advertisement
advertisement

Wal-Mart MoneyCard Break-In Offers Lessons For New Payment Tactics

Written by Evan Schuman
April 18th, 2012

As retailers accelerate payment experiments, a recent Wal-Mart experience with a well-established approach offers a cautionary tale. A Buffalo, N.Y., woman this month walked into her local Wal-Mart, gave an associate $1,000 in cash and asked for it to be loaded onto a Walmart MoneyCard, in preparation for a vacation. A couple days later, the customer discovered that the money had been removed by a thief in another country.

The fact that it was a thief who stole the funds is undisputed. However, the immediate next actions of Wal-Mart and Green Dot—which manages MoneyCard for Wal-Mart—is a textbook example not of what should not be done, but how it shouldn’t be done.

The difference between how and what, in this case, is the difference between perception and reality. All participants seemed to have acted properly, but few considered how the experience feels to customers. As a result, a bad situation mushroomed into something even worse. The first problem came when this customer, Tammi Cote, walked into the Wal-Mart where she had brought the $1,000 in cash, went to the associate she had worked with and sought help. The store said it was not its problem and referred the customer to Green Dot.

From a legal and business perspective, that is absolutely correct. If a customer has a problem with her Costco-branded American Express card, for example, no one bats an eye in sending that customer to Amex. But there is something wonderfully personal about bringing in a pile of greenbacks and handing it to an associate.

The timing made things worse. The theft happened within 30 minutes of the woman leaving the Wal-Mart. Officially, that makes no difference in determining jurisdiction. But from a customer-relationship standpoint, it feels very different.

What if the theft occurred 30 seconds after the transaction and the customer discovered it—via her smartphone—while still standing in the store, with the pile of money still in the hands of the associate? Yes, it’s still a Green Dot issue, but it won’t feel that way. Retailers have to factor that reality into their processes. Maybe they should act as more of a go-between?

Back to Buffalo. On the phone with Green Dot, Green Dot’s customer service declined initially to return—technically, reimburse—Ms. Cote’s money. Why? Seems that her experience—the cash, the vacation, the timing—sounded similar to some con-artist scams that have become popular. There was no suspicion that the woman was in on the scam, but Green Dot needed to verify that she hadn’t been a victim who helped her attacker.

Again, why? Because Green Dot’s policy is to only reimburse for fraud losses if the customer victim hasn’t helped. For example, if the customer had been tricked into revealing a PIN and other account details to a con artist, she would not be reimbursed. (Note: After local media coverage intensified, Green Dot did return the money.)

Here again, the policy has a legitimate foundation, back in the boardroom. Customers must know that they cannot give out their PIN or account details. The best way to make that point is to state that doing so will negate your protections.


advertisement

One Comment | Read Wal-Mart MoneyCard Break-In Offers Lessons For New Payment Tactics

  1. ed Says:

    Whoa, this is major and have widespread implications not only to GreenDot and Wal-Mart but the whole Visa/Master prepaid card industry.

    Sounds to me like hackers overseas are calling in these prepaid account phone banks with random prepaid credit card numbers (they likely don’t need to know the number) and can tell once it has been open. Once they can validate a prepaid card number was open, they can start spending in less than 30 minutes. The fast turnaround time indicates this may be an automated dialing script run on multiple computers worldwide.

    This has widespread security implications throughout the whole prepaid industry as many low-income people and expats are putting their cash into these prepaid cards for remittance purpose as well as spending.

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.