var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Kevin Carlyle
May 3, 2009 4:12 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

They know people already hate them. I just didn't expect their reputation to get worse.

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.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
cuchanu
May 4, 2009 7:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kevin Carlyle:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
consumerfan
May 4, 2009 1:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cuchanu: Except that they charge extra tax on those goods anyway. I don't see how it's any different from the VAT system.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Overheal
May 3, 2009 10:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kevin Carlyle: Kevin you're talking about Value Added Tax. VAT. Its pretty common in Europe, and I grew up with the system. It comes with the pros you mention but on the other side of the coin it also allows the revenue agencies to tax you through the nose. Sales tax makes the consumer much more tax conscious. VAT usually has the nasty habit of letting the gov't slip any nasty surcharge they want under one snuffy umbrella.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
subsider34
May 4, 2009 12:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Overheal: Yes but even sales taxes are listed upfront in the format:

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
exploded
May 3, 2009 4:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ticketmaster has SUCH a bad reputation, this seems like an easy $50 that they could spare to create at least a little bit of good will.

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

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
May 3, 2009 6:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@exploded: Since when did TM ever want to create good will?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
May 3, 2009 8:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Darkest Daze
May 3, 2009 11:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henwy: Plus, who are you going to turn to...they are the only one to sell tickets for 99% of the shows out there, unless you want to drive to the venue, which may be over an hour away.

They have you by the balls and they know it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
gamabunta
May 3, 2009 4:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"As stated previously, you are requesting that we honor a $50.00 Ticketnow gift card with the CODE: 8002-5000-5641-0868 that you have in your possession.\"

She just called it a gift card!

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
coan_net
May 3, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gamabunta: I think they were repeating what the request was.... they did not call it a gift card, just stating what the person was requesting.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
May 3, 2009 7:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gamabunta: Oh snap! She totally acknowledged it as a gift card! I wonder if that has any legal legs...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chrylis
May 3, 2009 8:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gamabunta: Unfortunately, all she's doing there is repeating what the customer said without necessarily acknowledging it. That said, I don't think the customer needs Ticketmaster's agreement to get a complaint to stick.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kcvaliant
May 5, 2009 1:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrylis:

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jonbo298
May 3, 2009 4:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I smell a lawsuit...

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
May 3, 2009 6:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jonbo298: Too bad this law is under civil code instead of criminal code.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
antisane
May 3, 2009 9:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: That is why I like living in New Hampshire, here this companies can be charged criminally (just a misdemeanor, but at least it IS criminal).

[www.newhampshire.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sleze69
May 3, 2009 5:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
subsider34
May 4, 2009 12:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sleze69: I've used the BBB before and had a quick and satisfying resolution to my complaint to Best Buy. I'd use them before going to the Attorney General's office, it's just a nicer way of doing business.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
im.thatoneguy
May 5, 2009 10:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
May 3, 2009 8:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sleze69: Seconded on this. BBB requires merchant consent. Attorney General doesn't. Here's the CA AG complaint page and forms: [ag.ca.gov]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Verucalise (Est.February2008)
May 3, 2009 4:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
henwy
May 3, 2009 8:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@verucalise:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
reynwrap582
May 4, 2009 2:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henwy: Even if he said he understood what the agent said, doesn't allow them to circumvent California law. He might have been told one thing, then looked at the card and saw it said \"Gift Card\" and realized that he had just been lied to on the phone. If someone says something to you, you agree with what they're saying, and then it turns out they misinformed or lied, doesn't that basically vacate the verbal agreement?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
soundreasoning
May 4, 2009 4:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

W@reynwrap582: The lie would invalidate the statement, if it can be said to be lie, which is tricky. Better is the standard that would be used by the Court, which is what does the language say? And how would a reasonable person interpret that language? Since the card says \"gift card\" I'm gonna have to say the court (especially a california court) is going to say that this is not misleading at all. Ticketmaster might want the card to a discount card for the purposes of circumventing the CA code, but it should be more careful in its word choice then. Now also important will be the manner in which it was issued. If he (the cardholder) or someone paid 50 dollars for it (or even just a fraction of $50 for the card could follow the same logic), then the court will most definitely side with the consumer. If Ticketmaster issued it out of good will or a frequent buyer program or a promotion, the court might very well find it to function more like coupon and hold the expiration date valid. In CA the court will look at all the circumstances surrounding the card agreement in order to determine its definition. Basically if he got the card \"free\" for being a good customer or something he doesn't deserve to keep the value as \"legal tender.\" this is why coupons say their value is 1/1000 of a cent, etc (basically the value of the paper its printed on). because the coupon is an act of goodwill given freely and has no actual value, except that which the company gives you out of the kindness of its heart. The company could just make you always pay fair market value (its full price), but this time with this coupon its discounting the item. but when you pay for a gift card, ostensibly you give something and the company gets something of the same value (i.e. they get your fifty dollars, you get a card valued at fifty dollars that can be turned into fifty dollars of merchandise).

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dddoistutter
May 3, 2009 4:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Good luck, everyone, on your class-action lawsuit. Ticketmaster is so repugnant in my mind that I no longer attend concerts with which they are affiliated.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
citking
May 3, 2009 4:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Indeed...this is a perfect small claims court suit. TicketBastard likely won't show and the default judgment will go against the defendant.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
chocobo
May 3, 2009 4:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is absolutely 100% illegal. You cannot print \"Gift Card\" on the product and then tell people it is not a gift card.

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.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
lordargent
May 4, 2009 6:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chocobo: This is absolutely 100% illegal. You cannot print \"Gift Card\" on the product and then tell people it is not a gift card.

Your post reminded me of something.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ludwigk
May 3, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chocobo: The law seems specific to the selling of gift cards. Did Robert purchase this gift card, or did he acquire it for free somehow? Did Ticketmaster sell it in California?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
May 3, 2009 8:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ludwigk: It sounds like it was free with some sort of package/previous purchase. If giftcards are only cards you pay for, then you're right it wouldn't apply.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Christy Casper
May 3, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chocobo: Well the threat of posting the story to the website didn't stop them, so a promise of updating the story probably won't persuade them. As someone else said, TM knows they're hated, but they have a monopoly. :(

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
May 3, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chocobo: Threatening to report a story to this site pretty much has no effect whatsoever on a CSR. They have absolutely no reason to care.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
haoshufu
May 3, 2009 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
mythago
May 3, 2009 8:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@haoshufu: meaning the very nicest possible interpretation of this is that it's not a gift card, and Ticketmaster is engaging in deceptive business practices by selling what people think is a non-expiring gift card.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
May 3, 2009 9:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 10:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henwy: They never say *when* the CSR told him. And we're talking about almost (at least) 4 years ago, since it would have to have been given to him (no matter what it actually is) to be used before December of 2005. The likelihood of that CSR still being with the company and remembering that specific interaction is unlikely - what probably happened is he talked to a TicketsNow agent before contacting the BBB and \"understood\" they wouldn't honor his gift card, which is why he escalated

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
May 3, 2009 11:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: Ticketmaster engaged in deceptive business practices? I'm shocked and appalled!

:P

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JoshReflek
May 3, 2009 6:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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


no amount of BLA BLA BLA removes that fact.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
May 3, 2009 9:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JoshReflek:

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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Christy Casper
May 3, 2009 5:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@haoshufu: What's the difference between it being a discount and having cash value? As I understand it, gift cards work the same everywhere. You spend $30, say, and use a $20 gift card, then you get $20 off and only have to pay $10. NO store will give you cash back if you have $5 left on your gift card, at least none that I have heard of. They all rely on the fact that a lot of customers won't spend that last couple bucks, or they'll forget about the card.

So how is cash value different from a discount?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
May 3, 2009 8:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Christy Casper: consider this: you open a credit account & get a $20 gift card. in an instance such as this, i don't believe the gift card's value is protected under california law, as it requires the exchange of \"cash\" to be considered a \"gift certificate\" under the law.

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).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
May 4, 2009 12:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: No, the test seems to be whether *somebody* paid for the card, either directly or by exchanging something of value for it. It doesn't matter if the OP paid for it personally or not.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
May 4, 2009 9:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: right-o, the operative point being that at some point cash (or something of value) needed to be exchanged for the card.

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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
carlogesualdo
May 4, 2009 3:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: But point I think haoshufu was making here is that it's possible that *no one* paid for card either directly or by exchanging anything of value for it. I won't begin to defend Ticketmaster and their ridiculous extortion tactics, but there is a loophole in the gift card law that says they can expire if the said \"gift card\" was given as a promotion or donation. For example, if Ticketmaster donated the $50 \"gift card\" to a charity organization to be given away as a prize in a drawing, it's very legal for Ticketmaster to include an expiration date on that \"gift card.\" A lot of more reputable retail organizations won't do this, but we know how Ticketmaster operates. And yes, it IS legal. You can look up the law in your local library.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
consumerfan
May 4, 2009 1:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@carlogesualdo: IANAL, but that loophole only applies if the expiration date appears on the front in 10pt font.

(source: 1749.5 (d))

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
May 4, 2009 3:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@carlogesualdo: Ticketmaster insists it is a discount card, not a gift card that was given out for free as part of a promotion.

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\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
reynwrap582
May 4, 2009 2:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: I was gonna say, who buys themselves gift cards? Happy birthday, me!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 10:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PLATTWORX: What ticketing law is broken though? ;)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ludwigk
May 3, 2009 6:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Christy Casper: In California, a gift card purchased from a store can ALWAYS be converted back to cash by law. EVERY store here will give you the $10 back if you ask for it.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
aznjoker
May 3, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Christy Casper:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DataRaider
May 3, 2009 5:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@haoshufu: Considering that Ticket Master sells \"Gift Cards\", I am going to say that these are legit gift cards bought as gifts.

[www.ticketmaster.com]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Megladon
May 3, 2009 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Shaggy
May 3, 2009 4:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Believe me, I hate TM as much as anyone, however I would like to see a scan of the back of the \"Gift Card\". If it says it expires in '05 was this before CA started regulating gift cards? I know now it has to state that under CA law the card can not expire. Or if it does then they have to let you cash it out.

.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 10:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shaggy: No, it started in the late 90s, and Tickets Now didn't exist until after the legislation took effect

Reply
\"user-pic\"
carlogesualdo
May 4, 2009 3:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: California did not pass a law requiring no expiration on gift cards (specifically gift cards as opposed to gift certificates) until just 2 or 3 years ago. Not the late '90s. Good call on the '05 expiration. That may very well be the case - it could predate the no-expiration-date law.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
frodolives35
May 3, 2009 4:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
themrdee
May 3, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A complaint should be made in writing to the state attorney general's office. If the law is being broken they will handle it.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
ecwis
May 3, 2009 4:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The Ticketmaster rep said that the card was part of a promotion meaning it was not sold to the OP. As much as I hate to agree with Ticketmaster, the card is not a gift card, according to California law. So if the OP didn't pay for the card, then it appears that (s)he has no legal standing for small claims court.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
May 3, 2009 6:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ecwis: If the law was in effect at the time, then TM should not have identified it on the card as a gift card. It appears, however, that they were indeed trying to make it be a gift card, or fraudulently presenting something that is not a gift card as a gift card (which can encourage people to give them away as gift cards).

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 10:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: The law was definitely in effect, as it has been since before Tickets Now existed as a company

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Christy Casper
May 3, 2009 5:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ecwis: But the rep said in one of their emails that it is a gift card. And the card says gift card.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
May 3, 2009 6:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Christy Casper: What the rep says in a email and what the card says on the front don't change what the card actually is under the law.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 10:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: My limited (IANAL) understanding of the law combined with the picture of the card and what information we have says that none apply in this case, but I could be wrong.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brandon
May 3, 2009 6:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: It would need to be less then 10 dollars. \"Effective January 1, 2008, a gift certificate with a cash value of less than ten dollars ($10) is redeemable in cash (not a new certificate or merchandise) for its cash value.\"

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Mknzybsofh
May 3, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is simple a gift card would have to have been purchased. Where as a discount codes are 'given' out like a coupon.

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Christy Casper
May 3, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mknzybsofh: Gift cards do not have to be purchased. Plenty of stores give them out as promotions. You buy a certain item, the cashier takes a gift card out of their drawer or off the shelf, where the blank GCs are, and they put a certain amount of money on it. The act of purchasing it directly doesn't define it as a gift card.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
May 3, 2009 9:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Christy Casper:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
May 3, 2009 6:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Christy Casper: Purchasing it does actually define it as a \"gift card.\" If someone doesn't actually buy it (i.e. receive it as a promotion), then you have less of a case because those cards aren't subject to many of the regular \"gift card\" regulations.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jwissick
May 3, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Time to skip the BBB and go directly to the District Attorney Consumer protection division. TM needs a spanking.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Geekybiker
May 3, 2009 4:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yah, I wouldn't bother with small claims, I would go for the district or state attorney general. They'll cause real havok with ticketmaster. T

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TEW
May 3, 2009 4:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 10:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TEW: Law was passed and went into effect before Tickets Now was formed, so they don't have an out htere.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
May 3, 2009 9:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TEW:

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MMD
May 3, 2009 4:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Agreeing with previous commenters. I'd say the state attorney general is the best bet. The BBB is a powerless organization, but a letter or call from the AG's office won't be blown off as easily. I had an unrelated issue with a business in New York State - the business sent me a nasty letter when they got my BBB complaint but changed their tune dramatically when I went to the attorney general!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Christy Casper
May 3, 2009 5:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MMD: Yeah, the BBB only works on companies that actually care about their image. When people can't always buy tickets somewhere else, TM doesn't care what people think of them.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PLATTWORX
May 3, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ecwis
May 3, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The Ticketmaster representative said that the card was part of a promotion meaning it was not sold to the OP. As much as I hate to agree with Ticketmaster, the card is not a gift card, according to California law. So if the OP didn't pay for the card, then it appears that (s)he has no legal standing for small claims court.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 11:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ecwis: The ticketmaster rep could also say it's a piece of poop. I'm being facetious, but their word isn't law. And just because it's part of a promotion doesn't exempt them from CA law - for example Target recently gave away gift cards if you bought x dollars of a b or c pepsi products (or something like that). Promotion? Definitely. Still a valid gift card? You betcha.

(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)(

Reply
\"user-pic\"
David Schwartz
May 4, 2009 1:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: You're missing the point. The issue is not whether it's a gift card or not, the issue is whether it was sold. California law only applies if the gift card was *sold*. We don't know enough to determine if this gift card was \"sold\" for purposes of California law. It's a surprisingly tricky question (for example, is something \"sold\" if you had to buy something else to get it?)

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ecwis
May 4, 2009 12:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: I guess it could still be considered a gift card, but it's not subject to California law if it was not sold. Gift card, coupon code, promotion card: you can call it whatever you want but it doesn't really matter.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
May 4, 2009 3:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ecwis: The fact that TM is jacking around with canned responses suggests rather strongly that they are in the wrong.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
May 3, 2009 5:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 11:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha: The IRS says that if it's part of a buy x, get gift card for y, it's part of the purchase price. And we don't know which it is, just a giveaway or part of some promotion, or what

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
May 4, 2009 12:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: We do know it's a gift card with a face value. Please note that Ticketmaster did not say that it was a gift card given away in a promotion - really? $50? - or that it was otherwise ineligible for refund. \"Discount card\" is BS.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
May 3, 2009 8:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha: The fact that it was part of a promotion doesn't mean that it's automatically exempt - it would depend entirely on the promotion. (Read the code.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JoshReflek
May 3, 2009 6:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
djsyndrome
May 3, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

(reply isn't working)

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 11:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@djsyndrome: But before that, it states \"must contain an expiration date, if any, in capital letters in at least 10 point type on the front of the card\"

Definitely fails to meet that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JoshRogan
May 3, 2009 11:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: We don't know if the pictured card is the actual one involved. The writers here typically use whatever they can find on Google images.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
drjayphd
May 4, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JoshRogan: ...unless this was the actual photo mentioned in the article.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
veronykah
May 3, 2009 5:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\" As a service oriented company, the satisfaction of our customers is always our utmost concern.\"

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

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
psm321
May 3, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@djsyndrome:

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
May 3, 2009 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 11:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha: I don't think so - if just giving it away exempted it, then why would the requirement of having 10 point font on the front also exist?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
May 3, 2009 8:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha: Read the code. If it was a promotional item that was exchanged for something of value ('buy a laptop, get a ticket'), that is different than if the cards were just handed out at a radio station party.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
icantreplyright
May 3, 2009 5:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What do people think the BBB is going to do? They have NO POWER and in most cases are protecting the BUSINESS.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
wsycng
May 3, 2009 5:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Three words for you...Small Claims Court.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sweetnjoe
May 3, 2009 5:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Right... because the FULL STORY is being shown here.

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 10:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sweetnjoe: Uh, what? Bullshit?

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sweetnjoe
May 4, 2009 12:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: It's bullshit when the entire story isn't posted by the OP, like WHY would he be using this card over 4 years later, and WHERE did he get this card - was it a promotional item? It was obtained before TM even acquired TicketsNow, so I'm just wondering what is up with what the OP has NOT said.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
May 4, 2009 3:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sweetnjoe: If you really want to feel like the one genius among the sheep, do you have to do it on *this* website?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
May 3, 2009 6:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sweetnjoe: Ignorance is bliss around here. Outrage over lack of or wrong information is nothing new.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Caveat
May 3, 2009 5:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

CAREFUL, Ticketmaster may prevail. There are exceptions to the law:
(from [www.dca.ca.gov])


Q.2. Can a gift certificate or gift card contain an expiration date?

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

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 10:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Caveat: Well, there's no print on the font (certainly not in 10 point font) giving an expiration date. So that's right out.

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?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
vastrightwing
May 3, 2009 6:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
May 3, 2009 6:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A couple of notes. Civil Code Section 1749.5 was enacted in 1997, so definitely applies to a gift card purchased in 2004/2005. The gift card WAS purchased, right? It wasn't an employer/vendor loyalty gift? Someone paid value for it? Probably $50? TM's claim that it is not a gift card fails on its face. The Gift Card term on its face means that either it is a gift card (not a discount card) or the purchaser has a claim against TM for fraud - that may or may not be within the statue of limitations.

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

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 10:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: Even if it was given away, I think the law states it has to have an expiration date in 10 point on the front

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Oregon
May 3, 2009 6:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
burnedout
May 3, 2009 6:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It maybe a promotional gift card, though, which is basically a free coupon that can expire. I guess my question would be did someone PURCHASE that $50 gift card or was it GIVEN BY TICKETMASTER?

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
mythago
May 4, 2009 3:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@burnedout: The American Eagle promotion you describe is one where the gift card was exchanged for something of value - you had to buy $100 worth of stuff to get it. So, yes, that would be covered by the law in California.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 10:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@burnedout: I believe the law says those are considered part of the purchase price, and have to be accepted as if they were gift cards. But IANAL, so.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Oregon
May 3, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
May 3, 2009 7:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why didn't Ticketmaster issue a different card, stating something other than 'Gift Card' (e.g., 'Discount Card'), when there was an intended expiration date? This would avoid ambiguities with the customer and with the law. Oh wait - it would also remind the customer to use the card while it was still valid and Ticketmaster couldn't pocket the $$s.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sven.kirk
May 3, 2009 7:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The WHOLE story is not being told, and will be difficult due to the gift/discount card being so old (nearly 3 and a half years old).
You 'usually' go with the law that was on the books at the time, not current laws.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
May 3, 2009 7:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sven.kirk: Unless the card was purchased before January 1, 1997, that was the law that was on the books at the time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 10:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: And it wasn't, assuming Wikipedia has the right of it - the company wasn't founded til 99. [en.wikipedia.org]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Lucky225
May 3, 2009 7:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

[leginfo.ca.gov]

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 10:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Lucky225: IANAL, but wouldn't ticketmaster owning TicketsNow make them affiliated?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
kunai
May 3, 2009 8:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"You are requesting that we honor a $50.00 Ticketmaster gift card with the CODE: 8002-5000-5641-0868 that you have in your possession [WE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU HAVE A GIFTCARD]. This is a Discount Code not a Gift Card.\"

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

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 10:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kunai: I think they're just reiterating his request, not admitting fault, but hey

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Borax-Johnson
May 3, 2009 8:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
mythago
May 3, 2009 8:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think Consumerist meant to link to Cal Civil Code 1749.5.

Real code section here

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
physics2010
May 3, 2009 8:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 3, 2009 10:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@physics2010: I think 2007 may have been the cashout portion - the law was passed in the late 90s

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
igotmeajd
May 3, 2009 9:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Purchased or promotional does not matter. That is NOT the test. The test is the accounting treatment given to the item.

Gift cards, whether purchased or given away, are accounted for on a company's balance sheet. If a gift card is purchased, it is income. If a gift card is given away, it is still a liability (an expense, which lowers taxable income) because, once distributed, the company is liable for the amount on that card. They get to write off the amount of the card (just like they would write off the cost of merchandise they gave away for free.) Either way, gift cards are recognized for tax reasons...AND, are recognized on the books the tax year the card was distributed.

Discounts, on the other had, are NOT accounted for on a company's balance sheet and are NOT considered for tax purposes. There is no obligation for a discount unless or until it is used. A discount cannot be traded, sold, or given as a gift by third parties. Normally, discounts are person specific, and cannot, for example, be given as Christmas gifts. A discount is like a sale, except that you get to pick which item (or items) is on sale.

That is the difference between a gift card and a discount, not whether it was purchased or given away by the company as a promotion.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
May 3, 2009 10:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@igotmeajd:

Purchased or promotional does not matter.

California Civil Code Section 1749.5 (d) would very much dispute that statement.
Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
igotmeajd
May 3, 2009 9:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sorry, that should say the test in general as to what is a gift card, not the test under the California statute in question here as to whether it can expire or not.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
good_day
May 3, 2009 9:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So... ticketmaster does not read their own terms???

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
calchip
May 3, 2009 10:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So I wonder how long before Ticketmaster says \"Oh, we're so sorry! We have no idea why someone would have said that. Of COURSE your gift card is valid! We're taking that matter Very Seriously.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
feckingmorons
May 3, 2009 10:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.


Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
From the cubicle of PGibbons
May 4, 2009 6:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@feckingmorons: BBB has a vested interest in protecting their client - the businesses that pay them. It's paid PR and nothing more.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
maggiebr67
May 3, 2009 10:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
kathyl
May 3, 2009 11:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The only reason I can think of that this card could be thought of as a discount card is because it is literally impossible to buy anything from Ticketmaster for less than or equal to $50. Their fees would take up most of that, for crying out loud. I guess that's why it's only a \"discount card\", you're just getting a $50 discount off of their exorbitant fees.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
skloon
May 3, 2009 11:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Next AFLAC indicates it's spokes-fowl is not a duck, even though it walks and quacks like one it is actually a Swan, raised by Daffy Duck

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mariospants
May 3, 2009 11:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Please people, regardless of the impact certain banks have had on the economy and your hate-ons for certain bankrupt car makers, Ticketmaster deserves WCOTY.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
balthisar
May 3, 2009 11:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Legitimate question: did someone purchase purchase this card, or was it offered free of charge by Ticketmaster for some promotion or another?

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
cordeliapotter
May 3, 2009 11:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Victoria's Secret has a card out there that is only valid for a few weeks, and while it looks like a gift card and will have either $10, $20, $50, or $100 on it (you have to use it to find out), I think it's pretty clear it's a promotional discount. But I wonder if someone could make the argument that it's a gift card. It's also possible Victoria's Secret isn't running this promotion in CA.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
From the cubicle of PGibbons
May 4, 2009 6:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cordeliapotter: They DO run it in California. But it's clearly a coupon with an expiration date. That Ticketmaster piece sure looks like a \"Gift Card\" and hence another thing entirely.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
crutnacker
May 4, 2009 12:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Small claims court! File it and go. NOBODY likes Ticketmaster. A telemarketing puppy beater is better liked than Ticketmaster.

Sue their asses.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
May 4, 2009 12:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is from Ticketmaster's frequently asked questions about their gift cards:

\"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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Tijil
May 4, 2009 12:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It says \"$50 GIFT CARD\" on the face of the card, and there is nothing else on the face of the card that would modify that in any way,

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...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 4, 2009 12:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ticketmaster does codify what seems to be 'promotional' and 'paid' gift cards, read here: http://www.ticketsnow.com/Gift_Card_Terms.html. Boiled down: start with an '8' then the their text seems to imply it's promotional, start with a '9' then paid. I don't when they started the system but it would appear now to Ticketmaster the OP's card is a promotional card.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 4, 2009 1:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

That is a TicketsNow gift card. TicketsNow was not a part of Ticketmaster until 2008 and did not have a presence in CA. Why on Earth would anyone be foolish enough to think that Ticketmaster has to recognize an item that expired before they had ownership? Maybe people are just too ignorant to bother knowing any facts.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Skater009
May 4, 2009 1:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

FUCK TM THEY SUCK

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
igotmeajd
May 4, 2009 1:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ supercereal (because the reply comment is not working)

Yeah...which I already clarified, a full hour before your post, in the immediately subsequent post to my first one. You know, the one where I said I was not talking about whether it could expire or not under the California statute in question?

My post was directed at the \"is it a gift card or is it a discount discussion.\" I was refuting the claim that it could not be a gift card if it wasn't purchased.

And, California Civil Code Section 1749.5 (d) clearly supports my definition of what is a gift card, because it says gift cards cannot expire unless...and then goes on to include cards given away as promotions as gift cards (and NOT discounts). Just to be safe though, I did a little research. While \"gift certificate\" or \"gift card\" is not defined anywhere in the statute, the US District Court (SDoC) agrees that the provision's language \"explicitly\" provides that promotional giveaways DO fall under the definition of gift certificate (see page five of the opinion at [www.bamlawca.com]). In fact, the court even allowed Marlboro Miles to be included under the perview of \"gift certifcate\" under the statute (I NEVER would have, but there you go).

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
From the cubicle of PGibbons
May 4, 2009 6:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@igotmeajd: If some consideration was given in exchange for the Gift Card, I'd think that the value stated on the card should be kept intact. If nothing of consideration was exchanged for the card it's probably a different argument. IANAL

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Stephen Brooks
May 4, 2009 5:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

umm... From their Website...

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TVGenius
May 4, 2009 5:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I refuse to stand idly by why you allow these wild allegations to sully the name and fine reputation of Ticketmaster.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 4, 2009 11:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You should contact the CA Attorney General's office. While the Better Business Bureau is a fine organization, it doesn't have any power to enforce its decisions. The Attorney General, on the other hand, has a great deal of enforcement ability. Call the AG's office, they'll be happy to hear from you.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
From the cubicle of PGibbons
May 4, 2009 6:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@VasinKinza: You obviously haven't called the California Attorney General's office, eh?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 4, 2009 1:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Looking at TicketsNow terms and conditions for gift cards:

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!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Trick
May 4, 2009 1:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Go ahead and complain all you want. Ticketmaster knows you will be back. After all, if you want to see that new Britney Spears concert, how are you going to get your tickets?

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
biswalt
May 4, 2009 2:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Brian Gatewood
May 4, 2009 2:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

[www.ecjlaw.com]

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
savdavid
May 4, 2009 2:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sleazy bastards

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 4, 2009 4:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As much as I dislike Ticketmaster and it's policies the California law refers to \"the purchase of a gift card\" what isn't stated in his complaint is that the gift cards given by Ticketsnow were not directly purchased by the card holder. They were indeed given out as a promotion for buying tickets or signing up with their web site. Any money paid was for other tickets and not for the gift card therefore legally Ticketmaster does not have to honor it past the date on the card since in fact it was offered as a discount to a future order if you bought tickets at that time but only if used within the expiration date. Indeed it was a promotional card and not a paid gift card.

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ZukeZuke
May 4, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I didn't know before why so many people thought TM was a terrible company and should move up in the worst company brackets, but now I know! WTF!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TCama
May 4, 2009 4:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Doesn't California statute have a definition for \"gift card?\" I highly doubt that a state would pass a law with an undefined term such as that.

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?

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 5, 2009 12:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

From TM's own website regarding \"gift cards\", a term which they freely throw around in the \"gift card\" section:

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Corbin123
May 5, 2009 2:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal:
\"Purchasing it does actually define it as a \"gift card.\" If someone doesn't actually buy it (i.e. receive it as a promotion), then you have less of a case because those cards aren't subject to many of the regular \"gift card\" regulations.\"

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
snclfe
May 6, 2009 9:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Which of the nine sentences is the one that isn't \"utter fluff\"? Ticketbastard may be honoring all California ticketing laws but they left out the crucial tenth sentence:
\"Ticketmaster doesn't give a sh*t about the consumer protection law you're attempting to enforce against us.\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 10, 2009 12:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am sorry to tell you that even though TicketMaster is in the wrong by calling a gift card a discount card, the expiration date of December 31, 2005 falls before the laws took place. Any gift certificate sold after January 1, 1997 is valid under the new California laws.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LisaS
June 28, 2010 11:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Worst company ever. They charged my card twice and won't refund me the fraudulent card. They are standing behind a 2pt font 1000 word disclosure at the bottom of the internet confirmation. They are thieves. I would like to be a part of the class action lawsuit for predatory practices. Pam Shafer Consumer Support Specialist specifically assisted Ticketmaster and Ringling Bros in robbing an honest consumer and I will make it a daily mission to spread the word of these practices. It's no longer the money because it will take me much longer to do this daily, but I get great satisfaction in making the consumers aware of the Ticketmaster THIEVES. See you tomorrow on every blog and report I can post. Lisa Sauro

Reply
");