[HN Gopher] Visa's marketing opt-out has been down for over a we...
___________________________________________________________________
Visa's marketing opt-out has been down for over a week. Is this a
legal issue?
Author : robertwiblin
Score : 369 points
Date : 2022-03-29 17:04 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (marketingreportoptout.visa.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (marketingreportoptout.visa.com)
| go_prodev wrote:
| So has Adobe's too apparently
| exikyut wrote:
| What's the URL?
| leros wrote:
| It wouldn't surprise me if it's a third party system just
| hosted on a subdomain of visa and adobe.
| mikece wrote:
| The credit card companies make so much money that reimbursing
| fraudulent transactions is almost a rounding error -- which is
| why they aren't in a rush to spend the money to implement chip
| and PIN security. Given this attitude I'm guessing someone
| already ran the cost/benefit analysis of pivoting engineering
| teams to fix the opt-out website versus just paying a fine -- and
| that paying lawyers to contest any fine they might ever get came
| out on the winning side of the ledger.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| _The credit card companies make so much money that reimbursing
| fraudulent transactions is almost a rounding error_
|
| The credit card companies (i.e. Visa) don't reimburse fraud,
| they leave that to the issuing banks (i.e. Chase, Capital One,
| etc.... whoever you got your card from)
| anonymousiam wrote:
| American Express handles their own fraud cases. Their cards
| are generally not issued by banks. I have no association with
| them other than being a card member since 1982, but their
| customer service is far better than Visa/MC, and yes, you can
| get a card from them with no annual fees + perks.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| _their customer service is far better than Visa /MC_
|
| I used to think that (and maybe it was true once), but
| haven't found that to be the case, I've had far better
| experience from Chase for my Sapphire card.
|
| My wife recently ran into a problem with a booking through
| Amex's own travel service, the hotel said they had a
| reservation, but not payment, but we paid for the room at
| Amex travel. So we figured no problem, just pay the hotel
| directly (their rate was even lower than Amex) and call
| Amex to have them remove their charge.
|
| It took 5 calls over several days to finally talk to
| someone who could help, and it still took 3 days for the
| charge to be reversed. And this is for a Platinum card.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| IMO AmEx is still better than most banks, but my Chase
| card has definitely had better service in the past few
| years. Back in the day Discover had wonderful service,
| but I stopped carrying one because too many merchants
| wouldn't accept it.
| starwind wrote:
| I've had problems with AmEx for travel issues but never
| problems for return protection or charge backs (except in
| one weird case but they fixed it like a year later). I do
| travel and dining on my Sapphire and everything else on
| my AmEx
| sgjohnson wrote:
| Yes, but AmEx is vertically integrated, and they have 0
| interest in shitting in their own backyard just to
| marginally increase the profit margin.
|
| Visa/MC can afford to just not care, because there's always
| someone else who'll pick up the tab. Which simply is not an
| option for AmEx.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Does anyone know what AmEx is doing wrt Russia?
| nxm wrote:
| Unfortunately at a bigger cost to the merchant, which hurts
| in case of small businesses
| starwind wrote:
| AmEx has special rates small businesses can apply for
| that keep the credit card transaction fees pretty
| competitive
| xxpor wrote:
| The card is still issued by a bank, the bank is called
| American Express National Bank. Someone has to extend the
| actual credit.
| derefr wrote:
| You say that as if it would be a CapEx-laden technological
| hurdle for Visa, MasterCard, etc. to implement chip-and-pin.
|
| But these same companies are already issuing 100% chip-and-pin
| (plus tap) cards in every market other than the US.
|
| If you want to blame anyone, blame the vendors of US ATMs and
| POS systems. Without their support, and a willingness to push
| through a deprecation/replacement of older hardware, chip-and-
| pin cards are pointless, because nothing reads them. (I would
| know, as a Canadian with a chip--and-pin card who frequently
| visits the US.)
| djrogers wrote:
| > But these same companies are already issuing 100% chip-and-
| pin (plus tap) cards in every market other than the US.
|
| Citation please? I haven't seen a non-chip-and-pin card
| issued here in the US for at least 5 years (probably even
| longer), and that includes my tiny local bank..
| briffle wrote:
| Yep, the rules were, for chip and pin fraud, the liablility
| was no longer on the retailer, but still was for swipe
| fraud. So there was a HUGE push from retail customers to
| get chip-and-pin in place to cut down on the amount of
| chargebacks, etc.
|
| https://pointofsale.com/chip-card-vs-magnetic-stripe-card/
| anonymousiam wrote:
| As recently as three years ago I still had two (ATM/Visa
| Debit) cards with no chip. They were both issued by credit
| unions. I know this was after the 10/1/2015 "deadline"
| (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/what-
| october-1-chip-a...), but I think debit cards were given a
| later deadline.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| None of my cards are chip-and-pin, they are chip-and-sign
| (i.e. it's via a chip reader, but no PIN is required to
| pay)
| ksenzee wrote:
| Er, how often do you visit? We've had widespread chip-reading
| terminals in the US for almost a decade.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| The ones which are widespread are just "chip-and-choice",
| where you can use the chip and sign a paper receipt. They
| usually come with a magstripe backup...the chip is just
| used to read the card number instead of the magstripe.
| Pretty worthless.
|
| True chip-and-pin cards and terminals will generate a
| cryptogram that authenticates the individual transaction.
| You type in the PIN code, and only then will the terminal
| communicate with the EMV microchip in the card and allow
| the transaction to complete.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Is there a difference in the user experience? Because
| everywhere I use my debit card, I can't take it out
| unless I enter my pin first. I'd assume that means it's
| actually communicating with the chip. And even then it
| takes a few seconds.
|
| The magstripe is there for old POS systems and the off
| chance the chip can't be used (dirty contacts), but the
| reader has to allow you to use the strip. And that only
| happens after multiple (about 3) failures.
| sgjohnson wrote:
| Doesn't matter. Chip-and-signature is an EMV compliant
| way of authorizing a transaction.
| pjerem wrote:
| right. We have Visa / Mastercard cards with chip and pin in
| France since the 90's
|
| I always thought that its absence in the US (until pretty
| recently) was a cultural thing, not a technical thing.
| sbysb wrote:
| This must be regional because I have been using a chip-and-
| pin card for the last 5 years and I cannot for the life of me
| remember the last time I had to physically swipe the card.
| Tap support is definitely still spotty but that is something
| that is more of a convenience than a security issue
| dave5104 wrote:
| I also can't remember the last time I had to swipe a card
| where I am in the US. I also prefer using Apple Pay, and
| tbh, can't remember the last time I had to use my physical
| card.
| twunde wrote:
| It's still relatively common to have to swipe cards at
| gas stations in the US when you're buying gas. And a fair
| amount of the parking meters may still be on swipe (NYC
| meters outside of Manhattan come to mind). The places
| that haven't upgraded are ones with a lot of POS stations
| to upgrade.
| jacobmartin wrote:
| Yep these two places are very common to be swipe only. I
| have to go a human teller at <massive and famous
| hospital> to pay for parking and the cc machine will
| still only read swipes.
| Shared404 wrote:
| Also US based here, and can't remember the last time I had
| to swipe.
|
| There are even places with no swipe, where we can only use
| chip.
| docflabby wrote:
| Nah cos big corps just do what they want with no penalties unless
| they piss off enough people that the politicans feel like they
| need to make a point.. ...we're well into gangster capitalism now
| umeshunni wrote:
| This isn't Reddit
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| This isn't Instagram either, can you clarify what this is
| supposed to mean?
| xeromal wrote:
| Hackernews discourse is supposed to at least take some
| thought when making a comment.
|
| >ah cos big corps just do what they want with no penalties
| unless they piss off enough people that the politicans feel
| like they need to make a point.. ...we're well into
| gangster capitalism now
|
| This is just a lazy comment.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| ah ok, so reddit is known for lazy comments?
| deathanatos wrote:
| This might not be Reddit, and the parent's point might be
| crudely made, but watch the fines companies are awarded, and
| put it in terms of revenue, and then scale it to /$60k USD,
| to put it terms of how "big" of a fine it would be, from an
| average person's pocket; you'll find that many of these fines
| are in the sub-dollar range, which to me, makes it completely
| fair to dismiss them as any sort of real penalty.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| That's a very interesting point, but make sure to do it
| with profit, and not revenue. Revenue is meaningless on
| this context.
|
| (If it's a sub-dollar fine over revenue, it will probably
| be around $20 on profits, what just moves the needle from
| the cost of home-made coffee to an airport coffee.)
| deathanatos wrote:
| I disagree that profit is the right metric when scaling a
| fine to a normal person; $60k is the average American's
| revenue (not profit -- I'm not even sure how I'd
| calculate profit for a human, in a year), so I use the
| corresponding amount -- revenue -- when comparing.
|
| For example, a $10 fine to a company w/ a net loss but
| $1B in revenue is clearly not a large fine.
| azinman2 wrote:
| You say gangster capitalism. I also hear late stage capitalism
| and other such modifiers being thrown around a lot.
|
| When has power ever been limited? Certainly not in any
| communist society that's existed so far, nor under feudalism,
| or even earlier capitalist societies to my knowledge (did the
| Roman's not have this problem?).
| nimih wrote:
| > When has power ever been limited?
|
| The question isn't really whether power has been "limited"
| (it's unclear to me what that would even mean, honestly), but
| the form in which it is constituted and what institutions it
| rests with. Like, it's pretty clear that the institutions
| which control and manage daily life and politics in 21st
| century America are of a much different character than the
| ones of the mid-20th century USSR, which are again much
| different than, say, 16th century Europe or what have you.
|
| > did the Roman's not have this problem?
|
| I'm relatively confident that Roman society did not have to
| contend with the accumulation of power by multi-national
| corporate bodies and the relative weakening of democratic
| institutions that results, nor the degree to which such
| corporations are able to leverage 21st century technology to
| exert control over individuals' lives.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Of course the institutions are different. But is the
| problem of power any different? If anything, it seems like
| there are more ways that power is limited in current
| America than 16th century Europe or the USSR.
|
| Roman was absolutely multinational. I don't think it had
| corporations, but rather the entire empire acting as a
| single business... which is even worse.
| aylons wrote:
| You're not completely wrong, it is just a way too crude
| of an assessment.
|
| The way power evolves from ancient times, to middle ages,
| to modern times and finally contemporary times, how the
| institutions of capitalism are different in form, but not
| in essence from the institutions of feudalism and other
| themes are a central topic of Marxist theory.
|
| You seen to agree with him about the root of the
| exploitation problem, but GP is also right in that there
| are differences on how the institutions operate and how
| advanced they are in comparison to those of the past.
| These new institutions and techniques and dynamics
| require different tools for analysis.
| nimih wrote:
| > But is the problem of power any different? If anything,
| it seems like there are more ways that power is limited
| in current America than 16th century Europe or the USSR.
|
| I certainly think so. I think many of the way in which
| modern institutions exert power over individuals are of a
| fundamentally different nature compared to, say, slave
| economies, or the pre-reformation Catholic church, or the
| Aztec empire, or whatever. In particular:
|
| > If anything, it seems like there are more ways that
| power is limited in current America than 16th century
| Europe or the USSR.
|
| I half-agree here. I don't really think "power" is a one-
| dimensional scale where you can strictly order societies
| in terms of the degree to which it exists. Take, for
| instance, the way in which advertising companies are able
| to leverage their understanding of psychology and their
| fine-grained control over media content to directly shape
| our desires and emotions; these are tools which flat out
| didn't exist 100 years ago, and represent a mode of
| control which seems orthogonal to, say, a monarch
| ordering a summary execution of one of their subjects.
| These aren't theoretical distinctions, either:
| recognizing them can help point us in the right direction
| when trying to imagine what a better world looks like,
| and is useful for understanding what the available
| avenues of resistance and change even are.
| 1270018080 wrote:
| Maybe it's usually not limited throughout history, but our
| current particular flavor of collapse is late stage
| capitalism.
| azinman2 wrote:
| What is the collapse? What is late stage about it? What is
| the next stage? These words have always felt so meaningless
| to me...
| throwawaygh wrote:
| The original answers to "late?", "collapse?, and "what's
| next?" questions all require recalling that the term
| originated in Marxist circles.
|
| The "late" meant something like the type of capitalism
| that emerged out of ww2, characterized primarily by post-
| colonial global trade networks. That's quite a bit in the
| past for us, but "late" by the standards of an
| ideological tradition that started in the 1800s. Even
| still, of all your questions, this is the one that has
| changed meanings perhaps the least in the last 80 years
| or so. That's because a lot of the things that
| characterized "late stage capitalism" in the mid 20th
| century are still with us, and perhaps intensified. If it
| helps, think of "late stage" as "post-colonial +
| globalization + financialization". In contrast to the
| much more mixed political economies of Europe in the
| 1800s. Or, for an even more modern usage, you might read
| it as "jet-setting billionaires and the MBAs that manage
| their factories and open offices". That's the vibe it's
| supposed to give off, I think.
|
| The "collapse?" and "what's next?" questions sort of have
| standard Marxist answers (or, at least, standard
| delineated lines of debate within mid-century Marxism,
| from what I understand). Careful dispassionate reading
| the Communist Manifesto... like, the way you would read
| Plato or Hegel or whatever... can give you a general
| sense for why "collapse" plays an important role in
| Marxist theories and what Marxists generally suspect is
| "next". (Namely, alienation of workers and a resulting
| violent revolution of the working class against folks who
| own/control capital.)
|
| nb, I'm not really sure that most people using the term
| now have much -- if any -- background in Marxist
| economics/philosophy. I think for the average user, these
| terms function roughly the same way as "critical race
| theory" does on the social right. If that makes sense.
|
| So, the "late" retains real descriptive meaning relative
| to 1800s/early 1900s capitalism, but the "collapse" and
| "what's next?" have sort of drifted from their original
| answers and probably play a more rhetorical than literal
| role these days. Like CRT. No one knows what they mean.
| They are shibboleths for "change is needed and
| inevitable", with no specifics for what or how.
|
| Hope that helps.
| pempem wrote:
| ^ this is a great answer.
|
| The vibe is one where you have :searching for something
| accessible: a hunger games approach where society is
| driven towards exploitation rather than the sustenance
| and growth of the majority.
|
| In general however, its dangerous to think "its always
| been this way". I would argue societally we've been in a
| continuous struggle between the two and there are many
| moments in the recent past where the US was building a
| more egalitarian society than found elsewhere, despite
| the rampant incessant racism that existed.
|
| Public schools and libraries, the rise of unions and
| creation of the wknd, stopping child labor, centralized
| mailing systems, well managed interstates, growth of home
| ownership, social welfare, and for a moment really great
| emergency care at hospitals, had moments of real
| existence and came together in combinations rarely seen
| outside of the USA.
|
| Assuming things have always been kind of shit and are
| likely to just get shittier takes us all off the hook far
| too easily imo.
| throw10920 wrote:
| > Assuming things have always been kind of shit and are
| likely to just get shittier takes us all off the hook far
| too easily imo.
|
| I've seen this same mindset that you're pointing out.
|
| However, I don't think that it is usually used to "let
| people off the hook" - most of the time that I've heard
| it used (a bunch of times in real life, not just on the
| internet), the subtext is "...and so we should replace
| the current government with another [highly
| authoritarian, non-constitutionally-limited] one that can
| fix these issues, either through voting for an extreme
| candidate/party, or straight-up violent revolution".
|
| That might be just my experience, though - I went to a
| university with a significant anarcho-communist group in
| the student body.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > "...and so we should replace the current government
| with another [highly authoritarian, non-constitutionally-
| limited] one that can fix these issues, either through
| voting for an extreme candidate/party, or straight-up
| violent revolution".
|
| The interesting thing to me is that this kind of attitude
| has become dominant across the spectrum of political
| ideology, in just the space of a few years. A large
| number of people, or at least the most vocal ones, now
| seem to support an authoritarian extra-constitutional
| goverment, they just differ on who they think should be
| crushed first.
| manigandham wrote:
| What exactly are these stages?
| throwawaygh wrote:
| feudalism -> domestic industrialization and the formation
| of capital markets (1700s) -> imperialist competition in
| global markets and the height of colonial exploitation
| (1800s) -> the fully privatized multinational firm,
| global financialization, fully privatized competitors in
| global markets (post-ww2 ie late).
| claudiulodro wrote:
| There is a lot of space to play around with outside of "pure"
| communism, feudalism, or ancient capitalism. For example, the
| EU seems to be making a strong attempt to balance consumer
| protections with corporate-friendliness.
| istjohn wrote:
| There is a long-standing idea in American political thought
| going back to James Madison that the centralization of
| capital in too few hands poses a danger for democracy.
|
| In the Gilded Age, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act
| and later created the FTC.
|
| In 1941, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: "We can
| have a democratic society or we can have the concentration of
| great wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."
|
| Then in the 1970s the Supreme Court nerfed the Sherman Act,
| and it's all been downhill from there.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Graeber goes into many examples in his new/last book, Dawn of
| Everything, based off cutting edge anthro and archaeological
| evidence
| sillyquiet wrote:
| Right? These are just re-treads of the 'rich, powerful, and
| influential face fewer consequences for misdeeds' that has
| been a factor of human life since probably forever. Other
| economic systems have so far not proven themselves immune to
| this.
|
| I won't go so far as to say that capitalism has more controls
| to mitigate this effect, since I think there is a fair point
| to be made that we _do_ need to start checking the power of
| corporations, and those controls have not so far presented
| themselves without assuming government intervention.
| azinman2 wrote:
| I think the idea behind a robust capitalist society is that
| there would be government intervention required, otherwise
| you have trust issues.
|
| In fact, I'd argue capitalism is generally better tuned for
| this because it decentralizes power. It's much easier for
| the government to regulate someone else than to regulate
| itself.
|
| Now if we could solve campaign finance issues, then
| corruption would be dramatically lessened.
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| or enough people or someone "influential" start to complain on
| social media and it gets enough traction.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| revscat wrote:
| I echo the sibling comment on asking for an explanation as
| to why you feel that this is a bad thing. Are you American?
| If so, would you rather the government not make their case
| to influencers?
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Yes I would rather the government not use social media
| influencers to try to change public opinion on matters.
| They shouldn't be performing PsyOps on their own
| citizens.
| revscat wrote:
| Except that what they were doing is better described as
| outreach, and was done openly and in apparent good faith.
| Such outreach is especially important given the
| prevalence of FSB psyops -- actual psyops -- throughout
| the world.
| [deleted]
| Razengan wrote:
| > _The White House is "briefing" TikTok stars about [what
| to say about] the war in Ukraine_
|
| If that's not propaganda, what is?
| Zpalmtree wrote:
| but this is good propaganda!!!
| [deleted]
| cryo78 wrote:
| cryo78 wrote:
| Why do you believe that everything the government does is
| nefarious? If you really believe your government is after
| you and everyone else you can try to change it or leave the
| country. The one option that doesn't change anything is
| posting unrelated comments on the web. How is the
| government informing people bad? Are schools bad?
| Universities?
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| cryo78 wrote:
| nkozyra wrote:
| > So you'd be okay if on Jan 6, Donald Trump used the
| emergency broadcast system
|
| The article you linked doesn't seem to say anything about
| using EBS. Trump used every platform available to spread
| the notion that the election was rigged, so I'm not
| following the whatabout here.
| ecf wrote:
| boredumb wrote:
| cryo78 wrote:
| guntars wrote:
| The fact that not being able to unsubscribe from marketing
| emails counts as gangster capitalism for you.. well.. that must
| mean things are pretty good.
| hoppyhoppy2 wrote:
| it's to opt out of having your purchase history sold, not to
| opt out of receiving marketing emails.
|
| >U.S. cardholders may opt out of Visa using their card
| transaction data for VAS, a suite of aggregated data products
| in the US.
| azinman2 wrote:
| I'm guessing you can still write or call them.
| [deleted]
| robertwiblin wrote:
| A description of what you are supposed to be able to opt-out from
| on Visa cards is here:
|
| "In some countries, Visa enhances card transaction data and uses
| it to generate anonymised and aggregated consumer spending and
| marketing reports and other data products that enable companies
| to improve their marketing efforts. These solutions help
| companies identify consumers that they can target."
|
| https://www.visa.co.uk/legal/privacy-policy-opt-out.html
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/#/assistant
|
| https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
|
| California residents: https://oag.ca.gov/contact/consumer-
| complaint-against-busine...
|
| EU Residents: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-
| protection/refo...
|
| (i cannot say for sure if/what regulatory impacts this might
| have; let regulators know, let them figure it out, that's why
| they exist)
| boatsie wrote:
| This is what is so frustrating about companies harming many
| people by small amounts. There is no actual recourse for the
| individuals. If an individual missed a credit card payment by
| mistake, the bank would assuredly charge them a late fee, report
| the payment to the credit agencies, etc. But when the company
| makes a mistake like this, no penalty, no consequences. It really
| should be the other way around--we should extend grace to the
| person rather than the company, yet the company basically has
| more "rights" in a way than the person.
| WaxProlix wrote:
| Gah, it's an asymmetric war. I feel like, as programmers, we
| should be able to leverage automation for individuals to fight
| back smarter where corpos fight harder.
|
| Might be hard to do without incurring the ire of the state,
| whose allegiances will probably not lie with the bearded fat
| man spamming Visa's webforms with the contents of their own
| emails or whatever.
| paxys wrote:
| Depends on local laws. And they'll likely say that they have a
| phone number you could have called.
| pilgrimfff wrote:
| It is a violation with a theoretical hefty fine of around $40k
| per infraction. But in practice, laws don't apply to companies
| like Visa.
|
| XFINITY's email marketing system has been ignoring opt-outs for
| years and nothing has or will ever happen.
| labster wrote:
| Even the law was enforced, Visa would just get 3.5% of the fine
| back immediately.
| whathappenedto wrote:
| When I tried to get my annual credit report, I find that the
| credit agencies constantly have trouble validating my identify
| online even though I have one of the simplest reports. A single
| same address for decades, no loans, paid off every month.
|
| They randomly will say that I can't be verified, and I need to
| snail mail them copies of a bunch of identifying documents to get
| my credit report. I imagine this is a common issue, and somehow
| still satisfies their requirement to offer the annual credit
| report online.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Why not just view them online? Sites like CreditKarma have
| existed for years. And if you don't trust third parties,
| Experian let's you view theirs on their own site. The benefit
| is being able to see updates more than once a year. CreditKarma
| updates every _week._
| whathappenedto wrote:
| Yeah that's what I'm trying to do, to view them online. I've
| looked up what's going wrong, and quite a few people have
| this issue that they can't be verified online.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| That's bizarre. Apologies for not understanding.
| couchand wrote:
| I had a similar experience recently: one agency report came
| through fine, one report came through with mysterious issues,
| and one just would not ever let me verify without snail mail.
|
| When it came time for my "real" credit report to be run,
| however, there was no problem at all verifying my identity or
| getting the accurate information. Weird, huh?
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Same here, there is at least one credit union that essentially
| treats me as persona non grata when I contact them.
|
| Somehow each time that I go to do a hard credit check, they are
| able to provide a credit score for the lender however.
| bprasanna wrote:
| Dark patterns all around! Same i experienced with Coinbase after
| registering, when i searched for delete account, there is no such
| thing!
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/managing-my-account/up...
| markstos wrote:
| IANAL, but if the page is used to opt-out of marketing emails,
| then yes, Visa is in violation the US CAN-SPAM act, which
| requires promptly processing opt-out requests.
|
| https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/can-spam-act...
|
| As long as the opt-out page is broken, they should not be sending
| out marketing emails and could be open to a class-action lawsuit
| from people they email with no ability to opt-out.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| IANAL as well; #6 says that no information other than an e-mail
| address is required to opt-out, but when I was presented with a
| login-page for an unsubscribe, my research indicated that it's
| not cut-and-dry that requiring a login is banned by CAN-SPAM.
| codingdave wrote:
| > with no ability to opt-out.
|
| That is the key. Does the web page being down mean that there
| is no way to opt out? Or is it just more difficult? The page
| you linked says: "Give a return email address or another easy
| Internet-based way to allow people to communicate their choice
| to you." Take note of the "or" in that statement.
|
| So as long as they check replies within 10 days, they seem to
| be OK. If they fail to do so, maybe there is a problem. FWIW,
| I'm in agreement that this link being down is not good. But
| there is not enough info to hazard even guessing whether this
| is a violation of law.
| hoppyhoppy2 wrote:
| >if the page is used to opt-out of marketing emails
|
| Though I can't access it, I don't think that's what it's for. I
| believe it's for opting out of having your credit-card purchase
| history used for marketing purposes (i.e. sold to other
| companies, not for Visa itself to send you marketing emails).
|
| >U.S. cardholders may opt out of Visa using their card
| transaction data for VAS, a suite of aggregated data products
| in the US.
|
| (from the first result on
| https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&q=visa+marketing+re...
| , which points to the same subdomain on visa.com)
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| Yeah, this opt-out is clearly not related to the sending of
| marketing emails.
| LukeShu wrote:
| > could be open to a class-action lawsuit from people they
| email with no ability to opt-out.
|
| CAN-SPAM does not grant standing to individuals. The only
| recourse individuals have under CAN-SPAM is to report the
| violation to the FTC and hope the FTC does something about it.
| manquer wrote:
| Do individuals have standing against FTC if they don't action
| ?
|
| Lack of FTC action is causing you material harm , or is there
| immunity against FTC as well?
| charcircuit wrote:
| How much harm does a marketing email even do. Waste 0.001
| seconds of your time?
| behringer wrote:
| If you don't like it perhaps you can petition the
| government to get rid of the can spam act?
| paskozdilar wrote:
| So just because the harm "feels small" to you personally,
| that means it's _not really harm_?
| charcircuit wrote:
| When you go to sue Visa to get them to pay for the harm
| they caused you I imagine a $0.01 of harm is not worth
| the trouble.
|
| Edit: I forgot the context. I should have said the FTC.
| tobyjsullivan wrote:
| From the URL in the root comment:
|
| > Each separate email in violation of the law is subject
| to penalties of up to $46,517
| drdaeman wrote:
| A single one - barely any. Although you have to be a
| Superman to be able to entirely process it in 1ms.
|
| At scale, it might take up to a few minutes off your day
| and under certain circumstances (heavy spam) even start
| contributing to a mental fatigue. It's a minor nuisance
| but a nuisance nonetheless.
| convolvatron wrote:
| don't forget that that the presence of spam makes it
| quite a bit more difficult to manage your own email
|
| regardless, it introduces a non-zero chance that
| legitimate email might be misclassified
|
| it seems like everyone in the ad industry has this
| opinion - if you don't like it, just delete it and move
| on. but there are thousands of them, and somewhere in
| there is that job offer I really need.
| georgebarnett wrote:
| A single email will waste anywhere between 3-30 seconds
| of my life.
|
| On aggregate, junk email, enabled by disrespecting
| marketers and ongoing minimisation such as your comment,
| will waste months.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Do individuals have standing against FTC if they don't
| action ?
|
| You can petition them, certainly. Individuals and business
| are not able to sue the FTC.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| It's complicated, but under certain circumstances you can
| sue agencies for not doing something. It depends on the
| specific laws governing the specific agency and how
| you've been harmed by the inaction. Broadly speaking, the
| Administrative Procedures Act required agencies to have
| procedurally fair processes. If you're concretely harmed
| by an agency's inaction and you can show they didn't
| follow the correct processes, you can sometimes win.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| Does anybody have a phone number or other resource that can be
| used for opting out of marketing?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-29 23:00 UTC)