Quote:
Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
Ehm, no. When such a thing happens, I suppose that the card issuer shows to you its evidence of this fraudulent activity, and you can get a list of money movements to understand what was done with your card lately, and maybe the card issuer also tells you what kind of illicit activity allegedly took place. Then you and the card issuer can straighten up things by talking about these things.
In the case of the Norwegian Amazon user, Amazon did not show any evidence; it didn't say that there had been a violation; it didn't leave to the user the possibility to check anything, nor to discuss anything.
They said: According to our own criteria (which we won't disclose) your account is connected (in a way we won't tell you) to another one (you don't get to know which one) that was used (we don't tell you when or by whom) to do something wrong (you can't know what). For this "reason", we are suspending your account.
|
I was making the comparison in terms of thinking of it as a monopoly issue. It's not.
It IS, as you say, a transparency and customer relations issue. I think Amazon needs to improve there regardless of whether all the lockouts were perfectly appropriate or honest mistakes or capricious abuses.
To be fair, though, the credit card companies and banks behave as they do because of extreme amounts of regulation and legislation.
I don't think I'd like this issue address by subjecting retail businesses to the same amount of government control....that might be a cure far worse than the disease.
ApK