“Hi <@U06BTV7L1SP>,
We disagree with this chargeback and cannot accept it as issued.
We have spoken to the affiliates whose traffic is in question and they explicitly deny any association with this landing page. Additionally, we have spent all day investigating this ourselves and are unable to find any indication that these accusations have any standing. If you are going to make accusations of this severity against us, we at least deserve to be provided with evidence. A few things that stand out to us:
*1. Nothing ties this traffic to us.* The Reddit post you cited contains no association to us, and actually precedes the traffic in question. Please send us any specific click IDs, corresponding network requests, landing page URLs, screenshots, artifacts, or general evidence from your records that indicate any association to the funnel in question, with timestamps.
*2. This angle was running elsewhere long before Sep 29.* These posts show the same pop-up and screen-time-to-cash creative from earlier dates:
• <https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTok/comments/1t9us20/earn_while_scroll_pop_up/|reddit.com/r/TikTok/…/earn_while_scroll_pop_up>
• <https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTok/comments/1ugsgcx/screen_time_to_cash_creator/|reddit.com/r/TikTok/…/screen_time_to_cash_creator>
• <https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/1wpdrvl/had_this_pop_up_in_the_middle_of_an_interesting/|reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/…/had_this_pop_up_in_the_middle_of_an_interesting>
The last one was reported on a day we sent under $500 in US traffic. Whoever is running this has been doing it for weeks through other networks.
*3. <http://playrwd.com|playrwd.com>.* Attached is the full click export for every click in our logs from <http://playrwd.com|playrwd.com>. It is a domain owned by affiliate ID #46, who's traffic is not even in question here, as they have not ran traffic to Freecash in over a month. Additionally, this domain has never sent any clicks to Freecash, it is exclusively used for sweepstakes offers. We don't understand where the "$1,000 for three offers" claim came from or why it's tied to us.
*4. Mike's message was a question, not a confirmation.* He asked whether a "screentime to cash" angle was allowed because he'd seen it scaling on other networks. He also said in the same message that he hadn't seen the actual ads. We asked because we check before running anything, not because we were already running it.
*5. The volume drop was our doing.* We raised this angle to you ourselves, and we paused the affiliate in question entirely so we could conduct an internal investigation to ensure all materials were compliant. This is our standard internal policy, as we have zero tolerance for uncompliant behaviors. That is why volume was stopped. And as aforementioned, the investigation returned with no indication that any materials used were uncompliant or even similar to the ones we stand accused of using.
Given this information, the $141,252.50 chargeback you have proposed is not supported by what you've sent. Going forward, we're happy to share new sub-publishers and sub1s before they get traffic, and confirm creative angles in writing if desired, but we are formally requesting reconsideration and a presentation of evidence on this matter.”
Advertiser
almedia
Sender
—
Action
—
Geos / Offers
US, IT, AT, BE / freecash, sweepstakes
Scope
unknown
Exposure
$0.00
Open question
❓ This looks consequential but I couldn't resolve a concrete action (pause/stop/resume/cap). Quoted: "Hi <@U06BTV7L1SP>, We disagree with this chargeback and cannot accept it as issued. We have spoken to the affiliates who…". What action is required?