How to Get Back Overdraft Fees From Your Bank

There’s been a lot of talk recently about the Federal Reserve cracking down on overdraft fees and banning ATM, Debit Overdraft Fees without customer explicitly opting into the overdraft fee programs.

As I was reading up on this, I ran into an interesting video on how to get back overdraft fees from your bank. It’s hard to imagine this NOT working in most circumstances as it’s a matter of simple economics for the Banks:

Note, this post isn’t about the pros and cons of overdraft protection. This is about the fact that many things in life are negotiable if you are willing to try.

Feel free to share your experiences (good or bad) with overdraft fees and/or overdraft protection, including any helpful tips you might have for people on how to recover overdraft fees.

FTC Settlements Bar Deceptive Online Marketing of “Free” Internet Auction Kits

11/19/2009 FTC Press Release

Defendants Could Pay More Than $1 Million for Failing to Disclose Terms of Recurring-Fee Plan

An online marketer of purportedly “free” Internet auction kits, which automatically charged unwitting consumers $59.95 a month for enrollment in an “online supplier” program for Internet auctions, has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that its actions violated federal law. The separate proposed court settlements with the company and two of its former executives bar them from similar deceptive conduct in the future, and require them to make specific disclosures to ensure consumers are aware of any recurring-fee plans (also known as “continuity plans” or “negative option plans”) for which they are signing up or being charged. The proposed court settlements also require the settling defendants to pay a total of what could be more than $1 million.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Commerce Planet operated a Web site offering consumers a free “online auction kit” that included information about how to start a business selling products on online auction sites such as eBay. Commerce Planet claimed the kit would provide consumers with “an easily managed online business that has the potential to supplement, or even replace” their current source of income. Although Commerce Planet allegedly told consumers they would be charged as little as $1.95 shipping and handling for this “free” trial offer, consumers had to provide their credit card information, and many were unwittingly signed up for the company’s $59.95 per month “Online Supplier” program. The FTC contends that over an 18-month period Commerce Planet did not clearly and conspicuously disclose that, by registering for the “free offer,” consumers also were agreeing to be enrolled in the “Online Supplier” program and would be charged a “membership fee” of up to $59.95 per month unless they canceled within a few days of ordering.

The terms and conditions of the program, including information about the recurring $59.99 fee, were difficult to find on Commerce Planet’s Web site. They appeared on a separate page from the trial offer that could only be accessed by a link, or on the payment page, but below the bottom of the visible screen. Most consumers did not even realize they had been enrolled in “Online Suppler” until their credit cards were repeatedly charged, after which many requested refunds. Most consumers had difficulty getting a refund, frequently calling the company multiple times, and sometimes had to contact an attorney or ask their credit card companies to reverse the charges.

The FTC’s complaint charged Commerce Planet with violating federal law by: 1) failing to disclose that consumers who ordered their online auction kit would be signed up for a continuity
program; and 2) unfairly charging consumers for the “Online Supplier” program without getting their express informed consent to do so.

The proposed court orders settle charges against Commerce Planet, former Commerce Planet CEO Michael Hill, and Aaron Gravitz, the former president of Legacy Media LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Commerce Planet. The orders prohibit the settling defendants from misrepresenting any material facts associated with the sale of a product or service, including specific representations that are common in negative-option offers. The FTC’s case against the fourth defendant, former Commerce Planet president Charles Gugliuzza, will proceed in federal court.

The settling defendants must make specific disclosures before requesting payment for any product or service and before making any offer with a continuity plan feature. They must first get consumers’ express informed consent before charging them for any goods or services, and must document the consumers’ consent in all transactions involving a continuity plan feature. Finally, the proposed orders require the defendants to provide information about their refund policies, honor their refund policies, monitor their sales agents, and track their agents’ billing information.

The orders include judgments of $19.7 million against each settling defendant, which have been suspended due to their inability to pay. Under the orders, however, Commerce Planet will pay $100,000, Gravitz will pay $192,000, and Hill will pay $230,000, plus future proceeds from loans that may bring his total payments to over $900,000.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and proposed stipulated final orders against Commerce Planet, Hill, and Gravitz, as well as the complaint against Gugliuzza, was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 10, 2009, and the stipulated orders were lodged with the court on November 16, 2009. The orders have not yet been signed by the court.

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Stipulated final orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Consent orders have the force of law when signed by the judge.

Copies of documents related to this case are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant at www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

WebLoyalty, Click Happiness and Post-Transaction Sales Tactics

TechCrunch has just published a post titled “Post Transaction Marketing Hall of Shame” with the subtitle “Hundreds of Well Known E-Commerce Companies Rip Off Customers”

From the TechCrunch article:

“Hundreds of well known ecommerce companies add post transaction marketing offers to consumers immediately after something is purchased on the site. Consumers are usually offered cash back if they just hit a confirmation button. But when they do, their credit card information is automatically passed through to a marketing company that signs them up for a credit card subscription to a package of useless services. The “rebate” is rarely paid.”

How “Click Happy” can you get?

What immediately came to my mind was something I read from the FTC Negative Option Report back in February of 2009…

 A “characteristic of people online involves what Professor Hillman and Mr. Grossklags described as “click happy” or exuberant Internet use. Specifically, users click through webpages quickly, without paying much attention because they want to complete a given transaction. Professor Hillman cited research finding that online shoppers “enter a seamless sequence of responses, a flow state in which their sense of time and reality become distorted and their self-control is diminished.” As a result, and as discussed in more detail below, users do not read or understand the terms of agreements they enter into online.”

 …which is interesting to think about in light of the report included in the TechCrunch article…“Aggressive Sales Tactics On The Internet And Their Impact On Americans” from the Committee On Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Office of Oversight and Investigations which presents a complaint in which Web Loyalty customer Chris Steffen was surprised to learn that he had been signed up for a membership to a program called Reservation Rewards which he concludes happened when he purchased movie tickets through MovieTickets.com (apparently as the result of a post-transaction sales tactic).

I think what is really insightful on Chris Steffen’s part is contained in the complaint he sent to WebLoyalty (addressed to “Joni”, the customer service rep he spoke with):

“Imagine yourself, Joni, getting on a computer to book movie tickets for the next big show and you’re in a hurry because you and your friends decided to book movie tickets for the next big show and you’re in a hurry because you and your friends decided to go at the last minute. You want to make sure you order your seats in time so you can have dinner before the show. Then, at first glance you get what looks like a coupon for 10 bucks off your next purchase of tickets. You don’t read the fine print because you’re in a hurry and next thing you know you’re signed up for some worthless service.”

In other words Chris Steffen is describing what might be considered a “self-imposed limited time offer” based on the need to take some other action (getting to the movies) quickly.

Interesting, because in the State of Texas’ initial complaint against Infusion Media (Google Money Tree) one of the points included is that “the sense of urgency Defendants intentionally create discourages consumers from reading the disclosure.”

Three strikes and your out (of more money)…

So in the MovieTickets.com example discussed above we potentially have the following three dangerous elements (from a consumer’s standpoint):

  1. A “Click Happy” customer…
  2. …with a sense of urgency (to get to the movies)…
  3. …having their credit card information automatically passed to a third-party company that enrolls them into a membership program in which the customer incurs monthly charges.

Internet Usability Expert Jakob Nielsen and WebLoyalty CEO Rick Fernandez seem to disagree on how well disclosed the terms of the Reservation Rewards offer is:

In the video, WebLoyalty CEO Rick Fernandez claims that WebLoyalty is “trying to make this process as simple and as clear as possible for the consumer”.

But even if they continued to use the post-transaction sales tactic (simple), wouldn’t “as clear as possible” mean putting the details about the monthly charges right ABOVE the button the customers click that enrolls them in the offer?

One thing is “clear”. Post-Transaction Sales Tactics are great for the bottom line:

According to the TechCrunch article on Post-Transaction Sales Tactics, “Affinion, Vertrue, and Webloyalty are the three largest companies partnering on these scams. The report states that these three companies have earned over $1.4 billion in revenue from 35 million transactions. 4 million people are currently enrolled in the plans.”