People frequently come here and say fraud like it's some sort of magic incantation that automatically brings divine punishment down on the perpretrator, when more often than not it's a simple breach of contract issue (if there was a contract). An allegation of fraud requires proof of intent to defraud, nearly impossible in most cases involving sales and services, and breach of contract requires only that there was a contract and that it was breached and that there where damages from the breach. A lot of folks also mistakenly think anything sneaky, deceptive, or nefarious constitutes "fraud." FWIW, voiding a contract for fraud generally requires, among other things, a false, affirmative representation on which the other party relied in entering into the contract.
In this case there is no fraud and, even if there was, the amount of money at stake is the same so a breach of contract lawsuit is the way for Wizards of the Coast to go, assuming there was a contract, a breach, and a lawsuit is filed within the statute of limitations for breach of contract.
And if you are thinking criminal prosecution I doubt that any law enforcement or prosecutor will touch it.

