How To Win Every Single Time You Have A Shitty Group Voucher Experience

The inherent problem with group voucher sites is that you pay up front, so if a merchant screws you or won’t accept a coupon, you’re very probably stuck dealing with the voucher site. Enter Voucher Complaints.

Put together by Harvard Biz School assistant professor Ben Edelman, it generates complaint letters based on your situation — and this is the killer part — based on your location, because laws vary from state to state. For instance, did you know you might be able to redeem an expired coupon in Massachusetts for the full face value? Check out this hardcore noise:

I have a concern about the expiration date on my voucher. I tried to use the voucher after the listed expiration date, and the merchant told me I could redeem only a lower value, not the full face value shown on the voucher. Under Massachusetts law, your voucher is a gift certificate. (Specifically, the law states: 255.1: “A gift certificate shall include… any other medium that evidences the giving of consideration in exchange for the right to redeem the certificate, electronic card or other medium for goods, food, services… of at least an equal value” (http://bit.ly/mf4SSH MGL §255.1).) According to Massachusetts law, a gift certificate may not lose value due to dormancy (MGL §266.75D). In particular, see Massachusetts 266.75D: “Whoever sells or offers to sell a gift certificate, as defined in section 1 of chapter 255D, which imposes dormancy fees, latency fees, administrative fees, periodic fees, service fees or other fees that have the effect of reducing the total value amount for which the holder may redeem such gift certificate, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $US300 per violation” (http://bit.ly/lw8kV0 MGL §266.75D). Thus, the reduction in value is not permissible.

Give it a whirl. [Voucher Complaints via The Bad Deal via Eater]

Discuss

(8 Comments)
  • [–]

    Tez

    Saturday, August 20, 2011 at 6:51 PM

    This is an Australian website isn’t it? That story is US only.

    • [–]

      kami

      Saturday, August 20, 2011 at 9:12 PM

      yes, though the site would be quite bare if none of the US stories showed up.
      Even though it’s a US site it’s still interesting to hear about it

      • [–]

        Andy

        Saturday, August 20, 2011 at 10:52 PM

        Ok. I’m starting to panic now. I haven’t caught up on Gizmodo for a week & I’m faced with, well, I don’t know what you’d call it. It’s certainly not at all interesting tech news…

        I think I’d better come and sort things out & get things back on track.

      • [–]

        Cameron

        Monday, August 22, 2011 at 8:13 AM

        Well not really, It’s got nothing to do with Australia or technology at all. It’s a US website for US residents to complain about vouchers not being redeemed.

    • [–]

      Ben Edelman

      Saturday, August 20, 2011 at 11:59 PM

      Tez, you’re right that our tool currently only presents US law. But we’d be happy to update it to support other countries. Are you familiar with Australian gift certificate law? Send us a link/citation to applicable law, and we’ll take a law.

      Ben Edelman

  • [–]

    Matt L

    Monday, August 22, 2011 at 9:36 AM

    Above all else, the point of this story is technology is swaying towards the ability to get rid of lawyers, because a computer is able to sift thru most laws and find loopholes pretty damn quickly… This will be when Harvard decides to expand on VoucherComplaints.org and upload every law in every part of every country. Who will need overpaid lawyers then, huh?

    • [–]

      kami

      Monday, August 22, 2011 at 10:14 AM

      I’m sure there’s probably an app out there to defend yourself from either a civil suit or criminal charges ;p

      Yes computers can cut down on looking up various laws and previous court findings but it’s a bit of a stretch to say that at its current form, it’s not going to replace lawyers any time soon.

  • [–]

    Matt L

    Tuesday, August 23, 2011 at 9:41 AM

    I didn’t say “in its current form”. I said it’s the start of a system that may work.

Join The Discussion