![]() |
Hmmm
I'm trying to maximize my return, while minimizing my amount of work spent. I have estimated my days out of the country, and it's over 600, but I've been with 4 different companies, and let's just say around 10 different cards. So, I don't want to do option 3.
I look at 2, and it asks my travel purpose. I would say this is close to 50% business, 50% vacation. What do you think these questiions mean? The choices are Biz, Visit friends, vacation, or other, and the selections range from never to mostly (and you can click all of them mostly, it's real intuitive, one would think mostly would = 1 choice.) My guess is that if you click business, they will assume a coporate card, and disallow a large chunk. If you select visit friends, they might assume you do not incur a hotel charge, and have a reduced per diem, again just a guess... ANy insight into the use here? |
I registered for this before and entered the amount of transactions by year already. I received a notice today that says that I don't have to do anything and option 3 will already be taken for me. Anyone else get that?
|
I've read over the materials several times, and I'm still not clear on one thing:
Does this include ATM withdrawals using cards (Cirrus, Plus, etc) that do NOT have the Visa/MC logo? |
Option 2 is pretty easy to do by looking at entry/exit stamps on your passports. In 15 minutes I was able to determine that I'd been out of country about 163 days during the effective period (not much by some standards, but could reasonably net me a few hundred dollars). I selected "mostly" for vacation and "often" for business.
Unless you are choosing Option 3 you don't have to make any statement or claim regarding what card, if any, was used for charging or ATM withdrawals. |
Originally Posted by UserMark
(Post 8845331)
I've read over the materials several times, and I'm still not clear on one thing:
Does this include ATM withdrawals using cards (Cirrus, Plus, etc) that do NOT have the Visa/MC logo? |
Originally Posted by UserMark
(Post 8845331)
I've read over the materials several times, and I'm still not clear on one thing:
Does this include ATM withdrawals using cards (Cirrus, Plus, etc) that do NOT have the Visa/MC logo? SETTLEMENT DAMAGES CLASS: all Persons who or which were holders of United States-issued MasterCard- or Visa-branded Credit or Debit Cards or United States-issued Diners Club-branded Credit Cards and made a Foreign Transaction from February 1, 1996 to the date of Preliminary Approval; and SETTLEMENT INJUNCTIVE CLASS: All Persons who or which were holders of United States-issued MasterCard- or Visa-branded Credit or Debit Cards or United States-issued Diners Club-branded Credit Cards as of the date of Preliminary Approval. |
Originally Posted by UserMark
(Post 8845331)
Does this include ATM withdrawals using cards (Cirrus, Plus, etc) that do NOT have the Visa/MC logo?
|
I disagree, but then I can't say for certainty either direction and thus for no one else has so we've not really gotten anywhere.
Cirrus and Plus are not Mastercard and Visa branding by my personal interpretation. |
I'm pretty curious about this whole thing. I would expect at least 10% of the population in the US to have used a CC abroad in the last 10 years. That's $30M ppl. $300M divided to $30 is about $10/person. Assuming 1/3 of the people don't respond, that would be $15 a person. Still, with this offer it seems that the least people will get (unless dumb) is $25. Which one of my assumptions is off?
|
Originally Posted by oresh
(Post 8855348)
I'm pretty curious about this whole thing. I would expect at least 10% of the population in the US to have used a CC abroad in the last 10 years. That's $30M ppl. $300M divided to $30 is about $10/person. Assuming 1/3 of the people don't respond, that would be $15 a person. Still, with this offer it seems that the least people will get (unless dumb) is $25. Which one of my assumptions is off?
|
I got my form in the mail. The first paragraph says the following
The fees were based on foeign transactions, including both purcahes and ATM withrawls, from February 1, 1996 to November 8, 2006 |
Originally Posted by Lurker1999
(Post 8833448)
I did the math and ended up deciding the slightly greater return from Option 2 was not worth the trouble of providing a bunch of active credit card numbers to an unknown server. So I opted for Option 1 and provided a single account number which was used for foreign transactions and has since been closed. Whatever information you choose to provide will likely live on in perpetuity on some server somewhere. And any breaches of the server will likely take a while to be reported to affected individuals. It's just not worth it to me.
|
Originally Posted by Nevsky
(Post 7482187)
This seems like a real waste from the point of view of the consumer. The procedure In terms of finding records to get a refund does not seem worth it to me, which seems really unfair to consumers. How is anyone supposed to realistically be expected to have charge records going back to 1996? Even for more recent records, it would seem that for most people, the time necessary for determining the amounts would not be worth the expected return.
|
I've kept my AT&T Visa though I left the U.S. (non U.S. citizen/resident) in the middle of 1997 and have only spent a maximum of a total of 3 months in the U.S. since, so I can put int some 3,500 days under Option 2. On Option 3, I probably could claim at least $1k a year. Which would be better?
FWIW, my card number just got changed due to some fraud prevention move so I'm comfortable providing a defunct Visa account. |
Originally Posted by Lurker1999
(Post 8833448)
Option 2 was not worth the trouble of providing a bunch of active credit card numbers to an unknown server. So I opted for Option 1 and provided a single account number which was used for foreign transactions and has since been closed.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:27 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.