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

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

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.

there are other reports of it being more than a billion per year.

https://www.metro.us/why-online-scammers-ask-for-an-itunes-gift-card/

https://www.abcactionnews.com/money/consumer/taking-action-for-you/romance-scam-artists-are-trained-in-the-art-of-love-and-theft

https://wjla.com/features/7-on-your-side/itunes-gift-card-scam

 

The problem is the FBI doesn't call them specifically itunes fraud, it has a different name sot he FTC does not list all the accounts of itunes card fraud.

 

Quote

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.

Even if we ignore a the other accounts and reports,  That's still 7million reasons apple don't want to do anything about it. best case scenario too,  which is still very sad.

 

 

Quote

 

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.

There is nothing in apples system or in the legal system that stops apple from reversing an itunes purchase.  Apple do indeed receive the money for the itunes voucher,  claiming they don't is ludicrous.  When I buy an itunes card from the supermarket the supermarket pays apple whatever the agreed value is. Apple's system is updated the second the value of that card is applied to an account,  apple know exactly which account it went to and where it was purchased from.   At the very least they can still monitor the account, hand the details over to law enforcement and refund the 30% they retained when the courts decree it was a genuine case of fraud.

Quote

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.

Why would that have to be the case?  what losses are there in reversing a digital transaction,  apple don;t charge 30%, no fees are incurred for the developer the person who applied the credit to their account has their account frozen until the fraud can be verified or not.  It's really not beyond the abilities of apple to do all of that at the stroke of a button and it shouldn't cost anyone anything.

 

Quote

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.

 

The fact there is a lawsuit that says they are being told their is nothing apple can do.   I know nuisance lawsuits exist, but there has to be reasonable grounds and reasonable evidence before such a suit can be brought forward.  The lead lawyer when he signs the court documents requesting apple be served is signing to say he has checked that the claimants claims are reasonable and are on solid grounds.  If it turns out apple never refused help, assisted police with everything through proper complaints then the lead lawyer is opening himself up to a world of issues as not only will the case fail, but those lies open him up to all the legal bills encountered throughout the trial.   From the lawyers perspective, any information given has to be good enough to not land them in shit, but it doesn't have to be good enough to win the case hands down.  

 

 

[CarlBar]

16 hours ago, Kisai said:

You do realize that this is how enterprise tech support that is outsourced right? The Indian call centers have their own RAT (Remote Access Tool) system and you run it and confirm the tech name you are talking with when you run it so they can then access your PC, and then you monitor everything they do and can interrupt them at any point.

 

Even Dell uses them. That's why people get scammed this way, as the scammers operate in the same manner that known OEM and Enterprises do. If you're not expecting a call from a tech support, then obviously it's going to be a scam. 

 

two points.

 

1. Immediately after i put the phone down on the scammer i called my ISP's call center number and confirmed it wasn't them.

 

2. I've never heard of any ISP doing tech support that way in the UK. I can't say it doesn't happen, but it's certainly not the norm.

 

 

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

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.  

 

 

 

People need to remember most of those vulnerable to this are from the cash only generation before you could even pay for things with a chip and pin, (generally significantly so), and often in my experiance don't really understand the difference between different types of "cards". To them there's little if any difference between a credit card, a bank card, a gift card, or any other type of card. To them they're all just "money cards".

 

It's not that they're dumb. It's just that how these things work is so unlike anything they've ever needed to use before that they need it breaking down a lot further and taken a lot more slowly than most people can/will do.

[wanderingfool2]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

there are other reports of it being more than a billion per year.

And all of those "reports" are doing the same thing that has occurred in this article...they are mindlessly quoting numbers without citing their sources.  For your information, it was 1.3 billion in 2016, for ALL internet crimes [https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/ic3-releases-2016-internet-crime-report]

 

So no, I still don't believe Apple makes $300+ million a year off it.  (This also doesn't account for transactions where Apple did reverse it).

 

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

Even if we ignore a the other accounts and reports,  That's still 7million reasons apple don't want to do anything about it. best case scenario too,  which is still very sad.

It wasn't the best case scenario, only Apple would truly know the numbers. 

 

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

There is nothing in apples system or in the legal system that stops apple from reversing an itunes purchase.  Apple do indeed receive the money for the itunes voucher,  claiming they don't is ludicrous.  When I buy an itunes card from the supermarket the supermarket pays apple whatever the agreed value is. Apple's system is updated the second the value of that card is applied to an account,  apple know exactly which account it went to and where it was purchased from.   At the very least they can still monitor the account, hand the details over to law enforcement and refund the 30% they retained when the courts decree it was a genuine case of fraud.

I never claimed Apple  didn't receive the money, its the point that Apple would have a lot more steps than Paypal because it is two inheritly different systems.  Which is why I am saying it's silly to say PayPal can do it so Apple should to.  Again, PayPal pretty much punishes the business to side with the customers.  Also it is more effort for Apple to refund money than it would be for Paypal.  (Literally, Apple would have to get the victim's credit card, then verify the funds from the transaction, that it is an actual fraud reported by police).

 

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

Why would that have to be the case?  what losses are there in reversing a digital transaction,  apple don;t charge 30%, no fees are incurred for the developer the person who applied the credit to their account has their account frozen until the fraud can be verified or not.  It's really not beyond the abilities of apple to do all of that at the stroke of a button and it shouldn't cost anyone anything.

Digital goods being resold, or even digital products being sold, etc.  There are plenty of ways to quickly clean the money and get away with the money before it can be detected.  Creating burner accounts etc.  The fact is, unless police get involved or having a police report of the crime, Apple shouldn't be going around freezing accounts for an extended period of time.  If the scammers also use compromised iTunes accounts as well, or with other balances how do you properly seperate how which is from the scam and which isn't.  Scammers intentionally do things that make it harder for them to be caught quickly or tracing the money.

 

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

The fact there is a lawsuit that says they are being told their is nothing apple can do.   I know nuisance lawsuits exist, but there has to be reasonable grounds and reasonable evidence before such a suit can be brought forward.  The lead lawyer when he signs the court documents requesting apple be served is signing to say he has checked that the claimants claims are reasonable and are on solid grounds.  If it turns out apple never refused help, assisted police with everything through proper complaints then the lead lawyer is opening himself up to a world of issues as not only will the case fail, but those lies open him up to all the legal bills encountered throughout the trial.   From the lawyers perspective, any information given has to be good enough to not land them in shit, but it doesn't have to be good enough to win the case hands down.  

There is nothing that says what percentage of claims Apple is actually able to help.  That is my point as well in this, there is the assumption of guilt on Apple's part that they didn't do anything, but even if 50% of the people could get money back the other 50% could be the ones launching the suit.

[Bombastinator]

12 minutes ago, oliverthom707 said:

I agree that gift cards should follow the same anti-fraud steps that most banks and credit cards employ.  If your gift card is stolen, hacked, or scammed without your consent, then the vendor of the card should be responsible for returning the money to you.  It should also be their responsibility to pursue the scammers and thieves that took the funds in the first place.

I agree but for somewhat different reasons.

I think it’s not a case of should, but card producers are the only ones that have any control or ability to respond.  The term responsibility is those two words.  “ respond ability” if a company has no incentive to respond they won’t.  It’s that simple.  The only ability the consumer has is to not buy them in the first place and destroy the system.  If producers don’t use their sole ability to control the problems in the system the system will fail. 

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

I agree but for somewhat different reasons.

I think it’s not a case of should, but card producers are the only ones that have any control or ability to respond.  The term responsibility is those two words.  “ respond ability” if a company has no incentive to respond they won’t.  It’s that simple.  The only ability the consumer has is to not buy them in the first place and destroy the system.  If producers don’t use their sole ability to control the problems in the system the system will fail. 

Sometimes it could be good, in that it prevents people from overspending (i.e. giving their kid a gift card to purchase what they want).

 

With that said, refunding is not really any type of solution to this.  A better solution is to start asking questions of the retailers who are selling $500+ gift cards to people coming in without any warning about gift card scams.  A 5 second question/warning by the teller selling the gift card could save so many of the gift card scams.

[Bombastinator]

30 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Sometimes it could be good, in that it prevents people from overspending (i.e. giving their kid a gift card to purchase what they want).

 

With that said, refunding is not really any type of solution to this.  A better solution is to start asking questions of the retailers who are selling $500+ gift cards to people coming in without any warning about gift card scams.  A 5 second question/warning by the teller selling the gift card could save so many of the gift card scams.

Thereby making a case for regulation.  One works with the limitations of the system or one changes the system.  So three choices.  Make the seller responsible for preventing and finding abusers of the system, destroy the system, or regulate it.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And all of those "reports" are doing the same thing that has occurred in this article...they are mindlessly quoting numbers without citing their sources.  For your information, it was 1.3 billion in 2016, for ALL internet crimes [https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/ic3-releases-2016-internet-crime-report]

 

So no, I still don't believe Apple makes $300+ million a year off it.  (This also doesn't account for transactions where Apple did reverse it).

 

It wasn't the best case scenario, only Apple would truly know the numbers. 

 

I never claimed Apple  didn't receive the money, its the point that Apple would have a lot more steps than Paypal because it is two inheritly different systems.  Which is why I am saying it's silly to say PayPal can do it so Apple should to.  Again, PayPal pretty much punishes the business to side with the customers.  Also it is more effort for Apple to refund money than it would be for Paypal.  (Literally, Apple would have to get the victim's credit card, then verify the funds from the transaction, that it is an actual fraud reported by police).

 

Digital goods being resold, or even digital products being sold, etc.  There are plenty of ways to quickly clean the money and get away with the money before it can be detected.  Creating burner accounts etc.  The fact is, unless police get involved or having a police report of the crime, Apple shouldn't be going around freezing accounts for an extended period of time.  If the scammers also use compromised iTunes accounts as well, or with other balances how do you properly seperate how which is from the scam and which isn't.  Scammers intentionally do things that make it harder for them to be caught quickly or tracing the money.

 

There is nothing that says what percentage of claims Apple is actually able to help.  That is my point as well in this, there is the assumption of guilt on Apple's part that they didn't do anything, but even if 50% of the people could get money back the other 50% could be the ones launching the suit.

Yeah, it's pretty simple,  apple are allowing it to happen,  you can try and argue and make as many assumptions as you want to make it sound as small as you want, but the reality is apple take 30% of nearly all transactions (unless your netflix, but that has nothing to do with this),  Apple can do more than they are claiming.  Apple have a lot more control over the whole system than they are actively controlling at the moment (or that people seem to think they have). 

 

At the very least the % they receive from the transactions is proceeds of crime, so why do they get to keep it?  The defense of apple is just crazy at times around here.

 

EDIT: and you provided the proof that apple make $7M a year from these types of scams, so don't try and pretend that that no longer happens or is important because "only apple would truly know the numbers".

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Apple can do more than they are claiming.  Apple have a lot more control over the whole system than they are actively controlling at the moment (or that people seem to think they have). 

And you know what Apple is doing because...?  You literally haven't shown one thing that Apple has "claimed" that isn't true.  It would be stupid of Apple to say on a warning about scam pages, "don't worry we will refund you full if you get scammed", because that would put them in a legal situation if they weren't able to refund.  You hear about cases of Apple not helping because those people are the more vocal, but you will always hear a lot less about them being helpful because it's human nature.  The fact is we DO NOT KNOW how many of the scam cases Apple resolved, we don't know whether the people issuing the lawsuit went to the police, we don't know the numbers; so it isn't fair to throw a company under the bus.

31 minutes ago, mr moose said:

EDIT: and you provided the proof that apple make $7M a year from these types of scams, so don't try and pretend that that no longer happens or is important because "only apple would truly know the numbers".

Go back and read what I said.  You were saying $7 million profit is best case scenario, which it is no.  Only Apple knows how much they have refunded due to scams.  I am also saying it's pointless and detrimental throwing out outright false numbers, like your $300+ million dollars, or the $1 billion and stating them as though they are true.

 

Making $7million a year from scams is a lot different than receiving $7 million but refunding $6.5 million.  All I am saying is you don't know the numbers, and neither do I...but based on the numbers out there, all that can really be concluded is a very rough guess on how much money is used as a scam (that doesn't include refunds)

 

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

At the very least the % they receive from the transactions is proceeds of crime, so why do they get to keep it?  The defense of apple is just crazy at times around here.

I'm only defending Apple because I take issue when false numbers are used against companies.  We don't know how much Apple refunded, there also is the issue that depending on how the money was cleaned through the store, you could be punishing other people who fell for purchasing scams.  Again, we do not know how much Apple has refunded, or whether they do refunding once a police case is created.

[Bombastinator]

43 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And you know what Apple is doing because...?  You literally haven't shown one thing that Apple has "claimed" that isn't true.  It would be stupid of Apple to say on a warning about scam pages, "don't worry we will refund you full if you get scammed", because that would put them in a legal situation if they weren't able to refund.  You hear about cases of Apple not helping because those people are the more vocal, but you will always hear a lot less about them being helpful because it's human nature.  The fact is we DO NOT KNOW how many of the scam cases Apple resolved, we don't know whether the people issuing the lawsuit went to the police, we don't know the numbers; so it isn't fair to throw a company under the bus.

Go back and read what I said.  You were saying $7 million profit is best case scenario, which it is no.  Only Apple knows how much they have refunded due to scams.  I am also saying it's pointless and detrimental throwing out outright false numbers, like your $300+ million dollars, or the $1 billion and stating them as though they are true.

 

Making $7million a year from scams is a lot different than receiving $7 million but refunding $6.5 million.  All I am saying is you don't know the numbers, and neither do I...but based on the numbers out there, all that can really be concluded is a very rough guess on how much money is used as a scam (that doesn't include refunds)

 

I'm only defending Apple because I take issue when false numbers are used against companies.  We don't know how much Apple refunded, there also is the issue that depending on how the money was cleaned through the store, you could be punishing other people who fell for purchasing scams.  Again, we do not know how much Apple has refunded, or whether they do refunding once a police case is created.

Trying to read this but there’s a tremendously large amount of internal inconsistency here.  You make a statement about what the other has said then post a quote that denies the claim just made.  There is an argument for one set of facts then a completely different one that argues the opposite after the next quote.  I don’t limos if I agree or disagree, because it’s so confused.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And you know what Apple is doing because...?  You literally haven't shown one thing that Apple has "claimed" that isn't true.  It would be stupid of Apple to say on a warning about scam pages, "don't worry we will refund you full if you get scammed", because that would put them in a legal situation if they weren't able to refund.  You hear about cases of Apple not helping because those people are the more vocal, but you will always hear a lot less about them being helpful because it's human nature.  The fact is we DO NOT KNOW how many of the scam cases Apple resolved, we don't know whether the people issuing the lawsuit went to the police, we don't know the numbers; so it isn't fair to throw a company under the bus.

Try and rephrase that without making assumptions.   I have never said apple should advertise they'll just refund anything.  I have said they shouldn't lie about what they can and can't do.  The claim is that apple are refusing to help them on the grounds that they can't.   I've already given many examples of what they could do. 

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Go back and read what I said.  You were saying $7 million profit is best case scenario, which it is no.  Only Apple knows how much they have refunded due to scams.  I am also saying it's pointless and detrimental throwing out outright false numbers, like your $300+ million dollars, or the $1 billion and stating them as though they are true.

You bought up the $7M being apples cut of known scams, not me.  I don't why but it appears you thought that would help your argument.

 

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Making $7million a year from scams is a lot different than receiving $7 million but refunding $6.5 million.  All I am saying is you don't know the numbers, and neither do I...but based on the numbers out there, all that can really be concluded is a very rough guess on how much money is used as a scam (that doesn't include refunds)

You are assuming they refunded anything.  The claim in the lawsuit says they did not refund a cent.  So that $7m (from known fraud) is still in apples coffers.

 

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I'm only defending Apple because I take issue when false numbers are used against companies.  We don't know how much Apple refunded, there also is the issue that depending on how the money was cleaned through the store, you could be punishing other people who fell for purchasing scams.  Again, we do not know how much Apple has refunded, or whether they do refunding once a police case is created.

It appears you also take issue when your own numbers are used against a company.  The reality is there is a lot apple can do and there is an obvious problem here because people make assumptions like "apple can't reverse transactions" we know they can and do. or apple are not responsible for a service they provide, actually they are responsible, they are not responsible for the fraud but they are responsible for allowing it to happen after it has been brought to their attention.  Western union was held liable for fraud transactions as it knew they were occurring and permitted them to continue.  They were asked to refund $600M to victims.     itunes cards are being used to transfer money,  apple have been made aware there is a problem and yet refuse to do anything about it. 

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Try and rephrase that without making assumptions.   I have never said apple should advertise they'll just refund anything.  I have said they shouldn't lie about what they can and can't do.  The claim is that apple are refusing to help them on the grounds that they can't.   I've already given many examples of what they could do. 

Your numbers you keep claiming in your posts are all assumptions.  A claim is not fact, and you have repeatedly in this topic stated it as fact that Apple isn't doing anything.  You say they shouldn't lie, but again there isn't any proof that they lied about what they can or can't do.  The reason I sated regarding refuding is it was a warning page is that you had referenced them as a lie, when in actuality it is was a warning...just like when doctors say a person will likely never walk again...it's because you don't set false hopes.

 

The literal terms and conditions on the packaging says non-refundable unless required by law.

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

You bought up the $7M being apples cut of known scams, not me.  I don't why but it appears you thought that would help your argument.

I brought it up the $7M because you literally said it was estimated at $300M per year.  You are parroting what you thought, when in fact it a wrong assumption (based on where you got that $300M).  It is a valid argument (also see the next bit of my post for how that $300M over 5 years they say has another math error).  It was also showing that the numbers could be vastly different depending on the dataset chosen.  (Like the fact that it includes MoneyPak, which could easily be where a lot of the value is coming from).

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

You are assuming they refunded anything.  The claim in the lawsuit says they did not refund a cent.  So that $7m (from known fraud) is still in apples coffers.

The lawsuit also claims the loss from 2015-2019 is $93M, when based on their math it is $63.5 (This is how they got the $300M).  They are including 2020's numbers in their total, so I am not putting much faith in the fact they did their due diligence.

 

 

They literally are blaming Apple for not warning customers at the teller!  Not that it's the fault of the teller, who is in a better position to suspect something.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

It appears you also take issue when your own numbers are used against a company.

You are taking them out of context.  It's like if you said all crows are black, and I find a white one, and then you are say I think crows are only white.  I am saying that you can't come to a conclusion because the data is missing or can be used to come up with wildly different numbers

 

But lets get real here:

Plaintiff Barret - In short didn't even report it to Apple

Plaintiff Polston - In short didn't contact Apple

Plaintiff Watson - Didn't contact Apple

Plaintiffs Rodriguez - Didn't contact Apple

Plaintiff Marinbach - Contacted Apple after a week told go to the merchant who originally sold them it.

Plaintiff Martin - Only instance of contacting Apple in a timely fashion

 

So at least 4 people didn't contact Apple.  Of those who contacted Apple, no mention of also contacting police (some people contacted the police, but not Apple).

 

As I have mention, there are likely many ways to clean the gift-cards before getting caught.  I don't know the Apple eco-system well enough, but there are likely a decent amount of ways to make purchases that will allow the scammer to effectively cash out (lets say, buying an e-product to resell).  It isn't to say there isn't complicitness with Apple, but the fact scams exist doesn't make Apple complicit.

 

I will say it again, stopping it at the point of purchase is the most important thing, not the refunding after the fact.

 

[mr moose]

38 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Your numbers you keep claiming in your posts are all assumptions.  A claim is not fact, and you have repeatedly in this topic stated it as fact that Apple isn't doing anything.  You say they shouldn't lie, but again there isn't any proof that they lied about what they can or can't do.  The reason I sated regarding refuding is it was a warning page is that you had referenced them as a lie, when in actuality it is was a warning...just like when doctors say a person will likely never walk again...it's because you don't set false hopes.

It seems you are getting quite upset at the thought that apple is doing nothing.  You have no proof they are doing anything yet you seem to think I need to provide proof they are doing nothing.  A claim being brought before the courts is the best evidence we have to date.  It outweighs mere guesses as anything bought before a court from the plaintiff is supposed to be backed by evidence.   Unless you have evidence evidence the plaintiff is lying then you are going to have to wait for the court evidence to become public (assuming it doesn't settle out of court).

 

 

38 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The literal terms and conditions on the packaging says non-refundable unless required by law.

That's nice,  I wasn't talking about refunding the money, I am pointing out that apple claiming they can't is a lie. And simple the easy answer so they don;t have to do anything about it.

38 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I brought it up the $7M because you literally said it was estimated at $300M per year.  You are parroting what you thought, when in fact it a wrong assumption (based on where you got that $300M).  It is a valid argument (also see the next bit of my post for how that $300M over 5 years they say has another math error).  It was also showing that the numbers could be vastly different depending on the dataset chosen.  (Like the fact that it includes MoneyPak, which could easily be where a lot of the value is coming from).

 

Guess what?  it still is an estimate whether you like it or not.  And now you want to distract form the fact that apple have $7M in their coffers that is the proceeds of crime and you think that is fine?

 

38 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The lawsuit also claims the loss from 2015-2019 is $93M, when based on their math it is $63.5 (This is how they got the $300M).  They are including 2020's numbers in their total, so I am not putting much faith in the fact they did their due diligence.

Maybe Apple should hire you as their defense lawyer. 

 

38 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

They literally are blaming Apple for not warning customers at the teller!  Not that it's the fault of the teller, who is in a better position to suspect something.

Nope, they are taking apple to court for telling them there was nothing they could about it when in fact there are several things apple could. 

38 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You are taking them out of context.  It's like if you said all crows are black, and I find a white one, and then you are say I think crows are only white.  I am saying that you can't come to a conclusion because the data is missing or can be used to come up with wildly different numbers

 

But lets get real here:

Plaintiff Barret - In short didn't even report it to Apple

Plaintiff Polston - In short didn't contact Apple

Plaintiff Watson - Didn't contact Apple

Plaintiffs Rodriguez - Didn't contact Apple

Plaintiff Marinbach - Contacted Apple after a week told go to the merchant who originally sold them it.

Plaintiff Martin - Only instance of contacting Apple in a timely fashion

 

So at least 4 people didn't contact Apple.  Of those who contacted Apple, no mention of also contacting police (some people contacted the police, but not Apple).

You got all that from the court filing?  The evidence is not in the court filing, it is submitted to the courts elsewhere in the procedure.   You have no idea whtehrt he police were contacted or not, you have no idea what apple said to these people yet you are convinced you know.

 

38 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

As I have mention, there are likely many ways to clean the gift-cards before getting caught.  I don't know the Apple eco-system well enough, but there are likely a decent amount of ways to make purchases that will allow the scammer to effectively cash out (lets say, buying an e-product to resell).  It isn't to say there isn't complicitness with Apple, but the fact scams exist doesn't make Apple complicit.

 

I will say it again, stopping it at the point of purchase is the most important thing, not the refunding after the fact.

 

 

You have missed the point in this case.  It is not about getting a full refund, it is about holding apple responsible for their part in permitting this scam to continue.  They can do this by asking the courts to return to them at least the part of the scam that apples still holds (their percentage).  That is not an unreasonable request if you can prove apple did nothing to stop it and that it was a legitimate scam.

 

And before you go of half cocked about who's responsible,  precedent has already been set with western union being found guilty of turning a blind eye to scams through it's network.

 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/01/western-union-admits-anti-money-laundering-violations-settles

 

What this case will come down to is how much evidence the plaintiff can provide that apple was asked to help and how much help apple actually offered. 

 

The rest is hearsay and given apple make millions out of these scams and that the MO of all big companies is to pretend anything that makes them money is someone else's problem,  then  it is mostly rational to lean on the side of the plaintiff.  

 

 

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

You got all that from the court filing?  The evidence is not in the court filing, it is submitted to the courts elsewhere in the procedure.   You have no idea whtehrt he police were contacted or not, you have no idea what apple said to these people yet you are convinced you know.

I'm not going to bother responding anymore after this, because if you can't be bothered to read and if you keep misquoting or stating accusations by the plaintiffs as fact it .  Yes it is in the court filing.  4 out of 6 of them DID NOT CONTACT APPLE. So don't pretend that I am guessing.  You are the only one so far who is throwing around baseless accusations against Apple based on numbers that were misquoted by you, the articles, or just miscalculated.  (I am not saying Apple didn't do nothing, but it's the fact you are making baseless accusations).

 

So yes, I have an idea whether the police were contacted...of the 4 who didn't tell Apple, 2 contacted the police.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

It seems you are getting quite upset at the thought that apple is doing nothing.  You have no proof they are doing anything yet you seem to think I need to provide proof they are doing nothing.  A claim being brought before the courts is the best evidence we have to date.  It outweighs mere guesses as anything bought before a court from the plaintiff is supposed to be backed by evidence.   Unless you have evidence evidence the plaintiff is lying then you are going to have to wait for the court evidence to become public (assuming it doesn't settle out of court).

I am upset because you keep making statements like the one I am about to quote below.  You are making accusations against a company, so no if you say there isn't any action being taken and they are making millions the burden of proof is on you.  I don't have to prove Apple is doing something, I am not sure if they are or aren't, BUT your statements like the one below require FACT's .

 

On 7/20/2020 at 3:21 PM, mr moose said:

Even if they weren't,  all gift cards can be traced from the point and method of purchase right through to what they were spent on,  apple know exactly which account they were applied to and they are telling customers a big porky pie and protecting the criminals running these scams.   But we know why, they look to make hundreds of millions of dollars a year out of those scams so why would they try and stop them?  Fucking money hungry corporations again.

You also keep saying that Apple is making millions off of it (with the 300+ and 1 billion), yet as I've shown those numbers are really misinterpreted.

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Guess what?  it still is an estimate whether you like it or not.  And now you want to distract form the fact that apple have $7M in their coffers that is the proceeds of crime and you think that is fine?

Based on WHAT.  See this is where you need to show FACTS.  You know no knowledge, and neither I, of how much of the money Apple had paid out before being contact, or how much Apple had actually refunded.

 

In short, you made an accusation that inaction is driven by money and quoted numbers that are provably incorrect.  If p then q, you are stating q (apple is protecting scammers, is a money hungry corporation).  You claim by the 300+ million a year before, yet that is a misquoted number that was based on 5 years not 1 and had a math mistake.  I merely disproved your p argument through contradiction, that doesn't mean q isn't true...but that doesn't mean q isn't false either.  You made a statements that clearly has no basis for fact, only opinion but you are presenting that as fact.  It's not about distracting, it's that $7million is a contradiction proof to what you said, it doesn't mean it's fact.  You are effectively still saying that Apple is effectively working in leagues with the scammers, but offering no proof (just here-say).

 

Let me also point out, that unless police are involved and contacting Apple directly with warrants, Apple cannot even give out the information about the scammer.  If you don't go to the police and Apple (to get the two to coordinate), then you really haven't done a due diligence of recovering your money.

 

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

You have missed the point in this case.

Ironic, give you have misquoted the case with the $300 Million, and are saying I don't know things regarding the plaintiffs actions (when I literally got it from the submission).  Read what I said, and actually process what I am saying with context.

 

Really, their lawsuit is full of holes, and I would be surprised if this went any further unless they present some pretty alarming evidence...as their logical inferences in their submitted document will be ripped apart by Apple lawyers.

 

Scams will always happen, but without change to the front-line staff the profitability of scams like this will never change.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I'm not going to bother responding anymore after this,

 

 

If you are not going to respond anymore then why bother writing up such a large response?

 

Have a nice day.

 

[linkboy]

On 7/22/2020 at 3:09 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

Sometimes it could be good, in that it prevents people from overspending (i.e. giving their kid a gift card to purchase what they want).

 

With that said, refunding is not really any type of solution to this.  A better solution is to start asking questions of the retailers who are selling $500+ gift cards to people coming in without any warning about gift card scams.  A 5 second question/warning by the teller selling the gift card could save so many of the gift card scams.

 

I was actually able to stop someone from getting scammed via iTunes cards.

 

Was working at a Wal-Mart in the electronics department and had a customer walk up to the counter with 6 $100 iTunes cards and he told me that his iPhone was hacked and Apple needed him to buy these cards to restore his phone's IMEI number.

 

I refused to sell him the cards and took the time to let him know that he was getting scammed, how the scam worked and showed him Apple's customer support number (which was different then the number he had).

 

Thankfully, I was able to convince him that it was a scam and he didn't buy the cards.

 

 

[Tech_Dreamer]

I'm thinking about the outcome, Like ,what can they do? their trade source(where they bought it from) is the main problem & issue.

 

it's like sewing the bank printer manufacturer because someone gave them counterfeit money. obviously then can help to a certain extent, but refunding for their mistake from their side due to a random event doesn't make sense.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

I'm thinking about the outcome, Like ,what can they do? their trade source(where they bought it from) is the main problem & issue.

 

it's like sewing the bank printer manufacturer because someone gave them counterfeit money. obviously then can help to a certain extent, but refunding for their mistake from their side due to a random event doesn't make sense.

They aren't actually asking for a refund of the purchase (although I am sure some would hope for that) they are asking for the 30% that apple retained to be refunded (as that is legally the property of the victim when a crime has been proven), and for measures to be taken by apple to reduce the damage and likelihood in the future.  Some of the things they are asking for is for apple to to freeze any unspent gift card values that are reported to be part of a fraud and that apple should be forced by law to not honor any gift cards it has been made aware of as being part of a fraud.    How the court would enact that I have no idea, but he demands don't seem to be unreasonable and seem to be inline with the demands imposed on western union over a similar court case.

 

EDIT: I should also point out that section 189 in the case the plaintiffs all allege they contacted apple with all relevant card information seeking help, therefore apple know that any money they make from those cards is proceeds of crime regardless whether it has been spent or not.

[wanderingfool2]

I know I said I wouldn't respond again...but seriously you have to stop taking snippets of the wording and assuming you know what it means.

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

EDIT: I should also point out that section 189 in the case the plaintiffs all allege they contacted apple with all relevant card information seeking help, therefore apple know that any money they make from those cards is proceeds of crime regardless whether it has been spent or not.

Go read the thing, 4 of 6 did not contact Apple on section the section "Facts Pertaining to Plaintiffs".  Even those who who contacted Apple, it would be interesting to see if they tried escalating or just stuck with the front line workers. Or let me quote the sections 92, 96, 103,

 

Quote

92.Barrett did not contact Apple after being victimized by scammers, because he was informed that once the scammers redeemed the iTunes gift card there is nothing that Apple would do for Barrett.

Quote

96.Plaintiff Polston contacted his local police department to report that he was the victim of a scam involving gift cards. Polston did not contact Apple after being victimized by scammers, because he was informed that once the scammers redeemed the iTunes gift card there is nothing that Apple would do for Polston.

Quote

103.Watson realized he was the victim of a scam when he noticed social media profiles using the same profile pictures as the individual, but with different names. Watson did not contact Apple after being victimized by scammers, because he was informed that once the scammers redeemed the iTunes gift card there is nothing that Apple would do for Watson

Quote

112.Michael and Maria Rodriguez contacted the district attorney and local police to report that they were victims of a scam. Michael and Maria Rodriguez did not contact Apple after  being victimized by scammers, because they were informed that once the scammers redeemed the iTunes gift card there is nothing that Apple would do for them

So no they are not all alleging that

 

If they were prudent they would open a police case number, and contacting Apple (asking for a manager, as frontline workers rarely have the ability to do such things).  If that doesn't go anywhere, do a credit card charge back.  As stated, Apple doesn't get to see the persons payment information of gift cards (so they can't verify it's you who bought it), they can't issue refunds at a touch of a button (since they don't have the payment information) and they shouldn't have to go on someone's word that they got scammed.

 

They aren't just asking for 30% back either, and they assume they know how the scammers are cleaning the money through there (even though there are other ways).  Here are some quotes for everyone to see from the document.

 

Quote

84.Apple also fails to warn consumers about iTunes gift card scams at the point of retail purchase. Apple knows that iTunes gift card scams are designed to instill “panic and urgency” in victims, thus preventing them from doing the research and investigation that would lead them to Apple’s “About Gift Card Scams” website page. Despite this knowledge, Apple generally provides no warning to consumers on the outer retail packaging of its gift cards. 85.Apple could, and should, state prominently on its outer packaging that consumers should beware of telephone and internet scams involving gift cards and should not purchase the card in their hands if they have been asked to do so by persons unknown to them who claim that  payment by iTunes gift card is urgently needed.

 

It should be the tellers that are the focus on these claim, as they are the only ones in the position to stop this before it happens.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I know I said I wouldn't respond again...but seriously you have to stop taking snippets of the wording and assuming you know what it means.

 

Go read the thing, 4 of 6 did not contact Apple on section the section "Facts Pertaining to Plaintiffs".  Even those who who contacted Apple, it would be interesting to see if they tried escalating or just stuck with the front line workers. Or let me quote the sections 92, 96, 103,

 

So no they are not all alleging that

 

If they were prudent they would open a police case number, and contacting Apple (asking for a manager, as frontline workers rarely have the ability to do such things).  If that doesn't go anywhere, do a credit card charge back.  As stated, Apple doesn't get to see the persons payment information of gift cards (so they can't verify it's you who bought it), they can't issue refunds at a touch of a button (since they don't have the payment information) and they shouldn't have to go on someone's word that they got scammed.

 

They aren't just asking for 30% back either, and they assume they know how the scammers are cleaning the money through there (even though there are other ways).  Here are some quotes for everyone to see from the document.

 

 

It should be the tellers that are the focus on these claim, as they are the only ones in the position to stop this before it happens.

Who do you think informed them there was nothing apple could do?  That is why the the whole lawsuit is happening.   Apple are the only ones who could tell them if the cards had been cashed in.

 

Quote

189.Apple had knowledge of the tortious acts perpetrated on Plaintiffs and Class members by means of, including but not limited to, Plaintiffs and Class members contacting Apple to inform them that they were a victim of a gift card scam, providing Apple with the redemption

Here they are specifically claiming that apple had exact knowledge of their individual cases because they contacted apple about it.

 

EDIT: it's also important to note that in the facts pertaining, The information they were all given was the same regardless if they claim they contacted apple  directly or claim to have not contacted after the fact, on grounds of information given to them.    The fact still remains they all, according to the allegations, informed apple of their situation.