Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
CFPB SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA Apple Card Account Ending in XXXX XXXXXXXX I am submitting this supplemental response to Goldman Sachs Bank USAs CFPB response and continued position that no banking error occurred in connection with the disputed ACH payment transactions associated with my Apple Card account. I am not requesting a goodwill adjustment. I am not disputing that I remain responsible for the Apple Card balance. I am disputing the derogatory 30-day late payment reporting because Goldman Sachs has not established that the failed ACH payments were caused by consumer fault. Goldman Sachs position appears to be that because the payments were returned as No Account/Unable to Locate Account, and because I entered the payment information through Apple XXXX , the resulting late payment was properly reported. That conclusion is unsupported. A returned ACH payment does not automatically establish consumer-caused nonpayment. A return code explains why a payment did not post. It does not, by itself, prove who caused the payment failure. Goldman Sachs response states that the payments were rejected by the financial institution for No Account/Unable to Locate Account. However, Goldman Sachs never states that I entered an incorrect routing number. Goldman Sachs never states that I entered an incorrect account number. Goldman Sachs never states that I used an account that was not mine. Goldman Sachs never states that I lacked sufficient funds, stopped payment, refused payment, revoked authorization, or failed to authorize payment. Goldman Sachs has only established that the payment failed. Goldman Sachs has not established that I caused the failure. NEWLY DISCOVERED INFORMATION REGARDING ACH RETURN CODE R03 I am attaching ACH return-code documentation concerning R03 No Account/Unable to Locate Account. The R03 return reason does not mean insufficient funds. It does not mean the consumer refused to pay. It does not mean the consumer stopped payment. It does not mean the consumer revoked authorization. It does not mean the consumer intentionally failed to pay. R03 means the account number structure is valid and passes validation, but the account number either does not correspond to the individual identified in the entry or the designated account is not open. That distinction is critical. Goldman Sachs is attempting to use the R03 return as though it proves consumer fault. It does not. An R03 return may involve an account-location issue, name-matching issue, account-formatting issue, savings/share ID issue, transmission issue, routing issue, or other ACH communication problem between institutions. Goldman Sachs has not produced the ACH transmission data showing what account number, routing number, account type, name field, or payment-entry information it transmitted to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX Without that information, Goldman Sachs can not reasonably conclude that the return was caused by me. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ACCOUNT XXXX XXXX XXXX also attaching XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account documentation. XXXX XXXX records confirm that the XXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX exists, belongs to me, and is a savings account. XXXX XXXX documentation also identifies the account number for direct deposits and electronic withdrawals. This evidence is directly relevant because Goldman Sachs response relies on No Account/Unable to Locate Account, yet XXXX XXXX documentation confirms that the account was real and designated for electronic withdrawals. If Goldman Sachs contends that XXXX XXXX rejected the payment because the account did not correspond to the individual identified in the ACH entry, Goldman Sachs must produce the ACH entry showing exactly what name, account number, routing number, account type, and other identifying information was transmitted. If Goldman Sachs contends that the account was not open or not eligible for ACH transactions, Goldman Sachs must reconcile that claim with XXXX XXXX account documentation showing that the account existed and was designated for electronic withdrawals. GOLDMAN SACHS CUSTOMER AGREEMENT DOES NOT LIMIT PAYMENTS TO CHECKING ACCOUNTS ONLY I am also attaching the Apple Card Customer Agreement. The Apple Card Customer Agreement permits electronic payments from a bank account with a financial institution located in the United States. It defines such an account as a Payment Source Account. The agreement does not state that only checking accounts may be used for payment. It does not prohibit the use of a savings account as a Payment Source Account. Therefore, Goldman Sachs can not shift responsibility to me merely because the XXXX XXXX account was a savings account. XXXX XXXX documentation confirms that the savings account had an account number designated for electronic withdrawals, and Goldman Sachs own agreement does not limit Payment Source Accounts to checking accounts only. THE CAN NOT BE PROCESSED LANGUAGE DOES NOT RESOLVE CREDIT-REPORTING FAULT Goldman Sachs may attempt to rely on language in the Apple Card Customer Agreement stating that an account may be considered in default if the Minimum Payment Due is returned unpaid or can not be processed. That language does not resolve the credit-reporting issue. There is a difference between treating a returned payment as unpaid for internal account-servicing purposes and furnishing a derogatory 30-day late payment to XXXX XXXX and XXXX. I am not disputing that Goldman Sachs may internally treat a returned payment as unpaid. I am disputing Goldman Sachs decision to furnish a derogatory late payment when it has not established that the payment failure was caused by consumer fault. A consumer should not be punished with derogatory credit reporting because Goldman Sachs, Apple XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, or the ACH network could not match, locate, transmit, or process account information when the consumer provided valid payment information. Goldman Sachs can not rely solely on returned unpaid or can not be processed to shift responsibility to the consumer. If Goldman Sachs contends that the late payment was accurately reported, Goldman Sachs must identify the specific consumer-caused error that resulted in the failed payment. Goldman Sachs has not done so. GOLDMAN SACHS RESPONSE DOES NOT SAY THE CONSUMER WAS RESPONSIBLE Goldman Sachs CFPB response states that no Bank error occurred. Goldman Sachs also states that the payments were returned by the customers financial institution for No Account/Unable to Locate Account. But Goldman Sachs response does not state that I caused the payment failure. Goldman Sachs does not identify incorrect information entered by me. Goldman Sachs does not state that the account was not mine. Goldman Sachs does not state that I lacked funds. Goldman Sachs does not state that I stopped payment. Goldman Sachs does not state that I revoked authorization. Goldman Sachs does not state that I refused to pay. Goldman Sachs is attempting to prove only that Goldman Sachs was not at fault. That is not the same as proving consumer fault. There is a third possibility : the payment failure resulted from an ACH account-matching, account-formatting, savings/share ID, transmission, routing, or banking communication issue between institutions that was not caused by the consumer. That distinction matters because derogatory credit reporting should reflect consumer payment behavior. It should not punish a consumer for an unresolved banking communication issue between financial institutions. GOLDMAN SACHS RESPONSE IS ALSO INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT Goldman Sachs CFPB response states that the account was reported accurately. However, Goldman Sachs also states that XXXX XXXX and XXXX were not reporting the payment history correctly and that Goldman Sachs submitted a request to update the payment history. That admission is significant. If the credit reporting agencies were not reporting the payment history correctly, Goldman Sachs must identify exactly what was incorrect, what update was requested, and whether the disputed 30-day late payment was deleted, moved, modified, or otherwise changed. Goldman Sachs can not simultaneously maintain that the reporting was accurate while also acknowledging that all three credit bureaus were not reporting the payment history correctly. REQUEST FOR RELIEF I respectfully request that Goldman Sachs Bank USA be required to : 1. Delete the disputed 30-day late payment from XXXX XXXX, and XXXX. 2. Produce the ACH return records for the disputed payments, including the specific return codes, ACH trace numbers, return files, XXXX records, and payment-processing logs. 3. Produce the ACH transmission data showing the routing number, account number, account type, name field, and identifying information transmitted to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX Bank. 4. Produce all records supporting Goldman Sachs claim that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX Bank rejected the transactions for No Account/Unable to Locate Account. 5. Identify whether Goldman Sachs transmitted the XXXX XXXX account as checking or savings. 6. Explain how Goldman Sachs determined that the failed payments were caused by consumer fault rather than an account-location, account-matching, share ID, routing, transmission, or banking communication issue. 7. Explain what XXXX XXXX, and XXXX were allegedly reporting incorrectly and identify the exact correction Goldman Sachs submitted to each bureau. 8. Produce all records supporting Goldman Sachs conclusion that no banking error occurred. 9. Produce the complete notes, recordings, and internal findings associated with Case No. XXXX and all related cases. Again, I am not requesting a goodwill adjustment. I am requesting deletion of the 30-day late payment because Goldman Sachs has not established that the failed ACH payments resulted from consumer-caused nonpayment. Goldman Sachs has shown only that the payments failed. Goldman Sachs has not shown that I caused the failure. A consumer should not receive a derogatory 30-day late payment because financial institutions could not match, locate, transmit, or process account information within the ACH system when the consumer provided valid payment information and the payment failure was not NSF, lack of funds, stop payment, unauthorized payment, or refusal to pay.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation