Consumer complaint received 2025-11-06 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: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am disputing a fraudulent charge of {$3100.00} from XX/XX/year> for " XXXX XXXX '' course. Goldman Sachs has improperly denied my dispute multiple times despite substantial evidence of merchant fraud, violating their obligation to conduct reasonable investigations under the Fair Credit Billing Act.

THE FRAUD : I purchased an online course after being explicitly promised : 6 one-on-one coaching calls, training for the XXXX ecommerce market, and guaranteed assistance until I reached XXXX income. Within weeks, the promised coaching was reduced from 6 calls to 3. The course directed me to open XXXX business bank accounts, which is impossible for non-residentsa basic fact the merchant concealed. When I couldn't proceed, the merchant provided no solution and eventually told me to switch to the US market, which I never agreed to purchase training for. An ex-employee ( XXXX ) then contacted me directly confirming the merchant uses fabricated profit screenshots to mislead customers about potential earnings. 
MY ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE : Contacted merchant multiple times via email and Discord requesting refundno response First disputed charge with Goldman Sachs in late XXXX  GOLDMAN SACHS ' IMPROPER HANDLING : Since late XXXX, I have submitted the dispute at least 6 times. Each time Goldman Sachs closes it stating " evidence does not substantiate the claim '' without explanation. I provided : Complete correspondence with merchant showing misrepresentation Written testimony from ex-employee confirming fraudulent practices Screenshots of online reviews from other victims Documentation proving I requested services not delivered I have called numerous times requesting explanation. I spoke with a disputes department XXXX on a recorded line who acknowledged my evidence was sufficient, expressed disbelief at the prolonged denial pattern, and filed an internal complaint and escalation on my behalf. Despite this recorded management acknowledgment, the dispute was closed again shortly thereafter with the same generic response. 
Goldman Sachs sent me an email requesting a " 3rd party reviewer '' but refused to clarify what qualifies as a third-party reviewer, what format the review should take, or how to submit it. This appears to be an impossible standard designed to deny valid disputes.

SHIFTING DISPUTE REASONS & BAD FAITH DENIALS : Goldman Sachs employees repeatedly instructed me to change my dispute reason, which resulted in denials based on different rationales each time. This appears to be a strategy to exhaust me rather than investigate the actual fraud. 
One denial stated : " The evidence received shows that no credit is due because you agreed to the merchant 's terms and conditions at the time of purchase. '' This rationale is legally invalid for several reasons : Agreeing to terms and conditions does not waive rights against fraudulent misrepresentation. The merchant made explicit verbal promises ( 6 coaching calls, XXXX market training, income guarantees ) that contradicted what was delivered. 
The merchant actively concealed material information ( impossibility of opening XXXX bank accounts as a non-resident ) that made the service unusable as advertised. 
I attempted to resolve this with the merchant immediately upon discovering the fraud and was ignoreddemonstrating the merchant had no intention of honoring their promises. 
Federal law and card network rules protect consumers from " services not rendered '' and " misrepresentation, '' regardless of boilerplate terms and conditions signed before the fraud was discovered. 

Goldman Sachs ' repeated use of the generic response " there is no evidence to substantiate the claim '' directly contradicts their own statement that they reviewed my evidence showing I " agreed to terms and conditions. '' They can not simultaneously claim they reviewed my evidence AND claim no evidence exists. This demonstrates they are not conducting genuine investigations. 
VIOLATION : Goldman Sachs is not conducting reasonable investigations as required by law. They are repeatedly closing a well-documented fraud dispute with form letter responses despite acknowledging internally that the evidence supports my claim. Their own XXXX confirmed this on a recorded line.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation