You misunderstand. The fraud department should have detected a buying pattern which is both inconsistent with user history and consistent with fraud. They should have contacted the card holder early into the spending to confirm legitimacy. Which would have prevented most of this.
Fraud departments frequently get involved early so they don't have to deal with police after the fact. Protects themselves and the card holder.
You misunderstand. The fraud department should have detected a buying pattern which is both inconsistent with user history and consistent with fraud. They should have contacted the card holder early into the spending to confirm legitimacy. Which would have prevented most of this.
Fraud departments frequently get involved early so they don't have to deal with police after the fact. Protects themselves and the card holder.
I can agree with that, but ultimate responsibility still lies with the parent for giving the kid access to the payment information. It's going to be an expensive lesson in paying attention to her son and what he's doing.
I can agree with that, but ultimate responsibility still lies with the parent for giving the kid access to the payment information. It's going to be an expensive lesson in paying attention to her son and what he's doing.
(post is archived)