Slashdot Mirror
Net Gambler Sues Credit Card Company
DR writes "A man is suing American Express and Discover because they helped him lose $25K in on-line casinos." Ok, I gotta ask, who would bet $25k in
online gambling? Over COMDEX I was freaked out when I was down eleven bucks!
A: A sue-happy freak, if not a lawyer himself, who planned ahead of time to sue if he lost big bucks. (So if he wins, he wins. If he loses, he doesn't lose.)
These people make me sick, as do the juries who fall for this BS.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I was once a millionaire. Now I have merely pennies. This is becuase the US treasury didn't put a warning label on US currency that states that I cannot have my money back after I spent it. They were just taking advantage of the little guy.
doesn't anybody take responsibility for anything they do anymore.
If this goes through, I'm suing VISA in January for them 'enableing' me to run up large bills for Christmas gifts !
Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion, you must set yourself on fire.
McDonalds for making me fat.
Budweiser for making me drunk.
My parents for making me ugly.
The cast of Friends for making me wish I was skinny, sober and beautiful.
On a scale of one to ten how stupid is this guy? When will these people grow up and learn that not everything is someone elses fault?
Yeah.....I'm gonna sue Id and Valve over lost work hours. Stupid deathmatch......
"You should never have your best trousers on when you turn
"You should never have your best trousers on when you turn out to fight for freedom and truth."
-Henrik Ib
A woman in california took the same tactic with her visa bill with an online casino. and WON.
Many thousands of dollars of gambled away credit card debt was forgiven.
- "
- It's not my fault! They should have protected me from those mean evil nasty people who are out to defraud me! You should have seen it coming!"
I think I've seen this before, and I'm personally sick of people that can't take responsibility for their actions.Sheesh. What's the world coming to?
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
Is that this is the second person who's gone and sued their credit card company for losses.... and the first person WON (for ~$30k I believe).
What a moron. He was the one who was gambling. He asked for the credit, it was extended. If he realizes it is a bad thing for credit card companies to extend credit for gambling, he shouldn't sue them. He was the one that made the choice to use his credit cards. He could start a movement to stop credit card companies from allowing gambling establishments to accept their cards, or get his congressman to introduce a bill to ban teh practice. But suing the credit card companies is simply avoiding his own responsibility in this. He was wrong, not the credit people.
The credit card companies (which, normally, I think are evil) should give this person a sound thrashing followed by a swift kick out the door into the cold, hard world.
I'm sorry, but what ever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?
For the love of god, people need to learn how to handle their own lives.
If I ever manage to seize power in a coup, people like our gambling friend here will be dragged off the street and shot.
You know, it's becoming really tedious to here about these people who can't take personal responsibility for their actions. Whenever someone does something stupid these days, they're looking for someone else to sue. It's like the person who keeps calling the computer helpdesk with the same dumb problem every day - the first few times it's funny, then it becomes wearisome, and finally you reach the desensitised stage where you don't care anymore. The real pity is that more of these obviously dumb lawsuits didn't get thrown out earlier, which might have discouraged every man and his dog from jumping on the bandwagon.
I think it's getting to the point where dumb lawsuits (net-related or not) aren't really newsworthy for slashdot.
Daniel.
I love a country where no one thinks about taking responsibility for their own stupidity. Owwww...I spilled coffee on my lap! I didn't know it's that hot! Jesus.
Isn't that the way it works with every credit card transaction, gambling or other? What's the point of that statement? Hey, I should sue them because I paid too much for something lately, and they are definitely responsible. After all, they have an interest in high prices, because they get a percentage in fees!
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
We need to just exterminate this guy! Darwin where are you now? We need you. I'm not even going to say anything other than this guy needs to die.
Can you believe it? Some idiot loses all his money and tries to blame it on the credit card company - what a loser. Next he'll try to sue his ISP for allowing him to access the gambling site in the first place?!
The thing that bugs me is that at the end of the day, this guys lawyer is going to make money trying this case. What a waste of time and effort when there are other things people could spend their time doing.
When will it end?
Hey slashdot- when do you think that you will be sued because somebody's spending too much time reading the site and the wasted time was out of their control?
I mean, you people are costing corporate america BILLIONS of dollars in wasted hours. I think that a class action suit is in order: Microsoft et al. v. Andover.net. I mean, how are they supposed to prevent themselves from reading such juicy content?
Gosh, you guys are a menace.
"It's OK, my sheet's got a hole in it!"
It that crap like this keeps us responsible folk from exploring something, understanding the risk involved. Online gambling, sports book could have been cool without me having to drive a few hours to get to Nevada.
I'm hoping the judge tosses this one. Otherwise, stupidity wins a court case again.
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
Oh come on, now that's a good one. And it seems that according to American Express they prohibit that sort of revenue from merchants. Now I don't know about Discover card. This guys wife probably divorced him over this stuff and he figures he will try and get her back by suing and getting more than he lost or something. Just another example of people trying to get over on the American Legal System.
And as far as losing $25k, He must have been using a pretty high stakes place because most online casinos that I have seen don't let you bet like 1000 at a time or something. Anyway stupidity is always painful whether it's to the self or the pocketbook.
Good is never enough, when you dream of being great!
Aha! Found it...it's here. $25k, nothing...this earlier one was $70k.
The plaintiff, though admittedly probably not an upstanding citizen, actually may have valid legal grounds. In the article, it states that the companies dissalow merchants from accepting CC payments for gambling from customers living in states where it is outlawed. SO, had they enforced these policies, he wouldn't have lost the money. Sounds like a solid negligence case to me.
I bet when this guy stands up to present his case, the courtroom will break out in giggles. I'll be mighty surprised if the judge doesn't toss the case out on its ear.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Given the latest JonKatz article, once the HGP is done, should we try to eliminate the genes for gambling and let stupid people try to come up with other reasons to sue people, or should we try to eliminate the genes for stupid people and let smart people only gamble online.
Clearly something needs to be done!
(One last shot...it's a good thing this guy wasn't gambling with his laptop in a Starbucks bathroom while drinking McDonald's coffee...he could be suing everybody!)
Dana
I agree with the guy. Now I am anti-stupid as much as the next Slashdot reader, but he as a point. Online Casinos give a percent of customer gambling to the credit card companies. Of course, that is how credit card companies make their money, but this should not be done with CC's and gambling. Although it sounds like he lacked alittle discipline it also sounds like the credit companies seem to encourage this activity.
One another point who in the hell spends money at online casino!?!? I mean, if I am not tanked off free booze by the time I am behind $10, I know it is time to quit (Ya, I am cheap!)
Linux O Muerte!
I don't know about other nationalities but we Americans (not all but a majority) for some reason can not take responsibility for our own actions. People always have to pointing the finger at some else screaming "It is not my fault". This has been a problem for so long that it has infested every institution in our country. This has also lead to the solving of problems by tackling the symptoms instead of the cause. Which eventually leads to the corruption of freedom and the disappearance of self-autonomy. The incident in Colorado earlier this year is one example, the war on drugs is another example. This society displays over and over again that it can not take responsibility for it's own actions but some one has to... With freedom comes responsibility society can not have one without the other.
root@localbrain root>ps ax |grep thoughtd
Why is it that American society seems to promote these levels of irresponsibility? If this gentleman truly believed that these merchent accounts granted to the casinos were wrong, he should have simply started lobbying to make them illegal, that or pre-stated his purpose to lose a set amount of money then sue over it to make it an issue.
When somebody states that the companies are aiding illegal gambling, after attempting to gamble, without a pre-declared purpose, they have no credibility. It's fairly transparant that this man is a con artist who lost $25k and is now gambling that he'll make far more than that in a lawsuit.
I hope that the credit card companies fight him hard and don't settle with him. He is abusing the legal system.
A story a while back on TheRegister already covers this exact problem.
Check it out, its kind of sad, but she actually beat the credit card company and was allowed to dodge the $70k bill she ran up. Her excuse was that she should not have been allowed to run up the bill because gambling is not allowed in her home state.
Weavus
What's really sad is that people have the expectation that this government should protect people from their own stupidity. It's not entirely bad, either.. but in a pure capitalist society the government won't be holding your hand at all. The US hasn't made up it's mind here, so the question is "it depends". So I guess there's plenty of blame to pass around for stupid lawsuits like this - the legislators for not taking a firm stand, the stupid idiot that blew $25k on his "habit" and tried to pass the blame on, and the company for not having policies to prevent this. Ultimately the blame rests on this guy - he has a problem, he knew it, he didn't seek help. You can't sue the hospital for not telling you you're bleeding to death.
Is it just me or are the stupid people taking over the world ? Everyday you hear about yet another stupid law suit. I think NASA should come up a with a laser satalite that can kill stupid people from orbit. Now that will be money well spent.
Vidi, vici, veni. (I saw, I conquered, I came)
Ok so this guy loses 25k gambling. First rule of gambling: Never bet over your head.
If you can only afford to lose 10 bucks..then take ten bucks w/ you to the casino. DUH!
But it just seems like another case of pointing the finger to say that 'Look! It's not my fault that (insert affliction here)! (Insert Cause which is allegedly related)help/conditioned me to do this! It's not my fault!'
Come on kids.... face the music and take responsiblity for your own actions. No one held a gun to your head to bet 25k. YOu did it. YOu can't tell me that it never once passed in this guys mind that he might not be able to afford it.
GIHM -The light at the end of the tunnel is only the oncoming train.
it doesn't even need to be said. We live in a potentially dangerous world. You have to pay attention,and not do something stupid to stay alive.
Sure, I could walk out into traffic and sue whoever mows me down - or cut myself with a steak knife, and sue because it was too sharp.... Evolution works for a reason, it is to thin out the weak and stupid out of the herd.
- passion
Gee, I wonder if one can sue a credit card company for mental anguish and distress once the bill is received? Dolt
i want to use online gambling for my copyrighted, undistributable open source natalie portman and open source drew barrymore project.
i need an open source enthusiast from slashdot to volunteer their credit card to fund my gambling adventures. the winning volunteer will be chosen based on available credit amounts. the winning volunteer will be handsomely rewarded with his/her very own copy of my copyrighted, undistributable open source natalie portman and open source drew barrymore.
you will look cool as you shower, sleep, eat and work with your copyrighted undistributable open source natalie portman and open source drew barrymore in your laptop.
"look at him/her!" observers will exclaim, "look how cool s/he is as s/he showers, sleeps, eats and works with his/her copyrighted undistributable open source natalie portman and open source drew barrymore in his/her laptop!"
"look at how he/she looks like donald/ivana trump with his/her wild hair and flashing casino jewels!"
thank you.
Just because you've got Credit doesn't mean you should piss it away at the first pretty website with fancy animated .gifs you find. Isn't that the FIRST thing they tell you in Economics class, that credit != free money? It's yet another symptom of the "I can do what the hell I want, let someone else worry about the consequences!" culture that's the norm these days...
I may as well sue Slashdot for forcing me to pour hot grits down my pants!
From the article - "...arguing that the credit card companies encouraged his gambling"
This sort of personal weakness makes me sick. "Oh, I didn't have a perfect childhood. That means I can fsck up my entire life, and it's not my fault".
"I spilt hot coffee on my leg and it hurt. It's not my fault, I didn't expect coffee to be made with hot water"
And I'm sure we've all seen the airline peanuts with instructions on how to eat them, as well as the safety warning "may contain nuts"
It's a hard world out there, but too many people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions. This gambler is just trying it on, plain and simple. The thing that scares me the most is that he might get away with it... With the way that both the USA and the judicial system operate at the minute. (I'm not knocking Uncle Sam here - this legislative madness infects us all. Here in the UK we had massive payouts recently for female soldiers who got pregnant and were asked to leave the Army as a result. But they'd already signed contracts before joining saying they would leave the Army if they fell pregnant...)
Oh yeah, BTW, the article mentions the Credit Card companies as taking about 5% of all transactions... They do that anyway, even if you're buying a tank of petrol or a takeaway pizza... Excellent, sensationalist reporting...
There. That's better. (rantMode=0)
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
I don't think he's stupid, he just thinks this is an easy way out of his debts. I had a roomate a few years ago, who ran up a couple hundred in online gambling debts, he called the credit card company and explained that someone had stolen his CC and was doing this, and they canceled the charges....I left that school before this saga ended, but he was also planning on maxing out his credit cards, fleeing to Pakistan (where he's originally from) and saying...COME AND GET ME!
[SARCASM ON]
With most cards, anything you purchase with the card is protected somewhat (extended warranties, and such). If this guy wins, we have a new "feature" to credit card purchase protection. If I do something illegal (buy drugs, buy sex, buy gas while kidnapping someone, etc.) I'm protected. The only problem could be that it might be difficult to find a drug-dealer who take credit cards. No problem! I simply go to an ATM, get a cash advance charged to the card, and the card company is responsible for everything I do with that cash.
[SARCASM OFF]
C'mon everyone. When you get a credit card, you sign a contract. You should read the contract. By signing you promise to pay your debts. Be an adult, keep you promises.
Well, lemme tell ya a secrect, CmdrTaco.. Last time I gambled and lost, i brought about ~$50, if memory serves, left atm + credit card + checkbook at home, plus had a car w/full tank of gas in the casino parking lot. So unless you sell the car, or bring credit cards, etc to casinos, you're safe. :)
David
bash: ispell: command not found
This sig left intentionally blank.
Aaah, yet another story of someone suing someone else because they seem to be unable to accept responsibility for their own actions. This does seem to be the trend in America these days - anyone has something go wrong sues rather than admit that it was their fault, or even nobody's fault. And the saddest thing is that they seem to get away with it every time from what I've seen. Wasn't there a family who won over $300 million in compensation for having a slightly misleading contract that they didn't check properly and got charged $750 above what they had thought they would pay?
Credit cards are not supposed to monitor everything you use them for, and if they did it would raise some serious privacy concerns. If you have a credit card, you're supposed to be responsible enough to use it sensibly. And lets face it, while it's easy enough to overspend on one, $25000? What kind of idiot spends that and then claims it wasn't their fault?
I'm gonna sue /. for sucking up my work hours with excellent news and cool stories.
I'm gonna sue userfriendly.org for making me lose productivity by reading their strip and laughing my butt off.
I'm gonna sue my ISP for providing me with these wastes of time and *gasp* charging me for it...
Um... what other stupid lawsuits can I think of??
Honestly, if the person racks up $25,000 in gambling debt, he's got larger problems. He's basically suing the credit card company for his own idiocy. I'd like to see this guy lose and have to pay up the $25,000 smackers. I have no love for credit card companies, but it's everyone else who loses because of increased interest rates the companies (supposedly) use to cover their legal costs.
Stupid is as stupid dies.
So US is free land, and thus anyone can sue anyone. So US isn't free land, because suing is game played by the rich, comparable to stock market in factual usability. So US isn't free land, because megacorps rule it. So US is free land because you can sue megacorps? No... you won't win them unless you have your own megacorp too. But hey, think positive, with all this stuff we got -material for jokes -fun /. stories -Ally McBeal
- Kaatunut
Even if this guy wins, do you think that the on line casinos will again ever let him play their games on credit?
And would he be suing if he had won? Come on! Nobody forced this guy to play the games. If he is able to show in court that AE is at fault, it would open the door to even more frivilous suits, where Jane Doe sues Visa for helping her spend too much money on clothes at the local K-Mart.
Mike Eckardt meckardt@spam.yahoo.com
The really sad part is there is already precedence for him to win ...
I never heard that story. I recall the McDonald's coffee. When I heard that story, I figured the lady never had a childhood where most people learn what HOT! means. I'm curious to know what someone hasn't learned in a bathroom.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
Suing the credit company may be a lot of things, but it surely isn't stupid - he's trying to cut his losses. Of course, in an ideal world, he should face the consequences of his actions and take responsibility like a man and so on, all this crap - but hey, it's the promised land of ridiculous law suits.
I was about to jump on the Litigious-Happy-Californians-Suck bandwagon, but that seems to be well covered here.
In fact, what I see are two different issues: One, that credit card companies allow online betting sites to accept their cards. Two, that web is not constrained by state or even federal geographic boundries.
It didn't say in the article, but I'm willing to bet that these gambling sites are not illegal outside of California; indeed, they might even be off-shore betting sites. I'm not sure that this issue (of accessing services around the globe that are illegal in your locality) has been addressed by the courts yet, but it'll probably come up if this case moves forward.
As far as credit card companies working with LEGAL casinos, this has been happening for a long time. You're not "purchasing" gambling; you're getting a cash advance (for which the credit card company usually charges you extra) and you're using that cash how you see fit; you can choose to walk away from the casino with all your money, or you can choose to bet it.
One possible scenario I see coming out of this: one way that the US Govt. has dealt with Child Porn coming over the Internet is to determine that this material essentially originates in the state in which it is downloaded (e.g. when someone downloads such material, the 'transaction' occurs in your location.)
Since this guy claims that he was encouraged to participate in "illegal gambling activity", couldn't the same rule be applied to him, and his computer be deemed the origination of such illegal gambling? As such, not only would he lose this case, but he would be guilty of a felony in California! Wouldn't that be justice...
:-)
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
Ok... So his complaint is that it's illegal for him to gamble in CA, so his credit card company shouldn't have let him gamble... So he *knew* that it's illegal to gamble in his state but he did it anyway. They should fine/jail/flog him for that.
Also: If it's illegal for me to buy weapons/ammunition in NYS, but I can do it anyway via mail-order (some companies don't actively check), does that mean I can build up an armory and sue to not pay for it? I doubt it...
Like it was said before... this is a frivolous lawsuit.
But I think he's trying to "point the finger," per se, because his found out about it...
The criminal does something bad, is caught for it, then tries to weasel his way out of his crime by appealing to some law, even though he himself broke it when he committed his crime. And the worst part about it? He probably has a case that could get him to the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit alleges the credit card companies participate in and profit from illegal online gambling by issuing merchant accounts to Internet casino operators who accept bets from web surfers
located in California where such gambling is illegal.
So, if someone breaks the law by gambling in California, yet gambling in California is illegial, but online gambling exists (the majority of which are actually in another country), what do you do?
Well, the obvious question is: Can the laws of another country (aka legalized gambling) take precidence over laws of the US or of California (aka illegal gambling)? The obvious answer: no. But then, why are millions of people able to gamble even though it's illegal? Answer: they shouldn't, yet they do.
My point is this: here's a place where the internet is the gateway to breaking laws. Gambling is illegal, yet is it legal via the internet?
I'm afraid that people might start seeing government imposed limitations on the internet if this case actually gets enough media attention.
First of all, I hope this man gets countersued by the companies he is claiming caused him such misery. He serves at the very least to pay these companies for their legal fees.
Second, this man is an example of when natual selection gone wrong. By all logic, this man should have died long ago. All I can assume is this man is a leech to society who has done it absolutely no good. But thanks to welfare and a society whre people don't have to accept responsibility for their actions, this man is still around, using up my tax money in court for a frivolous lawsuit.
This is sick.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
Her name is Cynthia Haines and she's from Calafornia.
/. 'em!)
Vias and Mastercard sued her for debt and she countersued 'cos net gambling is illegal in CA.
See www.theregister.co.uk and do a search for
Cynthia Haines
(they're only on 128k so I didn't want to
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Now, I'm not from America, but that means I've got a different perspective on you guys. You're totally correct in what you say, and it seems to me that it's a national mentality where there is in inability to admit that America is as flawed as the rest of the world. If the causes of these problems were tackled then it would be the same as saying things aren't perfect - it's better to say that if a kid shoots up his school then he's got mental problems than to say it was because of the society he grew up in. Don't get more wrong, I'm not saying America is a bad place, it's just that it's not really as good as some Americans seem to spend a lot of time telling everybody.
I have to agree that (state laws not withstanding), the man in question deserve not one penny back. But this isn't worth getting all worked up over, the market place can easily correct this one. If it happens too often, the Credit Card companies will just cut off casinos. The only member of the public who will suffer will be responsible people who want to use their CCs to gamble - or put another way, nobody.
Sure, some casino staff might lose their jobs, but I have about as much sympathy there as I do for Tobacco workers who become redundant when smokers quit (for me that's some, but not much, you may feel differently). Oh, and a few owners and managers who deserve no sympathy whatsoever.
Umm... Here's another slant. If she was gambling in a state where it's not allowed wasn't she breaking the law? If I break into a computer in a state where it is allowed from a state where cracking isn't allowed then aren't I open to persecution in my home state?
No big deal, it is done every day. The only reason this got any press is because it has both Internet and Credit Card in the subject matter. This time of year, with all the online shopping, anything negative with these two items will get attention.
HTD: Laborer, Gambler, Womanizer, Drunkard.
Don't tell me what to do.
Al Gore brought us the internet, he must be made to pay, I think the RIAA should sue him too after all what network does napster use. If Mr. Gore isn't responsible for this then I don't know who would be.
Never fear, our friends in redmond are working on a way to remove these sorts of lawsuits. Microsoft Eugenics 1.0 will be released to the public in Q4-2000. It will also be bung^Hdled into the next generation of DOS^H^H^HWindows. As part of the registration process, the user will be given a simple yet accurate IQ test. If the score is below 100, a Microsoft Strike Team 4.0 squad will be sent to the users house to castrate them. Within a generation, we should see a massive drop in these sorts of lawsuits as well as a sharp drop in support calls from individuals attempting to use their mouse as a foot pedal. Microsoft has admitted that reducing the number of truly stupid individuals in the world will negatively impact their sales, but the benefit of wiping out future AOL users will be worth it. Microsoft also addressed fears that their Strike Team 4.0 squads might target users of Linux or *BSD by releasing a press release reading in part: "Why bother? None of those geeks has a prayer of reproducing anyway."
--Shoeboy
I plan to sue Bill Gates, the computer gaming industry and the real world. Gates/Micrsoft because the OS crashes and makes me lose valuable irreplaceble time. The Gaming industry keeps making these games I just HAVE to play all the time and since they only are on microsoft's OS they support microsoft's time sucking OS. I also plan to include the real world, because if it would just stop I could happily play my games all the time instead its go to sleep, go to work. Heck I might sue my own body with all of its go to the bathroom, go get food I'm hungry, go get some excercise or I'll have a heart attack or something. Shouldn't the government be protecting me from these evils?
Casino success really isn't an impossibility if you know what you're doing. I've done pretty well the past few years (let's not count the hundreds I lost over the Thanksgiving weekend, okay? ;-)), almost always coming out ahead, and that includes any money spent on drinks, cigars, hookers (juuuuust kidding), comped tickets, etc.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
It's true that those folks who gamble themselves
into a hole, and then stiff the credit card
companies, are weasels - - - but I'm thinking
that the credit card companies earn their lumps
by being faciliators for the gambling industry
as it "reaches out and destroys" the households
of gambling addicts. Perhaps in making it tougher
for the casinos to continue the flow of money by
letting the credit card companies take their
chances in trying to collect "legally
uncollectable debts", these old laws can slow
the tide a bit? Or perhaps the collectors of
gambling debts will just go back to their old
"enforcement" methods: kneecapping, breaking
or cutting off fingers and other delicate
appendages, ultimately the "cement overshoes"
treatment, etc.?
there was a story back in October.. I'm sure it was linked from /.
You had to see this coming because if that Northern California woman won her suit... Case law will take it's course... and people will know that they have a chance to win their lawsuit as well.
well I'm all lawsuited out... lots of interesting stuff this morning.. I'm gonna go find someone to sue.
You have paid for a total of 0 pages and so far 0 have been used up (0 today).
Where they standing over his shoulder whispering, '23 Black! Take another hit! He's bluffing, your pair of 6's can take this hand!' ??!
How can you POSSIBLY claim that your credit card company 'Helped' you lose money? If he wins does that mean I can get a bunch of credit cards, charge a bunch of shit, and then claim that the credit card company 'helped' me go into hopeless debt?! Geez, some people are just total morons.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
signal11 -- puts the noise in the \. SNR
If you're a large corporation faced with a frivolous lawsuit, offer the settle for a large sum, with the caveat that the plaintiff consents to a vasectomy or tubal ligation. After a few decades the problem will abate!
In the US, illegal gambling debts can not be collected. It is also illegal to use a wire to transmit a wager across state lines. I think the credit cards should have known they were extending credit for illegal activites. I'm not saying i agree with all these laws, but the law is pretty clear.
Who is he going to sue for all the money he will lose in this suit?
-- The Sheep --
I've said this before when stories such as this have been posted on here. The bottom line is: This clown is a lousy gambler. Losing a couple grand is one thing, but digging yourself in debt to hopefully hit that lucky payday is just plain stupid. The only thing the credit card companies did was boost his line of credit. They do that, usually automatically, once you're pushing your current limit. My combined credit is worth roughly $43,000. Yet my debt is only $4,000 due to several recent computer purchases. Sure, I could have purchased $43,000 worth of systems, but I didn't. I have a brain that works, unlike the gambler who doesn't know how to gamble. Donations for a .44 magnum for self inflicted wound(s) to be sent to Mr. Marino. Idiot.
"Duh, I don't know, uninstall then reinstall the driver for that hardware"
"Duh, I don't know, reinstall Windows"
"That bug is fixed in the new release just go buy the update for $90"
hehe
I saw this in a .sig once.... The sum of the intelligence of the Earth is constant. The population is increasing. Thus, people are becoming dumber.
The guy used the card on the Internet, and therefore bears a certain degree of responsibility, EVEN IF he turns out to be a gambling addict. Responsibility is not necessarily a function of ability and is certainly not a function of denial.
Having said that, any credit card company willing to issue a card to an addict should be prepared to accept some degree of responsibility for the conseequences. If you wave a bottle of whiskey in front of an alchoholic, the chances are they're not going to just close their eyes & ignore it.
ONE responsibility does NOT negate the other. It is perfectly legitamate for more than one person to have some degree of accountability over something. Indeed, it is frankly stupid to pretend that everything happens in isolation, and that all "blame" should be heaped onto a single scapegoat.
Primitive tribes tried that with real goats, and it got them exactly nowhere. Denial ain't your friend.
I would say that the online casino is a measure responsible, too. After all, in bars and pubs, if someone's had too much to drink, the landlord will usually stop serving them, and the bouncers may escort them to the door. Why should a casino do any less?
Overall, I'd break down the responsibility as follows: The guy has the bulk, as it was HIS choice, so I'll say that's 85%. The credit card company should be more careful on who it issues cards to, so I'll call that 10%. The casino can't have been oblivious to the fact this guy was hooked, and should have limited things before they got out of control, not tempted him to spend more. (But, the gambler's reaction to temptation is HIS and NOBODY ELSE'S, which is why I don't see the casino as having any more than 5% responsibilty.)
IMHO, the lawsuit should end with the gambler paying 85% of the debts, the casino 5% and the credit card company writing off the remaining 10%. The gambler should then have his credit card revoked and his credit status put as a bad risk, for at least a year, with court-ordered attendance to gambler's anonymous.
Of course, this will never happen. America's too caught in the all-or-nothing parade, as shown by the woman who sued McDonalds over giving her hot coffee. Either McDonalds was all to blame, and the woman innocent, despite the fact that it was her negligence which caused the cup to spill, or it was the woman who was guilty, and McDonalds innocent, for all that they didn't bother to seal the lid on properly.
Sorry to disapoint people, but the universe doen't believe in finger-pointing.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If it is legal then the credit card companies have every right to extend a merchant account to these companies and the guy has no case.
If it is illegal then the guy was breaking the law when he gambled online and has no case again.
I really don't see how he can win, does anybody know the outcome of the case where the women sued the credit card companies a while back for the same thing?
If it is legal then the credit card companies have every right to extend a merchant account to these companies and the guy has no case.
If it is illegal then the guy was breaking the law when he gambled online and has no case again.
I really don't see how he can win, does anybody know the outcome of the case where the women sued the credit card companies a while back for the same thing?
i would like to pretend i'm from some country in europe for this post... this is damn embarassing.
what the hell can we do about crap like this?
people should be free to sue whoever they want to. if this freedom gets cut down, it would become more difficult for legit lawsuits to take place. but then there still is this problem with getting money for being stupid (not realizing coffee is made of hot water, not taking responsibility for gambling away all of your money). there has always been the idea that the loser in a lawsuit would have to pay for the other parties legal fees or something along that line... this seams good at first, but what this would also do is discourage people who could not afford to lose from suing someone who has done somehting wrong... once again, the more $, the more power.
so it seams to me we cant change much of the system.... but how about this idea..... maybe the smart people we trust as judges should more often throw out crap like this... something like: lawsuit invalid because the plaintiff is incredibly stupid and should never breed.
//end rant
lexicon
Man, either you're very stupid or you're Signal in disguise. It is Signal and yes he does have a space in his name and there is an option to not give yourself the +1 point, which is the correct thing to do when responding to post, unless you have some critical information to share that would merit the +1 bonus.
Now _what_ is it they say about a fool and his money? Let me think...
Why doesn't that dork just spend $40 on a gambling video game? Then he won't be out ANY money! ('cept the 40 bucks;) Seriously though, I have no pity for this stupid #uck. And this lawsuit smells a little too much like hot lap coffee. Some people are too stupid to live.
cuz I have lost so much time trying to get the first post on slashdot. And I'm suing cmdrtaco and hemos for all the stupid stories I've had to read (repeatitive eye injury). I'm also suing because Slashdot doesn't have anywhere I can use my credit card.
And we'll soon be using Linux to run video slots/poker/keno/etc. (I introduced Linux to the company!). Anyway, saying the casino "always wins" is misleading. The casino will win from 6 players, but lose to 5. Overall the casino takes in more than it pays out (duh) just like any other business' goal, but saying they "always win" implies that they never pay out, which is just plain wrong. What's more is that when vacationers come to Vegas, etc. they should be coming here to HAVE FUN (they might win some money... they might lose some money... either way, they have a good time doing it). If they're coming here to "make money", then they are coming for the wrong reason, and probably have a gambling problem and should get help. If you're not having a good time gambling, then you perhaps you shouldn't be.
Ok, I gotta ask, who would bet $25k in online gambling?
People who buy into overpriced IPOs on Internet stock trading sites?
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
So, he smoked them all, then called the insurance company and reported the loss of his cigars due to a series of small fires. They wouldn't pay up, so he took them to court. In court, he admitted smoking the cigars, and won because the court stated the contract was worded to protect the cigars against fire.
However, the scales of justice wouldn't remain tipped. The insurance company then filed charges against him on 24 accounts of arson. He was found guilty, using his evidence related in the previous case where he collected the insurance money. Ultimately I think he was thrown in jail.
That's a good example of the system working to punish those that would otherwise take advantage of it.
"In a world without walls, who needs Windows" - Someone from LinuxToday
make world, not war
>> Man, either you're very stupid or you're Signal in disguise.
Could be both.
This man is 100% responsible for the actions that he took. I don't care if he is an addict, juvenile, legally insane or just a plain idiot. Our society will not last if continue to allow every moron with a lawyer and an excuse to dodge the consequences of his actions.
time and time again, there are these stupid cases where through individuals stupidity, the companies end up paying for the individuals mistakes:
example:
1.a women in mcdonalds spills tea and burns her self.
McDonalds are liable because they didn't put "this tea is hot".
2. some one cuts themselves on a knife. sues the manufacturer and wins. Why? Because they didn't put "this knife is sharp".
For Gods sake, when is the american law system going to realise that companies should not pay for individuals stupid mistakes...
Who gets to recover the losses that the company incurs - the consumers.
Now, we get this case, where the bloke is sueing American express because he betted and lost.
Your american law system is being taken for a ride. Free liberty... OK - to an extent, but don't take it too far, like its already has gone.
its a farce!
If this is any indication of the shit that
AMEX and DISCOVER will be facing in the future or
of stuff they have been dealing with in the past,
my hat goes off to them for their patience with
people.
The guy is an idiot if he blows $25K at a casino.
Gambling addiction or not. The credit card isn't
the problem, its the person. The person. I mean...
his basis for suing is that he lost $25K, because
the credit card companies are egg'ing him on by
offering online businesses a merchant account???
Hell, I might as well suggest that my next door neighbor sue for his wrist injury from overly
frequent use of Porn sites. Why not sue the credit
card companies over that? Sheesh.
Money management, budgeting, restraint. All very useful things in addition to the tool we have called a brain. And it seems obvious that this guy isn't in possession of any of the above. Or if he is, he should maybe consider suing God for his inability to use his faculties.
- Wing
- Reap the fires of the soul.
- Harvest the passion of life.
- Wing
- Reap the fires of the soul.
- Harvest the passion of life.
Perhaps he should sue the credit card company. They gave him the money he didn't have to gamble with, they didn't tell him when he took the money that he would have to pay it back. Who cares if they signed a contract to loan him the money, who cares if he signed it to pay the loan back. What is this world comming to when the big bad credit card companies can beat around the little guy.
Sarcastic Coward
I have few debts, am worth more than my debts, pay my bills on time, earn more than the national average, and can't get a credit card no way no how, even with a dinky $500 credit limit, unless I secure it first. This is because I recently started a new job. No big deal; in six months, I'll be able to get as much credit as I want (which is nowhere near $25k).
This moron managed to get $25k in gambling debts on credit alone. And chances are, even after this lawsuit, he will have at least $25k in credit. Meanwhile, guess who picks up the tab for his stupidity? Yep, you and me.
Makes me wonder whether these credit card companies are basing their decisions based on ability to pay, or based on spending habits. If it's the latter, I might just stick with debit.
Bzzzt... sorry, urban legend alert! Check out any urban legend web site for details. Suffice to say that insurance companies are not that stupid and include clauses denying payouts for any deliberate actions on the part of the policy holder. In addition, destroying your own property is not considered arson unless you intend to defraud someone -- if the court had already decided that the insurance company had to pay for the cigars, then it couldn't be arson.
Get this though. When you hire a lawyer to reduce your credit bill, ALL THEY DO IS TELL THE CRED PPL NOT TO CALL YOU. That's all there is to it; The company legally can't call you (i think because the lawyer is now "representing" you) and so after some months or whatever they offer a lower bill, because ppl are MORE LIKELY TO PAY THE LOWER BILL.
Remember always that insurance and credit and banking (most forms of mass usury) are essentially probability scams, EXACTLY like a gambling casino. The company follows its nose to the most, soonest money. Thats all!
So anyway, after about 2 years, the calls started to mention less debt, instead of more from interest accrual. Well, mom's a smart cookie. She understood what was happening, so she let the bastards stew! I think she paid about 30% of her debt when all was said and done. That's 30 cents on the dollar, and ALL her debt is gone! She would have paid more (plus fee) if she had retained a lawyer, though she wouldn't have been frazzled for 2 years by bill collectors. But YOU don't have to be frazzled, because now you know how this $#!t works!
[note to stupid people: I'm not suggesting you run out and run up a huge credit bill because you won't have to pay it; if you think that's a good idea, I heard turpentine tastes real good. Hafta drink a gallon or ten b4 you get the taste for it though.]
the whole world laughs at american law.
This may be classified as an urban legend. see here for details.
-Hal
-Hal
They did so last year, but they lost the satalite. It's floating around up there somewhere, waiting for someone to find the lost access codes.
In many states, gambling debts aren't collectable, and just because they were incurred with a credit card doesn't make them collectable. When the dust settles, credit card gambling over the Internet will probably be dead. This is probably a good thing; as an English judge once said, "Few have stolen to gamble with cash, but many have stolen because they gambled on credit".
that's all fine and good, but she'll never be able to have a credit card again, buy a house, buy a car, or send her children to college on loans. I could go a lot of places and not pay for my goods or services, if I wasn't arrested, I could just keep refusing to pay. That doesn't mean I'd ever be allowed to shop there ever again.
The Good Reverend
Some people expect the government not only to let them be happy, but to run interference too.
Seems to me that my undergrad azz has a better concept of the "real world" than 1 in four "adults". I realize this isn't realistic thinking (not to mention other people probably think the same of me) BUT I'd like to see natural selection kick in here... if you lie in a road because you saw it in a movie, physics takes care of you. But there's nothing to pick up all the retards who somehow managed not to drink from a bottle with a skull on it for all these years... someday I swear I'm just gonna play god with a pair of .45's until I get smacked down. I hate stupid people and hypocrits, except myself ;-)
I wish we could sue the lawyers for supporting fradulent lawsuits...
If I were running a credit card company, I sure as hell wouldn't let people use my card in a casino. (Incidentally, if there are any bonehead Net regulators in Washington reading this, this is a simple way to ban Internet gambling without restricting anyone's rights. Of course, you could send a check for $1000, gamble with the account balance, and they send you a check for the account balance when you are done.)
If I am not mistaken, most credit cards make their money from interest payed on borrow money (very high interest). Some charge annual fees, but their real money is made on people paying late fees, other types of fees, and very high interest rates. Sure, a credit card could be used responsibly, I know many who do, but the credit card itself would not exist in its current (and profitable) form w/o irresponsible people. My theory is that credit cards started out as a bank service and when it was realized how irresponsible so many people would be with them and how profitable such a service could be, VISA, MasterCard, etc. were born. That is just my theory though. My great-uncle is a banker, but I do not like banks either. I put them into the same boat. I like credit unions much better. Credit unions are more community minded-money keeps circulating to-and-fro w/i the community. It is a great idea. Banks and Credit Card companies are siphons. Of course, the guy in the article will have to be tried by the letter of the law. If credit card companies know so many people are irresponsible, maybe someone needs to protect those people from such predators. Or maybe we just need to quit providing ways for people to circumvent responsibility in our society. That is my babbling for today...
Also, I think it should be an undeniable human right to NOT USE MONEY! Remember, usury was invented by humans... it's not a universal fundamental! The Native Americans can no longer pursue their livelyhood because our ancestors were more militarily powerful (and diseased too); The way the world is set up, it's almost explicitly illegal not to be the a 9v for 'the system', i.e. everyone who has enough money to exploit those with less. If I want to hunt and gather for a living, I can't because there's nowhere on earth that I wouldn't be "trespassing". At least, nowhere my species is adapted to live naturally...
Might Makes Right. Always has, always will; think about why I might make that conclusion...
Hey Rob! Not the boring Rob[limo] (hehe... j/k) Rob Malda! You owe me buddy. My cat would frequent slashdot on a regular basis. It would post stuff about hot grits and what not. Then its karma went down, and I found it last night dead... Overdosed on catnip and covered in its own kitty litter. All that was left was this note:
To Whom it may concern-
My life is not important anymore. My karma is -54. There is no hope for me. Meow meow meow... I just believed all the hype. The illusion of getting a +5 funny with a grits joke was just too tempting. My life goal will never be achieved. Meow.
DAMN YOU SLASHDOT! You will be hearing from my lawyers!
My grandparents visit Vegas regularly, and they
have a great time. They don't ever come back
with more than they left with, but they seem to
enjoy gambling, and they never gamble enough to
cause themselves any serious financial harm.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
"In a world without walls, who needs Windows" - Someone from LinuxToday
make world, not war
In pre-trial discovery, her lawyers discovered that McDonald's had been sued seven hundred other times for similar injuries, and settled out of court every time, requiring the injured parties to keep quiet about the agreements.
The jury awarded Ms. Lieback $2.7M in punitive damages, but the judge reduced that to $480K, and the parties settled for even less (presumably to save everyone the hassle of going through an appeals court).
McDonald's knew they were doing something that could get them sued again and again. They had an opportunity to change their policies to prevent more lawsuits. They even had an opportunity to settle Ms. Lieback's complaint without any lawsuit or trial. They passed up their opportunities. So who was irresponsible?
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
I think you'd better go find a freshman chemistry
text and look in the index for "supercooling" and
"superheating" and go read those sections.
it is VERY possible to get water hotter than 100 C
and colder than 0 C at atmospheric pressure.
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
I don't have any sympathy for credit card companies that issue merchant accounts to a on-line casino. It is blindingly obvious that it will be used for lending money to gamblers.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
...the suit seeks to stop American Express (NYSE: AXP) and Discover from extending credit for Internet gambling to California residents.
It doesn't say anything about him wanting to not pay (don't get me wrong, I'm sure he doesn't), but in fact it seems he wants to stop it from happening to other people. If the AMEX and Discover are violating the law and inadvertantly helping the Online Casinos, then I think this suit is generally a Good Thing.-AJ
The case was settled out of court. The man is probably going to lose the case because after almost getting sued by the previous lady from California, most credit card companies established some baseline rules for dealing with online gambling to ensure that there were no repeat lawsuits.
Bad Command Or File Name
Take me, for example. I'm in a very deep hole with consumer debt right now, as I've spent tons of money over the last two years starting a "real-world" job and living in one of the most expensive areas of the world. I, unlike millions of others each year, intend to pay back every cent. It's going to cost a fortune, but it sure feels better than going bankrupt, which is what stupid people end up doing because they don't feel like paying for their purchases. The companies are actually somewhat justified when people skip out on $10K, $20K and more in debt. (Things like 22% interest, excessive penalties, etc. aren't great, but they do want to make a high profit, like any business.)
Lately, however, I've seen a lot of "stupidity controls" go into place. These will allow the card companies to profit even more off the stupid. With most cards, if you miss 2 payments in a year, your interest rate jumps to the maximum allowed for the card. Idiots who charge over their credit limit (most purchases less than $50 don't require pre-authorization) are getting hit with fees and extra interest. And better yet, I keep seeing mailings sending me "checks" that encourage me to "deposit them into your account for extra cash!" How stupid do they think these people are?
All I know is this; I signed the charge slips and clicked the "Buy Now!" buttons, and it's my responsibility to pay them back. This doofus goes and blows $25K on something as silly as gambling (not even food, clothes, etc.) and then expects the card companies to forgive the debt? If I were the CEO of these companies, I'd refuse to settle and force a lawsuit, just so I could publically state to the world what a waste of space this guy is. Come on, *I* made a stupid mistake getting into debt. I'm not going to make mistake #2 and not pay for it. That's stupid.
Speaking of taking responsibilty on the net, I read yesterday that former Infoseek head and now jailbird Patrick McNaughton, who was caught crossing state lines to have sex with a minor he met on the net, is going to base his case on the fact that the net chat room was some sort of fantasy zone and he thought he was meeting somebody who was "role-playing" a 13 year old girl, not a real 13 year old. This is exactly the same buck-passing that is going on here. Both the gambler guy and McNaughton made the decision to do what they did but they refuse to take responsibilty for it because it was on the net.
Bull.
If this guy has a gambling habit, he needs to get help. The online casino doesn't know anything about him, nor does the credit card company. This isn't the same thing as a bartender kicking out a drunk, the barkeep can see the guy is a drunk, the online casino can't. Maybe the credit card company should have cut him off after they saw the $25K spent in a short time but why should they? They're in business to make money, not moral decisions for people. There are millions of gambling addicts who didn't rack up $25K in credit on the net, why should this guy get a free ride? Just because Patrick McNaughton "thought" he was only meeting somebody playing a 13 year old (which I doubt because he had child porn on his computers), why should that make a difference? If I kill somebody because I thought the guy would live through it, does that make me any less liable? Nope.
Giving people free passes to do whatever they want because it's the net or because it's on credit is the wrong path to go down. This guy should learn his lesson by working the rest of his life to pay back the money and McNaughton should do jail time because if they don't, who's to say they won't do the same thing again? After all, they didn't suffer any consequences the last time.
This show just how many stupid Jurys and Judges there are in America. Sueing a CC Company and winning (Like that Lady in California who used a Visa card and lost $75K I believe.. and sued and won because "It's illegal to to give "loan money" if it's to be used for gambeling"... well first off how did Visa know she was going to use it for that? The ONLY 2 possible people who should have been sued there would have been the lady who *USED* the money illegally and the company who accepted it) is just down right screwed up. The Credit Card company didn't loose the money for him, he did. It's like if I used my credit card to buy a $3,500 computer system, and just accidentally manage to spill a drink on it at some point in time. Did the CC Company make me spill that drink? No. Did they make me buy the computer? No. Sure they loaned me the money, but that doesn't mean they should be sued. It would be like if I promised a friend (in a written contract) I'd pay them back the $100 I just borrowed from them and go to a casion and loose it all, that doesn't mean my friend is at fault for making me be $100 poorer, I *chose* to press my luck. I'm really starting to hate America's legal system, because of all the neive judges and jurys out there. I hope the Judge and Jury (if there is a Jury) who gets this case make the guy suffer for it is his fault that *HE* lost the money... No one held a gun to his head and told him he had to.
This is yet another example of failure in the system. It allows people to sidestep responsibility for their own actions. Unfortunately, cases like this have been won before, and I am skeptical about whether the system will respond correctly to this one or not. Frankly, I think my taxes would be better spent elsewhere rather than on public defenders representing these idiots.
Civil suits have a purpose, and it is not to allow the irresponsible to avoid owning up to their own actions. The system is built to serve the educated and intelligent, not the frivolous and stupid. The majority of people, however, fit in the "frivolous and stupid" category.
Companies have money. It would cost them less to hire hitmen to remove these plagues from society rather than attempt courtroom settlements. Once they have instilled mortal fear in these lawsuit-happy people, the trend should die quickly and painfully.
Let's face it...these people do NOT contribute in any positive manner to society. All they do is waste time and money and cause uprisings from the more reasonable public.
Why would I perpetrate such random crimes against people I've never met? They never hurt me, right? Well, all my life I've been kicked (hard) by people I don't know, and whom I never hurt. And don't give me that shit about people worse off than me, I never claimed I had it worst. And I don't give a god damn if what I do then is "moral" or "justified"; I won't do it because I think "god" wants it, or that it's 'right', I'll do it because I'm descended from apes, and my puny brain gets overloaded when the anger/hatred/rage counter overflows.
What's more, the first thing I do then will be to kidnap and torure my elementary school bully until he dies screaming, crying for his life. I intent to derive a lot of satisfaction from that; he'll live several years in total agony. I'm the kind of person this world is breeding; I'm the kid you laughed at because everone else was too. I'm the random freshman that got bookdropped every day. And I'm the person who doesnt give a flying fuck for the niceties of a society that has been psychologically raping me since kindergarten. Ever wonder why serial killing has gone up lately? Why so many kids have been shooting each other in school? It's not because they like some particular music, it's because the world is a fucked up place!
I consider this plan of action to be totally evil and bad. And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't like it can well, die! And yes, I already own several guns. So if you see me coming, run... oh wait, you don't know what I look like. tee hee! >:} What state am I in? Will I still be in it when I go off? Will I be in your town? Your parents'? Your childrens'? Will I kill 3 people or 3000? Even I don't know. There's nothing anyone can do... except be nice to everyone, thus decreasing the probability that I get incrementally more pissed off each day. It's all game theory, folks.... be nice or else.
tap, poke, prod, push, shove. /insults, name calling, laughter. /BANG BANG BANG! surprised?
Perhaps the CC company shouldn't have let the charges go through. Perhaps the Online Casino shouldn't have let someone with a CC billing address in a state where online gambling is illegal play in the first place. But mostly, the guy who did the gambling shouldn't have been doing it in the first place. It's illegal for him to do so right? Therefore he shouldn't have been gambling online to begin with right? Then this whole chain of events never would have happened right? So the whole mess started with him and I believe he should bear the majority of the blame and financial burden.
Make him pay 70% and the CC company and online casino should have to deal with the rest. Additionally, I would hope that his credit will be worthless for a long time. He is obviously not capable of using it responsibly. Perhaps this will also encourage the CC company to take steps to stop things like this from happening whenever possible, although I don't think it's entirely fair to hold them responsible for keeping people from doing something which is illegal and that they should not be doing in the first place.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
but she'll never be able to have a credit card again, buy a house, buy a car, or send her children to college on loans.
Not necessarily true. When I was in college, I help part time jobs in the credit departments of a couple of major department stores. You need to remember that the collection departments task is to recover as much money as possible. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, our performance was evaluated almost solely on the number of dollars we brought in each week. When it became clear that a particular individual was not going to pay, it was commonplace to offer to wipe out the debt at a reduced rate, after all fifty cents on the dollar is better than nothing. If the debtor in question had the presence of mind to ask that we also remove any negative information from his credit report, we'd agree to it without much hesitation at all.
Of course, he'd never get credit from us again, since his account history stayed in our computers, but noone else would ever know of his payment history with us.
Not saying this is the norm, just that it does, in fact, happen. I also wouldn't recommend actually trying to make use of this as a method of acquiring cheap goods and services. However, if you do ever find yourself in financial trouble, keep in mind that the collection folks are usually MUCH more willing to negotiate than one would think at first.
I've heard several stories about internet gambling and credit cards on NPR and they relate that many people are simply refusing to pay their debts because, according to common law, gambling debts are not collectable.
The credit card companies are, understandably, getting bent and are considering dropping the accounts that internet gambling sites have.
A few states (Neveda for one) have started to treat the nonpayment of casino markers a criminal act the same as bouncing a check.
The law can sometimes protect stupid people from themselves. The lesson here is for credit card companies to NOT allow online-gambling houses to use them (yes, they can do that). My guess is that they won't since for every 25K loss, there are probably millions of $$$ in revenues pumped in. The question I have is who the BIGGEST online gamblers will sue when their YAHOO, RHAT, and BRCD investments come tumbling down early next year.
Why do you so thoroughly doubt his defense? Consider that the supposed 13-year-old girl *was* in fact an adult man. Why is it impossible to believe that the undercover officer may have accidentally dropped many clues as to his true age and sex? Even the way he talked would be a strong clue.
Hell, do you even expect police to act entirely honorably when they're setting someone up?
Just because Patrick McNaughton "thought" he was only meeting somebody playing a 13 year old (which I doubt because he had child porn on his computers),
That seems equally consistant with him thinking it was someone playing a 13 year old. It's not as if he would go along with that if he weren't in to that sort of thing.
There's plenty of room for questions about the case based on the stories in the media. How can you condemn him already without any real information?
A: Someone with 25000/11 = 2272 times your net worth.
Burning your own property and then filing an insurance claim to recover the value of the property destroyed by the fire would be considered arson.
~ I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere.
They allow the card companies to profit off of everyone. I have an AT&T Universal card (platinum, no less) - they received a payment a *day* late (they probably received it on time, but banks like to credit payments a day late if they're received after 9am or so, no doubt this gets them around some law), so they lowered my limit to the amount I had on the card, charged me a late fee, which put me over the limit, and then charged me an over-the-limit fee. They didn't care one bit when I complained. (because, of course, I signed away all my rights in the customer agreement).
There is an archaic Supreme Court ruling (cirac mid 1800's) that states that gambling debts are not collectible. Thus creditors SHOULD NOT grant casions, online or not, access to their cards. PERIOD This is just the way the law works.
I'm too lazy to look up all the facts in this case, so correct me where my memory fails.
A woman already won a case like this due to a technicallity in California law.
This man is also a Californian, and since it occured online, I'm going to assume he was California at the time. So based on precidence, he should win. He probably knew this and is trying to take advantage of it. Not something I'd try, but...
Since the law has spoken, the only way to prevent lawsuits like this is for the credit card companies to protect themselves. At first I thought this was stupidity on their part, since I'm sure that they were aware of the prior decision.
But in order to do something about it, either the gambling sites or the credit companies would have to implement some method of determining the origin of the transaction. Even if they can do this, how long will it take to roll out? So, should they just halt all transactions to these sites in the meantime? I don't think so. I imagine $25k is insignificant to the amount that these companies rake in via online gambling loans.
Will we ever see such a system implemented? Unless the law forces them to do so, I doubt it. $25k may still be insignificant when compared to the amount of income that Californians, with less will to sue, generate for the credit companies.
To sum it up, unless we start to see ridiculous sums (as if $25k isn't bad enough) I think it will just be an accepted loss. Note too, however, that the credit limits will probably prevent that from happening.
When you hire a lawyer to reduce your credit bill, ALL THEY DO IS TELL THE CRED PPL NOT TO CALL YOU.
Pretty much true. Now here's what makes this a particularly nasty scam: You don't need a lawyer for this at all. If a collection agent calls you on the phone and you explicitly request that they not contact you by phone again (although it is even better to send a cease and desist letter), they are bound by law to honor that request. Keep in mind that this doesn't mean they have to stop trying to collect the debt, they can still send all the letters they want, it just means they can't call you on the phone anymore.
Another interesting scam is credit repair. Basically, all they do here is send a letter to the credit bureau disputing the validity of the negative information on your credit report. Upon receiving this dispute, the credit bureau is obligated to contact the institution that reported it within a certain amount of time and verify the accuracy. The reporting institution is then obligated to either confirm the debt or request that it be removed / corrected. If these events do not occur within the specified time periods, the credit bureau is obligated by law to remove all mention of the disputed information from your file. Basically, this process relies on the hope that someone along the way will get lazy and blow off the paperwork. Strange as it sounds, this actually works much of the time. It is not, however, necessary or desireable to hire a lawyer or credit repair specialist to do these things for you. We're just talking about mailing off a two or three sentence letter here, hardly the sort of thing that requires legal help.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that these credit repair guys can do that you can't do yourself if your willing to spend about an hour reading about the relevant regulations.
DISCLAIMER: While I did work in a couple of collection departments while in college, and therefore beleive what I've said to be accurate, that was quite a while ago, so feel free to correct any inaccurate information presented here.
why the hell would cmdrtaco be worrying about losing his $11 at comdex when his company is about to IPO, making his pretty dang rich?
...is that there's a damn good chance that this guy actually ISN'T a drain on society; we're complex beings and the world is a complex place; there's good and bad in everything, evil can be beautiful, good can be ugly, but I still think this guy deserves a smack for his stupidity if he actually believes the credit company wronged him (other than how they wrong us all every day)
What if legal action against Discover & AmEx had been initiated by a credit researcher or an advocate against online gambling?
It's a thought to consider. A person or group of people, angered at the possible loopholes offered by these major companies to known online casinos, file suit to insure everyone is playing by the rules. Rational & reasonable.
But, that isn't the case.
A gambler lost a large sum of money at his own discretion, and is clutching at straws to get himself out of paying his debt. Period.
American Express didn't enter his Card number on the site.
Discover didn't agree to the Terms & Conditions of the site.
Neither suggested amassing a $25k IOU.
The article failed to note that, even if the CC's were not involved, he would still have an impressive debt to pay off. Where would the finger point then?
To quote the ZDnet story:
A California man who lost $25,000 gambling online has sued American Express and Discover Financial Services, arguing the credit card companies encouraged his gambling.
Hmmm. Had he pissed away his son's college fund in Vegas, would the Casino be under fire for encouragment from free drinks & "Really Pretty Lights?". What about his travel agent for encouraging a trip to vegas? What about that guy at the bank that encouragingly discussed his great luck at the slots? Doubtful.
Resolution?
1) Pay the bill.
2) Cut your cards.
3) Quit yer bitching. Next time, try a whiplash lawsuit instead. It's a bit more to chew on.
__________________
#include brandon.h
You are taking an all or nothing stand point here yourself. By saying that everything is Grey your saying there is no existence of black or white, when in certain cases there is. What I could gather from your post is that things are always (an exclusive operative here) a combination of faults and responsibilities when in fact that is not right. Somethings are black somethings are white and some things are Grey.
All or nothing attitudes have a great degree of validity in a lot of circumstance. The basis of a free society can be found, to some degree, in the theory of all or nothing attitudes. In a free society you have the freedom to succeed, you have the freedom to fail, and if you fail it is your problem and yours alone. To place the responsibility on other people a long the way for the failure is to say you don't have the freedom to fail. If you don't have the freedom to fail you don't live in a free society. *Side Note we don't live in a free society at least not yet. The point you are making in my opinion is in direct conflict with the foundations of a free society.
The Credit Card Company should assume no civil liability for this mans actions. Apparently he looked good on paper to get $25,000 worth of credit and that is all the credit card company should be concerned with. Now legal liability is a different story, since online gambling is illegal, credit card companies would be directly aiding criminal activity and they would have a degree of legal liability. The reference you make about bars and pubs is skewed. Pubs and bars stop serving people not because of some moral responsibility as you allude to. but because it is the law. And the reason it is law is not because the pub shares the responsibility if this guy drives into a truck full of nuns. But because getting intoxicated and going into public is illegal, driving a car intoxicated is illegal. Serving someone liquor after they are intoxicated is aiding criminal activity. This is the same as aiding and abiding laws. Many people share the belief that this is law because of a shared responsibility, and that may have even been the whole idea behind the law when it was passed. But it is not justified because of this reason. It is justified because aiding illegal activity must be illegal to help stop that type of activity.
root@localbrain root>ps ax |grep thoughtd
this guy have to argue his case, face to face, in front of a football stadium full of reg'lar folk. If he blushes, or grins once, he has to eat his testicles without ketchup.
mod it up!
This may be a bit off topic.. but what really irks me about this case is not that the guys is suing visa... but...
How the heck does someone this irresponsible get $25k in credit anyway? I'm having trouble getting
a measly $1000!
Lets say, one year per thousand dollars he tried to bilk? Which a post at the bottom said the credit co would write off from their taxes, i.e. the taxpayer, i.e. you and I get to pay this asshole's bill. Wait, did I say lock him up for 25 years? I meant, lets sell his organs on the black market, starting with the shriveled brain that got him into this mess.
>Just because Patrick McNaughton "thought" he was only meeting somebody
>playing a 13 year old (which I doubt because he had child porn on his computers),
That seems equally consistant with him thinking it was someone playing a 13 year old. It's not as if he would go along with that if he weren't in to that sort of thing.
How is his having actual child porn on his computer consistant with his thinking it was somebody playing a 13yr old? If he had the 13 year old girls on his computer, that makes it more likely that he's into 13 year olds, not people playing 13 year olds. I've seen pics of older people dressing up as youngsters, I'd believe that was his thing if he had pics like that.
Most continental European countries that were conquered by Napoleon, before he was wiped out by the Russian winter, implemented while they were occupied the Code Civil; including Belgium, where I live.
The code civil basically bundles Roman Law with quite a lot of common law from the northern French provinces; quite a chunk of which dates back to the Lex Salica, the laws of the Teutonic tribe of the Francs, who conquered France in the early middle ages. After Napoleon's demise many of his ideas were reversed, but not the Code Civil.
Well, to cut a long story short, the Code Civil refuses to recognize gambling debts and mandates that any such claim be thrown out of court.
I really can't understand how the Bank Card Company (Visa, Mastercard) lend themselves to collecting gambling debts on behalf of casinos.
I think sooner or later we're going to be laughing when citizens of a continental European country gamble using their credit cards and the Bank Card Company unadvertedly try to collect. The directors of the honourable company may find themselves trying to fend off the imposition of astronomical fines and probably get very close to being incarcerated prison.
I agree with the sentiment, of screwing the huge company; but i swear to god sometimes I almost want to condone my countries hideous military ethics, bombing so many other countries. Yeah, good kid, defraud my economy. Just don't be surprised when this "devil country" or whatever you call it, comes and wipes its ass with your face. Come son, be a terrorist! kill a thousand people on a wednesday. It all comes back around, bitch.
check out: http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/articles/dc/dc12. html it talks about the Fair Debt Collection Practices act, passed in 1977. In this law are the specifics on cease and desist letters and the like.
Actually, it would be a valid lawsuit...my left foot did not unclip in an accident...the right did..so the equipment was obviously at fault, right?
nah. Not in my nature, even though I would probably win a buttload of money. I wonder how many people a year sue ski binding manufacturers for the same thing? shoot, maybe I'll sue shimano after all :)
that's why we have governments... because there's a zillion people with total IQgeeks unite!
geeks unite!
People have made a lot of posts to the effect of "people should just take responsibility for their own action". But what about the cc co taking responsibility for their actions? If I personally extended credit well beyond what I knew someone could pay back to engage in a self destructive and addictive habit, I wouldn't expect to see that money again, and I'd probably see my action as endangering to the person in question. Long story short, I'm of mixed minds on any additional damages the ccs may be sued for, but they made a real bad credit decision both economiclly and ethically, and I'm loving it if they have to void the charges. That's just THEM taking responsibility for THEIR stupid actions. PS legally, you might compare the situation to bartenders and drunk driving. They can't just say, 'oh I was just selling them alcohol, its not my responsibility if they drink it all at once'. They are serving alcohol to people they can expect to drink it right there, and they have a responsibility for the consequences. PPS Generally this is just a more egrerious case of why I hate credit cards anyway, so I'm not exactly impartial.
...will work for Chick tracts...
I'm not saying that he's not into 13 year olds, if he is into 13 year olds then kiddie porn and adults pretending to be 13 year olds may be his outlet for that.
We have little information about this case, what we do know does not rule out this possibility. We should wait for more information before drawing any conclusions.
And the child porn he does have may in fact be adults pretending to be children - this (along with drawings/cartoons) qualifies as child porn under the law (at least in some areas), as far as I know. I don't think any information was released about the exact nature of it.
Why doesn't this guy just sue his parents for having sex?
I work for Ladbrokes, one of the major players, if not that largest cash betting company in the UK, with several interests abroad. While I couldn't possibly comment in any official way, blah blah; it's not suprising that we don't accept credit cards from the general public. We do accept debit cards (same funds transfer system, except that money comes directly from the owner's bank account - No money in account = no authorisation = no bet) on the telephone betting services. This attitude seems to be prevelant throughout the UK.
I occasionally bet, in other companies shops, although not online, because I don't feel that a company wouldn't rip me off by, say, changing the game such that when in 'demo' or 'play free' modes, it pays far more than when in 'real' mode.
What guarantees does the internet gambler have that he is dealing with a reputable company. The Ladbrokes rule book, which governs all transactions covers, in small print, an A2 poster (USA speak: A2 = 2xA3. A3=2xA4, our nearest equivalent to your 'letter' paper (which is the most annoying default on loads of software - Aargh!) - work it out for yourself). Do they have a code of practice? A complaints procedure? A governing body? I'd bet hard cash that most of the 'guarantees' offered are pretty much worthless. Comments?
Atleast when betting on sporting events and racing, you know that the bookmaker does not have any control over the outcome (and even if he has, for my pitifully small stakes, nobody is going to risk fixing anything).
It is not illegal to place a bet in another state, however, it is illegal to accept a wager from out of state. Congress thought about making it illegal to place a bet over a wire a few years ago, but came to the conclusion that it was unenforceable. So as it stands now, only the bookmaker is committing a crime when a wager is placed across state lines.
In addition, destroying your own property is not considered arson unless you intend to defraud someone -- if the court had already decided that the insurance company had to pay for the cigars, then it couldn't be arson.
that's exactly what he intended to do silly, defraud the insurance company.
she'll never be able to...
(Assuming everyone is in the US...)
That is utter bullshit. After ten years all references to this event must be wiped from her credit report. If some credit bureau refuses to remove the negative information, they could find themselves at the end of a very nasty lawsuit for violation of the FCRA and possibly even defamation.
That means that, at worst, her slate will be wiped clean in 10 years.
However, even in the interrim this is hardly a "kiss of death." Her problems might have been due to transient financial problems which no longer apply. (The classic examples are major illness, divorce, job loss.) She might have been a struggling college student and now settled into a new career and fairly affluent. She might have one the lottery, or come into an inheritence. Most creditors will take all of this into consideration.
Finally, while you have been busy on your soapbox some companies have made a bundle on "marginal credit" for people such as this. She would have no problem getting a secured credit card, for instance, since refusal to pay would simply result in her account being closed and a check for the remainder of her deposit being sent. House and car loans are also possible, albeit at a higher interest rate (by several points, typically), plus extra points and a larger down payment.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Sigh... follow the train of thought:
Yes, that IS what he intended to do, BUT (if you follow the story), the court had supposedly decided that it was a legitimate claim, i.e. by definition he was NOT defrauding the insurance company. The insurance company can't claim he was defrauding them after the court said he wasn't.
Yes, but if the court had already declared that it was a legitimate claim, then by definition it was NOT arson in the court's eyes. Maybe the insurance company could make an appeal or something...
He must have been playing rather high stakes to lose that kind of money.
My safe method of gambling is to play the 5-cent video poker machines. You get the same entertainment value (i.e., practically none), and it would take a couple lifetimes to lose that much money. Last time, I played for several hours and ended up $2.50 ahead.
Now I think the people who refuse to take resposibilty for there actions are twits, but the credit card companies did break the law.
And it will be really hard for credit card companies to get around this, because certain *family* members have been trying to gat around it for years, and the have pretty much covered any posible loop holes, including waivers, disclaimers, etc....
Now this only applies to certain states, not Nevada, what an amazing coincidence...
i saw on ZDtv just last night (i think, sleep all screwed up) that a woman lost $10,000 in online gambling, sued her credit card companies, and WON. how ridiculous is that? but it's precedent, and that means this guy will probably win too. it's a silly world we're living in...
--
you must amputate to email me
i read all replies to my comments
Read the alt.drugs.caffeine FAQ. McDonald's was not unusual in the temperature used to prepare their coffe.
Remember also that the person who order the hot coffee did not have it spilled on them by a McDonald's employee. The woman in question was the passenger in a stopped car who place it between her legs, took the lid off and then spilled it. An intelligent person might have noticed "Gee, this coffee isn't cold" and been careful.
The 700 previous times looks very impressive until you actually do some math. Those 700 cases were over a 10 year period. Even assuming each of the 25,000 McDonalds restaurants sold only 10 cups of a coffee a day, for every single person who had a problem, 1.3 million people did not! This is not the sign of a killer product...
(Note also that your average McDonalds probably sells the 10 cups/day I used in 15 minutes during the breakfast rush, making the real accident rate significantly lower. )
I'd be amazed if they didn't have a similar number of little kids poking each other with forks, people slipping on ice and the countless other things that happen when you're serving millions of people on a daily basis.
The problem is that people don't think about their actions and don't take responsibility. It's not as if the drive-through worker dumped the coffee on her. The woman in question was the passenger in a motionless car, she got the coffee, placed it between her legs, pulled the lid off and only noticed it was hot when she then spilled it. That's being a klutz, not a victim.
This is in no way as good as that guy Dion Rayford who got stuck in the Taco Bell drivethrough window. It is good it was his last year in football. You know what they would have said every time he fumbled after that.
http://www.salon.com/people/wire/1999/11/18 /chalupa/index.html
Was this woman forced to go to McDonald's? Was she forced to buy a coffee? Was she forced to drive a car and drink the coffee at the same time? Certainly not. If she prefered to have coffee her way, then she could've stayed at home and made it herself. The fact is, she took the initiative to buy a coffee, and not the other way around. Since when do people stop taking responsibility for their actions and not try to put the blame on others?
Rajiv Varma
Ok, I wasn't really thinking about that when I replied. I was just thinking about who would be at fault, not how or whether we could do anything about it.
Since our laws don't apply to Antigua (or wherever the casino is located), was any law broken, and if so, who broke it, and how?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
this is like blaming ford for selling you the car that you got dunkin and got the drunk driving tiket whal driving. Eaven if he was an alcaholic yet some how had a clean driving recod.
Part of the persons case seems to be that this took plase in california were that tipe of gambeling is illegal. Is it just me or is this guy trying to blame them for allowing him to brake the law?
one more point if the guy is this bad in debt how in the world is he going to pay a lawer
Where exactly do you put the blame, and who do you propose decides? A judge, just off the cuff? "Let's see, you 85%, Credit Card 10%, Casino 5%". Got me, but I don't find that thought very appealing. Writing "blame cutoff" laws is just too insane to even consider.
In this scenario, how did you arrive at the credit card company being at fault? Where's the ISP in this scenario, who provided the link for these actions to occur? Surely they're in for 5% of the blame as well - they should be monitoring where their clients are going, and if they're hitting casino sites too much, they should do something to block their access. Or perhaps this mans close relatives - perhaps 1% each for mom and Dad, and .5% for siblings and grandparents - certainly they were aware of this guy's gambling problem and should share responsibility for not preventing the situation before it was too late. We could go on and on here - if you want to point to anything but THAT guy's personal choices, you're up for some seriously arbitrary decisions.
In this case, I suppose you feel the credit card company should monitor all customers transactions and PREVENT them from spending their money in a way they determine might be harmful. I daresay this is way, way over the top in invading MY privacy to do whatever I wish. If that's going deep into debt one day gambling online, that's my choice, and I'm sure not going to appreciate it if big brother halts a transaction in the interest of "protecting" me. It's ridiculous to even think about, but that's exactly what you suggest. It's just as ridiculous as me gambling away thousands of dollars then looking at the credit card company and saying "Hey! Why'd you let me do that?! I'm suing you!". Is it such a crazy idea that when you're an adult in this country you might be given free reign on your spending habits? Do you consider the government or buisnesses accountable in whatever part for actions you take that harm yourself? Hopefully not.
So I suppose we'll start seeing alcoholics suing bars and breweries for letting them drink, murderers suing war-malt and smith&wesson for selling and making guns, McDonalds for selling burgers that contributed to heart problems, etc. It's going to be a little complicated as we sort all the middle men in the transaction as well as people tangentally involved attempting to assess their share of blame for the individuals choices...
If you're an adult, the only person who really makes choices for you is *you*. You are responsible for what you do regardless of who may have been a stepping stone along the way. Credit Card companies should not be accountable for making sure you use your credit line responsibly, nor should Jack Daniels be responsible if you drive drunk, kill people and turn yourself into a quadrapalegic. If you need someone to control your actions and prevent you from climbing too high on the jungle gym, go back to kindergarden.
You make choices, you are responsible. THAT atttitude (Personal Responsibility)doesn't seem so prevalent in America (or with humanity in general) and that's "pathetic and stupid".
Just because you are are not a US citizen and may reside outside the united states does not mean you did not break the US law, only it is much more difficult for them to come after you. International treaties govern how law enforcement may pursue wanted criminals outside their borders. If they want you badly enough (ie drug kingpins, terrorists, etc.), however, I don't think international borders mean very much.
I wouldn't have responded except for the "Sigh..."
Statement A:"In addition, destroying your own property is not considered arson unless you intend to defraud someone"
Statement B:"if the court had already decided that the insurance company had to pay for the cigars, then it couldn't be arson."
Statement A does not support Statement B, seems unrelated. I understand what you were trying to say.
Am I the only one that finds this more unethical than smart ?
There is a real enemy staring straight ino the face of offshore gambling, and it has nothing to do with John Kyl.
I tried to contain my wild gales of laughter and mirth when I read the latest story to come across the wires.
"A California man who lost $25,000 gambling online has sued American Express Discover Financial Services, arguing the credit card companies encouraged his gambling".
Of course, this is ridiculous, but evidently the legal precedent has not been set in these cases and many credit card companies are settling out of court. This is a surprising move by the credit card companies, as by settling out of court, other ne'er-do-wells seem to think this provides some sort of carte blanche to rape pillage and plunder the legal system with a flurry of frivolous, harassing lawsuit.
For anyone that remains unconvinced that this is a ludicrous line of thinking the plaintiffs are using, consider this hypothetical:
I hire a hit man to kill my wife. I pay him $10,000 in cash (I know that sounds cheap - but that's about all she is worth to me anyway).
The hit man kills her. The police investigate, I am indicted.
My attorneys meet with the District Attorney. I will turn over my accomplices for a reduced sentence.
They agree.
I then turn over the Federal Reserve of the United States of America.
Sound crazy?
Hey - they printed the money - and a lot of it. They printed so much money, in fact that I felt compelled to use it for illegal means. Much like Discover and American Express, they "encouraged" my murderous thoughts to the point of providing a vehicle for getting the job done - printing and providing me with lots and lots of money.
Alas - our real life story gets worse. According to Ira P. Rothken, the attorney for the plaintiff in this suit, claims that First Union Bank has just informed him by letter, today, that they will ban their credit card affiliates from extending credit for gambling purposes.
The stigma attached to gambling, it appears, is ugly indeed, and it does not appear to have the slightest chance of getting all dolled up unless something radically is done, and quickly.
Here's why:
There is no lobbying organization for offshore gambling. It is in the best interest of Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Mississippi, and elected politicians of any other state that allows any form of gambling to make sure those operating Internet Casinos offshore have a very tough go of it. These states have elected officials and professional lobbyists whose top priorities are to keep their monopoly on gambling. With no one to stick up for the offshore industry, and no signs of them hiring a lobbying group anytime soon, it appears as though the credit card debacle will become increasingly common place. Until one of these financial institutions takes a stand against the finger pointing, "I'm a victim" mentality that pervades the American state of mind and promotes this sort of legal maneuvering, it can only get worse for offshore casino owners chasing the pot of gold on those Caribbean Islands.
The offshore industry is plush with big money - and its seems it might be in their best interest to hire some political muscle in Washington before they lose their right to process credits cards. This would be much more devastating to the offshore industry than anything John Kyl and friends can do.
When a telemarketer phones you and begins the relentless scripted speech about how badly you need their service, unsheath you're tactful verbal sword and stab them with "Add me to you're DO NOT CALL list."
Upon hanging up the phone, write down the time and date and stash this in a handy place (I am not aware of any additional steps required in order to validate the information?) If the company again disturbs you at a later date [at 3am no less...] you can bring them to court and force them to pay you a fine, IIRC to be somewhere in the range of $100, simply because you told them to add you to their DO NOT CALL list on _fill_in_time_and_date_here_.
I read this somewhere a long time back and am not exactly sure if it is true for every state and area, or if I am completely accurate. But, for the most part it is basically true.
I have never done this personally, and am not exactly an advocate of it, but if there is some company that just wont get of your back...
ZEN is a prime number in base-36
Personally I don't think he's going to have a very substancial case in this trial. In my own opinion scence when is american express and discover answerable to the ignorance of a customer who willingly goes into an online casino, enters his credit card into the computer, AND enters his pin number and has the gaul to blame other people for his ignorance. Frankly I think that this issue was over before it even started. How could anyone be that ignorant....
No you aren't the only one that finds this unethical. People should pay their bills, failure to do so amounts to theft IMHO (I am not suggesting this to be legally the case).