5 ms·

Without knowing all of the details of this situation, and without knowing if the Apple operator who told you that the reason for the ban was correct, this seems

Without knowing all of the details of this situation, and without knowing if the Apple operator who told you that the reason for the ban was correct, this seems like a crappy situation and that Apple is unfairly screwing you over here. One suggestion. Do you have any proof that you bought the gift cards legitimately: say receipts from the store or webapp you bought them from or credit card statements you used to purchase the gift cards with? It might bolster your case to provide this kind of information to Apple and show that there was no ill intent. Or at least, it makes sense to gather this info for some kind of suit against them in small claims court for the lost software (try and tally up those prices of all missing software and sue them for that). The people saying that the person is at fault for using gift cards of varying amounts are not being helpful. If there's no published limitations on their usage, then you should not have to blindly guess how much you can spend before an action is a violation.

tptacek 4y ago
They have receipts, but the challenging thing here is that fraudsters also generate "receipts".
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  I am not a lawyer, so this is only conjecture. If Apple is claiming fraud, I'd think the burden of proof should be on them in small claims court to prove, or at least provide reasonable suspicion, that fraud occurred. If Apple's sole proof is "it's unusual to buy with giftcards" I don't see how they should win a case. You would tell the judge "Hey, if I was some kind of gift card scammer, would I risk showing up in court complaining about the software that was stolen from me?" I've never taken a big corporation to small claims court, but I'd think a judge would be sympathetic about this kind of situation. It would look bad on Apple if the person supplied proof he bought the gift cards in good faith, had a reasonable explanation for why he used them, pointed out there were no published limits for their usage, and then pointed out that Apple effectively robbed him of $XXXX dollars worth of software he paid for without any reasonable recourse.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    You can reasonably want the burden to be on retailers to prove fraud before taking action against it, but you can't reasonably expect it.
    - logicalmonster 4y ago
      Perhaps in court, standards are different. If Apple says "we believe those transactions to be fraud", maybe a sympathetic and reasonable judge will ask for some proof.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        Oh, it would definitely be easier for this person in court than with Apple's process. Of course, if that were the norm, Apple would just end up eating a lot more fraud. That might sound like a good thing, but the expense mostly wouldn't come out of Apple's hide, but rather out of the hides of fraud victims --- which there'd be way, way more of.
        pwinnski 4y ago
        In court, Apple could also present the full pattern of behavior of this user, which presumably includes much more than the OP's description of these events, and it's possible that a jury, hearing everything Apple can prove from their records, would side with Apple.
    - jensensbutton 4y ago
      > You can reasonably want the burden to be on retailers to prove fraud before taking action against it The issue here doesn't seem to be that they took action, but that they won't restore the account. I think it's reasonable to expect that, upon producing evidence, the burden is back on the retailer.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        What evidence? Receipts? Scammers have receipts too. People here don't seem to be considering that having meticulous documentation for 25+ gift cards doesn't make you look more like a normal person.

tptacek 4y ago

They have receipts, but the challenging thing here is that fraudsters also generate "receipts".

logicalmonster 4y ago
I am not a lawyer, so this is only conjecture. If Apple is claiming fraud, I'd think the burden of proof should be on them in small claims court to prove, or at least provide reasonable suspicion, that fraud occurred. If Apple's sole proof is "it's unusual to buy with giftcards" I don't see how they should win a case. You would tell the judge "Hey, if I was some kind of gift card scammer, would I risk showing up in court complaining about the software that was stolen from me?" I've never taken a big corporation to small claims court, but I'd think a judge would be sympathetic about this kind of situation. It would look bad on Apple if the person supplied proof he bought the gift cards in good faith, had a reasonable explanation for why he used them, pointed out there were no published limits for their usage, and then pointed out that Apple effectively robbed him of $XXXX dollars worth of software he paid for without any reasonable recourse.
- tptacek 4y ago
  You can reasonably want the burden to be on retailers to prove fraud before taking action against it, but you can't reasonably expect it.
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    Perhaps in court, standards are different. If Apple says "we believe those transactions to be fraud", maybe a sympathetic and reasonable judge will ask for some proof.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Oh, it would definitely be easier for this person in court than with Apple's process. Of course, if that were the norm, Apple would just end up eating a lot more fraud. That might sound like a good thing, but the expense mostly wouldn't come out of Apple's hide, but rather out of the hides of fraud victims --- which there'd be way, way more of.
      - pwinnski 4y ago
        In court, Apple could also present the full pattern of behavior of this user, which presumably includes much more than the OP's description of these events, and it's possible that a jury, hearing everything Apple can prove from their records, would side with Apple.
  - jensensbutton 4y ago
    > You can reasonably want the burden to be on retailers to prove fraud before taking action against it The issue here doesn't seem to be that they took action, but that they won't restore the account. I think it's reasonable to expect that, upon producing evidence, the burden is back on the retailer.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      What evidence? Receipts? Scammers have receipts too. People here don't seem to be considering that having meticulous documentation for 25+ gift cards doesn't make you look more like a normal person.