Google Has No Duty To Refund Gift Card Scam Victims, Judge Finds (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0175417281
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/11/06/1445223/google-has-no-duty-to-refund-gift-card-scam-victims-judge-finds
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/11/google-has-no-duty-to-refund-gift-card-scam-victims-judge-finds/
The ruling came in a suit filed by Judy May, who lost $1,000 to scammers demanding Google Play gift cards for a fake government grant. The lawsuit cited Federal Trade Commission data showing Google Play gift card scams comprised 20% of reported gift card fraud between 2018-2021, totaling over $17 million in losses. Google earns 15-30% commission on gift card purchases but denies refunds, citing industry-standard policies. Freeman ruled Google had no duty to investigate reported scams or refund victims.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/11/google-has-no-duty-to-refund-gift-card-scam-victims-judge-finds/
Why should they? (Score:2)
The 2 most popular scams are
1. The classic nigerian prince (419) type scam, where the scammer will give you a lot of money if you pay a processing fee.
This has been around since the first moron got an e-mail address.
2. The guy calling "from the government, and you owe us money" type scam, where you can pay in gift cards before they send somebody to arrest you.
No legitimate government has ever accepted gift cards as a payment method.
If you are stupid enough to fall for any of this, then you deserve to l
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree with everything you said except for the last part. If you truly are stupid that's one thing, but you certainly don't "deserve to lose your money".
Scam victims are still innocent (Score:1, Troll)
It looks like I'm going against the grain here, but the US simply doesn't have robust enough consumer protection laws.
As people age, there are changes in the grey matter of the brain that [1]cause them to be more trusting [ucla.edu] and more susceptible to scams. It's not just unhealthy people - it's all. It is not an inability to think. It's a physiological change. It has social advantages when someone is too old to take care of themselves and need help, but it happens even if you don't.
Google can make those cards w
[1] https://taylorlab.psych.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/11/PNAS-2012-Neural-and-behav-bases-of-age-diff-in-perce-of-trust.pdf
Re: (Score:2)
That's a curious study. People get more trusting as they get older, while (anecdotally) also getting more racist and intolerant?
Re: (Score:2)
> while (anecdotally) also getting more racist and intolerant?
Actually, to the contrary. Anecdotally, young people are more likely to be racist and intolerant. But those that are are less likely to openly acknowledge it. A more accurate statement would be that a lot of old people don't care what you think.
Its not clear to me that its the elderly are being preyed upon more often or if they are a more sympathetic media story victim. Is there some real data/information that suggests they are? It would certainly make sense that people with dementia might be more vulnera
Re: (Score:2)
Two things have happened to the GCs: 1) they were sold on FB or similar to unexpecting people, 2) organized crime funnels purchases through real or fake apps. Either Google will be out the money, or you're creating a different victim who bought the card.
Separate but related issue: verifying card balance (Score:2)
I ran into a situation a while back: I won a Google Play gift card in the amount of $100. (I say "card", but it wasn't even that: it was a printed piece of paper with a number on it.)
It really was no good to me, so I tried selling it (at below face value). Tricky thing though: how could *I* prove to potential customers that the card was legit? As far as I could determine, the *only* way to know 1) if a card was legitimate and 2) what the available amount was is to...add it to your Google Play account.
Re: (Score:2)
> How damn hard would it be to have a website where you could punch in the card's number, and get back some verification saying "Ah yes, this card is good for $X"?
Even full of CAPTCHAs that would be a huge target for automated attacks. Some retail gift cards get around this by having a PIN that's not required to verify balance. You only use the PIN when making a purchase or redeeming. That way, even an attack that returns a valid gift card number would still have to go through more checks at redemption.
Why should Google be responsible? (Score:5, Informative)
I have to agree with the judge here. As far as Google can tell the purchase is legitimate: the person buying the card intends to buy it, their payment method is valid and legitimate, Google is giving a card worth the amount purchased to the person buying it. Google can't know what the person buying it's going to do with it after they receive it. They may suspect the person who finally redeems it is involved in something sketchy, but the card itself is perfectly legitimate.
It's the same as if you fall for a scam and send a check to the scammer before you realize it. You may have been scammed, but the check itself isn't fraudulent (you wrote it yourself, signed it and it's the person the check was written to who's cashing it). If the bank's already paid it it has no duty to credit your account back (unless the payee is on one of the government lists of people the bank isn't supposed to do business with).
If you're a grown adult and get scammed, that doesn't automatically make it someone else's responsibility to fix it.
Same rules as cash (Score:1)
If someone steals your cash, or scams you into giving it to them, we don't require some third party--like a bank or merchant--to make you whole.
What was you first clue? (Score:2)
> The ruling came in a suit filed by Judy May, who lost $1,000 to scammers demanding Google Play gift cards for a fake government grant.
That is one dumb Judy. It may be victim shaming, but she deserves it.
And then it is Google's fault? The mind reels...
Sympathy (Score:4, Insightful)
It's hard to sympathize with someone who is this gullible.
Did Google know?...like pawn shop stolen goods (Score:3)
> It's hard to sympathize with someone who is this gullible.
Did these organizations know their product was being used in a crime is the real question. If someone buys a Google Play Gift Card in a Wisconsin WalMart, but redeems it in the Emirates, to an account known to be involved with past scams, then that's pretty suspicious. You can make fun of the victim all you like, but remember, soon Generative AI will make it a lot harder to identify scams. They're going to unleash the full power of AI to generate perfect marketing materials and flood Google search with a
Re: (Score:2)
Google would not even lose money if they turned off the card before it's redeemed. My guess is that the overseas recipient is selling it on, so you can't really go by location. So a refund might be the only way to fix it. They could do the bare minimum and transfer the balance to a new card number if it hasn't been used yet.
The pawn shop example is a good one - but one that probably doesn't apply to digital goods. A legal loophole because laws are too old to cover it.
And there's no trigger for fraud if s
Re: (Score:2)
The pawn shop example is a bad one because it glosses over the actual problem. It assumes that the stuff is "clearly burglarized". Yes. If that's obvious, then it's the pawn shop's fault. But recognizing that is the difficult part. And no, coming to the shop with a bunch of old lady jewelry that you obviously wouldn't wear is not suspicious (if your home town doesn't look like a warzone) "That's not my style and I'm never going to wear that" is probably the most frequent reason why people pawn/sell their gr
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, we are already seeing it in my org.
We have seen a marked increase in the number of scams from senders impersonating valid local and national businesses. The messages appear very similar to standard marketing messages from these places including logos and messaging.
The main telltales are still the same (send address, destination links, etc) and can still be used to distinguish them, but they definitely will fool a lot more people.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the judge? Yeah, I also can't imagine what he hopes to gain from deepthroating a corporation this hard.