Consumer complaint received 2025-08-03 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 filing this formal complaint against Goldman Sachs Bank USA, issuer of the Apple Card, for its continued failure to resolve unauthorized charges to my account related to XXXX XXXX XXXX, and for its mishandling of multiple formal disputes, including lack of written justification and failure to provide documentation or escalate as required by law. 

Background and Timeline : I canceled a subscription with XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, with further written confirmation from the merchant on XX/XX/XXXX that I would not be charged going forward. Despite this, I was charged $ XXXX from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. 

I filed a formal dispute with Goldman Sachs on XX/XX/XXXX, and submitted the following documentation : - Proof of cancellation and merchant confirmation - Statements showing continued billing - Screenshots of communications with XXXX XXXX admitting backend failures - Final admission from the merchant ( XX/XX/XXXX ) confirming I had won the dispute and would not be charged further - Despite this overwhelming evidence, Goldman Sachs only reversed two charges. One additional charge was reversed by the merchant directly. The remaining charges were denied with no explanation.

Ignored Correspondence and Lack of Transparency : Following these dispute denials, I submitted at least five additional disputes with Goldman Sachs between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX and requested : - A written explanation for the dispute denials- Documentation or evidence reviewed by Goldman Sachs - Escalation to a manager or senior dispute officer and the ability to communicate with said manager by email, text or phone These requests were completely ignored.

To formally pursue the matter, I mailed a detailed written dispute letter to Goldman Sachs Disputes Department. I received no direct response. Instead, I was sent a cryptic two-page physical letter : - Page one contained only my name and mailing address.

- Page two appeared to be a black-and-white fax with the title Evidence Request and the vague phrase Dispute : XXXX. 
- No explanation, no itemized evidence, and no follow-up communication were included via text, phone, mail or email. 

Summary of Timeline Highlights : XX/XX/XXXX : I emailed the merchant requesting cancellation. 
XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX confirmed cancellation in writing. 
XX/XX/XXXX : Discovered continued charges and contacted merchant again, who admitted backend error. 
Dec 610, 2024 : Sent formal termination requests ; charges continued. 
XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX apologized, admitted harassment, and confirmed I was not supposed to be billed further. 
Disputes filed with Goldman Sachs repeatedly between October 2024May 2025 Goldman Sachs failed to provide written dispute outcomes or access to supporting documentation. 

Legal Violations : Federal Violations - Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) - Charges not resolved within 90 days - No written explanation for denials - Failure to correct charges despite merchant confirmation - Truth in Lending Act / Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ) - Failure to provide evidence used in denial - Reinstated disputed charges without written notice or justification - Ignored request for escalation or human review - Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693g ) - Continued debits after written cancellation - Charges processed without consumer approval - Consumer Financial Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) - Engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices ( UDAAP ) - Ignored formal correspondence, requests for transparency, and failed to respond to mailed complaint State Violations : - California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ( Cal. Civ. Code 1750 et seq. ) - California Business & Professions Code 17200 ( Unfair Competition Law ) - California Civil Code 1747.10 Protection from unauthorized charges - Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act ( Utah Code 13-11-4 ) Goldman Sachs failed to uphold its legal obligations under both California ( my residence ) and Utah ( bank domicile ) law.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation