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.
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 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
I believe I probably have a caffeine addiction, but if I managed to rack up $25k on my credit card in chocolate and coffee, I like to think I won't sue anyone. I like to think that I would say to myself, "Dana, you're a moron, you got yourself into this situation, it's your own stupid fault, now try to fix the problem."
Now that I think about it though, maybe this guy isn't so dumb. Maybe he realizes the legal system doesn't hold people accountable for their actions so if he can get out of debt in a lawsuit, why not? Perhaps it's the legal system that has allowed people to win stupid lawsuits that is most at fault here.
Dana
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.
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)
You're missing the point. The internet gambling people broke into his house, FORCED him to go to their web site and lose 25 grand. He should be protected from this kind of intrusive behavior. And how was he supposed to know that he could LOSE money gambling. Actually, I watched my roomate lose $350 in twenty minutes yesterday at ParadisePoker.com. Online poker- not for the faint of heart. All other online gambling- a total suckers game.
-Teddy KGB
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.
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
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
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