Story: My SO bought a trial membership at site A for $1.99. Site A then charged our CC after 20 days for $60 which she called and got refunded and the trial membership was canceled. This month I noticed a $9.73 charge from another related website (Site B). Nieither of us ever gave our CC number to site B or registered at site B. She called and yelled at Site B (got the number from CC statement) and they refunded our card but question is: why did Site A share our CC number with Site B.
Question: I am thinking of sending certified mail to Site A. But before I send the letter I would like to know what are my rights and what compensation should I ask for?
FWIW: Site A and B are property/real estate search websites - possibly same company doing business under two names. Our CC is Discover and I will be asking Discover for a new card. I saw similar other complaints at complaintsboard.com.
The practice is shady at best but usually the way these things work is that you sign up for a trial membership and agree to pay the full amount after a certain period if the trial is not canceled. Often, these sites will have a check-box (or something buried in the small print) to sign you up for other services as well.
Tell your wife to read the fine print so you don't end up on the hook for this again!
I am guessing you unwittingly signed up for the second sight as the same time you did the first. This is a completely shady practice that is becoming more common. Always read the fine print.
I remember signing up for this type of stuff a few years ago to make some spare cash while in college. You most likely signed up for the 2nd site on accident.
rgreene said: My guess is you unwittingly fell for this:
Text I doubt it. The 'this' that you are referring to is the '$10 shipping refund' that signs you up for a service with a monthly fee.
Now I certainly believe that those practices are shady, but the first time I was given the offer my too-good-to-be-true radar went off and I read the terms and conditions which described the monthly fee. So, I declined. If anyone on the FWF forum actually signed up for this, we will accept your resignation and pretend it never happened.
gunsharp
Serene Member
posted: Nov. 24, 2009 @ 7:45p
Most likely, you actually did enter an email or something to give permission to site B while browsing site A. It's very easy to get tricked into it but at least you got a refund.
NEDeals
Serene Member
posted: Nov. 24, 2009 @ 7:50p
TheTigger said: Story: My SO bought a trial membership at site A for $1.99. Site A then charged our CC after 20 days for $60 which she called and got refunded and the trial membership was canceled. This month I noticed a $9.73 charge from another related website (Site B).
FWIW: Site A and B are property/real estate search websites - possibly same company doing business under two names. Our CC is Discover and I will be asking Discover for a new card. I saw similar other complaints at complaintsboard.com.
Another member suggested using a Discover virtual card, which is a great idea. Discover's implementation of Orbiscom's virtual credit card numbers does not permit you to set an expiration date or credit limit (ala BoA), but will only allow one merchant to charge a virtual number. If a second merchant attempts to charge it, the transaction will be declined. This protection is actually more reliable than BoA's expiration/credit limits.
Of course if Sites A & B are actually the same company *AND* they use the same credit card merchant account, the charge likely would have gone through. But it is easier to ask Discover to cancel a virtual number than it is to get a whole new account/card number.
pthor1231 said: All this talk about virtual account numbers and whatnot, I feel obliged to post this: Text
tl;dr of it is, sure, you can use them, but you still need to watch your bills, as fraud can happen regardless of that measure.I don't believe that article is true, simply because I've had charges declined on a Citi virtual account number that would have gone over the limit. But in this particular case it would have worked, because a VAN can allow one or multiple charges from a single merchant, and I'd guess site A and site B did not go through as the same merchant.
skwz
Member
posted: Nov. 25, 2009 @ 11:50a
ColbyS said: olegos said: Next time use a virtual card. Discover has them. As does Citi
scripta said: pthor1231 said: All this talk about virtual account numbers and whatnot, I feel obliged to post this: Text
tl;dr of it is, sure, you can use them, but you still need to watch your bills, as fraud can happen regardless of that measure.I don't believe that article is true, simply because I've had charges declined on a Citi virtual account number that would have gone over the limit. But in this particular case it would have worked, because a VAN can allow one or multiple charges from a single merchant, and I'd guess site A and site B did not go through as the same merchant.
Ironically, you posted in this thread about VANs about a year or so ago. Just because it didn't happen to you on one occasion doesn't mean that it isn't true. It just means most fraudsters don't try and manually process fraudulent claims. I'm not trying to say that the various virtual account number services are useless either, just don't drop your normal guard, just because you used one.
Crazytree
Senior Member - 8K
posted: Nov. 26, 2009 @ 12:57a
I have actually had this happen to me... I canceled Site A and they signed me up for Site B on their own. I canceled Site B and they signed me up for Site C without my authorization.
pthor1231 said: scripta said: pthor1231 said: All this talk about virtual account numbers and whatnot, I feel obliged to post this: Text
tl;dr of it is, sure, you can use them, but you still need to watch your bills, as fraud can happen regardless of that measure.I don't believe that article is true, simply because I've had charges declined on a Citi virtual account number that would have gone over the limit. But in this particular case it would have worked, because a VAN can allow one or multiple charges from a single merchant, and I'd guess site A and site B did not go through as the same merchant.Ironically, you posted in this thread about VANs about a year or so ago. Just because it didn't happen to you on one occasion doesn't mean that it isn't true. It just means most fraudsters don't try and manually process fraudulent claims. I'm not trying to say that the various virtual account number services are useless either, just don't drop your normal guard, just because you used one.There's nothing ironic about that, since my posts there and here are consistent.
scripta said: pthor1231 said: scripta said: pthor1231 said: All this talk about virtual account numbers and whatnot, I feel obliged to post this: Text
tl;dr of it is, sure, you can use them, but you still need to watch your bills, as fraud can happen regardless of that measure.I don't believe that article is true, simply because I've had charges declined on a Citi virtual account number that would have gone over the limit. But in this particular case it would have worked, because a VAN can allow one or multiple charges from a single merchant, and I'd guess site A and site B did not go through as the same merchant.Ironically, you posted in this thread about VANs about a year or so ago. Just because it didn't happen to you on one occasion doesn't mean that it isn't true. It just means most fraudsters don't try and manually process fraudulent claims. I'm not trying to say that the various virtual account number services are useless either, just don't drop your normal guard, just because you used one.There's nothing ironic about that, since my posts there and here are consistent.
Yes, it is consistent with the attitude of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nyah nyah nyah can't hear you!!!". I understand that you have had charges denied on a virtual account number you created, but I also think it is a bit of a stretch to imagine that both the article I posted from random googling, plus other SD users actual experiences, are all fake.
pthor1231 said: Yes, it is consistent with the attitude of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nyah nyah nyah can't hear you!!!". I understand that you have had charges denied on a virtual account number you created, but I also think it is a bit of a stretch to imagine that both the article I posted from random googling, plus other SD users actual experiences, are all fake.That's true, I just don't know why you said it was ironic.
I had another point to my post, besides not believing it -- is that in this case a VAN would have worked nicely because it's limited to a single merchant.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
