Posting this because my case shows some clear internal inconsistencies from EA that I think are worth flagging publicly, especially given how many similar reports I've seen from other players dealing...
Thanks for taking the time to lay out the different messages and statuses you’ve received.
I can see why the different descriptions across the ban notice, appeal responses, and Penalty History would be confusing.
Just to clarify, appeals are reviewed individually, and different members of the review team may look at subsequent appeals. The response wording can still be standardized or templated, so similar wording doesn’t necessarily mean the appeal wasn’t reviewed by a person.
Unfortunately, we’re not able to review account-specific enforcement records or determine through the forums why the wording or scope appears different between those communications.
Since you’ve already submitted multiple appeals, please continue to use your Penalty History for any remaining appeal options and include the inconsistencies you’ve listed here as part of any further review.
EA's appeal process doesn't review anything — documented proof, four identical denials on four different submissions
I'm posting this because I've now been through seven appeals on a single case, and what I've documented isn't a disagreement about whether I broke a rule. It's proof that the review process itself doesn't function the way EA claims it does.
Here's what's actually happened, in order: - Original ban notice: reason given as "Coin Distribution." - Appeal 2 denial: switched to a generic "cheating" classification, no explanation for the change. - Appeal 3 denial: changed again to a "Transfer Market lock," specific to FC 26 only, stating future titles unaffected. - My own Penalty History page, the entire time, has listed the reason as "Balance transfer," describing a permanent, full account ban — not a Transfer Market restriction. This has never matched what I've been told by email, at any point. - Appeals 2, 4, 5, and 6 came back word-for-word identical to each other, despite each one raising new, specific, checkable evidence, including the contradiction above. Identical text across four separate reviews is not consistent with EA's own stated claim that "each appeal is individually reviewed by a trained member of our team." - After appeal 7, I was told: "We have performed all investigations possible on this issue and will not reverse the decision. Please do not expect further responses on this matter." The reappeal option remained available immediately afterward, and I used it to submit a full, detailed account of every relevant transaction on my account, addressing every possible explanation I could think of. I have had no acknowledgment of that submission's content.
At no point across eight total communications from EA has any specific evidence, transaction, or explanation been shown to me. I've had three different stated reasons and two directly contradictory descriptions of what the penalty even covers, from EA's own systems, on the same case.
I'm not asking anyone here to just take my word that I'm innocent. I'm asking people to look at the actual, documented inconsistency in EA's own communications, which stands regardless of the underlying accusation. A process that returns identical decisions to different evidence, then tells you to stop expecting a response while leaving the door open to submit again, isn't a review process. It's a wall with a submission button attached to it.
If anyone else has hit this same pattern — shifting reasons, identical templates, contradictions between Penalty History and appeal emails — I'd genuinely like to know how common this actually is. And if anyone from EA with actual visibility into cases ever reads these threads, Case #253716692 is sitting here with all of this documented and unresolved.
