Consumer complaint received 2026-04-21 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Problem with customer service
Company: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA
State: WI

Complaint narrative:
* SEE ATTACHMENT FOR FULL/FORMATTED COMPLAINT * CFPB Complaint Goldman Sachs Bank USA ( Apple Card XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Complainant : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Goldman Sachs ( issuer of Apple Card and XXXX XXXX Account ) Regulator : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau FORMAL COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR REGULATORY INTERVENTION To Whom It May Concern : I am submitting this complaint to formally document a pattern of repeated, systemic misconduct by Goldman Sachs Bank USA ( Goldman Sachs ) in its administration of my Apple Card and XXXX XXXX Account. These actions are not isolated errorsthey constitute ongoing operational failures, discriminatory conduct, and potential violations of federal consumer protection and disability laws. I. PATTERN OF UNJUSTIFIED ACCOUNT RESTRICTIONS AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIONS Goldman Sachs has repeatedly and unjustifiably : Flagged legitimate transactions as fraudulent Locked my accounts without cause Reissued new card numbers multiple times despite no confirmed fraud Forced repeated service disruptions requiring manual updates across numerous merchants I monitor my accounts multiple times daily. At no time has Goldman Sachs identified actual unauthorized activity. Despite this, they continue to impose intrusive and disruptive fraud prevention actions. This conduct is objectively unreasonable and appears to violate : 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( UDAAP Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ) These repeated actions impose substantial consumer harm ( service disruption, financial instability, administrative burden ) without countervailing benefit. Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ) principles regarding error resolution and unauthorized transactions Goldman Sachs is treating non-errors as fraud events, triggering unnecessary corrective actions. Goldman Sachs can not plausibly argue that this is a legitimate fraud prevention practice when : No fraud exists No explanation is consistently provided The same pattern repeats despite prior confirmations This is not risk management. It is reckless, automated overreach causing foreseeable harm. II. REFUSAL TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE CUSTOMER SUPPORT ( ADA VIOLATIONS ) Goldman Sachs refuses to provide adequate support through accessible communication channels, specifically : Refusal to meaningfully assist via chat support Forcing phone-based interactions despite known disability limitations I am XXXX and experience : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( such as phone calls ) I explicitly disclosed this disability and its impact during multiple interactions. Despite this : Representatives refused reasonable accommodations Continued to escalate interactions in ways that triggered meltdowns Failed to adapt communication methods This conduct likely violates : Americans with Disabilities Act ( Title III Public Accommodations ) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Goldman Sachs has an affirmative obligation to provide reasonable accommodations. Instead, they : Ignored explicit disability disclosures Denied effective communication Continued practices that foreseeably caused harm This is not merely poor serviceit is disability discrimination through systemic neglect. III. ABUSIVE AND HOSTILE CUSTOMER SERVICE CONDUCT During my most recent interaction : The representative repeatedly interrupted me Relied on irrelevant scripted responses disconnected from the actual discussion Criticized my disability-related behavior ( XXXX meltdown ) Refused to engage with stated accessibility concerns Ultimately terminated the call while I was actively raising ADA-related issues This is egregious. Terminating a call under these circumstances constitutes : Bad faith refusal to engage Retaliatory conduct after mention of legal/regulatory concerns Denial of meaningful access to services This behavior raises concerns under : UDAAP ( Abusive practices ) interfering with a consumers ability to understand or assert their rights Potential retaliation concerns under federal consumer protection frameworks Goldman Sachs can not defend this as standard call handling when : The customer explicitly disclosed a XXXX The conduct directly escalated a medical event The termination occurred during discussion of legal concerns IV. MEDICAL AND HEALTH IMPACT ( FORESEEABLE AND PREVENTABLE HARM ) The stress caused by Goldman Sachs conduct has directly resulted in : Repeated XXXX meltdowns Escalation of XXXX episodes Increased XXXX events These conditions are otherwise well-controlled outside of these interactions. This establishes : Foreseeable harm Causation linked to repeated conduct Failure to mitigate known risk after disclosure Financial institutions are not exempt from responsibility when their actions trigger medical crises through negligent or reckless behavior. V. COERCIVE AND OBSTRUCTIVE CONDUCT REGARDING REGULATORY ESCALATION During my most recent call : I stated I had been advised to seek regulatory assistance The representative refused to assist unless I identified specific agencies This is improper. Consumers are not required to : Identify regulatory bodies Provide legal strategy Justify escalation rights This behavior appears designed to : Discourage complaints Intimidate consumers Obstruct escalation Such conduct may fall under abusive practices ( UDAAP ) by interfering with a consumers ability to exercise rights. VI. ANTICIPATED DEFENSES AND PREEMPTIVE REBUTTALS Goldman Sachs XXXX attempt the following defenses : 1. Fraud prevention protocols require these actions Rebuttal : Protocols that repeatedly trigger false positives with no fraud and impose substantial consumer harm are defective and unlawful under UDAAP. 2. Customer service followed standard procedures Rebuttal : Standard procedures that : Ignore disability disclosures Deny reasonable accommodations Escalate medical harm are noncompliant with ADA and inherently unlawful. 3. Phone support is required for security Rebuttal : Security requirements do not override federal disability accommodation obligations. Alternative secure methods must be provided. 4. Call termination was appropriate due to tone Rebuttal : The tone was explicitly disclosed as a disability-related medical response. Terminating the call under those conditions constitutes discriminatory denial of service. VII. REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS I am requesting immediate regulatory intervention requiring Goldman Sachs to : 1. 2. Cease unwarranted fraud flagging and account disruptions absent verifiable evidence Implement robust ADA-compliant support channels, including fully functional chat- based resolution 3. 4. Provide mandatory disability and accessibility training for all support staff Establish clear escalation pathways for accessibility complaints 5. Prohibit representatives from : Interrupting disability disclosures Terminating calls during accommodation discussions 6. 7. Conduct a full audit of fraud detection systems for false-positive harm Provide written justification for all prior account restrictions VIII. CONCLUSION Goldman Sachs conduct is : Systemic Harmful Discriminatory Legally indefensible This is not a customer service issueit is a regulatory failure requiring enforcement action. Their practices demonstrate a reckless disregard for consumer protection laws and disability rights, and without intervention, these harms will continue to affect not only myself but other vulnerable consumers. I expect this complaint to be treated with the seriousness it warrants.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation