Mike Wuerthele
Apple appears to be shipping cases separately than the iPhone X — with some reports seeing expected deliveries of the protective enclosures more than a month before the sought-after OLED phone arrives.
With the expected heavy demand for the iPhone X, ship times have slipped far into December. Given that Apple doesn't charge credit cards on file until the shipment process reaches the preparation phase, customers are likely to see multiple charges potentially a month apart.
A large hold on a credit card will in all likelihood be charged for the case worth a small fraction of the selling price first, with the larger charge being a different line-item later when the iPhone X is ready to ship.
AppleInsider reached out to several banking institutions with them mostly saying that if customers have an existing relationship with Apple that the gap in charges will likely pose no problem. However, we were advised that if there is not that history, that customers should contact a support representative at the bank in question to tell them that a second charge associated with the transaction is coming later in the month to ensure that there are no problems that would potentially hold up delivery.
The Equifax data breach, and enhanced transaction security implemented in the wake of the hack were reasons we were given for potential problems with the small amount being posted in place of the large initial approval, and a later charge of the iPhone X sale price.
We were also told that users who used Apple Pay to execute the transaction shouldn't see any problem.
Christine McKee
Stephen Silver
Charles Martin
Amber Neely
6 Comments
I don't really see the issue here. Do we have any evidence that Apple is placing a large hold on a card (say, $1000) weeks before shipping? Holds don't really last weeks anyway. Who cares if there are two separate charges? Moreover, what can the bank do? If you have a credit limit near the amount of the hold, you likely should be buying an iPhone anyway.
If you're buying a thousand dollar phone not on a payment plan, you likely aren't sweating when exactly the charge hits your credit card. Agree with Sdw; this is a non-issue.
I have never understood the fraud monitoring "features" credit card companies insist on. The FCRA protects customers, and it is part of the credit agreement. Customers do need to be reasonably diligent in looking at charges, but if a charge is not authorized, the bank bears the loss, not the consumer. Thus, this effort by banks to cut off transactions is all about protecting them, but the customer.
Yes, ID theft is a thing, and individuals bear a duty of diligence. There are draconian consequences to being a victim of a crime, not all of which can be remedied. But banks are peddling bullshit when they claim their procedures are to protect their customers. They've made us their fraud protection department to protect them.