Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

snagglepuss

(12,704 posts)
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 09:41 PM Jan 2012

Although this may sound trivial I want to sue Mastercard however I don't want to make

that threat if I don't have sufficient grounds to sue them even in Small Claims Court.

This is what happened. I was given a $50 prepaid Masterdard for Christmas. Since I'm tight for cash I decided last week to use it at a drug store as the store was having a big sale and when one spent more than $50 one would receive a $10 gift card.

When cashier swiped the card she advised only $27 on the card which was impossible as I hadn't used it. Angry I asked her to call MC to determine what had happened and I ended up speaking to the rep who told me the card had been activated over a year ago and since it hadn't been used in 16 months a $2.50 maintenence fee had been deductly monthly. MC told me that as per the terms and conditions cards are activated when purchased. This seemed ludicrous as there was nothing on the card to show when it was purchased so how would anyone who recieved the card as a gift know when maintenance fees would start being applied.

As I didn't have the terms and conditions with me I had to accept the fact only $27 was left on the card. However when I got home and read the T&C, I find out that the date of activation is supposed to be on the card in jurisdictions where the maintenance fees are not prohibited. At which point I remembered when I got the card and read the T&C, I assumed that I either lived in a jurisdiction where maintenance fees were prohibited as there was no date on the card or that activation didn't begin till the card was used. Mastercard imo is clearly in the wrong.


The upshot is that I not only lost out getting several items that were deeply discounted (e.g. protein powder was reduced by $17) but also lost out on the $10 gift card I would have gotten if I spent $50 as I intended to do. On top of that I was humiliated when the cashier loudly opined that the card was most likely re-gifted by people who knew it had lost value and then embarassed again when I asked the person who gave me the card whether she was informed there was a time limit (actually that conversation was embarassing for both of us). The person who gave me the card said she was never told that the card would be subject to fees and said she had bought it well over a year ago but had misplaced it and that had she known it would lose value she would have looked for it rather than assuming that at some point it would just turn up.


So we are not talking about huge sums of money but I am incensed that MC siphons money off gift cards and according to another cashier who overheard what had happened told me this happens to people who have this particular gift card all the time. I am in the process of submitting a formal complaint as I want to be compensated not just for the $23 that was deducted off the card but also for the losses incurred and the humiliation I endured.

I am interested in knowing whether threatening to sue would be a good tactic or would it be an empty threat and make me appear to be some clueless crank?







24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Although this may sound trivial I want to sue Mastercard however I don't want to make (Original Post) snagglepuss Jan 2012 OP
Gift cards are a racket. The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2012 #1
I disagree, it just depends on how you use them SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2012 #6
The "racket" part is what the OP was complaining about. The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2012 #8
I did read the fine print and it refers to the date printed on the card but there is snagglepuss Jan 2012 #10
What's brilliant about this scam.... jberryhill Jan 2012 #2
That is brilliant but shouldn't the T&C I received with the card be the same snagglepuss Jan 2012 #13
No jberryhill Jan 2012 #17
Thanks for the information. I can now see what these snagglepuss Jan 2012 #20
I'm not so sure. (S)he is probably a third-party beneficiary. COLGATE4 Jan 2012 #22
It would be improbable in the extreme... jberryhill Jan 2012 #23
Not sure it would do any good SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2012 #3
But they state that the date of activation is on the card but there is no date on snagglepuss Jan 2012 #11
The date is on the card. As is the balance. Hard to read, but there. boppers Jan 2012 #14
I can see now what these slithery a**holes have done. snagglepuss Jan 2012 #19
Sounds like she bought the card before the law changed Generic Brad Jan 2012 #4
Unfortunately ,the gift giver probably orpupilofnature57 Jan 2012 #5
Contact the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. joshcryer Jan 2012 #7
+1. This just screams for the CFPB boppers Jan 2012 #16
Pre paid / gift cards from banks TexasPaganDem Jan 2012 #9
You know,it would be easier to take the loss and consider it a lesson learned. Suing virgogal Jan 2012 #12
I was thinking of suing them in Small CLaims Court but I don't want to snagglepuss Jan 2012 #18
The 'legal language' of cards needs to be: Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #15
That is spelled out up front. Lil Missy Jan 2012 #21
Here's a summary of each State's laws on gift card domancy fees hardluck Jan 2012 #24
Before suing... pipi_k Jan 2012 #25

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,783 posts)
1. Gift cards are a racket.
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 09:46 PM
Jan 2012

But I'm afraid you won't get anywhere with this. The buyer of the gift card probably never looked at the attached information that always comes with these things. They don't hide their onerous terms but people often never read them. The moral of the story is to always use a gift card as soon as you possibly can.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
6. I disagree, it just depends on how you use them
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 09:50 PM
Jan 2012

I buy them from my daughter's school, and they get a cut of each card purchased. I only buy for stuff I use, and it's easy money for the school.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,783 posts)
8. The "racket" part is what the OP was complaining about.
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 09:57 PM
Jan 2012

The fact that the issuers count on people not using them quickly, or at all - they make a fortune on that. Gift cards have their uses, of course, but you have to read the fine print and use them right away.

snagglepuss

(12,704 posts)
10. I did read the fine print and it refers to the date printed on the card but there is
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:08 PM
Jan 2012

no date on the card nor on any of the printed material I received with the card.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
2. What's brilliant about this scam....
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 09:47 PM
Jan 2012

Is that you have no standing in relation to a claim against Master Card here.

The person who bought the card agreed to the terms thereof, no doubt written in five point type on the bottom side of a rock on a Himalayan settlement in Nepal somewhere, just as was stated in the terms and conditions of purchase.

The card was then given to you as a gift.

You are a stranger to the underlying agreement between Master Card and the person who bought the card.

snagglepuss

(12,704 posts)
13. That is brilliant but shouldn't the T&C I received with the card be the same
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:25 PM
Jan 2012

T&C the purchaser agreed to? The T&C I got states that maintenance fees "commences on the date stated on the Card back" however there is no date on the Card or on any of the paperwork. However if I am barred from suing them then I suppose my tactic will be to inform them that if I am not compensated then I will go the media and expose this contemptible scam.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
17. No
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:33 PM
Jan 2012

The contract was made at the time of purchase, and when the card was activated.

Betcha anything it has a lot of terms that are non-transferable, too.

snagglepuss

(12,704 posts)
20. Thanks for the information. I can now see what these
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:57 PM
Jan 2012

slithery a**holes have done.

The brochure with the T&C states that unless where fees are prohibited by law the date the maintenance fees commence is printed on the back of the card. As I stated there is no date on the card however, I now see in very fine print at the bottom of the card a statement that for activation date call Customer Service. When I didn't see a date "printed" on the back of the Card, I assumed I was in a jurisdiction that prohibited fees which is why a date wasn't printed on the Card. An utter scam.



SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
3. Not sure it would do any good
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 09:48 PM
Jan 2012

Cards are activated at the time they are purchased, so there's no way to actually put the activation date on the card. MC defense would probably be that the terms and conditions state that there is an inactivity fee, and it isn't their fault you didn't receive the card until it was devalued.

snagglepuss

(12,704 posts)
11. But they state that the date of activation is on the card but there is no date on
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:10 PM
Jan 2012

the card so how is one to know when fees start getting applied?

boppers

(16,588 posts)
14. The date is on the card. As is the balance. Hard to read, but there.
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:31 PM
Jan 2012

A simple card reading swiper can tell you both.

snagglepuss

(12,704 posts)
19. I can see now what these slithery a**holes have done.
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:51 PM
Jan 2012

The brochure with the T&C states that unless where fees are prohibited by law the date the maintenance fees commence is printed on the back of the card. As I stated there is no date on the card however, I now see in very fine print at the bottom of the card a statement that for activation date call Customer Service. When I didn't see a date "printed" on the back of the Card, I assumed I was in a jurisdiction that prohibited fees.

Generic Brad

(14,275 posts)
4. Sounds like she bought the card before the law changed
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 09:49 PM
Jan 2012

Now the companies are required to disclose any possible fees before the purchase is finalized. That may not have been the case when the card was purchased if it was done earlier last year.

joshcryer

(62,276 posts)
7. Contact the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 09:53 PM
Jan 2012

This is the kind of thing they can at least make noise about.

The Durbin Amendment locked down debit card fees, so the moguls are going to really push prepaid cards so they can steal your money (and this is effectively what's happening here, wholesale theft).

TexasPaganDem

(42 posts)
9. Pre paid / gift cards from banks
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:08 PM
Jan 2012

I can't tell you from anywhere else, but if you buy a gift card from a bank, the disclosures are required to be handed to the client prior to receiving the payment for the card (we are also required to furnish them "on demand&quot . We have to not only give it to them before the purchase, but we have to give it to them with the disclosures face up and on top. Also, the disclosures are by law required to be in no smaller that 12(?) point font with certain parts of it in bold.

The problem is that most clients throw away the disclosures without reading them, or they don't pass them on in the gift envelope. I *completely* understand that people don't want to give a gift with legalese attached, but it lets the recipient know what to expect.

This probably started 2 years ago or so, and our gift cards are through Visa, so if the purchaser bought it from somewhere else, the laws may be different.

Probably not what you wanted to hear, but it's a transaction we had to compliance test our tellers on before the holiday season got going.

 

virgogal

(10,178 posts)
12. You know,it would be easier to take the loss and consider it a lesson learned. Suing
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:24 PM
Jan 2012

is a lengthy process and not worth it.

snagglepuss

(12,704 posts)
18. I was thinking of suing them in Small CLaims Court but I don't want to
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:34 PM
Jan 2012

make a threat that is empty due to their having the bases covered. I find it hard to believe they can state that fees commence as per the date printed on the Card but then are not required to print the date fees commence. If suiing them is out of the question then I will threaten to contact the media if they do not compensate me.

Sarah Ibarruri

(21,043 posts)
15. The 'legal language' of cards needs to be:
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:33 PM
Jan 2012

(1) Printed in large case;
(2) Explained in common language, not in legalese
(3) The reason neither of the above are done is because it doesn't benefit the card companies to do so.

Lil Missy

(17,865 posts)
21. That is spelled out up front.
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 12:00 AM
Jan 2012

Sorry about you loss and your distress, but you don't have a leg to stand on.

pipi_k

(21,020 posts)
25. Before suing...
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 12:28 PM
Jan 2012

which I'm relatively sure I would not do...

Do any of the TV news shows in your area have one of those consumer advocate type people where you can write or call in and have someone handle this for you with Master Card?

Maybe a consumer protection advocate could get you satisfaction on the money part of it.

The humiliation and emotional suffering part? Probably not. If we could all sue someone for simple humiliation, the courts would be nothing but a chaotic mess.

To tell the truth, I would probably just let this one go.



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Although this may sound t...