[DannyPage]

> Update 18 December 2025: We’re back! A lovely man from Singapore, working for Apple Executive Relations, who has been calling me every so often for a couple of days, has let me know it’s all fixed. It looks like the gift card I tried to redeem, which did not work for me, and did not credit my account, was already redeemed in some way (sounds like classic gift card tampering), and my account was caught by that. Obviously it’s unacceptable that this can happen, and I’m still trying to get more information out of him, but at least things are now mostly working.

It’s great that it has been resolved, but I’m still baffled by a number of things:

1) Why would redeeming a bad gift card result in a complete shut-down of the account? 2) Why is it seemingly impossible to get any support now unless you drum up a ton of press? 3) Should companies be restricted from growing too large where they can’t support their customers?

In my personal and professional experience, banks are the only companies that seem to actually know how to handle these issues appropriately when it comes to fraud or access. Rather than move to outright banning the account, there are intermediate steps that can be taken. Personal example, my Facebook account was recently banned because a hacker accessed my account uploaded a bad ID when FB requested an ID verification. Despite the request coming from a country I have never visited and would likely be on any high-risk list, my 20 year old account was banned literally overnight without having any recourse. There’s no number or even any email to use. Maybe I can see if the Register will write it up… (I do have all the info from my Facebook account download to show how it was compromised, and any internal support should have been able to see the same… if they cared.)

[xp84]

Banks can’t legally just take your money and lock you out permanently. There are some actual regulations. Plus they have a proper handle on your actual human identity, which means you ought to always have a route to going somewhere in person and proving you’re the rightful owner of your money.

“Online” accounts have zero regulatory requirements, plus many of them aren’t necessarily directly paid-for, so they frame themselves as doing you a favor by letting you have it in the first place. And they usually don’t have a route to prove identity because they don’t record a legal identity (passport/SSN/etc) to begin with (not that that was an issue here, of course - in this case Apple didn’t dispute that they were the owner, just asserted that they were some kind of criminal.)

[coldtea]

>Banks can’t legally just take your money and lock you out permanently.

Yeah, not permanently, only near "effectively" so...

[Terretta]

> There are some actual regulations.

How's that CFPB thing going lately?

[estimator7292]

Banks frequently completely freeze accounts for no discernable reason and with zero communication, support, or recourse.

You're just lucky that it hasn't happened to you. That does not mean it doesn't happen to anyone.

[ryandrake]

What I want to know is why does it always have to go straight from 0 to 100? There's seemingly no concept of proportion. For most online services, your account can be in one of two states: Totally good and "banned for life". There's no warning, no investigative period, no concept of scale (was the fraud $10 or $10,000?), no way to serve your time and come back if you actually were bad. It's just instant, silent BAN HAMMER.

[chrismorgan]

Depending on the jurisdiction, there may be a financial ombudsman you can appeal to. From what I have heard, Australia’s is effective.

[tuetuopay]

Well for banks your account is usually tied to a local brick-and-mortar agency, where it's definitely someone's problem if a customer comes in and refuses to leave. It's one of the reasons I'll never go with fully online banks.

[Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0]

patio11 wrote a great article and podcast about debanking and anti-money laundering processes last year, it was eye opening how kafkaesque these things are: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunki...

[SoftTalker]

A bank might freeze an account for suspicious activity but you can walk in to a any local branch and talk to someone about it.

[huslage]

Yes. But that doesn't make it right.

[asadotzler]

Banks are well regulated and will face meaningful consequences for getting this wrong with any regularity.

[benced]

In the US, that doesn't mean they steal your money though.

[crazygringo]

> 1) Why would redeeming a bad gift card result in a complete shut-down of the account?

Because they assume you stole the gift card and are therefore a criminal. As to why they're making the assumption that you are the criminal, not the actual criminal who successfully redeemed the gift card first, you've got me. Since either situation is possible.

> 2) Why is it seemingly impossible to get any support now unless you drum up a ton of press?

I'm as infuriated as you are.

> 3) Should companies be restricted from growing too large where they can’t support their customers?

Size has nothing to do with it. Plenty of small companies ignore their customers too. So I don't think this is the right solution.

> In my personal and professional experience, banks are the only companies that seem to actually know how to handle these issues appropriately when it comes to fraud or access.

There are plenty of horror stories with banks too. I'm not sure they're that much better at all.

[bigyabai]

"No Way To Fix This" Claims Only Digital Ecosystem Where Catastrophic Lockout Regularly Happens

[InterlooperX]

Still, with Point 1) I wonder what exactly was happening. To think straight away "suspected fraud/criminal activity" for merely entering a voucher code a second time?

As a sane person I would expect a mere popup saying "Voucher code was already redeemed. try another one" Nothing more.

The ONLY other thing I can currently think of why Apple straight away went to "criminal" would be that the brick and mortar store failed to activate the card when they sold it.

You know, someone shoplifts such a card thinking they got it made. Even though you'd think everybody should know that the code you scratch of that card is only active after the clerk at the register did his thing.

If Apple then receives this voucher code that they must have in their databases but it has a big "not activated flag" next to it, THEN I could start to believe why they would lock down the account that tried to redeem, it.

And even then it seems iffy. Because how should I as the consumer know if the clerk did everything right with the activation?

[coldtea]

>.As to why they're making the assumption that you are the criminal, not the actual criminal who successfully redeemed the gift card first, you've got me. Since either situation is possible.

Why the fuck couldn't it just be that you forgot and tried to redeem twice?

Just reject the card and be done with it, no action required.

[WorldMaker]

On the subject of (1) I wonder if a complication in this specific case might be a variant of the clbuttic Scunthorpe problem that the last name on the account that redeemed a bad gift card included the word "Butt" and an algorithm or underpaid reviewer (or both) flagged it also as a suspiciously named account.

(2) and (3) remain great questions without enough good answers.

[Artoooooor]

4. Why locking account bricks any device? It should work without registering anywhere.