@subsider34:
Maybe. But the last time I filed an AG complaint I got a call from a regional VP who personally shepharded my complaint through the system and I got an additional 25% on top of my complaint back.

The time before that I got an additional 80% back on top of my refund from BN.

Actually, the law does not require it to be purchased to be a gift card:

Cal Civil Code Section 1749.5

(c) A gift certificate sold without an expiration date is valid
until redeemed or replaced.
(d) This section does not apply to any of the following gift
certificates issued on or after January 1, 1998, provided the
expiration date appears in capital letters in at least 10-point font
on the front of the gift certificate:
(1) Gift certificates that are distributed by the issuer to a
consumer pursuant to an awards, loyalty, or promotional program
without any money or other thing of value being given in exchange for
the gift certificate by the consumer.

Two things that are important here:
1. It doesn't have to be purchased to be a gift certificate/gift card, as certificates issued to a consumer pursuant to an awards/loyalty/promotional program "without any money or other thing of value being given in exchange" can still be gift certificates under the law, and
2. They can still have expiration dates but they need to be printed in CAPITAL LETTERS on the front of the gift card in at least 10-point font.

Sorry that is a gift card, nobody pays money for a discount card.. Hopefully this grows legs and turns into a class action lawsuit..

6. Expiration Dates.
The Gift Card has no expiration date. However, in certain states, after a certain period of time, we may remit the cash associated with unused Gift Card balances to certain states pursuant to their abandoned property laws. Once we have remitted that cash to such a state, if someone tries to redeem the Gift Card, it may no longer be redeemed and we may direct them to that state's government instead.

Your post reminded me of something.

I mean, hell, if they don't define gift card, and Ticketmaster thinks that this isn't a gift card, then what does the law really apply to?

Your Class action therefore would fail, as well as any small claims action.

When was the card "purchased"?
If the card wasn't purchased, then it was received as part of a promotion, and is therefore void. The whole point of gift cards not having an expiration date is that "Gift Cards" and "Gift Certificates" are activated by the customer putting money onto them, and then using the card itself as cash. If the OP never actually "purchased" their Gift Card, then they are not entitled to the $50 that they believe.

If the customer can produce a receipt of when they purchased the card, they have a case. If they can't reproduce a receipt (and I doubt they could, seeing as how the card supposedly expired more than 3 years ago), then they are SOL. They can cry all they want about some $50 they should have acted upon YEARS ago.

I see ticket masters point it's clearly a code to get you 50 dollars in credit, so it can expire. But it is labelled Gift Card on the front, so I would think this would run them afoul of the FTC regarding truth in advertising, and a huge class action lawsuit.

(source: 1749.5 (d))

On that note, I don't see what the problem is. $50 is nothing, that is what Ticketmaster pretty much charges as their "convenience charge" on a $10 Kevin Federline concert ticket.

We don't know how the consumer got this card. So we don't know if California law prohibits Ticketmaster from imposing an expiration date on it.

http://www.ticketsnow.com/Gift_Card_Terms.html

It seems to imply that codes that begin with the number 8 (as in this case) aren't purchased. Gift cards that are purchased start with the number 9 and clearly state no expiry.

Seems the consumer could be wrong here!

what i'm not sure of is that the law specifically excludes gift cards obtained "without charge" as part of an awards or loyalty program. so, what constitutes value? if i exchange 1,000 pepsi pts. for a card, is that something of value? i would think not, as pepsi pts. only have value in relation to what else could be obtained by redeeming them. & what of credit card awards programs? some of these actually allow you to redeem pts. for cash, so does that give their pts. cash value or not?

I agree, except for taxes. Whenever taxes are included the government uses it as a way to charge a ridiculous amount of tax, ie: cigarettes, liquor (in WA), gas, etc.

I think it's appropriate to add tax, but absolutely nothing else, period.

Expiration Dates.
The Gift Card has no expiration date. However, in certain states, after a certain period of time, we may remit the cash associated with unused Gift Card balances to certain states pursuant to their abandoned property laws. Once we have remitted that cash to such a state, if someone tries to redeem the Gift Card, it may no longer be redeemed and we may direct them to that state's government instead.

The explanation from Ticketmaster is what lawyers call boilerplate. Ticketmaster's CSR obviously pulled up a form, pasted in the amount and number of the card, and sent it off. Notice they don't say that they comply with California law, but the laws of "your state". Hey, we don't know what the law is, but doggone if we don't comply with it!

@henwy: Read the second boilerplate response closely. It does not say 'the CSR told the OP about the promotion and he agreed'. It says that some other CSR told "Pam" that the OP understood it was an expired promotion - which makes zero sense, since gift cards do not expire in California. This is, again, boilerplate. Defense attorneys pull this crap all the time - we agree that they have an extension of time to do X and they write me a letter saying "this is to confirm that we have an extension to do X, Y and Z".

But...we don't know how the OP came across this particular gift card. He doesn't say. I suspect it may have been a donation which is why Ticketmaster insists it is just a promotional code. But the OP doesn't say, so we're in the dark.

If the OP received this gift card as a gift from someone else, the OP would have no knowledge of the out-of-pocket cost (if any) of the card.

Unless there is something on the back of the card that clearly states it is not a gift card, despite what it says on the face, I would expect it to be by simple definition a "$50 GIFT CARD."

(If the back of the card actually does say "This is not a Gift Card", I would certainly think that it could be challenged as false or misleading labeling, as it says that it IS a fixed value gift card in large print on the face.)

I'd be tempted to head for small claims court...

"The Gift Card has no expiration date. However, in certain states, after a certain period of time, we may remit the cash associated with unused Gift Card balances to certain states pursuant to their abandoned property laws. Once we have remitted that cash to such a state, if someone tries to redeem the Gift Card, it may no longer be redeemed and we may direct them to that state's government instead."

[www.ticketmaster.com]

I don't know whom Robert spoke to, but above is Ticketmaster's actual policy.
So... what w

Sue their asses.

Ticketmaster says it's a promotion so that likely could mean that the OP paid nothing for the card. If (s)he did pay something for it (directly or as a buy x, get gift card free) then the law does apply. We really need to know more to determine if TM is right or wrong.

Subtotal: $xxx.xx
Sales Tax:$ xx.xx
------------------
Total: $xxx.xx

Immediately, it seems, everyone depends on the OP for the truthful story, always, and in the case of TM, it seems everyone wants to believe the OP.

But let me be clear here - he went DIRECTLY to the BBB, according to the article. WHO does that? I don't see any type of notice of him actually contacting the company in question, but instead automatically assuming the absolute worst and whining to the BBB. There isn't any clear line of argument in this story, only a 'consumer' complaining about something he can't control, while oh so deftly denying actual evidence or failing to provide actual detail (picture aside - that obviously proves nothing at all).

I just won't BLINDLY believe a consumer is always right about what they think they can do.

Hell, that's why our economy is in the mess it is. Blind belief.

I'm the last person that wants to defend Ticketmaster, and there may or may not be other laws, regardless of what the card actually says. All I'm saying is the source of card may be at issue, and that may be a relevant fact.

They have you by the balls and they know it.

:P

Definitely fails to meet that.

Ticketmaster is a horrible, horrible excuse for a company. I'm sure there are ponzi schemes and multi-level marketing schemes that are more fair to the consumer than Ticketmaster's racket.

(plus, there's no indication he talked to this agent back when the card was issued (no matter if it was purchased, promotion or otherwise) - in fact it sounds like he talked to someone after the fact, like maybe right before the BBB filing)(

I would be interested in seeing what it says on the back of the card.

It can only be used at Ticketsnow (and if it can be used at Ticketmaster, they're "affiliated" in this scenario)

And if it was a gift, assuming the person who bought it agreed, they're due a refund.

Do I have all that right?

They're reporting the OP's side, which is generally what always happens, and all Consumerist did was include the law and how it applies of the OP bought it.

Doesn't seem like bullshit to me.

The BBB is in my opinion useless. It is funded by those businesses it regulates and thus biased toward businesses. The BBB has no regulatory or enforcement powers. Contacting the BBB in my opinion is a waste of time.

Contact the California DCA or AGO and file a complaint with them. Contacting Ticketmaster is obviously a waste of time as well.

Purchased or promotional does not matter.

[en.wikipedia.org]

From [www.ticketmaster.com]

# Expiration Dates.
The Gift Card has no expiration date. However, in certain states, after a certain period of time, we may remit the cash associated with unused Gift Card balances to certain states pursuant to their abandoned property laws. Once we have remitted that cash to such a state, if someone tries to redeem the Gift Card, it may no longer be redeemed and we may direct them to that state's government instead.

# Cash Redemption.
Gift cards are not redeemable for cash except in the four states where it is required by law to the extent noted below: California, Montana, Washington, and Vermont. If you are a resident of one of these states, and the balance on your Ticketmaster gift card is less than the respective dollar amount below, you may redeem it for cash:
California < $10
Montana < $5
Washington < $5
Vermont < $1

[www.newhampshire.com]

Can they even have such a clause? Isn't that ex post facto?

It does for california law. That's the difference.

How is it deceptive if they claim the CSR told him about the promotion and its limitations and say he agreed? We still don't know if this is the case since the OP never responded, and it's certainly not refuted by his current statements. The only way to know is wait for an OP response.

Ummm, what? So if someone bought super bowl tickets from them and they simply printed 'super bowl' on top of some peewee football tickets, it would still be superbowl tickets just because it says so?

They do occasionally tape customer service calls. Maybe there's a recording of whether or not the OP agreed.

And why should they? After a certain point, you just shouldn't bother. No amount of 'good will' will change people's opinions by this point so it'd be a waste of money to even try.

1) When did the gift card law go into effect? 2007? With an expiration date of 2005 this particular card would have been grandfathered in prior to that.

2) Was the card sold or provided as a gift by Ticketmaster? If a Gift provided from Ticketmaster the rules wouldn't apply.

Real code section here

i believe the test is "did the consumer fund the card?" if the card was offered as part of promotion (say, buy a ticket & get a gift card), i don't believe it is covered.

it's hard to say which category the OP's card falls into w/o a little more backstory (though i've never heard of TM giving away anything). if he could produce a receipt showing proof of purchase, he certainly has a case to have his card honored. i would suggest contacting the consumer protection division - they should be able to advocate for a refund of the balance (if the card is indeed covered).

This is so weird. Ticketmaster drank their own Kool Aid. The call them "Gift Cards" on their website [www.ticketmaster.com]

So they say yes you have a gift card, but no it's not a gift card.

1749.45. (a) As used in this title, "gift certificate" includes
gift cards, but does not include any gift card usable with multiple
sellers of goods or services, provided the expiration date, if any,
is printed on the card. This exemption does not apply to a gift card
usable only with affiliated sellers of goods or services.

@Rachacha: Demonstrating that it is a gift card is easy.

Read the front of the GIFT CARD for proof.

Once it has been printed and issued, you cant just call it something else later.

I want to see TM's PROOF that this is not a gift card.

@haoshufu: it says GIFT CARD right on the front.

no amount of BLA BLA BLA removes that fact.

The caveat here is if Ticketmaster claimed the entire face value on these cards when they gave them out as a write down on the taxes they paid claiming this value was a advertising cost.(common practice and a great way for a period of time to avoid taxes. It was one of the reasons that caused states and feds to get involved /make new rules concerning gift cards) Unless they readusted their tax filing to take into account the unused (they say expired) cards then the card is still valid.

This site has a great breakdown of the gift card laws for California.
[www.dca.ca.gov]

I only ask because American Eagle used to do a holiday promotion (maybe they still do) where if you purchased $100 in holiday gifts you'd receive a free $25 gift card (idea being, buy gifts for others and get this gift for yourself). Anyway, a lot of people used the freebie gift cards as stocking stuffers but didn't tell their recipients that they were essentially coupons and were only good between January 15 and February 15 (or something like that). So, we had a lot of angry people when they came in on Dec. 26 or Feb. 16 to use the gift card grandma "bought" for them.

It sounds like from the responses from ticketmaster that this is the same sort of thing. I just don't understand why the person writing the responses doesn't give more detail - what was the promotion, etc., to jog this guy's memory.

It doesn't matter if the OP (or anyone) directly purchased this or not.
The value assigned to a promotional gift card is considered into the price of the original item purchased that the gift card was packaged with.
If they had just walked up and handed him a $50.00 dollar card then Ticketmaster is in the clear. If this was attached to a sale of "buy this item and receive a $50.00 gift card" then they are in fact selling this card.
The IRS has ruled on this concerning "gifts" attached to sale items. I don't have the article from the IRS but the IRS defines that a purchased item. They will tax this item.

So if you PAID $x for an $x gift card, you can always cash it out. If you got a $x "promo-whatever" as a reward for some other action (i.e. credit card bonus points for instance), this may have no cash value, and cannot be converted into money.

Perfect small courts claim - they probably won't show and you'll get a default judgment including filing costs.

Legally, there very much CAN, in fact, be expiration dates for California gift cards; to give a blanket statement otherwise is flat out wrong. Now there are several stipulations on that, but the point is that gift cards can indeed expire.

The summary at the top of the page is conveniently omitting several additional sections of CA civil code sec. 1749.5 that contradict its point. There's not enough information from the OP to know what the legal standing of the card is.

TM: "Gift Card" printed on our card actually means "Discount Card" in California. We don't care if it sounds like a lie, but this is our story and we're sticking with it. Go ahead and sue us, because we're still not going to do anything. We're betting on the fact that $50 is not enough for you to bother. Now GO AWAY!

A. No. However, this general rule is subject to the following exceptions:

A gift card that can be used with multiple unaffiliated sellers of goods or services may contain an expiration date.7 If so, the expiration date must be printed on the card.

An issuer may accept funds toward the purchase of a gift certificate from one or more contributors as a gift for another person (the "recipient"), and may require a date by which the recipient must redeem the funds. This exception is applicable only provided that each contributor is given a full refund of the amount paid where: the funds are contributed for the purpose of being redeemed by the recipient by purchasing a gift certificate; the time in which the recipient may redeem the funds is clearly disclosed in writing to the contributors and the recipient; and the recipient does not redeem the funds within the time disclosed.8

Certain gift certificates or gift cards9 sold after January 1, 1998, are not subject to any of the rules discussed here. To be exempt, these gift certificates or gift cards must contain an expiration date, if any, in capital letters in at least 10-point type on the front of the card and must be either:

Distributed by the issuer to a consumer without charge under an awards, loyalty or promotional program;10 or
Donated or sold below face value at a volume discount to employers or to nonprofit and charitable organizations for fundraising purposes, if the expiration date is 30 days or less after the date of sale;11 or
Issued for perishable food products.12

@psm321: It also says that the card has to be purchased. Based on teh language, it sounds like this was a promotional card that was given away with a purchase (i.e. buy a laptop and get a $50 TM Giftcard)

@ecwis: Exactly. TM said that code was a promotional code, and unless the OP can demonstrate that it was a gift card that was purchased by a friend or relative, I am inclined to believe TM.

California law states: "It is unlawful for any person or entity to sell a gift certificate .."

As the card was given away for promotional purposes, it was not sold, therefore it would appear that TM is fully within CA law to set a reasonable expiration date for the card.

I'm just curious, where did the OP get this "gift card"? It could very well have been given out in a promotion with some TV or some stupid thing he bought years ago.

Everyone always wants to get on TM's ass.... but WHERE is the full story? Because I see nothing but implied fault in TM's case here. It's all one-sided bullshit from the Consumerist.

Umm, if you read our quote, it says the card must have the expiration date printed on the front of the card _in addition to_ one of the bullet points in order to be exempt.

Only thing I can think of is coupons. It will have a $ off amount, hence discount. But the cash value of the coupon is 1/100 cents stated in the fine print.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...really?

@Jonbo298: I would bet the Attorney General's office would be a better place to write than the powerless BBB.

And many stores give away gift cards as part of a promotion (e.g. buy a certain item at Target and they give you a $5 gift card that works just like a gift card).

If they're going to claim NOW that it doesn't work like a gift card (despite the rep saying it was a gift card, and the fact that it says gift card on the front), then they should write that plainly on the back. I've never seen a gift card without plenty of fine print on the back. It wouldn't be that hard.

So how is cash value different from a discount?

ecwis is right. from [www.dca.ca.gov] :

Certain gift certificates or gift cards9 sold after January 1, 1998, are not subject to any of the rules discussed here. To be exempt, these gift certificates or gift cards must contain an expiration date, if any, in capital letters in at least 10-point type on the front of the card and must be either:

* Distributed by the issuer to a consumer without charge under an awards, loyalty or promotional program;10 or
* Donated or sold below face value at a volume discount to employers or to nonprofit and charitable organizations for fundraising purposes, if the expiration date is 30 days or less after the date of sale;11 or
* Issued for perishable food products.12

Seems like the first bullet point does apply here.

[www.ticketmaster.com]

I would hope the Attorney General's offices of all states watch this week site.

Gotta love it. I guess saying "Please be assured; Ticketmaster complies with all relevant ticketing laws, including those of your state." makes it so even when they are clearly breaking the law.

I think exhibit A of the trail being the card that says Gift Card will prove that it really is a gift card. This pisses me off because it truly is double talk. However if the card expired before the law was passed then I think the OP is screwed. If anyone has the text of the law I would be interested because there would need to be a clause that includes expired gift cards for him to win a lawsuit.

Plus, Ticketmaster purchased Ticketsnow.com in 2008. Since this card was (allegedly)purchased well before 2005. Who knows what happened to that information. Personally I agree with a few others, sue them in small claims court. Sounds like you have a case to me.

Monopoly = kiss my large bloated corprate ass consumers and oh yah nananana. Ticket Master sucks.

.

Just wait until you order tickets from them online and you get Barney on ice! rather then those [insert band name here] tickets you thought you bought. Apparently this sets the standard where they can call things 1 thing and start calling it at any time they want.

Calling it a Gift Card does not automatically make it a gift card. California's non-expiring gift card laws have specific languages in governing what constitutes a gift card and cannot have expiration date. In simplist term, the card needs to have cash value, and is limited to store cards only. If you paid $50 for a $50 "Gift Card", it has cash value. The OP did not specify how he obtained the "Gift Card".

I do, however, agree that the words "Gift Card" is very misleading to the least if in fact it is a discount card. If true, TM is referring the "Gift" to the promo discount code that entitles the bearer for a $50 discount, not $50 in actual cash value.

It would be one thing if they were trying to cheat people by sneakily not using the term "gift card" anywhere. But this is clearly violating the law.

You might be best off calling Ticketmaster and insisting on speaking to supervisors and/or managers until you reach someone with enough sense to realize this.

If you mention that the story is on the Consumerist website, and that you would be happy to update with a message like "I talked to someone in charge who fixed it immediately, the problem is solved", I expect that would persuade them to help.

Even if they do show all the submitter has to do is show enough evidence as to how he or she thought the $50 gift card is wrongfully being denied under California law and TicketBastard has to show how a gift card is different from a discount card (or whatever they want to call it). Seeing that this is California I am guessing that the judgment would easily go to the plaintiff.

Simple. It says "Gift Card". Not "Discount Code". Not only does it say Gift, but its also... get this, A CARD. Usually discount or promotional codes aren't sent on a card... usually they are within e-mails or just sent on a paper.

Just like stores who incorrectly price items, they must honor that card if California law says they cannot put an expiration date on a gift card. Discount code? Well, if you use this card over the internet, of course you need a code to validate it like anything else.

This is also hilarious:
"You have also spoken with a Ticketsnow representative and he stated that you understood that this was a promotion code that cannot be validated as it has expired."

Of course the agent will say that. Robert only understood that they were trying to skirt the law, not that he accepted that as an answer. That is no way for Ticketmaster to argue their point.

They would of been better off offering a one time courtesy if this was their policy, because Robert does not seem like the type to back down. Good for him.

She just called it a gift card!

But, when you effectively have a monopoly, it's easy to not care.

Companies like ticketmaster are the reason we need a mandate that the price shown is the final price (aside from tips where appropriate). All fees, taxes, etc should be included up front.