One time I gave my wife my CC to buy something from BB, and they wouldn't let her use it.
The Post Office is, or was, hardcore about checking as well, but that might have been because it was a debit card (I think).
Recently, however, I haven't had them even look at the back.

I used to have "check ID" on my card, and the local post office wouldn't accept it because it had no signature. This same post office accepts blank checks from my boss, and has never asked me for my ID when I use them.

Yes, there are LAWS that protect you with with credit cards. With debit cards there are only bank POLICIES. Policies that are subject to arbitrary interpretation by bank employees. I addressed this in my first post on the issue. Please try to follow along if you are going to actually comment on the subject.

That is a false dichotomy. Using a credit card does not force a person to spend beyond their means. And in fact, debit cards do not prevent you from spending beyond your means either. Signature debit cards such as MC and Visa checkcards take a couple of days to post to your checking account. It is easily possible to spend more than is in your account with such cards.

You son, have been suckered into believing the whole "debit cards are better" PR campaign. Only a sucker would use a debit card when they could use a credit card for the exact same purchase, gain the benefit of guaranteed legal protections and free interest on the ~30 day float.

That's a good way to "force" a card confiscation. If you are lucky, they will allow you to sign the card right there, but if you haven't left room for a valid signature, then they can confiscate it just as they would for any card with an invalid signature.

I don't know what Amazon is thinking. So far it seems that the CC companies have sided with us. So why would Amazon charge us, assuming they know that the CC companies would rule against this?

I think that Amazon will charge our cards, we fill file chargebacks, and that will be the end of it. Amazon will have gained a little back from people sending their stuff back and the people who might not notice the new charges.

Ah, I did not know this. (And never heard of a card being confiscated for this!) I assume MC, AmEx and Discover probably have similar rules?

My cards are signed, but I have a friend whose cards say "Check ID." I think I'll give him a heads-up.

In the real world, this is not true. I've done this for 20+ years.

Whatever dude, can't get more authoritative than the merchant guidelines from Visa and MC themselves. Just don't throw a shit-fit when your luck runs out because you do know the rules, and now you also know why it doesn't really help anyway.

For sure with MC, I don't know about Amex and Discover, I just haven't bothered to investigate. Most people get away with it because (a) many clerks don't know the rules (b) they don't want to cause a scene since it is always the real owner of the card anyway.

Actually, I have an AmEx and I don't hate it at all. As a matter of preference, I use cash/debit for all my b&m purchases, while I use CC's for online purchases. Costco was only an example, as I'm sure you're familiar with Visa's "... and they don't take American Express" campaign. The fact that one merchant only allows certain credit cards while another may allow another (or all) doesn't dissuade me from visiting that business, especially since I have accounts with all the major CC companies. I can see why a person with one or two cards may not choose to visit a business because they don't take those cards, but I was only pointing out, in a specific circumstance, why one may want (or have to) use a debit card rather than a CC.


Exactly. If a COMBO card is stolen, unless the thief knows the pin, the card can only be used for credit. If the card is used fraudulently in a credit transaction, it is allowed the same fraud liability as a credit only card by the issuing company (VISA/MC) per that companies agreement with the issuing bank (at least that's what I was told by the accounts person at my local bank). In this case, you have the benefit of knowing you can pay cash if you desire (like me) but if the card is stolen and used, it will most likely be done in a credit transaction, and you wouldn't be responsible for the charges. Are there any online stores that allow debit only cards to be used online? Those that I'm familiar with only take those w/ VISA/MC logos and process them as credit.

A lot of what the CC companies are saying is based on a very one sided explanation
of what seems to be at best, innacurate or incomplete versions of what went down
with this "sale/purchase". The outcome could be very different once both sides
are on the table.

Except CostCo does take credit cards - you said it yourself - Amex. I was only pointing out that your example was specious because choosing debit over credit based on the policies of one merchant is a silly way, in fact, inept way, to run one's financial affairs. I didn't actually mean you personally must hate Amex, doh! It was rhetoric.

First, there is no such thing as a combo credit/debit card. The person who first made that claim was just totally ignorant of the instrument they were using. I've since researched it and what he was talking about is a debit card that works both offline (signature) and online (pin). Both uses are debit - neither are credit. Offline debits are most commonly handled by Visa and MC as a "checkcard" while online debits are most commonly handled by various regional processing networks.

When you use a Visa or MC checkcard and provide a signature, you have no legal protection. All you have is a policy forced on your bank by Visa/MC to be kind of sort of like the federal law that protects credit card users. When you use the PIN instead of a signature you don't even get that, you are stuck with whatever your bank feels like and it is usually different from (less than) the policy forced on them by Visa/MC for signature transactions.

Paying with your own cash is never a benefit, no matter what your bank's PR campaign has told you.

Not to be argumentative, but have you ever done a chargeback? It is a one sided deal b/c the credit card company is working on your behalf with your story. As long as you are honest with the story, you will win. See, the big overwhelming fact here is that Amazon's records/charges/invoices and shipping receipts all show the correct total charged plus have the words: "This completes your order". This is a very cut and dry case. They screwed up.

NOW< what is the most interesting thing will be if they actually do charge people, then get hit with chargebacks. They will actually LOSE MORE money b/c if they are charged back by the card company, they will lose the transaction fee even though the charge is cancelled. SO< I can't believe that anyone inside that company would even initiate the charges knowing they have the potential to lose even more money. They are betting that most people will capitulate and return the goods. Most companies have the good sense to write off errors like this and call it a day, why they are wasting internal time and effort (costing them money), I have no idea. Just not good business sense.

A merchant can also be slapped with higher Visa MC fees if they have a high chargeback rate. I don't think Amazon will risk that.

Obviously, I think my argument was valid. Your original post I replied to was:

I wasn't basing my use of debit ot credit on a single merchant, I merely pointed out there could be specific real-life situations where one would prefer (or need) to use his/ her card as a debit rather than a credit, the "reward" being s/he gets to shop at such a place. Just because you may prefer not to shop at a business that restricts the use of credit to certain companies does not negate the fact that some people may need to use a debit and benefit from how the card works. Before I had an AmEx, I didn't use get a bank debit/credit card just because I shopped at Costco, but I shopped at Costco because I could use the card there. If someone shops at Costco and ends up chosing more items than s/he has cash on them, a debit card is clearly a benefit. If you're implying you would never give business to any establishment that (for some strange reason) only ran bank cards as a debit, or only took cash, you'd be missing out on quite a few fantastic small restaurants and stores.


I'm not sure this is true. My bank card can also be run on a debit or credit transaction. If I chose debit (and use my pin), and I check my statement immediately afterwards, the money has been deducted. However, if I choose to use it as a credit, the transaction completes, but the money is NOT deducted from my account for 3 days, nor is my balance decreased. Some entity has given the store credit on my behalf, because that store didn't get my money. But instead of that entity billing me every thirty days, they automatically take that money out of my account 3 days later. As I stated previously, my account manager told me this card behaves exactly as a credit card in this way. Of course, what Visa/MC considers a checkcard may just be another term for this "short-term" credit card.

To make this more clear, an example. If I have $500 in the bank account linked to my card (and it is the only bank account- no overdraft transfer possible), there is no way I can spend $500.01 using it as a debit with a pin. But, if I so choose, I can easily spend more than my balance if I run the transactions as a credit (at least my wife can, as it happened to her when her direct deposit did not come in on time).


I'm not so afraid of my bank's policies. I've had to reverse a debit charge, and it was actually no problem and refunded rather quickly. Laws are nice, but as we all know, just because a law requires someone to do something, doesn't always mean they will.

Again, though you may think this a poor example, it's a real world example nonetheless. It never fails that whenever I leave my city of residence, and I attempt to use a CC to pay for gas at the pump, I am declined greater than 80% of the time. I have never even been within $3000 of my limit on any card, yet they almost always tell me to 'see cashier inside.' I know this is some strange safety feature implemented in combination by the CC company and whatever company runs the POS system. However, I don't have the patience to go inside and talk to a cashier and run it whether there are 0 or 20 people inside. If I wanted that, I'd go in there in the first place. I have never had a debit transaction fail at any pump POS. Say what you will, but convenience is a powerful benefit.

Perhaps you have some unacknowledged credit problem. I have never been declined for a transaction and use my card at the gas pumps everytime.

After a half-dozen emails, this:

"Hello from Amazon.com.

I apologize for the inconvenience that you have experienced with the
recent charges.

Please be rest assured that we have not attempted any additional
charge of $35.49 to your credit card. The total amount being charged
to your account is the same as you originally authorized when you
placed this order on our web site."

Even so....confidence is *not* high.

imo...use credit card and pay off with bank funds in full. itll make your i-rates lower and better mortgage rates and such.. if your rich enough that it doesnt matter either way

This is untrue in most cases. Your bank may be different from the others, but many of them are now allowing you to spend the $500.01 and just hit you with an overdraft fee, just as if you had bounced a check. There have been a lot of news stories about this lately.

Can't say this more plainly - you are wrong. Your card is not a credit card. Real credit cards NEVER post directly to your bank account - they bill you and you must choose to pay the bill. Go do the research yourself about online and offline debit cards. It should take you about 5 minutes with google.


Like I have already said once before - offline debit cards behave exactly as you have described and therefore provide absolutely no protection from financial ineptness. They combine the only 'bad' thing about credit cards (ability to spend beyond one's means) with the worst features of debit cards (minimal legal protections, vulnerability to NSF, risking your own money).


I agree with Goldblum you've got some sort of special circumstances that are creating this problem for you - maybe something to do with your misunderstanding of credit cards vs debit cards or maybe something else. The only time I have ever been declined at the pump is when I refused to enter my zip code at one particularly intrusive station and I buy gas out of state at least 2-3 times a month.


Go ahead and rationalize away your legal protections, the banks love customers who do that for them. Meanwhile, anyone who applies a bit of critical thinking will understand that spending other people's money gives one a lot more leverage than spending one's own.

Yes, and they certainly contact the other half and take their side into account.

Absolutely not true. I had a car rental agency claim I returned a car with a
flat tire. I did no such thing, yet I lost.

What total are you referring to by the use of the word "correct"? What they
should have been charged, or the zero/differnce between the two? Amazon
can easily show what the price should have been, as well as the terms of the b1g1 sale.

This is where I have the problem with this particular online shopping debate.
In practically every other situation I'd agree that the merchant made an error
and they should deal with it, but here the error appears to have been of the
computer glitch variety. These things happen, it's not like the case could
even be anywhere near interpretted as Amazon trying to entice its customers
with a low price just to get more cash out of them later. This is why I also
disagree with those who claim Amazon shouldn't be able to charge them in
this instance due to it setting a precedence/creating a slippery slope. It
wasn't a misprice, or big corporation pulling something over on the working
Joe, it was an obvious glitch. ...One that should they not be able to remedy
in this instance you can be sure they'll alter their wording to allow for a
remedy should this happen again in the future (and that may include any
type of snafu they want to call customers out on, so for those who
rally behind the slippery slope arguement, as they say, be careful what you
wish for).

With sites like this one, CAG and all the others, it's possible for situations like
this to get out of hand insanely fast. How much do you think Amazon lost in
terms of what went out assuming no funds are ever recouperated? Sure
seems like more than enough to outweigh what you're considering "not good
business sense". My reasoning for that is that at the end of the day imo most
folks will agree that those complaining about being charged are just trying to
get something for nothing (as well as having placed the orders with the same
intent), and therefore not have tainted feelings towards Amazon in the least.

Not that we haven't been over these exact points a billion times already...

(a) Amazon chooses to use an automated system, taking people out of the loop has inherent benefits and inherent risks, just as having people in the loop has a different set of benefits and risks. By implementing the system they did, they signed up for the risks that come with it. There are well understood means to mitigate the risks such that errors like this almost never slip through. As the largest web-retailer, Amazon is certainly aware of such methods.

(b) The glitch was fixed before noon of the first day. Thus demonstrating that Amazon was aware of the problem very early on. Many orders did not ship for 3-5 days afterwards, giving Amazon plenty of time to cancel orders. Over the past few years Amazon has regularly demonstrated the capability of canceling opportunistic orders within 24-48 hours. For whatever reason, they chose not to exercise that same capability in this case.

I'm just as entitled to give my opinion as you are yours.
Guess the count is now a billion and one :)

maybe they thought you were an honest customer who wanted the items in for christmas or new years...for presents and they thought you were actually willing to pay what you knew you should be paying?

Blah blah lame excuse I am using because I want to keep stuff I didn't pay for blah blah.

It is one thing to take advantage of this 'deal' - but now to complain that Amazon wants there stuff back... truely sad. The only facts of the situation are Amazon made a mistake and you took advantage of the mistake. Amazon catches the mistake and wants their merchandise back - and you say no because you want to keep their merchandise you didn't pay for.

I have no idea how someone can keep the DVDs in this situation, and not feel like a dirtbag. Are 'free' DVDs worth it?

Quick question on this(mainly cause i dont know cause I have never had to do one.), don't all "chargebacks" have to go through some kind of verification that shows who is entitled to the money?

If not, who is to stop someone from doing a chargeback on a legitimate transaction?

Has anyone told their CC company, "Amazon had a glitch that i knowingly took advantage of, now they are trying to get the money back that would have origianally been charged to me if the glitch were not in place. But the receipt said $x.xx so they should not be able to charge me more."?

I would recommend they hear the facts from you instead of from amazon...

Maybe. But not the crap DVDs this promotion was for...

I've been sitting on the sidelines watching this whole debate, and I must say that I am getting tired of the pontificating. Perhaps, some did take advantage of the glitch. HOWEVER, what Amazon is trying to do is illegal. If they get away with this, it opens a giant sized slippery slope for the next company to do something worse. As it stands already, Amazon does not honor misprices, yet if you walk into a store, they are legally bound to honor them. I have also witnessed Amazon raise prices for an item while I was in the process of purchasing it. Mind you, I am not condoning intentionally taking advantage of a company, but Amazon does not exactly play fairly and should not be allowed to charge a card again after a completed transaction. It's as simple as that.

This is different than a mispriced item. Which is why amazon MIGHT have a legal leg to stand on. Again(and toilet dcuk will call me on this again i'm sure) if the prices were marked $0.00 (or the like) on the items, amazon wouldnt be doing this.

If you're reading from the wiki page, I can see where you're getting this and why my use of the term 'credit card' is incorrect. However, when a business asks me how I want to run the transaction (debit or credit) it becomes ingrained.

Clever. It must be a state by state situation, as on those occasions when I have tried to use a CC for fuel at any other city than my residence, I am always asked for my zip. I stand by the assertion that it is the interaction of my CC company and the third party POS system, as I stated it does work ~20% of the time.

Fine, I will. I am comfortable with the banking instituion I use and its self-imposed policies, which is why I switched from my previous one. If the reason you feel comfortable entering into a contract with a CC company is becasue you believe the actions of a third party (Congress) protect you from that CC company that's what you're fine with. Clearly, spending any money other than your own is the way to go, that much we can agree on. I just choose not to do it for certain transactions. I may hum a different tune if I am ever defrauded in such a way that using a CC rather than a debit could have prevented or ameliorated it, but until then (if ever) I press on.

I am not saying it is a misprice. Rather, I am pointing out that Amazon does not follow rules that B&M must comply with (for example, misprices)

Even so, we are talking about "completed transactions." What they are trying to goes against their own terms of service. They could have EASILY cancelled the orders before they shipped, since many have commented that their orders shipped well AFTER the glitch was caught. Amazon allowed the orders to ship anyway. So, Amazon should at least share SOME of the blame.

Just trying to see it from both ends...
I can see Amazon saying "We ARE taking some of the blame, we are paying for them to send the items back."
and also saying "They took atvantage of the glitch, they 'should at least share SOME of the blame' "

Probably should have stayed on the slidelines a little longer... Do you actually know that what Amazon is doing is illegal, or do you just think it is? If you actually have proof that it is illegal, please provide the proof.

Also, this is not the first time Amazon has done this, or is Amazon the only company who has done this, so there goes the slipperly slope argument...

And lastly, a store is not legally required to honor a pricing MISTAKE. If some employee at Best Buy puts a 1 cent sticker on a computer, BB will not be required to sell it for a penny.

Perhaps you should have stayed on the sidelines yourself... Do you actually know what you are claiming is true, or do you just think it? If you actually have proof that it is true, please provide the proof.

Every state I've lived in has had consumer protection laws that do require just that. Here's the first one that came up in google:
PS - notice there is nothing in this law about coming back a week later and getting your money back.

1) I asked credit card company about this issue and they advised me that Amazon does NOT have the right to do such a thing. They also suggested that those who this applied to should file a complaint with the Federal Trace Commission.

2) I do not believe it is an accepted business practice to charge a card again after a completed transaction.

3) Perhaps not in your state, but in New York I believe it is.

Next time, a little less attitude please. I was simply trying to make a point, not have an argument.

This is only a valid argument if the mistake is caught before the transaction is completed and the transfer of goods has been made. If for some stupid reason the cashier at Best Buy were to ring up the computer for a penny and you paid for it and walked out the door with said computer there is nothing they can do about it.

Edit: Nevermind... 5 people beat me to telling you that you were wrong.

It's not even a valid argument then, unless you presuppose that its erroneous premises are, in fact, true.

Say Best Buy DID sell it for $0.01, and you left with it. Then they called you weeks later in a very rude way demanding it back, with threats of walking into your house and taking money out of your wallet if you don't give it back to them. How would you feel then?

As far as I know, if it rings up a penny, they can correct the problem right then, but once a reciept is given, then they cannot. I may be wrong though.

I equate this issue moreso in the...
"I bought this box (for arguments sake) and it rang up for $x.xx, but upon inspection later, and the company finds out that another item was placed inside this box that the customer KNEW was in the box."

The below is just my opinion....

Your link is about scanner accuracy, so I am not sure why you linked it. Scanner accuracy is the source of a lot of complaints and scams, therefore there are specific laws regarding it.

What were are talking about here is mispriced items - either on a advertisement, on a store shelf, or on an website. If the printer doing your ads screws up and puts the wrong price on an item, you are not required to sell it for that price, as long as you make a correction.

I am sure there are many links, here is the first on I found -

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/i...=522&lg=e#sale
Section 74.05 of the Competition Act, which is a civil provision, prohibits the sale or rent of a product at a price higher than its advertised price. The provision does not apply if the advertised price was a mistake and the error was immediately corrected.