Explain This Sarbanes Oxley Connection 1933



  • Someone e-mailed me that he went to an Apple Inc. retail store to purchase a computer under the company’s student discount program. When he went to pay, the salesperson looked at his student ID from a university. However, the salesperson also asked to look at his driver’s license in order to complete the purchase. How come? According to the salesperson, ‘Sarbanes Oxley.’ Could anyone explain what information on a driver’s license might pertain to compliance with this federal law for someone making a retail purchase? Thanks.



  • Could anyone explain what information on a driver’s license might pertain to compliance with this federal law for someone making a retail purchase?
    Absolutely none. :roll:
    I can understand why the company may wish to properly confirm the entitlement for the discount and thus want to definitively identify the person’s identity.
    That’s just good business - nothing to do with SOX.



  • Could it be that the background checks are documented somewhere within Apple’s Process narratives and that sales persons have been told it is for SOX just in order to ensure that they actually perform the check?



  • Pressing and holding the menu button on the ipod while holding the play/pause button with the unit inverted/unplugged opens a scrollable listing of persons eligible for a student discount…in turn, the sales associate performs the manual match…sox compliance.



  • Pressing and holding the menu button on the ipod while holding the play/pause button with the unit inverted/unplugged opens a scrollable listing of persons eligible for a student discount…in turn, the sales associate performs the manual match…sox compliance.
    rofl :lol:





  • Interesting article WrightLot.
    Looks like the Finance department never considered the revenue recognition implications of n- type WI-Fi cards when these computers were first sold (or perhaps they were not informed?) and that the current treatment is being applied in order to compensate the issue, rather than having to determine how much revenue needs to be deferred.
    I can see why SOX is being blamed in the situation above, and of course the background to this situation, provides detail as to how little things such as review of drivers licences may have been a result of something else that they are trying to compensate for.



  • I also got a good laugh out of Milan’s highly creative comments 😉 😄
    I agree you won’t find anything in the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations hinting of this need.
    However, EMM indeed shared an interesting theory this verification check possibly being in SOX procedural or standards manuals (and mis-labeled as a ‘SOX requirement’).
    Probably, the better answer from the sales person would have been to stipulate the requirement for ‘two forms of identification’ (which might also be part of the process to sell Apple equipment at OEM costs to students).
    Also, thanking WL for sharing the article reference, which was an interesting read:
    At an Apple Store a few weeks ago a clerk had to take down info from my driver’s license so that I could qualify for an education discount that previously only required that I flash my faculty ID. Sorry, Sarbanes-Oxley , she said. Really? Yeah. Also, if you buy a custom Mac now, you have to have it shipped to your home; you can’t pick it up at the store anymore. Well, I’ll be, I thought.
    The rule that made Apple’s mess predates Sarbanes-Oxley but Sarbox’s stiffened penalties may well have changed Apple’s calculus. What was previously an accounting principle that could have, in a special circumstance like this one, been benignly neglected with the use of an explanatory footnote, the Act now makes rigid. The possible criminal penalties that can now attach to any unusual accounting mitigate the incentives to account for things elegantly , when the elegant way of keeping track of things requires some added explanation.


Log in to reply