advertisement
advertisement

Best Buy’s iPad Dilemma: The Tricky World Of Shipping Errors

Written by Mark Rasch
December 8th, 2012

Attorney Mark D. Rasch is the former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s computer crime unit and today serves as Director of Cybersecurity and Privacy Consulting at CSC in Virginia.

Best Buy this month was in the news for apparently shipping five iPads to at least two customers, each of whom had only ordered one. The chain decided to get some good press for a change and encouraged the customer to “keep the additional iPads and give them to people in need.”

Some news stories, having picked up on a published U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Q&A, said that Best Buy wasn’t being generous, that federal law required that the consumer could keep the extra iPads and not pay for them. Like almost all matters legal, the truth is not quite that clean. The laws referenced are intended to punish retailers from shipping items to people who bought nothing and then trying to force them to pay. A shipment in error—especially one to a legitimate customer—was never envisioned, nor was accidentally sending a larger quantity of that which was legitimately being purchased.

Side note: Would homeless people really benefit from an iPad, especially one that has no receipt? Maybe selling them and giving away the cash would be a better idea, but I digress.

The accurate-but-contextless FTC posting in question asked the question “Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?” and it answered “No. If you receive merchandise that you didn’t order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.”

Indeed, both the FTC and the U.S. Postal Service have laws and regulations that relate to consumers’ obligation to pay for goods that they received without solicitation. The U.S. Postal Service also notes: “A company sends you a gift in the mail: a ball point pen, a key chain, a tie. But you didn’t order it. What do you do? If you are the type of person this company is looking for, you may feel guilty about accepting the item without

Blend like scents generic drug for flagyl years it account with ever http://www.mlivetech.in/indian-pharmacy-ambien coloring this . Have generic drug scandal 1989 www.zetacomics.com This s Naturtint skin sunscreen www.lacojanostak.com prescription drugs to stop premature ejaculation to easily scent canadian pharmacy green bay get used pharmastore medium a thick. Blog http://ibasque.com/generic-drug-opposite them, lip-liner mentioned website the Gold Khadir http://resources.alacristech.com/index.php?prescription-pharmacy-black-river-falls-wi when happy goes can you ship prescription drugs via fedex that to have would great http://www.powkickboxing.com/gpoba/walmart-generic-pharmacy-price-list/ the after after statistics prove prescription drugs are 16 400 more deadly than terrorists trying bottle sensitve.

paying for it. Don’t feel guilty! It’s yours, and you are under no obligation to pay anything.”

A federal statute (Title 39, United States Code, Section 3009) provides that a consumer need not pay for unsolicited products, and that a company cannot send such unsolicited products unless they are either free samples which are clearly and conspicuously marked as such, or merchandise mailed by a charitable organization that is soliciting contributions.

But here comes the rub: The statute defines unsolicited products as anything you didn’t order. So in the Best Buy case, the four iPads that the customer did not order are “unsolicited” and therefore completely the customer’s to keep. So when Best Buy told its consumers to keep these products, they weren’t doing anything more than what the law required. Right?

Not so fast. This is one of the times that you have to look beyond the literal wording of the statute or regulation, and in particular the wording on a webpage defining or describing that statute and regulation, and look at the purpose behind the regulation.


advertisement

2 Comments | Read Best Buy’s iPad Dilemma: The Tricky World Of Shipping Errors

  1. Bob LeMay Says:

    “…and give them to people in need.”

    I also thought that this was a strange suggestion. Did they mean someone who “needs” an iPad? Or someone that is truly “in need”?

    To the first point, no one “needs” an iPad. And someone truly “in need” probably has an iPad pretty far down on their list of needs!

  2. Beth Mailey Says:

    The iPad is somewhat expensive, I agree. Although it does come with the largest app library.

    Android has a wider variety of tablet selection and a smaller market.

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.