The Marcus by Goldman Sachs lawsuit landscape covers three main fronts: a 2024 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau enforcement action that fined Goldman Sachs Bank USA and Apple more than $89 million combined over Apple Card practices, an active class action in which bankruptcy debtors accuse Goldman of violating the federal automatic stay, and a wave of regulatory scrutiny that pushed the bank to wind down Marcus and hand the Apple Card program to JPMorgan Chase.
The CFPB Apple Card Enforcement Action
On October 23, 2024, the CFPB issued a consent order against Goldman Sachs Bank USA, along with a separate order against Apple Inc.1Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Goldman Sachs Bank USA Enforcement Action The bureau had been investigating the credit card account management practices since at least 2022.2CBS News. Goldman Sachs Credit Cards Under Investigation by the CFPB
The CFPB found that Goldman Sachs violated the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z by failing to send roughly 157,000 required acknowledgment notices and 145,000 resolution letters for billing disputes.3Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Goldman Sachs Bank USA Consent Order According to the bureau, Goldman also reported disputed charges to credit bureaus before completing required investigations and held consumers liable for unauthorized charges without proper review.1Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Goldman Sachs Bank USA Enforcement Action
The order also cited deceptive practices tied to the Apple Card Monthly Installments program. Consumers were misled into believing purchases of Apple devices would automatically be enrolled in interest-free installment plans, and the bank provided confusing information about how refunds were applied to accounts carrying both installment and non-installment balances.3Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Goldman Sachs Bank USA Consent Order The CFPB noted that the Apple Card launched on August 20, 2019, four days after an internal warning flagged that the dispute-handling system was “not fully ready.”1Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Goldman Sachs Bank USA Enforcement Action
Goldman was ordered to pay $19.8 million in redress to affected consumers and a $45 million civil penalty. Apple was separately fined $25 million.4CNN. Goldman Sachs Apple Card Fine The order also barred Goldman from launching any new credit card product unless it first submitted a credible compliance plan to the CFPB.5Banking Dive. CFPB Terminate Orders Apple Card Goldman consented without admitting or denying the findings.3Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Goldman Sachs Bank USA Consent Order
As of mid-2026, the CFPB’s consent order against Goldman remains in effect. The bureau terminated its separate order against Apple in September 2025, but Goldman’s obligations, including consumer remediation and compliance reforms, are still active.5Banking Dive. CFPB Terminate Orders Apple Card
Brown v. Goldman Sachs and the Automatic Stay
A separate class action has tested whether Marcus customers can be pushed into private arbitration when their claims arise from bankruptcy protections. In Brown et al v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA dba Marcus by Goldman Sachs, debtors filed suit in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia alleging that Goldman willfully violated the automatic stay, the federal protection that halts debt collection the moment a person files for bankruptcy, by continuing collection efforts on credit card debt after the debtors’ bankruptcies were filed.6U.S. Courts. Brown et al v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA7Findlaw. Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Brown
Goldman moved to compel arbitration under clauses in its customer agreements. Judge Paul Black denied the motion, finding an inherent conflict between the Federal Arbitration Act and the Bankruptcy Code. The court held that automatic-stay claims are constitutionally core to bankruptcy and that forcing them into arbitration would undermine fundamental debtor protections.8U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Virginia. Brown v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA
Goldman appealed. A district court affirmed the denial in March 2025, and on March 18, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed again. The appellate court agreed that automatic-stay claims are “statutorily and constitutionally core” bankruptcy matters and that compelling arbitration would conflict with the Bankruptcy Code’s goals, including centralized resolution of debtor-creditor disputes and enforcement of the fresh start policy. One judge dissented, arguing that existing Supreme Court precedent did not support finding an irreconcilable conflict.7Findlaw. Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Brown
Goldman then asked the Fourth Circuit to stay its ruling while the bank prepared a petition for U.S. Supreme Court review. The court denied that request on April 1, 2026.9Mediating Bankruptcy. Arbitrating an Automatic Stay Dispute – Goldman Sachs v. Brown Whether Goldman pursues Supreme Court review is not yet clear, and the underlying class action, including class certification, has not been resolved.
Arbitration in Marcus Customer Agreements
The Brown fight matters because arbitration has been Goldman’s default channel for Marcus disputes since 2019, when the bank introduced arbitration clauses into its customer agreements. To encourage customers to use the process rather than sue, the bank offered to cover certain arbitration expenses. Spokesperson Andrew Williams said the changes “give more power to our Marcus consumers while still maintaining the increased efficiency, cost-savings and flexibility afforded by arbitration.”10AdvisorHub. Goldman Offers Incentives to Keep Marcus Clients Away From Court Customers can opt out of the arbitration clause. Consumer advocates have criticized such clauses across the industry, arguing they limit accountability by keeping disputes out of court.11Bloomberg Law. Goldman Offers Incentives to Keep Marcus Clients Away From Court
The Apple Card Gender Discrimination Inquiry
In November 2019, software developer David Heinemeier Hansson posted on social media that his Apple Card credit limit was 20 times higher than his wife’s, even though they filed joint tax returns and she had a higher credit score.12The New York Times. Apple Credit Card Investigation The post went viral, and the New York Department of Financial Services opened an investigation into whether the credit-limit algorithm discriminated against women.
After reviewing underwriting data for roughly 400,000 New York applicants, the NYDFS published its findings in March 2021. It concluded that Goldman Sachs did not intentionally discriminate and found “no evidence of disparate impact,” stating that credit decisions were “explainable, lawful, and consistent with the Bank’s credit policy.” The investigation did note that “deficiencies in customer service and a perceived lack of transparency” had undermined consumer trust. Apple and Goldman later improved transparency for applicants and eliminated a policy requiring approved applicants to wait six months before appealing their credit terms.13Banking Dive. Goldman Sachs Gender Bias Claims Apple Card
Federal Reserve Scrutiny and Marcus Losses
The CFPB was not the only federal regulator examining Marcus. The Federal Reserve began a standard review of the consumer unit in 2021 that escalated into a formal investigation in 2022 focused on oversight, management, and governance of Marcus and its handling of customer issues.14PYMNTS. Federal Reserve Investigating Goldman Sachs Marcus Management and Governance The Fed had also issued a Cease and Desist Order against Goldman Sachs on October 22, 2020, which was terminated on December 4, 2025; the subject matter of that order was not publicly specified.15Federal Reserve. Enforcement Action Terminated
The regulatory pressure ran alongside heavy losses. Internal forecasts estimated the Marcus unit could post a record loss exceeding $1.2 billion.16Banking Dive. Goldman Sachs Cut Jobs Consumer Loans Marcus In the first quarter of 2023 alone, Goldman reported a $470 million loss tied to Marcus, driven by a partial sale of its personal loan portfolio and the reclassification of remaining loans from held-to-maturity to held-for-sale status.17Institutional Investor. Marcus Loss Overshadows Positives at Goldman Sachs
The Marcus Wind-Down and Apple Card Handoff to Chase
Goldman began retreating from consumer banking in October 2022, reorganizing Marcus by folding its consumer operations into the asset and wealth management division while creating a separate Platform Solutions unit for corporate partnerships. The bank cut about 400 jobs in the consumer division and stopped making personal loans through Marcus.16Banking Dive. Goldman Sachs Cut Jobs Consumer Loans Marcus By mid-2023, Goldman was actively winding down direct consumer lending and selling off loan assets.18Tearsheet. Goldman Sachs Winds Down Marcus Consumer Lending The bank also sold GreenSky, a home-improvement lending platform it had acquired, to a consortium led by Sixth Street in a deal completed on March 15, 2024.19Sixth Street. GreenSky Announces Completion of Acquisition by Sixth Street-Led Consortium
On January 7, 2026, Goldman Sachs, Apple, and JPMorgan Chase jointly announced that Chase would become the new issuer of the Apple Card.20Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs Announces Agreement to Transition Apple Card Program to Chase The deal covers more than $20 billion in credit card balances and is expected to take roughly 24 months, subject to regulatory approval.21JPMorgan Chase. Chase to Become New Issuer of Apple Card Goldman CEO David Solomon said the move “substantially completes the narrowing of our focus in our consumer business.” Existing cardholders can continue using their Apple Cards during the transition, and Mastercard will remain the payment network.22Apple. Chase to Become New Issuer of Apple Card The pending remediation obligations under the CFPB consent order stay with Goldman regardless of who issues the card going forward.