3 ms·

Do you know of even a single case of a credit card company actually (not just threatening) suing a regular person? Just curious, but I think for 99% of people'

Do you know of even a single case of a credit card company actually (not just threatening) suing a regular person? Just curious, but I think for 99% of people's credit limits it would be a -EV (poker term for "negative expected value") move on their part, especially since if the customer lost, he can just declare bankruptcy anyways, after perhaps burying a little nest egg out in the Mojave or in a child's name or whathaveyou.

jdmichal 8y ago
Eh, good call. Sued is probably extremely rare / non-existent. I'm assuming their modus operandi is to register as a creditor on bankruptcies and try to claw back what they can that way. End result is still the same: They're not worried about gold and silver because they are very price stable and easily liquidated during bankruptcy in order to pay creditors.
astura 8y ago
>Do you know of even a single case of a credit card company actually (not just threatening) suing a regular person? Um, yes. Years ago a previous tenant of the place I was renting got served in a lawsuit from a credit card company. They apparently didn't have the current address for the person so the papers were left at my house several times. It wasn't that much either, less than $2,000 IIRC. I called the lawyer and let them know they were serving the wrong house. Anyways, if they sell the debt to collections the collections agency can (and does) sue the consumer. A family member of mine was also sued by a hospital (not collections) for unpaid hospital bills less than $1,000. Anyway, if AMEX doesn't disallow precious metals then, for whatever reason, they must not have a high fraud/chargeback rate or they don't have a high default rate for those transactions. It's business. Also, buying something and reselling it for a profit is a totally valid use case for a credit card, they can't meaningfully prohibit that, nor would they want to, since that includes pretty much the entire category of "business expenses." American Express is a business and they know the type of activities that make them money and the kinds of activities that don't make them money. They wish to participate in the former and avoid the latter. If you're upset about businesses avoiding activities that lose them money, you're going to be upset all the time.
- XalvinX 8y ago
  How many "years ago" are we talking about here? The 1950s? You know how much corporate-type legal teams bill per hour, right? Several hundred dollars per hour. And there are filing fees, marshal fees for the serving, and probably all manner of paperwork that piles up that someone has to deal with, yet more expense. I have been served myself, by the way. They do not leave papers at a house. Legally serving someone means the papers must be given directly to the person, and if that person refuses to take them, left at their feet (literally). That is the definition. The hospital situation might have been a small town hospital using Small Claims court or something, but even still, the expenses involved would not make it worthwhile for a lousy grand. I'm not trying to call you a liar or anything, astura, but you are either talking about a very long time ago, or you are somehow mistaken about the nature of these events. And as far as "serving" goes, I don't think that has changed pretty much forever. Who's upset, anyways? I don't care what businesses do. If Wells (the article wasn't about AMEX, by the way) doesn't want peoples business, screw 'em. I'm sure someone out there will happily give credit to people with the right job and other credentials. Credit card companies mint money, as do most banks. They rarely lose or go out of business, do they? That's why I'm so suspicious about their motivation here. They happily loan money to college kids (who buy mostly beer, junk food, and spring break flights to Cancun with it), they happily let people use their cards at liquor stores, and the majority allow for cash advances (note that their are always ATM machines in casinos and strip clubs and bars and nightclubs, too). You don't think this is just a little bit weird, huh?

jdmichal 8y ago

Eh, good call. Sued is probably extremely rare / non-existent. I'm assuming their modus operandi is to register as a creditor on bankruptcies and try to claw back what they can that way. End result is still the same: They're not worried about gold and silver because they are very price stable and easily liquidated during bankruptcy in order to pay creditors.

astura 8y ago

>Do you know of even a single case of a credit card company actually (not just threatening) suing a regular person? Um, yes. Years ago a previous tenant of the place I was renting got served in a lawsuit from a credit card company. They apparently didn't have the current address for the person so the papers were left at my house several times. It wasn't that much either, less than $2,000 IIRC. I called the lawyer and let them know they were serving the wrong house. Anyways, if they sell the debt to collections the collections agency can (and does) sue the consumer. A family member of mine was also sued by a hospital (not collections) for unpaid hospital bills less than $1,000. Anyway, if AMEX doesn't disallow precious metals then, for whatever reason, they must not have a high fraud/chargeback rate or they don't have a high default rate for those transactions. It's business. Also, buying something and reselling it for a profit is a totally valid use case for a credit card, they can't meaningfully prohibit that, nor would they want to, since that includes pretty much the entire category of "business expenses." American Express is a business and they know the type of activities that make them money and the kinds of activities that don't make them money. They wish to participate in the former and avoid the latter. If you're upset about businesses avoiding activities that lose them money, you're going to be upset all the time.

XalvinX 8y ago
How many "years ago" are we talking about here? The 1950s? You know how much corporate-type legal teams bill per hour, right? Several hundred dollars per hour. And there are filing fees, marshal fees for the serving, and probably all manner of paperwork that piles up that someone has to deal with, yet more expense. I have been served myself, by the way. They do not leave papers at a house. Legally serving someone means the papers must be given directly to the person, and if that person refuses to take them, left at their feet (literally). That is the definition. The hospital situation might have been a small town hospital using Small Claims court or something, but even still, the expenses involved would not make it worthwhile for a lousy grand. I'm not trying to call you a liar or anything, astura, but you are either talking about a very long time ago, or you are somehow mistaken about the nature of these events. And as far as "serving" goes, I don't think that has changed pretty much forever. Who's upset, anyways? I don't care what businesses do. If Wells (the article wasn't about AMEX, by the way) doesn't want peoples business, screw 'em. I'm sure someone out there will happily give credit to people with the right job and other credentials. Credit card companies mint money, as do most banks. They rarely lose or go out of business, do they? That's why I'm so suspicious about their motivation here. They happily loan money to college kids (who buy mostly beer, junk food, and spring break flights to Cancun with it), they happily let people use their cards at liquor stores, and the majority allow for cash advances (note that their are always ATM machines in casinos and strip clubs and bars and nightclubs, too). You don't think this is just a little bit weird, huh?