I don't think economists are the people who usually work with the definition of theft. And I don't think a lawyer would equate this with theft.

The justification undermines the whole premise of the article, which is that the amounts are set to leave a large unusable balance on each card.

Oh yes, it would go over much better to promise a $10 card and then give only $9. That's _definitely_ theft.

> if a new card is needed

This is the "new card" screen. That question has already been answered if you get here. The "topping up" screen advertises $10/$20/$40 instead of $9/$19/$39 (making the intent perfectly clear).