5 ms·

This is the important part of the article: > Consumers are expected to receive a direct payment of approximately $30 for each year that they were deceived into

This is the important part of the article: > Consumers are expected to receive a direct payment of approximately $30 for each year that they were deceived into paying for filing services. Impacted consumers will automatically receive notices and a check by mail. It looks like TurboTax is being required to return the money they fraudulently obtained, but they're not even required to pay interest or any additional restitution or punitive damages. It's definitely disappointing and a minor miscarriage of justice. Edit: Two things I want to clarify from my original comment. First, I wasn't able to find pricing info from the years in question so I went from what I remembered as their lowest pricing tier which I think was $30. Second, I use the term "minor miscarriage of justice" as a comparison to the Sackler BS which was a gross (as in disgusting) miscarriage of justice.

thomascgalvin 4y ago
It's better than a coupon for free tax preparation next year, which is sort of what I expected.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Given the recent trend of incompetence leading into borderline scams I don’t blame you.
- dr_orpheus 4y ago
  True, I feel like coupons are a way that a lot of these go. I remember my $14 Ticketmaster coupon (or something I don't remember the exact amount) that had an expiration date on it. Some of the class action suits also require you to be the one to put in effort to receive your money, so the fact that TurboTax is just mailing everyone a check seems better than others. And "better" doesn't necessarily mean "good". Still not a fan of TurboTax or the US tax filing system.
rgbrenner 4y ago
Is that a full refund? The cheapest Turbotax product is $60 + 50 for state.
- tynpeddler 4y ago
  I assumed that TurboTax has already adjusted their pricing tiers in response to the lawsuit since my vague memory of many years ago is that the lower tier was about $30. If someone can give more accurate pricing information for the effected years that would be cool.
seaourfreed 4y ago
The economy is rigged. Intuit made $5.7 billion in revenue (2021) and the fine is only $141m. I agree with you. Miscarriage of justice. Like a bank robber only having to return the money as the "fine" and zero punishment after.
- tynpeddler 4y ago
  I don't think Intuit's total revenue is relevant to this discussion. The most relevant number is how much money did they make off this little scheme which seems to be much less than their total revenue. I didn't see this value in the article, nor was I able to find TurboTax's pricing model for the years in questions so I went off (my very fuzzy) memory that their lowest tier was about $30.
  - ASalazarMX 4y ago
    When you ignore a red light, the fine is not calculated based on whether you had an accident or not. For a fine to be significant, it has to exceed the profit made from the crime, otherwise you'll keep running red lights until you actually crash or run someone over. Given its profits, Intuit could easily survive a fine of one billion, and would think twice about implementing similar frauds in the future. Behaving ethically would be in the best interest of their stockholders.
    - koolba 4y ago
      > When you ignore a red light, the fine is not calculated based on whether you had an accident or not. For a fine to be significant, it has to exceed the profit made from the crime, otherwise you'll keep running red lights until you actually crash or run someone over. Sure but that would still be based on the profits of the scheme, not any other unrelated revenue. In your traffic light analogy it’d be like billing the ticket based upon how many miles per year you drive rather than the speed limit or how fast you were going.
      - ASalazarMX 4y ago
burkaman 4y ago
Also important, from Intuit's statement: > As part of the agreement, Intuit admitted no wrongdoing I hate this and I don't understand why the government always agrees to it. Isn't an admission of wrongdoing more valuable than a tiny fine? Why do they always accept this kind of settlement? Isn't it both the right thing to do and better politics to keep the case going until the corporation at least has to admit it broke the law?
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
  There are two reasons to take a settlement: 1. You’re not sure if you will win. 2. You don’t want to pay the cost of fighting. If the two sides roughly agree on the likelihood of victory, it makes sense to settle so both can save legal costs. You can multiply the probability of victory by the spoils and make that the settlement amount. The costs and risks of fighting give some more incentive to come to a compromise even when the odds are unclear. Sometimes settlements do include an admission of wrongdoing. The fact that this one didn’t is a suggestion that TurboTax had some strength in the negotiation. Either the case was not a slam dunk, or the states had some kind of other constraints. Maybe they judged that negotiating for more money was more valuable than an admission of guilt (which is easy to argue, since the consumers harmed will get utility from the money in their bank account).
- ac29 4y ago
  > I hate this and I don't understand why the government always agrees to it Taking things to trial is very expensive, and you the taxpayer is paying that cost. The company is probably never going to admit wrongdoing even if found guilty.
- 1123581321 4y ago
  not admitting wrongdoing scopes the settlement to only that transaction (exchange of money in this case.) Admitting wrongdoing can lead to other cases (because your admission can become evidence), so it’s a much more expensive settlement for the person or company, possibly expensive that it’s not worth settling.
ineedasername 4y ago
But no punitive damages. If I personally deceived people to this extent then reimbursement would be the least hurtful penalty. I'd be looking at jail time. The least the FTC could do is levy treble damages.

thomascgalvin 4y ago

It's better than a coupon for free tax preparation next year, which is sort of what I expected.

the_only_law 4y ago
Given the recent trend of incompetence leading into borderline scams I don’t blame you.
dr_orpheus 4y ago
True, I feel like coupons are a way that a lot of these go. I remember my $14 Ticketmaster coupon (or something I don't remember the exact amount) that had an expiration date on it. Some of the class action suits also require you to be the one to put in effort to receive your money, so the fact that TurboTax is just mailing everyone a check seems better than others. And "better" doesn't necessarily mean "good". Still not a fan of TurboTax or the US tax filing system.

rgbrenner 4y ago

Is that a full refund? The cheapest Turbotax product is $60 + 50 for state.

tynpeddler 4y ago
I assumed that TurboTax has already adjusted their pricing tiers in response to the lawsuit since my vague memory of many years ago is that the lower tier was about $30. If someone can give more accurate pricing information for the effected years that would be cool.

seaourfreed 4y ago

The economy is rigged. Intuit made $5.7 billion in revenue (2021) and the fine is only $141m. I agree with you. Miscarriage of justice. Like a bank robber only having to return the money as the "fine" and zero punishment after.

tynpeddler 4y ago
I don't think Intuit's total revenue is relevant to this discussion. The most relevant number is how much money did they make off this little scheme which seems to be much less than their total revenue. I didn't see this value in the article, nor was I able to find TurboTax's pricing model for the years in questions so I went off (my very fuzzy) memory that their lowest tier was about $30.
- ASalazarMX 4y ago
  When you ignore a red light, the fine is not calculated based on whether you had an accident or not. For a fine to be significant, it has to exceed the profit made from the crime, otherwise you'll keep running red lights until you actually crash or run someone over. Given its profits, Intuit could easily survive a fine of one billion, and would think twice about implementing similar frauds in the future. Behaving ethically would be in the best interest of their stockholders.
  - koolba 4y ago
    > When you ignore a red light, the fine is not calculated based on whether you had an accident or not. For a fine to be significant, it has to exceed the profit made from the crime, otherwise you'll keep running red lights until you actually crash or run someone over. Sure but that would still be based on the profits of the scheme, not any other unrelated revenue. In your traffic light analogy it’d be like billing the ticket based upon how many miles per year you drive rather than the speed limit or how fast you were going.
    - ASalazarMX 4y ago

burkaman 4y ago

Also important, from Intuit's statement: > As part of the agreement, Intuit admitted no wrongdoing I hate this and I don't understand why the government always agrees to it. Isn't an admission of wrongdoing more valuable than a tiny fine? Why do they always accept this kind of settlement? Isn't it both the right thing to do and better politics to keep the case going until the corporation at least has to admit it broke the law?

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
There are two reasons to take a settlement: 1. You’re not sure if you will win. 2. You don’t want to pay the cost of fighting. If the two sides roughly agree on the likelihood of victory, it makes sense to settle so both can save legal costs. You can multiply the probability of victory by the spoils and make that the settlement amount. The costs and risks of fighting give some more incentive to come to a compromise even when the odds are unclear. Sometimes settlements do include an admission of wrongdoing. The fact that this one didn’t is a suggestion that TurboTax had some strength in the negotiation. Either the case was not a slam dunk, or the states had some kind of other constraints. Maybe they judged that negotiating for more money was more valuable than an admission of guilt (which is easy to argue, since the consumers harmed will get utility from the money in their bank account).
ac29 4y ago
> I hate this and I don't understand why the government always agrees to it Taking things to trial is very expensive, and you the taxpayer is paying that cost. The company is probably never going to admit wrongdoing even if found guilty.
1123581321 4y ago
not admitting wrongdoing scopes the settlement to only that transaction (exchange of money in this case.) Admitting wrongdoing can lead to other cases (because your admission can become evidence), so it’s a much more expensive settlement for the person or company, possibly expensive that it’s not worth settling.

ineedasername 4y ago

But no punitive damages. If I personally deceived people to this extent then reimbursement would be the least hurtful penalty. I'd be looking at jail time. The least the FTC could do is levy treble damages.