Amazon Accused Of Taking Payment Verification Data And Using It To Access Public Records

Written by Evan Schuman
October 19th, 2011

In the middle of a strange lawsuit against—one where an actress is suing because she says Amazon revealed her correct age—is a very serious payment-card IT accusation: that Amazon processed a payment and then used the card-verification data to gather more data and then published it.

To be fair, the lawsuit itself is a dubious document, with some statements that seem clearly false and others that seem to not recognize how Amazon and its Internet Movie Database unit ( function. But setting aside those issues—which certainly raise questions about the validity of the Amazon accusations—the charges bring up an interesting issue. Is it illegal, or even against the various card brand rules or PCI’s rules, to use information from the confirmation process to access public information and to then use it? Amazon is not accused of publishing the verification data directly (which would have raised very different issues) but of using it to track down public records. And if Amazon indeed did that—and that’s still a big “if”—is that a legitimate area for retailers to use to grow CRM databases?

Here are the key elements of the lawsuit filed last week in federal court in Seattle. An unidentified Texas actress, who the lawsuit suggests is about 40 years old and, had been using a stagename. She paid for a premium version of the Amazon-owned Internet Movie Database (IMDbPro) and, shortly after, saw that the IMDbPro database had been updated to display her correct date of birth “revealing to the public that Plaintiff is many years older than she looks.”

A few quick thoughts: First, this actress is suing Amazon because it reported accurate information that undermined her efforts to engage in fraudulent and deceptive interactions with casting agents? She’s admitting that she was deceiving clients, taking money from them that she argues they would not have given to her had they known the truth? If Amazon’s damaging details were false, maybe. But she says the Amazon details were true. A very strange platform for a lawsuit.

Here’s a wonderful line from the lawsuit: “Prior to subscribing to IMDbPro, there were absolutely no means by which Defendants could have obtained Plaintiff’s legal name or date of birth.” This actress had a home, neighbors, friends, relatives and enemies who she grew up with. And her birth and school records exist in various places. It seems absurd to argue that there were “absolutely no means” to determine such widely recorded data. Heck, I can think of a dozen right off.

Also, the nature of the IMDb system is that it has a huge list of volunteer contributors who get information—accurate and not-so-accurate—from all over. There appears to be no evidence cited in the lawsuit indicating that Amazon’s payment processing was indeed the source of that information. It’s possible, but it seems unlikely.

The lawsuit added: “Upon information and belief, it is Defendant’s [Amazon’s] standard business practice to routinely intercept, store, record, and further use consumer credit-card information obtained during the subscription process for the purposes of gathering information about subscribers and enhancing Defendant’s business databases, which practice is unknown to and not consented to by consumers, and is completely beyond the scope of Defendant’s Subscriber Agreement.” The lawsuit also said Amazon uses that payment-verification data “to research and cross-reference public records and other sources to gather as much information as possible about each individual subscriber, including, but not limited to, his or her legal name, age, race, gender, personal shopping and spending habits, and Internet activity.”


Comments are closed.


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!

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...

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.