Consumer complaint received 2026-01-26 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: UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern : Re : XXXX  Reason Code 13.3 Not as Described or Defective Merchandise/Services I am submitting this document as a formal dispute complaint, appeal, and request for reconsideration regarding multiple online XXXX XXXX merchant transactions that occurred between XX/XX/year> and XX/XX/year>, processed through my USAA Visa Credit Card and USAA Visa Debit Card , including XXXX XXXX transactions. 

My disputes are based on material misrepresentation and non-delivery of what I agreed to purchasenot buyers remorse and not a gambling loss. I engaged with these merchants under the clear understanding that they were providing legal virtual coins and lawful entertainment to Minnesota consumers. However, in XX/XX/year>, I discovered these XXXX  operations are illegal in the State of Minnesota, meaning the product represented at the time of purchase could not lawfully be provided as promised. 

Stated simply : I agreed to purchase legal virtual coins and entertainment. What I was actually sold was an illegal virtual coin/entertainment product in Minnesota. That is a material difference and a fundamental failure of the merchants representations. These dispute grounds apply to all disputed transactions made using my USAA Visa Credit Card and USAA Visa Debit Card during the XXXX XXXX  timeframe. 



A. Material Misrepresentation : What I Agreed to Purchase vs. What Was Delivered These merchants induced transactions by representing that Minnesota consumers could lawfully participate and purchase their virtual coin/entertainment products. I relied on those representations in good faith. 

Because the underlying operations were illegal in Minnesota, the goods/services were not as described and were not lawfully deliverable as represented at the time of purchase. This is the basis for my disputes and should be evaluated as misrepresentation/ not as described under the applicable XXXX dispute framework. 



B. Evidence Submitted ( Non-Exhaustive, But Dispositive ) I have submitted 40+ pages of supporting evidence demonstrating repeated misrepresentations of legality and compliance, including : 1. Terms of Service screenshots listing prohibited states while not listing Minnesota as prohibited, creating the impression Minnesota participation was allowed.

2. Live chat screenshots where I requested confirmation of legality/compliance and the merchants representatives affirmatively misrepresented that the services were lawful/permitted.

3. Enrollment / onboarding screenshots again indicating Minnesota was not excluded or prohibited.

4. Minnesota Attorney General documentation addressing the same core issues I raised, including fraud, misrepresentation, deceptive business practices, and lack of consumer protections because these operations are unregulated and unlicensed in Minnesota.

This evidence directly supports my position that the merchants misrepresented their services as legal and compliant in Minnesota when they were not.

C. Additional Transaction-Level Issues ( Double Billing / Glitches / Non-Delivery of Bonuses ) In addition to the legality and misrepresentation issues, I continue to maintain that there were transaction-level failures including double billing, glitches, and failure to deliver promised bonuses/credits. These are additional grounds supporting merchant nonperformance and further demonstrate that the transactions were not delivered as represented.

D. Improper Lookback Standard Applied : XXXX Core Rules 120-Day Discovery vs. 60-Day Billing Rule A central issue in USAAs handling of these disputes is that USAA applied a 60-day lookback standard and treated that as controlling. That approach is not appropriate here because these disputes are based on delayed discovery of misrepresentation and illegality, not a simple billing error that could reasonably have been identified at the time of purchase. 

Under the XXXX  Core Rules/ XXXX  Product and Service Rules, XXXX  dispute rights include a 120-day timeframe tied to the date of discovery for disputes involving goods/services that were misrepresented or not provided as agreed. This 120-day discovery lookback is more generous than a standard 60-day billing dispute window, and it is warranted in my case because I could not have reasonably known at the time of the transactions ( XXXX XXXX  ) that the merchants were misrepresenting their operations as legal in Minnesota when they were in fact illegal.

Once I discovered the illegality and misrepresentation in XX/XX/year>, I acted immediately and in good faith : I stopped all activity, self-reported, and filed formal complaints with the Minnesota Attorney General and the FTC, and I began working directly with a Special Agent through the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement . I provided USAA supporting documentation including the applicable case number and my FTC complaint number, both of which were uploaded in my dispute materials.

USAAs use of an inflexible 60-day lookback improperly denies dispute rights that are specifically designed for circumstances like thiswhere the harm is not discoverable until later due to the merchants concealment and misrepresentation.

E. Why a Denial Based on Insufficient Evidence Is Not Supportable A conclusion of insufficient evidence ; cardholder responsible is not supportable here because the core issue is not subjective. The dispute record demonstrates a consistent pattern : these merchants induced transactions by representing legality and compliance, and I relied on those representations when making purchases using my USAA Visa Credit Card and USAA Visa Debit Card.

If USAA denies these disputes despite the extensive evidence submitted, it effectively rewards illegal and deceptive merchant conduct while leaving the consumer without protectioneven where the consumer acted in good faith and promptly reported the conduct upon discovery.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief