Quote:
|
Whether or not it's a problem, Nate, depends what the circumstances are in which it's done. I am sure that there ARE rules which trigger the ban, rather than it being "capricious" ("erratic", "done at a whim") as you claim. We don't know what those rules are, so we cannot really make an informed judgement on the issue.
|
I think most people here agree that Amazon is right to deny access to customer abusing their return system.
The problem is in the way they are doing it :
- No communication on the banning rules. So long as Amazon's customers remains uninformed, the rules indeed appears as being "capricious".
- No warning
- Denied access to previous digital purchases, and for Kindle owner to the main source of future no-public domain ebook purchases. (Especially since on the other hand they are making an extra effort to deny access to other stores).
- Also, the possibility of getting banned as a "related account". For example if an "abusing customer" added your own address to his own account to send you a gift. Again this may be not true, but since we are left in the dark about the rules we must guess the worst.
It should be rather easy for them to improve the way they ban abusing customers.
Not doing so show that they don't care about any individual customer, just about the big profitability picture.