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!
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.
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?
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
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
I don't remember Darwin as some Victorian Terminator ;))
(Charlie fetchs BFG from back of horse-drawn carriage, adopts bad Austrian Arnie accent)
"Okay yu ass-hol, if yor so fit den survive zis!"
Heh, nice image. . .
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
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.
>Owwww...I spilled coffee on my lap! I didn't know it's that hot!
I think that the case then (McDonalds) was that:
a) they'd already been warned that the coffee was too hot more than once
b) the woman got 3rd(?) degree burns, which you shouldn't get from coffee
(b) gives you dangerous behaviour, (a) gives you negligence.
Did I get this right: Gambling is illegal where this guy lives? If so, they can sue back. Hey, the guy committed a crime, and should pay! (the funniest outcome would be that he got his $25k back, but had to pay $50k fines for gambling ;-)
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
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 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
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.
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.
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
...You can imagine how upset I was last Saturday when I didn't buy a ticket for the lottery, and saw Elvis zing by in his flying saucer...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
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!
There was a link about the McDonald's lady posted in /. comments a while ago. She only sued to cover medical expenses (25K due to her _third-degree_ burns, skin grafts, etc), and the jury awarded her a lot more. There are photos of what happened to her, and they are gruesome. This was no "oochy! that's hot!" case.
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.
I'm not entirely sure that this is true. I think that gambling is a serious addition for a lot of people, and more often than not the people who require help ARE the working class people looking to make some quick, easy money.
While I do not support the people who are pushing to have gambling and slot machines outlawed, I do think we need to have some measures in place to help prevent this kind of thing from happening. Unfortunately, what this solution is, I'm not entirely sure. But following Homer's morals and not caring 'cause you don't know 'em isn't the answer.
And in AMEX's defence, I don't think they should be accountable because he gambled away a crap load of money. To me, that is as silly as holding gun companies accountable for a murder. As far as I'm concerned, unless there is blatent negligence, accountability is always found in the do-er of the action (of course there is who whole notion of being ordered to do something, say in the Army, but that's a whole other topic).
-dr
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?
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!
Primitive tribes tried that with real goats, and it got them exactly nowhere. Denial ain't your friend.
Just an off-topic point. No one "blamed" the scapegoat for their sins. The scapegoat recieved their sins and was then sent off in the wilderness. It's more of a martyr than anything else. A second goat was then slaughtered as a sin offering to God. Personally, it sounds like the scapegoat got the better part of the deal. Check Leviticus chap. 16 for the details.
Somehow, the concept has been corrupted in modern English. Now we blame the scapegoat for our sins, rather than use the scapegoat to "absorb" our sins. And we tend to kill the scapegoat rather than give him his freedom. Details...
-jon
Remember Amalek.
This sounds like a very sensible solution. Which is probably why the courts will decide on something else. :P
Real life is all about shared responsibility. Ultimately, everyone makes his/her own choices. Other people may be able to influence you, so they share the responsibility somewhat, but you still have the choice. I think your comment summarized that nicely.
CT
Constitutionally Correct
How does the credit card company know you're a gambling addict without profiling you? If you become an addict after they've given you the card do they still have some responsibliity? Or can they ask you to tell them you have a problem? Or can they demand you ask just a few 'personal' questions?
While credit card companies do already profile thier users spending habits to a certain extent to make sure that the card has not been lost or stolen (i.e. I spend $4000 one day after averaging $100/month for that last year they will tell the next merchant to call you) I would find the sort of tracking where they ask me questions periodically too intrusive. And I suspect so would a large number of other people. Thus a credit card company has no way to know if you're an addict. Even then, would you want them to know? They would probably never give you credit again, and trash your credit record.
In this vein, there was a proposed law (it may have been a bank initiative) a little while ago that would require banks to be able to predict the spending of thier customers. It drew plenty of fire from privacy advocates, with good reason -Its nobodies business what I do with my money.
By asking corporations to be responsible for the habits of thier customers, in cases like this (faulty breaks are a different matter), you are not only inviting but forcing the corporation to take a much larger interest in your private life then I suspect you would like.
-locust
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.
Some guy had his 'member' mangled by the toilet seat, so is suing for quite a large sum, his wife is suing as well for ummm, obvious reasons...
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
You misunderstand. 'Social Darwinism' is still occuring, it's just that our society is now selecting for behaviours that most of us find repugnent.
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!
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 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
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.
Consider the case of a kid who enters an unsecured construction site to tag a newly-built building. He's commiting a civil offence (trespass) and quite possible a criminal offence (criminal damage.) However, if he falls down an improperly marked and cordoned excavation and breaks his back he still has the right to sue the site owners for negligence.
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
Why is the casino liable in your eyes? They don't know they guy.. They have never seen him face to face.. for all they knew they guy was a Donald Trump and the 25K is pocket change. Nor do I feel the credit card company is at fault here. All they did is extend him credit.. which was to be used at his descetion. This is the same as the debate over wether ISP's are liable for the use of the bandwidth they sell to people. Some use the bandwidth for research or whatnot, others use it for Kiddie Porn.. however the ISP isn't responsible. Likewise Credit card companies are not responsible for how the credit they give to people is used.
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
>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.
This isn't about "protecting". Quite the opposite. It's about refusing to shelter someone from their behaviour, by deferring their losses in some kind of credit system.
I don't care what you, or anyone else, spends their money on, but I see it as pointless, futile and inane to throw money at addicts in the hope that they'll be resposible with it. Reality Check here! They wouldn't be addicts, if they were being responsible! You can't be both! Addiction is a disease, which attacks the responsibility glands.
Nobody has the right to say what you spend your cash on, but you would probably be glad if they didn't loan you a few thousand, if you were going to blow the lot on booze, drugs or gambling, and they were aware that that was likely. I believe you'd much rather they waited until some other time, so you could spend it on something you -wanted-, rather on compulsively filling some void.
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)
Fundamental flaw: A working class stiff usually doesn't have a $25,000 credit line on one card.
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
The premise of the credit card's responsibility is that they had the ability to determine either that the person was an addict, or that something was seriously amiss. (And I think they'd know if he was a Donald Trump wannabe.) Also note that the argument is that responsibility is distributed, not focussed.
If the credit card company could not reasonably have known, then they had no reasonable responsibility. However, addicts are rarely made in a day, except in cases of serious head injuries or other extreme trauma. It's usually a life-long debilitating disease, starting from childhood. In the first case, the responsibility of the credit card company would be rendered 0%, and the 10% they would have had would shift entirely onto the gambler.
In the second case, their credit history (which will be quite detailed) would make it abundantly clear to anyone that this person had a serious problem. A problem that had not prevented them from paying bills, so far, but which made them a bad risk, in the extreme. Choosing a bad risk is definitely up to the credit card company. Nobody can -make- them issue a card, they did so of their own free will, knowing the credit history of the person involved. That's worth a good 10% of responsibility for negligence, in my book, though no more. The bulk of responsibility is always with the person.
I'm not going to get into a "who knows more addicts" pissing contest. That's childish and immature. I'll just say that IMHO, the Big Book is as near the definitive work on addiction as has ever been written. And it's amazingly easy to spot addicts. If they say one thing, and do the opposite, repeatedly, no matter how hard they try, they're addicts. Doubly so if they try and justify or blame others.
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)
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
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.