5 ms·

Wonder what would happen if someone managed to opt out every single Visa card. Would Visa have to honor that, or would that be grounds to allow them to opt ever

Wonder what would happen if someone managed to opt out every single Visa card. Would Visa have to honor that, or would that be grounds to allow them to opt everybody back in? Or would they just create a "different" marketing campaign, and just opt everybody into that one?

bavell 6y ago
Only one way to find out! What are the possible legal risks to an innocent researcher testing this worthy hypothesis? Asking for a friend of course ;)
- Miner49er 6y ago
  In the US? Jail, probably. The CFAA is given very broad reach, especially when you mess with corporations. IANAL, though.
- strombofulous 6y ago
  Probably the same thing that happened ~10 years ago in a very similar situation https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-auernheimer https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-auernheimer
lucb1e 6y ago
They would have a legitimate reason to doubt that all cards individually opted out and so they'd probably send people a letter or post a notice somewhere (updated ToS, idk) that there is now a new form that makes it more annoying for you to opt out (have to enter other details, send a letter, whatever) and that opt-outs after date X (when the mass additions started happening) have not been processed. Or you do it like the EU and make excessive data processing opt-in. (Where by "excessive" I mean something that doesn't fall within recital 47 of GDPR: "legitimate [e.g. marketing] interests of [the company] may provide a legal basis for processing, provided that [users' rights] are not overriding, taking into consideration the reasonable expectations of [users]". It's a grey area where this line is exactly, but Visa can't simply do whatever they want. They have to tell you what data they process, but nobody reads that, and for unexpected (arguably excessive) things they'd have to ask you to opt in.) But I guess that's a little beyond the scope of this comment thread.
- moduspol 6y ago
  Alternatively, they check their web server logs for the IP address(es) from which 99% of requests came, and then undo the opt-outs of those numbers. Then they add a better CAPTCHA.
gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
Yes. Source: That is what everyone did when microsoft turned Do Not Track on by default on IE. That's what you get with "self regulation". Visa will just say, on their news page: "we updated our terms and condition, if you opted out in the past you must opt out again" The only winning move against corporation involves NOT giving them your money. Anything else is futile in the current US legal landscape. Oh, and they will probably work with the FBI to get whoever did that behind bars pretty quick.
chooseaname 6y ago
Pretty sure that someone would be prosecuted for violating the CFAA. Not saying that’s right, just that’s my commentary on the state of things today.

bavell 6y ago

Only one way to find out! What are the possible legal risks to an innocent researcher testing this worthy hypothesis? Asking for a friend of course ;)

Miner49er 6y ago
In the US? Jail, probably. The CFAA is given very broad reach, especially when you mess with corporations. IANAL, though.
strombofulous 6y ago
Probably the same thing that happened ~10 years ago in a very similar situation https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-auernheimer https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-auernheimer

lucb1e 6y ago

They would have a legitimate reason to doubt that all cards individually opted out and so they'd probably send people a letter or post a notice somewhere (updated ToS, idk) that there is now a new form that makes it more annoying for you to opt out (have to enter other details, send a letter, whatever) and that opt-outs after date X (when the mass additions started happening) have not been processed. Or you do it like the EU and make excessive data processing opt-in. (Where by "excessive" I mean something that doesn't fall within recital 47 of GDPR: "legitimate [e.g. marketing] interests of [the company] may provide a legal basis for processing, provided that [users' rights] are not overriding, taking into consideration the reasonable expectations of [users]". It's a grey area where this line is exactly, but Visa can't simply do whatever they want. They have to tell you what data they process, but nobody reads that, and for unexpected (arguably excessive) things they'd have to ask you to opt in.) But I guess that's a little beyond the scope of this comment thread.

moduspol 6y ago
Alternatively, they check their web server logs for the IP address(es) from which 99% of requests came, and then undo the opt-outs of those numbers. Then they add a better CAPTCHA.

gcblkjaidfj 6y ago

Yes. Source: That is what everyone did when microsoft turned Do Not Track on by default on IE. That's what you get with "self regulation". Visa will just say, on their news page: "we updated our terms and condition, if you opted out in the past you must opt out again" The only winning move against corporation involves NOT giving them your money. Anything else is futile in the current US legal landscape. Oh, and they will probably work with the FBI to get whoever did that behind bars pretty quick.

chooseaname 6y ago

Pretty sure that someone would be prosecuted for violating the CFAA. Not saying that’s right, just that’s my commentary on the state of things today.