Google Has No Duty To Refund Gift Card Scam Victims, Judge Finds (arstechnica.com) 35
A federal judge in California has dismissed most claims in a class-action lawsuit against Google over its handling of gift card scams, ruling the tech giant is not liable for millions in consumer losses. U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman found Google bears no responsibility for scam victims' losses since third-party fraudsters, not Google, induced the purchases.
The ruling came in a suit filed by Judy May, who lost $1,000 to scammers demanding Google Play gift cards for a fake government grant. The lawsuit cited Federal Trade Commission data showing Google Play gift card scams comprised 20% of reported gift card fraud between 2018-2021, totaling over $17 million in losses. Google earns 15-30% commission on gift card purchases but denies refunds, citing industry-standard policies. Freeman ruled Google had no duty to investigate reported scams or refund victims.
The ruling came in a suit filed by Judy May, who lost $1,000 to scammers demanding Google Play gift cards for a fake government grant. The lawsuit cited Federal Trade Commission data showing Google Play gift card scams comprised 20% of reported gift card fraud between 2018-2021, totaling over $17 million in losses. Google earns 15-30% commission on gift card purchases but denies refunds, citing industry-standard policies. Freeman ruled Google had no duty to investigate reported scams or refund victims.
Sympathy (Score:4, Insightful)
It's hard to sympathize with someone who is this gullible.
Did Google know?...like pawn shop stolen goods (Score:3)
It's hard to sympathize with someone who is this gullible.
Did these organizations know their product was being used in a crime is the real question. If someone buys a Google Play Gift Card in a Wisconsin WalMart, but redeems it in the Emirates, to an account known to be involved with past scams, then that's pretty suspicious. You can make fun of the victim all you like, but remember, soon Generative AI will make it a lot harder to identify scams. They're going to unleash the full power of AI to generate perfect marketing materials and flood Google search with a
Re: (Score:2)
Google would not even lose money if they turned off the card before it's redeemed. My guess is that the overseas recipient is selling it on, so you can't really go by location. So a refund might be the only way to fix it. They could do the bare minimum and transfer the balance to a new card number if it hasn't been used yet.
The pawn shop example is a good one - but one that probably doesn't apply to digital goods. A legal loophole because laws are too old to cover it.
And there's no trigger for fraud if s
Re: (Score:2)
The pawn shop example is a bad one because it glosses over the actual problem. It assumes that the stuff is "clearly burglarized". Yes. If that's obvious, then it's the pawn shop's fault. But recognizing that is the difficult part. And no, coming to the shop with a bunch of old lady jewelry that you obviously wouldn't wear is not suspicious (if your home town doesn't look like a warzone) "That's not my style and I'm never going to wear that" is probably the most frequent reason why people pawn/sell their gr
Re: (Score:2)
If that's obvious, then it's the pawn shop's fault. But recognizing that is the difficult part.
You know the Pawn shop would be legally liable even if it was Not obvious. They might be innocent, but let's say for example it is later discovered that property in their inventory is stolen. In fact: the Pawn shop is still liable to turn over the stolen property If it ever does come to light later while in their possession, and would be guilty of a crime if they do not. The Pawn shop may still be sued
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, we are already seeing it in my org.
We have seen a marked increase in the number of scams from senders impersonating valid local and national businesses. The messages appear very similar to standard marketing messages from these places including logos and messaging.
The main telltales are still the same (send address, destination links, etc) and can still be used to distinguish them, but they definitely will fool a lot more people.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine Google was a pawn shop. Some young man comes in with lots of gold that a wealthy elderly lady would wear that was clearly burglarized...including a watch inscribed
It is a crime to receive and deal in stolen property with intention to sell it Or in fact any intention other than to turn it over to the authorities.
The trouble with the gift cards is they are not stolen. They are a piece of property legally purchased by the owner of the funds that was used to buy the gift card. And they work as be
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the judge? Yeah, I also can't imagine what he hopes to gain from deepthroating a corporation this hard.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it Google's fault if someone falls for a scam to use Google Play gift cards? Did Google tell the person to buy the cards? The person willingly bought the cards for the scammer.
The judge ruled correctly. Google had nothing to do with this and is not liable for people's gullibility and stupidity.
Why should they? (Score:3)
This has been around since the first moron got an e-mail address.
No legitimate government has ever accepted gift cards as a payment method.
If you are stupid enough to fall for any of this, then you deserve to lose your money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they lose their money, they might think twice before doing stupid stuff like that again.
Re: (Score:3)
My wife one time Googled a customer ser
Scam victims are still innocent (Score:1, Troll)
It looks like I'm going against the grain here, but the US simply doesn't have robust enough consumer protection laws.
As people age, there are changes in the grey matter of the brain that cause them to be more trusting [ucla.edu] and more susceptible to scams. It's not just unhealthy people - it's all. It is not an inability to think. It's a physiological change. It has social advantages when someone is too old to take care of themselves and need help, but it happens even if you don't.
Google can make those cards w
Re: (Score:2)
That's a curious study. People get more trusting as they get older, while (anecdotally) also getting more racist and intolerant?
Re: (Score:2)
while (anecdotally) also getting more racist and intolerant?
Actually, to the contrary. Anecdotally, young people are more likely to be racist and intolerant. But those that are are less likely to openly acknowledge it. A more accurate statement would be that a lot of old people don't care what you think.
Its not clear to me that its the elderly are being preyed upon more often or if they are a more sympathetic media story victim. Is there some real data/information that suggests they are? It would certainly make sense that people with dementia might be more vulnera
Re: Scam victims are still innocent (Score:2)
Not sure they are getting more racist or intolerant. The racism 'appears' because they are still operating the same way as when they were younger, but society has changed. Once acceptable forms of discrimination are now being called out. Younger people are loving their lives different from what they were used to and it might just freak them out. The Old Folks would have reacted to these differences much the way they do now if it had occurred years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Separate but related issue: verifying card balance (Score:2, Offtopic)
It really was no good to me, so I tried selling it (at below face value). Tricky thing though: how could *I* prove to potential customers that the card was legit? As far as I could determine, the *only* way to know 1) if a card was legitimate and 2) what the available amount was is to...add it to your Google Play account.
Re: (Score:2)
How damn hard would it be to have a website where you could punch in the card's number, and get back some verification saying "Ah yes, this card is good for $X"?
Even full of CAPTCHAs that would be a huge target for automated attacks. Some retail gift cards get around this by having a PIN that's not required to verify balance. You only use the PIN when making a purchase or redeeming. That way, even an attack that returns a valid gift card number would still have to go through more checks at redemption.
Why should Google be responsible? (Score:5, Informative)
I have to agree with the judge here. As far as Google can tell the purchase is legitimate: the person buying the card intends to buy it, their payment method is valid and legitimate, Google is giving a card worth the amount purchased to the person buying it. Google can't know what the person buying it's going to do with it after they receive it. They may suspect the person who finally redeems it is involved in something sketchy, but the card itself is perfectly legitimate.
It's the same as if you fall for a scam and send a check to the scammer before you realize it. You may have been scammed, but the check itself isn't fraudulent (you wrote it yourself, signed it and it's the person the check was written to who's cashing it). If the bank's already paid it it has no duty to credit your account back (unless the payee is on one of the government lists of people the bank isn't supposed to do business with).
If you're a grown adult and get scammed, that doesn't automatically make it someone else's responsibility to fix it.
Same rules as cash (Score:1)
If someone steals your cash, or scams you into giving it to them, we don't require some third party--like a bank or merchant--to make you whole.
What was you first clue? (Score:3)
The ruling came in a suit filed by Judy May, who lost $1,000 to scammers demanding Google Play gift cards for a fake government grant.
That is one dumb Judy. It may be victim shaming, but she deserves it.
And then it is Google's fault? The mind reels...
Money Laundering (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)