Unauthorized charge from My Family Ancestry
Complaint
Tony
Country: United States
MFI* MY FAMILY ANCESTRY has made a charge to my bank account for $109.95. I've never visited the website. Never authorized the charge. How they got my account information? I've notified my bank, and they are investigating this. What else should I do to insure this never happens again?
Comments
In general, in cases like this you would be wise to close this account and switch to a new one, to prevent future fraudulent charges from being made months down the road. If you do not do so, you might have problems getting future fraudulent charges reversed either if you fail to catch them within 60 days of the statement, or if your bank claims you could have prevented them if you had closed the account.
Have you recently used a check to pay, or provided your bank account number via phone or internet, to any company who you don't normally do business with? I.e: companies OTHER THAN routine monthly mortgage, rent, utilities, credit card, etc.?
Here are 3 similar reports:
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/my-family-ancestry-utah-c9123.html
In all 3 cases above, the charges were to credit cards, and the credit card companies caught them and notified the card holder. This indicates that this company's charges were already being flagged as suspicious by the credit card networks such as VISA before the card holders were even aware the charges had been made. That indicates that there must have been a level of consumer fraud complaints against that
Complaints going back over 3 years. One report indicates the charge didn't go thru due to error in the CC expiration date. That might indicate this company is getting CC information, some of which might be old, from some other company or site. Note that FTC recently cracked down on a company selling lists of credit card and account numbers, which were then being used by the list purchasers for making fraudulent charges.
More recent complaints appear to be charges on consumer's accounts without any authorization at all.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/281/RipOff0281473.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/251/RipOff0251646.htm
Older complaints involve consumers signing up for free or limited cost trials, then having problems with cancelling.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/096/RipOff0096969.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/085/RipOff0085241.htm
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/mfi-family-ancestry-aka-ancestrycom-c1888.html
It appears that MFI My Family Ancestry is connected with ancestry.com
There are some indications that transactions at some other on-line businesses have preceeded unauthorized transactions from ancestry.com.
This might be due to ancestry.com getting unauthorized account information from other companies.
This might also be due to id theft, where an id thief uses this site to "test" the validity of an account or card number before using it for larger fraudulent merchandise purchases. For example, the above reports include several where these unauthorized charges preceeded larger unauthorized on-line charges from Dell or Nordstrom's. There is also a warning from a bank employee to look for earlier or later charges if you ever see any unauthorized charge, and to close the account.
Similar tactics have been reported involving small fraudulent charges that can be easily made on-line with limited other identification and no real product shipped, where apparently the merchant fails to check other identifying information such as billing address to confirm legitimacy of the charge.
Although that merchant isn't out any significant amount, since the service has little incremental cost, the authorization vulnerability allows this to be used by id thieves to determine that a card or account is active, and therefore that larger charges might go thru. Unauthorized charges for accounts with NetZero/United Online and AOL have been used for this purpose.
In effect, the sloppy authorization procedures of merchants who fail to fully verify that charges are legitimate can expose consumers, credit card companies, and banks processing ACH transactions to increased levels of larger fraudulent transactions.
The ACH system was originally set up to efficiently handle payments between parties that had existing relationships, and could already be trusted, such as consumers and their credit card or utility companies. It has few of the fraudulent transaction monitoring capabilities that the credit card payment system has, and realizing this, criminals have been exploiting this weakness.
Since all the information needed to put thru a charge against your bank account is contained on your check (bank routing number and account number), NEVER use a check to pay anyone you cannot trust with your bank account number. In addition, NEVER use debit or check cards, due to the chaos caused to your finances should your bank account be charged fraudulently. Despite the banks' heavy advertising of debit cards, and their "no fraud liability" promises, they won't pay you for your aggrevation, and probably not even for your NSF and check bounce charges.
That basically means restrict check payments to a limited number of businesses you already trust, and use credit cards for all other purchases, particularly on-line. Restrict in-person payments to either credit card, or cash.
Someone comes to your door selling something? If you want to buy (in this day and age, I would be careful), cash only, no check. You want a record? Get a receipt.
Thank you for your help and the information. I use the account they charged in many online transactions so it's not possible to point a finger at anyone.
It's surprising to see so many similar complaints. My bank assured me that it will be taken care of. As you suggested, I am closing the account.
I will be watching my accounts carefully over the next months. Thanks again.
The federal provisions of Reg. E for disputing checking account charge errors, and of FCBA for disputing credit card charges, don't have legal force unless you have disputed IN WRITING, and timely (within 60 days of the statement date showing the error).
It appears that this 'company' has been stealing from people since atleast 2005. No word yet on where the Western Union transaction came from, as they will only speak with the police. Maybe this double felony can put a stop to these scammers.
How to Find Them, Eliminate Them & Get Your Money Back!
If your business still gets its phone service through the old "AT&T and Verizon, etc" local phone company (as opposed to one of the newer competitive phone providers) then you need to double check your phone bill each and every month for charges you did not authorize. You may not know it but the local phone company allows other companies to bill you through your local phone bill. And while the local phone company allows other businesses to bill you through your local phone bill, the local phone company does not verify that the charges being billed to you by the other company are valid. When these unauthorized charges fraudulently appear on your phone bill it's called "cramming". Unfortunately you as the business owner or manager are the only one that can spot the unauthorized charges and if you don't comb over your bill every month to spot these unauthorized charges - you'll pay for them.
Why does the local phone company allow other companies to pass charges onto your phone bill? "Third-party billing" is supposedly a great convenience in that you only have to pay one bill instead of separate bills for obvious authorized phone related charges like yellow-page advertising in the "real yellow pages", 411 information calls and long-distance calls from your chosen long distance carrier. Over the years though, some less-than-scrupulous companies have realized that most businesses rarely scrutinize their local-phone bills. To take advantage of this, these companies have come up with elaborate schemes to place
unauthorized charges on your phone bill that you'll end up paying for without even thinking. Unauthorized
charges you can end up paying for include charges for unwanted (and unused) email accounts, web sites,
directory information calls, directory advertising in obscure publications, voice mail accounts and other
services.
In theory, before these charges can be placed on your phone bill, the company that is originating the third-party billed charges is supposed to have a verification of the order like a voice recording. In reality though,
all the company needs to do to initiate the charge is submit your name and phone number to the billing
entity. The verifications are only required to be produced if a complaint is filed.
To prevent these charges from appearing on you business phone bill it's helpful to understand the four
parties that make unauthorized third party phone charges a costly reality. Party number one is any
employee who can answer your business phones. The unauthorized charge is rarely random and it usually
happens after one of your company employees gets a telemarketing call. Employees should be instructed to
document and report any overly aggressive telemarketing calls they receive. Party number two is the
telemarketing company that originates the unauthorized charges by trying to get your employee to accept
some service for which you'll be billed through your local phone bill. Party number three is the third-party
billing company that has billing agreements with your local phone company. The name of the third-party
billing is the one that is prominently displayed on your phone bill. After the third-party billing company's
name is the name of the company that is originating the unwanted charges. Party number four is your "former Ma Bell" local phone company that collects the unwanted charges (keeps a share for "Ma") and then passes the rest to the third-party billing company (who keeps a big share) and then passes the balance on to the company that initiated the unwanted charge.
Following are some of the top third-party billing names and unauthorized charge originators you'll find on
your phone bill. If you see these names on your phone bill you'll want to call the toll free number listed next to the charge to confirm it's a charge that's been properly authorized to be placed on your bill. Following are actual examples that we've recently found while auditing business phone bills.
We recommend customers should review any utility bills issued by deregulated utility companies. (In most instances today, consumers are paying higher charges to the deregulated gas and electric supply companies).
All Utility - Energy, gas, electric and water bills should be reviewed for proper reading and tariff.
If you suspect that you have been overcharged ask for detailed explanation and or file a complaint with your State Utility Commission.
How to Find Them, Eliminate Them & Get Your Money Back!
If your business still gets its phone service through the old "AT&T and Verizon, etc" local phone company (as opposed to one of the newer competitive phone providers) then you need to double check your phone bill each and every month for charges you did not authorize. You may not know it but the local phone company allows other companies to bill you through your local phone bill. And while the local phone company allows other businesses to bill you through your local phone bill, the local phone company does not verify that the charges being billed to you by the other company are valid. When these unauthorized charges fraudulently appear on your phone bill it's called "cramming". Unfortunately you as the business owner or manager are the only one that can spot the unauthorized charges and if you don't comb over your bill every month to spot these unauthorized charges - you'll pay for them.
Why does the local phone company allow other companies to pass charges onto your phone bill? "Third-party billing" is supposedly a great convenience in that you only have to pay one bill instead of separate bills for obvious authorized phone related charges like yellow-page advertising in the "real yellow pages", 411 information calls and long-distance calls from your chosen long distance carrier. Over the years though, some less-than-scrupulous companies have realized that most businesses rarely scrutinize their local-phone bills. To take advantage of this, these companies have come up with elaborate schemes to place
unauthorized charges on your phone bill that you'll end up paying for without even thinking. Unauthorized
charges you can end up paying for include charges for unwanted (and unused) email accounts, web sites,
directory information calls, directory advertising in obscure publications, voice mail accounts and other
services.
In theory, before these charges can be placed on your phone bill, the company that is originating the third-party billed charges is supposed to have a verification of the order like a voice recording. In reality though,
all the company needs to do to initiate the charge is submit your name and phone number to the billing
entity. The verifications are only required to be produced if a complaint is filed.
To prevent these charges from appearing on you business phone bill it's helpful to understand the four
parties that make unauthorized third party phone charges a costly reality. Party number one is any
employee who can answer your business phones. The unauthorized charge is rarely random and it usually
happens after one of your company employees gets a telemarketing call. Employees should be instructed to
document and report any overly aggressive telemarketing calls they receive. Party number two is the
telemarketing company that originates the unauthorized charges by trying to get your employee to accept
some service for which you'll be billed through your local phone bill. Party number three is the third-party
billing company that has billing agreements with your local phone company. The name of the third-party
billing is the one that is prominently displayed on your phone bill. After the third-party billing company's
name is the name of the company that is originating the unwanted charges. Party number four is your "former Ma Bell" local phone company that collects the unwanted charges (keeps a share for "Ma") and then passes the rest to the third-party billing company (who keeps a big share) and then passes the balance on to the company that initiated the unwanted charge.
Following are some of the top third-party billing names and unauthorized charge originators you'll find on
your phone bill. If you see these names on your phone bill you'll want to call the toll free number listed next to the charge to confirm it's a charge that's been properly authorized to be placed on your bill. Following are actual examples that we've recently found while auditing business phone bills.
We recommend customers should review any utility bills issued by deregulated utility companies. (In most instances today, consumers are paying higher charges to the deregulated gas and electric supply companies).
All Utility - Energy, gas, electric and water bills should be reviewed for proper reading and tariff.
If you suspect that you have been overcharged ask for detailed explanation and or file a complaint with your State Utility Commission.
Compiled by: Jay Draiman, Utility & Telecom Auditor
California judge rules Sprint's early termination fees illegal
by Marguerite Reardon Font sizePrintE-mailShare58 comments Yahoo! Buzz
.Share 41A judge in California has ruled that Sprint Nextel's early termination fees are illegal and said the wireless operator should pay back $18.2 million in collected fees to consumers, a decision that could help sway decisions on similar cases throughout the country.
The preliminary decision released earlier this week is a major blow to Sprint and to other phone companies in their battle to defend themselves against angry consumers who say the fees imposed on them when they leave the companies' services are unlawful.
Verizon Wireless, which was also being sued in California, has already settled its case, agreeing to pay $21 million to settle all claims against the company. And after the decision against Sprint, there's a chance that cases against T-Mobile and AT&T could also be settled.
Early termination fees have been around almost as long as cell phone service. Wireless operators impose the fees, which can be as high as $200 per line, on customers who cancel service before their contracts have expired.
Phone companies say they must impose these fees to recover the cost of subsidizing handsets and for guaranteeing low monthly service charges. But consumer advocates don't buy that argument, and they say the fees are excessive and restrict customers' ability to switch services.
Lawsuit divided
Cell phone users fed up with these fees took their complaints to a California court and formed a class in a lawsuit against the four major carriers in 2006. The court separated the cases and has been dealing with them individually.
Sprint initially won the first battle in its courtroom war. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Bonnie Sabraw had further split the case leaving a jury to answer the question of whether customers had in fact broken their contracts with Sprint. In June, the jury found that indeed customers had broken their contract with Sprint. The jury found that Sprint customers had paid $73.8 million in early termination fees, while the company had lost $225.7 million.
But it was the judge, herself, who decided whether or not the contracts were even legal. And earlier this week, Sabraw issued a preliminary finding that stated these contracts were not legal. She ordered Sprint to pay $18.2 million to customers who had already paid these fees. And she ordered the company to stop trying to collect the $54.7 million from other customers who haven't yet paid the charges they were assessed.
But it's still unclear if Sabraw's preliminary ruling will stand. Both parties in the suit have an opportunity to file additional arguments to sway the judge before she issues her final opinion.
"We are disappointed by the judge's tentative decision," Matt Sullivan, a spokesman for Sprint said. "But we are now focusing on our response to the court."
Legal experts say that even if she stands by her initial opinion, it's likely that Sprint will appeal the decision.
Sprint may also get relief from the federal government. The Federal Communications Commission is currently considering a proposal by chairman Kevin Martin, which would give the FCC authority to regulate these fees. It's also unclear how a move by the FCC might affect the current litigation.
In June, the FCC held a hearing in which unhappy customers and consumer advocates railed against the companies for their business practices. Chairman Martin said he believed the fees were excessive.
But Martin's proposal could retroactively exempt carriers from legal challenges at the state level. And in this case, it could potentially even void any decisions handed down in California.
Consumer advocates agree that something needs to be done to protect consumers from these fees. But Jay Edelson, a managing partner at the law firm KamberEdelson headquartered in Chicago, says that even if the federal government regulates the fees, wireless operators should be held accountable. Edelson, whose firm has represented clients trying to reclaim fees paid for erroneous charges on cell phone bills, was not involved in the early termination fee cases, but he has been watching the outcomes closely.
"Early termination fees are hurting consumers and they're illegal," Edelson said. "If the federal government takes jurisdiction and preempts states' authority, then there should be a federal law that replaces it and protects consumers."
Wireless operators say they are adapting their practices to customers' concerns, and they've begun adjusting their fees to prorate them so that customers who terminate later in their contract pay less. Verizon Wireless was the first to offer pro-rated early termination fees. And now AT&T and T-Mobile offer prorated rates. Sprint Nextel said it will offer prorated fees later this year.
.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10004049-94.html#ixzz14HGUcfqT