Consumer complaint received 2024-02-23 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: CO

Complaint narrative:
In XXXX and XX/XX/2023, I purchased items from XXXX and XXXX, respectively, which turned out to be counterfeit. I immediately sought resolution through Goldman Sachs Bank USA for these transactions, providing detailed authenticity reports from Authenticate First to substantiate my claims. The journey to resolution has been fraught with inconsistencies, notably in how Goldman Sachs has acknowledged and reviewed the evidence I provided. 

Key Points of Concern : Initial Dispute and Evidence Submission : Starting in XX/XX/2023, I submitted comprehensive evidence, including third-party authenticity reports, to support my dispute claims. Despite this, Goldman Sachs requested multiple resubmissions, suggesting procedural hurdles rather than substantive examination of my claims. 

Acknowledgment of Evidence : It was not until XX/XX/2023 that Goldman Sachs formally acknowledged receipt of my evidence. This delay is concerning, given the timeline of decisions made regarding my dispute. 

Decision Making Prior to Evidence Acknowledgment : Goldman Sachs 's recent communication to the CFPB reveals they could not verify the authenticity certificate provided. This disclosure suggests that their decision to reverse my chargeback in XX/XX/2023 was made without fully considering the evidence I had submitted. The reversal predates their acknowledgment of my evidence, indicating a decision possibly made in the absence of a thorough review. 

Misleading Conduct : For nearly ten months, Goldman Sachs led me to believe the dispute could be resolved favorably upon proper submission of evidence. Their failure to disclose issues with verifying the authenticity certificate until now prevented me from seeking alternative resolutions or evidence, misleading me into a cycle of futile dispute reopenings. 

Expired Return Labels : Goldman Sachs has cited the provision of return labels by the merchant as a resolution pathway. However, these labels had expired by the time Goldman Sachs escalated the dispute, making them unusable for returning the counterfeit items. This critical oversight was not addressed, leaving me without a viable option to return the items under dispute. 

Given these details, it is clear that the resolution process for my disputes has been significantly hampered by Goldman Sachs 's lack of transparency, mismanagement, and apparent disregard for the timing and validity of the evidence I provided. The contradiction in the timeline of evidence acknowledgment versus decision-making raises serious concerns about the integrity of their dispute resolution process. 

Request for CFPB Intervention : I urge the CFPB to review these discrepancies and the handling of my disputes by Goldman Sachs. The issues highlighted necessitate a thorough reevaluation to ensure a fair and just resolution that considers the counterfeit nature of the items, the expired nature of the return labels, and the misleading guidance provided by Goldman Sachs. My experience underscores the need for greater oversight and accountability in the dispute resolution processes of financial institutions to protect consumers.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief