<![CDATA[Consumerist: Cheating]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: Cheating]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/cheating http://consumerist.com/tag/cheating <![CDATA[ UltimateBet Poker Site Admits Players Cheated, But Won't Name Names ]]> Here's a mystery story to distract you from the U.S. Banking Apocalypse. UltimateBet.com, "one of the top 10 poker sites," has admitted that employees manipulated the software to cheat from at least January 2005 to January 2008, when some players started noticing an unusually high rate of wins for a certain user name. An Australian player mapped that user's wins against accounts that had played a similar number of hands, and realized that "NioNio's" wins were "less likely than 'winning a one-in-a-million lottery on four consecutive days.'" But NioNio is just one part of the mystery.

As the players continued to dig, they concluded that NioNio was at the center of a web of accounts that were able to change user names with ease, making it harder for victims to detect the cheating.

UltimateBets launched an investigation when the players brought this to their attention, and in March of this year they issued a confirmation that certain players had been cheating by taking advantage of malicious code that had been inserted by prior employees.

As of September, no one has been named in the scandal, although some players have named a poker pro. Two other poker pros visited him in person, with a lawyer present, and now say they're no longer sure he was the culprit—or at least not the main culprit.

Another problem is that the company that claims ownership of UltimateBet—"Tokwiro Enterprises, headquartered in the Kahnawake Mohawk Territory in southern Canada"—may be a front for Blast-Off Ltd., which has filed an $85 million claim against UltimateBet. The Kahnawake Gaming Commission has ordered an investigation of UltimateBet, but that's not comforting some victims:

[Tokwiro] has issued some refunds and promised to repay any players who lost money once an outside investigation is completed. But many players who haven’t received credits remain fearful they will never see a dime.

"Poker site cheating plot a high-stakes whodunit" [MSNBC] (Thanks to Patrick!)

]]>
Consumerist-5051834 Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:20:57 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5051834&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ ResellerRatings Cracks Down On TheCellShop.net's Review Bribing ]]> The CEO of ResellerRatings, Scott Wainner, emailed us to say they're busting TheCellShop for bribing customers to submit perfect reviews on his site. He wrote:

ResellerRatings does not condone fake reviews. For the past 13 years, we have worked hard to develop anti-fraud tools, both automated and manual, and we disable fraudulent reviews every day. When we heard about the Cell Shop's actions, we immediately began contacting all Cell Shop reviewers to verify that they were not, in fact, offered money for their positive reviews, and to obtain proof of their valid transactions (order invoices, credit card statements, etc) and we have disabled reviews where money was offered for positive reviews.

Word up Steve-o, make them go outside and pick out their own switch from the hickory tree.

(Photo: Getty)

]]>
Consumerist-5007916 Mon, 05 May 2008 21:31:11 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5007916&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ TheCellShop.net Caught Bribing Customers To Submit "Perfect" Reviews ]]> If you use resellerratings.com to check out companies before doing business with them, don't take any perfect ratings for TheCellShop.net as legitimate. A reader forwarded us the following email that shows they bribe their customers to leave them perfect ratings in exchange for a $5 coupon.

I've done a little business with this company in the past, thecellshop.net, ordering replacement parts for my Blackberry.  Overall, their customer service is pretty good, even though they messed up an order of mine, they made it right in the end without any trouble.  But this type of thing seems very dishonest - offering money for a perfect review!  They even tell you how to cheat the system so that your order number seems correct to the ratings website.
  From: service@thecellshop.net
Date: Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Subject: We will give you $5 for submitting a review
To: XXXXXXX@gmail.com
 
Dear Valued Customer,
 
If you have purchased from us before and feel we did a good job, please use the link below and rate us 10/10 and we will give you $5.00 in credit to use for anything on our website.
 
Give us a review here:
 
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/TheCellShop_net
 
It will ask you for an invoice #, it will start with a 4 and is 7 digits long.  If you do not have your invoice # anymore you can enter in 7 random digits with a 4 as the first digit.
 
After you write the review, please email me at danny@thecellshop.net so I can give you the $5.00 coupon.
 
Coupon offer: $5.00 off your sub-total.  Must order directly from www.thecellshop.net
 
Thanks for shopping with TheCellShop.net!
 
danny@thecellshop.net
Danny, are you saying that it's possible to post a fake review for your company on resellerratings.com with a made-up invoice number? Are you saying any random 7-digit string that begins with a "4" will be accepted? Are you saying it's okay to lie about your company on the site? Danny, this is the Internet—are you insane?
 
(Photo: Getty Images)
]]>
Consumerist-386979 Mon, 05 May 2008 08:33:06 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=386979&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Two Georgia Gas Stations Closed For Shorting Customers ]]> Busted on the I-95! Georgia state inspectors closed two large Cisco gas stations just across the state line from Florida last week in what the Georgia Commissioner of Agriculture described as "one of the worst cases of shorting gas customers he's seen since he took office back in 1969." (Why Ag? Why not?) An inspector found that a five gallon test pump turned up over a quart short at the Cisco Travel Plaza off Interstate 95's Exit 6, and a similar test revealed a suspiciously similar shortage at another Cisco Travel Plaza off Exit 1.

"The cases where we've found substantial shortage on all nozzles leads us to believe it's a good possibility it might prove to be deliberate. If it's deliberate, we're going to bring criminal charges," the commissioner promised.

Those charges may mean prosecution, plus fines that Irvin says could hit $1,000 for every gas customer allegedly cheated by these stations.

Staff members at the Georgia Department of Agriculture have contacted their counterparts in Florida, Irvin said, so the Sunshine State can keep a close eye on stations south of the border.

The Consumerist reader who tipped us to this story writes,
I live in Florida, and frequently drive up to this Cisco gas station just over the line in Georgia for cheaper gas. Usually this place is booming, they have probably close to 100 pumps, a convenience store, and a few restaurants. Yesterday, it was a ghost town. The state has shut them down for ripping off customers and found the regulatory seals on the pumps had been broken. I had suspected something was up, as my car was consistently taking more to fill up from empty when using their pumps. Greed=0 Consumers=1
We're glad the stations are closed, but we'll wait to see whether or not former customers actually see any refunds before awarding a point. But hey, if Georgia manages to fine the station owners $1,000 per customer, they should make out just swell.

(Thanks to Jay!)

"Investigators Freeze Hot Spot for Gas Across the Georgia Border" [First Coast News]

]]>
Consumerist-357939 Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:28:03 EST Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=357939&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Attention All Coaches: Belichick's Cheating Is A Business Expense ]]> BillBelichick.jpgAccording to the WSJ Law Blog, the common consensus is that Patriots coach Bill Belichick will be able to deduct his $500,000 cheating fine as an "ordinary and necessary business expense." Hooray?

From the TaxProf Blog, where the question first arose:

If Bill were my client, I would advise him to claim the fine as a deduction subject to the 2% miscellaneous itemized deduction rules (under 162). A few considerations:

1. If it is ordinary and necessary, he may negotiate to turn the fine into his employer (the Pats) as an expense reimbursement under an accountable plan. I think Kraft would tell him to get out of his office, though.
2. It's been reported Bill has an annual salary of about $5 million, so let's use that as a rough approximation of AGI. Assuming no other miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to limit, that shaves $100,000 off his deduction right there, leaving him with $400,000.
3. The Pease phaseout will get him, as well. Assuming $5 million of AGI and $1 million of itemized deductions (about standard), the Pease phaseout will reduce his itemized deductions by $145,308. The pro-rated share (40%) of this assigned to the remainder of the fine is $58,123. That leaves him with $341,877 to deduct.
4. Assuming he is in the 35% bracket, the federal tax subsidy on this will be $119,657. The IRS will subsidize 24% of the Belichick fine.

For a nice roundup of tax professor's opinions, check out this entry on the TaxProf blog. Too funny. We think we hear Mangini crying. Can Bill deduct the spy camera, too?


Can Patriots Coach Belichick Deduct His $500,000 Fine?
[TaxProf Blog via WSJ Law Blog]

]]>
Consumerist-301041 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:55:46 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=301041&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Today's Tip For Adulterers: Don't Use 1-800-Flowers ]]> Flowers.jpgA Texas man is suing 1-800-Flowers for $1 million after a thank you note from the web florist outed him as an adulterer. Leroy Greer specifically asked 1-800-Flowers not to send him a receipt for the cuddly stuffed animal and dozen long stemmed roses he ordered for his mistress. Despite his request, 1-800-Flowers sent a thank you note to his house several months later, prompting his wife to ask who the hell got flowers. She called 1-800-Flowers, which gladly faxed her a copy of Leroy's order form that included the following message meant for his mistress: "Just wanted to say I love you and you mean the world to me! -Leroy." Above The Law has the legalese:

Breach of contract action in which the defendants agreed to keep the plaintiff's order of flowers for his girlfriend private, with no record of the transaction mailed to him at his home or office.

Months later, the defendants sent a thank you card to the plaintiff's home, and his wife called the defendants for proof of the purchase. The defendants faxed the plaintiff's wife proof of his order of flowers for his girlfriend, which resulted in a divorce being filed.

Shucks, we thought giant internet florists could be entrusted with secrets. Maybe Leroy should have sent his mistress flowers from the local florist instead.

Lawsuit of the Day: Greer v. 1-800-Flowers [Above The Law]
Greer v. 1-800-Flowers: An Update [Above The Law]
(Photo: candiche)

]]>
Consumerist-287458 Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:17:08 EDT Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=287458&view=rss&microfeed=true