GOOGLE'S GROWN TOO BIG FOR ITS BOOTS

Now here's an interesting article; 

"Google NZ's $60,000 loss" [Stuff, TOM PULLAR-STRECKER, 23 June 2014]

And here's another;  

"Google NZ posts loss" [RNZ, 9 June 2016]

 

Yes, trying to get anything out of Google isn't easy, is it?  Indeed, my own experience was as tiresome as trying to secure an honest tax return from Google.

My May VISA account was an interesting one.  Almost hidden among my usual vast listings of beer purchases from “Parklands Tavern,” were 12 items from Google.  It was clear they were games downloads and “In app purchases.”  I’d never heard of “Roblox” before this VISA account.

So I asked my kids if they’d played or downloaded Roblox, I showed all three kids the items on my VISA account.  They shook their heads, denied all knowledge, and I believed them – but I still checked their Google accounts, regardless.  Sure enough, no evidence of “Roblox” in their emails or Order History.  (It would have been disturbing if I HAD found anything, as I have deliberately avoided linking any of our Google accounts on our phones to any VISA card in the house.)  The money was only NZ$84, but the principle at stake here, was that some unknown person or merchant – someone I may have bought from previously – had re-used my card without  my permission.  And yes, I asked all my friends if they had heard of Roblox, in case their kids had mistakenly used my card.

Now, having tried to contact Google on a previous occasion, I knew there was no point raising it with them.  Trying to secure help from Google is almost as pointless as trying to secure help from Microsoft.  But as far as I was concerned, the Google purchases were a fraudulent, unauthorised use of my VISA card.  My bank was very understanding.  It recommended I cancel my card immediately; the transactions could be a big-time scammer testing my VISA account with small-time gaming amounts.  So I cancelled my card.

Now began the hard work.  On the bank’s instruction, I filled in a 4-page form detailing why the charges were fraudulent.  I detailed my evidence, and then I emailed it to the bank.  The money is automatically refunded as part of the process, and the onerous is then on Google to dispute it and prove I had made the transactions.  Remember, I trolled through ALL our Google accounts AND our Order Histories.  Remember also, the issue was not the NZ$84; the issue was someone had used my card fraudulently, and therefore may do so again.

Consider this.  How many people would have gone this far?  But wait, there’s more.

I followed this up with a call to the Fraud Department of the bank.  The helpful lady expressed it may even have been an administrative error by Google.  (Now there’s a great way to raise revenue when your profits are sagging; a few “administrative errors.”)

Google came back a month later, days short of their deadline, asking for its money back with a 6-page counter-challenge.  Of course, I was now obliged to troll through this.  The counter-challenge was headed by this statement;

“This purchase was initiated from the Cardholder’s Google Account using a recognised account, mobile device and credit card … Google does not believe the purchase was fraudulent and is requesting a reversal based on the compelling evidence provided below.”

The “compelling evidence” consisted of nothing more than the order invoice, its own internal order documentation, and its terms and conditions.  The onerous was now on me to counter – again; if I didn't submit a counter-submission, Google would have my reversal . . . um . . reversed.

Consider this again.  How many people would have given up at this point?  But wait, there’s more.

Google provided no real evidence themselves, but expected me to jump through hoops to prove my case.  Google provided no IP address, no phone number from the “recognised mobile device,” no email or account name of the fraudster's “recognised account,” and no statement of where the payment came from.  Google only provided confirmation that the amounts came from my credit card (heck, THAT wasn’t in dispute!).  Thus, the mighty Google was due payment.  Obviously, the “compelling evidence," was a standard response, so it was incredibly arrogant and presumptuous.  Their automated statement would have been produced at the push of a button.  My research and written responses, on the other hand, took hours.  And hours.  Remember, if I hadn’t responded to each counter, I would have lost my money.

Consider this one more time.  How many people would have given up at this point?  But wait, there’s more.

After a month of nothing, I phoned up the bank – because Google doesn’t have a phone number to call – asking what the hell was going one.  The bank told me Google had dropped the case.  No apology from Google, no formal letter stating the end of the case, no closure.  Nothing.  When I questioned the bank on this, the bank echoed my frustration, expressing that this was Google’s normal behaviour, and they don’t release the information I needed to track down my fraudulent user.

It is the behaviour of an incredibly arrogant organisation that’s grown too big for its boots. Worse than this, with Google not providing the information asked for, I had no way of tracking who had used my VISA card.  So, if I didn’t know who had scanned or used my card, then it might happen again.  The police Call Centre told me to bring my VISA statement to the police station so I can file a crime report.

So I took all the paperwork down to the police station.  This is the central police station in the Christchurch city centre, where parking is a nightmare - and it’s expensive.  When I arrived at the police station, I had to join a queue.  When I was seen, finally, the police told me to fill in an 8-page form (yes, 8 pages) and come back another day.

** heavy sigh **

Hmm. Wonder if it’s time for a blog about another incredibly arrogant organisation that’s grown too big for its boots?