DC Sues AT&T For Unclaimed Phone Minutes

All your value belong to us? Nope. by LostCluster · 2010-01-03 01:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is law in many places... leave a balance in a bank account and fail to respond to any correspondence or make any transactions, and that money is transferred to the government who will publish your name in a massive newspaper insert, and then give it back to you if you claim it by proving the social security number the account was under is yours, and if that times out it goes to the government to do whatever they want with it.

Gift cards in many places have taken up the retailers on "if this fee is not allowed by law" to kill off inactivity fees. You now have many years or until the store shuts its doors for good (even during a post-bankruptcy liquidation that operates under the store's name) to use that money.

So, why does AT&T and the other phone companies think they can get away with voiding cards they don't hear from for three years and keeping the money? It's an unclaimed balance, and businesses aren't allowed to profit from such things in many other cases... what's the difference?

Re:All your value belong to us? Nope. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 03:21 · Score: 0

that money is transferred to the government who will publish your name in a massive newspaper insert
As far back as 1998, most states had their escheat lists online so, even if they were required to publish the list in the paper, you didn't have to spend time looking there.
Re:All your value belong to us? Nope. by cgenman · 2010-01-03 04:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

I had one state (Virginia, I believe), track me down after 6 years for a balance left in a former employer's pay system. I was surprised at the tenacity of the government in a case like this. They didn't just grab the money an run, like some other commenters here seem to imply.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:All your value belong to us? Nope. by misexistentialist · 2010-01-03 05:42 · Score: 4, Funny

Abandoned property would end up in the general fund used to serve taxpayers. Well-salaried and -benefited bureaucrats, however, have a personal stake in the process of tracking down and returning money to the owners. Especially when it takes 6 years.
Re:All your value belong to us? Nope. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 13:25 · Score: 0

Ah, Santa Claus... There IS a Virginia! Lo, and many years ago, I resided in that State for about 8 months. I filed a Fed Tax Return but not a VA State return. YEARS later, they kindly sent me a packet of the appropriate forms saying "Sir, you did not file a VA State Tax Return for FY 19xx. Here are the documents required. Please do so now."
I did.
Behold! Virginia owed me several hundred dollars, for which they promptly cut a check less a modest late-filing penalty, and mailed to my (then) present address.
And what did I learn? Virginia is for lovers, and late filing tax payers!
Re:All your value belong to us? Nope. by lpq · 2010-01-03 17:56 · Score: 1

They do this on my unclaimed minutes each month...er is that not the same?
Re:All your value belong to us? Nope. by LostCluster · 2010-01-04 14:58 · Score: 1

AT&T prepaid cards are denominated in dollars, not minutes.

Have to side with AT&T on this one. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 01:07 · Score: 0, Troll

Much as I hate to do it. I don't see how this works. If a woman is hoping to get laid and goes to a bar and doesn't, does that mean a law-maker has the right to claim her unused nookie in the name of the people of D.C.? The lost-and-found laws should not apply to something like this. What next? When you volunteer to help and no one needs your help, they can draft you and force you to work because your charity was unclaimed? I am confident the DC guys will loose this one. If they win, it'll be just one more article of proof that this country has lost its mind. Also, other uses of such laws as apply to gift-card balances need to be struck down. This is getting ridiculous.

Re:Have to side with AT&T on this one. by GrpA · 2010-01-03 01:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes they will claim her "Nookie"... The Government's being screwing people for years.
GrpA

--
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?

Yes!!! by pubwvj · 2010-01-03 01:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

Finally. I HATE the way retailers are predating on consumers. I do not give gift cards because of this. Companies are stealing by devaluing cards. They have our money, interest free. The gift cards should stay valid forever. I hope the government nails them on this hard. Retroactively too.

Re:Yes!!! by Attila+Dimedici · 2010-01-03 01:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Finally. I HATE the way retailers are predating on consumers. I do not give gift cards because of this. Companies are stealing by devaluing cards. They have our money, interest free. The gift cards should stay valid forever. I hope the government nails them on this hard. Retroactively too.
The problem is you have it backward. This sort of law did not come into being because of retailers devaluing gift cards, retailers started devaluing gift cards because of these laws. Back before gift cards, when there were only gift certificates, states started passing laws that if a gift certificate was not redeemed after a certain time, the retailer was required to turn that money over to the state.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Yes!!! by markdavis · 2010-01-03 01:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

As consumers, we might hate it, but you have to think of it this way... a gift card is an outstanding debt. A business doesn't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER. That is the main reason there are "fees" to reduce the value of the card to zero when it isn't used.
It is the same idea as having checks expire after 180 days. If someone doesn't cash the check, it can't just sit out there "forever". The business needs to write off that debt so they can clean up their books. Otherwise, someone could come back 10 years later and cash it. Think of your own checks- would you like it if someone you wrote a check to sat on it for 5 years, then cashed it at a time when you least had the ability to pay for it?
I don't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards, as long as it isn't too soon.
Re:Yes!!! by Alrescha · 2010-01-03 01:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

"Think of your own checks- would you like it if someone you wrote a check to sat on it for 5 years, then cashed it at a time when you least had the ability to pay for it?"
Since my money is generally invested somewhere, yes. I'd love it if I got to collect interest for 5 years on every check I ever wrote. As for the other half of your question, I would think any sensible person would consider the money 'spent' as soon as the check was written, and not spend it on something else.
A.

--
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
Re:Yes!!! by parodyca · 2010-01-03 01:37 · Score: 1

I don't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards, as long as it isn't too soon.
They already do. It's called inflation.
Re:Yes!!! by yourpusher · 2010-01-03 01:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Back before gift cards, when there were only gift certificates, states started passing laws that if a gift certificate was not redeemed after a certain time, the retailer was required to turn that money over to the state.
Citation needed.
Re:Yes!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 02:20 · Score: 0

As consumers, we might hate it, but you have to think of it this way... a gift card is an outstanding debt. A business doesn't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER. That is the main reason there are "fees" to reduce the value of the card to zero when it isn't used.
It is the same idea as having checks expire after 180 days. If someone doesn't cash the check, it can't just sit out there "forever". The business needs to write off that debt so they can clean up their books. Otherwise, someone could come back 10 years later and cash it. Think of your own checks- would you like it if someone you wrote a check to sat on it for 5 years, then cashed it at a time when you least had the ability to pay for it?
I don't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards, as long as it isn't too soon.
Are you serious, outstanding dept. When you go and buy a gift card its paid, they got their money, period! Deducting a monthly debit on the card or claiming the remaining balance is taking from the consumer.
This is another reason why I do not buy gift cards.
Re:Yes!!! by ftobin · 2010-01-03 02:38 · Score: 4, Funny

As consumers, we might hate it, but you have to think of it this way... a gift card is an outstanding debt. A business doesn't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER. That is the main reason there are "fees" to reduce the value of the card to zero when it isn't used.
I agree. I can't imagine that there would be an organization (let's call it a "knab") that if you deposited money with them, got something in return, they could manage these outstanding liabilities that you could redeem for the product at any time in the future, near or distant. In the meantime, this fictitious knabs would be free to invest your deposit safely until you withdrew it. Knabs would have a terrible time trying to keep track of all these accounts on their books, and couldn't possibly make money, so much so that I can't imagine a world with a knab.
Also, what's so hard about keeping track of all these inactive accounts? It's not like they have many businesses have a hand-written ledger that they have to re-copy all account values around. Since all the accounts are likely similar, automated processing should be able to handle the number, whether it's processing 100 or 10,000.
Re:Yes!!! by ceoyoyo · 2010-01-03 02:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's reasonable. There's one problem though - if the issuer can profit from unused balances the issuer has an incentive to encourage people not to redeem their gift cards.
Requiring unused balances be transferred to the public coffers removes that incentive and retains the benefits of gift cards that expire.
Re:Yes!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 02:44 · Score: 0

Actually checks don't expire. I worked at a bank for many years-many people think they expire but no. If you still hae the account the check was written on or the account was just recently closed then the check is honored.
While were at it, there is no such thing as a post-dated check. Someone might agree to wait till a certain date to cash a check but there is nothing obligating them to do so.
Re:Yes!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 02:48 · Score: 0

Finally. I HATE the way retailers are predating on consumers. I do not give gift cards because of this. Companies are stealing by devaluing cards. They have our money, interest free. The gift cards should stay valid forever. I hope the government nails them on this hard. Retroactively too.
Yeah, those retailers are FORCING people to buy their gift cards!
FORCING them, I say!
Re:Yes!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 03:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

The outstanding gift card balances are basically loans at 0%, companies don't mind having outstanding balances at all. In fact they want it.
Companies probably invest portions of the balances in Government Bonds and such and see a return on the essentially free loan. You hold reserves for current redemptions, and use short term investment tools so the money is still liquid. Any interest is Free Money. Use a 3rd party processor for admin and give them a slice of the free money, and now you don't even have to administer the operation (someone would have to manage the free money machine, but that's what Finance is for). Free Money!
Of course the company could use the unpaid balances as pure capital if the obligation to the customer went away. Sounds like stealing to me.
Re:Yes!!! by iluvcapra · 2010-01-03 03:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you're payees could hold a check and deposit it at any arbitrary time t, after five years it's possible your checking account would have to have a balance in tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars. You're passing up hundreds of dollars a month in interest or dividends on other uses of that money, in order to absorb the risk of other people cashing the check whenever.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Re:Yes!!! by Dragonslicer · 2010-01-03 04:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

As for the other half of your question, I would think any sensible person would consider the money 'spent' as soon as the check was written, and not spend it on something else.
The problem with that theory is that it only takes one such check to make your account statements not match your own records from that point on, which would become a bookkeeping nightmare.
Re:Yes!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 04:55 · Score: 0
There's a more practical reason to avoid giving gift cards - they are wildly less practical than cash:
- I've run into vendors that don't accept them at all.
- If I return a purchase made on a gift card, vendors cannot give me a refund.
- Managing the leftover balance is really annoying. I recently spent $28 of a $30 gift card. I now have so little left that it's under the limit of what most vendors will permit on a card transaction. Wasted money.
In all cases I can think of, cash is a superior gift if you want to give someone money. Give up the illusion that a gift card is somehow classier or shows that you put more thought into it.
Re:Yes!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 04:58 · Score: 3, Funny

STFU statist. This is slashdot, and all problems are PROVEN to be caused by governments, not private corporations. No "citations" are needed. Who is John Galt?
Re:Yes!!! by nstlgc · 2010-01-03 05:06 · Score: 1

Obviously he's talking about a dept the company has to the buyer of the gift certificate, not the other way around.

--
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
Re:Yes!!! by kraada · 2010-01-03 05:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is a bogus claim, because the alternative is simply not having the money. There are plenty of checking accounts with nonzero interest.
An example to make things clearer:
Imagine that you write 12 checks per year (one a month), each of which is in the sum of $1000. In case A they get cashed immediately in case B they get cashed one year later.
Case A: You make zero interest, each month $1000 is deducted from your checking account.
Case B: For the month you make $1000 * 1/12 of a year's interest. The second month $2000 * 1/12 of a year's interest. And so on until the 12th month where you make $12000 * 1/12 of a year's interest. Then things begin declining as the money begins getting taken out. (so month 13 is $11000 * 1/12, and so on). After 24 months, your $12000 has been deducted. However, assuming an interest rate of .6% (for ease of math), we would have made $720 in interest.
Re:Yes!!! by zarzu · 2010-01-03 05:18 · Score: 1

you're not making any sense. those tens/hundred of thousands of dollars would not even be there in the first place if you wouldn't allow delayed check cashing, meaning the alternative of "interests or dividends on other uses of that money" doesn't exist since that money would now be owned by the payees.
let me start at the beginning once more: if your payees cash the check instantly you will loose the money as soon as you write the check and you're not able to do anything with it from that moment on. now the longer your payees do not cash the check after you wrote it, the longer the money sits in your account and gets you interest. it is trivial that you will not be able to move said money because it is reserved for the payee, but it is still generating interest on the bank, which it would not be doing if it were cashed instantly.
Re:Yes!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 05:31 · Score: 0

why? I've got a few checks (that I know won't be cashed) that are now several years old. Quicken takes care of the bookkeeping trivially; before quicken they're treated just like any other check you wrote after the statement closed out for the month. Again, trivial bookkepping. The problem comes in when you close out the account--then you have potentially bounced checks on your hand.
Re:Yes!!! by iluvcapra · 2010-01-03 05:36 · Score: 1

Interest in a demand checking account is completely uncompetitive with interest in a savings, money market or CD account. In any case, your payee is making you do a lot of work maintaining liquidity just so he can have the convenience of depositing a check whenever he wishes. The point is that the money you've written to your payee is in suspense: it is yours, and you could allocate it if you knew when it was going to be demanded, but you don't.
The whole idea of a check is that it is as good as the makers word for cash, and in the real world, the quality of someone's promise to pay money is only good in a certain time and place. A check is not a contract, and even if it were, a perpetually-active promise to pay would be unconscionable and illegal (under common law).

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Re:Yes!!! by Attila+Dimedici · 2010-01-03 05:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

Sorry, I don't have a citation. However, I worked as a manager of a retail store before there were gift cards. When we sold gift certificates we had to keep careful record of when they were sold and when they were redeemed, if they were not redeemed within a certain time period (my recollection is two years, but I'm not sure) we had to report it to the home office so that they could remit the money to the state. This policy was new (not because the law was new, but because the company I worked for had just found out about it), and they introduced expiration dates for gift certificates at the same time (the expiration date coincided with the date at which they were required to turn the money over to the state). Stores that were in states that did not have such laws did not have expiration dates on their gift certificates.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Yes!!! by larry+bagina · 2010-01-03 05:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Quick! Tell that to the Uniform Commercial Code!
3-113. DATE OF INSTRUMENT.

(a) An instrument may be antedated or postdated. The date stated determines the time of payment if the instrument is payable at a fixed period after date. Except as provided in Section 4-401(c), an instrument payable on demand is not payable before the date of the instrument.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:Yes!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 06:14 · Score: 0

Back before gift cards, when there were only gift certificates, states started passing laws that if a gift certificate was not redeemed after a certain time, the retailer was required to turn that money over to the state.
Citation needed.
Or, instead of "disguising" your laziness by telling someone else to do the research, you could do it yourself...
Re:Yes!!! by zarzu · 2010-01-03 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

i still don't see your point. what you're saying is that it would be better if you knew exactly when the check would be cached, because then you'd be able to actually invest your money until then, but that isn't an argument against a long period of time between check writing and cashing. it's the same as saying it would be better to have money than not have money, it's a trivial observation but doesn't contribute anything since there is no genie that gives you money just because you wished for it.
the fact is that you don't pass up the chance to invest all the money you owe to someone if check cashing delay were possible, since if it isn't there would not be any money to invest at all. interest in a checking account triumphs no interest at all, it's competitiveness with interest in a savings, money market or cd account does not matter since it is not an option. and the only work you do for maintaining liquidity is keeping the cash in your account, which is no work at all.
Re:Yes!!! by winwar · 2010-01-03 07:27 · Score: 1

"A business doesn't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER."
They aren't debts. They are pieces of plastic or paper redeemable for stuff. Already paid for by yesterdays money that MIGHT someday be redeemed by another customer. A bankers dream. No wonder VISA and MASTERCARD have gift cards.
"That is the main reason there are "fees" to reduce the value of the card to zero when it isn't used."
Nope. It's so they get to earn interest AND keep the principal. Think of it as legalized stealing.
"Think of your own checks- would you like it if someone you wrote a check to sat on it for 5 years, then cashed it at a time when you least had the ability to pay for it?"
Nope. But perfectly legal. And it will happen if you don't stop payment on the check.
"I don't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards, as long as it isn't too soon."
Most people disagree. I would agree on one condition. If it was in really big bold print on the card rather than buried in the fine print. But it never was.
If it had been clear, gift cards would never have been popular with those conditions. So it wasn't clear and as a result, many states prohibited the charges. What a surprise.
Re:Yes!!! by markdavis · 2010-01-03 08:07 · Score: 1

Sorry, that is just not true as a blanket statement. If a check has an expiration date printed on it, then it does, indeed, expire. However, if it is not printed on the check, then you are right- it is pretty open ended and nebulous at that point.
Re:Yes!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 09:07 · Score: 0

That's why there is escrow. The retailer should be required to put the money into an escrow account that is untouchable ecept when the owner of the money - the gift card holder. Upon the gift card money being used to purchase something, the money would transfer from the pool of money that everyone is in, to the company and thus their account books for shareholder, payment and tax purposes.
Re:Yes!!! by Omestes · 2010-01-03 10:20 · Score: 1

Or, instead of "disguising" your laziness by telling someone else to do the research, you could do it yourself...
Or, instead of presuming that people will trust your words/opinions as much as you do, or decide that your as great an authority as you think you are, supply evidence to back up your claims.
What you think and say mean nothing if you can't back it with facts. If your too lazy to do so, you really can't complain when someone disregards what you say as meaningless, because, in essence, it is.

--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Re:Yes!!! by adminma232 · 2010-01-03 19:28 · Score: 1

If you're payees could hold a check and deposit it at any arbitrary time t, after five years it's possible your checking account would have to have a balance in tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars. You're passing up hundreds of dollars a month in interest or dividends on other uses of that money, in order to absorb the risk of other people cashing the check whenever.
The fact that I can't even get away for idiocy of statements such as this while browsing at +3 is staggering. YOU'VE SPENT THE MONEY. It's not yours once you've written the cheque! Learn to balance your accounts you simpleton.
Re:Yes!!! by thejynxed · 2010-01-03 21:11 · Score: 1

What is this? Wikipedia?
No, I tell you, this is Slashdot! We have a fancy moderation system!
We don't check facts, read articles, or write coherent summaries!
You must be new here!
(All joking aside, the quality of summaries posted by our glorious Slashdot editors has been declining in content quality for years now, way before I signed up for my account.)

--
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
Re:Yes!!! by natehoy · 2010-01-04 03:54 · Score: 1

http://www.maine.gov/treasurer/unclaimed_property/report_property/gc_index.html
If you want to see examples for other states, the laws usually fall under the "abandoned property" statutes. IANAL so I can only speak for the law that I've been affected by. Google is your friend.
In Maine, 60% of the value of any gift card not used for approximately two years (see citation above for more detailed explanation) must be remitted to the State. I work for a retailer here in the state who never, ever had an expiration date on our gift cards/certificates. We do now, but it's only to encourage the customers to use the damned things so we don't have to go through the paperwork of paying the state their 60% then filing refund paperwork if/when the customer ever finds the card and uses it. In fact, expiration dates cannot be enforced by Maine State Law. But most retailers put one on there now because the act of requesting a refund from the state is such a pain in the ass, so we hope the date gets the customer to spend the card/certificate before the expiration date.
This law is actually good for the Maine consumer because gift cards/certificates are now treated as owned property. Previously, retailers could expire gift certificates that the customer had paid for and there were no repercussions to the retailer. Now, if the retailer accepts your money, it is treated as an owed obligation to the customer. I never really understood why anyone would want to take perfectly good US currency and turn it into a gift card that is worth the same money but may only be spent in one store. But at least the new law ensures that the holder of the card can use it forever and the merchant can't simply expire it and keep the money.
A number of states have had "abandoned property" laws for a LONG time. Property that goes unused for a certain period of time reverts to the State, or a portion of it. These new statutes recognize the fact that anything a consumer purchases is their property.
Note that this really only includes gift cards/certificates that the customer has paid for. "Promotional gift cards" (ie, "buy $50 of stuff and we'll give you a $10 gift card") are not considered property that may be abandoned because the customer didn't actually BUY them. Technically, they are coupons. They have no cash value, and may have expiration dates at the retailer's discretion, and if they go unclaimed the state is owed nothing.
If the customer bought it, it's property, and falls under the abandoned property laws. If the customer earned it by buying something else or whatever, it's not property - it's a coupon.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:Yes!!! by toddestan · 2010-01-04 12:54 · Score: 1

What you think and say mean nothing if you can't back it with facts. If your too lazy to do so, you really can't complain when someone disregards what you say as meaningless, because, in essence, it is.
[citation needed]

Lawyers by ebonum · 2010-01-03 01:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wow. I gotta hand it to them. It is times like this when when we should all take note of how lawyers really are a breed apart. I understand the theory, and it does makes sense. Mind you, understanding and agreeing are not one in the same. But how twisted do you have to be to come up with stuff like this? I never would have thought of that!

As the said in the LotR about the lawyers foreclosing on the shire ( I think it was LotR, The Revenge ).
"There's something strange at work here. Some evil drives these creatures, sets its will against us."

AT&T Not Voiding the Cards? by BBCWatcher · 2010-01-03 01:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't think AT&T is voiding the cards. Washington, D.C., seems to be asserting that the card numbers should expire after three years. But why 3 years? Why not 5? Or 7? Or 10? Or 50? I assume AT&T will argue that 3 is arbitrary and, of course, too little time. I also assume that AT&T will argue that a certain federal agency in Washington, the FCC, regulates all things telephone, so (dear District), kindly go take it up with them. And, if those two arguments don't work, naturally AT&T would provide the District with about 386,200 calling cards, each with an average of 6 minutes of call time remaining, so that the city government can hold onto the actual unclaimed property until citizens reclaim their cards. After all, those citizens purchased minutes, and that's the unclaimed property in question. There's no cash there any more.

Re:AT&T Not Voiding the Cards? by mewshi_nya · 2010-01-03 01:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Don't most phone cards say the minutes actually DON'T have a cash value?
Re:AT&T Not Voiding the Cards? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 01:39 · Score: 1, Informative

After all, those citizens purchased minutes, and that's the unclaimed property in question. There's no cash there any more.
In the article, DC wants AT&T to convert the minutes to cash value and give them the money.
Re:AT&T Not Voiding the Cards? by BCW2 · 2010-01-03 01:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

The spendocrats in DC see potential untapped money to waste?

--
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Re:AT&T Not Voiding the Cards? by asdf7890 · 2010-01-03 02:00 · Score: 4, Informative

Don't most phone cards say the minutes actually DON'T have a cash value?
Can't most governments ignore such small print unless it is somehow enshrined in law (so the lawyer fight induced by trying to ignore said small print would be more costly than the potential gain). Many software EULAs state things that are quite patently not legally enforceable in most jurisdictions - I'm guessing the small print on phone cards and similar have no more basis in law than an EULA.
Re:AT&T Not Voiding the Cards? by mewshi_nya · 2010-01-03 02:06 · Score: 1

Yeah, you have a point. Very nicely done.
Re:AT&T Not Voiding the Cards? by DJRumpy · 2010-01-03 04:04 · Score: 2, Informative

They have intrinsic cash value for the balance on the card. It would have no value outside of the company who issued it as it wouldn't be legal tender at, say, the local sandwich shop. "No Cash Value" is typically something you see on things like poker chips, and game tokens and such. Return them to the company who issued them and they will honor it's value. That phrase simply means you won't get any value for it outside of the issuing company.
Re:AT&T Not Voiding the Cards? by vakuona · 2010-01-03 04:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why can't AT&T insist that people use said minutes rather than get cash. It's not like AT&T has refused to let people call. This is not a reasonable suit.
Re:AT&T Not Voiding the Cards? by phantomcircuit · 2010-01-03 07:51 · Score: 1

Actually they do clearly state their cash value. The card regardless of the number of minutes associated with it is worth $0.01 USD.
Re:AT&T Not Voiding the Cards? by ravenshrike · 2010-01-03 09:49 · Score: 1

Except the line about no cash value is also on the packaging, IIRC. Which means that unlike a EULA, the contract is defined before you buy the product.
Re:AT&T Not Voiding the Cards? by asdf7890 · 2010-01-03 09:59 · Score: 1

But that still does not explicitly mean that the contract (well, that part there-of) is legally enforceable in all jurisdictions.
It is not uncommon for employment contracts, which are supposed to be read in detail before signing, to have clauses that are not actually enforceable and therefore effectively void. Overzealous non-compete or IP related clauses are the most regular examples of this. A clause being in a contract does not necessarily mean that is it legally enforceable, or legal at all, and even if it is legal in some jurisdictions local variations in the law can mean clauses are void in some places even if they are fine in others.
Re:AT&T Not Voiding the Cards? by DrLang21 · 2010-01-03 11:04 · Score: 1

That's where AT&T should take this fight if they want to win. This is like the government insisting that a bank give the city cash for the value of abandoned land rather than just claiming the land for themselves. AT&T should just issue them a pile of calling cards.

--
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Re:AT&T Not Voiding the Cards? by Jason+Pollock · 2010-01-03 13:08 · Score: 1

Except, I paid sales tax to purchase the card, I didn't deposit money into the account. Therefore, the card is the product/service, not the call.
Re:AT&T Not Voiding the Cards? by mabhatter654 · 2010-01-03 16:51 · Score: 1

but I paid for access to MINUTES of phone time in an account, and the contract to use the minutes expires in a limited amount of time. That's an entirely valid contract. Those unused minutes do not convert back to "property" anymore than I get a refund on my parking meter if I only use half the time parking my car. (take that District... and a car analogy to boot!)
The District is after the monetary value... which will conveniently amount to below the limit for reporting "unclaimed property" the exact same thing they are claiming the Telephone company can't do.
Re:AT&T Not Voiding the Cards? by lonecrow · 2010-01-03 17:21 · Score: 1

So they claim the property itself, the minutes, and use them with employee phones. Dave

Next target by ebonum · 2010-01-03 01:41 · Score: 1

Next week the AG will be suing "massage" parlors for unused "buy ten get a freebie" cards!

Re:Next target by drinkypoo · 2010-01-03 01:44 · Score: 1

Next week the AG will be suing "massage" parlors for unused "buy ten get a freebie" cards!
Rest assured, the AG gets freebies already. That's what it means to be in a position of power.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Level playing field by tp_xyzzy · 2010-01-03 01:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

This action sounds like they're trying to prevent at&t to get unfair advantage over selling stuffs they have no intention to provide service for. They probably bundled minutes with some product and most of their customers payed for the service, but never intended to use it. So at&t got unfair compensation for selling bogus service.

If practises like this are not removed, the market will be full of gift cards and calling cards, with most of the people's money going to something they're not going to use. It sounds pretty good principle that when money changes hands, there is equivalent service or valuable stuff going the other way. Bogus services where this is not true should be removed from the marketplace. Guess unused calling cards have this kind of thing that money moves but service does not. At&t's competitors who do not have similar practices will be in disadvantage for not scamming their customers.

So sounds like very reasonable action by the government. At least if they already have laws they can use for it! (they didn't invent the law just for this at&t's case :-)

Screw AT&T by Bob_Who · 2010-01-03 01:57 · Score: 1

They've been screwing us for years. What ever happened to the anti trust laws that smashed them into baby bells? I'm tired of over paying for electrons. Telecom is a major rip off, mostly we pay for advertising. We should make them pay.

Re:Screw AT&T by that+this+is+not+und · 2010-01-03 06:13 · Score: 1

Who is this 'we' you refer to? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Re:Screw AT&T by dbcad7 · 2010-01-03 07:59 · Score: 1

The company you think of as AT&T is really a re-branded SBC and has only been AT&T for 5 years.. They are not also the only ones who have done the merge and get bigger thing.. In souther California I was a GTE customer, they became Verizon.. then when I moved to Northern Cal I was a PacBell customer who became SBC.. then when I moved to Reno I was an SBC customer who became AT&T... To tell you the truth, I think it hurts these companies to merge their different offerings under the same name.. For example, you might have a horrible experience with their mobile phones, but a better experience with their landline or DSL service.. To the consumer it's all the same company, so therefore if one sucks, they all do.. But in the company they are all run separately.

--
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Re:Screw AT&T by llefler · 2010-01-03 08:50 · Score: 1

The company you think of as AT&T is really a re-branded SBC and has only been AT&T for 5 years.
The company you think of as a re-branded SBC are reassembled parts of the AT&T that the DOJ broke up in 1984. 4 of the 7 baby Bells and the AT&T long distance company. Bell Atlantic and NYNEX became part of Verizon, and USWest became part of Qwest.
Bell_System_divestiture
Probably the only real obstacle to completely re-assembling the old AT&T would be Gov't objections to AT&T and Verizon combining wireless divisions. Even though they use different technologies, it didn't stop Sprint from buying Nextel.

--
It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman

They should never expire by drinkypoo · 2010-01-03 02:00 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I don't mean gift cards. I'll rant about them in a minute. But phone cards; we're talking about truly minimal data here, it's one row in a database. AT&T could issue phone cards for years before the amount of data they'd have to store would become an undue financial burden to their evil empire, death star asses.

Gift cards are lame: Why not just give the gift of cash if you care so little about someone that all you can do is send them to a store you think they would like? Gift cards: the gift that says "I have no fucking imagination." I dread holidays because of the expectations surrounding gift giving, but even I can do better than that. Phone cards, though

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:They should never expire by mewshi_nya · 2010-01-03 02:09 · Score: 1

I prefer gift cards to certain places, because then no one can bitch about how I spent them. Get a gift card for, say, an electronics store? "Well, I HAD to use it, all they sell is electronics, so I bought a new $toy!"
Re:They should never expire by mrsurb · 2010-01-03 02:32 · Score: 1

Gift cards are worse than lame - they convert cash that is thoroughly liquid into cash that is only available to spend at particular stores - and those stores are always the big chains. So the big chains get money up front for goods that will eventually be bought, goods that can often be found cheaper elsewhere (especially online).
Furthermore, when you spend the gift card, the value of the purchase will never equal the value on the card. So you either get goods under the value of the card and waste the rest (which eventually goes to the store), or you end up forking over your own cash to make up the difference.
Re:They should never expire by vk2 · 2010-01-03 03:31 · Score: 1

Not if you plan and time it correctly. During the recent Christmas holiday I planned to buy a decent LCD TV - found a good one at good price at BB; went to Kroger got a bunch of gift cards ~ equal to the value of the TV and got 10% return on the purchase I made at kroger (See http://supermarketnews.com/news/kroger_gift_1123/) And 3% cash back from my credit card.

--
No Sig for you.!
Re:They should never expire by tepples · 2010-01-03 04:28 · Score: 1

Why not just give the gift of cash
You can't mail cash.
Re:They should never expire by russotto · 2010-01-03 04:49 · Score: 1

You can't mail cash.
Sure you can. It's not really the best idea in the world as there's no recourse if it's lost or stolen, but there's no law against it.
Re:They should never expire by c0d3g33k · 2010-01-03 05:05 · Score: 1

Lame? Not always - gift cards are quite useful in many circumstances, so don't write them off so glibly. Before gift cards (yes, there was such a time) giving people "throughly liquid cash" as a gift meant they were just as likely to use it to pay the rent, buy groceries or stick it in their wallet with the other liquid cash and spend it for ordinary things, not the intended gift. In the face of this, gift cards were a nice way to help the recipient "treat themselves" as intended rather than just spend the money on mundane necessities. The point of a gift, after all, is to give the recipient something special they might not have allowed themselves to purchase on their own (that's what we try to do in my family, anyhow).
Why not just buy the gift instead? Gift cards (or cash) are a copout for the lazy so they don't have to bother figuring out a "proper" gift, right? No, not always. There are plenty of people who have hobbies or interests that are specialized and complex, so trying guess what they really want can lead to the wrong gift. Yeah, one could ask enough questions to determine the correct gift, but that's just as likely to spoil the surprise - might as well just ask "tell me exactly what you want and I'll buy that". Rather than buy the wrong TV or game or computer or whatever, you can buy a gift card for the place where the desired gift is sold, and you can be reasonably sure that the recipient gets exactly what they want, and you don't blow the surprise either.
As far as the value of the purchase not matching the value of the card, that's not as simple as you cynically describe it either. Consider the situation where someone wants an expensive item that doesn't quite fit their budget. They won't buy what they really want because they can't afford it. Maybe you can't either (not entirely, anyway). Giving a gift card is a great way to help partially pay for the item when buying the item outright isn't feasible.
Re:They should never expire by OhPlz · 2010-01-03 06:02 · Score: 1

I used to work in the phone card business. We had all sorts of calling card programs. There were promotional cards (buy three packs of diapers, get twenty minutes talk time), we had cards for telco providers to rebrand (like AT&T), we had the convenience store quickie cards that were use and toss, and so on.
Most of them were use and toss. The whole program was meant to have a certain life span, then we shut it down and finalized all the accounting on it.
We knew not all the minutes of all the cards would be used. We would estimate how much wouldn't be, and factor that into the cost of the program. If by some fluke, it was all used up, we would have lost money. Instead, we'd usually be close and it would keep the cost of the minutes down as well as give us (the service provider) and the company selling the cards a useful profit.
If the states decide to take the unused time, there are huge problems. For one, which state? Many calling card users bought cards because they were traveling. Is it the state where the card was sold? Where it was most used? Where the database is? What if the account is replicated to many distributed databases?
If the government were to succeed with this, it would be a billing nightmare for providers, and it would raise the costs for consumers. The industry is practically dead as it is since most people use cell phones now for roaming. This proposal would likely kill what's left of it, making it too expensive and too burdensome for providers to run.
What's next, if I don't finish my coffee at Dunkin's, the state is going to claim a monetary value on what's left over? If I put ten quarters in a self-serve car wash, is the government going to demand a record of how much time I actually used?
Re:They should never expire by drinkypoo · 2010-01-03 07:28 · Score: 1

giving people "throughly liquid cash" as a gift meant they were just as likely to use it to pay the rent, buy groceries or stick it in their wallet with the other liquid cash and spend it for ordinary things
You should trust them to be mature enough to manage their happiness and their need to be housed, especially in the current economic state.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:They should never expire by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 07:30 · Score: 0

Actually, I think phone cards are probably a lot more than one row in a database, and the records probably persist a lot longer than the card. It may be almost as much data as having a regular old monthly-paid phone account. (All the same timestamp and duration and possibly destination phone number info, except it's being "billed" to the card's account instead of a person). Likewise they probably keep a lot of data on the gift card usage too. The use patterns are both kinds of cards are probably used, at the very least, as some of the input to their pricing decisions.
Re:They should never expire by winwar · 2010-01-03 07:34 · Score: 1

"We knew not all the minutes of all the cards would be used. We would estimate how much wouldn't be, and factor that into the cost of the program. If by some fluke, it was all used up, we would have lost money. Instead, we'd usually be close and it would keep the cost of the minutes down as well as give us (the service provider) and the company selling the cards a useful profit."
Or they could run a simple and useful promotion designed not to screw the customer over. One that would benefit everyone. I know that is a novel idea these days. Just saying.
Re:They should never expire by OhPlz · 2010-01-03 07:40 · Score: 1

It would cost more. What part of that don't you understand? You think you're "getting screwed" less by paying a lot more for the card?
These programs can't run forever. The toll free numbers cost money, having customer support set up for it cost money, the carrier circuits cost money, the switch and servers cost money, the techs to run them cost money. That's why the programs have a definitive end date. That's why the cards are sold with a set expiration date.
No one is "getting screwed". The cards are sold with the expiration date posted right on them. Don't want a card that expires in a year? Don't buy one. There are a bazillion of them to choose from. Find one with a longer expiration and be prepared to pay for it. Nothing in this life is free.
It's a march towards communism when people despise a company because it makes a profit. That's the whole point of capitalism people. That's what puts money behind your paycheck.
Re:They should never expire by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 08:12 · Score: 0

Gift cards are lame: Why not just give the gift of cash
Gift cards give the ILLUSION of thought. There are many practical gift-givers out there who would gift cash, but still buy gift cards instead because they are pressured into giving anything BUT cash.

Cash, as a gift, has some mysterious social stigma attached to it; however, it's quite hypocritical since those very people who enforce that stigma would almost certainly prefer cash themselves. Maybe if they'd loosen up a bit and just enjoy the gift for what it is instead of what it is supposed to be, then maybe they too, could enjoy the gift of cash and gift cards would be no more. :-)
Re:They should never expire by RobertLTux · 2010-01-03 09:41 · Score: 1

Plus there is the "Bounce Back" principle
Rather than try to guess sizes on that special gift you bop down to say Victorias Secret buy a gift card and then drop hints as to what to buy.

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Re:They should never expire by Darundal · 2010-01-03 11:58 · Score: 1

No, but you can mail a check, which is redeemable for cash.
Re:They should never expire by gmhowell · 2010-01-03 15:33 · Score: 1

You've obviously never tried to cash one of my checks.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:They should never expire by tombeard · 2010-01-03 15:36 · Score: 1

I forget which comic said "Gift cards, just as thoughtless as cash but not as convenient"

--
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m

Get to the point, please by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 02:14 · Score: 0

I know all of us are pondering the same thing:

Does this apply to unused gamecards for WoW? Does government have the right to thousands of hours of unused WoW gametime?

Re:Get to the point, please by lyml · 2010-01-03 02:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

I know all of us are pondering the same thing:
Does this apply to unused gamecards for WoW? Does government have the right to thousands of hours of unused WoW gametime?
Yes, if you were to purchase the gamecards and never cash them in Blizzard would not be allowed to just void them. The government would have the right to take them and hold them for you and if you did not collect them after a certain while the government could do whatever with them.

Big internet access bonus for the DC area by jparker · 2010-01-03 02:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

So anything that's unclaimed like this defaults back to the city? I wonder what they're going to do with the remainder of everyone's unclaimed, unlimited internet access each month. Did they pool the unused hours off of old AOL CDs? What about all-you-can-eat buffets? Solved DC's hunger problems right there.

Re:Big internet access bonus for the DC area by tp_xyzzy · 2010-01-03 03:08 · Score: 1

I can immediately see other good uses of this:
1) unused hard disk space
2) unused usb sticks
Unfortunately there is no way to know how much unused hard disk space we have. But it's very big number...
Re:Big internet access bonus for the DC area by tomhath · 2010-01-03 03:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

They already keep unused time on parking meters. I'd like some way of reclaiming that.
Re:Big internet access bonus for the DC area by BlueParrot · 2010-01-03 03:42 · Score: 2, Funny

So anything that's unclaimed like this defaults back to the city? I wonder what they're going to do with the remainder of everyone's unclaimed, unlimited internet access each month. Did they pool the unused hours off of old AOL CDs? What about all-you-can-eat buffets? Solved DC's hunger problems right there.
Dear Sir/Madam
We find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Best regards:
The lawyers
Re:Big internet access bonus for the DC area by noidentity · 2010-01-03 04:48 · Score: 1

Damn, Comcast etc. are going to hate this! Imagine all that unused bandwidth each month, under the 250GB or whatever cap. The city will be able to give free internet access to all residents with this unclaimed bandwidth.
Re:Big internet access bonus for the DC area by that+this+is+not+und · 2010-01-03 06:15 · Score: 2

Unused processor cycles.
Citizen! Your screen saver is anti-social. It is being removed. Please install the new Obama screen saver. Enjoy!
Re:Big internet access bonus for the DC area by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 08:01 · Score: 0

when I went to DC you had to pay per pound of food in a buffet.
Re:Big internet access bonus for the DC area by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 09:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

In my city, you can get a cash card for use in the city parking meters downtown. When you park, simply insert the card to have the meter withdraw the maximum amount (varies by meter, most allow up to an hour, some only 10 minutes). When you come back to the car, insert the card again and the meter puts unused cash back on the card. The cards can be reloaded online, and there's only a nominal upfront fee when you first get the card. IIRC, the costs of the system here are supposed to eventually break even because they have to empty the meters less often (they still take change as well), and compliance is higher since fewer people fret over leaving unused time in the meters. Talk to your city council or other governing body (unfortunately, I have no idea what the system is called or what company provides it).
- T
Re:Big internet access bonus for the DC area by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 11:11 · Score: 0

So anything that's unclaimed like this defaults back to the city? I wonder what they're going to do with the remainder of everyone's unclaimed, unlimited internet access each month. Did they pool the unused hours off of old AOL CDs? What about all-you-can-eat buffets? Solved DC's hunger problems right there.
Dear Sir/Madam
We find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Best regards:
The lawyers
this isn't funny. i get it. you think memes are hilarious. grow up.
Re:Big internet access bonus for the DC area by bzipitidoo · 2010-01-03 18:53 · Score: 1

Those parking meter minutes are reclaimed. It is a government that operates them and collects that revenue, is it not?
However, I greatly dislike parking meters. Same as red light cameras, the intent is not only for safety or reducing demand for scarce resources by charging for them and collecting that small change, it is also to generate violations, which thanks to the huge fines is much more lucrative. I almost never park in a metered spot. Too much risk of getting a parking ticket, too much underhanded effort put into making that happen. I've seen meter police hovering over a meter that is about to expire, with a ticket already written, and I shouldn't be surprised if some meters have a tendency to run a tiny bit fast. I recall the case of Sylvia Stayton of Cincinnati getting into big trouble for being nice by feeding coins into meters that were about to expire. She sure exposed the real intent. I expect downtowns to have such schemes, and I either avoid them or arrange not to park a car there. Everyone hates it, but most do not hate it enough, and will still park there.
We could force the abandonment of these rotten schemes by not playing along. That sometimes happens. I wish it happened more often.
As for gift cards, they're more a symptom. The real problem is too much expectation and the kinds of gift giving. How have we trapped ourselves into turning what should be an act of generosity and thoughtfulness into a burdensome obligation that is supposedly necessary for the health of our economy? The worth of a gift is too connected to its cost. We're expected to give too many gifts. It's too hard to pick good ones, and we often miss there. Gift cards are an insidious short cut. But they're not completely bad when they cut down on the waste of returning an unwanted gift and getting something else.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"

Cash out by p51d007 · 2010-01-03 02:52 · Score: 1

Anytime I get one of those stupid "rebate cards" after a phone purchase, I keep it til the first of the month, and pay part or all of a bill with it. I know there are probably a lot of people who leave a few dollars on the card that the companies who issue the cards hope never gets spent. Free money for the companies that issue them.

Re:Cash out by LostCluster · 2010-01-03 09:40 · Score: 1

I tend to use my "rebate cards" at the doctor's office... they're one of the few places that aren't subject to a sales tax and the price doesn't end with 99 cents.

The government is evil by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 03:48 · Score: 1, Funny

The government is an evil entity, created by satan's liberals to hurt and destroy all the good little libertarian children who don't share their toys. It is said that in the far far future, there will one day be a savior who will come down and destroy the evil government and in its place establish a perfect society that will favor commerce over taxation and liberty over tyranny. In this we believe. Lord Rand hear our prayer.

Vitual Items Could Be Claimed by FathomIT · 2010-01-03 04:06 · Score: 1

Wow. When you think about it the same could apply to virtual items in different online game worlds. For example there are many video games that have items to buy and sell for real money. So same rules would apply for unused accounts and the $ items that exist within them. The state could sell the items online if not claimed.

Corp v. Govt? Bottom Line: You Lose by tonymus · 2010-01-03 04:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is another reason for governments to escheat funds that I haven't seen posted. It is a fact that governments make a tidy sum of money off of these transactions, as many escheated funds are never claimed. For some governments, it is a material source of revenues.

For that reason, governments are not aggressive in alerting taxpayers that they are holding their funds. Some US states have an on line mechanism for submitting a claim, and most government put a legal notice in a paper once a year, but the actual process to secure such funds tends to be complex (due to security concerns) and lengthy (because we're dealing with the government, after all).

I personally see it as a fight between two entities (the corporate world v. the government), neither of which is thrilled about giving you your money back...

Non-refundable by tepples · 2010-01-03 04:12 · Score: 1

Return them to the company who issued them and they will honor it's value.

Unless "no cash value" is next to "non-refundable".

Re:Non-refundable by DJRumpy · 2010-01-03 04:21 · Score: 1

They aren't asking for a 'refund'. They are asking that the remaining balance be transferred to another holder.
This type of thing is done all the time by states using unclaimed property laws.

Poke-non: gotta disclaim 'em all by tepples · 2010-01-03 04:32 · Score: 1

They are asking that the remaining balance be transferred to another holder.

No cash value, non-refundable, and non-transferable without the original card. Look at any stored value cards that may linger in your wallet; for everything you suggest, a lawyer has thought of a "non" to get around it.

Re:Poke-non: gotta disclaim 'em all by DJRumpy · 2010-01-03 04:45 · Score: 1

Your suggesting a company can simply ignore a law because they print something on a card? They could print anything they wanted and it still wouldn't dissolve the states right to unclaimed property.
Re:Poke-non: gotta disclaim 'em all by hairyfeet · 2010-01-03 06:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

What I don't get is why a usually libertarian sanctuary like /. doesn't seem to have a problem with the states grabbing unclaimed property? Hell both sides are already taxing and spending like there is no tomorrow, why should they have the right to grab someone's stuff because they haven't used it in x amount of time? What business is it of theirs?
We already have them practically turning us upside down and shaking in hopes of loose change falling out, lets not give them more ways to snatch, okay?

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Poke-non: gotta disclaim 'em all by phoenix321 · 2010-01-03 06:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think the general principle behind that would be
"This valuable item is not in use, it is not on private property, its rightful owner has for all intents and purposes forgotten that it existed anymore and will very likely not use it ever again. But all citizens have an interest in not letting value vanish, so it is appropriate that the disclaimed value is transferred to the State to use it. That way, all can benefit from lower taxes and higher revenues. No one is hurt, because the value was disclaimed long ago and would have otherwise benefitted someone who's not the rightful owner or no one at all when the value finally vanished."
AT&T or any other gift card issuer have the money and never had to deliver any goods. They are not the rightful owner of the money unless they found a way to hold up their part of the deal. Letting them keep the money for unredeemed gift cards would be an unjust benefit for them, even introducing an incentive to prefer "store money" instead of Fed Money. Because it is impractical to have all stores track down the gift card buyers, the State can reappropriate the funds and put them to use before the store goes bankrupt or moves out of state and the monies are finally lost.
I'm surprisingly okay with that, because I think it reduces the incentive of businesses to use anything other than the green Fed Money known the world over or to devise schemes that leave over untold uselessly fractioned monies. The State as a catch-all for fall-out from the daily business routines is not impractical. Use it, claim it or the State puts it to good use for you before it is lost.
The State better not even think about applying that principle to real estate or bank accounts held in real currency. These are property forms especially chosen to store value as they are unperishable. Reappropriating them is only acceptable when their owner died and absolutely no living heirs can be found for twenty years. But anything else than that will warrant an early Guy Fawkes day.
Re:Poke-non: gotta disclaim 'em all by Thinboy00 · 2010-01-03 07:07 · Score: 1

What I don't get is why a usually libertarian sanctuary like /. doesn't seem to have a problem with the states grabbing unclaimed property? Hell both sides are already taxing and spending like there is no tomorrow, why should they have the right to grab someone's stuff because they haven't used it in x amount of time? What business is it of theirs?
We already have them practically turning us upside down and shaking in hopes of loose change falling out, lets not give them more ways to snatch, okay?
This is /. AT&T is a giant evil monopoly. So, just like Microsoft, /.ers don't care about reality, they just want to bash the monopoly in question.

--
$ make available
Re:Poke-non: gotta disclaim 'em all by dgatwood · 2010-01-03 09:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

This valuable item is not in use, it is not on private property....
Let me stop you right there. You're already wrong in the second part of your basic premise. As far as the owner of a gift card or calling card is concerned, there's no account. They put money on a card, and thus as far as normal people are concerned, they perceive that the card has a certain dollar value. That card is in their possession on private property. Therefore these laws cannot legitimately be enforced against such monetary instruments. Allowing the government to confiscate money that backs these cards is no different than allowing them to confiscate the value behind an unused paper gift certificate, the stock behind a stock certificate, etc. It's completely absurd.
Further, to the owner's knowledge, there is no account number at a bank associated with it (despite the fact that we geeks know that it is basically implemented that way behind the scenes). This means that usually the owner cannot get cash out of these cards. Worse, the cards are generally anonymous, which means that there is no legal means for the owner to be notified about the government absconding with those funds or to reclaim them after the government takes them. In effect, this should be an illegal money grab.
On the flip side, those unclaimed property laws are the only recourse states have for preventing abusive practices like service fees on gift cards, expiration dates, etc. So in states where they are excluded from those laws, the public can still get screwed, just by the businesses instead of the government. What we need is an unambiguous federal statute that unifies the law on this matter, requiring that companies declare it as income only when the card is actually used (not exempting them from the unclaimed property law). It should also require that the card be maintained on the books indefinitely. It should require that these debts be repaid fully ahead of all other creditors in the event of bankruptcy. It should require that these funds be kept in a separate account and should prohibit any transactions to or from that account except for the transfer of funds related to the sale of or use of these cards. In short, we need real consumer protection laws instead of the hodgepodge of hacked together state laws we have now.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Poke-non: gotta disclaim 'em all by gmhowell · 2010-01-03 15:38 · Score: 1

AT&T hasn't been a monopoly since before most Slashdotters were born.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Poke-non: gotta disclaim 'em all by IndustrialComplex · 2010-01-04 00:56 · Score: 1

But all citizens have an interest in not letting value vanish, so it is appropriate that the disclaimed value is transferred to the State to use it.
Kind of like all that manufactured capital that was destroyed in 'Cash for Clunkers'. Oh wait...

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Re:Poke-non: gotta disclaim 'em all by HTH+NE1 · 2010-01-04 09:43 · Score: 1

I think the general principle behind that would be
"This valuable item is not in use, it is not on private property, its rightful owner has for all intents and purposes forgotten that it existed anymore and will very likely not use it ever again. But all citizens have an interest in not letting value vanish, so it is appropriate that the disclaimed value is transferred to the State to use it. That way, all can benefit from lower taxes and higher revenues. No one is hurt, because the value was disclaimed long ago and would have otherwise benefited someone who's not the rightful owner or no one at all when the value finally vanished."
Just like copyright. Oh, wait....

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Re:Poke-non: gotta disclaim 'em all by vakuona · 2010-01-04 11:22 · Score: 1

This will not help consumers. Phone companies will just pass on the cost or "innovate" around it. Seriously, there is no need for this. Companies can work around this so easily that it's not worth the trouble to government to pursue this. For example, they can conveniently charge a service fee of say 1/36th of the face value of the calling card, which they can fully reimburse if the customer makes calls amounting to that value in each month. So after 3 years, the cars are essentially valueless anyway. So the end result of government imposing a silly rule is that phone companies just increase the complexity in the way they operate calling cards.
Re:Poke-non: gotta disclaim 'em all by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 14:12 · Score: 0

I think the general principle behind that would be
"This valuable item is not in use, it is not on private property, its rightful owner has for all intents and purposes forgotten that it existed anymore and will very likely not use it ever again. But all citizens have an interest in not letting value vanish, so it is appropriate that the disclaimed value is transferred to the State to use it. That way, all can benefit from lower taxes and higher revenues. No one is hurt, because the value was disclaimed long ago and would have otherwise benefitted someone who's not the rightful owner or no one at all when the value finally vanished."
AT&T or any other gift card issuer have the money and never had to deliver any goods. They are not the rightful owner of the money unless they found a way to hold up their part of the deal. Letting them keep the money for unredeemed gift cards would be an unjust benefit for them, even introducing an incentive to prefer "store money" instead of Fed Money. Because it is impractical to have all stores track down the gift card buyers, the State can reappropriate the funds and put them to use before the store goes bankrupt or moves out of state and the monies are finally lost.
I'm surprisingly okay with that, because I think it reduces the incentive of businesses to use anything other than the green Fed Money known the world over or to devise schemes that leave over untold uselessly fractioned monies. The State as a catch-all for fall-out from the daily business routines is not impractical. Use it, claim it or the State puts it to good use for you before it is lost.
The State better not even think about applying that principle to real estate or bank accounts held in real currency. These are property forms especially chosen to store value as they are unperishable. Reappropriating them is only acceptable when their owner died and absolutely no living heirs can be found for twenty years. But anything else than that will warrant an early Guy Fawkes day.
they can send my unused minutes to SallieMae.
Re:Poke-non: gotta disclaim 'em all by dgatwood · 2010-01-04 15:08 · Score: 1

Ah. Forgot to mention that part. The federal statute should ban all fees against any declining balance cards.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

If DC can claim this, why can't the consumer? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 04:34 · Score: 0

The Pandoras box here is huge. Many a business model is based upon unclaimed intangibles.

This is just plain stupid by holophrastic · 2010-01-03 04:48 · Score: 1

Can't believe that your country spends resources on such stupid things. Maybe they should think about worthwhile things, and put stuff like this lower on the list -- say below airport security.

In any event, here's why this is stupid.

First, they may be unused, but they aren't unclaimed. You purchased a service from AT&T, not property. AT&T still owns them.

Second, the whole unclaimed property when it comes to money in stale bank accounts is because money is also owned by your country. It has to be, otherwise you could burn it and actually make your country poorer. The mint can't just print more money.

Third, this is demented because AT&T would simply have calling cards expire the day before they'd default to the government. So this is all for nothing.

Your country spens way too much time litigating stupid shit instead of actually solving problems. Having put into effect a dozen airline security measures as a result of last week, you'd think that one of those measures would be a good counter to last week's attack. None of them are. Congrats on doing nothing. Maybe this DC general should spend effort doing something useful.

Re:This is just plain stupid by CrimsonAvenger · 2010-01-03 05:18 · Score: 1

It has to be, otherwise you could burn it and actually make your country poorer. The mint can't just print more money.
No law against burning money. I've never bothered, mind you, but I will if someone tries to make it illegal.
And yes, the mint CAN just print more money. It's called "inflation".

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:This is just plain stupid by holophrastic · 2010-01-03 05:35 · Score: 1

"inflation" kind of kill the word "just". When the mint prints more money, your country's currency becomes less valuable.
That's why you can't burn money -- or destroy it. It's not yours.
Re:This is just plain stupid by CrimsonAvenger · 2010-01-03 05:51 · Score: 1

That's why you can't burn money -- or destroy it. It's not yours.
There. I just lit a dollar bill on fire. Seems you were wrong about me being able to burn money....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:This is just plain stupid by zn0k · 2010-01-03 05:55 · Score: 1

Yes, there's laws against burning money.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/17/333
Re:This is just plain stupid by Stanislav_J · 2010-01-03 06:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your country spends way too much time litigating stupid shit instead of actually solving problems.
Hey, you have to go with whatever talents you have. We happen to be very good at litigating stupid shit, thank you. Actually solving problems, not so much....besides being a lot harder, it might actually reduce the amount of stupid shit available to litigate. Then where would we be? Who's going to pay to retrain all those out of work Stupid Shit Litigators? We might get desperate and have to import other countries' stupid shit to litigate. What would that do to our balance of trade?
Clearly, you just do not understand how America works...

--
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Re:This is just plain stupid by holophrastic · 2010-01-03 06:06 · Score: 1

I didn't say you weren't capable. I said it's illegal. Learn the difference between law and enforcement.
Re:This is just plain stupid by holophrastic · 2010-01-03 06:07 · Score: 1

Well spoken.
Re:This is just plain stupid by vaniderstine · 2010-01-03 20:49 · Score: 1

Does this concept also apply to wishing wells? Do we need to arrest people for dropping change in a wishing well?

--
I "AM" ring-0.

well... by WeeBit · 2010-01-03 05:04 · Score: 0

This probably has a lot to do with the economy right now. Many cities are hurting, so they will tap anything to get that extra dollar so they can keep their city afloat. Cities are always hurt the most when the economy is sour. Case in point less taxes coming in on properties. DC has a lot more too loose. Government presence is everywhere two fold. Low officials, high officials, foreign, and domestic. They can't cut back city crews to save money. In the past they relied more on Federal Government to pick up where they could not. But even the Federal presence can only do so much. So they have to get creative getting that money flowing in. I bet many other cities are watching how this case turns out.

I think this is different than gift cards by Antony-Kyre · 2010-01-03 05:18 · Score: 1

It will depend on the state when it comes to gift cards. But, unusued phone minutes?

Won't it devalue the profit the phone company is making off of them? Think about it. The phone company sells these minutes knowing a certain percentage will probably expire. And I assume it's not 100% profit for the phone company when they sell these minutes. So, won't they adjust the price knowing 100% of all the minutes sold will end up used?

Re:I think this is different than gift cards by bstender · 2010-01-03 07:33 · Score: 1

One should assume that any well run business ratchets all prices up to the maximum that the market will bear, routinely.

(Maybe there will be a proposed regulation tabled in some committee somewhere instead.)

--
look sig is kool

Dear Washington DC by Dunbal · 2010-01-03 05:31 · Score: 3, Informative

I admit that I am a "deadbeat". I have some rather large, unclaimed and unpaid debts that are over 3 years old. Please let me know when you wish to take those over from me. Thanks...

Oh wait, how come it's different suddenly?

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Re:Dear Washington DC by Greyfox · 2010-01-03 05:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

If Washington DC took them over, I bet they'd be a lot more effective about getting you to cough up the cash.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:Dear Washington DC by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-03 06:43 · Score: 0

Is your name Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac?
Re:Dear Washington DC by Burning1 · 2010-01-03 18:15 · Score: 1

Remember that debt has value, just like cash has value. There are situations where debt may be transferred between agencies (collections is an obvious example,) permitting other entities to collect on the debt.
Personally, I'm not sure I'd want the government tracking me down to collect. Based on the stories I've heard, they seem to be pretty good at it (See IRS.)

My Rights by flyneye · 2010-01-03 06:43 · Score: 1

I have the right to any tax dollars unused by the years end.
I have the right to any unused dinners and reservations wasted by D.C. politicos.
I have the right to any call girls paid who were unused because of erectile dysfunction of Senate,Congress and Cabinet.
I have the right to do the unused trophy wives as well.
I have the right to any liquor they have unused by years end.
Don't forget I get all your unused minutes too.
So clear the way, myself and a legion of well armed lawyers will be overtaking D.C. next month because
'I also claim any unused votes and I'm gonna be runnin' the whole f**kin' show. They haven't been running it for several administrations.
So warm up and sing "Hail to the Chief" , President Fly N. Eye is comin' to town.
Get ol Kennedy and Hillary bent over and greased up , cuz I'm gonna use them too.
I can pimp the whole bunch just to lower and eventually eliminate taxes.
I claim the right. Get over it.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Re:My Rights by Ksevio · 2010-01-03 15:16 · Score: 1

I have the right to any tax dollars unused by the years end.
Like THAT ever happened. More likely you'll get the right to any deficit at the years end.
Re:My Rights by flyneye · 2010-01-04 00:44 · Score: 1

Wait'll you see how me and the crack of my ass handle the deficit and any bills from World Bank.
I'm takin' us completely out of the system, setting a good example for the rest of the world.
Viva da revolution!

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

I think there's a big flaw in the law .... by King_TJ · 2010-01-03 06:48 · Score: 1

When I, as a consumer, purchase a pre-paid card with X number of usable minutes on it, I typically plan on using the whole thing, OR I'm not that concerned, because the ability to make some phone calls, as needed, is what I'm really paying for to begin with. If the fine print on the card informs me, before the purchase, that there's an expiration date on the card - then fine. I can opt to accept that, or decline the purchase if I think that's unacceptable.

I don't really have a problem with the phone company selling the cards keeping expired, unused balances as a profit. It makes no sense to me that govt. should expend resources of its own to "manage" these unused balances. How much does it really cost the taxpayers annually to keep that system going? (They've got to keep paying to place those unclaimed property ads in the newspapers, I assume .... and keep a staff employed to keep track of everything.)

Inactivity fees are a different issue, though ... because most of the time, they were designed to catch the unaware by surprise. People who assumed a $100 gift card would still be worth $100 when they got around to visiting the store 6 months after issuance shouldn't be suddenly told "You only have $40 left because we deducted $10 for each month you didn't use it!" You don't see manufacturer coupons or rebates deducting portions of the total discount depending on how quickly you use them. But you DO almost always see expiration dates clearly stated on them, and we all understand that concept.

Re:I think there's a big flaw in the law .... by shentino · 2010-01-03 09:59 · Score: 1

Inactivity fees are IMO a valid way to make up for the costs of keeping the card's serial number active. Obviously they have to keep track of every single card that has value or you won't be able to use any of its value, and the maintenance of that data costs money.
Re:I think there's a big flaw in the law .... by Omestes · 2010-01-03 10:13 · Score: 1

But this price would be a fraction of a cent per card for most cards. How much money does it cost to maintain a database with millions of numbers? A large percentage of this cost would be normal operating costs which is included in the price of the service/card.
This generally isn't about the price of upkeep for one number in millions, this is about trying to grab excess money to pad the bottom line. This might be good or bad, but lets be honest about it.
I used to be a customer at Chase Bank, I had a checking account with $5 in it, which they grabbed for me because the account was inactive for 6 months. This policy was somewhere in the fine print, I assume, but no where did they warn me or make it explicit that they could basically steal my money after a certain period of time. Not that I'm surprised, since they are probably the worst bank I've ever delt with as far as legal, but exceedingly crooked, practices are concerned. To me this was theft, even if I didn't touch the account for however long. The whole name of the game was them getting money for free. If it was upkeep, they would charge a small upkeep fee, or announce that they would charge a percentage for untouched balances.

--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Re:I think there's a big flaw in the law .... by toddestan · 2010-01-04 12:52 · Score: 1

I'm sure whatever interest they are making by holding that money dwarfs the cost of tracking the card's value, even in the case where the card has something like $1.26 left on it.

This suit needs to fail by rdean400 · 2010-01-03 07:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I personally hate gift cards and calling cards, but I think this suit needs to fail for several reasons:

1) The consumers that bought the cards paid for minutes. They did not deposit money on their cards, and minutes are not legal tender currency.

2) Many gift cards don't carry expiration dates. If the governments do this, it will force card issuers to put an expiration date on the cards.

3) Success in this litigation will embolden other governments that are looking for ways to close budget shortfalls without doing the fiscally responsible thing and cutting wasteful spending. Unfortunately, the first place where most governments choose to cut spending, instead of looking for waste, is in the school districts, police and fire precincts. Threatening cuts in those services makes it easier to justify doing stupid things like this, or raising taxes.

How about rebates? by John+Jorsett · 2010-01-03 08:00 · Score: 1

I've wondered how long it was going to be before states start applying escheat or unclaimed property laws to unclaimed mail-in rebates that seem to infest the retail electronics business. For governments facing massive deficits, there's a lot of money sitting there, smiling provocatively.

Taking the Ads Too Seriously by Stormy+Dragon · 2010-01-03 08:30 · Score: 1

Looks like someone on the DC council saw one of those AT&T ads with the "unused minutes mom" and thinks the company has an actual physical hoard of unused minutes somewhere.

Amanda Seyfried/Julianne Moore love scene? Check! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2010-01-03 08:56 · Score: 1

A certain percent of unclaimed minutes are built into the cost structure of the phone companies, allowing lower rates. It's similar to unused miles on airlines' frequent flier programs.

Government being what it is, it's not surprising they're trying to seize it. This will just increase costs for DC residents. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and is thus a tax, regardless of the mental gymnastics (read: accounting "irregularities") used to justify it.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

I wish they would do this for rebates. by hellop2 · 2010-01-03 12:05 · Score: 1

The whole rebate system on purchases is the type of scam that our politicians should be working on. Have you ever bought something on newegg and either didn't send in the rebate within 30 days, or you sent in the rebate and never got the money back?

It seems like rebates would constitute an unused balance.

--
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?

Have to disagree, not that I like AT&T... by hallux.sinister · 2010-01-03 13:33 · Score: 1

AT&T in this case,WOULD be hurt by this. They could certainly make the case that the price they place on minutes reflects the fact that they know people will not use ALL the minutes, and have adjusted the price, DOWNWARDS, accordingly. If this goes through, expect to see the cost per minute or whatever go UP at AT&T, and for the other Phone-Card companies to follow suit.

The consumer is the one who gets screwed in the end. Always.

And unused plan minutes too! by aminorex · 2010-01-03 15:30 · Score: 1

Hey, I pay for 1400 minutes every month, but use about 200. D.C. should be claiming those 1200 unused minutes as well!

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-

Re:Corp v. Govt? Bottom Line: You Lose by mabhatter654 · 2010-01-03 17:53 · Score: 1

I'd bet the unused $5 per account doesn't meet the minimum amount to bother with posting.... hence the want for the big check of all the aggregate amounts!

Slashdot Mirror

DC Sues AT&T For Unclaimed Phone Minutes

145 comments