GameStop, Other Retailers Subpoenaed Over Credit Card Information Sharing 117
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the you-can-trust-us dept.
from the you-can-trust-us dept.
New York State's Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, has subpoenaed a number of online retailers, including GameStop, Barnes & Noble, Ticketmaster and Staples, over the way they pass information to marketing firms while processing transactions. MSNBC explains the scenario thus: "You're on the site of a well-known retailer and you make a purchase. As soon as you complete the transaction a pop-up window appears. It offers a discount on your next purchase. Click on the ad and you are automatically redirected to another company's site where you are signed up for a buying club, travel club or credit card protection service. The yearly cost is usually $100 to $145. Here's where things really get smarmy. Even though you did not give that second company any account information, they will bill the credit or debit card number you used to make the original purchase. You didn't have to provide your account number because the 'trusted' retailer gave it to them for a cut of the action." While there is no law preventing this sort of behavior, Cuomo hopes the investigation will pressure these companies to change their ways, or at least inform customers when their information might be shared.
For once ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... it seems like PayPal looks good in comparison.
What we've known for years.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going to print off this article (I suggest you do the same) and find the dopey people that I know (the ones who use IE and think sending chain emails is a good idea), thrust it to them and say: "Don't... click... popups!". If that doesn't wake them up, nothing will..
If anyone is interested, I posted the other day [slashdot.org] about the marvels of Privoxy, which stops a lot of ads, irrespective of browser.
Re:So if I use some one else's credit card (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. If I authorize a 20 buck one-off charge on whatever.com, I'm not authorizing a 30 buck per month charge from somethingelse.com, whatever the small print says. Just because it's there doesn't make it enforceable.
Re:So if I use some one else's credit card (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Social Games and the Federal Probe (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't ever put your credit card information into Facebook or a Facebook app.
Well, no - but I'm no more likely to do that than I am to put my genitals in a meat grinder... I'm amazed that anyone would
Re:So if I use some one else's credit card (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. I strongly suspect that these things fall under "bait-and-switch" laws on the books.
Just because you agreed to it doesn't make the "it" any less fraudulent.
The main problem is...for many, "illegal" really means it's against the law if you're caught out doing it and someone calls you on it.
Re:Pizza Hut? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets be real here, business are not out to be your friend. They are created to generate income for some individual / group. Ask for and READ the contract before conducting any transaction. If the deal seems too good to be true, it probably is.
Re:Social Games and the Federal Probe (Score:2, Insightful)
The risk to your information on facebook is quite high but not quite as high as the risk to your genitals via a meat grinder.
Re:Pizza Hut? (Score:3, Insightful)
>Lets be real here, business are not out to be your friend
Yeah, but it's not good business to become your customer's enemy.
Re:Legal but dishonest (Score:3, Insightful)
Common sense, decency and good old fashioned right and wrong clearly indicate that there should be a law against this
What do common sense, decency and good old fashioned right and wrong have to do with the law?
Re:Legal but dishonest (Score:3, Insightful)
That's all true, but PCI compliance has nothing to do with legality. Violating the standard will get you shut down by your merchant processor (or someone else in the chain of your ability to accept credit cards), but it's not illegal.
Ultimately though, it comes down to a risk vs reward thing for those enforcing the standards. After all, Visa and Mastercard are getting a piece of every single transaction. Until people start calling up their issuing bank and charging back these fraudulent cross-sells (and do so in enough volume to raise some eyebrows or cause them to lose money, which admittedly is a very low number), it's in their financial best interest to allow it. Some of these companies are getting $10M+ in revenue from these cross-sale ads alone, so imagine what levels of volume they're doing through their legitimate business channels. Visa and MC aren't about to give that up anytime soon.
Re:Legal but dishonest (Score:3, Insightful)