Consumer complaint received 2025-09-28 00:00:00
Product: Prepaid card — Payroll card
Issue: Problem with a purchase or transfer — Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer
Company: Netspend Corporation
State: KS

Complaint narrative:
Company : Netspend Corporation/ Skylight XXXX  ( XXXX, XXXX. issuer ) Product : Prepaid Card Disputes/ Account Closure Summary of Issue : Netspend/Skylight mishandled my Regulation E dispute rights, improperly closed my account, and failed to treat my evidence fairly regarding fraudulent transactions with XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX 

Dispute Details : Claim # XXXX {$640.00} Claim # XXXX {$4500.00} Timeline of Events : My very first dispute ( months earlier ) was unrelated it involved two casinos where I genuinely did not authorize the charges. Netspend credited me back for those. 

Later, I began playing XXXX XXXX XXXX and spent money there. I initially filed a dispute out of frustration, but Netspend denied it and said there was no error on their part. I accepted that outcome and continued using my account. 

After more time on XXXX XXXX, I discovered from their own terms that they promise XXXX coins per {$1.00} spent no matter what package is purchased. I realized they never honored this. I emailed the merchant repeatedly and collected evidence that every purchase I made on their site failed to deliver what was promised. 

On XX/XX/year>, I filed a new chargeback dispute against XXXX XXXX based on this evidence. 

That same day, Netspend retroactively changed the XXXX disputes status from denied to closed and told me they had combined my new dispute with the earlier one. 

When I called, they admitted they had gone to corporate for permission to escalate and close my account entirely. They labeled me as high risk because I had filed multiple disputes against casinos. 

What Netspend Told Me : They said this would not be treated as a normal Regulation E matter. 

They claimed they did not have to investigate my new evidence because of my prior dispute history. 

They closed both disputes and my entire account without my authorization. 

They also told me I am permanently barred from using their services. 

Why This Is Wrong : Regulation E requires that each dispute be investigated fairly and independently. Prior disputes can not be used as a reason to deny current, valid claims without review. 

My XXXX disputes ( # XXXX and # XXXX ) were never investigated on their own merits. 

The merchant ( XXXX XXXX ) has admitted in writing that they did not deliver what was purchased. My bank ignored this. 

Closing my account without my request, and labeling me high risk simply for filing disputes, is retaliation. 

This also left me without a way to receive my direct deposit paycheck, causing additional financial harm. 

Relief Requested : Full refund of the disputed transactions ( {$640.00} + {$4500.00} ). 

A full explanation of why my XX/XX/year> disputes were combined with my earlier XXXX dispute instead of being investigated separately. 

Assurance that Netspend will comply with Regulation E requirements and not bypass investigations because of prior dispute history. 

Restoration of my ability to use prepaid account services, or a written explanation of why that is being denied.

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 explanation