I feel pity you.Louisiana Official: Walmart Responsible To Pay For EBT Glitch Shopping Spree « CBS Houston
You can live in denial, but it has already been determined. They knew the procedure and chose not to follow it. It isn't hard to figure out that the procedure is as is being reported since most people including myself, witnessed the evidence on the day of the system problem. WalMart is on the hook.
The EBT card is suppose to be treated like a debit card, right?
The authorizing authority is responsible, right?huh, you can't overdraft a gift card?
The authorizing authority is responsible, right?
Who was the authorizing authority that had no limit?
I feel pity you.
You believe every thing a political spokesman says...
I think the courts will say otherwise.
If a bank knowingly allows you to coomit fraud through their banking system, they are also culpable. This is akin to what happened here.
Walmart is the entity that authorized the purchases when they were within full knowledge that the system was not properly working. That is directly aiding the criminal activity here.
I'm sorry you can't see that and have no concept of personal responsibility. But hey, at least you get to claim one online ...
LOL~!!!!
You're totally right.
The system went down in two(?) states. Every single store but one handled the situation properly. It's pretty clear whose fault that was.
What's the alternative? Do we want the government to pay Walmart for it's mistake?
Not if WalMart doesn't fight it.
And if they do, I'm willing to bet that the court will easily side with the government and Xerox against WalMart since they can show they have a policy for such things in place/set up, that the rest of the retailers around the nation used, including most other WalMarts.
Yet nobody has provided the text of the written policy yet...
Funny thing is, it wasn't just the two Walmart stores that did such things. But... Walmart is every liberal media pundits punching bag...Actually it was at least 17 states. I know there was problems with it here in San Diego, due to the signs at some of the stores I frequently shop at.
Shoppers Report EBT System Down in California and Other States | KTLA 5
Not if WalMart doesn't fight it.
And if they do, I'm willing to bet that the court will easily side with the government and Xerox against WalMart since they can show they have a policy for such things in place/set up, that the rest of the retailers around the nation used, including most other WalMarts.
99%?Because that isn't exactly something that is quickly found online. However, since 99% of the other stores in the country followed this policy without needing to be told or having the problems these 2 WalMart stores had, I'm willing to bet on the policy being as reported. You are free to believe otherwise, but you are simply denying evidence.
Still, I'll bet in the fine print of the contracts, Walmart will be compensated. Call it a gut feeling if you like, but they system did allow the transactions...Not to mention a clear knowledge that the system was not working properly
Still, I'll bet in the fine print of the contracts, Walmart will be compensated. Call it a gut feeling if you like, but they system did allow the transactions...
If authorization cannot be obtained before or at the time of purchase, the retailer assumes the risk for sufficient benefits being available in the household's account.
99%?
Are you making that up, or do you have evidence?
Funny thing is, it wasn't just the two Walmart stores that did such things. But... Walmart is every liberal media pundits punching bag...
The ATM doesn't know that the check is bogus or couldn't be covered, these WalMarts did. If a bank teller accepts and accredits a check written in crayon on the back of a cardboard box and tries to charge whoever the check is supposedly from for that amount, then yes, the bank should be held responsible because they should have known better. If someone is trying to deposit a $750M check from the IRS or some other government source, then a bank should not accredit that account with that money until the check is verified. Heck, the banks I do business with have to verify any check over either $2K or $3K before they accredit it to your account. WalMart acted like a bank that knew the check was bogus and accredited it anyway.
99%?
Are you making that up, or do you have evidence?
A little more info.
7 CFR 274.12 - Electronic Benefit Transfer issuance system approval standards. | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute
Relevant part:
If authorization cannot be obtained before or at the time of purchase, the retailer assumes the risk for sufficient benefits being available in the household's account.
under this section
(g) Retailer participation. (1); under the first subsection here, (i), near the bottom of the paragraph.
Two points:
1. So you believe that Walmart should have access to the personal information of all EBT customers so they know ahead of time what each EBT customer's personal available balance is at any given time before they process a sale. You must be one of those lemmings who sees no problem with the proliferation of access online to the personal information of citizens.
2. Perhaps you're not aware, but if a customer brings in a check made out in crayon on the back of a cardboard box, as long as it has the proper banking information related to bank/branch/account number it is legal tender and must be honored. You are not required to use a bank's checks to write a check. At least not in advanced countries like Canada. But let's extend it - perhaps you're aware that banks are accepting checks electronically now, using smartphone apps. According to your logic, the bank must eat the lose for accepting the check even though the bank did nothing illegal or fraudulent - it was the customer who committed the crime.
You're saying they have no choice but to allow such to occur
And they could have easily decided not to. That's a big part of personal responsibility, but you seem your concept of such only works one way
As has been pointed out to you numerous times already, walmart knew they didn't have the buying power either. Hence the reason the store manager became concerned and contacted corporate, EBT cards do not operate like checking accounts. They operate like rechargeable gift cards, with a balance that is easily referenced through the system and teller, like ANY OTHER GIFT CARD. And knowing full well the system was defunct, walmart allowed these purchases to go through.
When we know a similar issue would not be handled the same way dealing with gift cards. here the difference was the govt was perceived to be on the hook, so both parties would do nothing but gain from the transactions
Am I wrong?
Authorization was approved, wasn't it?
As I JUST POINTED OUT TO YOU a balance is easily referencable through the system and walmart was operating within the full knowledge that this error was occurring. The ATM does not in the above scenario. And in your above scenario the bank would be granting it's funds, in the walmart case, they were granting state funds
Louisiana Official: Walmart Responsible To Pay For EBT Glitch Shopping Spree « CBS Houston
You can live in denial, but it has already been determined. They knew the procedure and chose not to follow it. It isn't hard to figure out that the procedure is as is being reported since most people including myself, witnessed the evidence on the day of the system problem. WalMart is on the hook.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?