Consumer complaint received 2025-08-28 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: IL

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern, I am writing in response to Goldman Sachs Bank XXXX reply dated XX/XX/year>, concerning my complaint regarding the Apple Card and its reporting to the credit bureaus. While the Bank asserts that no error occurred and has closed the matter, I respectfully disagree and request that the CFPB continue its review based on the following points : -- - 1. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), furnishers are required to conduct a reasonable investigation of disputes. Goldman Sachs response merely restates its internal records without demonstrating that it evaluated whether the information furnished was fair, accurate, complete, and not misleading.

Simply confirming that late payments appear in internal records does not satisfy the statutory requirement of a reasonable investigation.

There is no evidence the Bank reviewed potential systemic errors, payment posting delays, or electronic notice delivery failures that could have contributed to the alleged delinquency.

-- - 2. Incomplete and Misleading Reporting Even if late payments occurred, the FCRA mandates that data furnished must be both accurate and complete. Information can be technically accurate but still misleading, rendering it inaccurate under the FCRA.

Goldman Sachs did not address whether : All reported delinquencies were consistently reported to all three major credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ).

My accounts disputed status was properly noted, as required by law under 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( f ).

Contextual factors, such as system errors or payment processing issues, were considered before reporting derogatory information.

Without addressing these factors, the Bank can not claim its reporting was complete or lawful.

-- - 3. Inadequate Documentation and Validation While Goldman Sachs provided copies of the Apple Card Customer Agreement and account statements, this does not prove that the tradeline was reported accurately, lawfully, or fairly.

Under the FCRA, furnishers are required to do more than produce statements ; they must verify that the information provided to CRAs is correct, complete, and not misleading. The documentation offered does not satisfy that standard.

-- - 4. Procedural Deficiencies and Notice Failures The Bank claims that reminders were successfully delivered to my email address. However : I never acknowledged receipt of these alleged notices.

The Bank has provided no proof of actual delivery or receipt, only assertions that emails were sent.

Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) and FCRA, proper and documented notice is required when adverse reporting may occur.

Goldman Sachs failure to substantiate delivery of such notices demonstrates a procedural deficiency in its handling of this account.

-- - 5. Request for CFPB Review and Enforcement Given these unresolved issues, I respectfully request that the CFPB : Require Goldman Sachs to re-investigate this matter in compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ).

Ensure the Bank verifies that the reporting is fair, complete, and not misleading.

Confirm whether my accounts disputed status is being properly reported to all CRAs, as required by law.

Until Goldman Sachs demonstrates compliance with the FCRAs investigatory and accuracy standards, I maintain that the information furnished remains in dispute.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation