I am curious how this would work. I have not heard of a US government forcing a business like AirBnb to do business with a customer unless there was a violation of discrimination against a protected class.

I think it's less about forcing them to do business and more about the regulator/consumer protection agency getting wind of what is obviously malicious and potentially illegal behavior from the company - a lot of companies will fold when a case gets anywhere near litigation/consumer protection/arbitration just to not attract attention.

In this case, the chargeback was just the last resort solution for the customer because they were stonewalled by customer "service", but they otherwise didn't want to chargeback and would rather just be able to cancel their booking properly and keep using the service.

Sure, but refusing to do business with someone is legal in most cases.

> refusing to do business with someone is legal in most cases

Consumer protection law has all kinds of anti-retaliation protection. Banks also want to know if unsavoury behaviour is being suppressed.

> refusing to do business with someone is legal in most cases

Consumer protection law has all kinds of anti-retaliation protection. Banks also want to know if unsavoury behaviour is being suppressed. Nobody must do business with anyone else. But banning someone after they exercise a consumer right in respect of potential fraud you facilitated (and profited off) is not something you want scrutinised.