Consumer complaint received 2025-08-25 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Background In XXXX, XXXX XXXX was the victim of a major identity theft and fraud event involving her Apple ID, Apple Pay, and linked XXXX XXXX account. Over {$12000.00} in fraudulent transactions were made, largely routed through XXXXXXXX XXXX using unauthorized shipping addresses and financial credentials. Both Apple and XXXX XXXX confirmed the fraud. XXXX  proceeded to : Lock her account Clear the fraudulent balances Escalate the issue through their internal fraud/security division Goldman Sachs , the issuer of the Apple Card, assigned the internal case number XXXX and likewise recognized the fraudremoving the balance and applying a Tier XXXX dispute status. During this process, XXXX had a fraud alert placed on her credit file, serving as a lockout to protect against further data injection, credit pulls, or creditor communications regarding that account. 

Trigger Event : Fraud Alert Removal After approximately XXXX  months of stability and clean credit reports across XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX voluntarily removed the fraud alertpresumably because the case was believed to be fully resolved and closed. 


Within weeks of this alert being removed : The Apple Card XXXX reappeared on her reports at both XXXX XXXX XXXX  It was reported as XXXX  days late and charged-off, despite the account showing a {$0.00} balance This reappearance was done without the statutorily required notice to the consumer, a clear violation of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) This event is referred to as an unlawful reinsertion, which is legally distinct from a new report or correctionit is a reappearance of an account that had been previously removed via formal dispute, and which was resolved in favor of the consumer. 

Causality and Procedural Breakdown 1. System Reopened by Alert Removal When XXXX lifted the fraud alert, her credit file was unlockednot just to new creditors, but to backlogged or previously failed data furnishing attempts. It is likely that Goldman Sachs had automated update batches ( possibly queued after internal software migration or automated dispute closure systems ) that attempted to re-report legacy data.

2. Furnisher-Level Failures Goldman Sachs : Failed to notify the consumer of failed ACH attempts when trying to collect a residual {$250.00} ( due to prior XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Mischaracterized the final resolutionreporting it as delinquent and charged off, even after accepting full payment via check Admitted on-record ( via Tier XXXX Supervisor XXXX ) that the account was resolved, disputed, and internally confirmed to be clean Nevertheless, submitted derogatory data to credit bureaus, triggering the reinsertion post-alert removal 3. Bureau-Level Violations XXXX XXXX XXXX both : Failed to verify with the consumer that the tradeline was valid and reportable Reinserted the tradeline without providing the 5-day notice, as required under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) Accepted data from Goldman Sachs that had already been disputed, deleted, and adjudicated as fraudulent Resulting Harm This unlawful reinsertion caused : Immediate reputational damage to XXXX XXXX credit history A potential freeze on new credit lines Undermining of legitimate approvals from XXXX and XXXX XXXX  XXXX which had both issued credit to her based on clean reports Emotional distress, professional disruption, and the renewed administrative burden of dispute escalation Conclusion The removal of the fraud alert exposed a serious flaw in the communication and data-sharing chain between Goldman Sachs and the credit bureaus XXXX Instead of protecting a consumer whose case was closed and verified as fraud, the system allowed a legacy, false, and internally resolved tradeline to be automatically re-inserted into her filewithout new investigation or consumer notification. 

This behavior violates : FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) Unlawful reinsertion without notice FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing of known inaccurate information FCRA 607 ( b ) Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to assure accuracy 15 U.S.C. 1681n/o Liability for willful and negligent noncompliance Recommended Legal Position XXXX XXXX XXXX now fully within her rights to : Demand immediate permanent deletion of the tradeline Seek monetary damages under FCRA 1681n/o File formal complaints with the CFPB, FTC, XXXX  Attorney General, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Pursue litigation if not resolved swiftly and in writing

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief