![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-186777-100x100.png\")
Nice! Good going Chris!
Nice! Good going Chris!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-806521-100x100.png\")
HUh! I wonder if this would have worked with the stupid duplicate Office Depot order I received.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
\"Merchants who ship unordered merchandise with knowledge that it is unlawful to do so...\"
So obviously their argument will be that they had no knowledge that it was unlawful to do so.
@concordia: Hmm, that seems like a poorly written law. Because from my extensive legal training via Law & Order, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. But this says it is. WWSWD*?
What Would Sam Waterston Do?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21970-100x100.png\")
@concordia: That's fine, they won't be subject to a civil penalty.
As the rule is written, that only applies to the civil penalty.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-462821-100x100.png\")
@concordia: fuck up or intentional, you decide. In the meantime, forever more for that matter, the shoes are free gifts.
That's how I got my russian mail order bride.
wow this is cool. One time Buy.com accidentally shipped me extra usb thumb drives (I only ordered 1, but got 5), so now I don't feel bad about keeping them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-450376-100x100.png\")
Ha! Thanks for that little FTC link, Chris.
We've been having troubles canceling our Gevalia account. In fact, more than 6 months ago we stopped the account completely. They recently pulled this with us (sent us the coffee then told us we had to pay for it). We told them to send us a return label and we'd gladly send it back to them. It's been a few weeks and no label.
So if they call back to demand payment, I will gladly use this FTC link to thank them for the gift. All the while, sipping on a nice hot cup of Roast Espresso!
@custommadescare: What the Rule Does Not Cover
The following sales are exempt from the Rule:
* magazine subscriptions (and similar serial deliveries), except for the first shipment;
* sales of seeds and growing plants;
* orders made on a collect-on-delivery basis (C.O.D.); and,
* transactions covered by the FTC's Negative Option Rule (such as book and music clubs).
@DrMorison: Without going into too much backstory, there was no subscription when they sent the coffee. They basically just arbitrarily sent it.
We called them, even verified that there was no account anymore, and that's when we told them that if they want it back, send us a label.
Even researching your last bullet point (thanks, btw. that's 2 new things today!), we actually did the right thing and can treat it as a gift!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-451722-100x100.png\")
You may be in the lost on this one if Gevalia has a recording of you agreeing to return the coffee.
@Aisley: It wasn't so much an agreement, more like telling them that if they want the coffee back (that was never ordered), they can send us a shipping label.
At this point, the amount of trouble they have been with keeping their own records straight, I'd figure they would just write it off and let it go.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-98962-100x100.png\")
definitely back charge before the dispute period is up. I've had to utilize that tool a few times in the past for double billing where visa would talk to me in about 10 minutes and the merchants phone tree would keep me on for an hour.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-233963-100x100.png\")
I got a free laptop this way a few years ago after ordering one, they sent me two.
Look a gift horse in the mouth? no way!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-151293-100x100.png\")
That happened to me, except it was a 20\" LCD monitor. They sent me 2, one arriving two days after the other. A nice $200 gift from NewEgg. They're all about customer satisfaction over there!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-157351-100x100.png\")
Ikea once sent us a kid's art easel, you know, the kind with a chalk board on one side and paper on the other. Anyway, I gave it to a neighbor's little girl. They called a little while later and said they wanted it back. I told them about the unordered merchandise rule and said 'sorry, I already gave it away'. They were none too happy.
@copious28: While you gave it to the kid is nice, just up and giving away a mistaken shipment is douche. If they weren't trying to charge you for it, or for shipping, you should have offered to return it if they prepaid the shipping. Anything else is douche-y theft.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6536-100x100.png\")
@silver-bolt: This reminds me of the time my mom ordered a computer and then sent it to a neighbor down the street.
She was able to get it from the neighbor but they had planned on keeping the computer.
@silver-bolt: I fail to see how some company's mistake obligates the mistaken recipient to do anything. I wouldn't take their easel to the UPS store or box it back up or do anything else. I don't work for them.
@Canino: It's called common decency. All you need to do is mark the box Return to Sender and leave it outside for USPS to handle, or schedule a pickup with UPS or Fedex.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-183296-100x100.png\")
@silver-bolt: You may not work for them, but \"douche-y thefts\" (copious28's term, not mine, but I like it) ultimately results in higher prices for everyone. Just a thought. (And no, I'm not affiliated with any companies that suffer from douche-y thefts.)
@kidjesus: You may not work for them, but \"douche-y thefts\" (copious28's term, not mine, but I like it) ultimately results in higher prices for everyone.
Strawman argument. I guarantee they have 100 times more theft from their own employees than they do from losing misshipped merchandise to people who won't return it.
@Canino: Then I hope the next time you make a mistake, someone capitalizes and takes advantage of it. Maybe you drop your wallet and they take your cash, or you get pulled over for forgetting your seatbelt, you get twenty bullshit tickets.
Uncalled for... you read the law above. They shipped it unordered, nobody has to return it. No need to start wishing bad karma on people.
@Mirshaan: I think silver-bolt hit the nail on the head when he mentioned common decency. What is honorable is not always legal, and what is legal is not always honorable. Fifty years ago, no good person would consider keeping something that was sent to them by mistake, unearned and unpaid for. I might be waxing nostalgic about bygone values, but I think this lack of honor, hiding unscrupulously behind the law, is indicative of a society that's increasingly irresponsible, unaccountable, and litigious. I think we would be a much happier people if we acted with virtue, on our own accord, despite the law.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-776577-100x100.png\")
@KeatonDarnoldo: So it's a moral issue, and well...your morals aint mine Keaton. Which isn't to say that I'd have kept it, but if I had, I wouldn't put up with any brow-beating just because I didn't do what someone I don't know from Adam would have done in my place.
So yeah, save the guilt-trip. It's bullshit.
@Cyberxion101: So we can't call each other out on moral issues all of a sudden? Your solipsism is bullshit, baby bear. I realize my morals aren't yours. But I don't buy that we should cease arguing morals simply because we have different viewpoints. This is how we determine what's acceptable behavior and what isn't. If I wanted to browbeat, I'd point out that all your comments are snide, trollish, and reactionary, and you don't appear to have anything substantive to say. I don't think pointing out symptoms of an ethical decline is browbeating.
@EdgarCepheus: My opinion was simply that as your morals are your own, it's awfully dickish to start brow-beating someone because they didn't do what you would have under similar circumstances. You guys were coming from a place of self-perceived moral superiority. That's it. You weren't lamenting some perceived loss of morality, not that it would have made your bullshit any easier to swallow. No, you just saw an opportunity to jump on your high-horses and pass judgment down on other folks from on high. And fuck me if I think that you do your arguments a disservice when they come from such a clearly disingenuous place.
So no, I wasn't protesting the discussion of morality and the decline of such in today's society. I was protesting that smug sense of moral superiority that you assholes were sporting there.
As for you, you can take your petty, bullshit summation of my post, and you can cram it right up your fat ass along with your ego-enlarged head, you simpering, self-important cunt-rag.
Now that's trollish and snide! Now that you've learned the difference between that and one's simple distaste of the self-absorbed rantings of a bunch of half-wit egomaniacs, by all means feel free to carry on!
@kidjesus: Please avoid the guilt trip. The onus is on the company to fulfill its orders correctly.
And besides, they'd jack up prices with or without customer theft.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-19238-100x100.png\")
Please, Please, Please, keep us updated Brook! I'd love to hear about a company getting smarmy and it biting them in the ass!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-568700-100x100.png\")
BMG did a similar thing to me. Sent me CDs I never ordered due to a mixup on the order form. They billed me and said I couldn't return them. I talked to the post office and they cited that same thing.
So I ended up with some free CDs!
Yes! Excitement!
Unfortunately the CDs were Jewel and a tribute to The Carpenters.
No! Sadness.
In the end, I was entertained for a few minutes while microwaving them.
@downwithmonstercable: The NRA pulled a stunt where they sent me a VHS tape. It came with a return label, but no means to affix it, and I couldn't find any glue/clear tape to put it on, so I said screw it.
They bothered me a couple times about it, but I held firm - even pointed out that I'd requested they put me on the reduced mailings list for a *reason*.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-245335-100x100.png\")
i've received duplicates from companies before. actually, twice from amazon. both times i've called them and they sent me packaging to send the extra back.
apparently i'm in the minority here: an honest person?
it's sad how many people are willing to rip off companies. sure, it's a law, but whatever happened to compassion and helping people with their minor screw-ups?
@katieoh: I get what you're writing about, katieoh and I agree. I actually sighed with a bit of relief when I read your post as I was starting to think I must really be missing something in all of the previous posts
@ccbweb: It's still a moral matter at best, and I'm just as sickened by that presumptuous moral posturing than I would be if someone kept something they didn't order because the company screwed up. Neither thing is particularly attractive to me, but eh, I'll take the latter over the former any day.
@katieoh: sure, it's a law, but whatever happened to compassion and helping people with their minor screw-ups?
Corporate types: Notice the difference in [most people's] reactions to \"oops, our mistake. We'll make it easy to return the stuff\" versus \"we never make mistakes!!! give us the money you don't owe us!!!\"
Moral: While there will always be a few people whose reaction is \"cool! free stuff!\", if you act decently most people will reciprocate and you'll get more of your mis-shipments back.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-730956-100x100.png\")
@katieoh: Indeed. It's one thing if they try to charge you for it, it's another to profit off a mistake.
I was at my bank depositing a check and taking $20 out. The teller handed me $40. I handed back the extra $20. It wasn't a conscious decision, I just knew it wasn't my money.
Not long after, I miscounted change at work and gave a customer $90 back instead of the $70 she was supposed to get. The only reason I know this is because she reentered the store two minutes later to return the extra $20, preventing me from being short later and having to deal with a very displeased boss who probably would have assumed I pocketed it.
Karma happens. It was good to me, hope it's not a bitch to you.
@katieoh: I've tried to send a duplicate shipment back before - when I called the company, I was told (kind of snippily, actually!) that they couldn't take it back, it would be more trouble for them than it was worth, and they wouldn't send me a shipping label, and I should just give it away if I didn't want it. So my sister got a free kitchen stool (because you need more than one of those in identical colours, right?) and I got an insight into the cost of inefficiency!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-188304-100x100.png\")
@katieoh: The issue here isnt honesty. Amazon didnt charge you for the duplicate items and while it was nice of you to send them back you didnt have to.
The issue here is this person was charged for the second set of Shoes and despite the fact that he TRIED to return them, he was told if he did he would be charged an extra $20 on the first order simply because they werent happy that they CSR gave him a discount.
@katieoh: Brook was willing to send them back, but DSW wanted to retroactively charge him more. He's not being dishonest in any way! It's definitely on the company to know the ins and outs of the law.
@jodles: i wasn't referring to the op. i know that wasn't clear, but i was referring to the posters who received duplicate goods without being charged for them and just didn't feel the need to inform the companies. i think it's rude.
@Aisley: yeah, sorry for having an opinion. i forgot the internets was not the place for this!
if the company was not dishonest in any way, why not inform them of their missteps? i wasn't referring to the op in particular. look at the two comments, one about getting an extra laptop and the other about getting four extra thumb drives. the idea that those peoples' orders could have been processed as placed and they received the extra goods and did not mention it? i think it's dishonest.
@katieoh: For me it would all depend on the situation. In this case I think she's morally entitled since they were dicks about it. If it was an enormous faceless corporation I'd consider keeping it as well.
If it was a small mom-n-pop shop I would almost certainly send it back.
@katieoh:
Uh Holier that Thou now Katie? What a nerve calling people you don't even know dishonest. I love to have compassion; but when you screw up big time and behave arrogantly on top of that, \"where is my compassion\"? \"Nowhere you can find it\". By the way Bernard Madoff called, he want you to be honest and have compassion for his minor screw-up and send him back the deed to the Statue of Liberty!
@katieoh: I don't think that's so much the minority. I would like to think that if it was an honest mistake, most people would attempt to find out if the company wants to go through the trouble of paying for postage to get said items back.
However, if a company sends you duplicates of something and then wants to charge you for those items (or, hold your credit card hostage), you have every right to tell them to get bent and keep your new \"extras\".
@custommadescare: I just want to add that honest people do seem to be in the majority(shockingly). I work in a retail store that accepts in-store returns from our online arm, and I can't tell you how many times someone's brought in product they were sent mistakenly. Sometimes they get sent the wrong thing and want what they ordered, but often its just an \"extra\" that they weren't charged for. No telling how many customers just keep those extras though I guess.
@katieoh: If the companies in question are polite and do everything in their power to resolve the problem, sure, be nice and send the stuff back. If they're dicks about it (as they were to Brook), why would they deserve compassion? They tried to bill Brook twice for the same order and jacked up the price the second time, then insisted that there was nothing they could do about it. Why on earth should he help them after they tried to screw him?
@RedSonSuperDave: i'm not saying that what happened to the op wasn't ridiculous. i'm saying that, okay, complain first. clearly, in the op, there's a logistical problem going on, something else entirely. but still, if dsw refunds the $110 order, why would he not send the duplicate order back? as \"payback\"? as his \"reward\" for the inconvenience?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-121828-100x100.png\")
@katieoh: The one time this happened to me with Amazon, the items that didn't ship on time and were subsequently re-ordered without my permission were Christmas gifts, ones that I needed in my hand the day before they re-ordered them so that I could get them shipped to their final destination.
Amazon f-ed up my well thought out Christmas gifts and left me sweating and scrambling to find something to send to the recipients. They subsequently got the very late items as well, and I kept the second order. If that makes me dishonest, then I can live with it.
@larrymac: i'm not saying that you shouldn't voice your complaints. look at several of the other comments here: people received things in the mail and then just kept them. to me, that's dishonest. in your situation, i would have called amazon and complained about the service, and then mentioned the duplicate order. perhaps they would say to just keep them, or maybe they would ask for them back but refund you for the inconvenience.
to me, it just seems kind of like ripping off a company. we complain when they have bad customer service, but then we aren't willing to notify them of their screw ups when it \"benefits\" us? it's dishonest and, i think, makes the consumer no better than the company. someone's getting screwed either way.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-83488-100x100.png\")
@katieoh: The reason the rules are this way is because, in the past, there have been companies that tried to make \"ship first, bill later\" their sleazy business plan. That is, unsolicited shipping not as an honest mistake but to compel a sale. I think it's a very good rule.
@LandruBek: i'm not saying that isn't a good law. but if it's a screw-up with an order you placed and the company doesn't charge you yet you still receive duplicates, i think it's dishonest not to inform them of their mistake and just take the goods as a \"bonus.\"
Once when ordering from LL Bean there was a glitch and a canceled item was shipped anyway. It was clearly their fault and I knew I could keep it but because they were so nice about it and they're a pretty nice company I sent them back. If they were rude like DSW I would have kept it.
Everyone say it with me: ZAPPOS.COM
@S. Patrick Kaine: Glad to think I wasn't the only person whose initial reaction to this was \"well why didn't he just order from Zappos\".
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-116400-100x100.png\")
It's articles like this that make me so happy we have this site.
Did you have to sign for it? The delivery I mean? If so, that may well satisfy the stuff on agreeing to receive it.
@DrMorison: At the time he wrote it the shoes hadn't gotten to him yet. The company said they're 'en route' which I'm betting is a lie.
@DrMorison: Agreeing to receive something and ordering it are different.
How was she to know what was in the box when it was signed for? They dont allow you to open it.
If you receive a box from UPS and your mother, father, sister, wife, husband, child, whatever signs for it. Then you open it and see its a...blu-ray player from Amazon that you never ordered THEN you notice they charged you for it should you be responsible to pay the bill?
Hell no.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-122616-100x100.png\")
I have 2 gigs of very expensive RAM in my PC right now because of this FTC rule. Hey... watch what you toss in the box next time. ;)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-194223-100x100.png\")
Any one ever heard of a crapper called Bottom Line Books? They're great on sending you stuff you never ordered then hitting you up with bills for them and collections. Does this apply to them also??
@brandymb: It applies to anything sent it to no matter what.
If you did not order an item and they send it to you then its considered a gift. If they demand payment its considered illegal and no matter what they say you get to keep the item and not pay them.
Put it this way. I have a TV I wanna sell and im a merchant. So I send it to some random person and they receive it and say to themselves.
\"Wow a TV just showed up and I have no idea why but its addressed to my name at my address...it must be for me and not some mistake\"
Then a couple days later I send them a bill demanding payment for the tv. They call me up and say wtf dude we arent paying for this we never ordered it. I then send the bill to collections and wait for my $$$.
Thats illegal. You cant just send out stuff that people didnt order and then demand money.
@parad0x360: in retrospect, i didn't make it clear, but i was not referring to the original post, i was referring to the commenters who got thumb drives, laptops, etc, without being charged for them and just kept them. to me, that's dishonest.
I had a similar problem with Bath & Body Works recently. They sent me duplicate orders, I emailed them to point it out, and after several back-and-forths AND my having to call THEM, they sent a shipping label so I could send back the extra stuff ... and when I did? They credited my credit card for the returned items. Instead of fighting with their customer service again, I donated half the bonus money to charity and accepted the second half as a nice gift on their part. But I did try to do the right thing first!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-627591-100x100.png\")
I guess I'm a little confused.
1/30/09-2/6/09 is a week. OP received them the same day he called about the missing package?
If you didn't even get notification that the first one had shipped, you probably won't receive tracking numbers for the second order, either (at least, that's what I'd think).
I'm not knowledgeable about legal stuff to offer advice about whether or not to chargeback and/or keep the extra shoes, however. I just wanted clarification about the OP's story. It does make sense to me that if you called one week later, you'd receive an order confirmation on the 7th. It's not right, however, that they want to charge you more for it. That's definitely BS.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
@femme_dork: I'm thinking the first \"a week\" is a slight overstatement--that he didn't get the usual email/shipping confirmation even though his credit card was charged, so he called the next week. That's when they fulfilled the screwed-up order via 2nd day, so he got them on the 6th (we don't know what, if any, email communication he had about this shipment). Then he did get an order confirmation for an order placed on the 7th with a higher amount, which was charged to his credit card as well.
My guess is that he did get tracking info for the 2nd day shipment and that it is DSW's norm, hence its absence alerting him to the problem with his order initially.
Once he reads that Mail Order Rule and mentions the fines, it will be bumped up and the charge revered. Legal fines always bump up calls.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-102829-100x100.png\")
I would also love an update on this story after the OP calls DSW!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-358755-100x100.png\")
I got a HDTV the same way from electronicsnation.com a few years back.
I ordered a refurbished 32\" Phillips HDTV, 2 weeks later, I still hadn't otten tracking info or shipping notice. So, I called and the saleman siad that the model I ordered was OOS, and he would ship a better model out if I agreed. Of course, I did. 2 days later Yellow Truck called and said that they had been trying to setup delivery for the last 4 days. I thought nothing of it and they delivered my original order. Fast forward a week later....you guessed it, Yellow Truck calls again, wants to arrange for delievery. Upgraded model to my original order arrives. I called, talked to the same saleguy, he said the original order showed it never shipped, he said enjoy the free TV. Can't beat 2 refurbished 32\" HDTV's, (crt type) for $420 shipped! Still running perfect!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-2180-100x100.png\")
Screw ordering shoes from anyone but Zappos.com.
didn't read the rest of the responses - but you DEFINITELY do not owe more than your initial $79.57. You can take this up with your credit card company as an unauthorized purchase and you have some recourse with DSW. In my opinion, they should take the $100 hit and let you keep the shoes for the inconvenience. I certainly would not pay to ship anything back. If they send you a box with a packing slip I would spit in them and ship them...but that's me.
See, I don't get how this is supposed to work out for DSW. Even if he were to go along with this and send some shoes back they'd end up with the used shoes, not the new shoes. Do they plan on selling the used pair as if they were new to someone else? What if he'd already messed up the first pair?
Merchants who ship unordered merchandise with knowledge that it is unlawful to do so can be subject to civil penalties of up to $11,000 per violation.
when did ignorance of the law become an excuse for not following the law?
My wife recieved two Dell servers from her vendor. They were supposed to get 1 server and 1 SAN. They got a pallet with two servers on it and then the SAN came in the next day.
She spent hours on the phone arguing with them that they shipped the server accidently. They refused to believe her. They wouldn't send her a call tag for it.
Once the new budget comes in the \"shadow\" server will be getting outfitted with more RAM and some drives.
If you want the full citation to the code, it's 2008 CFR title 16 Chapter 1 part 435.
[www.access.gpo.gov]
I'm a librarian. We cite this frequently when we recieve unordered directories or other merchandise from both legitimate and scam companies. Most times we return items (if it's a big publisher and we have a good relationship), but we're under no obligation to. If it's a scam artist who continues to send bills/collections after us, we send them a letter by certified mail citing the above passage and ask them not to send us anything else ever again. It works pretty well.
Sometimes even the big publishers will just say \"just keep it\" because returning something unordered often messes up their systems.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-465792-100x100.png\")
Heh, I'm having a battle trying to RETURN something with FirstData merchant services. I leased a credit card terminal from them for a few months and I want to give it back. They have no record of the lease. Upon further examination, I was never charged for leasing it... nor for buying it. I got a free credit card terminal. The CSRs keep simply telling me \"well, if it's not in our system...\" and \"thanks for being so honest, but we don't have a record in our system... are you sure you didn't buy it outright?\" Yes, I'm sure. It's a $500 piece of equipment, I think I'd remember that! Two weeks ago the call was escalated I was told, and I haven't heard anything. I'm going to keep the terminal for a year or so, and if I don't hear anything and they still insist I can't return their property, eBay time.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
I ordered some stuff online from a dollhouse company one time and they sent me 2 of everything. I was like, WHAT?! So I called them and they said the website glitches and automatically defaults to 2 items. That was totally not obvious when I ordered.
One of the items I ordered was a book and they don't normally take returns on those, but the lady was really nice and she let me return it anyway. They credited it back to my debit card (yeah, I know!). I decided to keep the extra furniture because I could use it for another house/room.
Now I'm much more careful when I order from them. They are a family owned company and very nice, but the last time I checked, that glitch had not been fixed.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-767887-100x100.png\")
Yes, I suspect a company reminded in writing about those FTC guidlines would probably reserve course.
I remember many years back when Eddie Buuer (when owned by the evil Spiegel) offered coupon discounts off online orders and then foolishly decided it would just charge customer's credit cards for the amount of the coupon later if they decided they didn't want to honor it.
That caused quite an uproar and a whole heck of a lot of valid chargebacks as it was totally illegal. I would hope someone at Eddie Bauer lost their job over that one. I so love when retailers decide to just create new laws!
I've twice been the benefiary of Amazon's inadvertent generosity:
Back in the pre-iPod days, an Amazon order came with a surprise Diamond Rio mp3 player. Had a whopping 32 megs of flash memory! That's like almost an entire album! At a really low bitrate!
More recently, I ordered a pair of shoes through Amazon about a year ago and was delighted to find a free identical bonus pair in the box! I keep one pair at work for those snowy days when I wear boots and don't want to carry an extra pair of shoes with me on the train.
Hmmmm. I ordered this Blu-ray player from Nebraska Furniture Mart and they sent me two players. One that I paid for and another from someone else's order.
They called me and asked that I return the other order. But after reading this, it seems that they broke the law. How do I go about proceeding this my complaint?
Is it possible that when you spoke with the CSR he/she misinterpreted your request as an order for more shoes?
If yes, then how can the company be responsible for misinterpreting your vague words?
The fact that the item was shipped is irrelvant. The customer has identified a billing error on their credit card statement. That's all the information the customer should provide to the credit card company. Proof of delivery is not a defnese for a charge back for a billing error.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-154038-100x100.png\")
Amazon.com once did an almost identical duplicate shipment to me on a product that cost $35.00. When I called them about it, they credited the second charge AND told me that by law they couldn't compel me to return the duplicate shipment.
So apparently some merchants do follow the FTC rule. I don't know if the statement regarding it being \"law\" is totally accurate. But Amazon is obviously familiar with the FTC rule and abides by it.
I offered to return the second one if they paid return shipping. They told me it was more trouble than it was worth, and that it would be easier for everyone if I just kept the duplicate.
This is why I use my credit card's \"virtual account number\" feature. When I buy online, I generate a virtual account number that is good only for the amount of the transaction. If DSW had tried to pull this on me, their second attempt to charge my credit card would have been declined.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-99510-100x100.png\")
The first thing she should have done is call her credit card company and put the charge into dispute. This prevents DSW from getting payment.
More on this here: [clarkhoward.com]
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-79750-100x100.png\")
That sound you hear is their legal department furiously rewriting the terms of sale to update it to a 'service' whereby when you place an order, you agree to them shipping you the same shoes weekly at whatever the current price happens to be. Those pesky check-out check boxes.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-160972-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-140024-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-826407-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-3865-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-154749-100x100.png\")
The chargeback will most likely require her to send one set back.
@silver-bolt: @silver-bolt:
Brook is a HE not a SHE.
@silver-bolt: Y'all are missing the point. The $100ish charge is an unauthorized charge plain and simple. Brook did not authorize this, it is not authorized, they do not have the authority to charge it.
Brook is entirely within his right to charge it back; the CC company should have nothing to say about the presence or absence of the merchandise.
@silver-bolt:
As someone who has processed Visa and Mastercard disputes, if the purchase was on one of these cards, they OP would be required to return one of the orders at their cost in order for the bank to have chargeback rights. The receipt of two orders but after the chargeback only having to pay for one was called \"unjust enrichment\". The requirements for a chargeback are established by the card company. On occasion I would have a customer that would attempt to assert the FTC rules, but they did not apply to the chargeback. The FTC rule would apply to civil litigation. I believe the only governmental guidelines that applied to chargebacks were Reg E (debit card) and FCRA/FCBA (credit card). It's been a while, so there may be others now.
@silver-bolt: Supposedly he doesn't have the shoes yet...so why not do the chargeback before they arrive? You can't send back something you don't have.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I mean, since they charged her, it will require a chargeback, upon which there will be a minor investigation where DSW will present the order #'s (and likely claim that she ordered both, but lose), at which point, credit card will authorize chargeback once she ships the shoes back. Right? I can't see a CC company just crediting a chargeback without any real proof that she didn't order the second set AND without ordering another pair. Either way, pretty f'd up on DSW's part. Can I somehow use this to convince my wife to boycott their shoes? (would save $$$$$$$)
@silver-bolt: unfortunately that's probably the case. if she really wants to keep the extra pair of shoes a small claims suit for the $100.82 would probably be the only way to get a refund without sending them back. The lawsuit approach also has the added benefit of there now being a public record that they know it is unlawful to ship unordered merchandise, which would be handy in imposing that $11K fine should anyone else encounter the same issue in the future.