Bounded acquisition closed 9 September 2026. This lane inspected the current official privacy notice and one historical court opinion. The root owns the current Security Rules and Procedures; no manual was reacquired here. Neither MATCH nor a merchant account was accessed.
The current privacy route
The notice effective 16 March 2026 assigns storage/distribution to Mastercard and entry, maintenance and accuracy to financial institutions. Institutions may use a match for additional diligence, safeguards or refusing a contract. Depending on applicable law, individuals can seek access, correction, restriction, objection or deletion and complain to a supervisory authority. California requests go to the relevant institution; elsewhere Mastercard may receive and redirect requests. The notice describes automatic deletion after five years, subject to its legal-retention qualification. It does not promise erasure of independent recipient records or restoration of services. Its final contact paragraph promises a written reply within one month unless law supplies another period; that is not a correction deadline. These rights concern personal information, not an unconditional entitlement to merchant processing. The notice's introductory fraud framing should not replace the manual's complete eligibility rules. [Official notice](http[local research file] reader lines146-159,171-174,198-206,217-218,257-258; full substantive notice lines140-262 read. Exact paragraphs, including surrounding jurisdiction language, are retained in correction-match-privacy.reader.txt.
A challenge was exercised; restoration is not established
In the unpublished 17 May 2023 opinion eGumball v. Merrick Bank, G060853, the court describes Visa's investigation, Merrick's termination/reporting and eGumball's disputed explanation. On 3 November 2021 the trial court ordered Merrick, Paysafe and Visa to request removal. The mandatory provision was stayed on appeal; the appellate court reversed the TRO because the evidence did not establish the required interim harm before a preliminary-injunction hearing. It expressly reserved that hearing's merits and other contested issues. Its record showed only Merrick could request this merchant's addition/removal. It also explained that delisting would not itself restore processing: another acquirer still had to approve the merchant. Thus neither the provisional order nor its reversal proves that the listing was false, justified, finally corrected or followed by restored service. [Republished court opinion](http[local research file] factual sectionsIII-VIII; DiscussionIII-IV; Disposition. Decisive reader lines238-244,285-289,303-328, especially311-325. This is a primary judicial text accessed through a republication, not a court-hosted original or a current docket check.
What this changes
There are at least three different questions: accuracy of shared personal information, power to change the merchant record, and willingness of another institution to offer service. A remedy at one stage need not resolve the others. The case gives a concrete example of court scrutiny directed at those different roles, while also showing how the requested emergency remedy can fail without determining the underlying dispute.
No notice-to-prior-recipient or automatic restoration promise was located in the inspected privacy instrument. Applicable law or other rules may impose additional obligations; this lane did not audit those regimes. A current rule allowing correction is also not evidence that the correction channel worked in a particular case. Conversely, the unsuccessful TRO does not establish that meaningful correction is impossible.
The next useful evidence would be an attributable completed correction: the responsible institution's decision, resulting MATCH status and notice to earlier recipients, separately from a subsequent onboarding decision. For eGumball specifically, a later final disposition or court-filed removal confirmation would settle much more than another summary of the 2023 procedural ruling. No ALERT-PAY, adult-content or NGO involvement in this dispute was established or inferred.
Custody and finite frontier
Seven discovery queries were used: MATCH Mastercard terminated merchant list court removal acquirer decision privacy; site.ftc.gov Mastercard MATCH terminated merchant list; site.courtlistener.com Mastercard MATCH removal merchant; "Mastercard" "MATCH" "removal" court injunction merchant; "MATCH list" "removed" court judgment Mastercard; "eGumball" "G062863" site:courts.ca.gov; "eGumball" "G060853" opinion court PDF. Other search returns were not treated as acquired findings. In particular, anonymous accounts of removal were not used. The later same-case G062863M anti-SLAPP decision appeared as an unread search lead; no final merits/removal outcome was inferred from it. Other FTC and merchant cases were not opened into new branches.
No court-hosted eGumball original was located by the finite official-domain search. The one selected public opinion republication was read as a credible substitute. Ordinary GETs of both the Mastercard notice and Casemine page returned403; those error bytes are retained and clearly labeled. Their successful public web-reader results were retained instead, with source URL and exact reader locators. There was no alternate-domain or language attempt after failure. The privacy reader contains the complete substantive notice; the opinion capture combines actually returned lines116-161 and173-330, leaving the unreturned162-172 gap explicit. This is scoped reading, not an original court docket, underlying-exhibit inspection, audio/video review or proof of present merchant status.
correction-captures.json identifies the error responses, derivative captures, hashes, dates and read scope. No canonical case, reader, ZIP or other lane's packet was changed.