Consumer complaint received 2025-11-30 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: AL

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting a new complaint because Goldman Sachs has now issued a contradictory and incomplete response to my prior CFPB case, has provided two mutually exclusive fraud statements, and has refused to investigate a coerced {$8000.00} transaction created under threat and passport confiscation.

This complaint concerns two related issues : ( 1 ) the original XXXX XXXX ticket purchase on Apple Card and ( XXXX ) the coerced {$8000.00} ticket repurchase also on Apple Card after my original ticket was suspended without notice. 
XXXX. Contradictory Fraud Statements by Goldman Sachs ( Critical Inconsistency ) In prior responses, Goldman Sachs stated : No fraud occurred. 
In its most recent response ( XX/XX/year> ), Goldman Sachs stated : The fraud alert occurred through the original ticket purchase. 
These XXXX statements can not both be true. 
This is not a minor discrepancy. It is a material contradiction in a fraud dispute involving international travel, a coerced charge, and a merchants statement to a federal agency ( DOT ). 
If a fraud alert did occur : Goldman Sachs was required to notify the cardholder Goldman Sachs was required to follow fraud protocol Goldman Sachs was required to freeze or review the transaction Goldman Sachs should not have allowed XXXX of the XXXX tickets in the same transaction to be honored None of this occurred. 
If a fraud alert did not occur, then XXXX XXXX misrepresented facts to DOT, and Goldman Sachs has refused to address it. 
This contradiction remains unresolved. 

XXXX. Goldman Sachs Directed Me to Contact the Financial Entity of the Original Purchase However, they are that entity, and They Did Not Investigate Properly In their most recent response, Goldman Sachs wrote : The Customer should contact the financial entity of the original ticket purchase.

This statement is factually incorrect and demonstrates a complete failure to investigate. The original three-ticket purchase was not made on a different banks card it was made on Apple Card, issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA . There is no other entity.

This instruction is procedurally nonsensical. It shows Goldman Sachs did not review the dispute, did not check the transaction history, and did not engage with the evidence at all. It is effectively telling me to contact Goldman Sachs about Goldman Sachs, while pretending responsibility lies elsewhere. 
We called Apple/Goldman Sachs to clarify this contradiction. During that call, we asked them directly to provide the fraud documentation XXXX XXXX claimed existed. The representative acknowledged that : If it was fraud, you wouldnt be responsible for the charge. 
However, when we asked for the fraud case ID, documentation, or explanation of how the fraud alert was handled, the representative ended the call, without warning, while we were still asking questions. No follow-up was sent. No escalation email was provided. No fraud records were submitted. 
This is not an investigation it is avoidance. It further confirms that Goldman Sachs did not read the DOT statement, did not check the original transaction, and did not perform any meaningful fraud review before issuing their contradictory written response. 

XXXX. Coerced {$8000.00} Transaction Waiver Forced After Payment While My Passport Was Confiscated. Goldman Sachs continues to uphold the {$8000.00} charge solely on the existence of a waiver, while refusing to address how the signature was obtained and when it was obtained. I was forced to pay {$8000.00} for a business-class ticket before any waiver was presented. After I paid, XXXX XXXX staff refused to release the ticket unless I signed a liability waiver. At that time, my passport was still confiscated, and I was told I would be left behind in international transit unless I signed the form. 
This sequence payment first, waiver afterward, while my legal identification was being held is a clear case of post-payment coercion, not consent. 
A waiver signed under : physical retention of identification, threat of abandonment, withholding of a purchased service, and lack of alternatives is void under every legal standard governing : contracts, financial transactions, consumer protection, and consent obtained under duress. 
Goldman Sachs has never addressed this and continues to rely exclusively on the coerced waiver to justify the charge, without investigating the conditions under which it was obtained. 
I specifically asked during the phone call for Goldman Sachs written policy on coercion, waiver validity, and consent under duress, and requested escalation to their legal team since the representatives claimed they could not answer, but instead of providing that information, they ended the call without warning and never followed up.

4. Selective Cancellation of 1 Seat in a 3-Ticket Transaction Is Impossible Under Fraud Protocol.The original Apple Card purchase included three tickets billed as one transaction. If a fraud alert occurred, Goldman Sachs protocol requires the entire transaction to be flagged or frozen. Instead, only one ticketmy motherswas suspended. The other two passengers were allowed to board.

This is not operationally or procedurally possible under standard fraud systems. Goldman Sachs has not addressed this contradiction.

5. Evidence Ignored : DOT Letter, Seat Numbers, Boarding Records, and Forced Card Use. Goldman Sachs ignored all evidence submitted in the prior complaint, including : The DOT letter where XXXX XXXX states the ticket was suspended due to a fraud alert from Goldman Sachs XXXX that economy seats were available on the return flight ( seat numbers documented ) Evidence that XXXX XXXX rejected all payment methods except Apple Card The Apple Card text authorization where Apple manually pushed the {$8000.00} transaction Boarding passes confirming the original seat was not fulfilled Proof that the waiver was signed under threat while the passport was held Call logs showing no investigation was performed A supervisor hanging up during escalation Proof that Goldman Sachs did not acknowledge the original complaint within the required CFPB timeline.

No part of this evidence was addressed in Goldman Sachs response.

6. Goldman Sachs Declined the Dispute Outside the CFPB System and Only Submitted a Contradictory Response Hours Later. Goldman Sachs initially declined the charge outside of the CFPB system, without acknowledging the complaint in the portal and without addressing any of the evidence submitted. Only hours later, they posted a written response that contradicted their prior statements and still ignored the DOT fraud documentation. Although the written response was technically within the 15-day acknowledgment window, the sequence of eventsdeclining the dispute first, providing no acknowledgment, ignoring evidence, and then submitting a boilerplate and contradictory replydemonstrates procedural irregularity and noncompliance with the spirit of CFPBs complaint-handling requirements.

I am requesting that CFPB escalate this case because Goldman Sachs has demonstrated a pattern of non-investigation, contradiction, and refusal to engage with the evidence provided. During our calls, Goldman Sachs repeatedly relied on a single sentence about a waiver, even after substantial new informationincluding the DOT fraud claimwas submitted. Their representatives appeared unaware of the fraud allegation, surprised when it was mentioned, and unable to explain the transaction logic. When I asked whether they had reviewed the evidence packet we submitted, their responses made clear that they had not. Their reasoning is internally inconsistent and does not address the facts.

Goldman Sachs has not investigated this matter properly. They ignored the DOT documentation, the fraud contradiction, the coercion evidence, and the selective cancellation issue. They provided no escalation, no fraud documentation, and no explanation. During one call, when I requested confirmation of their investigation process and asked for their coercion/waiver policy, the supervisor ended the call without warning and no follow-up was provided.

For these reasons, I am requesting CFPB escalate this case due to : Contradictory fraud statements issued by Goldman Sachs Failure to follow fraud protocol after admitting a fraud alert occurred Complete disregard of the merchants fraud claim to the U.S. DOT Upholding a coerced transaction obtained under threat and passport confiscation Selective application of fraud on a 3-ticket transaction Failure to review or address any submitted evidence Failure to comply with CFPB expectations for complaint handling and acknowledgment Misleading instructions to contact the financial entity when Goldman Sachs is that entity Refusal to provide fraud documentation or internal policy on coercion and waiver validity Hanging up during escalation and providing no follow-up This is no longer a misunderstanding or a billing disagreement. It is a clear pattern of avoidance, contradiction, and improper handling of a fraud-linked, coercive transaction. I request formal escalation and investigation by CFPB.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation