My Official Response To Mr. Hodess: Or, $9 Worth Of Social Change, Part III
Dear Mr. Hodess:
I am replying to you again, because I believed your statement that you are concerned about this matter and would appreciate any further input; and, therefore, I feel a further elaboration of my concerns is appropriate.
First, here is another link that I think you should follow:
http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/ecommerce-investigation-webloyalty.cfm
As that article indicates, this practice is apparently technically legal at this time. However, as I mentioned to Gamefly previously, as a responsible business, I would think you would like to seriously consider whether this is a road you want to go down.
Among other interesting information in that article is a comment by Webloyalty CEO Richard Fernandes, “We’re not trying to hide from the consumer...But if somebody has an individual spam folder, there’s nothing we can do.”
I think that statement alone suggests WLI's concerns about whether a person is knowingly making a purchase. WLI's attitude, apparently, is that if you just don't happen to knowingly make a decision for whatever reason--like the alleged "confirmation" email going to your spam folder--then "too bad for you, we don't really care."
I frankly do not understand such an attitude toward business. There are obvious safeguards against such a situation occurring: for example, requiring the entry of your banking information at the time of this alleged "purchase." I cannot conceive of a reason for not requiring deliberate entry of banking information when making an online purchase. It is not difficult. You have to do so to sign up with Gamefly. You have to do so to make a purchase from every other legitimate internet business.
It is my opinion that a responsible business would be concerned when they KNOW there is a significant potential that relevant information will not be getting to a person, especially in this type of a case.
As an aside, although I did mention that I am a civil litigation attorney, I truly believe that litigation is not, and should not be, the knee-jerk response to every issue. And again, that is why I wanted to alert Gamefly to this practice--just to know whether Gamefly had seriously considered the ramifications of this practice with WLI and whether it was a method of doing business that Gamefly had deliberately chosen to follow.
In other words, I would prefer to think that responsible businesses would make appropriate choices in the interest of their patrons because it is the right, responsible thing to do--not because somebody threatened a class action lawsuit.
Regarding your assertion that you have not had that many complaints, I can believe that is true. But I also believe there is a reason for that. Namely, people are complaining to WLI, not Gamefly, because WLI is listed on their bank and credit statements, and WLI is the company taking their money and they want WLI to give it back--and, of course, as you know, Gamefly's policy is to direct such complaints to WLI.
Also, my research suggests that WLI does reverse charges pretty much without question. I suggest there is a reason for that: so that the few people that do take the time to complain about the "$9" get it back and stop complaining. It is obviously to the overall benefit of WLI to do so, given the dubious nature of their business practices.
Which is to say, I do not accept the relative lack of complaints directly to Gamefly alone as an adequate indicator of the nature and extent of this problem.
Quite obviously, this is your business, and it is up to you whether or not to follow such a practice just because it may be technically legal. I do not presume to suggest to you how to run your business. However, I obviously disagree with such a practice.
Nonetheless, I do sincerely appreciate the fact that you have taken the personal time and initiative to look into this matter.
Matthew Schoewe.
I am replying to you again, because I believed your statement that you are concerned about this matter and would appreciate any further input; and, therefore, I feel a further elaboration of my concerns is appropriate.
First, here is another link that I think you should follow:
http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/ecommerce-investigation-webloyalty.cfm
As that article indicates, this practice is apparently technically legal at this time. However, as I mentioned to Gamefly previously, as a responsible business, I would think you would like to seriously consider whether this is a road you want to go down.
Among other interesting information in that article is a comment by Webloyalty CEO Richard Fernandes, “We’re not trying to hide from the consumer...But if somebody has an individual spam folder, there’s nothing we can do.”
I think that statement alone suggests WLI's concerns about whether a person is knowingly making a purchase. WLI's attitude, apparently, is that if you just don't happen to knowingly make a decision for whatever reason--like the alleged "confirmation" email going to your spam folder--then "too bad for you, we don't really care."
I frankly do not understand such an attitude toward business. There are obvious safeguards against such a situation occurring: for example, requiring the entry of your banking information at the time of this alleged "purchase." I cannot conceive of a reason for not requiring deliberate entry of banking information when making an online purchase. It is not difficult. You have to do so to sign up with Gamefly. You have to do so to make a purchase from every other legitimate internet business.
It is my opinion that a responsible business would be concerned when they KNOW there is a significant potential that relevant information will not be getting to a person, especially in this type of a case.
As an aside, although I did mention that I am a civil litigation attorney, I truly believe that litigation is not, and should not be, the knee-jerk response to every issue. And again, that is why I wanted to alert Gamefly to this practice--just to know whether Gamefly had seriously considered the ramifications of this practice with WLI and whether it was a method of doing business that Gamefly had deliberately chosen to follow.
In other words, I would prefer to think that responsible businesses would make appropriate choices in the interest of their patrons because it is the right, responsible thing to do--not because somebody threatened a class action lawsuit.
Regarding your assertion that you have not had that many complaints, I can believe that is true. But I also believe there is a reason for that. Namely, people are complaining to WLI, not Gamefly, because WLI is listed on their bank and credit statements, and WLI is the company taking their money and they want WLI to give it back--and, of course, as you know, Gamefly's policy is to direct such complaints to WLI.
Also, my research suggests that WLI does reverse charges pretty much without question. I suggest there is a reason for that: so that the few people that do take the time to complain about the "$9" get it back and stop complaining. It is obviously to the overall benefit of WLI to do so, given the dubious nature of their business practices.
Which is to say, I do not accept the relative lack of complaints directly to Gamefly alone as an adequate indicator of the nature and extent of this problem.
Quite obviously, this is your business, and it is up to you whether or not to follow such a practice just because it may be technically legal. I do not presume to suggest to you how to run your business. However, I obviously disagree with such a practice.
Nonetheless, I do sincerely appreciate the fact that you have taken the personal time and initiative to look into this matter.
Matthew Schoewe.
Comments
Post a Comment