Slashdot Mirror
DC Sues AT&T For Unclaimed Phone Minutes
Suki I submits news that Washington, D.C.'s attorney general has filed suit (District of Columbia vs. AT&T Corp, Superior Court of the District of Columbia), claiming the city has the right, through laws applying to unclaimed property, to unused calling-card balances held in the name of D.C. residents. "The suit claims that AT&T should turn over unused balances on the calling cards of consumers whose last known address was in Washington, D.C. and have not used the calling card for three years. 'AT&T's prepaid calling cards must be treated as unclaimed property under district law,' the attorney general's office said in a statement. ... [That sum] represents some 5 to 20 percent of the total balances purchased by consumers who use the calling cards. States and municipalities have often similarly used unclaimed property laws, known as escheat laws, to claim ownership of unused retail gift card balances."
Suki I links also to Reason Magazine's coverage.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.