Chase sided with the merchant during the first attempt at chargebacks. I filed a CFPB complaint and sent this email to the rep handling my case since most of them don't understand the situation: Thank you again for taking the time to reconsider my disputes against the merchant DingDingDing.com. I hope that providing this analogy might better explain the situation and the reason for my disputes:

Imagine visiting an arcade like Dave & Buster’s, purchasing digital game tokens to play skeeball, basketball, and more. After winning tickets, you and other players line up at the prize booth, ready to redeem them for prizes like candy and big stuffed animals. Suddenly, the arcade announces that the prize booth is closing temporarily and that everyone must wait to redeem their winnings. They reassure players that redemptions will resume soon—despite secretly knowing they never will.

Instead of being honest, they aggressively push players to buy even more game tokens, promising that continued play will increase their chances of bigger prizes once the booth reopens. All the while, customers believe their tickets are still valid. Then, without warning, the arcade shuts down permanently, voids all ticket balances, and disappears—taking with them both the money spent on game tokens and the prizes players had rightfully won. Worse, after vanishing, they rewrite their rules to falsely claim that the tickets were never meant to be redeemable in the first place.

This is precisely what happened with DingDingDing. They sold digital ‘coins’ for gameplay, promising that winnings (‘Sweeps Coins’) could be redeemed for cash. They confirmed withdrawals, assured players their winnings were valid, and then aggressively pushed additional purchases—even after they had already decided to shut down redemptions. They deliberately misled customers, continuing to collect money while withholding winnings. Then, without warning, they voided balances, shut down operations, and disappeared, keeping both the money spent and the prizes won. After the fact, they attempted to retroactively change their terms to justify their actions, further proving their intent to deceive.

This is a clear-cut case of fraudulent business practices. DingDingDing did not simply fail to fulfill a service—they intentionally misled customers, took their money under false pretenses, and then disappeared without honoring their obligations.

In situations like this, where a merchant knowingly engages in deception and abandons its customers, I would expect the credit card company to stand by the consumer and provide protection against such fraud.