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: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Barclays for failing to properly investigate and process my credit card disputes with case no ( XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX involving purchases from XXXX XXXX / XXXX. The disputed transactions were for in-game digital currency called XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX are used inside the X-Clash game to upgrade castles and heroes. The merchant advertises the game as a competitive XXXX XXXX environment. My dispute is not simply that the XXXX XXXX failed to appear in an account ledger. My dispute is that the virtual goods were sold for use in a materially misrepresented service environment. The merchant marketed and sold participation in a fair, competitive PvP game. My evidence shows that the environment was not fair, organic, or as advertised. It was allegedly influenced by undisclosed automated bots, artificial engagement, and paid actors used to create artificial competition and spending pressure. I provided screenshots and logs supporting this claim, including statements from supposed players asking whether they were being paid by developers to hype up the server before later abandoning it. This materially changed the value and utility of the XXXX XXXX. XXXX Diamonds in a legitimate PvP environment are not the same product or service as XXXX XXXX used in an artificially manipulated game environment. The merchants anticipated defense that the XXXX XXXX were technically credited ignores the actual dispute : the goods and services were not as described and were sold for use in a misrepresented service ecosystem. In addition, the merchants own Terms of XXXX prohibit bots and unauthorized methods in the name of fair play, while the merchant failed to disclose its own alleged use of artificial engagement, bots, or paid actors. The merchants XXXX XXXX XXXX also acknowledges abnormal mechanics and unauthorized methods, supporting my position that the service environment was compromised. As of XX/XX/year>, the merchant revoked my account access entirely while retaining my funds. Even if the merchant claims the XXXX XXXX were initially delivered, the merchant later removed my ability to access or use the account and purchased goods. This creates a separate basis for dispute : service not rendered / ongoing service interrupted. Barclays XXXX Barclays appears to have mishandled the dispute by focusing only on whether the digital currency was technically credited, rather than investigating whether the goods and services were delivered as agreed or as described. Under Regulation Z, billing-error protections cover disputes involving goods or services that were not accepted or not delivered as agreed, including delivery of services different from what was agreed. A consumer also is not required to first resolve the dispute with the merchant before giving a billing-error notice to the creditor under XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ). Barclays was required to conduct a reasonable investigation. Regulation Z states that if a creditor determines no billing error occurred, it must conduct a reasonable investigation and explain its reasons ; for nondelivery of property or services, the creditor may not deny the claim unless it determines the property or services were actually delivered, mailed, or sent as agreed. Barclays approach appears inconsistent with Mastercards dispute framework as well. XXXX XXXX XXXX recognizes disputes where goods or services were either not as described or defective, including where goods and services did not conform to their description or where the merchant did not honor terms and conditions. XXXX also identifies digital goods as goods stored, delivered, and used electronically, including games, game pieces, and software. The dispute should therefore have been evaluated under the proper framework for Goods or Services Not as Described, Defective/Not as Described, and/or Goods or Services Not Provided / interruption of ongoing service, rather than reduced to the narrow question of whether Red Diamonds appeared in the account. This issue is further supported by the fact that another major card issuer, XXXX XXXX, reviewed materially similar evidence involving the same merchant and resolved the dispute in my favor. I understand that XXXX Ones decision is not binding on Barclays, but it demonstrates that my claim is bona fide, supported by evidence, and capable of being processed under card-network dispute rules. Barclays should not dismiss the claim using a superficial digital currency was delivered theory while ignoring the misrepresented service environment and subsequent account revocation. Consumer protections involved I believe Barclays failed to comply with the spirit and requirements of the following protections : XXXX. Regulation Z / Fair Credit Billing Act billing-error procedures under XXXX C.F.R. XXXX, because Barclays did not reasonably investigate whether the purchased goods and services were delivered as agreed. XXXX. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( c ), which allows a cardholder to assert claims and defenses against the card issuer when the merchant fails to resolve a dispute involving property or services purchased with a credit card. XXXX. XXXX dispute workflows, including Mastercards framework for goods or services not as described, defective, not provided, and digital goods disputes. XXXX. UDAAP concerns, because Barclays handling of the dispute appears unfair and potentially deceptive if it accepted my dispute evidence but then evaluated the claim under the wrong theory, effectively denying consumer dispute rights by ignoring the substance of the merchant misrepresentation. Requested resolution I request that Barclays : XXXX. Reopen and reprocess all disputed transactions involving XXXX XXXX / XXXX. XXXX. Evaluate the disputes under the proper chargeback basis : Goods or Services Not as Described, Defective/Not as Described, and/or Goods or Services Not Provided / service interruption, rather than merely asking whether XXXX XXXX were credited XXXX XXXX. Permanently credit all disputed amounts, including any related interest, fees, or charges. XXXX. Provide a written explanation identifying the exact XXXX dispute reason code or workflow Barclays used. XXXX. Provide copies of any merchant representment evidence Barclays relied upon. XXXX. Confirm whether Barclays submitted the disputes through XXXX and XXXX Barclays pursued XXXX or arbitration if the merchant/acquirer rejected the chargeback. XXXX. Remove or suppress any negative credit reporting, delinquency, fees, interest, or adverse account treatment connected to the disputed transactions. XXXX. Confirm that Barclays has preserved and reviewed all attached evidence, including Capital Ones favorable outcome, merchant PvP advertising, account revocation evidence, merchant statements, player/bot logs, and the merchants own Terms of Service and Fair Operation Statement. Closing statement This is not a case where I simply received digital currency and later changed my mind. The XXXX XXXX were purchased for use in a PvP game environment that was materially misrepresented. The merchant advertised a fair competitive environment, allegedly used undisclosed artificial engagement and paid actors, and later revoked access to the account and purchased goods while retaining my funds. Barclays should not allow the merchant to avoid chargeback liability by claiming that virtual currency was technically credited while ignoring the misrepresented service environment and total loss of access. I respectfully request that the CFPB require Barclays to conduct a proper investigation and provide a full written response.

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