Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 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: DC

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint against Goldman Sachs Bank USA ( Apple Card ) regarding its handling of a billing dispute. On XX/XX/year>, I was charged {$94.00} by XXXX for a hotel reservation at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The reservation I purchased was for a Deluxe King room. After booking, I confirmed directly with the hotel that the reservation made by the merchant was for a different room type ( Executive room ), not the Deluxe room that I paid for. Because the merchant failed to provide the contracted room type, the reservation was not usable for my needs. On XX/XX/year>, I contacted the merchant regarding this issue. The merchant acknowledged the problem and stated in writing that a refund request has been submitted [ and ] a full refund will be issued once confirmed. This communication shows that the merchant did not treat the charge as final or strictly non-refundable at the time, but instead recognized that a refund was appropriate and initiated that process. Despite this, no refund was ever issued. The hotel later confirmed that the reservation was cancelled. The hotels cancellation documentation shows that no payment method was on file, indicating that the reservation was never paid for and that no stay occurred. Because the reservation could not be used, I booked a replacement reservation for the same hotel and date through a different provider. I disputed the {$94.00} charge with Goldman Sachs Bank USA. During the dispute process, I provided documentation demonstrating : - The original booking confirmation for a Deluxe room - The hotels cancellation confirmation showing a different room type ( Executive ), that the reservation was cancelled, and that no payment method was on file - The merchants written statement that a full refund would be issued - Documentation of a replacement reservation The merchant responded to the dispute by claiming that the reservation was used in full, but provided no supporting documentation such as a check-in record, hotel folio, or proof of payment to the hotel. This claim is directly contradicted by the hotels records confirming cancellation and non-use of the reservation. Goldman Sachs denied the dispute and upheld the charge, stating only that I had agreed to the merchants terms and conditions and that no refund or credit was due. This response does not address the substance of the dispute or the evidence provided. This is not a case of cancelling a valid, non-refundable reservation. The merchant failed to provide the contracted service, the reservation was cancelled, and no services were rendered. A non-refundable policy does not apply where the merchant does not deliver the purchased service. Additionally, Goldman Sachs did not address or reconcile the inconsistency between the merchants written statement that a full refund would be issued and its later position that no refund was due. Goldman Sachs appears to have improperly categorized this dispute as a cancellation subject to a non-refundable policy, rather than evaluating it as a dispute involving services not rendered or services not as described. The bank did not require the merchant to provide evidence of a completed stay and did not reconcile the merchants claims with the hotels cancellation records. I requested reconsideration and provided additional documentation, but the bank maintained its decision without addressing these discrepancies. I believe Goldman Sachs Bank USA failed to conduct a reasonable investigation as required by : - Relying solely on the merchants terms and conditions without evaluating whether the service was actually provided - Accepting the merchants unsupported claim that the reservation was used in full without requiring documentation - Failing to consider third-party evidence confirming cancellation and non-use - Failing to reconcile contradictory statements from the merchant regarding whether a refund was owed - Misclassifying the dispute, resulting in an improper denial The banks failure to properly evaluate the evidence and reliance on an inapplicable policy has resulted in an improper charge remaining on my account.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief