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?
