Timeline for Can I dispute a credit card charge for a hacked Vanilla Visa Gift Card?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10 at 22:16 | comment | added | littleadv | @blankip when a legal action is mentioned, attorney consultation is a must. Cost-effect analysis is the OP's responsibility, but in some (most? all?) jurisdictions it's plainly criminal to provide legal advice without being a licensed attorney. | |
| Jan 10 at 22:08 | comment | added | blankip | I downvoted for the sentence about hiring an attorney. To talk to a bad/cheap attorney about this in detail would cost 400-600 for the first conversation. If the attorney had to follow up with Vanilla or CVS it would be well over 2000. How the h### do you give advice on a money site when your advise could cost more than the scam. There is no assurance that a lawyer would be any more successful at getting a refund than a person following up. If anything, once you present a lawyer to CVS they will present theirs and you will lose instantly. | |
| Jan 10 at 18:33 | comment | added | erickson | One wrinkle on the gift card scam that might alter the outcome: I have seen cards that have had the mag stripe erased and some of the number scratched off. I presume that this is to eliminate the possibility the card will be used by the legitimate purchaser after activation, but before the scammer can drain the card. In this case, the card is "defective" at the time of purchase, and I think that alters the analysis. | |
| Jan 9 at 8:04 | comment | added | littleadv | @GS-ApologisetoMonica I'd appreciate if you removed all the comments, there's a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding in there. | |
| S Jan 9 at 7:56 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Jan 9 at 7:56 | comment | added | Ganesh Sittampalam♦ | Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Personal Finance & Money Meta, or in Personal Finance & Money Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. | |
| Jan 9 at 4:10 | history | edited | littleadv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 120 characters in body
|
| Jan 9 at 4:00 | history | edited | littleadv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1096 characters in body
|
| Jan 9 at 3:03 | comment | added | Acccumulation | "So unless a claim is made and investigated - the issuers have no way of distinguishing those." First party fraud is almost always a possibility. Doesn't mean a chargeback isn't valid. The burden of proof is on the merchant, not the cardholder. | |
| Jan 9 at 3:03 | comment | added | Acccumulation | "the OP did get the goods though, and at least in the US the stores print an explicit activation confirmation to prove that." No, they didn't. They bought the gift cards under the belief that they were receiving a secure store of money. They did not receive that. "As to tampered packaging - that's a valid claim only until the cash register." Huh? If I buy a package that supposedly contained frozen fish, and I don't realize until I get home that it only contains sand, do I not have a valid chargeback claim. | |
| Jan 8 at 21:54 | history | edited | littleadv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 334 characters in body
|
| Jan 8 at 21:52 | comment | added | littleadv | @DonQuiKong the OP did get the goods though, and at least in the US the stores print an explicit activation confirmation to prove that. The OP was delivered a gift card with activated value of $500, not $0 as you claim. | |
| Jan 8 at 21:47 | comment | added | DonQuiKong | At least where I live you can dispute cc purchases if you do not get delivered the goods you ordered. Op did not get the goods. That puts the burden to sue on the other party if it works. I don't think they answer has any merit tbh. | |
| Jan 8 at 20:13 | history | edited | littleadv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1089 characters in body
|
| Jan 8 at 20:00 | comment | added | littleadv | @deep64blue "CVS delivered gift cards with a value of $0" - that's not true, CVS did in fact deliver gift cards with a value of $500, and that's admitted by the OP themselves. The cards were drained after activation, and it is not yet an established fact (or ever will be) that it was due to CVS negligence and not due to the OP's negligence. I don't see why the chargeback would be successful. | |
| Jan 8 at 19:58 | comment | added | littleadv | @Joshua this is not a new scam, and no - the chargeback is very unlikely to succeed. This is an in-person transaction, and the fact that the gift card has not been used by the purchaser has not been established, it's just an allegation. Not sure what you're basing your claim on, I'd appreciate references and citations. | |
| S Jan 8 at 19:56 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Reword to prevent it from being read as "not…authorized"
|
| Jan 8 at 19:50 | comment | added | Joshua | There's a couple methods by which the gift card drain scam works, and all of them require either CVS or Vanilla to have been exceedingly negligent; thus the product is defective and the chargeback should succeed. | |
| Jan 8 at 17:41 | comment | added | deep64blue | The OP intended to purchase gift cards with a value of $500, CVS delivered gift cards with a value of $0. CVS did not deliver the goods bargained for therefore, certainly herein the UK, I would expect a chargeback to be successful. | |
| Jan 8 at 14:55 | comment | added | rtaft | The police is the way to go, especially if they get multiple reports of this from the area, or even that store. There were a couple of arrests last month (one Cali, one Boston) of people caught doing this. | |
| Jan 8 at 13:56 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 8 at 19:56 | |||||
| Jan 8 at 12:27 | comment | added | Ganesh Sittampalam♦ | Can you argue that the "goods" purchased were defective? I don't know what grounds you can dispute debit card transactions on in the US. | |
| Jan 8 at 6:57 | comment | added | littleadv | for gift debit cards, the CVC is printed on the back of the card and is usually not covered. Often times there are gift cards with codes covered, but its easy to remove that layer and replace it again. And even if the scammers don't cover them back, it doesn't even matter because by the time the purchaser unpacks the card and sees the code scratched away, the scammer already siphoned the money away. | |
| Jan 8 at 6:55 | comment | added | Bakuriu | Usually the code to scan would be protected by something you have to scratch away that can't easily be re-added... are giftcard in the US not like this? Do they just have a code "in the open"? | |
| Jan 7 at 23:49 | history | answered | littleadv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |