UNAUTHORIZED CHARGE
Complaint
ABEL
Country: United States
BANK STATEMENT CAME IN TODAY WITH A DIGITAL STAR CHARGE ($498.99) I DID NOT DO, 2/02/2012. FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN ON HERE AMAZON.COM SEEM TO BE THE LINK TO ALL THIS. STILL NOT SURE WHY THE CHARGE ON MY ACCT. IS SO MUCH HIGHER THEN I'VE SEEN WITH EVERYONE ELSE. DID GO TO THE BANK REPORTED ISSUE AND CHANGED CARDS.
Comments
Main thread:
https://complaintwire.org/complaint/ubMBAAAAAAA/digital-star
If you are getting fraudulent charges, IMMEDIATELY block the card number, and submit a fraud dispute to your bank. Your bank can reverse fraudulent charges if you dispute promptly.
The fraudulent "digital star" charges started showing up around 1-27-12, initially being reported at $74.95, then ratcheted up to about $150 around a week ago.
There may have been one or two other reports of $500. One was a debit card linked to a business account. Remains to be seen whether they are now giving themselves another "raise".
Recent complaints report reuse of card numbers already used earlier. This, and reports of ratcheting up the amounts, may indicate they have a limited supply of validated card information to run through the "digital star" account, and are trying to maximize the take before they expect it to be shut down.
As for the Amazon connection, although there are many reports of these charges following use of Amazon, they are also a very large source of charges from online purchases, so they typically show up suspected in almost any case of fraudulent charges. The reported consumer banks are all over the map, from small local credit unions to the major banks like BofA, Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo. Complaint locations, where reported, are also all over the U.S. (and a couple in Canada). There are a number of complaints reporting charges to little used or never used cards, including some never using Amazon.
There are now 3 separate reports of "pings", small charges of around $1 showing up just before the "digital star" charges. One of these reported 3 "pings" through Amazon against 3 different cards, followed by charges by "digital star" against the same 3 cards. Another reported a $1 "ping" from "speedway", a gas station chain, and a third reported a $1 "ping" from ATT. All 3 are consistent with testing through online purchase of "intangibles" like downloads or services, which would be plausible targets to try "pinging".
In some cases, the "ping" charges are reported to show up as "pending", then go away, so there may not be a trail visible to consumers by the time they catch the "digital star" charges.
The source of card information might be random testing of blocks of numbers and exp. dates via "pinging" with online sites that allow the correctness of the information to be verified.
There is only one very recent report of any use of CCV numbers, and that post itself may be suspect, as it tries to convince others that "they have your 3 digit number on the back of the card. my bank told me they used it" when other evidence leans heavily toward "pinging". Use of CCV numbers would imply a database hack and card information theft, yet the complaint diversity points against that, and there isn't even any advantage to using CCV numbers to submit fraudulent charges..
Shutting off "pinging" ability through tightening online merchant card input to require CCV match would cripple this type of fraud. It needn't even be done everywhere, since the "ping" accounts should be traceable through the VISA and MasterCard systems, and the fixes could be pushed back onto the currently exploited merchants, plugging the hole. Amazon may already have closed that hole, since they have been getting the most complaints from consumers, and although there was one complaint reporting "pinging" through Amazon, no others have shown up since.
There is no need to have CCV numbers to submit a fraudulent charge, card number and exp. date are enough, and trying plausible combinations is feasable if all that really must be guessed is an exp. date.