3 ms·

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 a

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.
    - alymaly 4y ago
      I'm not a new customer, it's not a new account. With a verified phone number. I used to add my personal credit cards in the beginning (then gave that up). I don't see any good reason to mark my account as fraudulent. Even if the automation does it, a manual check should see that everything is fine
      - tptacek 4y ago
        Your account got marked fraudulent because you applied 25+ gift cards to it; it has nothing to do with whether you have a credit card number on file.
    - logicalmonster 4y ago
      > having meticulous documentation for 25+ gift cards doesn't make you look more like a normal person. If gift cards are suspicious and cannot be reliably secured, then why are they even sold?
      - tptacek 4y ago
        My guess is that gift card usage is bimodal: 1. The large set of gift card transactions that involve just one or two gift cards being used in a long period of time by a single person, which don't set off fraud flags. 2. The other large set of bulk gift card uses, which are overwhelmingly fraudulent. So the answer would then be: they're sold for case (1), and policed for case (2). Don't do case (2).
pwinnski 4y ago
Apple isn't claiming fraud. They are very carefully only claiming that the user violated the user agreement in an unspecified way. Your comment demonstrates why they won't make any stronger claim.

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.
  - alymaly 4y ago
    I'm not a new customer, it's not a new account. With a verified phone number. I used to add my personal credit cards in the beginning (then gave that up). I don't see any good reason to mark my account as fraudulent. Even if the automation does it, a manual check should see that everything is fine
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Your account got marked fraudulent because you applied 25+ gift cards to it; it has nothing to do with whether you have a credit card number on file.
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    > having meticulous documentation for 25+ gift cards doesn't make you look more like a normal person. If gift cards are suspicious and cannot be reliably secured, then why are they even sold?
    - tptacek 4y ago
      My guess is that gift card usage is bimodal: 1. The large set of gift card transactions that involve just one or two gift cards being used in a long period of time by a single person, which don't set off fraud flags. 2. The other large set of bulk gift card uses, which are overwhelmingly fraudulent. So the answer would then be: they're sold for case (1), and policed for case (2). Don't do case (2).

pwinnski 4y ago

Apple isn't claiming fraud. They are very carefully only claiming that the user violated the user agreement in an unspecified way. Your comment demonstrates why they won't make any stronger claim.