This is misstated in the article... it is being disputed with American Express - not fraudulent charges... This is specific to their "Return Protection" service that comes will all their Charge cards. From Green and Gold, to Platinum and Black, the monetary level of coverage goes up. However, the platform is the same - if ANY merchant does not accept a return within 90 days, AMEX will refund you the money. Then they'll figure out their own concerns with the merchant without anything to do with that card member (here, A-Rod).

/ Incredibly familiar with Amex benefits
// Yes, professionally

Given he's a regular customer they would have been wise to give him the refund

jst3p: He is a special customer, and you do want to keep them happy. They can win the battle but they will lose the war when he doesn't bring his lady friends shopping there ever again.

He's not special, he's an asshole who wants to be treated as if he's special. And again, if he intended to come back for future purchases why didn't he just accept the store credit?

jst3p: They can win the battle but they will lose the war when he doesn't bring his lady friends shopping there ever again.

Now they have their name in the paper as a place where he shops and they've increased their "exclusivity" rep. by not letting him get special treatment.

Could still be something legitimate. I've had salespeople try to cheat me before, claiming they accepted returns, but then it turned out later they were only kidding.

He should have mailed the merchandise back. If they accept the package, then doing a chargeback is legitimate, since you returned the merchandise and have proof of such.

Policies shouldn't be written in stone anyway. If you have a celebrity who drops a ton of money in your store on a regular basis, and he wants to return something, just let him return it already. That's not unreasonable.

Whoever is running that store is an idiot. Here you have a big spending, high profile return customer wanting to get a refund. It's one thing if he was abusing the system, but this is not the case. Terrible customer service.

the opposite of charity is justice: You don't dispute CC charges for valid purchases that follow the store's refund policies.

If this were a Joe Sixpack article on the Consumerist you guys would be all over the dumbass shopper. But because its "A-Rod" you're taking it easy on him? Something is wrong with the American mass consciousness when we're actually longing for royalty to display fealty to.

Who is taking it easy on him? No one above you had a positive thing to say about him.

Who is his accountant?

A-Rod donate that shiat to charity and write it off. Charity can either hold a nice auction where they get more than they would for normal wears but the buyer probably saves a ton off of retail, or they can sell them outright. Either way it's win-win-win.

TravisBickle62: Given he's a regular customer they would have been wise to give him the refund

This is what I came to say. On the other hand, the article says he was offered store credit, so if he's a regular, what's wrong with that?