Cashback churning gone too far

svr411 said:   Glitch99 said:   How many people are not sleeping tonight because of similar AMEX GC orders they placed?

None. AMEX made a decision to sell GCs under the terms they did. Nordstrom's did not plan to pay Cash Back on rejected orders.Pretty sure AMEX didnt either...

FrugalFreak said:   ironfist99 said:   I assume it was fraud because nothing ever shipped? Would this also be considered fraud if they shipped and then returned to the store?

Why wouldn't norstrom be responsible for tracking affiliate payments on cancelled orders? If they had done THEIR job, they wouldn't have awarded one penny unjustly. I say majority of the blame falls on them not diligent in their program and manpower tracking it.

Because Nordstrom's computer folks are too busy surfing Fatwallet and similar sites all day long to pay attention to data anomalies flowing through their systems.

Glitch99 said:   SUCKISSTAPLES said:   wd said:   Badadvice, the first time, there was no intent to benefit from the mistake (since it was unknown). The second time there was an intent.

My question is, how many posts on FW over the years have allowed people to get exceptionally high discounts or even free merchandise by exploiting an improperly used discount or coupon code or maybe stacking coupon codes in such a way that was never intended by the merchant. Once discovered and posted, thousands of people "defraud" the merchant by taking advantage of it. Will the FBI be coming after all of us?

This is where I have the problem...FW well knows that the premise of this whole forum is TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PRICING ERRORS, and yet when a FW member takes advantage of FW's own pricing error, they get jailed.

The relevant employees at FW and Nordstrom were the ones who should have stepped up and accepted responsibility, but in a world where everybody denies everything and likes to shift blame, the easy party to pin was the Chius.It all comes down to item #1 in the complaint - they werent supposed to be shopping there in the first place (and it wasnt passive, they were specifically told they were banned). I think if this item wasnt included, the entire case would go away.
.
Im reading the charging document right now.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/88640072/Nordstrom-Fraud-Scheme

Paragraph 7. says they were "banned" in October 2008. We dont know what form that "ban" consists of. or the wording used, including the duration fo the ban

Interestingly, in Paragraph 9, they did not try placing another order until JANUARY 2010. More than a year later. This is when they discovered their order would not ship but they would receive CB.

How many of us get closed down by a CC, but then try to apply a year later and get approved? Things change. It is reasonable to believe the ban was not for life.

Paragraph 11 is what gets me. The govt alleges that the Chius "knew" they could only get CB for completed paid orders. Now maybe they didnt have a good attorney representing them, but as I said upthread, one of my FIRST arguments would be a reasonable belief that you earned CB by PLACING the order, not whether it was delivered. If they admitted they knew this , they helped to hang themself.

ALWAYS GET COMPETENT COUNSEL FOLKS!

dshibb said:   Q=suezyque;16841543]Just a thought............ Do you suppose the CC's they used will be canceled by the issuers and how will this affect their credit down the line? If jailed for this, once they are out, will the fallout be substantial?

That is probably the last thing on their mind right now. These 2 guys are going to PMITA prison for at least 2 years. Nordstroms deserves a $hitload of fallout for what they have done, and sadly they will probably see no negative outcome for doing something so wrong.

While I have enjoyed my time on FW very much, they are equally to blame here, and if they dont step up and admit their errors, in allowing their own members to end up in jail, there is going to be fallout here too. FW could have easily verified such large CashBack payouts for legitimacy. If they were questionable, they should have been held in the members FatCash account. FatCash is shown as "pending" until its confirmed as eligible for withdrawal. By informing the Chius that the FatCash moved from pending to available and allowing redemption, the Chius had a reasonable belief they were entitled to the funds.

Glitch99 said:   SUCKISSTAPLES said:   wd said:   Badadvice, the first time, there was no intent to benefit from the mistake (since it was unknown). The second time there was an intent.

My question is, how many posts on FW over the years have allowed people to get exceptionally high discounts or even free merchandise by exploiting an improperly used discount or coupon code or maybe stacking coupon codes in such a way that was never intended by the merchant. Once discovered and posted, thousands of people "defraud" the merchant by taking advantage of it. Will the FBI be coming after all of us?

This is where I have the problem...FW well knows that the premise of this whole forum is TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PRICING ERRORS, and yet when a FW member takes advantage of FW's own pricing error, they get jailed.

The relevant employees at FW and Nordstrom were the ones who should have stepped up and accepted responsibility, but in a world where everybody denies everything and likes to shift blame, the easy party to pin was the Chius.It all comes down to item #1 in the complaint - they werent supposed to be shopping there in the first place (and it wasnt passive, they were specifically told they were banned). I think if this item wasnt included, the entire case would go away.

Why weren't they "supposed" to be shopping there? If they were submitting orders by paper mail and Nordstrom notified them that they were "banned" would it be fraud to continue sending such mailings? This happens to millions of Americans every day yet I don't see the district attorney bringing charges against those perpetrators.

As SUCKISSTAPLES noted, the true bottom line here is blame shifting. Only reason the junk mailers and other such corporate fraudsters don't get prosecuted is because they hire other people to do their dirty work which allows them to shift the blame and feign ignorance. There's a double standard.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Glitch99 said:   SUCKISSTAPLES said:   wd said:   Badadvice, the first time, there was no intent to benefit from the mistake (since it was unknown). The second time there was an intent.

My question is, how many posts on FW over the years have allowed people to get exceptionally high discounts or even free merchandise by exploiting an improperly used discount or coupon code or maybe stacking coupon codes in such a way that was never intended by the merchant. Once discovered and posted, thousands of people "defraud" the merchant by taking advantage of it. Will the FBI be coming after all of us?

This is where I have the problem...FW well knows that the premise of this whole forum is TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PRICING ERRORS, and yet when a FW member takes advantage of FW's own pricing error, they get jailed.

The relevant employees at FW and Nordstrom were the ones who should have stepped up and accepted responsibility, but in a world where everybody denies everything and likes to shift blame, the easy party to pin was the Chius.It all comes down to item #1 in the complaint - they werent supposed to be shopping there in the first place (and it wasnt passive, they were specifically told they were banned). I think if this item wasnt included, the entire case would go away.
.
Im reading the charging document right now.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/88640072/Nordstrom-Fraud-Scheme

Paragraph 7. says they were "banned" in October 2008. We dont know what form that "ban" consists of. or the wording used, including the duration fo the ban

Interestingly, in Paragraph 9, they did not try placing another order until JANUARY 2010. More than a year later. This is when they discovered their order would not ship but they would receive CB.

How many of us get closed down by a CC, but then try to apply a year later and get approved? Things change. It is reasonable to believe the ban was not for life.

Paragraph 11 is what gets me. The govt alleges that the Chius "knew" they could only get CB for completed paid orders. Now maybe they didnt have a good attorney representing them, but as I said upthread, one of my FIRST arguments would be a reasonable belief that you earned CB by PLACING the order, not whether it was delivered. If they admitted they knew this , they helped to hang themself.

What I don't get is how could anyone possibly "know" what is or isn't a "legitimately earned" promotional award? You'd have to be an idiot to not realize that merchants will say and do anything to extract cash from their customers. Therefore, it's impossible to "know" what any particular statement, policy, or action from a merchant like Nordstrom implies about what "could" be "legitimately earned" or not.

I'm sure in Nordstrom's eyes "legitimate" is synonymous with siphoning cash from the pockets of anyone who will allow them to.

"Fatwallet makes commissions when smart shoppers like you find good deals or coupons and click through our site to buy items from featured stores. We than pay most or part of our commissions back to our Fatwallet members."

So if you click through Fatwallet, buy an item from the featured store, you get Cash Back. If the store cancels the sale but the Cash Back remains, how is this fraud?

It seems to me, that you are being paid by Fatwallet to click through the site and complete a purchase order. Since the order was cancelled and the Cash Back remained, isn't it logical to believe you are being paid by Fatwallet to complete an order, not to take physical possession of the item.

It seems Fatwallet will always have your back... in order to stab if need be.

dshibb said:   So does anybody have any ideas to give Nordstroms hell for this? They deserve it and we have a lot of smart people here.

And not to go off on a tangent here, but this is why I told a district attorney on here that I considered his profession the lowest scum of the earth.
Dont take it out on all us attorneys/ A small group of us are good guys. Yes its a very small group.

dshibb said:   SUCKISSTAPLES said:   dshibb said:   suezyque said:   Just a thought............ Do you suppose the CC's they used will be canceled by the issuers and how will this affect their credit down the line? If jailed for this, once they are out, will the fallout be substantial?

That is probably the last thing on their mind right now. These 2 guys are going to PMITA prison for at least 2 years. Nordstroms deserves a $hitload of fallout for what they have done, and sadly they will probably see no negative outcome for doing something so wrong.

While I have enjoyed my time on FW very much, they are equally to blame here, and if they dont step up and admit their errors, in allowing their own members to end up in jail, there is going to be fallout here too. FW could have easily verified such large CashBack payouts for legitimacy. If they were questionable, they should have been held in the members FatCash account. FatCash is shown as "pending" until its confirmed as eligible for withdrawal. By informing the Chius that the FatCash moved from pending to available and allowing redemption, the Chius had a reasonable belief they were entitled to the funds.

The problem is that I don't see any issue with taking advantage of pricing and/or rebate errors. So I think that any party that benefits from them(whether Fatwallet or these 2 guys) hasn't done anything wrong. To admit that Fatwallet is to blame here is to admit that 'taking advantage of pricing and/or rebate errors' is wrong and illegal. I wont admit to that so I wont add Fatwallet into the culpable parties.
=

I have more info on FW actions related to this. Im waiting on the proper discussions to occur before posting it, but I think youll agree that FW role in this is much more sinister than appears from the facts posted in this thread

dshibb said:   So does anybody have any ideas to give Nordstroms hell for this? They deserve it and we have a lot of smart people here.
FW deserves the bulk of the blame. Blame ladder:

FW > Nordstroms > Brothers

But, like usual, the consumer is the one that has to bend over (literally).

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   I have more info on FW actions related to this. Im waiting on the proper discussions to occur before posting it, but I think youll agree that FW role in this is much more sinister than appears from the facts posted in this thread
Tease!

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   dshibb said:   SUCKISSTAPLES said:   dshibb said:   suezyque said:   Just a thought............ Do you suppose the CC's they used will be canceled by the issuers and how will this affect their credit down the line? If jailed for this, once they are out, will the fallout be substantial?

That is probably the last thing on their mind right now. These 2 guys are going to PMITA prison for at least 2 years. Nordstroms deserves a $hitload of fallout for what they have done, and sadly they will probably see no negative outcome for doing something so wrong.

While I have enjoyed my time on FW very much, they are equally to blame here, and if they dont step up and admit their errors, in allowing their own members to end up in jail, there is going to be fallout here too. FW could have easily verified such large CashBack payouts for legitimacy. If they were questionable, they should have been held in the members FatCash account. FatCash is shown as "pending" until its confirmed as eligible for withdrawal. By informing the Chius that the FatCash moved from pending to available and allowing redemption, the Chius had a reasonable belief they were entitled to the funds.

The problem is that I don't see any issue with taking advantage of pricing and/or rebate errors. So I think that any party that benefits from them(whether Fatwallet or these 2 guys) hasn't done anything wrong. To admit that Fatwallet is to blame here is to admit that 'taking advantage of pricing and/or rebate errors' is wrong and illegal. I wont admit to that so I wont add Fatwallet into the culpable parties.
=

I have more info on FW actions related to this. Im waiting on the proper discussions to occur before posting it, but I think youll agree that FW role in this is much more sinister than appears from the facts posted in this thread

But does your information rest on the idea that "taking advantage of pricing and/or rebate errors" is a crime? Because if you agree with me that it isn't I don't even care if FW taught these guys how to do this.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   While I have enjoyed my time on FW very much, they are equally to blame here, and if they dont step up and admit their errors, in allowing their own members to end up in jail, there is going to be fallout here too. FW could have easily verified such large CashBack payouts for legitimacy.

At what point would such an admission be tantamount to FW admitting that they willingly stood by and profited from what they probably should have known were criminal activities?

edit: IANAL, but it seems like there's potential exposure to RICO prosecution at some point down the line if FW does make such an admission.

As far as I know, the Chief is gone?

Fw sold out to ebates a while back and I don't think Tim is staying on

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   As far as I know, the Chief is gone?

Fw sold out to ebates a while back and I don't think Tim is staying on

I guess FW knew this, but since they got paid too, so why bother stopping (until Nordstrom want it back that is)? Pump revenue up by 10% (FW had ~13M rev) and sold!

iUSB said:   SUCKISSTAPLES said:   As far as I know, the Chief is gone?

Fw sold out to ebates a while back and I don't think Tim is staying on

I guess FW knew this, but since they got paid too, so why bother stopping (until Nordstrom want it back that is)? Pump revenue up by 10% (FW had ~13M rev) and sold!
Yep, if this so called "fraud" was 10% of their 2010-2011 yearly revenue, and they were aware of it when FW was sold there can be very serious repercussions....but even then, it would be in civil court

BEEFjerKAY said:   SUCKISSTAPLES said:   While I have enjoyed my time on FW very much, they are equally to blame here, and if they dont step up and admit their errors, in allowing their own members to end up in jail, there is going to be fallout here too. FW could have easily verified such large CashBack payouts for legitimacy.

At what point would such an admission be tantamount to FW admitting that they willingly stood by and profited from what they probably should have known were criminal activities?

edit: IANAL, but it seems like there's potential exposure to RICO prosecution at some point down the line if FW does make such an admission.

Well then thats what needs to happen.

Ive just stopped wearing my "Free Pimp C" T-Shirt (RIP Chad Butler)

looks like now I'm going to need to wear "Free the Chius" t shirts

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   I listed one possible argument - that , by being credited for unshipped orders, they were led to reasonably believe you earned FW CashBack for PLACING orders...not whether they were actually delivered.They believed Fatwallet was paying them to place orders, even after Nordstrom banned them? Isn't that conspiracy?
If this was a B+M, they'd be arrested for trespass, but isn't the online equivalent unauthorized access? (Assuming they were notified of the ban)
I'm surprised they weren't charged for each order they tried to process. Making $23 million in purchases after being banned from a website goes way beyond any gray line I've seen on FW.

VK11 said:   well, actually....unless somebody specifically pointed this out to IA, it's not as easy...the staff accountant that reconciles rebate liability could have caught it, but only if they had the numbers for actual disb. made vs. volume. Only if this was noted by accounting department, and brought by acct manager/controller to IA, the ensuing audit would have caught it.

Amen. Often as not it's the pet rocks in Marketing that get the reports on affiliate marketing expenses versus revenues generated.

And since such a report inherently contains those icky things called numbers, Marketing ignores it unless and until there's a problem.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   dshibb said:   SIS is it your contention that taking advantage of rebate errors is a crime?

If no are you still saying that FW would be the most culpable party?

If yes without going into detail explain how that could be possible. Obviously for various reasons talk around the information you know and give generalities so that you don't have to give damning details.

I dont believe the Chius did anything wrong. They placed orders using a valid cc. Nordstroms had the choice to ship and charge their cards. That they chose not to charge or ship was 100% Nordstroms control. Nordstrom also had the chance not to pay FW CashBack for orders they blocked.

FW then had the chance to verify that CashBack received was earned according to whatever "standards" they consider necessary before moving it from pending to available. FW also had the chance to refuse payment of the CashBack if they believed it was not earned. FW benefited by approx $700.000, and further benefitted by an increaed buyout valuation from ebates due to the higher reported revenue (unless ebates was fully informed of this pending issue prior to buyout)

Okay I get all of this. But you didn't answer my questions.

Is it your contention that taking advantage of rebate errors is a crime?