Apple being sued for refusing to help iTunes gift card scam victims

[Blade of Grass]

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

Yes they are.  When they offer a method of payment and hold an account balance on your behalf they are exactly that.  

 

https://www.apple.com/au/financing/

 

 

22 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Incorrect.  The WERE not a financial institution. Apple Pay and apple wallet changed that.

I'm pretty sure this does not, in any way, make Apple a bank or other financial institution. Financing corporate purchases is extremely common (literally, HP and Xerox have been doing this for decades), and as far as I know does not require a bank charter to do so.

 

If Apple were to be a bank, wouldn't they have a bank charter issued to them? Or any of the other designations a bank or financial institution has to have? But when we search the record of US registered bank & financial institutions, none of the three results that come up for "Apple" are the technology company https://www.ffiec.gov/consumercenter/default.aspx

 

Also, the Apple Card is issued by Goldman Sachs, Apple Cash is run by Green Dot Bank, and Apple Pay and Wallet partner with banks; but none of these should make Apple a bank or other type of financial institution, since they are not directly offering those services. It's like all the stores with co-branded credit cards or that allow customers to have store credit--that does not itself make a financial institution.

 

So I would say you're wrong, Apple is still just a tech company.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

 

How to defraud a store:

1) Buy the gift card

2) Spend the gift card

3) Claim you lost the gift card and it was stolen

Now you just double-spent a gift card, repeat at different stores so they don't catch on.

 

That's the problem.

That's not what is happening here.  Apple have been contacted to address an issue with fraud, apple say they can do nothing,  fact is there are a few things they can do.

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

As soon as a code is redeemed, it's considered spent, and thus if the code is not redeemed before it's reported stolen, the code can be deleted from the database and no double-spend happens. 

That's not the problem, the problem is apple are claiming there is nothing they can do after it is spent, when if fact they can lots.  They can reverse any charge, they can report the ID of the person who claimed it, they can refund the 30% they kept as it is technically stolen goods (but hey it appears apple are allowed to keep stolen goods while the rest of us have to surrender them).

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

The merchant does not care if it's stolen if they don't have to pay out of pocket for it. 

 

The internet, makes it so much easier to defraud a store, because you can go straight from "steal thing" to "list thing in another country"

 

The internet makes it easier to do lots of things, that's not the issue here.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Blade of Grass said:

I'm pretty sure this does not, in any way, make Apple a bank or other financial institution. Financing corporate purchases is extremely common (literally, HP and Xerox have been doing this for decades), and as far as I know does not require a bank charter to do so.

 

If Apple were to be a bank, wouldn't they have a bank charter issued to them? Or any of the other designations a bank or financial institution has to have? But when we search the record of US registered bank & financial institutions, none of the three results that come up for "Apple" are the technology company https://www.ffiec.gov/consumercenter/default.aspx

 

Also, the Apple Card is issued by Goldman Sachs, Apple Cash is run by Green Dot Bank, and Apple Pay and Wallet partner with banks; but none of these should make Apple a bank or other type of financial institution, since they are not directly offering those services. It's like all the stores with co-branded credit cards or that allow customers to have store credit--that does not itself make a financial institution.

 

So I would say you're wrong, Apple is still just a tech company.

Interesting.  So you’re saying an Apple Card isn’t actually an Apple Card.  It’s a Goldman Sachs card.  It’s just an endorsement.  Might as well have a football team or whatever on the card.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Blade of Grass said:

I'm pretty sure this does not, in any way, make Apple a bank or other financial institution. Financing corporate purchases is extremely common (literally, HP and Xerox have been doing this for decades), and as far as I know does not require a bank charter to do so.

 

If Apple were to be a bank, wouldn't they have a bank charter issued to them? Or any of the other designations a bank or financial institution has to have? But when we search the record of US registered bank & financial institutions, none of the three results that come up for "Apple" are the technology company https://www.ffiec.gov/consumercenter/default.aspx

 

Also, the Apple Card is issued by Goldman Sachs, Apple Cash is run by Green Dot Bank, and Apple Pay and Wallet partner with banks; but none of these should make Apple a bank or other type of financial institution, since they are not directly offering those services. It's like all the stores with co-branded credit cards or that allow customers to have store credit--that does not itself make a financial institution.

 

So I would say you're wrong, Apple is still just a tech company.

Many financial services/institutions use larger ones for their products.  If paypal is considered one and can reverse payments simply because the consumer said there was a problem,  then why can't apple at least refund the 30% fee they retain out of the apple card?

 

Besides that,  gives cards are a currency (and treated as one for tax purposes in most countries) so I would assume all other laws also apply.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Interesting.  So you’re saying an Apple Card isn’t actually an Apple Card.  It’s a Goldman Sachs card.  It’s just an endorsement.  Might as well have a football team or whatever on the card.

This is very common in business,  nearly all motor finance is just a large bank that lets the car company put their name on the product.  However like I say, if your name is on a financial product that you have sold then you are selling a financial service,  so who actually provides the cards and money is moot.   The company that sold you the service is responsible for it.

[AngryBeaver]

I want to add this on as well. Apple 100% has a global risk and compliance team. There is NO WAY that these issues were not assessed and brought forward. The only way Apple wouldn't have done something to mitigate or protect consumers is because executive staff (high up the chain) signed off on the risk as being acceptable. 

 

It isn't like apple was blind sided or didn't know this was going on. They decided to turn a blind eye and train their support staff to tell people there was no recourse.

 

I mean why do you think the scammers use these cards as a source of payment? They do so because there are literally no safeguards in place and no options for the victims.

[IkeaGnome]

53 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Interesting.  So you’re saying an Apple Card isn’t actually an Apple Card.  It’s a Goldman Sachs card.  It’s just an endorsement.  Might as well have a football team or whatever on the card.

I'm not typically pro Apple, but yeah. This card is endorsed by the NFL and give more points for NFL purchases, with perks to tickets to games. Like the Apple card. Endorsed by Apple, more points for Apple purchases with financing for Apple purchases.

 

https://cards.barclaycardus.com/banking/cards/nfl-extra-points-credit-card/

[mr moose]

40 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

I want to add this on as well. Apple 100% has a global risk and compliance team. There is NO WAY that these issues were not assessed and brought forward. The only way Apple wouldn't have done something to mitigate or protect consumers is because executive staff (high up the chain) signed off on the risk as being acceptable. 

 

It isn't like apple was blind sided or didn't know this was going on. They decided to turn a blind eye and train their support staff to tell people there was no recourse.

 

I mean why do you think the scammers use these cards as a source of payment? They do so because there are literally no safeguards in place and no options for the victims.

And because it is estimated apple make $300+ million a year from these scams.

 

 

[Bombastinator]

42 minutes ago, Voluspa said:

I'm not typically pro Apple, but yeah. This card is endorsed by the NFL and give more points for NFL purchases, with perks to tickets to games. Like the Apple card. Endorsed by Apple, more points for Apple purchases with financing for Apple purchases.

 

https://cards.barclaycardus.com/banking/cards/nfl-extra-points-credit-card/

They hid that as hard as they could apparently. Announced it as a software service at an event normally used for hardware apparently

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Card

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

That's not the problem, the problem is apple are claiming there is nothing they can do after it is spent, when if fact they can lots.  They can reverse any charge, they can report the ID of the person who claimed it, they can refund the 30% they kept as it is technically stolen goods (but hey it appears apple are allowed to keep stolen goods while the rest of us have to surrender them).

 

I'm going to have to pull the experience card here because:

a) I've worked for a wireless company 

b) I've worked for the auction company

 

The wireless company was not permitted to refund text messaging scams or international roaming. Most of the staff didn't know how. It was basically down to "we already paid the third party, SOL", you had to go through multiple layers of management to refund anything over three significant figures. Clearly the Wireless company had some incentive to allow this stuff to happen, and premium text messages were highly profitable at the time, and there were websites left and right at the time that very clearly said "TEXT STOP TO (number) TO STOP RECEIVING THESE MESSAGES", never the less people do not read the fine print, and that is their fault. Because I'm rather vindictive about these scams, I was probably the only person who knew how to use the text and data billing system and you had to individually refund each message, which in turn results in a deduction from the payment to the third party. You can not fight those charges after you pay your billl, because it's held until the subscriber pays their bill. Do you not think that some crappy third party would not subscribe every stolen phone they found to these text messages if they were to get a kickback from it? No, once a phone is stolen charges stop being accrued.

 

eBay does not make money from items that are delisted. Those are refunded back to the seller. You want a triple-play of scamming? Buy a card with cash, sell the physical card on eBay, use the code yourself, report it stolen, and then flakeout on the winning bidder. Wash rinse repeat with a new disposable email account and sit in a new public WiFI spot.

 

I'm absolutely certain that Apple has no control over the funds, DESPITE any supposed hold on it, because it's likely managed through a third party, and the hold is for vendor fraud, not customer fraud. eg the vendor purchases 1000 cards, and someone walks off with a box of 100 of them, and tries to flog them on eBay. Or tries to use them to buy their own app and then report them stolen.

 

If you haven't noticed, when you activate the vast majority of gift cards, there's an entire second step involved with the serial number on the card.

 

https://www.apple.com/legal/giftcards/applestore/us/

 

If you actually look at the lawsuit

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Apple-Class-Action.pdf

 

You'll see these are things that the plaintiff are accusing Apple of. You can not beg the question.

 

 

Quote

Apple Store Gift Cards are issued and managed by Apple Value Services, LLC and can be applied only to purchases in the U.S. from an Apple Store, at apple.com, or by calling 1-800-MY-APPLE.

 

Gift cards are not reloadable and may not be redeemed for purchases made from Apple Media Services, at Apple resellers, for additional Apple Gift Cards, for cash (except as required by law), or for shipments outside the U.S. Gift cards will remain active even if added to the Wallet app on your iOS device. Neither the issuer nor Apple is responsible for any lost or stolen gift cards or use without your permission. Keep them close; they’re valuable and can be redeemed by whoever finds them.  

Then look closer:

Quote

Use of a gift card is governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000032019319000119/a10-kexhibit2112019.htm

 

Apple Value Services is an LLC, a subsidiary of Apple Inc.

 

Take note they are also trying to sue in California while the LLC is based in Virginia. 

 

Now let's assume for some reason that a scammer is succesful and loads, say $4000 onto an account and then turns around and buys a laptop at an Apple store, or online, and has it shipped to an address where they flip it to someone else.

 

Who knows what ultimately is going to happen here, but it doesn't look like this lawsuit is going to result in anything as all they've stated is they know Apple is aware this happens and does nothing about it, not even returning the commission.

 

That's like suggesting that eBay profits from stolen and counterfeit goods. Not if you report it they don't. They can not be responsible for things they have not been notified about, and the average person assumes a huge amount of group-think mind-reading that a large corporation knows the minutiae of what goes on when something is used fraudulently and they will somehow magically be absolved of doing any work.

 

Like if you've looked at class-action lawsuits at all in the last 30 years, you'd find that even when people had $200 in losses, they only end up with $20. People just don't bother, as it's not worth an hour of their time to get their $20.

 

To me this lawsuit smells of fingerpointing and going "think of the muggles". Yes, Apple might know what's going on, and the only consequence that would ever come out of such a lawsuit is that Apple, admits no wrongdoing and shuts the gift card program down, and the people who were involved in the lawsuit end up with $5 for their efforts.

 

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

I'm going to have to pull the experience card here because:

a) I've worked for a wireless company 

b) I've worked for the auction company

 

The wireless company was not permitted to refund text messaging scams or international roaming. Most of the staff didn't know how. It was basically down to "we already paid the third party, SOL", you had to go through multiple layers of management to refund anything over three significant figures. Clearly the Wireless company had some incentive to allow this stuff to happen, and premium text messages were highly profitable at the time, and there were websites left and right at the time that very clearly said "TEXT STOP TO (number) TO STOP RECEIVING THESE MESSAGES", never the less people do not read the fine print, and that is their fault. Because I'm rather vindictive about these scams, I was probably the only person who knew how to use the text and data billing system and you had to individually refund each message, which in turn results in a deduction from the payment to the third party. You can not fight those charges after you pay your billl, because it's held until the subscriber pays their bill. Do you not think that some crappy third party would not subscribe every stolen phone they found to these text messages if they were to get a kickback from it? No, once a phone is stolen charges stop being accrued.

 

eBay does not make money from items that are delisted. Those are refunded back to the seller. You want a triple-play of scamming? Buy a card with cash, sell the physical card on eBay, use the code yourself, report it stolen, and then flakeout on the winning bidder. Wash rinse repeat with a new disposable email account and sit in a new public WiFI spot.

 

I'm absolutely certain that Apple has no control over the funds, DESPITE any supposed hold on it, because it's likely managed through a third party, and the hold is for vendor fraud, not customer fraud. eg the vendor purchases 1000 cards, and someone walks off with a box of 100 of them, and tries to flog them on eBay. Or tries to use them to buy their own app and then report them stolen.

 

If you haven't noticed, when you activate the vast majority of gift cards, there's an entire second step involved with the serial number on the card.

 

https://www.apple.com/legal/giftcards/applestore/us/

 

If you actually look at the lawsuit

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Apple-Class-Action.pdf

 

You'll see these are things that the plaintiff are accusing Apple of. You can not beg the question.

 

 

Then look closer:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000032019319000119/a10-kexhibit2112019.htm

 

Apple Value Services is an LLC, a subsidiary of Apple Inc.

 

Take note they are also trying to sue in California while the LLC is based in Virginia. 

 

Now let's assume for some reason that a scammer is succesful and loads, say $4000 onto an account and then turns around and buys a laptop at an Apple store, or online, and has it shipped to an address where they flip it to someone else.

 

Who knows what ultimately is going to happen here, but it doesn't look like this lawsuit is going to result in anything as all they've stated is they know Apple is aware this happens and does nothing about it, not even returning the commission.

 

That's like suggesting that eBay profits from stolen and counterfeit goods. Not if you report it they don't. They can not be responsible for things they have not been notified about, and the average person assumes a huge amount of group-think mind-reading that a large corporation knows the minutiae of what goes on when something is used fraudulently and they will somehow magically be absolved of doing any work.

 

Like if you've looked at class-action lawsuits at all in the last 30 years, you'd find that even when people had $200 in losses, they only end up with $20. People just don't bother, as it's not worth an hour of their time to get their $20.

 

To me this lawsuit smells of fingerpointing and going "think of the muggles". Yes, Apple might know what's going on, and the only consequence that would ever come out of such a lawsuit is that Apple, admits no wrongdoing and shuts the gift card program down, and the people who were involved in the lawsuit end up with $5 for their efforts.

 

 

Paypal refund the consumer almost instantly there is a problem,  of course apple can too. It's choice not to do so, not a legal requirement.

[Blade of Grass]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Many financial services/institutions use larger ones for their products.  If paypal is considered one and can reverse payments simply because the consumer said there was a problem,  then why can't apple at least refund the 30% fee they retain out of the apple card?

 

Besides that,  gives cards are a currency (and treated as one for tax purposes in most countries) so I would assume all other laws also apply.

PayPal actually directly holds the money in your account though--which Apple does not. I guess Apple could refund their % of the fees collected, I wouldn't expect there to be anything preventing them from doing that though. 

 

How gift cards specifically work though seems to be kind of a weird grey area (from some quick research). They don't seem to fall under any of the general laws relating to currency and instead seem to fall solely under contract law (in Canada/US, with some areas having specific statute which impose limits on them, like max fees that can be charged, etc).

So essentially, by buying a gift card you agree to it's terms of use. Unless the ToS violates a gift-card law in the area, or some other larger contract law, you're basically bound to whatever the ToS says. One example I saw come up is that if you have a gift card to a company and they go bankrupt, you're essentially SOL unless the ToS gives you claim to reimbursement (but even then, you'd likely be a low-priority debt in bankruptcy court). 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

This is very common in business,  nearly all motor finance is just a large bank that lets the car company put their name on the product.  However like I say, if your name is on a financial product that you have sold then you are selling a financial service,  so who actually provides the cards and money is moot.   The company that sold you the service is responsible for it.

This isn't really how any of it works legally though. Apple has structured it such that they are not responsible for the administration of the products, only the software application in which you access it, and in fact, the agreements between parties quite clearly lay out who has what legal responsibilities.

Apple quite literally have no say over the day-to-day administration of it (seeing as they're not even a financial institution, legally they're not even allowed to). You may disagree with that, but there's no law nor precedent to give it merit. 

[Kisai]

Just now, mr moose said:

Paypal refund the consumer almost instantly there is a problem,  of course apple can too. It's choice not to do so, not a legal requirement.

Ebay does not own Paypal anymore. Ebay only refunds the listing to the seller. The buyer has to then deal with paypal if they already sent the money to the seller, which is also foolish.

[mr moose]

Just now, Blade of Grass said:

PayPal actually directly holds the money in your account though--which Apple does not. I guess Apple could refund their % of the fees collected, I wouldn't expect there to be anything preventing them from doing that though. 

 

Apple hold the money for all app purchases for 4-6 weeks.  I am not actually asking they refund the amount though,  but they could put a pause on it, hand over the details to law, freeze the payment until the issue is resolved legally, etc.  They have lots of options.  As for the 30%, I would call that proceeds of crime if they have been told it is a fraud and an official report has been made.

Just now, Blade of Grass said:

How gift cards specifically work though seems to be kind of a weird grey area (from some quick research). They don't seem to fall under any of the general laws relating to currency and instead seem to fall solely under contract law (in Canada/US, with some areas having specific statute which impose limits on them, like max fees that can be charged, etc).

So essentially, by buying a gift card you essentially agree to it's terms of use. Unless the ToS violates a gift-card law in the area, or some other larger contract law, you're basically bound to whatever the ToS says. One example I saw come up is that if you have a gift card to a company, and they go bankrupt, you're essentially SOL unless the ToS gives you claim to reimbursement (but even then, you'd likely be a low-priority debt in bankruptcy court). 

This isn't really how any of it structured legally though. Apple has structured it such that they are not responsible for the administration of the products, only the software application in which you access it. They quite literally have no say over the day-to-day administration of it (seeing as they're not even a financial institution, legally they're not even allowed to). You may disagree with that, but there's no law nor precedent to give it merit. 

As far as I know they do not trump consumer or tax law.  Defrauding someone of a gift card is just as illegal as defrauding them of cahs.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Ebay does not own Paypal anymore. Ebay only refunds the listing to the seller. The buyer has to then deal with paypal if they already sent the money to the seller, which is also foolish.

And?  I never said ebay own paypal, I didn't even say anything that would hinge on them owning it either.

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And?  I never said ebay own paypal, I didn't even say anything that would hinge on them owning it either.

I believe google owns PayPal and eBay. Neither owns the other.  They are themselves owned by the same master, though they didn’t used to be.

[Kisai]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And?  I never said ebay own paypal, I didn't even say anything that would hinge on them owning it either.

Paypal's buyer/seller protection doesn't pay the buyer or the seller, they only arbitrate the refund process, which in many cases involves sending the item to Paypal.

 

When it involves digital downloads, and similar, there is no refund, ever. There is no way for Paypal to verify who is telling the truth, and particuarly in the case of someone emailing/phoning a gift card code, there is also no way to know who it was ultimately redeemed by, the seller could go "see they redeemed it" and show a redemption transaction that they did themselves.

 

The same goes for claiming theft with any gift card. Apple may have the ID's of who ultimately redeemed the card, but that doesn't mean that is the person who actually scammed the buyer of the card.

 

Like it's really quite a reach in the lawsuit. I may not like the gift card program, but I don't see this lawsuit having any success.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

Paypal's buyer/seller protection doesn't pay the buyer or the seller, they only arbitrate the refund process, which in many cases involves sending the item to Paypal.

 

When it involves digital downloads, and similar, there is no refund, ever. There is no way for Paypal to verify who is telling the truth, and particuarly in the case of someone emailing/phoning a gift card code, there is also no way to know who it was ultimately redeemed by, the seller could go "see they redeemed it" and show a redemption transaction that they did themselves.

 

The same goes for claiming theft with any gift card. Apple may have the ID's of who ultimately redeemed the card, but that doesn't mean that is the person who actually scammed the buyer of the card.

 

I personally know sellers who had their payments returned to the purchaser leaving them with no money nor the product.  Not sure what experience you have of the system but it clearly doesn't work that way all the time.   Suffice to say that now we are straying from the initial problem and into a debate about an irrelevant side topic.

 

 

[Kisai]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I personally know sellers who had their payments returned to the purchaser leaving them with no money nor the product.  Not sure what experience you have of the system but it clearly doesn't work that way all the time.   Suffice to say that now we are straying from the initial problem and into a debate about an irrelevant side topic.

 

 

I worked for eBay Australia when eBay owned Paypal and Skype. Because of how the banking system works there, many sellers would rather you use the direct-deposit system. If you use the direct deposit system, you have no way to get a refund from anyone.

 

eBay spit Paypal off in 2015, so things might have changed somewhat, but the policies are all still pretty much in sync with each other. eBay sellers have the listing charges refunded, if a listing is removed by eBay. That includes counterfeit, stolen and prohibited items. That means that if it's credited, that there will not be subsequent charges, since the fees are charged when the item sells. Hence eBay makes no money off of reported fraud. However people like to buy counterfeit crap all the time, and hence not every counterfeit listing will be removed, I can probably go and find 1000 of them in about 10 minutes, they're all published using bots, and eBay's tools do not go fishing. Someone has to report it.

 

Paypal disputes are between the buyer and the seller only. eBay sellers who use Paypal know this, and it's why they will drag disputes out till nearly the end and then just disappear if they're actually committing fraud. Legitimate sellers don't want their Paypal account locked because some idiot didn't enter the right shipping address, so a seller is more willing to wait and see if the item is returned before sending it out, and in that time it's likely they will exhaust the dispute window. When a dispute happens, what formerly happened under eBay is the eBay staff could see the entire dispute conversation, and buyers would just claim they hadn't received the item in a reasonable timeframe (eg 2 weeks) and sellers would just completely ignore it, and the claim would be closed after some time. This is likely because the seller was communicating with them via email to not leave negative feedback.

 

Items that are digital, can not be disputed, either the seller can generate the item/has the item code, and it works, or it doesn't work. Hence if you buy as physical card and send the code to someone, that code is consumed and the seller has no way of knowing that it's been consumed other than trying to redeem it after the buyer says they did (and it did/didn't work.) Then the original seller would have to dispute with Apple Value Services LLC why the code doesn't work.

 

Like my personal opinion is that gift cards are THE scam itself, and companies that offer them just look greedy since they are betting on the card not being used/delayed use. In a sense it's a loan to themselves with the principal being the customers money.

 

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Kisai said:

 

Like my personal opinion is that gift cards are THE scam itself, and companies that offer them just look greedy since they are betting on the card not being used/delayed use. In a sense it's a loan to themselves with the principal being the customers money.

 

At least I can agree with that.

[Mooshi]

Sorry to say, but you have to be pretty dumb to think paying in itunes gift cards is legit.

 

Even if you mention older generations, they're suppose to be wiser than this, honestly. What a frivolous lawsuit. At some point common sense is supposed to kick in.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

Sorry to say, but you have to be pretty dumb to think paying in itunes gift cards is legit.

 

Even if you mention older generations, they're suppose to be wiser than this, honestly. What a frivolous lawsuit. At some point common sense is supposed to kick in.

The reason these scams along with every other scam works is because there is no such thing as common sense. The scams do not prey on lack of intelligence (although it helps), they prey on fear and lack of understanding.   The only thing that determines your immunity to being conned is experience in said field.  

 

You and I understand what digital gift cards are for and do in a digital world, We know through experience that itunes cards have nothing to do with the tax office,  however to someone with no experience or understanding of the digital world at there is literally no difference between,  itunes, xbox credits, steam cards, ubisof cards, etc.  They are all the same mess of confusing ways to transfer a monetary value over the internet.  

 

 

[Curufinwe_wins]

The question of if this is legal is distinct from if this is good.

 

It may well be legal. It IS incredibly assholish behavior by a company that can in fact afford to not be so heavily anti-consumer, but choose to be. The legal standard and the ethical standards are very different when it comes to return and refund policies in the modern era esp by big businesses, but even by local small ones.

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

And because it is estimated apple make $300+ million a year from these scams.

That is wrong.  The defendants are claiming (based on their guess) that it is $300+ million over 5 years. It really isn't a great estimate anyways.

 

Aside from not attributing those numbers to any sources (saying it's from the FTC, but I haven't found any sources that mention that number), they also say the numbers there are generated just from just reports to the FTC [not including police, Apple themselves etc].  (When in fact, the FTC for this thing does get their data also from an aggregate of sources, so it could very well include those numbers).

 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/consumer-sentinel-network-data-book-2019/consumer_sentinel_network_data_book_2019.pdf

In 2019 there was $103 million in gift/reload card fraud.  (Based on 2018's numbers of 24% being Apple https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/data-spotlight/2018/10/scammers-increasingly-demand-payment-gift-card).  That is $24.72 million, 30% of Apples "cut", $7.4 million.   If you go by what they assumed of 10%, then that is $74million a year.  Even then though, those numbers are skewed (as it equates to $2,682/fraud).  It all comes down to again the tellers who are ringing through these customers should be more responsible.  Assuming instead that the average scam is for even $1000/fraud, that would cut down the amount per year to a considerably smaller amount.

 

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

That's not the problem, the problem is apple are claiming there is nothing they can do after it is spent, when if fact they can lots.  They can reverse any charge, they can report the ID of the person who claimed it, they can refund the 30% they kept as it is technically stolen goods (but hey it appears apple are allowed to keep stolen goods while the rest of us have to surrender them).

 

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

If paypal is considered one and can reverse payments simply because the consumer said there was a problem,  then why can't apple at least refund the 30% fee they retain out of the apple card?

First, paypal falls into a different league, similar to credit cards.  They can easily reverse payments because A) they originally took the payment (which Apple didn't), and B) they still make a profit by charging a fee to seller.  It leads to the case where the recipients of payments can actually end up in a loss position, even if they did everything above bored.

 

In Apple's case if they did an act first like paypal, they would need to get the person who got scamed's payment information and then some developer might be "on the hook" to incur losses.

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Apple hold the money for all app purchases for 4-6 weeks.  I am not actually asking they refund the amount though,  but they could put a pause on it, hand over the details to law, freeze the payment until the issue is resolved legally, etc.  They have lots of options.  As for the 30%, I would call that proceeds of crime if they have been told it is a fraud and an official report has been made.

Who is to say that Apple isn't refunding when police are involved?  Again, it's only what the defandants are saying.  Unless Apple gets a police case number and an Officer confirms it is a fraud, then I don't see much point in Apple doing refunds honestly.

[Benjy98]

It is a very sad situation, there are plenty of videos on YT where you can see these old and vulnerable people being scammed. Sometimes they don't even know what's going on.. Breaks my heart, I am sure that Apple could do something about it, but they most likely don't care that much.