Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
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 am prepared to accept that, given the stated circumstances in this particular case (refunds requested for two TVs and "several" DSLRs), Amazon might feel sufficiently suspicious of this person to "pull the plug", even though they did decide to reverse the decision.
We really don't have enough facts to be able to make a generalization as to whether the practice is problematic or not - IMHO.
Let me ask you: are there no circumstances in which you would consider it acceptable to terminate someone's account for suspicious activity? Buying 10 expensive TV sets one after the other and returning each one? 20? 50? 100? Most reasonable people would accept, I think, that there is a "line" which can be crossed.
|
You are SOOO missing the point here
The point is not whether Amazon should or shouldn't be able to cancel customer accounts. The point is whether they are providing sufficient transparency for what the policies are, and what is an
acceptable use of the account and what is not.
If it is not okay with Amazon that people buy multiple expensive items and then return them ... why let them return those items in the first place ? And then go ahead and ban them for violating some unspecified rules that apparently only Amazon is aware of ? Why not warn the customers as part of the checkout process itself that if they buy this item, they may not be able to return it, or will have to pay certain re-stocking fees etc. ? That would be perfectly okay.
Also, if someone is repeatedly purchasing and returning items - why not warn them after the first one or two incidents that they are no longer welcome to do that or their account will be canceled !
Instead of clarifying their position, Amazon instead is using this underhanded practice of being very lenient till one point and then suddenly when it is not okay
with them, pull the plug completely and leave people with valid digital purchases dead in the water.
While I do not return a lot of stuff to vendors, I certainly
like to have the assurance that I
can return an item if their ever is a valid need. That's why by principle I avoid purchasing items from companies that have very strict return policies or impose undue re-stocking fees etc. I fully respect those companies for being upfront about their policies though. Also, I believe I end up buying more than really is necessary from companies I like to do business with because I know I can return the stuff if needed ... even though it is rarely the case that I actually end up returning ... so because of lenient return policies, these companies actually end up getting more business from me and not less.
What Amazon is doing is deliberately not being clear about their policies, and creating this false sense of security that they have a very lenient return policy and luring unsuspecting customers into purchasing more and more -- and then if they actually try to return something that is not okay
with Amazon, they are going into the other extreme. That is EXTREMELY DECEIVING and I will NEVER trust a company that does this ! Whether they have the
right to do this or not is insignificant ... at least as far as I am concerned.