Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Banking errors
Company: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: DC

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint regarding Navy Federal Credit Union 's handling of debit card disputes I filed against the merchant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), an online sweepstakes gaming platform. Background : I submitted disputes for XXXX charges totaling {$12000.00} under the category of services not rendered/not as described. These charges were for the purchase of " XXXX XXXX '' a virtual in-platform currency. I was unable to use the XXXX XXXX I purchased due to a persistent platform error that prevented access to the paid feature. I documented this malfunction with video screen recordings, which I submitted to Navy Federal as supporting evidence. The Merchant 's Response : XXXX responded to the dispute by citing their Terms and Conditions, arguing that XXXX XXXX are a non-refundable " temporary license '' rather than a deposit of funds, and therefore not eligible for refund. However, the same Terms and Conditions ( Section XXXX ) explicitly state that " In the event of a Platform system malfunction, all Game play on that Platform is void. '' This clause directly supports my claim : the malfunction I experienced and documented should have voided the relevant gameplay/charges under the merchant 's own stated terms. Navy Federal 's Response : Navy Federal informed me that, based on the merchant 's documentation, all XXXX disputes were denied ( XXXX had previously received provisional credit, which was apparently reversed or closed unfavorably as part of this same determination ). Navy Federal 's written response addressed only the merchant 's " non-refundable license '' argument and did not address or acknowledge my argument regarding the platform malfunction clause ( Section 12 ) or the video evidence I submitted demonstrating that malfunction. My Concern : Under Regulation E, I understand that Navy Federal is required to conduct a reasonable investigation into disputed transactions. I do not believe a reasonable investigation occurred here, because : XXXX. My documented evidence ( video recordings of the platform malfunction ) was not addressed in their written determination. XXXX. The merchant 's own Terms and Conditions ( Section XXXX ) appear to directly support voiding the disputed charges due to malfunction, and this was not addressed. XXXX. Of the XXXX nearly identical disputes ( same merchant, same root issue ), the disparate initial treatment ( XXXX approved, then apparently reversed alongside the others ) raises questions about whether the disputes were evaluated individually and on their merits. What I Am Requesting : I am requesting that Navy Federal reopen and reevaluate these disputes, specifically addressing the platform malfunction clause in the merchant 's own Terms and Conditions and the video evidence I submitted, and provide a substantive written explanation of how that evidence was weighed in their determination. I have copies of all correspondence with Navy Federal, the merchant 's Terms and Conditions, and my video evidence available to provide upon request.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation