevent future violations

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief