Consumer complaint received 2026-05-20 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: ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Accounts involved : * Robinhood XXXX XXXX ending in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ending in XXXX Complaint narrative I am filing this complaint against XXXX XXXX Bank, the issuer of both my Robinhood XXXX XXXX Credit Card and XXXX XXXX Credit Card, for failing to properly investigate and process my disputes involving XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Both the Robinhood XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX are XXXX credit cards issued by XXXX XXXX Bank. My disputes involve the same merchant, the same type of transactions, the same factual basis, and materially similar evidence. The purchases were for in-game digital currency called XXXX XXXX, which are used inside the XXXX game to upgrade castles and heroes. The merchant advertises the game as a competitive Player-vs-Player PvP environment. My dispute is not simply that XXXX XXXX did or did not appear in my account. The central issue is that the XXXX XXXX were sold for use in a materially misrepresented service environment. The merchant marketed a fair, competitive PvP game, but my evidence shows that the environment was allegedly manipulated by undisclosed bots, artificial engagement, and paid actors used to create fake competition and spending pressure. I provided evidence including screenshots of the merchants PvP advertising, purchase records, merchant terms, player logs, and statements from supposed players asking whether they were being paid by developers to hype up the server. This evidence directly supports the claim that the PvP environment was not organic, fair, or as advertised. XXXX XXXX used in a legitimate PvP environment are materially different from XXXX XXXX used in a manipulated ecosystem controlled or influenced by undisclosed bots, paid actors, or artificial mechanics. Therefore, the goods and services were not delivered as described or as agreed. XXXX dispute basis These disputes should have been processed under the applicable XXXX consumer dispute conditions, including : XXXX Dispute Condition 13.3 Not as Described or Defective Merchandise/Services. XXXX public rules identify this category for situations where goods or services do not match what was described at the time of the transaction. XXXX also requires the merchant/acquirer response to provide evidence that the merchandise or service matched what was described and to rebut the cardholders claims. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Misrepresentation. This is relevant because the merchant allegedly misrepresented the core terms and nature of the service environment by advertising a PvP game while failing to disclose artificial engagement, bots, paid actors, or manipulated competition. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Merchandise/Services Not Received . This became independently relevant after the merchant revoked my account access as of XX/XX/year>, preventing me from accessing or using the purchased XXXX XXXX and related services while retaining my funds. The merchant may argue that XXXX XXXX were technically credited. That response does not resolve the actual dispute. The goods were purchased for use in an advertised fair PvP service environment. If that environment was materially misrepresented, and later access to the account was revoked entirely, the dispute can not be fairly reduced to whether digital currency was initially credited. Prior favorable XXXX dispute outcomes This matter is also supported by the fact that XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, both XXXX card issuers, reviewed materially similar evidence involving the same merchant and resolved disputes in my favor. I understand that XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX outcomes are not automatically binding on XXXX XXXX Bank. However, they are highly relevant because they demonstrate that my claim is bona fide, evidence-based, and capable of being processed successfully under XXXX dispute workflows. XXXX XXXX Bank should not dismiss or mishandle the same type of XXXX dispute by focusing only on whether XXXX XXXX appeared in an account ledger while ignoring the misrepresented service environment and later account revocation. XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX Robinhood / XXXX failure XXXX XXXX Bank, through the Robinhood XXXX XXXX and XXXX Card dispute process, appears to have failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. The dispute was improperly narrowed to whether digital currency was technically delivered, instead of whether the goods and services were delivered as described, as agreed, and under the represented terms of sale. This is a flawed dispute analysis because : 1. The merchant advertised XXXX as a PvP game. 2. The XXXX XXXX were purchased specifically for use in that advertised PvP environment. 3. My evidence shows the PvP environment was allegedly manipulated by bots, paid actors, and artificial engagement. 4. The merchants own terms prohibit bots and unauthorized methods in the name of fair play, while the merchant failed to disclose its own alleged artificial engagement. 5. T he merchants Fair Operation Statement acknowledges abnormal mechanics and unauthorized methods. 6. The merchant revoked my account access on XX/XX/year>. 7. XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX reviewed materially similar XXXX disputes and resolved them in my favor. Under Regulation Z, a credit-card billing error includes disputes involving goods or services that were not accepted or were not delivered as agreed. The CFPBs Regulation Z guidance also states that a consumer does not have to first resolve the dispute with the merchant before notifying the creditor of a billing error. XXXX XXXX Bank should have reviewed the complete evidence and applied the correct XXXX dispute conditions. Instead, the dispute appears to have been misclassified or oversimplified, allowing the merchant to avoid liability by relying on the incomplete argument that virtual currency was initially credited. Requested resolution I respectfully request that the CFPB require XXXX XXXX Bank, Robinhood Credit , Inc., and XXXX to : 1. Reopen and reprocess all disputed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX transactions on both my Robinhood XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX accounts. 2. Evaluate the disputes under the correct XXXX dispute conditions, including XXXX XXXX Not as Described or Defective Merchandise/Services , XXXX XXXX Misrepresentation, and/or XXXX XXXX Merchandise/Services Not Received . 3. Permanently credit all disputed transactions, including related interest, fees, or finance charges. 4. Provide a written explanation identifying the exact XXXX dispute condition used for each transaction. 5. Confirm whether the disputes were submitted through XXXX dispute system for both the Robinhood XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. 6. Confirm whether pre-arbitration or further dispute escalation was pursued after any merchant/acquirer response. 7. Provide copies of any merchant representment evidence used to deny, reject, or reverse provisional credits. 8. Explain why XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX reached favorable outcomes on materially similar XXXX disputes involving the same merchant and evidence, while XXXX XXXX Bank failed to reach the same result. 9. Remove or suppress any negative credit reporting, interest, fees, penalties, delinquency status, or adverse account treatment related to these disputed transactions. 10. Confirm that all supporting evidence was reviewed, including PvP advertising screenshots, XXXX XXXX purchase records, Terms of Service, Fair Operation Statement, bot/paid-actor logs, account revocation evidence, and favorable outcomes from XXXX and XXXX of XXXX. Closing statement This is not buyers remorse and not a simple digital-currency delivery issue. I purchased XXXX XXXX for use in an advertised fair PvP competitive environment. The evidence shows that the environment was materially misrepresented, artificially manipulated, and later made inaccessible after my account was revoked. XXXX XXXX Bank should not allow the merchant to avoid XXXX dispute liability by claiming that XXXX XXXX were technically credited while ignoring the misrepresented service environment, artificial competition, and later loss of access. I request a proper investigation, reprocessing of the disputes under the correct XXXX dispute conditions, and permanent credit for the disputed transactions on both my Robinhood XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX accounts.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation