Bug In Lowe's Site Sold Goods For Free. Couple Arrested For Exploiting It (bleepingcomputer.com) 239
An anonymous reader writes: A couple from the Brick Township in New Jersey stands accused of using a flaw in the Lowes online portal to receive goods for free at their home. According to the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office, the couple tried to steal goods worth $258,068.01, but only managed to receive approximately $12,971.23 worth of merchandise. Officers executing a search warrant said the residence resembled "more of a warehouse than a home." Investigators said they recovered enough merchandise to fill an 18-foot trailer. Most items were in their original packaging and still had their price tags. Police say one of the suspects posted ads for some of the stolen goods on a Facebook group used to buy and sell used objects. The suspect was selling most of the items at half the price offered on the Lowes website. Authorities did not provide in-depth technical details but revealed the flaw resided in the site's gift card module.
One of the suspects' lawyer argued that his client didn't have the skills to penetrate the security on the web site of a Fortune 500 company -- and insisted instead that his client just had a really special knack for finding good deals.
One of the suspects' lawyer argued that his client didn't have the skills to penetrate the security on the web site of a Fortune 500 company -- and insisted instead that his client just had a really special knack for finding good deals.
Where are the security trolls? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if it is clear that the system was at fault and that no exploit was used, that person would not get to keep the goods over here.
But would they be charged with a crime?
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind that, would the stuff even blend?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it is clear that the system was at fault and that no exploit was used, that person would not get to keep the goods over here.
But would they be charged with a crime?
If they exploited the flaw over and over and over again, then I would think yes. Just like the couple allegedly did in TFS.
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if it is clear that the system was at fault and that no exploit was used, that person would not get to keep the goods over here.
But would they be charged with a crime?
If they exploited the flaw over and over and over again, then I would think yes. Just like the couple allegedly did in TFS.
Exactly. I f they stumbled onto a "great deal" once and bought it I would say they shouldn't be charged with a crime. However, find over 250k$ of "good deals" (as their lawyer claims) crosses the line into criminal, IMHO.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. I f they stumbled onto a "great deal" once and bought it I would say they shouldn't be charged with a crime. However, find over 250k$ of "good deals" (as their lawyer claims) crosses the line into criminal, IMHO.
In the Land of Affluenza, anything seems to be possible. Some call it "the land of unlimited possibilities" after all...
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:5, Insightful)
On top of that, theres intent to sell.
If you get a $250 discount off a $1000 TV by accident and then keep that TV for yourself, the law is pretty much going to ignore you.
But if you get a $250 discount off a $1000 TV by accident but then use said accident to buy 500 TVs and proceed to re-sell all 500 TVs for $900, the law will happily slap you down.
I dunno. $750 might very well be a reasonable price for the item. If you bought 500 of them in good faith, and sold them to get the arbitrage, I think it might be hard to prosecute you. (Dealer authorization issues notwithstanding.)
On the other hand, if you got them for a price that was indisputably far below their market value because of a glitch in the seller's software, then I think the law can step in.
In either case, it's probably up to the courts to decide who prevails. As it should be.
It's the Jury. (Score:5, Interesting)
You said 'Court' but I want to point out, it's not for the judge to decide, it's for the Jury. This is why we have Jury trials. Specifically it's supposed to be your 'peers.'
The question is asked, "Do you think this person is guilty of stealing from this company?"
The judge says, "This is what the law is and what it says."
The lawyers say, "this is what the defendant did or didn't do."
Then it's up to the Jury to decide if what the defendant did or didn't do counts as breaking the law.
Sometimes it's cut and dried...but if it was always black and white like that we wouldn't need juries. Juries are specifically for cases like this where the people say, "Yes, I ordered all that stuff, but I didn't think it was breaking the law." The people on the jury say, "You know...I probably wouldn't have known it was against the law either." or they say, "Don't be an idiot. That's obviously against the law." That's why they are supposed to be 'peers.' People who 'generally' think the way you do.
Other examples of 'great jury fodder' is self-defense. "I would have done the exact same thing in the situation."
Re: (Score:3)
The Judge usually, at least around here, gets the first chance to throw the case out. The defendant also has a choice of whether to have a jury trial or bench trial.
We Don't Have Jury Trials (Score:3)
You said 'Court' but I want to point out, it's not for the judge to decide, it's for the Jury. This is why we have Jury trials.
Jury trials happen in a tiny percentage of cases. Insisting on a jury trial means you're willing to risk years (or perhaps decades) of your life for the chance that the jury will agree with you. People generally only do that if they're looking at VERY serious time. VERY occasionally you run into someone who refuses to settle because they're innocent, and are willing to roll the dice a jury will believe them. And then they go to jail for longer than if they had been guilty.
Jury trials are the last defence against bad law (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a number of occasions in England where a jury's refusal to convict whistleblowers for releasing embarrassing state 'secrets' have done a lot to reign in the government. Yes, you pay a price in terms of some real crimes being unprosecutable as well - receiving stolen goods for example - but overall I think the price is worth paying.
So does your definition of 'civilised' equal 'authoritarian'?
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK they might, if it could be shown that they realised what was happening and decided to abuse it. All EU countries are similar I think.
It's similar if someone accidentally transfers money to your bank account. If you suddenly find a million Euros in there that you weren't expecting and decide to spend it, you stole that money. You could not have reasonably have thought it was yours. If it's just 100 Euros and you normally get thousands a month from your job anyway it could be an honest mistake to sp
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This involves a ton of contract law and consumer protections laws, which span huge volumes of the law. Trying to condense this to a simple yes/no is going to miss a ton of nuance.
But, ultimately, if the seller can demonstrate that the buyer had intent to defraud, they will have no problem prosecuting the buyer.
In the case of Lowe's here, intent to defraud is pretty clear, since a) the software glitch was used repeatedly and consistently - showing that it wasn't an accident nor a mistake - and b) no honest p
Re: (Score:2)
If you suddenly find a million Euros in there that you weren't expecting and decide to spend it, you stole that money.
Actually not.
The guy who made the wrong transfer can cancel it.
Such mistakes happened and the receivers did not get charged. Especially if it is an error of the bank, as a twisted account number.
Re: (Score:2)
>> If you suddenly find a million Euros in there that you weren't expecting and decide to spend it, you stole that money.
> Actually not.
It depends on the Country you are in. My understanding is that under the Union Jack it's called "Theft by finding."
The trick with laws is to remember that what is right is not necessarily the law, and what is the law for you is not necessarily the law for someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, here in taxland (Argentina) we have tax on deposits. 0.6% of every deposit in any account. So if someone deposited 1M in your account and removed it, you'd still get taxed $6K.
It has happened before.
Re: (Score:3)
I should have said that it is common practice in the UK to pounce on these sorts of web site and even in store pricing mistakes. There are even web sites that are dedicated to carrying them with hotukdeals being the most well known.
Right now hotdealsuk is showing up to 90% for some watches at Amazon, and a Panasonic sound bar that that is 100GBP off (200GBP normal price) when brought with any TV, with the cheapest model that works with the deal being 99GBP.
So clearly deep discounting is not unheard off, and
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK it could be argued that the seller "accepted" the sale. In a physical shop, if you see an item mis-priced you can't just take it to the sales counter, slap down the cash and walk out. The shop has to agree the sale with you, typically by putting it through the till and producing a receipt.
Years ago, in the early 2000s I think, some supermarket sold TVs for £0.10 instead of £1000 on their web site. They argued that even though the web site had taken the order, they had not a
Re: Where are the security trolls? (Score:2)
But would they be charged with a crime?
This couple (likely) did something to activate the 'mistake' in the website, once they intentionally repeated their activation they flipped from customers to thieves, so they should be charged with a crime.
I suspect they discovered some 'test' credit card info that Lowe's uses to test the software that by-passes credit authorizations, likely revealed to them by a friend or relative that works at Lowe's corporate offices.
If what I suspect is what happened, that would be an example of a chargeable crime.
If th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most references to US law imply that they would need to return the merchandise or pay for it if it is an obvious error in pricing. However this all probably depends on how they received the discount on the merchandise. If it was a coupon code or certain methods of clicking, then they are probably ok. However of they say used something like the Chrome inspector to change prices submitted to the backend then they are probably liable for theft and/or hacking.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
However of they say used something like the Chrome inspector to change prices submitted to the backend then they are probably liable for theft and/or hacking.
If you can do that, they are asking the users computer to tell them what the price is / should be, and the computer not being a person, this thus becomes asking the user.
Basically a "name your own price" scheme, as has been used before for things like music and indie-games.
I would not consider any place a civilized country where a customer could be convicted of answering "nothing" when asked what he wants to pay for an item. In any reasonable law, that answer is considered an offer to buy the item at that p
Re: (Score:2)
But would they be charged with a crime?
That really comes down to intent. If a mistake happens and you walk away with a lot of change then no crime was committed. You're not required to correct other people's mistakes.
If you knew that one person made the same mistake over and over again and you went to that specific person to knowingly exploit his mistake then you're defrauding them. That is a crime.
I bought 4 HDDs for $23 ea from an online retailer in Australia (list price $230 at the time). I did it once. The law is on my side. If I went back a
Re: (Score:2)
I assume they repeated the exploit an inordinate number of times to attempt purchasing $250k worth of products. Therefore the intent to defraud Lowes was clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it is clear that the system was at fault and that no exploit was used, that person would not get to keep the goods over here.
But would they be charged with a crime?
It depends on scale, doing it now and again on small things for yourself would probably get you told off. Ordering a quarter millions worth of everything you can and you'd probably be looking at some kind of fraud or intent charges.
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:4, Funny)
Come on everybody. This is Slashdot. We need a car analogy.
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, car analogy...
Imagine your car goes to the Lowes website to buy tires. Your car finds out a way to get the tires shipped to the house without paying for them. Your car is now selling the tires at half price on eBay, and for some reason you don't mind a pile of tires in your garage. Now, should your car be sent to prison for this, or should your car have the remaining tires returned and then told to... retire... from selling things on eBay?
No, don't get up, I can find the exit myself.
Re: (Score:3)
I would buy that car!
Smart car!
How much?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Which state? The United States has 50 states with often different laws. They may be some federal over reaching laws but the details are managed by each state.
Normally a store can refuse to sell until they pay.
Often they will let mistakes like this slide as to keep the customer happy and there isn't the big of a loss. But they can refuse to sell if there is a mistake in the price... but if they don't fix the problem quickly then they may be going info false advertising.
For Lowes, I expect if these people
Re: (Score:2)
In Argentina there is no "clear mistake" option. The seller is obligated to sell the product at whatever price he put in the price tag. It doesn't matter if it was a mistake. Learn from your mistakes, I suppose.
I filed a claim against a seller for precisely that. They were selling a machine with 64% discount. I paid for it, then they canceled the order. So, I filed the claim. There was no mistake, though. It was labeled "HOT SALE". So if they advertise "AMAZING DEALS" and one product is 64% off, then it's
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you picked up a couple of goods like that in a basket, I'd call the arrest unreasonable.
If you went back and picked up an entire trailerload of those goods and only those goods, and walked out without paying a cent, I'd say at that point you should have realized something was wrong, and now we've got clear evidence of malicious intent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be silly. This wasn't just Lowe's not noticing some stealthy action, this was Lowe's willingly packing up and shopping the goods to the couple after receiving no money.
Given the volume and value of the goods, I find it hard to believe that the couple had no idea it wasn't just a really good deal, but I can somewhat see why they might not have fully realized it was a crime.
Hopefully, they will be required to return the goods and receive a non-custodial sentence and a stern warning.
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lowes packed up their order and had it delivered to their house! There should be like 3 computer functions that mitigate that risk and oh, a dozen PHYSICAL ACTS that should have stopped it.
Lowes is just full of fail on this one.
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:5, Informative)
Lowes packed up their order and had it delivered to their house! There should be like 3 computer functions that mitigate that risk and oh, a dozen PHYSICAL ACTS that should have stopped it.
How would a warehouse worker or truck driver know that the customer wasn't correctly charged by the website for their purchase?
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:4, Interesting)
Got that right. There is a communication problem in any big organization. This can be taken advantage of if you know the system.
In the Army there's a lot of delegation and division of duties. I've seen this used and abused. A fellow recruit (happened to be prior service Marine so he knew the system better than I) and I needed to get some luggage before getting our orders but we knew that if we simply asked for permission to go to the PX it would likely be denied. He just said to follow him and I did, I watched him go from one sergeant to the next with BS and half truths and in 20 minutes we were walking to the PX. He just did a Jedi mind trick on three sergeants to get us what we wanted. That's a pretty mild abuse of the system and if someone ever asked too many questions it would have been a "don't do that again" warning.
Another recruit would like to pull this trick by claiming "Sergeant Major says..." which got annoying real quick. Going to ask the Sergeant Major every time would have taken more time than just doing what he asked and I don't know if he got nailed on it. I got my luggage and my orders and I was gone before that happened.
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:4, Informative)
Got that right. There is a communication problem in any big organization. This can be taken advantage of if you know the system.
The rest of your comment aside, a warehouse worker or truck driver shouldn't need to know the price of the items they are packing and delivering - they get their marching orders from a printout (or electronic message) that tells them what to pack and likely prints a shipping label for them.
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's Lowe's problem, or at least it should be. If a company is like a person then there's no excuse. If you ask a person to ship you free things, and they do, then I fail to see how this is a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, zero cost orders are not that uncommon as they are used for things like warranty replacements and exchanges.
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:5, Interesting)
So that customer found multiple vulnerabilities in Lowe's order fulfillment process. I think that's worth a bug bounty of well over $13k. Lowe's should say thank you and call it even.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree with you on two conditions. First, if the stuff they ordered were stuff that they intended to keep and use themselves. Second, if they reported the flaw themselves.
Among the items were 3 vacuum cleaners, multiple pairs of boots, and... $25000 in underwear? Lowes sells underwear? If they hadn't bought enough furniture to furnish their house many times over then they might have an excuse for this being a "mistake". It still could have ended in criminal charges but they'd have a better bargainin
Re: (Score:2)
No consequences? Theft and fraud costs them money. Catching these people will cost them money since now they have to provide company resources to this case if they want their stuff back. Covering these costs will affect profits. There are consequences here. Best they can do now is minimize the losses.
I have little doubt they had security people look over the code. It may be that they weren't experienced, didn't have enough time to look over everything before it went live, or managers overrode their re
Re: (Score:2)
What does Lowe's deserve for creating the loophole and not hiring qualified security people to find and fix it? Do we really want a world where companies don't have to face the consequences of their actions?
You go overboard in this case. If the couple did it once and report to Lowe, then I agree that the company should not pursue any law suit against the couple and it would be similar to paying the bounty. However, the couple abused the bug (repeatedly exploited the bug). Are you still seeing the action as consequence against the company? Because you do not like corporations doesn't mean any actions, including abuses, against the company flaw are acceptable and/or lawful.
Re: (Score:3)
What would jailing the couple accomplish? Do you think society needs to be protected from them because they might find and exploit another vulnerability?
What not jailing them would so is send a powerful message to Lowe's and all other companies that they need to stop shifting their costs onto taxpayers and start hiring better people instead of outsourcing at every opportunity [ajc.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Lowes packed up their order and had it delivered to their house! There should be like 3 computer functions that mitigate that risk and oh, a dozen PHYSICAL ACTS that should have stopped it.
Lowes is just full of fail on this one.
Agreed. But Lowes did not commit a crime. The NJ couple allegedly did. They found a flaw in their online commerce system and exploited it repeatedly.
In large corporations, one hand often does not know what the other is doing. Once a shipment is authorized, shipping ships it. Eventually somebody might notice that the same address keeps receiving items for $0.00, and notify someone.
Yes, Lowes screwed up. But nobody expects a company like Lowes to give away stuff for free. They might be expected to write off a
Re: (Score:2)
There should be like 3 computer functions that mitigate that risk and oh, a dozen PHYSICAL ACTS that should have stopped it.
Nope. You're assuming that every point in the line checks forward and checks back. That's just not the case. The 3 computer functions and the dozen physical acts work in isolation without knowing what happened prior or post. The reason for this plentiful. There are legitimate reasons for some things to be shipped for free. There are legitimate reasons for some things to cost nothing. There's legitimate reasons for multiple bits of paperwork that control different parts of the process being generated (such a
Re: (Score:2)
Lowes packed up their order and had it delivered to their house! There should be like 3 computer functions that mitigate that risk and oh, a dozen PHYSICAL ACTS that should have stopped it.
Lowes is just full of fail on this one.
If you don't know, then you don't understand how a simple work flow works (especially for a big companies/corporations). It is just a simple logic why they do it the way they did.
Each check point is supposed to correctly validate inputs. If it works properly, there should NOT NEED to have redundant validations along the line later on because other processes do not need to know what other process is doing because it is not their job to validate others' work. In this case, the validation happens at the POS d
Re: (Score:3)
Given the volume and value of the goods, I find it hard to believe that the couple had no idea it wasn't just a really good deal, but I can somewhat see why they might not have fully realized it was a crime.
Well, unless they were under the impression the gift-card-that-kept-on-giving was a magical talisman, I'd have to lean towards some malfeasance. For certain, their story won't be retold on an episode of Criminal Masterminds... they apparently had the purchases sent to their home and were reselling them on the Facebook
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I am suggesting they return the goods and get a non-custodial sentence rather than "not guilty".
Re: (Score:2)
Except they've already re-sold part of it for a fraction of the value, so it'll be impossible for them to just hand everything back.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not familiar with the local law, but I don't think it's a crime unless they refuse to give it back. Where I live that would be the default lawful way to go. The article isn't really clear on this, but it doesn't sound like they asked them to give the stuff back at all. Instead, they went to the police and had them arrested for theft, which it obviously wasn't since the so called victim shipped the goods to them.
Where I live (the Netherlands), the law is very clear on this: this would definitely not be t
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Where are the security trolls? (Score:4, Insightful)
how many people would be saying that it's not really theft if Lowes didn't prevent it from happening.
And you were correct in your assumption. Looking below, one can find many people blaming Lowe's. Not the criminals who deliberately exploited this flaw, not the criminals who were trying to resell their ill-gotten goods, not the criminals with piles of merchandise they obviously knew were stolen. Nope, it's all on Lowe's.
One can imagine a scenario where people who go to Lowe's, pick up an item and walk out of the store without paying for it would be considered completely absolved of their crime because Lowe's didn't prevent it from happening.
It's amazing the excuses used to justify criminal behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, we don't know that "they sold them for free". They could have sold them, charged to a gift card that for some reason never has its value decreased. So Lowe's sold items for their regular or sale price, but never received the money the computer system expected.
Tellingly, eventually someone caught on, and looked into what was happening in this particular circumstance. It may have taken a while, but until numbers get big, many things go unnoticed.
Re: (Score:2)
They exploited a flaw, caused material damage. They also profited from it. Any more questions?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the facts; the article didn't give them. It depends on what they had to do; if they didn't have to actively subvert the site, it's more like they took it to the checkout counter and the register charged them $0 for it. They even have the receipt. Is that theft?
The excuses people make up... (Score:2)
>insisted instead that his client just had a really special knack for finding good deals.
Right, nothing beats a five-finger discount for a "good deal", and add free shipping to boot - priceless!
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen any of those coupon shopping reality TV garbage shows? Its perfectly plausible to buy $500 worth of random clearance crap with $10 and a binder of coupons.
Re: (Score:2)
There's an entire subculture of people that do that. My brother in law used to work in some kind of security department at Target and he worked on a team that specifically focused on people who had kind of figured out how to exploit the system this way. They were serious enough about it to use the security cameras to track people down to their vehicles.
I don't really know if this was actual fraud, like counterfeit coupons or just collections of really lucrative coupons in combination. The casino analogy w
Victoria's Secret? (Score:2)
Some deals can be too good and too real... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you need two desks?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you need two desks?
One desk for my laptop, file server and 23" monitor, the other desk for my video editing PC, Red Hat Linux PC, and 23" monitor. I also have folding table to store my electronic parts, soldering irons and testing equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to mention that one is also used as your dining table and the other one as your bed in your Japanese style apartment.
I have a separate kitchen table and a twin bed. My 475-sqft studio apartment would be a mansion in Japan.
Life in a Crazy-Small 8m2 Tokyo Apartment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYVJbupG3Xg [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In Japan, I would be too skinny to qualify as a sumo wrestler (400 to 600 pounds).
Re: (Score:2)
There actually have been quite a few very successful Sumo Tori that were around your weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Those new meds are working great, Chris.
Oh, crap! I forgot to take my vitamins this morning!! I've been pissing cheap urine all day!!! Thanks for reminding me!!!!
Re: (Score:3)
what about the ANY coupons that have a long (Score:2)
what about the ANY coupons that have a long list of stuff they don't cover.
The first rule of Software Development is.... (Score:2)
Lol... Isn't like the FIRST FUCKING RULE of software development, "Don't migrate to production until it passes ALL QA tests. And if their QA tests left a hole like this open, time to hire a new QA manager!
(Lowes, contact me and I'll send a resume )
class warfare (Score:5, Insightful)
When a consumer exploits a bug in the system, they get arrested. When a corporation or rich person exploits a bug in the system, it's called, "smart tax planning".
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up!
Re: (Score:2)
When a corporation or rich person exploits a bug in the system, it's called, "smart tax planning".
Those are not bugs. They are intentional features, which were implemented deliberately at the request of the highest-paying customers, like most new features.
Seems legit! (Score:2)
One of the suspects' lawyer argued that his client didn't have the skills to penetrate the security on the web site of a Fortune 500 company -- and insisted instead that his client just had a really special knack for finding good deals.
Yeah, good luck with the 'good deal' defense...
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that incompetence could keep the couple out of a cell.
It might, but it probably shouldn't, and it probably won't. They knew what they were doing. Nobody actually thinks a gift card is supposed to keep on giving forever.
Re: (Score:2)
bargain is a crime now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wells Fargo (Score:5, Insightful)
Did Lowe's contact them, submit a ticket complaining about the problem? Unless they spent 3 hours waiting on the phone, I think they jumped the gun calling the police.
Sounds ridiculous? Well that is what Wells Fargo was doing to its customers and it was called an accounting error. Trying calling the police on Wells Fargo when they are making up bank accounts in your name, or forcing you to buy un-requested care insurance.
Zero customer service + deals managed by computers (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Accidental hack defense? (Score:2)
One of the suspects' lawyer argued that his client didn't have the skills to penetrate the security on the web site of a Fortune 500 company -- and insisted instead that his client just had a really special knack for finding good deals.
"Yeah, your honor, I was on the website and I pushed some stuff and it started sending me free stuff. I didn't mean it!"
Which of course is invalidated the moment they use the 'problem' again for more and more free stuff. Shameful.
Unlocked door doesn't make it suddenly OK to steal other people's stuff, sorry!
Did they close the loophole? (Score:2)
Lowes, you just 'lost' a 'customer'.
Back in the days of coupons... (Score:2)
Back in the 1990s you'd get the occasional feelgood story on TV about someone using stacks of coupons to get a cartload of goods for a couple dollars.
They'd use multiple double or triple coupons with a series of other coupons and such to make many of the items free when you bought them with other items that were heavily discounted.
If these people used a flaw in the gift card system, it sounds like something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True. But that would be fraud and I would hazard a guess that it would have been mentioned as such.
Not the couples issue or fault (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, suddenly I feel an urgent need to do some home improvement!
Re: (Score:2)
"Below is a list of the most expensive items found at the couple's home: Approximately $2,500 Victoria Secret Underwear"
Lowes sells Victoria Secret underwear?
Welding lingerie is expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
"Below is a list of the most expensive items found at the couple's home:
Approximately $2,500 Victoria Secret Underwear"
Lowes sells Victoria Secret underwear?
Imagine it was Home Depot instead. "You can do it. We can help."
Re: (Score:3)
The Victoria's Secret branded tool apron is hot as hell. And who knows what the Victoria's Secret impact drill is actually used for? If you catch my drift.
Impact drill (Score:4, Funny)
No one's going to catch that bit of drift unless you provide serious amounts of lube. [amazon.com]
So, assuming you get that handled, what time do you want to come over?
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, sometimes the limits really are too small to read if your vision is less than perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Approximation refers to accuracy, not precision.
Re: (Score:2)
It there is a clear mistake on the wholesaler part and Lowe's clearly exploited it, then it could be prosecuted. Not "arrested" but a fine and damages are to be expected. In fact, even if there is no mistake, this could fall under anti-dumping laws.
The issue with the couple is that they already resold the goods for a fraction of the price and thus, can't return them or pay back their debt.