Goldman Sachs denied your Apple Card dispute — what you can do about it

Apple Card is not issued by Apple. It is issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City Branch, and Goldman — not Apple — is the creditor on the account and the party that must investigate your dispute. If Goldman denied a fraud claim or a billing dispute on an Apple Card, the Fair Credit Billing Act (“FCBA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1666 et seq., and the unauthorized-use rules of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1643, may have required a timely acknowledgment, a reasonable investigation, and a written explanation before you could be held liable for a dollar. If the problem is on an Apple Savings account or a Marcus deposit account, a different statute — the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”) and Regulation E — does the same work. And if the Apple Card was opened in your name by someone else, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) governs how the bureaus and Goldman must handle the account once you dispute it. Preserve the denial, your statements, and the timeline of what you reported and when; TILA and the EFTA each carry a one-year limitations period (15 U.S.C. §§ 1640(e), 1693m(g)).

Kane Law Firm currently represents consumers in pending matters involving Goldman Sachs Bank USA (as of October 2026), and has handled matters in which a Goldman Sachs card account was opened fraudulently in someone else’s name. The firm is admitted in New Jersey, New York and Maryland and handles consumer arbitrations outside those states as permitted by applicable rules.

What to do right now

1. Re-dispute in writing to Lockbox 6112, P.O. Box 7247, Philadelphia, PA 19170-6112, setting out the full factual basis rather than simply objecting to the outcome, and send it so that you can prove delivery.
2. Request the documents Goldman relied on in that same letter. Regulation Z entitles you to them.
3. Consult a consumer-protection attorney before paying the disputed amount to make the interest stop; you may not need to. If the amount has been reported as delinquent, dispute it through each bureau — not only with Goldman — so that the FCRA duty attaches.
4. Preserve everything listed above and stop deleting anything, including the Messages thread.
5. If the card was opened in your name by someone else, file an FTC Identity Theft Report and a police report, request the application records from Goldman under 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(e), and dispute the account with all three credit bureaus — see the identity-theft section below.
6. Talk to a consumer-protection lawyer. TILA, the EFTA and the FCRA each allow a court or arbitrator to award reasonable attorney’s fees in a successful action. Kane Law Firm handles these matters on a contingent-fee basis; the engagement agreement explains how costs are handled.

Move quickly. TILA’s limitations period is one year from the violation (15 U.S.C. § 1640(e)), and the EFTA’s is the same (§ 1693m(g)). A strong claim can be lost to the calendar alone. The rest of this article explains why each of these steps matters.

Who you are actually dealing with

Three consumer products carry the Goldman Sachs name, and the answer to “which law applies” depends on which one you have:

1. Apple Card. A Mastercard credit card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA. Apple designs the Wallet interface and runs the Messages support channel, but Goldman is the issuer and creditor, decides disputes, and reports to the credit bureaus. Disputes are governed by the FCBA and TILA.
2. Apple Savings. A deposit account provided by Goldman Sachs Bank USA and accessed through Apple Wallet. Transfers out of it are electronic fund transfers, so unauthorized withdrawals and transfer errors are governed by the EFTA and Regulation E.
3. Marcus by Goldman Sachs. Goldman’s direct-to-consumer brand for online savings accounts and certificates of deposit. Same analysis as Apple Savings: the EFTA governs electronic transfers from a consumer deposit account.

One more thing to know. On January 7, 2026, Goldman and Apple announced that the Apple Card program will transition to JPMorgan Chase over approximately 24 months, subject to regulatory approval. Until that closes, Goldman continues to operate the program and remains the party responsible for your dispute. The current agreement also states that the arbitration provision survives any sale or assignment of the account and binds the buyer — so a pending claim does not disappear when the portfolio changes hands.

Related reading: Wells Fargo denied your fraud claim — what you can do about it · Chime denied your dispute? Your EFTA and FCBA rights · How to dispute a credit card charge — and what to do when the bank says no · Someone opened a credit card in my name — what to do

Which law covers your Goldman Sachs dispute?

Different rules may apply to a traditional wire transfer (excluded from Regulation E by 12 C.F.R. § 1005.3(c)(3), though at least one court has held the EFTA still covers the consumer’s own online instruction that starts a wire), to an Apple Cash balance (a prepaid product issued by Green Dot Bank, not Goldman), and to a payment you were deceived into authorizing yourself. Classification depends on how the transaction was actually initiated and processed — which is exactly what a case review determines.

What the Fair Credit Billing Act required Goldman to do

The FCBA treats a credit-card dispute as a “billing error.” That phrase covers more than arithmetic: an extension of credit not made to you or to a person authorized to use your account, a charge in the wrong amount, a charge for goods or services you did not accept or that were not delivered as agreed, and a failure to credit a payment or refund all qualify under 15 U.S.C. § 1666 and 12 C.F.R. § 1026.13(a).

Once the creditor receives a written billing-error notice at the address it designates — for Apple Card, that is Lockbox 6112, P.O. Box 7247, Philadelphia, PA 19170-6112 — within 60 days after it sent the first statement showing the error, the creditor must, in general:

1. Acknowledge the notice in writing within 30 days of receiving it, unless the error has already been corrected;
2. Conduct a reasonable investigation and either correct the error or send a written explanation of why the bill is correct within two complete billing cycles — never more than 90 days (12 C.F.R. § 1026.13(c), (f));
3. Refrain, while the dispute is pending, from collecting the disputed amount, closing or restricting the account because of it, or reporting it as delinquent to any credit bureau (15 U.S.C. § 1666a; 12 C.F.R. § 1026.13(d));
4. Provide, on request, copies of the documentary evidence it relied on if it concludes no error occurred (12 C.F.R. § 1026.13(f)(2)); and
5. If it denies the dispute and you write back within the payment window saying you still dispute the amount, report the amount as delinquent only if it also reports that the amount is in dispute, tells you the name and address of everyone it reported to, and later reports any resolution to those same parties (15 U.S.C. § 1666a(b)–(c)).

A creditor that fails to follow these procedures forfeits its right to collect the first $50 of the disputed amount, even if the bill turns out to be correct (15 U.S.C. § 1666(e)). More importantly for a consumer who was actually wronged, the failure is a TILA violation with its own damages and fee-shifting, discussed below.

Unauthorized use: the $50 rule, and Goldman’s own zero-liability promise

An unauthorized transaction is a billing error, but it is also something more. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1643 and 12 C.F.R. § 1026.12(b), a cardholder’s liability for unauthorized use of a credit card is capped at $50 — and that cap applies whether or not the consumer sent a billing-error letter within 60 days. The burden of proving that a use was authorized, or that the conditions for imposing even the $50 are met, rests on the card issuer, not the cardholder (15 U.S.C. § 1643(b)).

Goldman has gone further by contract. The current Apple Card Customer Agreement states, in its “Your Liability for Unauthorized Transactions” section: “You will not be liable for any unauthorized transactions made on your Account.” A denial letter that holds you responsible for a charge you did not make and did not authorize is therefore not only a potential TILA problem; it is also a potential breach of Goldman’s own agreement.

The agreement does define authorized use broadly — it treats transactions by anyone to whom you gave your physical card, your device passcode, or your credentials as yours. But a thief who steals a phone, a scammer who takes over an Apple Account, or a merchant who runs a card number without permission is not someone you “authorized,” and the FCBA’s definition of unauthorized use, not the bank’s denial template, controls.

The credit-reporting problem

One of the CFPB’s specific findings against Goldman was that it made adverse reports to the credit bureaus about amounts consumers had disputed before the billing-error process was complete. That conduct violates 15 U.S.C. § 1666a directly. It can also open a second statute. If a disputed Apple Card balance appears on your Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion report as delinquent or charged off, a dispute routed through the bureau triggers Goldman’s duty under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), to conduct a reasonable investigation and correct what it reported. In the Third Circuit, that privately enforceable duty is triggered only by a dispute sent through the bureau, not by complaining to the bank alone — see the trap in disputing directly with your bank: SimmsParris v. Countrywide and how to remove a charge-off from your credit report.

An Apple Card opened in your name: the identity-theft case

A different problem arrives the same way — a Goldman Sachs tradeline on your credit report, a statement, or a collection call — but with a twist: you never applied for the card at all. Apple Card can be opened entirely from a phone, and an impostor with your personal information and a device can do it. Three bodies of law apply, and a fourth question — which forum — deserves its own paragraph.

You owe nothing on the account. TILA limits a cardholder’s liability for unauthorized use to $50, and only where the card is an “accepted credit card” and the other statutory conditions are met (15 U.S.C. § 1643(a)). A card you never requested or used is not an accepted card, and the burden of proving otherwise is on the issuer (§ 1643(b)). Goldman’s own agreement, as noted above, promises zero liability for unauthorized transactions.

You are entitled to the application and transaction records. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(e), a business that opened an account in your name must give you copies of the application and transaction records within 30 days after it receives your written request, mailed to the address it specifies, with proof of your identity and, if the business requires them, a police report and an identity theft affidavit. For Apple Card, send that request to the Philadelphia lockbox. Those records — the device, the IP address, the email and phone used — are frequently the evidence that proves the fraud.

The credit bureaus must block it, and Goldman must investigate. Under FCRA § 605B, 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-2, a credit bureau generally must block identity-theft information within four business days after it receives proof of your identity, a copy of your identity theft report (the FTC report from IdentityTheft.gov qualifies), identification of the account, and your statement that it is not yours; a bureau may decline or rescind a block in limited cases, such as error or misrepresentation. Separately, once you send the identity theft report to Goldman at the address it designates, Goldman generally may not keep furnishing the account (§ 1681s-2(a)(6)(B)) — but that duty is enforced by regulators, not by private suit. Your private claim against Goldman arises under § 1681s-2(b): once a bureau forwards your dispute, Goldman must conduct a reasonable investigation and correct or delete what it reported. That is why the dispute must go through Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, not only to Goldman.

One Third Circuit caution. In Migliore v. Vision Solar LLC, 160 F.4th 79 (3d Cir. 2025) (amended opinion), the court held that lenders who pulled a fraud victim’s credit report for a loan application forged in her name had a permissible purpose under the FCRA, so the victim could not sue them for the pull itself. The practical lesson for an Apple Card identity-theft case in New Jersey, Pennsylvania or Delaware is to build the case on the reporting — against the bureaus under §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i, and against Goldman under § 1681s-2(b) — rather than on the application. Other circuits have read the statute differently, and the Supreme Court declined to take the question up. See Migliore v. Vision Solar: a hard lesson for identity-theft victims.

Forum: court may be available. The arbitration provision discussed below is part of the Apple Card Customer Agreement, and a person who never applied for, accepted, or used the account never agreed to it. Whether any enforceable arbitration agreement exists is therefore a threshold question, and an identity-theft victim has a strong argument that it does not — which means the FCRA claim can be filed in federal court. Goldman may still move to compel arbitration, and the issue would be litigated. The analysis is different if the fraud was a takeover of an account you did open: there, the agreement you accepted still applies. Consult a consumer lawyer before choosing a forum.

If a debt collector starts calling about the fraudulent balance, that is a separate problem under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which carries its own one-year limitations period (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d)). New Jersey residents also have the state Fair Credit Reporting Act, N.J.S.A. 56:11-28 et seq., layered on top of the federal statute.

What regulators have already found

On October 23, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued consent orders against Goldman Sachs Bank USA and Apple Inc. over Apple Card. According to the Bureau, Goldman’s board was warned on August 16, 2019 that the Apple Card disputes system was “not fully ready,” and the card launched four days later anyway. The Bureau found that Goldman violated TILA and Regulation Z by failing to send acknowledgment notices and resolution letters within the required periods; by making adverse reports to consumer reporting agencies about amounts under dispute before the billing-error process was complete; by failing to conduct reasonable investigations of disputes that qualified as billing-error notices; and by holding consumers liable for unauthorized use before conducting a reasonable investigation. It also found that Goldman’s delays in resolving disputes were an unfair practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, and that Goldman misled consumers about automatic enrollment in Apple Card Monthly Installments and about how refunds were applied.

Goldman was ordered to pay at least $19.8 million in consumer redress and a $45 million civil money penalty, and was barred from launching a new consumer credit card without first submitting a compliance plan. Apple was ordered to pay a $25 million penalty for, among other things, failing to forward tens of thousands of Wallet disputes to Goldman at all. Goldman consented without admitting or denying the findings.

Why this matters to an individual consumer: a government order does not decide your case, and the redress program covered specific disputes during specific periods. But the order is a public, detailed description of the exact failures — late letters, no real investigation, liability imposed before investigating, disputed amounts on credit reports — that the FCBA gives you a private right to sue over. If your denial fits that pattern, you are not describing something unusual.

As of October 21, 2026, the CFPB’s docket for the Goldman order (File No. 2024-CFPB-0011) shows it in post-order status with no termination. The Bureau terminated the companion order against Apple on September 22, 2025. Termination of an order would not affect the findings already made or a consumer’s private rights.

Apple Savings and Marcus: Regulation E

If the money left a deposit account rather than a credit line, the EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq., and Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. Part 1005, govern instead. In short: once you give notice of an error, orally or in writing, Goldman generally must investigate within ten business days, or provisionally credit the amount (with narrow exceptions) and finish within 45 or 90 days; correct any error; explain in writing if it finds none; and provide the documents it relied on when you ask (12 C.F.R. § 1005.11). Your liability for unauthorized transfers is limited by 12 C.F.R. § 1005.6. The Deposit Account Agreement that governs Apple Savings has its own arbitration provision and its own 90-day rejection window, separate from the Apple Card provision. For the full Regulation E walk-through, see my bank won’t refund an unauthorized charge and provisional credit reversed.

Signs the investigation may not have been reasonable

None of the following is automatically a violation. Each is the kind of fact that, depending on the record, may be evidence that Goldman’s investigation fell short of what the FCBA or Regulation E requires:

• A denial that arrives within days of the dispute, with no request for a statement, a police report, or any information from you;
• A denial that says only that the transaction was “valid,” “authorized,” or made with your device, without addressing the facts you reported — a stolen phone, a compromised Apple Account, a merchant you have never heard of;
• No written acknowledgment within 30 days (unless the dispute was fully resolved in that time), or no written explanation of the outcome at all;
• A resolution that arrives after 90 days;
• The disputed amount being collected as part of your minimum payment, or reported to a credit bureau as delinquent, while the dispute is pending (reporting that the amount is in dispute is permitted; reporting it as delinquent is not);
• Refusal or failure to provide the documents Goldman relied on after you asked for them in writing;
• A denial resting on the fact that the transaction was made through Apple Pay or with Face ID — which establishes how the charge was made, not who made it.

What the current Apple Card agreement actually says about arbitration

Unless you rejected arbitration within 90 days of opening the account, or are covered by the Military Lending Act, either party may elect to resolve a claim by binding individual arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act — and Goldman can be expected to elect it, so in practice most claims by cardholders end up there. (A person who never opened or accepted the account is in a different position; see the identity-theft section above.) JAMS is the default administrator under its Streamlined Arbitration Rules; claims may also be referred to the American Arbitration Association under its Consumer Arbitration Rules. The provision expressly covers claims by or against Apple Inc. and its affiliates, so Apple cannot be sued separately in court to avoid it. There is a jury-trial waiver and a class-action waiver, with the familiar wrinkle that if the individual-claims-only clause is held unenforceable as to a claim, the arbitration provision does not apply to that claim at all. The one exception is small claims court: Goldman agrees not to compel arbitration of an individual claim you bring there, so long as it stays there.

The procedure is unusually consumer-friendly on paper. A single arbitrator decides the claim, and the agreement requires that the arbitrator be a lawyer with at least ten years of experience who is a former or retired judge. Any in-person hearing takes place in the federal judicial district where you live. The arbitrator applies substantive law, honors statutes of limitations, and is “empowered to grant whatever relief would be available in court under law or in equity” — which means the TILA and EFTA remedies travel with the claim.

On cost: Goldman pays all arbitration fees, including the arbitrator’s fees and every filing, administrative, and hearing fee the administrator charges. You bear your own costs “unless applicable law provides otherwise,” and TILA and the EFTA are such laws, because each allows a court or arbitrator to award a prevailing consumer’s reasonable attorney’s fees.

Then there is the provision that makes an Apple Card arbitration different from most. The agreement contains an additional-award clause: if Goldman makes a final written settlement offer before the arbitrator is selected and the arbitrator rules in your favor for more than that offer — or if Goldman makes no offer and you win on the merits — the award must include (1) the money you are entitled to, but in no case less than $10,000; (2) twice your reasonable attorney’s fees, or the fees you are entitled to under applicable law, whichever is greater; and (3) your costs and expert and other witness fees. And if Goldman prevails, it may not recover its own attorney’s fees even where the law would otherwise allow it. In practical terms, a well-supported claim over a few hundred dollars of unauthorized charges carries a contractual floor of $10,000 if Goldman refuses to resolve it and loses.

Account agreements change, and the transition to Chase will eventually bring a new one. Confirm the version governing your account before filing anything.

What you can recover if the FCBA, EFTA or FCRA was violated

Remedies depend on the statute invoked and the facts proven, and no outcome can be promised. Where a TILA/FCBA violation is established on a credit-card account, 15 U.S.C. § 1640 generally allows:

1. Actual damages — the amount wrongly charged, interest and fees on it, and in appropriate cases consequential harms such as credit damage;
2. Statutory damages in an individual action on an open-end credit plan not secured by a dwelling of twice the finance charge involved, but not less than $500 and not more than $5,000;
3. In a successful action, costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court or arbitrator (15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(3)); and
4. Forfeiture of the first $50 of the disputed amount under 15 U.S.C. § 1666(e), independent of the above.

Where an EFTA violation is established on a deposit account, 15 U.S.C. § 1693m generally allows actual damages, statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 in an individual action, and, in a successful action, costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee (§ 1693m(a)(3)). Treble damages are available under 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(e) if the bank (1) failed to provisionally recredit within ten business days and either did not make a good-faith investigation or had no reasonable basis for believing there was no error, or (2) knowingly and willfully concluded there was no error when that conclusion could not reasonably have been drawn from the available evidence.

Where an Apple Card tradeline was reported inaccurately and not corrected after a bureau dispute, the FCRA adds its own remedies: for a willful violation, actual damages or statutory damages of $100 to $1,000, plus punitive damages; for a negligent violation, actual damages; and in a successful action, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs (15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o). To sue in federal court you must still show a concrete harm, such as the inaccurate report actually being sent to a lender (TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021)).

In arbitration, the agreement’s additional-award clause interacts with these remedies in a specific way: when its conditions are met, it sets a floor of $10,000 on the monetary award — it does not add $10,000 on top of damages otherwise awarded — and separately requires doubled attorney’s fees and costs.

A hypothetical from dispute to resolution (not a real case)

The following is a hypothetical illustration only. It is not a description of any actual client, case, or matter handled by this firm, and it does not include or imply any result.

1. A consumer’s iPhone is taken from a restaurant table. Before she can lock it, several Apple Pay purchases totaling $1,900 post to her Apple Card at stores she has never visited.
2. She reports the theft through Messages that night, files a police report the next morning, and follows up with a letter to the Philadelphia lockbox within the week, enclosing the police report.
3. Four days after the letter is received, a response arrives: the transactions were made with Face ID on her registered device and are therefore “valid.” Nothing in the letter addresses the theft or the police report. The $1,900 remains in her balance, interest accrues on it, and the next statement shows it as past due.
4. She writes back, sets out the full timeline — the theft, the time the device was reported lost, the locations of the purchases relative to her own — and asks for the documents Goldman relied on. She keeps proof of delivery.
5. The response repeats the original conclusion and does not include the file. The following month, a 30-day late notation appears on her credit report for the Apple Card account.

That record — a denial that answers “how” but not “who,” no documents, a disputed amount collected and reported as delinquent — is what a lawyer would evaluate against 15 U.S.C. §§ 1666, 1666a and 1643, and, once a bureau dispute is sent, § 1681s-2(b). It is also the fact pattern the CFPB described in 2024.

What to save

• Every dispute confirmation: the Messages thread (screenshot it — in-app chats can disappear), claim numbers, dates, and the name of anyone you spoke with;
• The denial letter and every later communication, in full;
• Monthly statements covering the disputed charges and the months on either side;
• Any police report, Apple Account security notifications, Find My history, and device-lock timestamps;
• A copy of your credit reports from all three bureaus, so you can show what Goldman reported and when;
• Proof of receipt for anything you mailed — certified-mail receipts or delivery confirmations.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue Goldman Sachs over a denied Apple Card dispute?

Under the current Apple Card Customer Agreement, either side may elect to resolve a claim by binding individual arbitration — JAMS by default, or the AAA — unless you rejected arbitration within 90 days of opening the account or are covered by the Military Lending Act; Goldman can be expected to elect it. Either way you may bring an individual claim in small claims court. If you never opened or accepted the account at all, whether any arbitration agreement binds you is a threshold question — see the identity-theft FAQ below. The substantive rights are the same in every forum: the FCBA, TILA, and Regulation Z still apply, and the remedies travel with the claim.

Do I bring the claim against Goldman or against Apple?

Goldman Sachs Bank USA is the issuer and creditor and bears the statutory duties to investigate. Apple designs the interface and operates the support channel, and the CFPB separately found that Apple failed to forward disputes. The arbitration provision covers claims against both, so a demand can name both where the facts support it.

Goldman says the charge was made with my device and Face ID. Doesn’t that end it?

No. That establishes the means of the transaction, not the identity of the person who made it. A stolen device, a compromised Apple Account, or a passcode observed over your shoulder all produce transactions that look like yours. The FCBA requires a reasonable investigation into whether the use was in fact authorized, and the burden of proof on that question is on the issuer.

How long did Goldman have to resolve my dispute?

For an Apple Card billing-error notice: a written acknowledgment within 30 days, and a resolution within two complete billing cycles, never more than 90 days. For an Apple Savings or Marcus transfer under Regulation E: generally ten business days, extendable to 45 or 90 days generally only if a provisional credit is issued.

Can Goldman report the disputed amount to the credit bureaus?

It may not report the disputed amount as delinquent, or threaten to, while a properly noticed billing-error dispute is pending (15 U.S.C. § 1666a(a)). It may report that the amount is in dispute, and undisputed amounts you do not pay can still be reported. After it denies the dispute, if you write back that you still dispute the amount, it may report the amount as delinquent only if it also reports that the amount is in dispute and tells you to whom it reported. Reporting disputed amounts adversely before the billing-error process was complete was one of the CFPB’s specific findings against Goldman in 2024.

What does the arbitration cost me?

Under the current agreement, nothing in arbitration fees: Goldman pays the arbitrator’s fees and all filing, administrative, and hearing fees. If you win more than Goldman’s last written offer, the agreement requires an award of at least $10,000, twice your reasonable attorney’s fees, and your costs. If Goldman wins, it cannot recover its own attorney’s fees from you. Your arrangement with your own lawyer, including responsibility for costs, is governed by your engagement agreement.

What happens to my dispute when the Apple Card moves to Chase?

The transition announced in January 2026 is expected to take about 24 months and is subject to regulatory approval. Until it closes, Goldman operates the program and is responsible for your dispute. The agreement provides that the arbitration provision survives a sale of the account and binds the buyer, and a violation that occurred while Goldman was the creditor remains Goldman’s violation.

Someone opened an Apple Card in my name. What do I do?

File an FTC Identity Theft Report at IdentityTheft.gov and a police report. Send Goldman a written request under 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(e) for the application and transaction records, and a copy of the identity theft report, to the Philadelphia lockbox. Then dispute the account in writing with each of the three credit bureaus, enclosing the identity theft report and asking for a § 1681c-2 block. The bureau disputes are what trigger Goldman’s privately enforceable duty to investigate under § 1681s-2(b). You owe nothing on the account under TILA, and a bureau or furnisher that fails to handle the dispute reasonably may be liable under the FCRA. On forum: the arbitration clause is part of an agreement you never accepted, so whether it binds you at all is a threshold question, and the FCRA claim can be filed in federal court — though Goldman may still move to compel arbitration and the issue would be litigated. That is different from a takeover of an account you did open, where the agreement you accepted still applies. Talk to a consumer lawyer before choosing a forum.

Is there a deadline?

Yes. TILA and the EFTA each carry a one-year limitations period from the violation (15 U.S.C. §§ 1640(e), 1693m(g)). Separately, a billing-error notice must reach the issuer within 60 days after it sent the first statement showing the error to trigger the FCBA’s procedural protections — though the $50 cap on unauthorized use does not depend on that notice.

Can Kane Law Firm help outside New Jersey?

Often, yes. Because most of these matters proceed in consumer arbitration, and because the Apple Card agreement places any hearing in the federal judicial district where the consumer lives, geography matters far less than it does in court. Noah Kane is admitted in New Jersey, New York and Maryland; arbitrations elsewhere are handled as permitted by applicable rules.

Talk to a lawyer about your denied Apple Card or Apple Savings dispute

If Goldman Sachs denied a fraud claim, charged you for a transaction you did not make, reported a disputed amount to the credit bureaus, is reporting an Apple Card you never opened, or left a dispute unanswered, contact Kane Law Firm for a free consultation. Call (908) 427-3348 or use the contact form. No fee unless we recover for you; the engagement agreement explains how costs are handled.