My question involves a consumer law issue in the State of: N/A

This is a long one, so bear with me. I'm going to provide background as best I can.

In December 2017, an individual named Jeremy Hambly was banned from organized play with regards to the trading card game Magic: the Gathering. At the time, he was also banned from the online play, which is a digital goods. He was banned for even what I consider spurious reasons; however, the company is well within their right to do so, with our without a stated reason. Because the online cards (digital goods) have a physical counterpart, they have an actual secondary value, with individual cards being worth hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars each. Wizards of the Coast, who makes both the physical merchandise and the online digital goods, have in their terms of service for Magic Online the following:

1.) Wizards of the Coast owns the digital property, and;

2.) Wizards gives a limited license to use their product.

With regards to the ownership question, there's a case to be made that because Wizards of the Coast allows people to sell and buy the online cards, the ownership actually is with the individual; after all, you can't sell what isn't yours. Second, in their wording they leave out the word "revokable" when talking about the limited license and their right to remove your access ("ban") to the service. Lior Lessor actually did a video on this.

Jeremy had several hundred to several thousand dollars worth of cards in Magic Online. When he was banned, he lost access to them. Citing their real-world value, he said he considered filing a lawsuit to recoup what he lost, but decided against it because of the money-spent-money-recoup'd ratio being way too skewed against him. So, instead of filing the lawsuit, and from what we have failed to see him trying to get the money back via communication with the company, he instead issued chargebacks through PayPal and American Express, which were accepted.

The question comes down to the rights of the company in this case. He used the digital goods, and they were in the proper condition (by his own admission). By issuing chargebacks instead of opening dialogue with the company to begin with, does he risk a civil lawsuit for chargeback fraud, and can he be charged with wire fraud in this matter?