Refund Ethics

Yesterday a question was posted on Chat about refund submission ethics:

"I have rebates sent to my house, my parents house, and neighbors. This includes Rite Aid and any TMF rebates I find. (this was the issue the person had. Said I was using factious address and names.) The people are real and so are the addresses. I could understand if I was saying "my address A" "My address b" (like apartments when it is a single family home) but I am not. The addresses and people I use don't coupon or refund, but do exist. I spend the money and when the check comes they cash it and give it to me."

To give a complete answer to this, you have to know more about the history of refunding as a hobby. Refunds became extremely popular in the 1980's - 1990's. Refunds were more popular and more lucrative than coupons. People easily sent for 100 refunds a month just in their own names. I published 700-800 new refunds every month in Refund Cents. Many of these refunds never required cash tapes. It was the golden age of refunds. Because there was so much money involved in refunding, some people quickly figured out ways to get twice as many, or three or four times as many checks as they already got at their own homes. The first obvious way was to send to relatives and friends. That branched out to renting post boxes in nearby towns and altering the spelling of names. Combining all those methods netted the worst offenders as much as $25,000 a year, sometimes more. This went on for years. Finally manufacturers got serious about shutting down these practices and set up the CIC with Bud Miller as the head. The clearinghouses, manufacturers and the CIC set out to put a stop to people receiving multiple refunds. In 1994, with the help of addresses gleaned from clearinghouses, "The Letter" was sent out to thousands and thousands of refunders. The Letter basically warned them that their submissions had been flagged and they were in possible violation of federal law, which carried prison terms of up to 5 years, and informed them that any further activity would result in possible prosecution. The Letter was devastating. People literally burned their proofs of purchase and never sent for another refund. Some people became so fearful that they were going to jail that they became suicidal. The problem with The Letter was not only that it was overkill, it was sent to guilty and innocent alike. People who only did refunds in their own names got The Letter. People
who were terrible offenders got The Letter. It was the beginning of the end for refunding as we knew it then. Manufacturers cut back drastically in the number of refund promotions, and today we get at most 100 new refunds a month vs. 800 a month 20 years ago. So.... to answer Lisa's question.... I understand the rationale that friends and relatives have their own addresses and have the right to receive their own refunds. But their refunds are not your refunds. If you send for refunds using other people's names and addresses, then you have violated the 'one per household' rule. It's sad but true, because it seems like a logical way to get more refunds. Unfortunately, manufacturers don't see it your way. When you send for a refund, you are entering into a contract. You agree to the terms on the refund form, and in exchange, the manufacturer agrees to give you the refund. One of the terms is one per household. Now, I realize that most people see this as a gray area, and have decided it's okay. If you feel that way, I won't change your mind, but please realize there is a whole history about this issue that did not end happily for some people like Ellen Biles, who went to prison. It's playing with fire. Will you get caught? Probably not. But everyone needs to make an informed decision with all the facts. I hope that sheds light on this touchy subject.