back to article Hotel guest goes broke after booking software gremlin makes her pay for strangers' rooms

An eBay staffer says her bank account was wiped out and her rent check bounced – after the New York hotel she stayed in started charging other guests' reservations to her card. Laura Jane Watkins tweeted about a strange conversation she had with 1 Hotel Brooklyn Bridge on Sunday night. "Hello Mrs Watkins," she recalled the …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Perhaps?

    this and other sites should give the errant hotel some extra publicity if this is not resolved pronto.

    There are plenty of review sites that could be used to tell the world about their TITSUP/Cockup.

    That might concentrate the minds of the Hotel Management that they need to remember that

    'The Customer is always right'.

    Just use legitimate means to get the message home.

    1. 's water music

      Re: Perhaps?

      this and other sites should give the errant hotel some extra publicity if this is not resolved pronto.

      I'm certainly tempted to give them a try now if there is a chance someone else will pick up my tab. Might even crack open the mini-bar for some of them gold plated (judging by the price) peanuts

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Perhaps?

      'The Customer is always right'

      Modern management: did you type some words?

  2. ma1010
    WTF?

    "Sounds like a lawsuit"

    Oh, yes! They need to pay her all the money back PLUS all the bank fees she got charged, write letters to EVERY ONE of her creditors whose payment bounced explaining it wasn't her fault AND compensate her for her time and trouble. Or should sue them.

    Hard to imagine such stupidity. As was pointed out, the CC# should never have been stored there in the first place, so how did it

    1) Get stored

    2) Get used for all bookings?

    What kind of mind could conceive of doing that? Still, whoever it was should send out their resume. Probably be hired as a consultant (see obligatory Dilbert) for the next big government IT project.

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

      If she used a credit card, she should not need to sue. She could have and should have taken the issue with Visa, Amex or MasterCard directly and explain that the refund is NOT YET in her account.

      After a stunt like that on a credit card:

      1. Everything will be refunded. That is part of your credit card agreement. I do not know what the credit card company takes from the retailer after that, but I would expect that that to be a couple of firstborn extra on top of the bill.

      2. The hotel's chain right to process credit card transactions is revoked. This will hurt them much more than any lawsuit. By far.

      Now, with debit cards things get complicated. However, I suspect that some of the same rules apply (at least for a debit Visa). In any case - classic case when saving a couple of dollars worth of processing fee for paying by credit card bites you really bad. You do not use a debit card to pay unless it is a place you really trust. Otherwise, you can (as in this case) end up with a rather empty bank account.

      1. foxyshadis

        Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

        "After a stunt like that on a credit card:"

        Despite being a debit card, it's still processed on the hotel's side as if it was a credit card. Their payment gateway is going to have some words for them, if they aren't dropped entirely, and Visa is probably going to have some very serious words with both the processor and the bank for allowing so many obviously anomalous transactions to go through.

      2. baspax

        Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

        They obviously stored and then accessed her debit card payment information in violation of PCI. They are subject to hefty fines as every single transaction counts as a separate violation.

        The faulted party is also eligible for damages. She should get a lawyer as soon as possible.

      3. Antron Argaiv Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

        You do not use a debit card to pay unless it is a place you really trust.

        Words to live by.

        And most certainly not at a hotel, where the staff know you're only there for a short time, and the odds of at least one of them being paid to swipe credit card details is fairly high. As are the odds of their payment system being compromised by a card number grabbing trojan, if recent news reports are correct.

        I see the interest on a credit card as payment for insulating me from this sort of thing.

        1. Sherrie Ludwig

          Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

          "You do not use a debit card to pay unless it is a place you really trust.

          Words to live by.

          And most certainly not at a hotel, where the staff know you're only there for a short time, and the odds of at least one of them being paid to swipe credit card details is fairly high. As are the odds of their payment system being compromised by a card number grabbing trojan, if recent news reports are correct.

          I see the interest on a credit card as payment for insulating me from this sort of thing."

          Well, there is an American financial advice guru named Dave Ramsey whose advice includes NEVER getting a credit card, and cancelling all the ones you might have. Many people who have gotten into financial trouble use his Financial Peace system to great advantage, and become debt free. For some otherwise reasonable people, having a credit card is like having a bottle of booze for an alcoholic. Not a great idea.

          And, if you do have a credit card and pay interest instead of paying it off every month, well, that is just foolish. Ditto being charged an annual fee for having a credit card.

          BTW, our family followed his advice. We are entirely free and clear, no mortgage, nothing. We went from "were did it go?" to "we have more than we ever believed". And, our bank has been very good at informing us when some hinky debit card payments tried to go through, reissuing us cards after the Target Store debacle.

      4. Ian Michael Gumby
        Boffin

        @Voland ...Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

        The Debit cards have the same rules, however it will take time before the money is back in her bank account. Whereas Credit Cards can't get to the money until its withdrawn.

        Not to mention there are rules about disputed charges and what the parties have to do...

        Never use a Debit card unless you're doing an ATM transaction at your bank. Only at the banks.

      5. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

        "After a stunt like that on a credit card:

        1. Everything will be refunded. That is part of your credit card agreement."

        It was on her debit card

        - There's a (voluntary) scheme here in the UK which gives similar rights to credit cards (but it's voluntary and banks have been known to not honour it)

        - There's no such scheme in in the USA - if a scammer dings your debit card you're on the hook no matter what. (Yes, even if it's visa debit and suchlike)

        So yes, lawsuits aplenty, and I'd imagine a PCI compliance audit for the hotel for a fundamental breach of the rules about handling card details.

        It would have been easier if it was charged to her credit card as Visa would have shut down the hotel gateways quickly (being on the hook for card-not-present fraud). With debit cards requiring the issuing bank to OK the transaction there are no pending transactions to raise alarms.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby

          @Alan Brown Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

          In the US I believe you're on the hook for the first $50.00

          This was done to create some sort of parity not to mention that the CC companies where charging the same per swipe as a CC where there is no risk because the funds were immediately used.

    2. Dazed and Confused

      Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

      This sounds like a prime candidate for multiplying by 3 the amount that should be repaid to her.

    3. Evil Auditor Silver badge

      Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

      It really depends how the hotel handles such a fuckup. If they are only half-way decent there's no need or desire for a lawsuit. If.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

        "It really depends how the hotel handles such a fuckup."

        As she's now not talking to the media it sounds as if an offer has been made conditional on her shutting up. However I'm sure they're discovering it's much too late. What was the hotel again - oh yes, "1 Hotel Brooklyn Bridge".

      2. a_yank_lurker

        Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

        @Evil Auditor - I would seriously consider both criminal and civil actions (with the help of a shyster). Also, given the hotel violated a host contracts have credit card companies revoke privileges toot suit.

        1. Stoneshop
          Headmaster

          revoke privileges toot suit.

          A jacket with a horn in the pocket?

    4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

      "2) Get used for all bookings?"

      And

      3) Not be shout down immediately they realised the problem?

      It sounds as if they just let it run.

      1. Trigonoceps occipitalis

        Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

        I'm not on the hotel's side but just shutting down their system would, in all likelihood, stop new bookings by card. No matter how apologetic and determined to compensate the victim, you can't do that if the business is bust.

        I think it was a rock and a hard place situation and the PHB agonised for seconds before deciding to let it run for his benefit.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

      What makes you think the CC# should never have been stored? PCI-DSS (the industry self-regulatory standard) explicitly permits storage of this data, as long as it's done in a secure manner (encrypted, typically).

      Section 3.2.1:

      "Note: In the normal course of business, the following data elements from the magnetic stripe may need to be retained:

       The cardholder’s name

       Primary account number (PAN)

       Expiration date

       Service code

      To minimize risk, store only these data elements as needed for business. "

      (PAN is the CC#).

      Section 3.4:

      "Render PAN unreadable anywhere it is stored (including on portable digital media, backup media, and in logs) by using any of the following approaches:

       One-way hashes based on strong cryptography, (hash must be of the entire PAN)

       Truncation (hashing cannot be used to replace the truncated segment of PAN)

       Index tokens and pads (pads must be securely stored)

       Strong cryptography with associated key-management processes and procedures."

      It's _normal_ for businesses to store CC# numbers where later charges may be applied or repeat orders happen.

    6. Ian Michael Gumby

      ma1010 Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

      No,

      No lawsuit as long as they make restitution. In addition, she should have contacted her bank.

      As you said the hotel is on the hook for refunding her money, plus and bank charges (over drafts) she incurred.

      If she had to get a lawyer, they would be best to also pay her legal fees. (This would be in a settlement.)

      The hotel did have the right to store her credit card information, however the first question would be if their system was PCI compliant.

      The larger issue... why would someone in IT use a Debit Card for a transaction. The only time I use mine is at the Bank's branded ATMs at their branches. Other stuff on Credit Cards. (Amex for one)

      And people wonder why I stay at the larger branded hotels when I travel for work...

      And you're right... their IT staff should be terminated. Not just one but several people.

      1. baspax

        Re: ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

        In response to Mr Gumbly.

        No definitely not off the hook. PCI is specifically set up to avoid an internal employee accessing customer credit card data. All they are allowed to see are key data such as last four digits, etc.

        That an unauthorized developer simply linked to a cc entry in their payment database and thus used a customer payment information, is grossly negligent and subject to damages.

        1. Mark 65

          Re: ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

          Good to see her bank had systems in place to detect fraudulent transactions like most banks have had for the last decade or so. This would have stood out a mile.

        2. Kristian Walsh Silver badge

          thoughts... Re: ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

          My guess is that they never accessed her card details at all, but instead repeatedly charged against a card-on-file token that they'd legitimately kept for her card. How they got to doing that could be one of those few differences between debit cards and credit cards, and how their booking system didn't properly deal with them. (I'd be surprised if the hotel's booking system itself ever handled the card details - that's normally handed off to a third-party service due to the high PCI-DSS compliance cost of doing it yourself).

          What they're most likely doing is asking for the customer's details to be retained on file with their card acceptor service, for later use. The result of that operation is a random-ish payment token that can be given back to the acquirer to make charges against that card in future.

          My guess is that she was, unfortunately, the first customer to present a debit (not credit) card to the hotel. Debit cards have a subset of the functions of a credit card, so the returned information from a card acceptor will be smaller set of fields than for a debit card, with some values set to NULL (or missing, which can be the same thing depending on how you process the response). And that's where I think the fun would have begun...

          If I wanted to make this happen, here's how I'd do it:

          1. The response from card acquirer has NULL for a field that "always" has a value when used with a credit card, but despite that, still contains a usable "charging" token that can be used to raise charges against the card.

          2. The unexpectedly-NULL field is used as the first term in a concatenation operation to generate a key to identify that card, but because of concatenation-to-NULL, the whole result ends up as NULL.

          3. As there's not a card on file already there with NULL as its local "unique" id, the victim's card token gets stored into the "cards on file" table with the "unique ID" of NULL, but the correct token.

          4. That card-on-file ID (NULL) gets stored against the first customer's booking record.

          5. (later) The hotel booking system looks up the token for the first customer and charges the customer.

          But...

          Another customer with a debit card arrives, and steps 1..3 repeat as before, but this time, because there's already a card on file with the "unique" ID of NULL, the first customer's charging token gets associated with the new customer's booking.

          ...Repeat until the first customer gets very,very mad..

          Incidentally, PCI-DSS doesn't cover the handling of stored tokens such as this, as they cannot be used to reconstitute a customer credit card account, and they bind exactly one merchant to the card (you can give someone else the token you acquired, but if they use it, the money still goes into your merhcant account, not theirs).

          1. Ian Michael Gumby

            @Kirstan Re: thoughts... ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

            Not everyone is using the tokenized system. Especially since the card wasn't swiped but done online.

            My guess is that since the offending charges were all from prepaid online bookings, that she did that herself.

            But yeah... you get it.

        3. Ian Michael Gumby
          Boffin

          @baspax Re: ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

          Mate, you really need to learn a bit more about what happens on the back end and PCI compliance.

          The retailer stores the CC information. They have to in order to charge the customer. So they have the full credit card number. The web site, and users do not have access to the whole card, only the last 4 digits because that's all they need to confirm the identity of the person based on those numbers. Now they are asking for more information as a way to verify the person. (Home address, email, phone #, etc...)

          The last 4 digits is used to identify the account information. That doesn't mean only the last four digits are stored. The whole account info is stored. That data has to stored in an encrypted format while at rest.

          And they have to show that only authorized people have access to the information. There's more... maybe you should learn it.

          With respect to the lawsuit... if the hotel doesn't make restitution, there could be a lawsuit, however... the hotel will make restitution. Why the woman didn't contact her bank, even w a debit card, there are laws that they have to follow.

          With respect to the hotel... yeah, they are going to have a major problem with their card processing company. It theoretically could bankrupt them.

          1. Kristian Walsh Silver badge

            Re: @baspax ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

            The retailer stores the CC information. They have to in order to charge the customer. So they have the full credit card number.

            The retailer doesn't store this information.

            That's done on behalf of the retailer by a card acquirer (the company who "does your credit card payments"). If the retailer wants to do additional charges against the same card later, they can ask the acquirer to return a reference (not calculated from the card details) to the customer's card. To make a charge, the retailer sends that reference, plus the desired amount, back to the acquirer. They can repeat this as often as they want. As the reference is just a random number, and can only be used to make purchases that benefit the one merchant, it doesn't fall under PCI-DSS rules.

            No retailer would want to store card info in their computer system. Doing that opens them up to a £15k a year PCI-DSS compliance audit. By offloading the storage to a card acquirer, the merchant/retailer only has to fill out a fairly simple Self-assessment questionnaire to verify that they're following "good practice" (i.e., not scribbling down card numbers, dates and CVVs on post-it notes)

            1. Ian Michael Gumby
              Boffin

              @Kristian Walsh ... Re: @baspax ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

              It depends.

              On small retailers, their website provider would capture the details and handle the online billing.

              With larger chains... no they handle all of the information.

              There is tokenization but that happens by a third party at the time of authorization. Its relatively new and it allows the hotel chain not to capture or store the CC info, but the token which is unique to the chain. The actual cc info is stored by the 3rd party. This causes a bit of a headache with the CC providers for a couple of things... (I could say more, but then I'd get in to trouble.., which is why I avoided the tokenization issue. Note: Not everyone is there...)

              Things are moving towards the tokenization, however... your CC info is stored by the provider and if they ever get cracked... whoa mamma.

      2. William 3 Bronze badge

        Re: ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

        It's her fault for using a debit card is it?

        I bet she had a short skirt on as well.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby
          Mushroom

          @William 3 Re: ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

          Yes, she was foolish in her use of the Debit card.

          Were she a he, I'd say the same thing.

          Its not a sexist thing either.

          But its funny that you went there.

          BTW, I've talked to all of my relatives and my wife about not using the debit card for anything but use at an ATM within a bank and not out in the open. Have you done the same?

      3. Adam 1

        Re: ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

        Geez a bunch of victim blaming going on here. Maybe their credit rating wasn't sufficient for a credit card. Maybe they don't want to pay fees. Who cares. They were still wronged and deserve reasonable compensation.

        I had my visa debit card fraudulently used probably a decade ago. I was on a different continent and hemisphere to the shop claiming my purchase which made protesting the transaction much simpler, but I was still down a few hundred bucks for a week or so before the refund came through. The process is the same whether it's debit or credit. The difference with debit is that you are literally out of pocket until they sort it out. It is definitely a gotcha of debit cards.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby
          Mushroom

          @Adam 1 Re: ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

          Its not a question of victim blaming.

          Is it not completely obvious that the hotel screwed up bad? Really bad?

          The question... is there a potential lawsuit? Maybe, however it can be avoided if the hotel makes restitution to the woman. Which any good lawyer would tell them to settle ASAP.

          As to the use of your debit card. Yes, that's the thing. You will get your money back eventually. What wasn't said in the article was if or when the woman contacted the bank. She would have eventually gotten her money back so she's protected, however its the temporary loss that can be problematic.

          Calling the woman dumb because she made the mistake of using her debit card isn't blaming the victim unless of course you believe that trying to avoid being the victim isn't a smarter course of action.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Mushroom

        Re: ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

        Ohh such a smug git aren't we...

        "....Other stuff on Credit Cards. (Amex for one)..And people wonder why I stay at the larger branded hotels when I travel for work...."

        https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/02/intercontinental-confirms-breach-at-12-hotels/

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31753935

        https://www.cnet.com/news/customers-at-sheraton-westin-other-hotels-hit-by-data-stealing-hack-attack/

        PS, debit cards mischarged? Phone up, say unauthorised, charge back. Boom. Done.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby
          Boffin

          @Lost all faith ... Re: ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

          Smug?

          Hardly.

          In the past 27 years, I've had fraud on my Amex card 3 times.

          Each time, I cancelled my card, got a new one and the charges were dropped.

          No harm, no foul.

          So I am protected from stupidity.

          There's more to it, like a bad experience at a boutique hotel I was forced to stay at once that was a dive and of course the company made me prepay the room.

          Fraud will hit, however using my Amex makes my life easier, not to mention I was in the middle of BFE and they delivered a card to me within 48 hours after they contacted me about the fraud.

          And yeah Debit card mischarged? Phone up, report fraud... wait until the money is back in to your account.

          Why the girl didn't do that immediately... is something not found in the article.

    7. FuzzyWuzzys

      Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

      That's what your monthly fees on your CC cover, insurance and legal costs should something go wrong that's not your fault. If she wishes to sue the hotel chain, she's welcome but I can imagine she'll be on her own on that one and they will have some T&Cs that will mitigate having their business "shaken down" if the issue has already been dealt with by the credit card company.

      A credit card is a temporary loan, they don't ask for the money until later on, so why was she out of pocket for her bills if all this trouble was via the credit card? Her regular paycheck should have covered basic living expenses, I can't see someone in that position in a reasonably well paid job that allows her to stay in hotels, living off a credit card month to month.

      1. Ochib

        Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

        It wasn't a credit card, it was a debt card. Debt cards will take the money straight out of your current account

      2. William 3 Bronze badge

        Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

        No amount of T&C's can justify a business charging your account for services you never received.

    8. OffBeatMammal

      Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

      also, will this leave a note on her credit history that needs to be explained away...

  3. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

    "when we reached out to her"

    Have you started employing out of work HR consultancy rejects? Whats wrong with "when we asked her"?

    1. AlanBBoyd

      Re: "when we reached out to her"

      This should cover it...

      http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2015/07/24/acceptable-say-reach-work/

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "when we reached out to her"

      You should socialise that idea going forward.

  4. BongoJoe

    One of my pet peeves

    is that when a company messes up and offers a refund it always seems to take longer coming back into the account then it does leaving.

    There is no reason why the hotel couldn't get someone around to the bank pretty bloody sharpish and deposit a load of notes into her account to pay her back right away.

    It's worse, and quite unforgivable, when a company (and I am looking at you here, Eclipse Internet) delays any refunds by sending out a cheque - by second class post.

    I hope that the lady in question hauls them over the coals if they don't offer proper compensation and letters of apology for what is effectively fraudulent behaviour.

    1. Terry 6 Silver badge

      Re: One of my pet peeves

      Almost worse than that there is the deliberate delay in accepting responsibility when something goes wrong. All sorts of delays come into place before the thing can be resolved. You can't find who to call, you get put through to a script reader who takes you through all sorts of obvious irrelevances, then they try to blame you, next tehy pass you to a department who make you explain it all again. Then they ask for proof of things they already have on record ( that you might not). Then they say they'll call you back, but don't. And so on.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: One of my pet peeves

        "Almost worse than that there is the deliberate delay in accepting responsibility when something goes wrong."

        In this case it's even worse. According to TFA in the first place they called her and even then she had problems getting back to them. And knowing something was wrong they still kept debiting her card. OK, if they stopped taking bookings it would have cost them some business but keeping doing this knowing they were debiting the wrong account they must surely have been committing fraud. At the very least they could have started issuing credits to her account to counter each debit their system made. In fact it's difficult to find anything in this account that they did right.

        It sounds as if there was nobody on watch empowered to make decisions nor any means of quickly reaching anyone who could.

        1. frank ly

          Re: One of my pet peeves

          "It sounds as if there was nobody on watch empowered to make decisions nor any means of quickly reaching anyone who could."

          This!

          Companies are very good at taking money from people because that's what they want to do, so they have systems and procedures in place to enable that. When it comes to returning money, they are useless at it because they never put any effort into developing systems and procedures for it, and they don't want to.

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: One of my pet peeves

        "You can't find who to call, you get put through to a script reader who takes you through all sorts of obvious irrelevances, then they try to blame you, next tehy pass you to a department who make you explain it all again."

        In the case of an egrarious breach - but of relatively small monetary value - then a small claims filing has a tendency to slice through such obstacles like a white hot knife through butter.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: One of my pet peeves

      @BongoJoe

      > is that when a company messes up and offers a refund it always seems to take longer coming back into the account then it does leaving.

      Indeed.

      My wife and I had our flight to Munich cancelled by LUFTHANSA whilst we were waiting to board, having spent two hours getting through check in and security...

      It took three months and multiple 'phone calls to get them to refund us.

    3. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: One of my pet peeves

      A fairly massive customer service and damage limitation fail is the "uh, system gone wrong, gonna take a few days to get the refunds out" attitude. If they had actually thought about it, they should have just wired a bunch of money to her account on the spot, then sorted the details out later.

    4. Ian Michael Gumby

      @Bongo Joe ... Re: One of my pet peeves

      Don't be too peeved.

      The issue is that the system is designed to make it easy for the transaction to flow in one direction.

      Merchant credits... aren't the norm.

  5. Nate Amsden

    never use a debit card for credit ?

    Seems like a logical thing to do, maybe this customer didn't qualify to get a credit card or something, but can't really imagine why anyone would use a debit card to charge anything except as a last resort (I recall doing it once last year, first time in probably 15 years).

    I'm sure there are some banks that will protect your account similar to credit cards but I think most do not.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like