BofA called me asking about the charge like 6 hours later, long after the TV would have been sold out and the sale finished. Needless to say, not long after I ditched them. Also got some more credit cards with higher limits. Its always good to be able to access some money, even if its the form that requires being paid off at the end of the month instead of debited directly from ones account. Plus, with the warranty extensions, rewards, and fraud prevention features on credit cards, it seems almost dumb to use a debit card over one for large purchases (or anything online really.)

If I have a card with AMEX or whatever, I expect to be able to use it in all places possible. The fact I can use it after being refused and then calling them is pretty bad service. What if I can't call?

If the card works, often groceries or high-end sneakers (shoes) are next. Food you can eat and the shoes the thief can wear or hock easily.

Electronics and other pricey things are often next. High value, easy to hock.

Many gas stations are now demanding a zip code for pump-based credit card transactions. Of course the crooks know this so they simply note your zip when they steal the rest of your card info.

This was one of the reasons why I closed my account with them years ago. I couldn't get $25 in gas, milk, eggs, and sugar, or a Metro Card within a 24 hour period without them shutting out my card usage due to excessive activity?????????? I had to call the bank to prove I made simple purchases four times in 6mos too many. They can truly kiss mine!

@mythago: BINGO!

@Ronin-Democrat:

Next, I think that deadbeats (no interest - no fees) like me are targeted for extra harassment. I frequently have to deal with the Chase security department in the Philippines when I buy anything more than gas.

In that case I try to waste as much of their time as I can. They throw me people who cannot speak English. I just keep asking for other people and I try to get back at their targeted harassment.

enough said.

On one hand, good on you for being proactive. On the other hand, the point of having a credit and/or debit card is so you do not have to carry large sums of cash around which is a convenience. How convenient is it really when you have to call every time you make a large purchase? You may feel it's not a big deal, but depending on your bank it could be. Who has the time (or wants to) wait on hold just to say "Hey, I'm going to buy something."?

Wow. I couldn't have said it better myself. Well freakin' done. Some people would rather trash the OP than realize the point here.

The point is that BofA has no right to withhold access to people's accounts without notice. This has happened to me at Walmart AND at the Apple Store! So those of you who poo-poo this as "oh, well its just Walmart", think again.

I'll invoke Areyouagoodlittleconsumer now:

Grow a spine, fool.

In fact if you lost your bank card, any unauthrorized purchases are not reversed once you report the card stolen.

I lost an ATM card on a Friday, Sunday I noticed it was gone around midnight. I assumed it was at home until Monday was awaken from a call made by my bank about unusual activity. My balance of almost $3,000 was depleted at the time they called. I watched online as my reserve line credit for $5000 attached to my account was being eaten up. Basically I filed my paperwork at the branch on weds once they felt all the charges should have been processed. Only Zappos.com gave a rats ass about a purchase for $1300, AT&T let the yahoos but $700 phones twice in a few minutes inside on of thier stores. They bought gift cards, none of this was ever investigated or effort put into voiding these unauthorized purchases (of resaleable goods $100 starbuck card or Nordstrom GC) but as the 30 days needed to investigate was nearly over I get a letter saying I never sent the required information to start the investigation.......I sat in the branch and wrote these out the branch kindly said they were sending them by fax to thier fraud team. I refaxed them and was sent a letter saying we have begun the investigation now it would take 30 days for them to make a decision. So nearly 60 days my money not credit was gone, I was living off credit cards luckily my business was booming as I had 2 homes, and a business to run.

On the bright side since life was so horrible at the time I quit smoking since they werte $5 a pack, and I saw that everyone was as miserable about my misfourtane as I was. Non smoker since July of 2006 thanks to having no money.

Well, kog I guess if you don't respect yourself and your money and want to be denied buying whatever you need at any time, that's your option, but don't tell the rest of us we have to be consumer wuses and accept it.

A better analogy is being held up at work at the entrance by security or at police road blocks every day trying to get on the highway on your way to work because despite all the answers and the right ID you ARE SUSPICIOUS and may not be who you are, and told you will have to go home because they can't verify you, and then fired for security reasons.

Seriously, what other abuses are you ready to accept for someone else's "security"?

When people can't fricking live their lives any more because of "security", the corporations need to fall down, go boom. Big time.

I don't know what walmart's policy is, but many stores will get a "call for authorization" message on the terminal when something like this happens and they'll gladly put you through to the credit card company to help you get everything straitened out.

The problem with saying they're denying the use of your money is that it's a CREDIT card. They're issuing you a temporary loan of credit which you're expected to repay later.

Insurance is protection, but you'd have to be nuts to think it's some sort of catch all that means you don't have to try and minimize your risks. Lots of claims makes insurance go up. I mean, if you drive and have car insurance, you don't suddenly have a license to drive like a maniac just because whatever you damage is covered by insurance.

Now, while I think companies are becoming overzealous in their "fraud prevention", there are perfectly legitimate reasons why they would flag your card. Say if they saw it being used in two different cities at the same time.

@rpm773: Of course, any time you use a debit card at an ATM, you run the risk that scammers have one of those dohickeys on the machine and are capturing your card number and PIN.

I'm about to go back to paying for things with shiny rocks and seashells. :(

@econobiker: What does that even mean? There are plenty of Wal-Mart shoppers in the DC area. There are people of all income levels that live here.

There's also the huge variety of stuff there - it might be odd for me to go to Best Buy and nab a TV (especially since it's Best Buy lololol), Costco for 300 of expensive groceries, Subway for dinner, a bunch of clothes at whatever retailer, and whatever else thieves buy. But plunking down a few hundred, even a thousand at Wally World? Most don't bat an eye.

Because they all accept it, soon, we will all be assumed to be criminals in every area of our lives, have no rights, and be pre-prosecuted regularly.

The fact you cannot feel outraged when a corporation takes your money and denies you access to it says you need some serious therapy folks.

Whether this idea is originally good or not, any implementation where the consumer is denied access to THEIR money or credit without reason, without notice, and without recourse, not to mention humiliated and shut out of part of their own life should be illegal, not to mention repugnant.

Grow some spines.

It is theft, actually, do deny people use of THEIR money at the store, and it needs to be treated legally as such.

It should absolutely NOT be illegal to deny people the right to buy something with THEIR money and THEIR card and humiliate them for NOTHING.

Loss Prevention is what business insurance is for.

Otherwise, why should anyone use credit cards?

Next $1 purchases will be suspicious and blocked, because smart thieves will start with 4 or 5 $1-2 purchases before the big one.

@bohemian:

Back when I had a Citibank credit card if I used the card for gas and groceries in the same day within a short window, like I stopped to get gas before I went to the grocery store, my card was flagged and I could not process the grocery store purchase.

I had many conversations with Citibank customer service and was told that I could not authorize any particular purchases or stores in advance (like XYZ Publix is where I buy my groceries) because the fraud system was all based on a very sophisticated computer program and people often hit a gas station first to make sure the credit card works so gas + another purchase is often flagged as fraud.

I eventually stopped using creidt cards and closed that Citibank card. I've had no problems with my debit card.

@acvicari: what right is bofa violating?

@NeverLetMeDown:

I think the line from Dirty Harry sums it up best for profiling.

Harry Callahan: Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy.
The Mayor: Intent? How did you establish that?
Harry Callahan: When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross.

"because people who spend large amounts of money at Walmart are considered a risk"

TRUE.

I am suprised BofA said it, but Walmart customers are typically lower income, lower eduction level and more prone to fraud.

No offense, it's true.

@rpm773:
They shut mine off when I was moving across the country. My transactions in different states were suspicious. It would have been fine, if they'd bothered to call me to check before just shutting off my damn card. I promptly left B of A after that.

It is still a bit creepy that BoA is sort of saying where they will and won't let you shop at. It is your money after all. If you want to spend it on hookers and blow that is your business as long as your dealings with the bank are legal and you keep a proper account balance.

I found out that our bank branch manager (smaller regional bank) was going through people's accounts to see where they bought things at with their check cards. This bothered me but I can't really do much about it other than pay cash or use a different bank account.

It has also happened with my Paypal card too. (At the time, it had a higher daily limit than my BofA card and I needed to buy a large ticket item)

I can't say that I object to them being at least slightly proactive.

@frari489: I will always miss hearing more and more quotes of his showing up on the daily show

I had taken her to WalMart with me to pick up a few items and ended up buying a bunch of things for her & my nephews and a bunch of things for me. I told the clerk I was paying for all of it on the same card, but asked her to split the ring-up so that my niece and nephew's stuff would be on a separate receipt that i could leave with my sister in case she needed to exchange anything for a different size. That was no problem. So she ran my items through and I paid with my B of A debit card and it went through without an issue (about $200). Then she rang the kids stuff up and I swiped again (about $300) and the card was declined.

I pulled out my Blackberry and check my balance - knowing that I had over $5000 in the account, but still concerned that maybe something was wrong. My balance was accurate, so I swiped again, but it was still declined.

I took out my OTHER B of A debit card, which I have for my business account, which also had over $5k in the account, and swiped - Declined again. So I then switched to my Chase Mastercard and that card went through. I left WalMart and figured I'd call B of A when I got back to the hotel to see why both my debit cards were suddenly being declined.

About an hour later, I get an automated message from B of A with a phone number I'm supposed to call and a case code I have to enter. So I do that, and after about 30 minutes of holding and being transferred, they finally had me verify the last few transactions and told me that the first Walmart charge triggered their fraud system a) because it was a charge in FL, when my usually charges are in NY, and b) because charges of more than a few hundred dollars at Walmart automatically set off their fraud detection because there's a high rate of fraudulent transactions there.

I got it all resolved and my cards were useable again within a few minutes of hanging up the phone - I went to the local B of A to withdraw cash from the ATM to be sure - but it sure was a nuisance at the time.

Whether you like it or not, you're getting profiled everywhere. Online stores profile you and send you targeted information/newsletters/whatever based on what you browse, what you buy. Google is profiling you based on your searches to send targeted ads and stuff.

It's just most profiling is somewhat non-intrusive and you wouldn't really notice it too much if you weren't actively looking.

While profiling by merchant for credit cards isn't something I've heard about, they do maintain a spending profile. That's how if suddenly a $2000 purchase shows up on a card that normally never exceeds $200, it gets flagged for authorization.

I guess the question becomes, how much should the credit card companies try to protect you from theft? We've sort of gone from little protection to over protection.

I wonder what would have happened had I used my BofA card.

@CaptainSemantics: That they have checkouts whose attendants are pushed for processing fast helps scammers. Same issues begat the upc symbol decal scam...

I've seen this on other web sites: "We're no longer allowing transactions in/at X due to high incidence of fraud" or whatever.

@thezone: See above- DC area. If you are po' enough to have to shop on your own at Walmart with your own money then you might deserve a fraud flag. Anyone else in DC either has lobbyists and special interest representatives buy groceries and homegoods or just charges groceries off to the taxpayers...

As for number 2, you'd lose. To be libel or slander, a statement must be made (B.o.A made no statement of any kind to the people in line), the statement must be false (it may be quite true that large transactions at Walmart are disproportionately likely to be fraudulent), and they must be intended to cause harm (the intention here is fraud prevention, to protect either the customer of B.o.A.)

@captainpicard: Or BOA will just turn off the couples cards after they call...

nuknuknuk

but too close to the truth.

@CoarseLive: If you don't like the practice, find a bank that doesn't do it. Every single little inconvience in life doesn't need a new law to fix it...

There are already lots of protections in place for consumers using plastic. In general, you can't be held liable for fradulent credit card charges and your debit card liability is limited to $50. With that in mind, of course the bank is going to do everything possible to keep their fraud costs down.

"D.C. metro area" and "Walmart" pretty much gives the reason.

I would suspect that boat-loads of scams are run through Walmarts in that area - buying gift cards with stolen account info, stolen credit cards used for purchases, buy and return with bricks inside the box. etc.

@JohnDeere: the simple and easiest solution to this is to call ahead of time and let bofa know your going to make a large purchase at walmart. catastrophe averted.

@CoarseLive: incorrect. it should be (and is) absolutely legal. The bank isn't saying that you cannot use your money there, they just want to confirm ahead of time that you are. They do offer protection, but when they have to use the protection it eats into thier profits, so as a business they are doing thier best to stop it ahead of time.

Of course the bank is going to protect itself from theft, who wouldn't?

@Ronin-Democrat: I think the CC/debit card is another debate. I use my debit card, but run it as a credit card transaction.

On the upscale shopping: I think when you're a CC thief and you need to decide where its most likely your card will get accepted for a big purchase, WMT (until now) was the spot. Also, let's face it, even when we have money to buy quality, we're a low class nation. It's highly likely that the person shops at WMT, regardless of income. Thefore, buying a John Varvatos suit at Bloomingdales will immediately flag most accounts and get your card put on hold.

It's weird to hear BofA is so security conscious after my experience with them. I found an account holder's checkbook from BofA. I called CS to tell them I have it and to notify their acct holder (I assumed they would be v. worried and would be shutting down their acct - a real hassle).

BofA told me they do not note an accts ever about anything, they do not notify their acct holder or even place a hold on the acct to stop fraudulent transactions. I explained with the checkbook I could, in theory, write a bunch of fraudulent checks all about town. Again, Bofa explained they are not interested in the news that I have a valid, active acct, checkbook. They did not even tell me to go to a branch with it ( which wasnt convenient at the time).

so...the fact they care about the OP shopping at Walmart is ridiculous if they do not care across the board.

@rellog321: Two questions: How often do you shop there and how much did you try to spend? If you only shop there once every few years and suddenly, you try to drop $500, it makes sense to flag this as suspicious.

Get in the habit of keeping your money safely in your account and make one payment a month from your checking account to your credit card company.

plus as one commenter pointed out why have thousands of dollars linked to a card that when stole is gone baby gone.

ps all you criminals out there, shop a little more upscale, macys bloomingdales, victoria's secret to make your fraudulent less suspicious......

A bank should not be allowed to create classes of merchants. You shouldn't be able to ghettoize certain forms of retail.

@frari489: That made my day.

Why does anyone still use Bank of America?

I don't blame BofA at all, especially if that area is frequently used by thieves. (I'm not up on the credit fraud community, so I have no clue if there are popular spots for them.)

If indeed this is such a problem, then card issuers should change their terms and institute an ID check at time of purchase- or at least an ID check for a certain transaction amount (say over $100), but putting a fraud alert on a card without cause, they are really screwing with people's lives here...

Uh, yeah, thanks for the warning. That makes this a valid story. But crying about profiling? It seems perfectly acceptable in this case.

@strathmeyer:

Profiling is taking the information in front of you, matching it up with general data patterns, and deriving a conclusion. Sometimes that conclusion is inaccurate, and sometimes its correct, but we don't like the fact that it was derived through general, not incident specific data, but that's the process.

As I said, any profiling effort will have both false positives and false negatives. Whether we accept the effort depends on (a) the level of those errors, and (b) how willing we are to accept those errors.

I had a similar thing happen to me at WalMart. I'm pretty anti-Walmart, but if they're the only option, I have to do what I need to do. I used my Juniper card at a self checkout there and it was declined and a "hold" was put on the card. This hold actually caused a problem with my professional license as only a day later they tried to run the fee for my license through and the card was "locked." It took an additional 4 months to process my license because of this delay. If the banks have an issue with a retailer they need to talk to Mastercard or Visa and get it settled that way, not simply place random holds on cards that may have far reaching ramifications.

@pecan 3.14159265: I think this is the case. The convenence of big-box stores is also their curse for stolen credit cards: Wal-Mart is an easy target to quickly spend a lot of money in a non-suspicious way.

Of course, now we have the opposite problem. People taking full advantage of the conveniences of a big-box, but getting blocked by BOA. I have to imagine WMT is going to discuss this with BOA.

its christmastime, this is gonna make standing in line a pain in the ass. all me and my wife use is our bofa check cards, neither carry cash as an atm is always around the corner. and we dont shop at places that dont take the cards. black friday is about the only christmas shopping i do at walmart, and i do spend a lot of money on that day. this isnt something they did to me last year.

No, I don't think you understand what profiling is.

My USAA debit card worked just fine. Just another reason to love USAA.

As such, I usually use my bank/debit card only for very regular purchases locally, only at BofA ATMs, and never when I'm out of town.

I thought it was strange that Chase would flag a use of his card at Walmart considering it near where he lived. What was suspicious about that? Apparently merely shopping at Walmart is in itself suspicious.

@NeverLetMeDown: Heh. I was blocks away when this "Miracle on 34th St." happened and made the news.

This actually makes sense to me. Statistically, it's very possible that the majority of credit card thieves end up going to Wal-Mart to spend their ill-gotten gains because it's a big box store, the policies aren't as stringent, people aren't as aware or as sharp-eyed and you're not as likely to get caught with a stolen credit card as you are in say, a Best Buy. Also, Wal-Marts have a variety of items so if your motivation was to buy a ton of things you wanted or needed, and not to buy electronics just to fence them, Wal-Mart's the place to go with a lowered risk of suspicion.

"It's not often I would go to bat for Wal-Mart, but this is profiling and ridiculous"

Yes, it's profiling. No, it's not necessarily ridiculous. It could very well be that the rate of fraud in high $ transactions at Wal-Mart is much higher than the norm.

Profiling isn't, in and of itself, a bad thing. It's entirely possible that the blood-soaked man running down the street waving a butcher's knife and screaming at the top of his lungs presents no threat whatsoever to you - that doesn't mean it's unreasonable to assume that he does.