Support NeoGAF

[Venfayth]

pretty sure he was joking

anyway glad this is getting stitched up. still irked about people patting themselves on the back for stealing and all the weird victim blaming in the other thread.

Joke Age

 

[Jarmel]

The third party sellers weren't legitimate, however. They were created on Amazon for the express intent of forcing Walmart to pricematch. There was no actual retailer selling actual product for Walmart to compete with.

That's fraud.

No, there isn't any requirement for a third party seller to be 'legitimate'. A third party seller doesn't have to physically exist as a retail entity.

 

[spindashing]

http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/20/almart-ultra-cheap-ps4/



Saw it coming. Thanks guys.

It doesn't look too bad to me. The scam was through Amazon and that is apparently on the list of approved stores.

 

[Ogawa-san]

Should have been only "shipped and sold from amazon" with the amazon logo in the first place, matching 3rd party sellers makes no sense

Wal Mart only has themselves to blame for people getting away with it, you can't have a price matching sheet taped in customer service detailing this

Hold the phone... You're blaming them and not the people that participated in that scam for a cool $80 PS4?

 

[Poltergust]

I find it kind of funny that, of all the things that could've made Walmart change their price matching policy, it was video game consoles. I would have figured that things like TVs and other expensive products would have done that.

 

[Pakkidis]

No, there isn't any requirement for a third party seller to be 'legitimate'. A third party seller doesn't have to physically exist as a retail entity.

That isn't the argument he is making. The third party was "selling" a product they did not have for the express purpose of forcing walmart to price match. Hence the fraud.

 

[Jarmel]

I find it kind of funny that, of all the things that could've made Walmart change their price matching policy, it was video game consoles. I would have figured that things like TVs and other expensive products would have done that.

Someone was probably smart enough to get away with it and also smart enough not to brag about it on Twitter.

That isn't the argument he is making. The third party was "selling" a product they did not have for the express purpose of forcing walmart to price match. Hence the fraud.

That would be fraud on their part if a person bought the good from them on Amazon. It wouldn't be fraud for someone to pricematch it at Walmart. Walmart's legal team royally fucked up.

 

[djSyndrome]

I'm surprised they didn't get rid of price matching altogether.

They can't. Large swaths of the population still bring in paper advertisements expecting price matches. These folks will be more than happy to go down the street to K-Mart, Meijer, Fred Meyer, etc. to get their deals.

 

[Goon Boon]

"AmzonElectronics"

 

[duckroll]

No, there isn't any requirement for a third party seller to be 'legitimate'. A third party seller doesn't have to physically exist as a retail entity.

Intent is pretty important in fraud. If the customer asking for a price match knows that the listing is bogus and created with the sole purpose of allowing for this, it is fraud.

It doesn't look too bad to me. The scam was through Amazon and that is apparently on the list of approved stores.

The scam was through a third party seller on Amazon Marketplace, and such things will no longer be matched by Walmart.

 

[lovely ladies]

The third party sellers weren't legitimate, however. They were created on Amazon for the express intent of forcing Walmart to pricematch. There was no actual retailer selling actual product for Walmart to compete with.

That sounds a lot like fraud to me.

Wait, this was actually proven? Damn, there's been weird third party seller prices on Amazon before but I didn't know this time it was part of an elaborate plan.

 

[Mononoke]

Technically it is legitimate if they didn't exclude third party sellers in the first place.

That's interesting, as I didn't know the store included that in the policy (it's bad policy).

My issue still is that, people knew it was a fraud/scam. That the "third party" seller wasn't even real, and wasn't actually selling the product. It was a scam to get people's $89 and their info. That, people knew that...and then went to Wal Mart to scam them, that is to me morally wrong, and just as bad as the original scammer.

Technically speaking, the policy allowed for it (as the scammer was technically a third party seller). But...it just feels wrong. Because he wasn't really even a seller. People knew he didn't actually have the product. And was doing that to scam. So you could argue that, technically he wasn't even a real third party seller (since he wasn't actually selling jack shit, and was just ripping people off).

And this:

Intent is pretty important in fraud. If the customer asking for a price match knows that the listing is bogus and created with the sole purpose of allowing for this, it is fraud.



The scam was through a third party seller on Amazon Marketplace, and such things will no longer be matched by Walmart.

I just can't get behind this. I know Wal Mart is this major corporation that does shady things, but this seems like just as much a shady thing to do (to take a scam, and scam others with it). =/

 

[Jarmel]

Intent is pretty important in fraud. If the customer asking for a price match knows that the listing is bogus and created with the sole purpose of allowing for this, it is fraud.

Here's the thing though, even if it's bogus, Walmart's policy didn't restrict them from price matching bogus listings.

 

[spindashing]

The scam was through a third party seller on Amazon Marketplace, and such things will no longer be matched by Walmart.

I'm aware that it was, and it all seems fair to me anyhow.

 

[DoT2]

This news is rather shocking, did not expect this at all.

 

[CosmicQueso]

Here's the thing though, even if it's bogus, Walmart's policy didn't restrict them from price matching bogus listings.

But that doesn't mean someone going into Walmart with a known bonus listing was not attempting to commit fraud.

You're arguing semantics.

 

[duckroll]

Here's the thing though, even if it's bogus, Walmart's policy didn't restrict them from price matching bogus listings.

Doesn't matter. In a business transaction, if one party is being knowingly dishonest to cheat the other party, there are grounds for fraud. There is absolutely a case here, but it's probably not worth pursuing legally due to costs.

 

[MomoPufflet]

Surprised this wasn't their policy before, 3rd party sellers should never be price matched

It is weird how many people don't seem to understand that 3rd party sellers aren't "Amazon." With how often 3rd party prices get quoted on this forum ("look at how expensive Game X is!") it's apparently pretty common.

 

[BeatResetsTheWorld]

No, there isn't any requirement for a third party seller to be 'legitimate'. A third party seller doesn't have to physically exist as a retail entity.

What would have happened if someone tried buying a PS4 from one of those 3rd parties?

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Sounds like fraud. Walmart should be able to find lawyers who can argue as much and get a conviction.

 

[Mononoke]

Doesn't matter. In a business transaction, if one party is being knowingly dishonest to cheat the other party, there are grounds for fraud. There is absolutely a case here, but it's probably not worth pursuing legally due to costs.

Yeah. Isn't there even like, "reasonable expectation" in some states w/ regards to sales transactions, and people buying stolen goods? Like if something is clearly too good to be true, you can actually get hit with knowing it was stolen goods or something based just on that.

I could be wrong though. But intent plays a pretty big role in cases like this.

EDIT: Found this with regards to California stolen property cases:

“Prosecutors often build a receiving stolen property case on the basis of suspicious circumstances that may indicate the defendant knew the property was stolen. For example, they might point out that the price of the property was ‘too good to be true' or that serial numbers had been removed. But this sort of evidence doesn't necessarily show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the property was stolen. It's the defense lawyer's job to remind the jury that they can't convict unless that burden of proof is met.”

 

[Cornbread78]

Here's the thing though, even if it's bogus, Walmart's policy didn't restrict them from price matching bogus listings.

"Well the law doesn't make me put the brakes on if a kid runs out in the street and is not in a cross walk; it's the kids fault even if I did have plenty time to stop"

 

[flatearthpandas]

Sounds like a fair adjustment. Probably should have thought about that originally. Congrats to the people who did.

 

[oneida]

Probably should have thought about that originally. Congrats to the people who did.

no

 

[Jarmel]

Doesn't matter. In a business transaction, if one party is being knowingly dishonest to cheat the other party, there are grounds for fraud. There is absolutely a case here, but it's probably not worth pursuing legally due to costs.

That's the thing though, in theory they're not cheating the other party. Now the people who were misrepresenting the third party sellers as being Amazon themselves, that's fraud. Like if they said, "Here look this is being sold from Amazon at $80", that's fraud. They're intentionally misrepresenting a seller in the transaction. However if they openly stated that this was a third party seller or something along those lines, then it's really on Walmart and the managers.

But that doesn't mean someone going into Walmart with a known bonus listing was not attempting to commit fraud.

You're arguing semantics.

Someone could have seemingly just created a webpage with a listing and in theory it would have been valid under their old policy.

What would have happened if someone tried buying a PS4 from one of those 3rd parties?

That would have been fraud between the consumer who purchased from the bogus listing and the seller.

 

[oneida]

it's fraud.

The term 'fraud' is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage.

 

[flatearthpandas]

no

While your meaningful thoughts on this opinion are noted, I still insist on giving my congratulations to those who got away with gaming the original iteration.

When a consumer doesn't read fine print and gets bent over by a corporation or bank, it is the consumer's fault. When the corporation doesn't protect themselves from being taken advantage of in that same fine print, that is the corporation and their team of lawyers' fault.

 

[Shig]

They can't. Large swaths of the population still bring in paper advertisements expecting price matches. These folks will be more than happy to go down the street to K-Mart, Meijer, Fred Meyer, etc. to get their deals.

None of those stores are down the street from anything in, like, 80% of the country.

Everyone else has the choice of Walmart or Target, and Target's price-matching policies are much more restrictive.

 

[Malice215]

I find it kind of funny that, of all the things that could've made Walmart change their price matching policy, it was video game consoles. I would have figured that things like TVs and other expensive products would have done that.

It's not going to be as simple to price match a TV which would most likely need to be a specific model that they stock versus a video game console. Then take into account the amount of people trying to get PS4s at the same price at the same time, it's going to make headlines.

Here's the thing though, even if it's bogus, Walmart's policy didn't restrict them from price matching bogus listings.

They're policy did state that it was up to them to verify the listing and up to the discretion of the store manager to make the decision to match it. And now they've adjusted their policy as such to combat the people trying to defraud them.

 

[Memorabilia]

Doesn't matter. In a business transaction, if one party is being knowingly dishonest to cheat the other party, there are grounds for fraud. There is absolutely a case here, but it's probably not worth pursuing legally due to costs.

WalMart is the poster child for what is wrong with American capitalism. I absolutely despise the company and wouldn't set foot in one at gun point. And yet I cant blame them for changing this price match policy up.

Like you said, it'd cost far more to pursue than Walmart could recover. And it'd be a shaky move to pursue fraud charges in the first place...itd probably be a no go because they'd have to prove the price-matchers were being "knowingly dishonest", which, unless you catch an incredibly stupid person willing to admit they gamed the price match policy, itd get tossed out by just about any judge. And finally itd look like a major dick move...a giant trillion dollar multinational going after petty thieves/fraudsters for $200-$300 of remuneration and/or pushing for jail time?

For a company which already has its hands full spending millions in court fees against denied overtime compensation lawsuits, discrimination lawsuits, preparing for brewing anti-trust talk by the DOJ, etc...and spending millions more on a constant ad campaign barrage to counter their shitty public image, doing something like this could unravel any small amount of goodwill they've gained overnight.

Now that I think about it, as someone who admittedly hates the company I almost wish their Arkansas HQ was stupid enough to try to go after the price match fraudsters.

 

[BloodMoney]

well at least a handful of con artists got their hands on cheap hardware and ruined the show for the rest of us.

 

[Amentallica]

Is there some type of meaning behind the thread title's misspelled 'shocking'?

 

[Bsigg12]

I'm glad they kept online retailers as an option, while excluding Marketplace stuff. It's how it should have been in the first place.

Now to hope for a Sears error or some crazy deals from Amazon.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Hold the phone... You're blaming them and not the people that participated in that scam for a cool $80 PS4?

You missed an entire thread of blaming the Wal-Mart employees for them falling for the scam. It was kinda sad.

 

[openrob]

I don't mind I will easily take advantage of that situation if I had the chance.

Shame I don't live in the US, it seems that you guys have this kind of thing happen all the time.

Only thing I know about in the UK was the Argos glitch not too long ago, and I missed out on that. Also the Ristorrante pizza deal last month (each pizza came with a £1.50 voucher, but sold for £1.49)

EDIT: I wasn't aware of the whole Amazon fake listing thing, I thought it was a glitch like the Sears one. Hmmm still, I am not sure, I think I would be severely tempted to do it under those circumstances. Not sure though.

 

[Nafai1123]

You missed an entire thread of blaming the Wal-Mart employees for them falling for the scam. It was kinda sad.

Talk about an incredible oversimplification of that thread.

 

[TheGamer]

I didn't know price matching Ebay was an issue. I thought it was already written within the policy that you can't price match that for common sense reasons.

 

[hwy_61]

This is the way it should've been from the start. Didn't thy not pay any attention to their competitors? The way Best Buy does it makes the most sense.

 

[superchunk]

I'm surprised they didn't get rid of price matching altogether.

I'm significantly glad they did not. Its a real pro-consumer benefit. Other retailers may have followed their lead on that.

 

[Prevolition]

I am schocked.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

That's the thing though, in theory they're not cheating the other party. Now the people who were misrepresenting the third party sellers as being Amazon themselves, that's fraud. Like if they said, "Here look this is being sold from Amazon at $80", that's fraud. They're intentionally misrepresenting a seller in the transaction. However if they openly stated that this was a third party seller or something along those lines, then it's really on Walmart and the managers.

If you know the listing is fake and still take it into Wal-Mart and try and con them down to a fake price from a fake retailer, it is still considered a form of fraud. Or at the very least, an illegal cousin of fraud.

 

[TheCongressman1]

but my $3 kayak...

One of the best times on gaf right behind the discovery of the e3 bear.

I got two brand new 3ds games for 18 bucks. Felt good.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Talk about an incredible oversimplification of that thread.

Want me to mention the 50% of posts that were drive by "THOSE POOR CORPORATIONS!" that totally missed the point? Or do you want me to mention the mind-numbing cyclical conversation on the definition of "unethical"? That thread was a shit show from start to finish.

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

Why has Walmart let themselves be subject to fraud like this the past two years?

 

[Slayven]

Wonder how much they got ripped off for?

 

[illmatic22]

Nice things, and why we cannot have them

 

[Tagyhag]

I know I should feel bad for saying it, but I regret not taking advantage of the 3DS/WiiU/PS4 deals. Could have had all 3 for the price of one.

 

[Bsigg12]

Why has Walmart let themselves be subject to fraud like this the past two years?

Two years? They added in online price matching last week.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

The only time I would ever go to WalMart would be to take advantage of the company in some way that would make them lose money, so this is unfortunate.

 

[slit]

Wonder how much they got ripped off for?

For them? Probably a drop in a bucket. They're just trying to stop it before it gets worse.