Consumer complaint received 2025-06-26 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am writing to formally dispute inaccurate information appearing on my XXXX  credit report regarding my Goldman Sachs/Apple Card . The reported status of over 30 days past due as of XX/XX/XXXX is inaccurate and constitutes a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Since filing my initial dispute ( XXXX ) on XX/XX/XXXX, I have collected additional evidence ( attached ) to further corroborate my claim. 

Account Information in Dispute : Creditor Name : Goldman Sachs / Apple Card Account Number : XXXX  Item Disputed : 30+ Days Late Payment as of XX/XX/XXXX Basis for Dispute : My dispute is based on a clear and demonstrable series of events and contradictory information provided by Goldman Sachs/Apple Card ( XXXX ). 

Timely Payment Made; Confirmed by Multiple Sources : On XX/XX/XXXX, I made a payment of {$230.00} to XXXX. My Apple Card Statement for XX/XX/XXXX explicitly confirms this ACH Deposit Internet transfer on XX/XX/XXXX ( Attachment A ). Furthermore, a screenshot from my XXXX  balance history confirms that this payment of {$230.00} was Paid on XX/XX/XXXX for the XX/XX/XXXX reporting period ( Attachment B ). 

Confirmation of Good Standing : Out of an abundance of caution, I contacted XXXX via phone on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX ( Attachment C ) to ensure that the payment had gone through prior to the end of the month ( since the payment was made on the XXXX, a Thursday, and the XXXX was the last business day of the month ). During this call, I explicitly confirmed with a XXXX representative that my payment had been processed and that my account was in good standing as of XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX has confirmed to me that they have a recording of this conversation, but I have been told that the associated transcript will only be provided in the event that I take formal legal action. 

Contradictory Statement and Retroactive Change : Despite the fact that I made my XX/XX/XXXX payment in time for my account to remain in good standing ( Attachments A and B ) and confirmed via a recorded phone conversation with a XXXX representative that it had been processed on XX/XX/XXXX ( Attachment C ), XXXX reversed my payment on XX/XX/XXXX and retroactively changed the status of my account to over 30 days past due as of XX/XX/XXXX. I have since learned this is because, without my knowledge, an unauthorized transaction from my bank account caused the account to overdraft when it was debited for my XXXX XXXX  payment. To be clear, this change was made by XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX - after my payment was processed on XX/XX/XXXX, and after I confirmed with a XXXX representative over the phone on XX/XX/XXXX that the payment had been received in time. 

Lack of Effective Notification : XXXX claims to have sent an email notification of the payment reversal on XX/XX/XXXX. However, due to the high volume of emails I receive daily, many of which get caught in spam filters, I had no knowledge of this reversal. My first notification of any issue was an email alert I received from XXXX  a party from which I receive notifications solely via email, which I actively look out for on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX  EST ( Attachment D ), indicating that my XXXX score had decreased. Upon receiving this alert, I immediately investigated the issue, determined the source of the change, and contacted XXXX  ( Attachment E ) ( note that all phone records are downloaded directly from XXXX XXXX XXXX and times are reported are in PST ) to begin the process of disputing their inconsistent and inaccurate reporting. However, by then, the damage to my credit score had already been done. 

XXXX  Withholding Evidence : XXXX has confirmed they recorded my XX/XX/XXXX conversation but has refused to provide me with a transcript, which would unequivocally confirm their representation, during that call, that my account was in good standing. Notably, when I requested this transcript during my XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX call ( Attachment F ) with a XXXX representative named XXXX, he became combative and hung up the phone on me before I was able to get a full update on my dispute. When I called back to finish receiving the update, I was advised to file a complaint based on the representative 's behavior ( which I did, under reference number XXXX ). 

Invalid Removal From Payment Assistance Plan : During the second call that I had to make to XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX ( Attachment F ) ( at XXXX XXXX  ) in order to get an update on my dispute after being hung up on, I was informed by a XXXX representative named XXXX  that I had been un-enrolled on XX/XX/XXXX from a payment assistance program that would have prevented my account from being reported as over 30 days past due ( per XXXX  internal notes ). While I dont recall enrolling in this program, it should be clear that the only reason I would have authorized my removal from the program is if I were able to confirm on that call, as I did, that my account was in good standing. As such, if XXXX believes that their decision to retroactively change the status of my account to over 30 days past due is valid ( to be clear, I do not think this line of reasoning is valid ), then the decision to remove me from the payment assistance program should be considered invalid, as it was based on their own inconsistent reporting ( which they later undermined by making a retroactive status change to my account ). 

FCRA Violations : Based on these facts, Goldman Sachs/Apple Card has violated its duties as a furnisher under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. : Duty to Provide Accurate Information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ) : This subparagraph of the Fair Credit Reporting Act states that a person should not furnish any information relating to a consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe the information is inaccurate. XXXX reported information that was demonstrably inaccurate at the time of reporting or became inaccurate due to their own contradictory internal practices and retroactive adjustments. By confirming my account was in good standing on XX/XX/XXXX, and then retroactively changing its status to 30 days past due as of XX/XX/XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, they furnished information that was either inaccurate or was based on procedures that failed to ensure maximum possible accuracy. A consumer relying on direct confirmation from the furnisher should not be penalized by retroactive changes due to inadequate notifications. 

Reasonable Cause ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( d ) ) : For the purposes of subparagraph A, the term reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate means having specific knowledge, other than solely allegations by the customer, that would cause a reasonable person to have substantial doubts about the accuracy of the information. Any reasonable person, looking at the specific information on my XX/XX/XXXX Apple Card Statement ( Attachment A ), which clearly shows a payment of {$230.00} being paid on XX/XX/XXXX, would have reasonable cause to believe it was inaccurate that this account was over 30 days past due by the amount of {$230.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ( or XX/XX/XXXX, or any date thereafter, based upon this statement ). This is XXXX own statement ; this is what it still looks like ( it was downloaded most recently on XX/XX/XXXX ) ; they have access to it. It is a waste of time and resources to continue to entertain the notion that a reasonable person would not infer from this information, as I did, that the payment of {$230.00} in question was made. Additionally, as previously noted, this conclusion - the conclusion that the payment of {$230.00} was made on XX/XX/XXXX, in time to keep my account in good standing- was further reinforced by the phone call I had with a XXXX representative on a recorded line on XX/XX/XXXX, during which they said exactly that - that my account was in good standing for the month of XXXX. This clear reasonable cause reaffirms the fact that XXXX is in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

Impact of Inaccurate Reporting : This erroneous reporting has caused me significant harm and has negatively impacted my credit score, which is particularly concerning as this is the first time in my life I have ever had an item reported as being over 30 days past due. As I am currently in the midst of a job search, this inaccurate information on my credit report will significantly undermine my ability to secure employment. I have dedicated considerable personal time and effort to understanding and rectifying this inaccuracy, including extensive communication with both Goldman Sachs/Apple Card and the CFPB, a burden that should not fall on a consumer due to a furnishers contradictory practices and ineffective notifications Requested Action : I request that the CFPB conduct a prompt and thorough reinvestigation into this matter, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). I urge you to contact Goldman Sachs/Apple Card and compel them to : Review their internal records, including the recording of my XX/XX/XXXX phone call. 
Acknowledge that they have refused to provide me with transcripts of this specific call. 
Acknowledge that I was un-enrolled from a payment assistance program on XX/XX/XXXX. 
Acknowledge the payment received on XX/XX/XXXX and the verbal confirmation of good standing received on XX/XX/XXXX. 
Recognize the lack of effective notification regarding the payment reversal. 
Correct the inaccurate reporting. 

The derogatory 30+ days late mark is a direct result of XXXX  contradictory information, inadequate procedures, and ineffective notification. This is the first time in my life that I have ever had an item reported as being over 30 days past due, and my account was always in good standing with XXXX leading up to this incident ( and has been since ). 

I demand the immediate deletion of this inaccurate and damaging 30+ days late entry from my credit report, as it does not accurately reflect my payment history or diligence in this matter. 

Thank you for your prompt attention. I expect a written response detailing the outcome of your reinvestigation within 30 days, as required by law.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation