Two thoughts in response to your thoughts: 1. Sure, it's possible the phone company didn't "deserve" the money (perhaps, as you say, the phone failed to make c

Two thoughts in response to your thoughts: 1. Sure, it's possible the phone company didn't "deserve" the money (perhaps, as you say, the phone failed to make calls). But it's just as possible the phone company did "deserve" the money (and that the phone made calls but refunded the change). There's no way to know what happened for certain. However, what is certain is that the kid did not earn or "deserve" the money. It also becomes quite dangerous to reason based on who "deserves" something. Am I entitled to rob any person who has not lived a moral life by my standards of morality? (No.) :) 2. I think this is hyperbole and a total strawman. Mailing $6 to a phone company will not result in a lawsuit. Do you actually think this would happen? I worry that attitudes like this come from the selection bias in the media, where rare outrageous stories are reported far more often than commonplace stories, resulting in shifted perceptions of reality. If you would care to bet or fund me, I would be happy to send $6 to a phone company. I highly doubt that criminal charges would be filed against me. Your thoughts seem to be trying to rationalize taking money that isn't yours. I think this is precisely the attitude that his grandfather was hoping to avoid instilling in his grandchild. (P.S. I mean no offense or snobbery, in case any came across.)