Some news from the past few days:
- Some TPM Sellers Who Liquidated GCs Receive GiftCard Mart Demand Letter by Travelwithgrant. The saga continues…
- Did Barclaycard drop Arrival Plus travel statement credit redemptions back down to $25? by Freequentflyerbook. A welcome change.
- Is the Amex 5 Credit Card Limit Gone? by Frequentmiler. Greg was able to get a 6th and 7th Amex credit card. Limit always used to be 4, then was bumped up to 5 for most people, with sporadic successes of 6. Not sure if I’ve heard of 7 until now, though I now see a couple other such data points in this r/churning thread.
- Court: Some Members Can Now Sell Their American AAdvantage Miles by Viewfromthewing. It’s a Brazilian court so won’t affect most of us, but interesting to see a legal challenge to the airline’s no-barter policy.
- New York Plans to Cap Uber and Lyft by WSJ (that link should get you past the paywall). This is a measure from the City Council, and could only really work in NYC where they issue licenses to Uber drivers.
View Comments (15)
We have as many amature "lawyers" on here as we do "business" owners it seems. These discussions are always good for a laugh or three.
Seems to be plenty of "amature" English speakers as well.
Hey lay off Leo, he gives great headache.
People on Reddit tried to replicate Frequent Miler’s luck & were unsuccessful.
It looks like the $25 redemption exception was only a temporary glitch unfortunately.
Added the Reddit link.
Anyone have a legal perspective on GCM going after those who sold to TPM? No horse in that race myself but I don’t see how GCM can pursue you if you sold to TPM, did not receive payment for the card so you drained your card. TPM never completed the transaction. (I see a leg to stand on if TPM did pay for the specific card and then the owner drained it to recoup other losses- but it still seems like GCM should have to go after TPM who should have to go after the person?)
The problem with this whole discussion is no one has published the contract/terms of the sales TO TPM. The GCM letter is interesting because there might be legal standing if the GC sellers were actually paid for those cards. But that depends on how TPM actually operates -- if they just send checks with no reference to which cards then it seems hard to make a claim.
To answer your question: IF TPM did pay the GC seller, GCM might have also purchased the full rights to the goods, including the right to go after the seller should they default. This would be logical as GCM wouldn't want to rely solely on TPM for enforcement.
Specific cards were attached to an invoice with TPM, then the invoice submitted for payment. It seems likely that the people that got this letter went back and drained GC’s they were paid for previously to make up for not getting paid for later gift cards. I know some people were doing that to try and recoup significant losses, but it was obviously wrong and potentially/probably illegal.
Interesting. Thanks.
JmHo don't have a J.D., not do I play an attorney on TV or the Internet.
With the iTunes letter example - without parsing the TPM T&C (which more than likely was boilerplate and didn't cover buyers or seller or middle man very well -and any terms between GCM and TPM would not necessarily give GCM standing to bring action by GCM in Minn. Court.
What muddies the water is what "seems" to be more of a consignment sale(s) than an outright sale or purchase by TPM. Without reading TPM T&C (never used TPM). An consignment laws and protections vary state to state.
The other issue is GCM claim that iTunes card seller received payment and they sold it and rights "irrevocably".
So GCM has burden to provide proof of payment (ACH or Cashed Check) for GC in the matter - it sounds like they have partial information on sellers, and if TPM has filed bankruptcy it would be interesting what or who the court could attempt to claw back assets.
My guess is that GCM took a sizable hit, and they have already spent the bucks on white shoe attorneys, and if they had legal standing more than likely the demand letter(s) would be for specific amounts with x number if days to pay and sent certified mail on a lawfirms stationary with a way to make payment.
The last line with the email to respond is 'support@gift.... and not 'Settlement@gift... or LegaDeptl@gift..... so it seems like it's going to a general email for help or support.
BUT, the demand letter even if not from an attorney is a requirement before legally pursing a claim. Should/would have been sent certified mail.
But the cost to pursue this in Small claims court - even with legal standing, they face arbitration options, courts where prevailing party can only recoup court cost and not atty fees. But again it goes to standing - and then to venue while TPM may have have specified a jurisdiction, GCM would most likely have to file in each sellers, county small claims court. Sellers would have home court advantage.
Its doubtful Minnesota law enforcement or the DA would pursue criminal charges -perhaps TPM if embezzlement was involved and crime took place in Minn. -but again if TPM is outside Minn. it's more of a Federal issue and then wire fraud could be an issue interstate.
Again this is not legal advice, it's just my understanding of the law from what I have studied.
Side note I do wonder how many of the GC originally were bought from GCM and how many times ;)
For those that have not received payment from TPM for cards or codes should send a demand letter asap to protect yourself and have a potential claim or grounds to recoup.
@guest_628690
this situation is really really nasty, glad I was not involved (never have gotten into gift card reselling). I hope the Plastic Merchant faces prosecution for what he did and there should be an investigation by the DA into what happened and where all the money ended up (because i cant help but think there is something fishy going on and $300k sitting in a bank account in the Cayman Islands someplace). that being said, if somebody sold a gift card, received payment for that gift card, and then used the gift card (whether to recoup other losses or not), that is completely fraudulent. if its a matter of selling a gift card, not receiving payment and then using the gift card to in effect reverse the transaction that was never complete, then the seller should be ok. so the operative distinction here is whether somebody received payment for an individual card. there may be some gray area cases with say selling 5 $100 gift cards and only receiving $300, and in all likelihood proportionality will apply to all cards in equally in that transaction. but it clear here there was massive fraud on the part of the Plastic Merchant and then reciprocal fraud in some cases on the part of the sellers. would not like to be the one to sort this out
You've read too many John Grisham novels. I'm surprised your minimal level of risk allows you to watch Dateline or read a Grisham novel.
I don't think it needs to be a scam/fraud. TPM was buying illiquid assets at competitive prices. Likely took on too much float, struggled with cash flow and was possibly forced to liquidate a lot of cards at a loss. "Poorly run small business" is a more likely answer than "outright fraud".
With their new limits on how quickly you can open new cards for bonuses, it would make sense for them to waive the card limit rule. It will make it less likely for people to close cards just to open new ones to be under the 5 limit rule. Could be good too as some people will hold af cards that serve them well long term. Amex has a good mix of cards and the mr points are solid. Definitely a good move if true imo.