Cashback churning gone too far

scottxmso said:   imbatman said:   Ok. How about this.

How is this glitch different than THISglitch?

Because they are taking advantage of a real scam:
article said: The rates for inmate phone calls from the jail are $2.58 for local calls, $13.85 for long distance calls and $23.68 for international calls.

I figure many FWFers consider Nordstrom to be overpriced. But even the worst of their business practices are probably nothing compared to this.

Call me crazy, but I don't see how that phone rebate trick was fraud either.

dshibb said:   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?
Thats too vague of a question. taking advantage of certain rebate errors can be a crime. But simply placing website orders using a valid CC, just like you me and everyone on FW does, cannot be a criminal scheme. They didnt use any fraudulent codes, or special URLs that generated mispricing or anything else. They just made regular full price purchases. The decision to block and cancel the orders and still pay out affiliate money was the fault of Nordstroms and/or FW.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   dshibb said:   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?
Thats too vague of a question. taking advantage of certain rebate errors can be a crime. But simply placing website orders using a valid CC, just like you me and everyone on FW does, cannot be a criminal scheme. They didnt use any fraudulent codes, or special URLs that generated mispricing or anything else. They just made regular full price purchases. The decision to block and cancel the orders and still pay out affiliate money was the fault of Nordstroms and/or FW.

Give me an example of a certain rebate error that would be a crime to take advantage of.

ironfist99 said:   dshibb said:   Look:
-Giving out false names is fraud.
-Giving someone else's information for purchases is fraud
-Giving incorrect information in loan or mortgage documents is fraud
-Producing false accounting statements is fraud
-Making false representations to others during a transaction is fraud.

-Taking advantage of someone else's errors while making accurate representations of yourself is *Not Fraud*, its actually smart. The brothers would be more guilty of fraud if they created a false name to get around the ban than in actually taking advantage of the ban to get Cash Back money. Yet the former wouldn't even result in criminal charges.

If this is true, then how is it legitimate to use sites like shopshield, which have you provide fake information when ordering to protect your identity?

Good question I don't know! Maybe its under the argument that this isn't 'material' to the type of purchases you are doing. Maybe its technically illegal, but the retailers would never press charges because they want the business. But I don't really know.

Why didn't they just nab for the old standby of tax fraud. Then this whole debate would be mute.

I agree with you its not the same, and why I posted upthread about how if they used an affiliate link where the site owner kept ALL 7% of the money, instead of sharing it like FW does, they would likely not have been prosecuted.

(that is, unless they were colluding with the site owner).

The "ban" issue is one I discussed outside of FW.

In a B&M situation, if a retailer does not want you to shop there, they formally "trespass" you, and you can indeed be arrested for coming back to the business.

In the online world, I dont think Ive ever seen the equivalent "online retailer trespass".

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   I agree with you its not the same, and why I posted upthread about how if they used an affiliate link where the site owner kept ALL 7% of the money, instead of sharing it like FW does, they would likely not have been prosecuted.

(that is, unless they were colluding with the site owner).

Actually even if their was collusion it *still* wouldn't be fraud. Because as long as you stick to making accurate representations of yourself you have done nothing wrong.

So would you agree that assuming you aren't engaging in material misrepresentations, lies, or omissions(like in the example of someone creating a bunch of fake names) that there is nothing illegal about taking advantage of a rebate and/or pricing error(even if it wasn't the intent of the company to allow that rebate or pricing error)?

dshibb said:   SUCKISSTAPLES said:   I agree with you its not the same, and why I posted upthread about how if they used an affiliate link where the site owner kept ALL 7% of the money, instead of sharing it like FW does, they would likely not have been prosecuted.

(that is, unless they were colluding with the site owner).

Actually even if their was collusion it *still* wouldn't be fraud. Because as long as you stick to making accurate representations of yourself you have done nothing wrong.

So would you agree that assuming you aren't engaging in material misrepresentations, lies, or omissions(like in the example of someone creating a bunch of names) that there is nothing illegal about taking advantage of a rebate and/or pricing error(even if it wasn't the intent of the company to allow that rebate or pricing error)?

yes, I too believe there is nothing illegal about taking advantage of a rebate and/or pricing error(even if it wasn't the intent of the company to allow that rebate or pricing error). And I think you should be able to buy 1 or 1000 or 100,000 of the mispriced item or item with erroneous rebate.

I'm of mindset that the retailer controls whether or not to provide the mispriced item or erroneous rebate , and if they choose to complete that transaction, intentionally or via oversight, its their loss.

of course, the retailer will have a different opinion than I do.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   dshibb said:   SUCKISSTAPLES said:   I agree with you its not the same, and why I posted upthread about how if they used an affiliate link where the site owner kept ALL 7% of the money, instead of sharing it like FW does, they would likely not have been prosecuted.

(that is, unless they were colluding with the site owner).

Actually even if their was collusion it *still* wouldn't be fraud. Because as long as you stick to making accurate representations of yourself you have done nothing wrong.

So would you agree that assuming you aren't engaging in material misrepresentations, lies, or omissions(like in the example of someone creating a bunch of names) that there is nothing illegal about taking advantage of a rebate and/or pricing error(even if it wasn't the intent of the company to allow that rebate or pricing error)?

yes, I too believe there is nothing illegal about taking advantage of a rebate and/or pricing error(even if it wasn't the intent of the company to allow that rebate or pricing error). And I think you should be able to buy 1 or 1000 or 100,000 of the mispriced item or item with erroneous rebate.

I'm of mindset that the retailer controls whether or not to provide the mispriced item or erroneous rebate , and if they choose to complete that transaction, intentionally or via oversight, its their loss.

of course, the retailer will have a different opinion than I do.

Okay then, so do you still see FW as partially to blame if this is the case?

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   I agree with you its not the same, and why I posted upthread about how if they used an affiliate link where the site owner kept ALL 7% of the money, instead of sharing it like FW does, they would likely not have been prosecuted.

(that is, unless they were colluding with the site owner).

But then the brothers would not be deriving any benefit out of the deal, which is the point of the charge.

But legally there are always thresholds in the law. Once bitten, twice shy. Petty theft, which is an infraction and sometimes not prosecuted, as compared to grand theft, which is a felony. Now a good criminal defense lawyer could probably extricate the Chius out of the situation, but they made a business decision not to go against the Federal Government, which has unlimited resources at their disposal. From the layman's perspective though, regardless of whether Nord$trom paid the money or FW took the affiliate payment, the Chius financially gained significantly from the situation. I think FW and Nord$strom should have tracked transaction types, and flagged suspicious ones, but that doesn't excuse what the Chius did in the slightest.

calwatch said:   But then the brothers would not be deriving any benefit out of the deal, which is the point of the charge.
I thought you had to make money (or hope to) for fraud, but something I read said you just had to think the other party would lose money. So if you trick some idiot into giving away all his money to someone else by lying to him, you can go to jail. We can only hope such a principle would be applied to religious solicitations, advisors or realtors recommending bad investments, and politicians' campaign fund raising with equal zeal.

calwatch said:   But legally there are always thresholds in the law. Once bitten, twice shy. Petty theft, which is an infraction and sometimes not prosecuted, as compared to grand theft, which is a felony. Now a good criminal defense lawyer could probably extricate the Chius out of the situation, but they made a business decision not to go against the Federal Government, which has unlimited resources at their disposal. From the layman's perspective though, regardless of whether Nord$trom paid the money or FW took the affiliate payment, the Chius financially gained significantly from the situation. I think FW and Nord$strom should have tracked transaction types, and flagged suspicious ones, but that doesn't excuse what the Chius did in the slightest.

That's not the point. What they didn't **wasn't illegal**.

See in your examples petty theft is a crime and so it makes sense that grand theft would come with stiffer penalties. But in this case taking advantage of a rebate error to make a couple hundred bucks is by no means a crime. So how is possible that when you do this to make a few hundred grand that it all of sudden becomes a crime?

Its a joke is what it is. If the brothers got prosecuted for doing the same thing and pulling in only a couple grand this entire forum would be up and arms and you know it. The fact that they managed to be successful enough to take in a few hundred grand is causing some people on here to say that they were in the wrong. And this difference is what caused Nordstroms to prosecute instead of just brush it off.

So again the lesson from this is that if you take advantage of a rebate error on a small scale=no crime/good job. If you managed to make a ton of money doing it=crime and Federal PMITA prison which is beyond bull$hit. I'm sick and tired of the amount of money you made being the determinant of whether or not you did something wrong. Its BS!

xerty said:   calwatch said:   But then the brothers would not be deriving any benefit out of the deal, which is the point of the charge.
I thought you had to make money (or hope to) for fraud, but something I read said you just had to think the other party would lose money. So if you trick some idiot into giving away all his money to someone else by lying to him, you can go to jail. We can only hope such a principle would be applied to religious solicitations, advisors or realtors recommending bad investments, and politicians' campaign fund raising with equal zeal.

In this case the brothers didn't even lie to them. They gave correct names, valid CC, correct shipping address, etc. and they made a valid offer for goods. Nordstroms refused to make good on those goods and then paid rebates for the pleasure of receiving the offer.

So where is the fraud?

SantaLink said:   They are the FWF heros!

I wonder how many FWF heavy hitters have lifetime FW CashBack over 500K ??

I also wonder will this set precedence for other companies to sue, say for example, the Chase AARP card holders?

This bull$hit precedent has put many fatwalleters at risk, and what is funny is that some of those very people put at risk have come on and agreed with the decision(purely because of the amount of money these brothers got away with).

So in case if anybody is curious, the Chiu's attorney is Alex Flynn who runs a bilingual law firm out of Milwaukee.

Here is the website: Alex Flynn

I'm shooting him some emails as well.

Yes companies routinely screw people everyday, but the average person doesnt have the pull that Nordstroms does. When Nordstroms tells the FBI someone caused them a million dollar loss, the FBI moves.

When an average person gets shafted for $20 rebate, even if its 10,000 people, the FBI wont move

Also its a bit tough to put a company in jail....you can jail the executives, but Only the worst of the worst (Ken Lay, Madoff, Nick Cosmo) go to jail.

Does this set a precedent? Are customers going to be held criminally liable for store's mistakes?

I forsee retailers now not just blacklisting customers, but threaten criminal proscecution for taking advantage of " deals".

jeeves said:   Does this set a precedent? Are customers going to be held criminally liable for store's mistakes?

I forsee retailers now not just blacklisting customers, but threaten criminal proscecution for taking advantage of " deals".
This is indeed a slippery slope , hence my outrage at the sequence of events . This should have been resolved privately between fw, Nordstroms and the chius, perhaps each agreeing to take a bit of a hit . Sending the FBI after someone on a deals site tried to get a deal is ridiculous