Consumer complaint received 2025-11-25 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Closing your account — Company closed your account
Company: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
I respectfully submit this rebuttal as the consumer in this matter. Goldman Sachs response fails to address the core issues of my complaint, and the Banks actions appear to violate multiple federal consumer protection statutes. 

Below is my formal response for the CFPB record. 

SUMMARY OF MY POSITION Goldman Sachs : Failed to conduct a reasonable investigation Ignored documented facts Closed my account improperly Is withholding information about the red flags it relied upon Reported negative information to the credit bureaus without basis Damaged my credit even though the disputed charges were refunded Is refusing to reinstate the account or correct the inaccurate reporting These actions violate several federal laws detailed below. 

FEDERAL STATUTES GOLDMAN SACHS APPEARS TO HAVE VIOLATED Below are the law citations you requested, which directly protect your rights and outline the banks obligations. 

1. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.

Potential Violations : 1681s-2 ( a ) Furnishing Accurate Information Furnishers ( Goldman Sachs ) may not report information they know or reasonably should know is inaccurate.

Goldman Sachs reported derogatory or negative account information even though the merchant refunded the disputed charge, returning the account to a {$0.00} balance. 

A closure based on red flags without factual details may constitute inaccurate or misleading reporting. 

1681s-2 ( b ) Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation When a consumer disputes information through a CRA ( or via CFPB ), the furnisher must conduct a reasonable investigation.

Goldman Sachs ' response : Does not describe any investigation Provides no findings Declares no bank error occurred without explanation This constitutes a failure to investigate under federal law.

2. Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) 15 U.S.C. 1666 The FCBA requires : Proper dispute handling Creditor must investigate disputes within 2 billing cycles Creditor must not take adverse action during investigation If you disputed a fraudulent charge : Goldman Sachs could NOT legally close your account while the dispute was ongoing without completing a full investigation If the merchant refunded the fraudulent charge, then you were made whole, and the account should NOT have been penalized.

By closing the account despite the account being returned to {$0.00} balance, Goldman Sachs likely violated : 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( a ) Creditor obligations on billing disputes 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 Regulation Z dispute requirements 3. Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) 15 U.S.C. 1691 ( d ) Under ECOAs adverse action notice requirement : A creditor must provide a specific reason for adverse action ( including account closure ).

Goldman Sachs : Did NOT provide any specific red flag or factual basis Stated vague reasons like red flags without explanation This violates : 12 C.F.R. 1002.9 ( a ) ( 2 ) A creditor must disclose specific reasons for the adverse action, not generic statements.

4. Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) 12 U.S.C. 5531 This prohibits : Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) Goldman Sachs ' conduct qualifies as : Unfair caused substantial injury ( credit damage ) Deceptive vague accusations and no explanation Abusive withholding factual investigative information and using it against you This statute is enforceable by CFPB.

III. WHY GOLDMAN SACHS IS INCORRECT 1. The charge that triggered the Banks review was fully refunded The merchant acknowledged wrongdoing They issued a full refund The account returned to {$0.00} balance There is no legal or factual basis for : Ongoing negative credit reporting Permanent account closure Labeling the account as fraudulent or suspicious 2. Goldman Sachs is withholding investigation details This violates : ECOA adverse action disclosure requirements FCRA furnisher investigation duties 3. The Bank 's investigation can not be reasonable Because : It contradicts the documented refund It ignores merchant-at-fault evidence It suggests consumer wrongdoing without factual support IV. DAMAGES CAUSED TO ME Goldman Sachs improper actions resulted in : Credit score harm Loss of available credit Inaccurate derogatory reporting Denial of reinstatement without lawful basis These damages matter in XXXX evaluation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation