OK, didn't catch that sentence. Still, I was not told that in the response I received.

Nobody has been. That's the first mention of it I've seen and it took 5 emails to get that response. 3 got the generic nonsense response most people get. One was ignored. Then that came from the Executive Customer Relations address after days of waiting.

And you wouldn't have been wrong to have assumed that - their generic emails and T&Cs only state that US return costs will be refunded.

Just one of numerous reasons why they should've stopped, thought things through and gave customers the information they needed in that first email.

Or better yet, told their CSRs what the hell is going on. Because they clearly still haven't with the polar opposite responses people have been getting.

This thread is rich with irony. Anybody else reminded of the quote - “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”?

Anyway, continue on.

What address do those of you that received replies send your emails to? I've sent an email to [email protected] and [email protected] and have yet to receive a reply.

Thanks,
Samuel

If you want to go over the normal CRS process, shoot an email to [email protected] and see what you get from that.

The email Neptune received is pretty interesting in its directness and specificity and it may be indicative of Amazon's overall strategy (if they even have one) in sending out the "return or you will be charged" emails. I originally assumed that there was no way Amazon could successfully charge credit cards for the price differences but they obviously think differently.

The terms of the promotion are just as much a part of the entire contract of sale as are the check-out messages and confirmation emails. From Neptune's letter, Amazon now seems to want to focus on the published terms instead of the check-out errors and this argument might work with the credit card banks in the event of any disputes, but it doesn't strike me as a winning argument since the whole thing is such a mess.

I still think mistake/rescission is the stronger position to take and Amazon has left this option open with their initial wave of "return or be charged" emails. I'm wondering if a credit card bank might not require a customer to return the DVDs (opened or not) before reversing any charges. I know that PayPal regularly does this, although they are not a credit card bank. Just a thought, but it would seem to be the fairest way of handling any disputes.

All that said, chargebacks do cost Amazon money (unless the terms of their merchant agreement say otherwise) and this cost should dissuade them from going after those who made only modest orders. Their efforts would be better spent going after the bigtime abusers where there is more money at stake. No one is going to cry for the poor sucker who bought 100 copies of Charlie's Angels or The Nanny

I think that the issue that they might have with this tack is that the "terms and conditions" say nothing about this particular promotion, but rather about promotions in general.

Additionally, Amazon did not, themselves, follow term #2

The discount was, instead, applied as a "promotional certificate."

I didn't even read the terms of the promotion when I purchased my items. I just put the items in my cart and checked out. There are no terms of the promotion listed on my dated email confirmation or invoice, just the price that I agreed to pay at checkout.

How do I know that Amazon didn't go in and revise the wording of the terms of the promotion on their website after the glitch was discovered?

If you used a debit card as opposed to a credit card, you might get all lawyerly on them and bust out this act:

Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693 et seq.

The purpose of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (“EFTA”) is “to provide a basic framework establishing the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in electronic fund transfer system.” 15 U.S.C. § 1693. The primary objective of the EFTA “is the provision of individual consumer rights.” Id.

As used in the EFTA, “account” is defined, in relevant part, as “a demand deposit, savings deposit, or other account (other than an occasional or incidental credit balance in an open end credit plan . . .),” “established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, but such term does not include an account held by a financial institution pursuant to a bona fide trust agreement.” 15 U.S.C. § 1693a(2).

The EFTA defines “electronic fund transfer,” in relevant part, as “any transfer of funds, other than a transaction originated by check, draft, or similar paper instrument, which is initiated through an electronic terminal, telephonic instrument, or computer or magnetic tape so as to order, instruct, or authorize a financial institution to debit or credit an account.” 15 U.S.C. § 1693a(6).

The EFTA defines “unauthorized electronic fund transfer,” in relevant part, as “an electronic fund transfer from a consumer’s account initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority to initiate such transfer and from which the consumer receives no benefit.” 15 U.S.C. § 1693a(11).

By taking money out of your account, you could argue that Amazon engaged engaged in “unauthorized electronic fund transfers,” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1693(a)(11), by electronically debiting funds from your account without actual authorization.

Under the statute, you can seek actual damages, statutory damages, costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, and such other further relief as the Court deems appropriate, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693m.

You can't be serious.

I would guess that Amazon and all their lawyers know exactly what they can do, and what they can't do. They might realize that they cannot issue the charge, and the emails are just a bluff. Or they realize they have the legal right to charge the cards, and that is what they will do. The other option is they realize they cannot charge the cards, but they do anyway. That option is unlikely.

Also regarding debit cards - I assume these are visa debit cards, in which the same rules that apply to regular visas, would also apply to visa debit cards - but I could be wrong.

The fact is, no one here knows the law regarding this issue - but I would guess Amazon does.

You are so ready to give them the benefit of the doubt. If there is one thing about modern law, it is subject to interpretation. Amazon will obviously interpret the law in the manner most favorable to them. Doesn't mean they will get away with it.

I was just thinking of emailing Amazon and simply saying "I am not going to send back the dvds and I do not authorize you to further charge my card."

Has anyone emailed them with something similar?

You are wrong. The people that placed the orders didn't "find their way around them", they merely placed the items in their carts and checked out. As a matter of fact, during the time the glitch was active, there was no way that people could end up with an order that followed the promotion's rules even if they wanted to.

I am not saying Amazon has the right to, I am saying that they know if they have the right. Everyone is free to consult a lawyer for advise before or after the additional charge - if it happens. My point is it seem silly for posters here to discuss the law, or quote certain statues, when they know nothing about it. I have no idea if Amazon is right or not, and I would guess that neither does anyone else here.

Has anyone actually consulted a lawyer - who practices this type of law? Has anyone contacted the AG office where Amazon is located? Contacted the Consumer Fraud department? These are the opinions that would matter. If it was me, and I wanted to keep the DVDs, this is what I would do.

If that is the case, then I was wrong, and Amazon screwed up more than I thought. However, it doesn't take away from the fact that those who placed the orders knew that it was a mistake, and not an actual promotion where Amazon was just giving away dvds for free.

Since orangerory is a lawyer, I'm not seeing why it was silly of him (her?) to post the info regarding electronic funds. As for the rest of us, why not? You don't actually need to be a lawyer to try to read and make sense of the law. If guys in prison learn it, I think DVDTalkers can too.

And I'm not sure Amazon does know what it can do about this situation. I work in a law office, and it's pretty interesting to read legal correspondence because (as someone mentioned earlier) the law is subject to interpretation.

Most reasonable people would also assume that Amazon knows how to run its website so that they don't ship DVDs to people for free, or darn close to it.

Say I walk into a store and see that they're having a "Buy one DVD set and get one free" sale. So I pick out two DVDs sets and take them to the register.

However the register has a glitch and the total comes out to $1. The salesperson doesn't realize the mistake.

I pay for the purchase in cash and then walk out of the store with my DVDs. The roving manager realizes an error was made and follows me. He demands that I return the DVDs or pay the correct price. I politely tell him that the the transaction is complete and I have no obligation to pay any more than what I was charged at the register.

I go on my merry way, but the manager follows me all the way to my home. He continues to demand that I return the DVDs or pay what I owe. I refuse, walk into my house and gently close the door.

The manager suddenly forces his way into my house, grabs my wallet off the table and takes out the cash that he thinks is owed him. He says that I can keep the DVDs now and then leaves. I call the police and he's arrested.

How is this much different from what Amazon.com is proposing to do? The only real difference is that since I paid Amazon with a credit card, they have the means to try and get the money electronically. But in both scenarios the seller is trying to take money that they are not authorized to take for a transaction that was willingly completed by both sides.

Agreed. Even if Amazon doesn't follow through with charging the cards, I've gotten a kick out of seeing those who fraudulently sought to get something for nothing have to jump through so many hoops. In fact, maybe Amazon knows they can't charge the cards legally and are just trying to frustrate fraudulent shoppers with a barrage contradictory emails.

Of course, none of what I said above applies to anyone who ordered DVD sets without noticing the blatant mistake.

I first used one of the email addresses you quote. I got no reply.

The next 3 times, I used the standard customer service email form (on any help screen, on the right hand side of the screen, there's a section that gives the option to email them). I got replies, but just got the run-around, and none of my questions were answered, just that generic response quoted several times in this thread.

The 4th time I tried the same email form, I got no reply.

I tried the [email protected] address and finally got a reply after a few days of waiting.

Some people have gotten lucky with a favourable response through the standard email form, but you're better off going with the ECR one if you want an answer (though don't expect a favourable one).

I included a line that explicitly stated this.

Their response was:

Actually, when I used the phrase "terms of the promotion" I was thinking of the actual page that described the sale (i.e. buy one get one free) and I assumed that was what the Amazon CSR was talking about in Neptune's letter. I couldn't access the link that was referenced in the letter so I don't know if that simply points to a generic list of general terms not related specifically to the sale. My only point was that Amazon advertised B1G1F and that advertisement should be considered as one of the terms of sale, among several other things such as the confirmation emails etc.

She was actually talking about the T&Cs that state that they should've cancelled or informed of error before shipping. I quoted those terms to them, since they obviously didn't do either of those things.

But that "doesn't pertain to this situation", so it's apparently okay for them to do whatever they feel like. The only other T&Cs she offered to fit the situation were these:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/pro...=ASBWFYDM3SJCA

But if they want to get into an argument over following T&Cs, then as stated, Rule #2 on that list wasn't followed by them or is outdated - the promotion discount isn't spread across both DVDs as stated there, but fully deducted from the higher priced item, as seen on the original invoices.

I think the above language is more applicable to theft type scenarios than it is to what we are discussing here but it is an interesting reference point.

Amazon could argue that they are authorized in taking your money because, in their view, the transaction is still in progress. Certainly any additional charges would be related to the same purchase and it is not as though they would be making up charges out of the blue without any rational basis. As for benefit to the consumer, I think it is pretty clear people benefited by getting free DVDs (oh, ok, one cent DVDs ). No consumer in this scenario is getting ripped off, even if Amazon follows through with the additional charges.

In a broader context involving both debit and credit cards, I am thinking that Amazon might take people's retention of any DVDs as some sort of implied authorization to be charged. If Amazon chooses to rescind the purchases because of mistake (or some other defense such as lack of consideration etc.) and if they are successful in raising such a defense, then I think a consumer would be hard pressed to avoid having to pay for merchandise that he/she was asked to return but kept instead.

Anyway, this is all just meant for discussion purposes for those who may be interested in the geeky legal issues. I sincerely doubt that any of you are going to be in a position where any of the law talk actually matters because Amazon isn't going to be suing anyone over some DVDs (except perhaps the bigtime abusers). At worst, some of you will be forced to dispute charges but that process is an informal one that overwhelmingly favors the consumer and does not require any specialized legal knowledge.