advertisement
advertisement

How Much Trouble Could You Be In If Online Customers Can Hide Where They Are?

Written by Frank Hayes
June 28th, 2013

One of the largest Internet providers in New Zealand is now letting customers pretend they’re somewhere else when it comes to buying things online. That’s likely to be a thorn in the side of digital content providers such as movie producers and e-book publishers, but it could also set up online retailers for a whole host of complications. What happens when your transaction is subject to the laws of a country you’re not expecting?

Slingshot, the third-largest ISP in New Zealand with about 10 percent of the market, last week rolled out its Global Mode service, which lets users block Internet geolocation. That’s used by many digital content providers to prevent movies and e-books from being viewed in regions where they haven’t officially been licensed.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the service is officially for international visitors, but Slingshot admits it can’t stop locals from using the feature. That means digital content that would otherwise take months or years to arrive from the other side of the world can be available as soon as it’s online in the U.S.

That in itself isn’t a problem for most E-tailers, since they’re not delivering digital goods. If a customer buys a pair of shoes, those shoes have to be delivered to a physical address—which pretty much blows the geoanonymity of the customer, right?

Maybe not. Retailers already have limited control over who can buy from them, thanks to online-buying proxies such as BayRu, which lets Russian consumers buy from U.S. retailers, using a Chicago-area address to transship the merchandise. The advantage for customers is that BayRu handles the shipping, customs and currency issues. The downside: BayRu charges a hefty fee for being the middle man.

But what happens when the expensive middle man can be easily cut out of the transaction? Say a customer in New Zealand masks her location and buys a pair of shoes, having them shipped to a company in New Jersey that handles transshipping for a smaller fee. (The currency issue? That customer can claim she’s from New Zealand but visiting friends in New Jersey.)

Now suppose the shoes are somehow allegedly defective, and the customer ends up in the hospital after falling down a flight of stairs. Could the retailer end up being sued in a New Zealand court?

And if that happened, would not knowing that the customer was from New Zealand be a defense for the retailer? After all, if that customer bought the shoes on an actual (as opposed to virtual) trip to the U.S., then went home and fell down stairs, would that make a legal difference?

That might depend on the e-tailer’s terms-and-conditions page. But that’s not something any retailer would want to depend on, since geoanonymous proxies could put a customer anywhere in the world—meaning there are only a few hundred sets of laws that the retailer could be sued under.

Of course, that’s just the worst-case scenario. What happens if the retail is a merged channel/omnichannel chain that sends coupons and catalogs to customer addresses unless they opt out? That means the transshipping service in New Jersey could be getting a lot of CRM-based coupons that will never be delivered—dragging down the coupon response rate, and distorting the statistics for that particular CRM program.

Then there’s the remote possibility that a retailer could get in trouble for shipping a product that’s illegal or unlicensed where the customer actually lives. (The retailer not knowing probably would be a defense in that case, but who wants to make that defense in a court half a world away?)

Internet geolocation blocking could be messy in a dozen other ways. In practice, the only way to deal with it may be to beef up terms and conditions with as much location-based legalese as you can. Either that, or expand your online delivery to the whole world—that way, at least it’s not someone else who gets paid for that long-distance delivery.


advertisement

Leave a Reply

Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 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.