Consumer complaint received 2025-09-18 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Problem with customer service
Company: Paypal Holdings, Inc
State: OR

Complaint narrative:
Well i didnt know how to follow up about the other, so they decided instead of reclassifying my denial cases as I formally submitted appeals on each and every one of them that they would just wait, they kept blocking my talk of writing anything about XXXX mastercard rule in chat, denined me to speak with managers, or to even look at the laws against what they stated, Ive got a bunch of appeals they sat on since XXXX the original finally and i appealed same time that they denied and i found out, so they waited until today late at night so that they are no longer appealable despite having processed some under proper code and deny others however some of the things they say are untrue and illegal for the company they're denying me for, to do " They're allowed to change their terms of service anytime they want '' this is FALSE as a sweepstakes casino they can not do this as stated here : Correct. In the XXXX, a sweepstakes Official Rules operate as a binding contract and, once the promotion has begun, they generally can not be changed, with any deviation risking violations of contract and consumer protection laws. 

Binding contract Legal practitioners and guidance consistently treat Official Rules as the contract between sponsor and entrants, and emphasize that rules should not be altered mid-promotion. 

Florida and New York are noted as especially strict about post-launch changes, reinforcing the no changes after start norm across jurisdictions. 

Why this is enforced Preventing deception : Section 5 of the FTC Act bars unfair or deceptive acts or practices, making midstream changes that materially disadvantage entrants legally risky. 

Ensuring fairness : Changing rules can affect odds, eligibility, or prize termsmaterial elements that would be deemed unfair or deceptive if revised after entries have begun. 

Trust and integrity : Industry best practice and legal advisories stress that mid-promo changes undermine the promotions integrity and should be avoided.

Finalize and publish before start Best-practice legal guidance directs sponsors to finalize and publish clear Official Rules before launch, as these rules govern the entire promotion period. 

States like Florida require conspicuous posting of rules and treat misleading or incomplete disclosures as violations tied to deceptive practices. 

Limited, narrow exceptions Force majeure : Well-drafted rules may allow suspension, modification, or termination for events beyond control ( e.g., disasters, pandemics ), and legal guidance frames modification as a last resort under UDAP principles XXXX 

Compromised integrity : Rules may authorize actions to address cheating, fraud, or technical failures to protect fairness without altering core, material terms. 

Clear, material error : Counsel sometimes permits correcting obvious mistakes under tight conditions, with transparent notice and only where entrants are not harmed. 

Non-material edits : Minor, non-prejudicial corrections may be permissible, but legal guidance still urges avoiding changes once the promotion is live. 

ToS can not override law General Terms of Service reserving unilateral modification rights do not permit retroactive changes that reduce prizes, alter odds, or otherwise disadvantage entrants ; such conduct can be deemed unfair or deceptive under the FTC Act and state UDAP statutes. 

Legal advisories note that change-in-terms clauses are constrained by notice, assent, and consumer protection principles and can not be used to evade sweepstakes rules or mislead entrants. 

Enforcement landscape The FTC enforces Section 5s prohibitions on unfair or deceptive practices and has repeatedly applied these principles to prize promotions and related advertising. 

State regulators and attorneys general ( e.g., Floridas FDACS ) enforce specific sweepstakes statutes requiring conspicuous rules and truthful, non-deceptive conduct Plus where did I violate any terms of service? They company that they stated this for tried to deceive me, gaslight me over it, lie to me, and then when none of that worked and I said I'd prove that it still works as I stated they banned me to avoid me being able to actually do that and I have the email chain of that and its been sent to paypal plus under XXXX XXXX XXXX if they changed the classification as my many appeal letters asked ( which they had on a couple but then they passed my case off to the guy who kept censoring my chats when trying to even type XXXX or post a document with it in it, who wouldnt give me a XXXX except a fake one he tried having call me I actually ended the chat because after a week of dealing with it i got your guys email that you were investigating but paypal has gone as far to make false claims against my charges that are normal everyday for me charges and made me re upload my identiy documents etc which i noted I did reluctantly and yet they had given me credits on a few of these that they went and properly classified I believe since was so many they decided to just let it run out of time so they could then deny me that way because they were tired of the appeals and didnt want to change anythin like the one guy i showed him all the rules laws etc and he just refused to listen or budge this stuff can not be allowed to happen it is unfair to us consumers I have back issues and neck issues I make money anyway i can from home and that is why I was happy to find out that XXXX says if access to my virtual purchase was cut off that it counts as undelivered goods and i could have a refund was suppose to be quick and easy under such rule, but i filed these back in XXXX of this date, and yet as mentioned they're just giving me bs that ive countered many times when asking for my reclassifications these were all denied like instantly then I appealed them with the reclassfication request and then for most part ive been waiting for two months for news and they just waited the clock out where they dont have to do anything even though I did everything in my power provided all they asked for etc went through paypals gaslighting, harrassment, denial to managers, all so they can do this on the last day of the cases? that doesnt seem like it should be legal.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation