BFL refund through Paypal claim

[Bicknellski]

http://www.ic3.gov/faq/default.aspx

Q: Can I file a complaint if I have been victimized by an individual or company in the United States, but I am not a citizen of the United States?
If one of the two parties involved is located within the United States, please feel free to file a complaint.

[vcsmith]

PayPal turned down my refund within minutes. The reason stated was "This dispute closed because it was opened for more than 45 days after the transaction date or did not meet other filing criteria."

I contacted PayPal by phone and received the same response, even though I am a long-time account holder.  PayPal did promise to contact BFL and ask them to ship my order--for whatever that's worth.

My next step has been to contact PayPal's fraud department to point out the blatant and ongoing violation of their terms of service for pre-order sales.  I believe this is BFL's Achilles heel.  BFL needs PayPal.

FYI: [email protected]

The PayPal rep I spoke with agreed with my assessment that BFL is violating the TOS.

From PayPal's FAQ:

Does PayPal permit transactions for pre-sale items?

A pre-sale item is advertised for sale before the seller actually has the item. Often, these items are sold before they are available to the general public.

A seller might use the money from the pre-sale of an item to purchase the item.

PayPal permits pre-sales on a limited basis as long as the seller:

    Guarantees shipment within 20 days from the date of purchase.
    Clearly identifies the item as a pre-sale.
    Provides proof, if needed, that they can successfully deliver the product (supplier information, purchase invoices, shipping information, or delivery confirmation).

I don't expect to ever receive a product from BFL, but I'm not laying down for them.

Let's keep the pressure on PayPal and maybe they can help BFL find their checkbook.

[PuertoLibre]

The AUP folks might be able to address your issues:

(402)935-2223   Sheryl AUP Compliance      
(402)935-2250   Katrina AUP Compliance      
(402)935-2275   Lisa AUP Compliance      
(402)935-2332   Julie Gonzales AUP Compliance      
(402)935-5140   Alahandre Elise(?) AUP Compliance  

AUP = Account Use Policy (If I recall correctly)
AUP = TOS enforcement (Terms Of Service)

(402)935-2255   Jasmine Account Review      
(402)935-2256   Jamie Account Review      
(402)935-2257   Jamie Account Review      
(402)935-2328   Chris Account Review      
(402)935-2333   Luke Account Review      

(402)935-2239   Collin Fraud & Security     Fraud Prevention    
(402)935-2267   Mark Fraud & Security     Trust & Safety    
(402)935-2272   Michael Fraud & Security     Protection Services    
(402)935-2366   Suzanne Combes Brown Fraud & Security     Risk Management Manager    
(402)935-2368   Sheryl London Fraud & Security     Protection Services: Senior Agent    
(402)935-5134   Bill Gray Fraud & Security     Internal Audit. Mountain View Office: 650-864-8046

(402)935-2015   Teresa Rains Charge Backs       
(402)935-2141   Mikalea Charge Backs       
(402)935-2152   Anna Charge Backs       
(402)935-2189   Margaret Charge Backs       
(402)935-2340   Debbie Charge Backs   

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Let's see what kind of pussies BFL truly is: https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=255830.0

[PuertoLibre]

Let's see what kind of pussies BFL truly is: https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=255830.0

Have you been sued yet PG?

(You scoundrel!)

[solitude]

So BFL doesn't even bother to post shipping updates anymore?  

*Scamming Intensifies*

I guess even they got sick of claiming to be shipping June 23rd Singles

[ASIC-K]

fyi, paypal just refunded me my bfl order

[Loredo]

fyi, paypal just refunded me my bfl order

I'd suggest the following to anyone fortunate enough to have had success in this way, in order to be of assistance to the most people reading this thread:

describe the circumstances; i.e.:
-->were you within 45 days? 
-->did you call PayPal directly? 
-->did you make some allegation (such as Paypal TOS violation) against BFL?

Again, just a suggestion...

[polarhei]

Within 45 days, everything you can do as people are expected to have tracking number issued by postal service like USPS at least.

I think the lab is the threat

[solitude]

fyi, paypal just refunded me my bfl order

When did you order ?

[firefop]

All sales are final is in itself illegal. As long as they can't deliver the item on the day you want your refund they have to give you the refund. That is common business pratice and even law in some countries...

Any good lawyer or judge will tell you its all in the wording, and BFL uses it well. And I quote " Bitforce SC (ASIC) products are shipped according to placement in the order queue, and delivery may take 2 months or more after order. All sales are final."

The statement of "2 months or more" makes denying you a refund legal.  The only way it becomes illegal is if they never deliver the product....ever.  If they discontinue the item and say that it will never ship, THEN you are legally owed a refund.  But, when you paid for your item, they essentially told you it would take at least 2 months.  They never promised before a certain time frame.

Some people have been able to successfully get refunds, and that is totally at the companies discretion.  Its no different that buying a product with a warranty, and then that product breaking after that warranty has expired.  They company promised that under normal use, their product will last ATLEAST that long.  Anything beyond that, they do not have to fix/repair, but if they choose to do it then thats their own discretion.  Same also applies to returns and countless other policies in place everyday.

Dude...

You and BFL may want us all to believe this but until a customers order physically ships it appears according to the FTC that the company must issue a prompt refund when the customer asks for a refund for ANY reason.

Just because their ToS is against FTC regulations doesn't mean it's OK to break those regulations because you put it in your ToS LDO.

(Bolded in mine)

When You Must Cancel an Order

You must cancel an order and provide a prompt refund when:
•the customer exercises any option to cancel before you ship the merchandise;
•the customer does not respond to your first notice of a definite revised shipment date of 30 days or less and you have not shipped the merchandise or received the customer’s consent to a further delay by the definite revised shipment date;
•the customer does not respond to your notice of a definite revised shipment date of more than 30 days (or your notice that you are unable to provide a definite revised shipment date) and you have not shipped the merchandise within 30 days of the original shipment date;
•the customer consents to a definite delay and you have not shipped or obtained the customer’s consent to any additional delay by the shipment time the customer consented to;
•you have not shipped or provided the required delay or renewed option notices on time; or
•you determine that you will never be able to ship the merchandise.


http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus02-business-guide-mail-and-telephone-order-merchandise-rule

The way I read this BFL is clearly in violation of the FTC mail and telephone order merchandise rule (punishable by the FTC suing them for up to $16,000 per incident).


Your turn, please post some evidence of BFL's no refund policy being legitimate.

Reading comprehension is my friend... I'd be happy to introduce you if you'd like to meet up.

Item 1: any option to cancel: There is no option for canceling in the sales contract, it specifically states non refundable. An Option refers to a provision in the contract allowing... etc.
Item 2: concerns company initiated action - does not apply.
Item 3: concerns company initiated action - does not apply.
Item 4: nobody consented to any sort of 'definite delay' - bfl ship time has always been "later"
Item 5: doesn't apply since no definite deliver date ever established.
Item 6: concerns company initiated action (aka rolling up) - does not apply.

My advice to you would be - stop trying to invoke the ftc - you obviously don't understand enough about contract law to have any hope of interpreting their regulations.

[k9quaint]

Dude...

You and BFL may want us all to believe this but until a customers order physically ships it appears according to the FTC that the company must issue a prompt refund when the customer asks for a refund for ANY reason.

Just because their ToS is against FTC regulations doesn't mean it's OK to break those regulations because you put it in your ToS LDO.

(Bolded in mine)

When You Must Cancel an Order

You must cancel an order and provide a prompt refund when:
•the customer exercises any option to cancel before you ship the merchandise;
•the customer does not respond to your first notice of a definite revised shipment date of 30 days or less and you have not shipped the merchandise or received the customer’s consent to a further delay by the definite revised shipment date;
•the customer does not respond to your notice of a definite revised shipment date of more than 30 days (or your notice that you are unable to provide a definite revised shipment date) and you have not shipped the merchandise within 30 days of the original shipment date;
•the customer consents to a definite delay and you have not shipped or obtained the customer’s consent to any additional delay by the shipment time the customer consented to;
•you have not shipped or provided the required delay or renewed option notices on time; or
•you determine that you will never be able to ship the merchandise.


http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus02-business-guide-mail-and-telephone-order-merchandise-rule

The way I read this BFL is clearly in violation of the FTC mail and telephone order merchandise rule (punishable by the FTC suing them for up to $16,000 per incident).


Your turn, please post some evidence of BFL's no refund policy being legitimate.

Reading comprehension is my friend... I'd be happy to introduce you if you'd like to meet up.

Item 1: any option to cancel: There is no option for canceling in the sales contract, it specifically states non refundable. An Option refers to a provision in the contract allowing... etc.

Incorrect. The customer cannot waive the rules of the FTC for BFL, nor can BFL make them disappear by claiming they do not have to follow them (e.g. "no cancellations and/or no refunds"). Customers retain their right to a refund from BFL under the "Dry testing" advisory opinion issued by the FTC about the "Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Trade Regulation Rule".

Item 2: concerns company initiated action - does not apply.

Except that company initiated action was required of BFL, which they failed to do.
If you can't ship within the promised time (or within 30 days if you made no promise), you must notify the customer of the delay, provide a revised shipment date and explain his right to cancel and get a full and prompt refund.
BFL missed their original promised date of October and has never issued a hard date since. "As soon as two more weeks" and "2 months or more" are not shipping dates.
By law, you must have a reasonable basis for stating that a product can be shipped within a certain time. If your advertising doesn't clearly and prominently state the shipment period, you must have a reasonable basis for believing that you can ship within 30 days.

Item 3: concerns company initiated action - does not apply.

Also incorrect. "definite revised shipment date" does not mean "later". It means a calendar day ("by July 18th") or a fixed time period ("within 3 days"). Since BFL never provided what they were required to provide, the customers were denied their opportunity to cancel their orders in response to it.

Item 4: nobody consented to any sort of 'definite delay' - bfl ship time has always been "later"

Since BFL did not provide their revised schedule, nobody had the opportunity to consent to it.
For definite delays of up to 30 days, you may treat the customer's silence as agreeing to the delay. But for longer or indefinite delays - and second and subsequent delays - you must get the customer's written, electronic or verbal consent to the delay. If the customer doesn't give you his okay, you must promptly refund all the money the customer paid you without being asked by the customer.
BFL are the kings of the indefinite delay.

Item 5: doesn't apply since no definite deliver date ever established.

That is a violation of FTC rules. By law, you must have a reasonable basis for stating that a product can be shipped within a certain time.
"Later" is the opposite of certain.

My advice to you would be - stop trying to invoke the ftc - you obviously don't understand enough about contract law to have any hope of interpreting their regulations.

Oh the irony. Instead of looking up the rules yourself or going to one of the dozens of sites that explain them to you, you just waltz in wing it. So far PayPal has been granting refunds to BFL customers who want them, but the FTC is there if PayPal ever cuts off the flow of refunds.

[Flying Hellfish]

All sales are final is in itself illegal. As long as they can't deliver the item on the day you want your refund they have to give you the refund. That is common business pratice and even law in some countries...

Any good lawyer or judge will tell you its all in the wording, and BFL uses it well. And I quote " Bitforce SC (ASIC) products are shipped according to placement in the order queue, and delivery may take 2 months or more after order. All sales are final."

The statement of "2 months or more" makes denying you a refund legal.  The only way it becomes illegal is if they never deliver the product....ever.  If they discontinue the item and say that it will never ship, THEN you are legally owed a refund.  But, when you paid for your item, they essentially told you it would take at least 2 months.  They never promised before a certain time frame.

Some people have been able to successfully get refunds, and that is totally at the companies discretion.  Its no different that buying a product with a warranty, and then that product breaking after that warranty has expired.  They company promised that under normal use, their product will last ATLEAST that long.  Anything beyond that, they do not have to fix/repair, but if they choose to do it then thats their own discretion.  Same also applies to returns and countless other policies in place everyday.

Dude...

You and BFL may want us all to believe this but until a customers order physically ships it appears according to the FTC that the company must issue a prompt refund when the customer asks for a refund for ANY reason.

Just because their ToS is against FTC regulations doesn't mean it's OK to break those regulations because you put it in your ToS LDO.

(Bolded in mine)

When You Must Cancel an Order

You must cancel an order and provide a prompt refund when:
•the customer exercises any option to cancel before you ship the merchandise;
•the customer does not respond to your first notice of a definite revised shipment date of 30 days or less and you have not shipped the merchandise or received the customer’s consent to a further delay by the definite revised shipment date;
•the customer does not respond to your notice of a definite revised shipment date of more than 30 days (or your notice that you are unable to provide a definite revised shipment date) and you have not shipped the merchandise within 30 days of the original shipment date;
•the customer consents to a definite delay and you have not shipped or obtained the customer’s consent to any additional delay by the shipment time the customer consented to;
•you have not shipped or provided the required delay or renewed option notices on time; or
•you determine that you will never be able to ship the merchandise.


http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus02-business-guide-mail-and-telephone-order-merchandise-rule

The way I read this BFL is clearly in violation of the FTC mail and telephone order merchandise rule (punishable by the FTC suing them for up to $16,000 per incident).


Your turn, please post some evidence of BFL's no refund policy being legitimate.

Reading comprehension is my friend... I'd be happy to introduce you if you'd like to meet up.

Item 1: any option to cancel: There is no option for canceling in the sales contract, it specifically states non refundable. An Option refers to a provision in the contract allowing... etc.
Item 2: concerns company initiated action - does not apply.
Item 3: concerns company initiated action - does not apply.
Item 4: nobody consented to any sort of 'definite delay' - bfl ship time has always been "later"
Item 5: doesn't apply since no definite deliver date ever established.
Item 6: concerns company initiated action (aka rolling up) - does not apply.

My advice to you would be - stop trying to invoke the ftc - you obviously don't understand enough about contract law to have any hope of interpreting their regulations.

As K9 politely pointed out you couldn't be more wrong.  Consumer protection laws are quite clear and quite old.

Lets ignore for one second all your points except #4 & 5.  By your own definition BFL has required customers to wait for an "indefinite" delay (of course if you read the rule you would know that you must provide a definitive delivery date and 2 months or more is not definitve therefore it would fall under the indefinite delay clause).  One of the things REQUIRED by the company if the are asking for and receive an indefinite delay is the following.

•a statement that, if the customer agrees to the indefinite delay, the customer may cancel the order any time until you ship.


According to the FTC BFL is breaking their requirements by not TELLING the customer they have the RIGHT cancel an order ANY time until you ship.

There is no room for ambiguity with their statement.  BFL MUST TELL the customer they have the right to cancel the order and when the order is cancelled they MUST refund.  BFL is not only telling their customer the exact opposite of what the FTC tells them they must say but they are also doing the opposite of what is required by not providing the refund.

Sir, my reading comprehension and understanding of consumer protection laws is OK, yours on the other hand??  IF this ends up with the FTC or the courts BFL doesn't have a leg to stand.  Your inability to understand this does not change to facts as they are.

[Xian01]

My advice to you would be - stop trying to invoke the ftc - you obviously don't understand enough about contract law to have any hope of interpreting their regulations.

 Is this your professional, legal opinion ? In fact, the Federal Trade Commission was set up for just such consumer protection cases.

 Taking things to the FTC is a reasonable step in lodging a formal complaint and establishing a problem pattern if you have a legitimate case.

 Every little bit helps establish a pattern.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/index.shtml

[firefop]

As K9 politely pointed out you couldn't be more wrong.  Consumer protection laws are quite clear and quite old.

Lets ignore for one second all your points except #4 & 5.  By your own definition BFL has required customers to wait for an "indefinite" delay (of course if you read the rule you would know that you must provide a definitive delivery date and 2 months or more is not definitve therefore it would fall under the indefinite delay clause).  One of the things REQUIRED by the company if the are asking for and receive an indefinite delay is the following.

•a statement that, if the customer agrees to the indefinite delay, the customer may cancel the order any time until you ship.


According to the FTC BFL is breaking their requirements by not TELLING the customer they have the RIGHT cancel an order ANY time until you ship.

There is no room for ambiguity with their statement.  BFL MUST TELL the customer they have the right to cancel the order and when the order is cancelled they MUST refund.  BFL is not only telling their customer the exact opposite of what the FTC tells them they must say but they are also doing the opposite of what is required by not providing the refund.

Sir, my reading comprehension and understanding of consumer protection laws is OK, yours on the other hand??  IF this ends up with the FTC or the courts BFL doesn't have a leg to stand.  Your inability to understand this does not change to facts as they are.

I suppose with this level of incompetence I should probably take the extra time to figure out what rule you're imagining. From the context it sounds like you're talking about 'prompt delivery'. If so then I should point out that this only applies to physical goods existing at the time of sale, and is purely about the delivery of those goods. Even if we go ahead and ignore the nature of a non-developed hardware pre-order... and agree to say this rule applies:

There still wasn't any delay in delivery of the goods. There has been a period of time where the product was not developed. The initial timetable sale stated that it wasn't yet developed and had a very loose estimate (basically 'whenever it gets done')... there has been no delay when we're talking about the sales contract and deliver of the goods. The time table on shipping is still the same 'in order of paid date, starting once we have the hardware to ship'.

Since it was specified at the beginning, within 30 days is in applicable.

But that's just a fun mental exercise. It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone thinks about ftc regulations. Instead of playing games trying to use inapplicable rules... if you're serious about finding a violation you should be looking into forward contract law... because that's what the sales were.


 

[firefop]

My advice to you would be - stop trying to invoke the ftc - you obviously don't understand enough about contract law to have any hope of interpreting their regulations.

 Is this your professional, legal opinion ? In fact, the Federal Trade Commission was set up for just such consumer protection cases.

 Taking things to the FTC is a reasonable step in lodging a formal complaint and establishing a problem pattern if you have a legitimate case.

 Every little bit helps establish a pattern.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/index.shtml

I completely agree that anyone is welcome to waste the FTCs time with this nonsense. I'm just getting a little sick of everyone and their dog playing lawyer and trying to apply random regulations to things that they don't actually apply to.

[Xian01]

I completely agree that anyone is welcome to waste the FTCs time with this nonsense.

 Your opinion.

I'm just getting a little sick of everyone and their dog playing lawyer and trying to apply random regulations to things that they don't actually apply to.

 I hope you can appreciate there are some that are sick of production problems over the last 300+ some-odd days that have created the current acrimonious environment.

[Trongersoll]

This is better than Judge Judy! 

[becoin]

I completely agree that anyone is welcome to waste the FTCs time with this nonsense.

Don't panic!

[Moneymaker1990]

All sales are final is in itself illegal. As long as they can't deliver the item on the day you want your refund they have to give you the refund. That is common business pratice and even law in some countries...

Any good lawyer or judge will tell you its all in the wording, and BFL uses it well. And I quote " Bitforce SC (ASIC) products are shipped according to placement in the order queue, and delivery may take 2 months or more after order. All sales are final."

The statement of "2 months or more" makes denying you a refund legal.  The only way it becomes illegal is if they never deliver the product....ever.  If they discontinue the item and say that it will never ship, THEN you are legally owed a refund.  But, when you paid for your item, they essentially told you it would take at least 2 months.  They never promised before a certain time frame.

Some people have been able to successfully get refunds, and that is totally at the companies discretion.  Its no different that buying a product with a warranty, and then that product breaking after that warranty has expired.  They company promised that under normal use, their product will last ATLEAST that long.  Anything beyond that, they do not have to fix/repair, but if they choose to do it then thats their own discretion.  Same also applies to returns and countless other policies in place everyday.

You are completely incorrect in your understanding of the legal precedent around this issue.
U.S. Consumer Protection Laws are very clear. If they have not actually shipped the merchandise, they cannot deny your request for a refund, regardless of what terms and conditions they have in some arbitrary corner of their website.

^^This
It is amazing to me how the BFL fanbois will excuse almost any behavior by the company, up to and including refusing their customers refunds.

Fanboy I am not.  Yes, I have a Jalapeno, but I also ordered mine in July 2012.  So, someone who ordered 2 months ago who is upset about not getting a refund, I say to them, what do you say to the person who has waited almost a year to get their unit?

I refer you to my post below and the FTC laws governing All Sales Finals and the legality of them offering refunds.  Like it or not, they are within their legal right to deny a refund, just like you are within your legal right to ask for, and put in a claim for one.

https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=249125.msg2648214#msg2648214

FTC is clear.  All sales final is not binding.  You can always cancel.  Espcially if product has not shipped within 30 days or order, regardless of if you are warned it may be longer than 2 months.

BFL is breaking US FTC laws.