Consumer complaint received 2025-09-02 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: NJ

Complaint narrative:
On Friday, XX/XX/year>, I noticed a series of approximately 11 unauthorized charges on my Apple credit card ( " Apple Card '' ), all of which took place between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year>. Among those unauthorized charges were several charges from XXXX , including one for {$160.00} on XX/XX/XXXX and one for {$210.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. Upon noticing these unauthorized charges, I promptly notified Apple Card through their chat function, and a dispute into all of these unauthorized transactions was opened. 

While the majority of these transactions were ultimately determined by Apple Card to be unauthorized and the charges reversed, I was notified on XX/XX/year> that the two XXXX charges for {$160.00} and {$210.00} were determined to be authorized. Upon receiving notice of this, I promptly contacted Apple Card via their chat function again and told them to reopen the dispute because neither of these charges were authorized. I also requested that they send me the investigative files showing how they reached their determination. 

Upon reviewing the requested investigative files in the mail later in XXXX, I discovered several key pieces of information demonstrating that the two charges were indeed fraudulent. First, the geolocation data shows that both of these transactions were made in New York and New Jersey, but at the time of these transactions, I was on a cruise ship in XXXX. Since no one except me was authorized to use this card and the card was not in physical possession of anyone else, the geolocation data demonstrates that these transactions were unauthorized. Even if the fraudster had been able to provide information associated with the physical card, which Apple contends they did, the geolocation evidence nevertheless shows it would have been physically impossible for those purchases to be made by the only person authorized to make purchases on that card : myself. Additionally, as I am sure credit card companies are very well aware, AVS and CVV numbers are maliciously acquired by fraudsters through other means such as data breaches or malware. Thus, the fact that these numbers were provided during the transactions are by no means dispositive of fraud, especially in light of the other geolocation data indicating that fraudulent activity has indeed occurred here. 

Second, the tracking numbers for the packages associated with the two unauthorized purchases further demonstrate fraudulent activity. Namely, each transaction was apparently to purchase large pieces of furniture : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, upon reviewing the XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX footage at the time the two deliveries were supposedly made, I was able to determine that in fact what was delivered under those tracking numbers were XXXX empty bubble mailers, both no larger than 6 inches x 7 inches, making it physically impossible that the two pieces of furniture fraudulently purchased from XXXX were actually delivered under those tracking numbers. Thankfully, when I had received those small, empty bubble mailers, I kept them because I thought they were strange. I had not known at the time that they would wind up being associated with the two fraudulent XXXX charges. On these facts alone it is clear that the two XXXX transactions were fraudulent. 

Third, the return addresses associated with the two tracking numbers were also highly suspicious. Specifically, one of the tracking numbers came back to an address in XXXXXXXX  NY that does not exist ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, NY XXXX ). Furthermore, this same address is associated with other reported incidents of fraudulent activity as I discovered by simply XXXX the address ( see, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). Significantly, many of the reports of fraud associated with this return address were for XXXX purchases . The other return address comes back to what looks like a suburban home ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, IL XXXX ). 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Apple through the chat function to provide all of this information, including documentary evidence that I was on a cruise in XXXX at the time these transactions took place, photos of the small bubble mailers associated with the tracking numbers, and links to the information associated with the two return addresses for the fraudulent purchases. Apple confirmed that this information would be added to the dispute files accordingly. 

Unfortunately, despite the pile of evidence unequivocally demonstrating that these two XXXX transactions were fraudulent, I nevertheless received notice on XX/XX/year> that the one for {$160.00} was determined to be an authorized transaction ( the other transaction for {$210.00} remains an open dispute, but under these circumstances I have little faith the outcome will be any different ). Under this set of facts, it is clear that the credit card company is not conducting proper investigations into these unauthorized charges, and third-party intervention by CFPB has therefore become a necessary next step. 

Thank you.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief