daddyo_daddyo

Do you have a screen print of the offer?

polynet

Sadly no... but I remember there being no visible offer code anyhow. I can still get to the link I used, but the agent, nor supervisor, seem to really care because it was already 'investigated'

angrypenguin

How long did it take for your points to post? I hit my 5k last week, and after everyone's stories I'm concerned I won't receive anything...

mmthomas44

I applied for the Starwood Amex after having one 3 years ago using the 30000 points offer link. I was refused bonus points after spending over $3000 on the card; I should have received 10000 points after $1000. I asked the phone agent when I activated the card what the terms of my bonus offer were and was quoted the 30000 points offer terms. I consider it fraudulent to tell me at activation I would get the points and then refuse the bonus later (for holding the card years ago). Which regulator will be the appropriate one to complain about fraudulent marketing by AMEX?

This is posted here rather than the Starwood forum because it is an AMEX fraud issue.

I never got the first 10000 points and customer service says since I had the card 3 years ago I am not eligible. CS at activation told me I would get the bonus. Applied middle of May with no hassle or warnings.

guear

Personal or biz? It is written clearly in the offer terms. More discussion here:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/ameri...etime-usa.html

mmthomas44

Personal card. What regulator is the correct to complain about fraudulent marketing. I was told I would get the bonus when I activated the card.

ddallas

Did the application you filled out have the newer restrictive language "This offer is also not available to applicants who have or have had this product." Or did you get a targeted offer that did not have restrictive language?

Happy

Did you use Incognito window to apply?

dchen2

Unfortunately I'm pretty sure the written application T&C over rides what ever verbal assurances Amex gives. Amex has been very strict about enforcing the T&C of sign up bonus starting about 2 years ago.

2 years back after the bonanza of Amex agreeing to match new cards to targeted sign up bonuses, I got caught where for a new personal gold charge card Amex verbally (and noted in my account history) matching me to a higher 75k MR sign up bonus after $5k spend vs the 25k MR bonus for $2k spend but after I spent $5k, Amex didn't honor the higher bonus.

Do you get any portion of the sign up bonus? aka the 10k after first purchase and another 20k after spending $3k?

DBCme

If you suspect fraud (assuming because of what the phone rep told you) and you push your claim forward, the original application you submitted would probably be reviewed, and specifically, the terms and conditions about applicability of awarding the bonus miles. If you have those handy it should either make or break your claim.

What has happened in the sphere of FT in the past is not necessarily what one should always expect. Further, AMEX has said they would begin enforcing such bonuses that were not necessarily done before (there is a deep thread on this somewhere).

Hope this helps.

MrMoonlight

There is no fraud. The offer contained within the T&C indicated that you would not be entitled to the bonus. You agreed to those terms and accepted the offer, understanding you were getting the card without the bonus.

What they might have told you after you entered into the agreement is irrelevant.

You were hoping to get away with something. You didn't.

SamOF

I'm not saying it would necessarily fly, but it's not as crazy as some seem to think to argue that a company verbally telling someone they would receive a bonus overrides a previous written term, particularly if the assurance gets them to spend more money on the credit card.

And in the consumer finance context, even if you can't make the argument based on the terms, I can't imagine Amex wants to draw regulators' attention to them offering a product with a bonus attached, approving a customer who they should know is ineligible for the bonus, telling the customer they will get the bonus, then saying no after the spend is complete.

MrMoonlight

If OP wants to press the issue, this is a bad case. It's obvious what happened here, and the OP is not the type of person that deserves government protection. He visits and contributes to this site frequently enough to realize that Amex recently imposed the one bonus per lifetime rule. Since the rule is new, no one here know yet what "lifetime" means. He thought three years might be long enough, and he gave it a shot. He felt he got away with something when the CSR gave him some false encouragement, after he already applied for the card and had it in his hands. Ultimately, however, he gambled and lost.

I'm not blaming him for giving it a try, and I appreciate that he is now able to provide us with a DP on the new rule. Many of us push the envelope with our applications on occasion. We win many times, but sometimes we lose. That's what helps make this game fun. But to say he was defrauded? C'mon! Chalk it up to experience and move on!

mmthomas44

That is my logic; but I don't know which regulator would get their attention. I do not expect the regulator to affect my case, but to get AMEX into a "consumer friendly" attitude of keeping promises from customer service reps. I would not have spent so much money on the card if they had told me at activation or signup that I would not get the bonus.

SamOF

I certainly agree that it's not a good case. And obviously the OP probably knew what what s/he was getting into when the app was made. But, here's the key for me: it's easy to imagine that Amex might make an exception to the general term in order to lure back a former good customer. If a rep then says "You'll get the bonus, now go do the spend," it seems reasonable to think that they made the exception, rely on that exception, and give Amex $$ in the form of merchant fees.

The obvious response is that the OP knew that they probably weren't purposely making an exception, so that certainly weakens a personal case. But regulators might be interested, because an average, non-FT-wise consumer could quite easily have done exactly what OP did.