Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherCat
Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about as such things have nothing to do with the potential use of cards for money laundering. Perhaps you are just being sarcastic due to some other personal gripe you have with a card issuer(s)?
|
Nope, no sarcasm. The "long-term records" argument was used by several big companies to oppose the rules I mentioned when they were being debated. Basically, the corporate argument amounted to saying that it was inconvenient to keep unused gift cards on the books, so they should be allowed to continue devaluing them after a certain length of time - often 24 months, but sometimes as little as a year. Some companies would flat-out zero the cards as soon as they expired, while others took a more gradual approach of deducting a certain amount from the balance every month until the cards reached zero.
To make this more concrete, say you buy a $100 gift card for someone and they forget about it for three years. They then take it to the store to use it and - oh, too bad! It expired last year, or maybe it's only worth $76 now because of a $2/month service fee.
The government rejected that argument and outlawed those practices as a consumer protection measure - saying that since you took their money, you have to honor the gift card you sold them. Now, that $100 gift card is always worth $100, until either you use it or the company folds and there's nobody to honor it.
Now, if that's not what you were talking about, that's fine. I just tend to get a little twitchy these days when I hear complaints about Big Mean Government imposing evil rules, especially to regulate Job-Creating Corporations. Most of the time I hear that kind of talk, a little digging reveals that the rules are nowhere near as horrible as they've been made out to be, and may even help ordinary people. That was certainly the case in this instance.