PSA/BGS/PWCC dispute or refund thread
 

I thought it might be helpful as we monitor the response to the revelations to start one thread where people can post their success, or lack thereof, at requesting any of the above parties to take their card back and refund their purchase price, or for that matter to review it.

I’d imagine PSA and PWCC will ask impacted collectors to sign NDA’s, but I could be wrong.

What leverage would they have for that. It wasn't in PSA's boilerplate (afaik) that they'd honor their guarantee only if you help them sweep their own mess under the rug. I'd think the costs to execute and enforce an NDA would probably be prohibitive as well...

Money..

Here's the guarantee: https://www.psacard.com/about/financialguarantee

"Certain exceptions to the Guarantee apply"

Here's the wording of the "exceptions" language:

Certain exceptions to the Guarantee apply, including, but not limited to, the following: the Guarantee does not apply to any card as to which an obvious clerical error has been made with respect to the assigned grade or description; the Guarantee does not apply to any card that has been removed from the PSA holder or any card for which the PSA holder shows evidence of tampering; the Guarantee does not apply to any card that has been environmentally damaged due to improper storage or natural disasters, such as fire and flood; the Guarantee does not apply to cards exhibiting environmental deterioration subsequent to initial grading; the Guarantee applies only to the grade assigned to the card and does not apply to the authenticity of any autograph nor the grade assigned to any autograph; and the Guarantee does not apply to, and cannot be utilized by, the original submitter (or the original submitter’s agents, employees, affiliates or representatives) of the graded card.

The described exceptions are fairly comprehensive, and I wonder what PSA could hope to add that a court would enforce. In my experience when I see the phrase "including, but not limited" it refers to a somewhat specific category (e.g., nonstructural repairs) that in and itself is either reasonably self-explanatory or has a defined meaning. And even at that when I use such a term I try to list all the important examples I can think of. Here, the word "exceptions" is very broad and can mean essentially whatever PSA could want it to mean. I question whether if PSA tried to include something not already listed a court would enforce it.

This part is bothersome.
Last line....
and the Guarantee does not apply to, and cannot be utilized by, the original submitter (or the original submitter’s agents, employees, affiliates or representatives) of the graded card.

That was my first reaction when I saw it. However, I can see a valid purpose -- to prevent a card doctor from benefiting from his doctoring. Such a person improves, say, a 3 to an 8, and then tries to profit from his doctoring by invoking the Guarantee.

I'd imagine that PSA would potentially offer reimbursement to victims contingent on an NDA. I doubt anyone would refuse reimbursement and test the PSA guarantee in court.

Again, I could be wrong. Some forum members have already said that they have cards and will reach out to PSA/PWCC. Have any of them provided updates? I personally have not seen them. I'm just assuming PSA and PWCC are sending out NDA's.

Could always have two prices, one with and one without the NDA.

Focused on wrong things
 

PSA”s risk isn’t simply whether they have to pay out financially on the guarantee.

The bigger risk in my opinion is to their reputation. First risk is if the story gets out that a large portion of the cards they have graded are not the grade they assigned. If it could be proved the grading error was on purpose, that would be worse. It would compound the reputations damage if word got out that when they have made a mistake (assuming unintentional), that they don’t stand behind the Guarantee.

In that case word should spread that they are both incompetent and won’t stand behind the service they were paid for.

Or those who control the industry could have NYT or Forbes just issue an article that paints the collector claiming they are wronged as a crazy fringe element and the whole affair is just a matter of taste and opinion as to whether alteration and conservation are ok. Also the article might point out that some cards that are altered (like the most famous and expensive card in the world) are known to be altered but have increased in value.

If you're Brent, and your reputation is at stake, and you're giving refunds, don't you WANT people to be talking about that?

I wouldn't sign an NDA, but I can see why PSA would want it.

I'd imagine no. I wouldn't want additional cards and submissions added to the list of impacted cards. Nor would I want high rollers speaking publicly about getting swindled.

Oh, those are going to be added anyhow, I imagine.

Not sure his best road to restoring confidence is to ask us to take him at his word. We see where that's gone before.

You might be right. Either way, I can’t see a benefit to PSA, BVG or PWCC in having settlement figures and details public knowledge

Yeah, honesty, openness and disclosure are not good things from their perspective I suppose. Sad but probably true. Considering who we're talking about, why would I expect it, so naïve of me.

Openness and disclosure has only led to additional liabilities for PWCC in the past. Eventually I’d think they’d learn from those mistakes.

What no SGC?

Forged t206 and their answer

"Since Forgery is a federal offense, you can contact the FBI for restitution "

Agreed.

That’s exactly what PSA is counting on to limit their liability in this mess. By directing people to return their cards to the seller their hope is that the cards will be returned to the card doctor, thus allowing them to avoid liability altogether.

I just called PSA about 4 cards that I have that I believe were altered and they really tried to get me to send them to the seller. I did not buy these cards from PWCC so I’m sending them straight to PSA. We’ll see how good their guarantee really is.

I'll guess they will say that after re-examining the four cards carefully, all appear to be unaltered.

How did you end up with the cards? Did you buy them thinking them altered. Did you re-examine them and have doubts? Were they on any of the suspicious sub lists? It’s nice that 20 responses down someone contributes to the original purpose of the thread - thank you and please let us know your progress.

So that's why they want them returned to the sellers.
That's about as dodgy as it gets.

I purchased these cards from Ebay and from private collectors awhile ago. All 4 cards are T206. They were already slabbed when I bought them. 3 are PSA 7s and one is a PSA 7.5, so my expectations were that they weren't altered in any way. With all of the recent exposures I thought I'd re-examine the cards. Since they were in slabs already I never looked at them with a blacklight. I decided to use a blacklight on all of my cards just because, and low and behold I found these 4 cards had their corners colored. What's interesting to me is that these cards are in holders from a long time ago, so PSA missed this way back than.

I'll definitely post the outcome. I'm sending then in this week.

You used a blacklight? To detect alterations? What a novel concept. It's a wonder the TPGers, particularly PSA and Beckett thus far, haven't figured that out. What do we pay them to do?

As a person who recommended it to Mr. Sloan by email, I think it's more prudent than dodgy. But I only recommended they get returned to PWCC, not every seller. PWCC is complicit in the scandal beyond a reasonable doubt IMO and would have to pay it out of hide.
Why take on all that additional liability when the guarantee stiffs fraudulent submitters and card doctors? If the sale never happened, the grade guarantee doesn't need to be paid out.

This is somehow at once totally unbelievable and utterly believable. I mean, it sort of confirms - as if we needed it - that they PSA naked-eyeballs a significant amount of these (read: all of these), and upon passing that test, there is no further examination as to alteration.

Are you going to tip them off to the alteration, or see if they even bother to check at all?

PSA can direct all it wants that a person return his/her doctored card to the seller but there is nothing in the Guarantee that requires a person to do so provided the card when purchased was already graded. A person doctors a card to profit from the doctoring, which can happen only if the card is sold already with the bogus grade. If the card doctor is not the person who submits the card for grading, then typically it would be an AH (e.g., PWCC) doing it on the card doctor's behalf. The victim in this instance would be the person who then purchases the card from the AH, and that victim would be free to invoke the Guarantee and return the card to PSA.

So, to get back to the exception in the Guarantee that prohibits the original submitter from invoking it, that exception should not have an impact upon a person who in good faith purchases a graded doctored card.

It will be interesting to see what PSA does when it receives the 4 cards you are returning to them. I am not questioning that they are altered, but what is your proof? The part of the Guarantee that could cause you the most trouble is the exception that prevents you from taking them out of the slab to better examine them. That exception obviously has a valid purpose behind its insertion, but also serves a nefarious purpose -- to prevent detailed forensic examination of the card. So you could be in a Catch 22 -- unless you have before and after pics of the card, in order to prove it is doctored you might have to take it out of the slab, but if you do so, you are prevented from invoking the Guarantee.

If the day should come when technology comes to the rescue and a new TPG forms using as it business model advanced forensic analysis to detect doctoring, at that point I can foresee a day of reckoning for PSA. PSA will of course rely on the "taking-out-of-the-slab prohibition" exception in the Guarantee to insure a doctored card is not examined by such advanced methods. People will scream how else can they prove the card is doctored to successfully invoke the Guarantee. It would seem inevitable at that point that a person will take the card out of the slab under circumstances (e.g., video recording) that will establish the removal was done for the sole purpose of doing a forensic examination that otherwise could not be done, and that no fraud is being perpetrated on PSA. A court, if looking to interpret the Guarantee exception as narrowly as possible, will try to find a way to rule for the victimized card owner, perhaps by ignoring the literal wording of the Guarantee and looking at the intent behind the exception.

The Guarantee also provides all cases adjudicated under it must be brought in Orange County, which is John Wayne territory. I wonder if the state court in that jurisdiction would take as sympathetic a view toward such a plaintiff than would a court in a different jurisdiction. In contrast, the federal court in that circuit is regarded as a very liberal court. The Guarantee does not require that cases brought under it be brought in state court only, so whether to file in state or federal court will be an important decision the plaintiff's lawyer will need to make.

Unless the card is sufficiently valuable to meet the federal amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction (assuming a non- California plaintiff), now $75,000, what's the basis for a federal claim?

What happens when PWCC runs out of money to return buyers of affective cards who request returns/refunds ? Where is their money coming from ? Is something being worked out behind the scenes with them and psa to cya ? Is psa funding them to keep up with their buy backs of bad stuff ??
Idk food for thought ??

On Monday I received an 8k refund from PWCC for 7 cards I returned. 3 were clearly altered (only because I found before photos) and the other 4 were on a list out there but I couldn’t find the evidence myself.

Cory Weiser

You would have to meet that threshold, which given what a lot of high grade cards go for coupled with the number of doctored cards a lot of people will have, should pose no problem for many potential plantiffs. I agree though that a number of potential submitters will have to file in state court. Assuming PSA wants to stay out of federal court, I'm surprised they didn't require all cases be brought in state court.

"over 17,000 cards, lots, and sets up for bid in our 6th Auction of 2019."

Maybe a stupid question...but what could be the benefit of PSA moving a case from state to federal court?

PSA can't move a case from state to federal court, if it's brought in state court.

As to Corey's initial thoughts, I don't see any basis to speculate that a plaintiff in one of these cases would be better off in federal court if he had the choice. Too many assumptions there with no facts.

Can you still bid or did you get banned? Wondering if the previous person who said that happened to them was a one off, or ongoing issue for requesting returns.

Does anyone have any dealings to report here?

apparently its a great guarantee and you will be completely satisfied or it wont be worth your time to pursue litigation.

Or maybe you will have to wait 3 months or more to get a response because 'what choice do you have'

No responsibility for any card doctor, they won’t be held responsible. GM is like F them Prove it I got it in a PSA Holder so up yours....you can’t touch me....nobody in the past who got caught doctoring cards has ever been charged or held criminally responsible...these guys will continue to get around this using surrogates to submit and auction houses will only take cards in holders from people with no bad history in other words doctors will have other people submit the cards to the AH for them....the cycle will continue

nice to see people getting their money back. They cycle may continue but will be not as big as I would assume PSA paying out thousands will make them more observant for future grading...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwo0XHcYHBM

The Hotfoot Insurance company is offering 1 million for a black eye?

Sounds exactly like PSA's guarantee.

Sadly, most collectors who've been taken to the cleaners and victimized don't even know it (and likely never will).

It is a relatively small percentage of collectors who frequent these boards, and unless the word gets out to a mass audience, the "Bad Actor Facilitators" (meaning PSA and PWCC) are largely off the hook.

Perhaps word will spread a bit further in Chicago, the first week of August.

Uffdah responded on blowout that he has been reimbursed by PWCC for his PSA 10 Musial and additional ones that were fingered.

If he would have sued he could have gotten paid back last week. What a sucker.

My understanding, FWIW from a buddy I went to law school with who now practices there, is that you don't really want to be in the Central District of California as a plaintiff. He won't even take a case if it will go there. Orange County is also bad, as I understand it. That forum selection clause PSA has, if enforceable, is a huge problem for a lot of plaintiffs.

Doesn't that strike you as an awfully big generalization?

No, not really. Yes, plaintiffs win cases in the Central District, I'm sure. Particularly if they are corporate plaintiffs I suspect. There is a reason why there is a forum selection clause. It isn't because that is a neutral forum. You know that as well as I do.

There are probably thousands of pending cases in those federal and state courts and countless thousands which have been decided. To make a sweeping statement such as you have made, based on what your law school buddy says, seems ridiculous to me. They are located IN Orange County which doubtless is why they selected that forum, most such clauses select the home forum as a matter of convenience so they don't have to defend litigation in far away places. If you are going to make a sweeping statement like plaintiffs have very little chance in two huge districts in California you need much more support than you have offered. You're smarter than that, Kenny, I know you are.

LOL, OK. I bet at your firm, you don't ever talk about where the venue is good or bad, or which judges you think will help or hurt you, right? Phuuulease.

Sure, but not at a global level like that. As to what judge might be a better draw for a particular case, of course, but even then there is a tea leaf quality about it sometimes. But you're way beyond that, generalizing about an entire court system, two actually. And on the basis of one guy's opinion, no less. Come on.

I don't believe that for a minute. You can look that sort of stuff up. I am not saying that you are screwed regardless, but I am certainly saying that both are the worst venues, at least in California, that a plaintiff can file in.

We have one of these Districts here. We will not even file a case if we think it might be removed there. That's been the case for 15 years. There is one sitting judge there (who was in my section in law school and who I went to strip bars with back then), one roving judge, and one Senior, who was mean as hell but would let you try your case. Been there twice, both times after being removed. Actually got the Senior Judge once, who remanded the case within a day after getting the briefs, and even my old law school buddy kicked the other case back, finally.

Those districts exist. You know that they do. We both know that. The fact that they exist is, unfortunately, just a fact IMO. I wish they didn't and that everywhere was fair. But they are not.

There are 29 federal district judges in the Central District of California. I am sure their politics and temperament cover the whole spectrum. Your generalization, to me, without much more analysis, makes no sense at all.

https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/judges...les-procedures

There are apparently even more in Orange County though I did not count how many handle commercial litigation.

https://www.occourts.org/directory/j...-officers.html

Again, come on.

You can't cite a single fact to support your proclamation that these are the worst venues for plaintiffs in California. You haven't analyzed the question at all.

And I guess that who appointed them will or can make a huge difference in terms of outcome. I am not now, nor have I ever said, that they are all unfair. They are fair, according to their beliefs. If you are a criminal defense lawyer, do you want a career prosecutor as your judge? I would suggest probably not. At least I have been told by some friends who do that they are the worst, particularly on sentencing. Dunno, not my area.

If you do insurance law like I do, do you want an insurance defense lawyer who you have tried cases against as your judge now? I can assure you that I don't. Some are better than others, sure. But it is still a problem. I get that whole "fair" thing. But that is often in the eye of the beholder. Justice is certainly not blind so far as I can tell.

Peter,

Have you looked at the demographics in Orange County? I have a first cousin who lives there. My mom and most of my brothers and sisters live one county away. I have a pretty good idea of what's going on there. When I'm confused, I just talk to my cousin. Then I am back on track.

You seem to be straying far from your original argument which was that, as a general matter, plaintiffs do not do well in the Central District of California or Orange County. And that that somehow motivated PSA to name its home district in its forum selection clause, something which is standard corporate practice for most American corporations. I don't even know what points you are trying to make now.

But I like agreeing with you, so I'll agree with your last message, the one before Orange County that is lol I can't keep up with you.

So what's going on there, Kenny? And how does it connect to the court system and its what, 50+ judges?

Do you seriously think they are completely unrelated? i don't.

So Orange County's demographics favor PSA in a suit by one of its customers over a baseball card, as a general proposition unrelated to the facts of the case. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And what about the Central District, you also made the same argument about that court system. Probably as diverse an area, overall, as exists.

Yes, Orange County's demographics favor corporate defendants such as PSA over individual plaintiffs. Wont and cant go into the politics behind that, but that is obviously a huge part of the reason why. As a general proposition I absolutely believe that Orange County is a really bad venue for any individual plaintiff. Period. Not insurmountable, but a problem. You can go try a case there and win, sure, but it is just much harder there than in other areas. It is what it is and life goes on.

Again. Based on what analysis? What facts? What statistics? What anything? You're just making shit up as far as I can tell, for what purpose I don't know. It also sounds to me like you're engaging in some serious stereotyping, but let's leave that out of it. And again, you made the exact same statement about the C.D.Cal., an incredibly diverse and huge area.

Go look it up. I am somewhat constrained by the ban on talking about politics, but its pretty easy to get there. How about you do that before you shoot anymore?

Venue written as exclusive and mandatory is a logistical decision - nothing more.

Of course. Every corporation in America, or most, use such clauses to mandate home jurisdictions.

Ridiculous stereotyping if I am reading you correctly. And I take it you have backed off the statement about the C.D.Cal. now which is where you started?

Moreover, guys who go to Orange County to pursue PSA over a baseball card are probably going to be of the same demographic you are hinting at.

No. I believe that to be true from what I understand. And, I would ask, if you were drafting a forum selection clause for a client in a real liberal venue, would you do that? I would think probably not. That would probably be stupid and would be a disservice to your client absent other concerns. If there was a venue close by that was better for your client, wouldn't you do that? This the same thing, only in reverse. If Orange County wasn't way conservative, do you seriously contend that the forum selection clause would be there, as opposed to a real close but more conservative venue? Not seeing it.

Spare me. It isn't the plaintiff. Its the judge and the jurors, assuming you get there. You know that.

I infer nothing other than PSA is in Newport Beach or Santa Ana or whatever and chose its home forum as a matter of convenience, as most companies do. Your argument is assuming its conclusion, namely if Orange County wasn't conservative PSA wouldn't have chosen it.

Now if you said, they choose Orange County because they think a judge or jury might favor an Orange County party, well that might make some sense, but that has nothing to do with the demographics of the forum or its residents or judges.

I think you will find the vast majority of forum selection clauses are home base clauses.

OC isn't nearly as conservative as it used to be. They just voted in a liberal in the Laguna/Newport district. Demographics are much different in Santa Ana than they are by the water. I know nothing about how judges in the area tend to rule, but if you're saying Santa Ana is a politically conservative area you probably haven't spent much time here.

Why would the judge and jurors side with a small company against someone of their own demographic, if you think that demographic somehow plays into it which I don't buy? Are you saying being of a certain demographic makes one inherently pro-defendant regardless of the identities of the parties, the nature of the case, the evidence, etc.?

LOL. OK. That is a real easy conclusion to draw, particularly if you take the time to actually look. But whatever. We, at least, both agree that this debacle is awful. Ultimately, I would suggest that is what's important.

No question there. We can only hope justice is done this time. I just don't see the forum selection clause, at the end of the day, as a particular obstacle is all I am saying.

And I do. Time will tell.

right no lawsuits needed, everything is working out great.

I think if PSA /pwcc sent an email to all prior submitters buyers and told them about this issue and to submit that would get them off the hook when a buyer later 'learns' of the issue years later, perhaps when a wronged buyer submits to an auction house 4 years from now (and first learns of the issue) the statute of limitations being argued as a defense if the required times passes i would think would indeed get them off the hook

The defense may work either way but its more solid PSA/PWCC and the like just notified everyone to look at their tainted cards potentially.

Yes more claims will be submitted as well so there is risk/reward. But it appears even if the card market tanks, everyone will be paid fairly years from now and everyone will agree what their damages are from a sale the past 2 or 3 years.

Any more refunds, or refusals, to report?

Honest question, doesn't this whole fiasco elevate PSA further above other third-party graders?

It's pretty clear that BGS/BVG, SGC and PSA are all having difficult times detecting altered cards. If I'm not mistaken, only PSA will make you whole for their mistakes.

Has any refund been issued by SGC or Beckett?

Have we actually seen evidence of PSA paying out anything yet? Their “official statement” directed people to get refunds from the seller (not from PSA).

PWCC has, on several occasions now, issued refunds on altered PSA cards. But I have yet to see where PSA has actually paid out a penny. Someone please correct me if this is wrong.

Furthermore, most of the exposed cards are residing in PSA holders. So I fail to see the purported “elevation” of PSA over and above anyone else. They’re all flawed in different ways. But they’re all equal in terms of happily accepting money for a service that most of us could perform far better for free.

Didnt their quarterly report say that they paid out claims from the Insurance?

They have a reserve, no insurance.