Stop montly withdrawal from my bank acc
Complaint
Mohammed Saad
Country: United States
I have received a monthly charge on my Bank of America account for $40 dated Feb09. I did receive a phone call claimed to be from Bank of America some time ago to try a certain insurance for a trial period. to be followed by more details.Nothing was received until I got a charge of $40 off my acc. I wrote to B of A who did not seem to know who the "merchant" was. I want to CANCELL this montly charge effective immediatly and the $40 charged to my acc reversed.
Thanks
Mohammed
Thanks
Mohammed
Comments
This is supported by many reports from consumers that charges have appeared on their accounts, even with no contact from the insurance telemarketer, indicating that the telemarketer had obtained customer account information used to make those charges directly from BofA.
Under GLB, SmartStep/Intersections is a third party, NOT an affiliate. They are not owned by BofA.
The above privacy restrictions in GLB on account disclosure to third parties are consistent with the similar ACH telemarketing restrictions prohibiting ACH charges resulting from outbound telemarketing calls. Both recognize that telemarketers with account information are a likely source of fraudulent charges, and both act to block such fraudulent transactions initiated by telemarketers.
Consumers dealing with fraudulent charges from telemarketers with apparent access to bank account information should file written fraud disputes with their banks in accordance with FCBA or FRB Reg. E, followed by OCC complaints against the bank if the charges are not reversed, as well as FTC complaints against the bank under GLB, and FTC and state AG complaints against the offending telemarketer.
http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/glb-faq.htm
Section H. Complying with the limitation on disclosing account numbers
"...
H.1. Q. I am a financial institution. I transform my customers' account numbers into encrypted forms that can be used solely to identify those customers. I enter into an arrangement with a third party telemarketing firm whereby I disclose my customers' names, telephone numbers, and encrypted identifying numbers. The third party telemarketing firm uses that information to market products (other than products I offer) to those customers. For those customers who agree to purchase the products, the third party telemarketing firm submits their encrypted identifying numbers to me, and I decrypt them into account numbers. At the end of this process, am I permitted to disclose the customers' actual account numbers to the third party telemarketing firm so that the telemarketing firm can initiate the charges to the customers' accounts?
A. No. Section 313.12 generally prohibits you from disclosing credit card, deposit, or other transaction account numbers "for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer." Accordingly, you must not provide your customers' account numbers to the third party telemarketing firm "for use in telemarketing."
The primary reason a marketer seeks access to a customer's account number is to allow the marketer to initiate a charge to the customer's account as part of the transaction. Section 313.12 prohibits you from disclosing customer transaction account numbers to the third party telemarketing firm to initiate a charge to a customer's account even after a customer accepts the product. Moreover, the general exceptions for notice and opt out under §§ 313.14 and 313.15, including the exception for disclosing information with the consent or at the direction of the consumer, do not apply to disclosures of account numbers for use in marketing that are prohibited by § 313.12.
Section 313.12 provides only three exceptions. A financial institution may disclose its customers' account numbers to: (i) a consumer reporting agency; (ii) its agent to market the institution's own products or services, provided that the agent is not authorized to directly initiate charges to the account; or (iii) another participant in a private label credit card or an affinity or similar program involving the institution. Because none of these exceptions applies in your case, you must not provide your customers' account numbers to a third party telemarketing firm so that it can initiate the charges to the customers' accounts.
H.2. Q. I would like to enter an arrangement with a nonaffiliated insurance agency that markets its products to my customers through direct mail solicitations. The proposed arrangement contemplates that I would disclose a customer's account number to the insurance agency's affiliate. The affiliate then would use the account number to debit the purchase price from my customer's account in response to these solicitations. The affiliate's only role in the arrangement would be initiating the charges. Does the Privacy Rule allow me to disclose a customer's account number to the insurance agency's affiliate under these circumstances?
A. No. The Privacy Rule prohibits you from disclosing your customers' account numbers to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing. § 313.12(a). Although the affiliate in your hypothetical does not distribute marketing materials but only initiates charges, its conduct of that activity is an integral part of your marketing arrangement with the insurance company. The disclosure of a customer's account number to the insurance company's affiliate under these circumstances therefore would be a disclosure for use in marketing that violates the Privacy Rule.
..."
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/dncpapercomments/04/bankofamerica.pdf
"...
Billing Methods
Section 310.3(a)(3) contains provisions relating to billing methods for telephone sales that are problematic and appear to be based on a misunderstanding of current law. Specifically, the Proposal would prohibit a telemarketer from submitting billing information for payment without first obtaining the consumer’s “express verifiable authorization” when the payment method does not impose a limit on the consumer’s liability for unauthorized charges or provide for dispute resolution procedures comparable to those in the Truth in Lending Act as amended (“TILA”). The procedure for obtaining “express verifiable authorization” is very cumbersome and difficult to implement.
Bank of America’s initial concern with this provision is that it appears to exclude debit cards for the category of payment methods that are acceptable under this provision. Debit cards issued by banks that provide access to a consumer’s deposit account are covered by the provisions of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (“EFTA”) and Regulation E implementing that statute. Regulation E provides for limitations on liability for unauthorized transactions that are in practice substantially similar to those contained in
TILA and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z. Although Regulation E may
provide for slightly higher liability than Regulation Z where lost access devices are not promptly reported, this is unlikely to apply to claims for unauthorized transactions in telemarketing contexts, where the user must only have the card number and the consumer may still have the actual access device in his or her possession.
In addition, as a practical matter, many debit card transactions are processed through the two primary national payment systems, Visa and MasterCard, both of which limit customer liability by system rule. In addition, many financial institutions impose their own “zero liability” rules for unauthorized debit card transactions. Bank of America has
such a rule that goes beyond transactions that are processed through the Visa system, but include unauthorized debit card transactions that may be processed through other systems.
With respect to dispute resolution procedures, any debit card transactions that are processed through Visa or MasterCard are covered by detailed dispute resolution and charge-back rules that permit the customer to dispute a transaction. Thus, since most debit card transactions are processed through one of the major payments processing systems, they should be deemed to provide sufficient protection for consumers regarding dispute resolution.
Finally, it may be extremely difficult for a merchant to distinguish between a debit card and a credit card in a telephone transaction and accord different treatment to them. Thus, the final rule should not impose the onerous burden set forth in the Proposal for obtaining “express verifiable authorization” for use of debit cards. The rule should provide that any payment method subject to either Regulation Z or Regulation E provides sufficient consumer protection against unauthorized transactions.
..."
Allegation that an insurance telemarketer associated with BofA used doctored phone recordings to fraudulently substantiate consumer's "authorization" to charge for some insurance policy. Allegedly the telemarketer was selling insurance connected to AIG to customers of BofA.
Allegations claim that examination of the recording that was finally produced after repeated demands found several of the recorded "Yes" replies to the telemarketing script were identical copies, indicating the recording had been edited.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/ ... ress=389x491738
"...
My daughter, soon after turning 18, recieved a telemarketing call from Bank of America about Insurance. She didn't agree to it and thought that was the end.
She recently was mystified at how fast her bank account went down. Several times it went below zero without her knowing it so Bank of America charged her, very excessive, overdraft fees.
She then realized that BofA was taking out payments for the insurance every month.
My wife called to find out what was going on. After a long run around she demanded they prove that my daughter agreed so she finally got them to play a tape of her "conversation" with the telemarketer. It was a tremendously fast and complex reading of the contract with my daughter interjecting "yes" periodically. My wife demanded a copy of the recording which we recieved today.
I checked the audio waveform and several of the "yes" statements were the same identical recording. Just as I suspected her replies were spliced into the long legal spiel.
..."
Additional report connecting insurance sold thru a phone number reported to be used by "Smart Step/Chargered Marketing/Intersetions Insurance" with AIG.
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-866-879-0179
..." And I still recieved a charge. I filed a claim with BOA. Hopefully that will get the 40 back and I plan on talking to them about keeping AIG as a affiliate it is poor business skills on AIG's part. Hope this helps. I had to vent too. :-)"
The above may indicate that since BofA was selling customer information to a telemarketer selling AIG insurance using the same Smart Step name as other complaints, that this telemarketer may be the same Chartered Marketing also reported to be selling Smart Step in those other complaints.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/377/RipOff0377561.htm
"...
Keela, the supervisor I spoke with, then played me an incredibly distorted recording of what she said was their initial telemarketing call with me from 7/14/08. The recording was clearly doctored and did NOT represent the actual phone call that was made. Most of the recording was so bad in quality that the actual words cannot be understood and my 'response' was clearly doctored to simply have my voice repeat 'yes' in answer to all their questions.
..."
"Directory listing" scam using doctored "authorization" recordings.
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-202-715-0902/3
"...was played a recording of her. It sounded doctored to me as her response of "yes" was very digitized compared to the rest of her voice...."
"... I talked with a lady named Lina Clark, she was extremely rude and was basically taunting me, saying she guarantees my company pays. I listened to a recording that sounded doctored. Al lmy employee did was verify address and number. ..."
Report that WAMU accepted a scammer's disputed recording over their own 80 year old customer's claim that charges were fraudulent.
http://wamublamesgrandma.blogspot.com/2006/03 ... man-senior.html
FTC report on cramming fraud against small businesses, including telemarketing fraud using doctored phone recordings.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/10/websitecrammingtestimony.htm
"Chartered Marketing Services, Inc., also known as Chartered Benefit Services, Inc., "
"Company Overview
Chartered Marketing Services, Inc., also known as Chartered Benefit Services, Inc., provides marketing solutions for financial institutions and insurance companies. It offers marketing services, including strategies, tactics, and research to acquire, grow, retain, or win back customers; provides revenue enhancement programs, such as insurance plans and discount membership services; and designs custom programs via a combination of channels, such as point-of-sale, statement, direct mail, Web, or teleservices. Chartered Marketing Services, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. As of July 3, 2006, Chartered Marketing Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Intersections...
Chartered Marketing Services, Inc., also known as Chartered Benefit Services, Inc., provides marketing solutions for financial institutions and insurance companies. It offers marketing services, including strategies, tactics, and research to acquire, grow, retain, or win back customers; provides revenue enhancement programs, such as insurance plans and discount membership services; and designs custom programs via a combination of channels, such as point-of-sale, statement, direct mail, Web, or teleservices. Chartered Marketing Services, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. As of July 3, 2006, Chartered Marketing Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Intersections Inc.
Detailed Description
315 West University Drive
Arlington Heights, IL 60004
United States
Founded in 1981
Phone: 847-797-8500
Fax: 847-797-9999
"
http://www2.state.id.us/ag/newsrel/2008/nr_may202008.htm
https://complaintwire.org/Complaint.aspx/nTZb ... H-gDqQgjLdhGvnw
"I was called by this directory two days ago. They asked to update information. I asked who they were and if they were an online listing service. They claimed I had been a client for the past year. This a plain lie. I have been seduced by these types before and knew to never say words they could chop up into another recording. For some reason they try to get you to say "yes" to something. They don't like it when you use "correct" and "incorrect". I advised him to not try and send me a bill.
..."
http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/rich-tehrani/yellow-pages-scam.html
"Today I was called by Gordon from the Yellow Pages. He said he had an unpaid invoice on his desk and needed to get it resolved. I asked if his office is in Canada and he said yes, the corporate office was in Canada. I told him we would not be paying the invoice that I never authorized it. He said you are on tape and you did authorize it. I told him I said they could send the invoice with the information for the ad on it for my boss to see NOT to bill us for something we didn't want. Gordon then got rude, told me this wasn't going away and he could play me the recording. I told him I had already heard the doctored tape and to have a nice day we weren't paying the invoice. He got angry and loud and I hung up. He immediately called back and left a message on my voice mail that this wasn't going away just because I hung up on him. I have already filed a claim with the FTC ..."
"...
I had the same experiencing that apparently 124 others had (according to the BBB in Chicago). National Yellow Pages Online contacted me in Nov. 2007 - same tactics - recorded authorization/doctored tape, etc... The company harrassed me for over a year with the last contact about a week ago. There new scam is having a credit agency contact you trying to collect what now is a $600 invoice with interest and penalties. BEWARE The "credit agency" is based in Wisconsin and is operated by the same crew. Don't fall for it - and don't pay it! Further, we have discovered that both companies as well as a few other "shell" companies run by this guy "Daniels" are under investigation by a number of federal agencies for Interstate Commerce violations and Mail Fraud. ..."
"Same thing happened to us- a church. Last November I got a call asking to verify information. I was told it was NOT a sales call. When asked if I was authorized, I said no. He told me it was just verifying our current information on our ad. So, I thought, well maybe it was an ad we currently had.
I was then passed on to the other person. I could hardly hear them.
When we got our bill I called to cancel about it, and of course, was told it was too late.
We tried telling them we weren't paying. Of course, they played the recording of me, but you could tell it was doctored.
In the end we paid it, and thought we were done with them.
THEN, a couple weeks ago, I got a phone call. I thought it was just another one wanting to verify our info, and told them we weren't interested. She then informed me that this was a current bill for an ad that was authorized last November. I told her we paid it. She then stated that it was a 2-year contract!!! I could not believe it!..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078475/
"...
On the call, the Epixtar operator says she is verifying the business name and address. Then, after she gets the consumer into the rhythm of giving “yes” answers, she establishes that he has the right to make changes to the phone bill. But that key question, read at lightning-quick speed, is slipped in behind another simple “yes” answer.
“You are authorized to make changes and incur charges on your business phone bill and are over the age of 18. I also have your main telephone number as 202 ... Is that all correct?” the operator asks. The consumer replies “yes.”
“Basically, we get one yes for four questions. Sometimes people don’t notice,” the former employee said.
Such alleged fast-talking has gotten the company into trouble with the Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate, which alleges in one case “that the company’s verification agent spoke far too rapidly to be understood by the consumer.” Spokesperson Craig F. Graziano said his office is seeking civil penalties against Epixtar for alleged cramming.
The former Epixtar employee says that the $29.95-a-month service is quickly mentioned at the end of a conversation.
“At this time we will begin your no obligation 30-day free trial. Should you decide to continue after 30 days your company’s Web and Internet service is only $29.95 monthly and will be included in your local phone bill appearing under the heading online services ...,” the operator says.
The flummoxed consumer replies hesitatingly, “Yes ....” The former employee claims the tape was neatly cut after the word “yes.”
The Missouri attorney general accuses Expitar of that quick-ending tactic. An affidavit signed by a consumer submitted by the attorney general to the court alleges that when the consumer listened to the recording of his solicitation, “the recording ended prior to me saying that if I had to call to cancel the service, I did not want it.”
..."
1) The phone rings and it isn't someone you know.
Seriously, a key indication of intent to deceive and defraud is use of leading language, verification of identity, account, or billing information prior to making an offer, adding terms after any such verification, etc. Telemarketing pitches are scripted, so all such alterations of normal order leading to a legitimate sale with up-front disclosure of terms prior to any attempt to close are indicators of intent to defraud.
FTC press release, ammended complaint. Caught in FTC's "Operation Tele-Phony".
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/02/pbshexion.shtm
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0823055/index.shtm
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/05/telephoney.shtm
"Publishers Business Services – Telemarketing magazine subscriptions, these defendants allegedly disguise their sales pitch as a survey, at the end of which they offer “free” or low-cost magazine subscriptions. They send a bill weeks later, stating that consumers agreed to pay several hundred dollars for the subscriptions. When consumers complain or attempt to cancel, the defendants tell them that they are obligated to pay the bill and may not cancel because they entered into a “verbal contract” during the survey call and the defendants have already paid the magazine publishers for the subscriptions. The defendants then attempt to extort payment by harassing the consumers at work, threatening to initiate collection actions, or threatening to submit derogatory information about them to the major credit bureaus."
Report of an "authorization" recording doctored by cutting off the customer's refusal.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/408/RipOff0408127.htm
"...
During November and December 2008, I received several bills from Publishers Business Service which were very vague. The bills did not appear to be legitimate as they did not list any details of the goods or services that I had supposedly ordered.
Today a man from Publishers Business Service called me demanding payment of $29.90 per month for shipping and handling of magazines that I had not even received yet. I told him that I did not order the magazines. He said he had the recording of the telephone conversation from October. I told the man that I recalled speaking to the marketer but said I did not want the magazines when I learned they were not truly free. He passed me on to a young lady in Customer Service who played the recording. I told her that I was not convinced the recording was complete because it was not clear and did not include me ending the call. I believe the portion of the recording with me refusing the order was edited out.
..."
http://contracts.onecle.com/intersections/discover.svc.2001.04.29.shtml
"...
1. The Product. The product to be offered by INTERSECTIONS is
described in Exhibit A ("Product") attached to and made a part of this
Agreement. Any changes to the Product, including Product price, must be agreed to in writing by the parties.
2. Services. The services to be provided by INTERSECTIONS in
connection with the Product are described in Exhibit B ("Services") attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any changes of the Services must be agreed to in writing by the parties. INTERSECTIONS will comply with the procedures and meet the service standards set forth in Exhibit C attached to and made a part of this Agreement. In addition, INTERSECTIONS will prepare and submit to DFS the reports set forth in Exhibit D, and the business and growth plans set forth in Exhibit F attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
3. Compensation. INTERSECTIONS agrees to pay compensation to DFS for sales of the Product in the amount and manner described in Exhibit E
attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
..."
"...
During the term of this Agreement, DFS will cooperate with INTERSECTIONS to encourage individuals who have purchased the Product to continue purchasing the Product, and will not allow the solicitation of credit monitoring and notification products substantially similar to the Product offered under this Agreement to any individual who has purchased the Product and except further as INTERSECTIONS may agree in writing.
..."
"...
8. Review of Promotional Materials. All advertising and promotional materials used in connection with the Product, including, but not limited to, fulfillment kits, brochures, newsletters, inserts, telemarketing scripts, customer correspondence and form letters, must be approved by both parties, such approval or disapproval not to be unreasonably withheld.
..."
"...
9. Use of DFS Work Product or Name. INTERSECTIONS will not use and will keep its employees, agents and subcontractors, if any, from using the name of DFS or its parent, subsidiaries or affiliates, or any name, logo, copyright, service mark or trademark owned or licensed by DFS, its parent, subsidiaries or affiliates, in any manner whatsoever that is not otherwise authorized by the terms of this Agreement without the prior written consent of DFS.
..."
"...
Each party agrees that is shall comply with the provisions of any privacy laws and regulations requiring confidential treatment of personal information under such laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and any other federal and state privacy laws. In
addition, each party will maintain appropriate measures to safeguard all Cardmember information. Such measures will, at a minimum, be designed to meet
the objectives of the Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information as issued and interpreted by the federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (as C.F.R. 308 and 364).
..."
"...
15. Fraud Prevention. INTERSECTIONS agrees to take all actions necessary to prevent fraud in connection with the Product and Services provided hereunder including, but not limited to, misuse of credit bureau information, Cardmember information and/or account numbers by its employees. INTERSECTIONS agrees to be held strictly liable for any fraud committed or facilitated by its employees. INTERSECTIONS shall immediately inform DFS of any evidence of fraud by Cardmembers it may become aware of and shall cooperate with DFS in resolving such matters.
..."
"...
EXHIBIT E
Compensation
...
4. All commissions will be subject to a charge back for any cancellations, refund or charge backs.
5. INTERSECTIONS will authorize DISCOVER Card transactions using a processor approved by DFS. Declined transactions will be resubmitted using an
agreed upon re-submittal process.
..."
Security Standards
http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/2000-8660.html
Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards For Safeguarding Customer Information
Federal Reserve System Examiner Guidance
http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/SRLetters/2001/sr0115a1.pdf
http://www.fromsquareone.com/news/index.htm
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/online/memwrks_mn_ag.html
"...
The Attorney General filed the lawsuit in July 1999 against MemberWorks following numerous complaints from consumers that they did not believe they had authorized membership charges to their checking or credit card accounts. The settlement requires MemberWorks to substantially change its business practices and provide double refunds to consumers who did not fully consent to the MemberWorks charge.
..."
Note that required verification was recorded, with the settlement requiring a specific script containing disclosures, but did at least require consumer disclosure of date of birth in the recording.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/054/RipOff0054663.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/076/RipOff0076801.htm
Ex-employee description of their operation.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/s ... 2/msg00836.html
MemberWorks settlement with Florida Attorney General, June 2004.
http://myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsrel ... A8?OpenDocument
MemberWorks Privacy Plus press release.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MemberWorks+Lau ... l...-a053682205
Class action suit against Vertrue (formerly MemberWorks), for unauthorized "membership" charges to consumers.
http://www.girardgibbs.com/memberworks.html
"...A few of Vertrue’s many membership subscription programs include “Simply You,” “Homeworks Plus,” “Galleria,” “24 Assistance,” “24 Protect Plus,” “Lifestyle Rewards,” “Health Plus,” “Simple Escapes,” “Passport to Fun,” “Privacy Plus,” and “Privacy Matters.”
..."
http://www.consumerwarningnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/00320682.pdf
Appeal related to class action arbitration case, 2007.
http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/1143234
Recent 2009 complaints against "Privacy Plus" and "Privacy Matters".
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/online/aol_privacy_plus.html
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/online/privacymatters.html
"Privacy Matters" is a product of Adaptive Marketing, LLC.
http://www.adaptivemarketing.com/memprogs_persproperty.asp
Adaptive Marketing is a subsidiary of Vertrue.
http://www.vertrue.com/adaptivemarketing.asp
Adaptive Marketing appears to be claiming their current practices preclude recurrance of past complaints (yet recent complaints are showing up in 2009).
http://www.adaptivemarketing.com/about_bp.asp
https://complaintwire.org/Complaint.aspx/ktc- ... UIgDgggjLeidopQ