advertisement
advertisement

This is page 3 of:

Best Buy Admits To Misleading Customers With Kiosks

December 15th, 2010

The statement itself marked a strange series of U-turns. The attorney general’s office first announced a news conference to discuss the settlement on Monday (Dec. 13). Then the news conference was rescheduled for a later time that day. Then it was rescheduled for Tuesday (Dec. 14). On Tuesday, Blumenthal’s office announced there would be no statement and that only the settlement’s text would be released. Interviews were being scheduled. Later in the day, a settlement was indeed issued. But due to a negotiation with Best Buy, the statement couldn’t be posted on the state’s Web site, merely E-mailed to media representatives.

Best Buy settles and admits misleading consumers and then it gets to dictate that the state’s comments on it won’t go on the state’s own Web site? Yeah, sounds like Best Buy was holding a pretty strong hand.

Editor’s Note:

  • Page 1 of this Best Buy Kiosk Deception Settlement Special Report covers The Overview Of The Case, Implications.
  • Page 2 covers The Different Web And In-Store Pricing Quicksand.
  • Page 3 covers How Little It Will Help Consumers

    The serious problem with the settlement is the impact on consumers. The settlement covers purchases from Nov. 1, 2001, through March 8, 2007. As many as nine years after the purchase (the best case scenario is still more than three-and-a-half years old), consumers must submit forms proving that they were ripped off and by how much. How many consumers will bother? And if they do opt to bother, how many will remember those details—what was the online price and the difference with the in-store price—and be able to prove them? Remember that many of these price differences may be only a few dollars.

    The settlement requires consumers seeking such restitution to submit a statement with their name and address, the date when they purchased the product, the price paid and the price “observed for the product on the in-store kiosk.” That statement needs to include “copies of any invoices, receipts, computer print-outs” and “other supporting documentation.” Each purchase requires an additional form to be filled out. The form also asks for the store location and whether cash or a payment card was used.

    It’s quite likely that the few consumers who bother to pursue refunds will end up getting almost enough cash to buy a t-shirt declaring “Connecticut proved that Best Buy ripped me off and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.”–Frank Hayes contributed to this story.


  • advertisement

    One Comment | Read Best Buy Admits To Misleading Customers With Kiosks

    1. Craig Keefner Says:

      I wonder if the store kiosks configuration were nationwide or if there was any targeting by region/zip.

    Newsletters

    StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
    advertisement

    Most Recent Comments

    Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

    I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
    Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
    A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
    The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
    @David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

    StorefrontBacktalk
    Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.