Retailer Charges Customer for Complaining Online

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Terry Olaes, Aug 31, 2014.

  1. Terry Olaes

    Terry Olaes I Used to be the [H] News Guy

    Messages:
    4,631
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    As more and more transactions move online, the importance of consumer diligence needs to keep pace. Some retailers have the nads to bury language in their terms of service that allows them to charge a fee if the customer complains publicly. There's a lawsuit in New York against Accessory Outlet for this practice.

     
  2. Void

    Void [H]ard to Tame

    Messages:
    2,282
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Maybe companies need to fix their shit so they wouldn't have to worry about negative reviews. They are causing themselves more damage by doing this then they would have if they had just gave her a refund and moved along. Stupid companies never learn.
     
  3. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    18,892
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    lol
    Maybe some people will pay, I dont know, but ultimately this kind of abuse will always end up in court.
    This kind of offence needs to become a form of extortion so the perpetrators get a serious offence label, perhaps even some clink time.
    Otherwise the penalties may not be enough to prevent it happening again.
     
  4. /usr/sbin

    /usr/sbin Successfully Trolled by Megalith

    Messages:
    3,927
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
  5. Ashbringer

    Ashbringer [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,522
    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    This is why you don't give companies power. Not only they refused to give her money back but they charged her and damaged her credit rating? That's a lot of power for a company that sells iphone cases.

    Also, a lot of companies that can damage peoples credit rating. It's getting to the point where credit rating doesn't matter cause it's easily devalued just like this.
     
  6. Phoenix333

    Phoenix333 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,510
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    When companies like this keep losing in court over and over and having to pay out hefty damages instead of just shipping out the $35 item like they should have, then going out of business due to the bad publicity that results, they'll either get the message or go bankrupt. Either way, to hell with them.
     
  7. percydaman

    percydaman Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    294
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    What company ever thinks this is going to turn out well for them?
     
  8. sfsuphysics

    sfsuphysics I don't get it

    Messages:
    13,694
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    hahah, that's all sorts of awesome.

    It's sad though that companies have not yet got that you can not give away your rights like this just because they say it is so. Sad still that this needs to go to court to hash out.
     
  9. AceGoober

    AceGoober Live! Laug[H]! Overclock!

    Messages:
    21,768
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    There is a lot of money not to be made berating, belittling and threatening customers.
     
  10. SparkedFire

    SparkedFire [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,109
    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    "Site is undergoing maintenance. Please check back later."

    lol.
     
  11. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,445
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    The other latest and greatest trick is that if you have a problem with your product and give it a low review, they will make you pay return shipping on it unless you change your review, or offer some other kind of bribe.
     
  12. Scythe

    Scythe Gawd

    Messages:
    546
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    So.....if I buy from your company my constitutional rights to free speech are null and void? If your product or service sucks, that's on you. I still have a right to free speech unless making BS or untrue comments about your product/service.

    Predicting this company isn't going to last long if they don't change their policy.
     
  13. TheMadHatterXxX

    TheMadHatterXxX 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,884
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    You can bet if this goes to the State Attorney General, they're gonna lay the smack-down against this. This is straight up credit card fraud.
     
  14. Red Squirrel

    Red Squirrel [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,211
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Sadly, with corporations ruling the world alongside an oppressive government, freedom of speech no longer exists.

    I don't recall the details but there was a post on Reddit about this hotel that will actually charge your credit card some absurd amount like 500 bucks if you post a bad review on ANY website. I think it was targeted mostly at weddings or other big events as it would be easier to track. So say you have this wedding venue at a hotel and people sleep overnight and one of those people posts a bad review then the one who organized/booked the rooms gets charged 500 bucks for every single bad review. That shit needs to be illegal. It's basically extortion.
     
  15. Red Squirrel

    Red Squirrel [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,211
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
  16. Dekoth-E-

    Dekoth-E- [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,599
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    The thing is you have to consider the type of business here. I know everyone is on the whole corporations own the government spiel here but in this case it isn't one of those mega corps. This however instead is a far worse type in that it is a fairly specialized mobile accessory site. Many of these are quite predatory in their customer service practices as they just don't have to care. It takes a monumental effort for them to generate enough bad press to impact sales because of where most of this stuff sells. As such they can be downright abusive to customers and usually get away with it because most people aren't willing to fight over $30.

    Hopefully this lady pushes forward and brings this one under fire from the legal system as there is just no justification for that kind of behavior.
     
  17. farscapesg1

    farscapesg1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,555
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    While I don't like it.. I'm kinda confused because many of those saying that this is horribly wrong also say that it is a private school's right to kick a student out due to their mother's comments. Where does "freedom of speech" come into play here when it doesn't in the other case? Those same people make a big deal that "freedom of speech" is only relevant to the right to speak against the government without concern of being thrown in to jail... so I'm not sure where freedom of speech comes into play in this case either. They chose to deal with a company that has this, even if it is hidden in some obscure clause of the terms of agreement.
     
  18. McFry

    McFry [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,715
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    It takes a special kind of douchebag to come up with a scheme like this. I mean seriously, I could have never dreamt up something like this in a million years, it's just not within me. What kind of pure life scum must you be to concoct this idea? I would like to meet such a person one day, preferably with an aluminum baseball bat in hand.
     
  19. Dekoth-E-

    Dekoth-E- [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,599
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Because there is a gigantic difference in refusing to do further business with a customer and using predatory business practices to actively extort them. This is flat out extortion, and has nothing to do with free speech.
     
  20. Ocean

    Ocean [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,924
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Oh, this product? It would never ever explode the first time you use. It would never leave you without a dick and only one nut. There is absolutely no fucking way it is a complete piece of shit that should be avoided at all costs. There could never be a product that comes with its own parasitic std that escaped before it catches on fire as soon as it gets plugged in.
     
  21. Smashing Young Man

    Smashing Young Man [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,538
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    There is a lot of jumping on companies here, but this sort of twisted mindset is prevalent everywhere these days, individuals not excluded.
     
  22. Exavior

    Exavior [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,657
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2005
    People really need to read up on what freedom of speech really means. While at it, try running into an airport yelling "I HAVE A BOMB, YOU WILL ALL DIE!!" see how that goes and get back to me on what you are claiming is the meaning of free speech.

    Big difference. Neither has to do with freedom of speech. People don't understand what rights that "we" have under the constitution. Nowhere does it give you the right to say and do what you want. That said, the one case was a school said if you want to talk shit about us then we don't want you as a customer. And thus refused to do business with that woman. That is like a store refusing to check you out when you get to the cash register and make you just leave. In this case they charged her, refused to give her the money back and when she said she was ripped off they tried to rip her off more. Now had the school removed $50,000 from that mom's bank account, then tried to charge her another $1 million and report her for failure to pay student loans after she complained about her kid getting kicked out. then it would be the same.

    This case would have had to be they refunded her the money that she paid and refused to sell to her again after she bad mouthed them for it to be anywhere on the same level.
     
  23. McFry

    McFry [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,715
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    The freedom of speech clauses still apply, the only caveats are when you are inciting danger. Everyone loves to bring up the whole "FIRE!!" as if that somehow invalidates all freedom of speech. It doesnt, that is literally one of the only things you cannot say to express your freedom of speech. Telling someone their product sucks definitely falls under the protection of speech whose rights supersede any rights you signed away by agreeing to use someone's product/service.
     
  24. Godmachine

    Godmachine [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,472
    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Good luck retailers. Dumb move. We'll win this one.
     
  25. Exavior

    Exavior [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,657
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2005
    Bad example then, but the amendment to the constitution does not give you the right to freedom of speech. It only states that the government itself will not directly limit your speech. There is a difference there, you can still be limited by others to what you can and can not say or do. So there can still be limits put on your speech.

    Every forum on the internet has the right to say that there are certain things you can't say without them removing it. There are mods here that remove / edit post that they don't see fit for the forum. So you do not have freedom of speech on here, you have limited speech.

    Schools prevent kids from wearing anything vulgar on clothing, or anything promoting certain things, prevent them from dressing in certain ways, from saying certain things... So they limit their speech.

    You can be fired from a job if you go into work every day and bitch and moan to everyone about how much you hate the place, and then every customer you interact with you are rude and tell them how they shouldn't do business with you guys anymore and start to give them the name of somebody else to do business with instead of this horrible place that you work for.

    I could go on, but the I think that is enough. There is no freedom of speech everywhere, nor does the constitution claim that there has to be. Any place can place limits on what they will or will not allow you to say.

    that doesn't mean that I agree with what this place is doing or think it is right. They should not be able to apply false charges to a person's credit score, nor should they be allowed to steal money from people. that is not anything to do with limiting speech, that is stealing from people though. Limiting their speech would be deleting negative feedback on their own site.
     
  26. aShrubbery!

    aShrubbery! Gawd

    Messages:
    1,022
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    In the EU, the customer service is not as generous as it is in the US, but there is no way in hell, they could ruin your credit score - there is no such thing! - and they wouldn't have the pull to even try it, if they had it.
    But then again, all this power that corporations relish is the voters' fault. All you see is lawmakers doing all they can to foster business, the economy... the usual horsecrap. What you hardly ever hear is the protection of the consumer.
    No matter how wrongful, the accusation, one company should not have the reach to charge you for complaining about their product, and much less ruin someone's credit score.
     
  27. wizzi01

    wizzi01 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,268
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    You do know the whole yelling fire thing was overturned and it didn't even have anything to do with a freedom of speech case.
     
  28. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,541
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Here is the first problem, there is a difference between a "goods" and "services". There should be no valid form of a "TOS" for a product that qualifies as a good as there is for a product that is a service. So not Terms of service for cell phone cases, tires, etc. Law writers need to step up and clarify under what conditions a "TOS" can legally apply.
     
  29. m heisty

    m heisty Gawd

    Messages:
    638
    Joined:
    May 14, 2014
    Terms of service do apply in this case. The product is not the service, the website is.
     
  30. TwistedAegis

    TwistedAegis [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,958
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    If you sign/agree to a contract with a private party, it doesn't. Whether that contract (the TOS in this case) is enforceable is another matter. The 1st Amendment applies to the government, not what you agree to with another private party.