Walmart deceptive practices/refusal to honor customer satisfaction guarantee/spamming Waterloo Illinois
I have had several run-ins with this particular store and no longer do business with them in any way. They have a community bulletin board and encourage customers to post ads there,stating,the ads will be left untouched for 2 weeks unless they contain unacceptible content. I posted an ad for toy and miniature scooters as I entered the store.When I left the store,my ad was already gone.
I asked the "Greeter" if he knew anything about the missing ad and he said,"A manager thought my business would conflict directly with the sales of the store,so she took the ad down".
I also bought some software for my computer at this store and was amazed when I tried to return it,it was corrupted and they only offered to replace the item with the same software from the same corrupted batch with no cash return allowed as specified in the store's in store banner of "Customer Satisfaction Guarantee".
I tried this software,with the same problem and when the store refused to deal with me,I contacted the FTC and was told,if there is a no return policy on any item,it must be posted clearly visible,at the location of the product and again at the check out stand,not at Customer Service only.
I showed this letter from the FTC to a manager and he politely told me I could have my money back this time,but I was no longer welcome in his store.
The third of a long list of problems I have had with this store was with a Lexmark "All In One" phone/fax/scanner/printer station I bought there.
I left with the first one and it didn't work, after looking at the warrantee info,I discovered this item was not new as suggested by the sales associate,but in fact reconditioned and therefore not eligible for a full warrantee.
I returned this item and they would only exchange it for another one with the same problem. The second time I made an exchange,my receipt was kept by the store and I was told I could exchange only one more time.
I did and now,with no receipt I have no recourse against this store and I still have the defective product.
I have asked about the famous "Satisfaction Guarantee" which Walmart is famous for and was shown a slip of paper taped to the customer service counter and it said,"100% customer satisfaction is no longer in force at this store" and it was signed by "The Store Manager".
The last item I am having trouble with is spamming by Walmart to my e-mail account. They have sent as many as 50 e-mails to my account at a time and I have tried to unscribe unsuccessfully from their list,which I might add,I never subscribed to at any time for any reason.
I have tried blocking and bouncing back to sender with little or no success.
They would e-mail me from another address as if we were best buddies. I have recently started to forward these e-mails to the FTC/Anti-SPAM unit and it seems to have slowed down the assault quite a bit,but as I write,my e-mail notifier is telling me ,I have an e-mail from who else,but Walmart!
Brucewayne
Prairie Du Rocher, Illinois
U.S.A.
7 Updates & Rebuttals
Robert
Buffalo,New York,
U.S.A.
I know it's a POLICY
#8Consumer Comment
Wed, March 19, 2008
not to accept a return, other than to exchange it because of bad media.
Employees claim that it's a violation of US copyright law to accept a return of an opened software package.
Where's a reference to the actual section of US copyright law that states this?
Just because a merchant tells a consumer it's a violation of law doesn't make it so. I have searched for a reference to backup the claims of these employees and I haven't found it. So far, according to my research, this is simply a POLICY of the merchants.
If you know of a reference to US copyright law that forbids a merchant from excepting a return of an OPENED software package, kindly post the reference.
FYI, back in the mid/late 1980s, I wrote some database programs for dBase 3+ for tracking avionics maintenance actions and fixes (knowledge base) and I am the copyright holder for those programs.
Robert
Buffalo,New York,
U.S.A.
I know it's a POLICY
#8Consumer Comment
Wed, March 19, 2008
not to accept a return, other than to exchange it because of bad media.
Employees claim that it's a violation of US copyright law to accept a return of an opened software package.
Where's a reference to the actual section of US copyright law that states this?
Just because a merchant tells a consumer it's a violation of law doesn't make it so. I have searched for a reference to backup the claims of these employees and I haven't found it. So far, according to my research, this is simply a POLICY of the merchants.
If you know of a reference to US copyright law that forbids a merchant from excepting a return of an OPENED software package, kindly post the reference.
FYI, back in the mid/late 1980s, I wrote some database programs for dBase 3+ for tracking avionics maintenance actions and fixes (knowledge base) and I am the copyright holder for those programs.
Robert
Buffalo,New York,
U.S.A.
I know it's a POLICY
#8Consumer Comment
Wed, March 19, 2008
not to accept a return, other than to exchange it because of bad media.
Employees claim that it's a violation of US copyright law to accept a return of an opened software package.
Where's a reference to the actual section of US copyright law that states this?
Just because a merchant tells a consumer it's a violation of law doesn't make it so. I have searched for a reference to backup the claims of these employees and I haven't found it. So far, according to my research, this is simply a POLICY of the merchants.
If you know of a reference to US copyright law that forbids a merchant from excepting a return of an OPENED software package, kindly post the reference.
FYI, back in the mid/late 1980s, I wrote some database programs for dBase 3+ for tracking avionics maintenance actions and fixes (knowledge base) and I am the copyright holder for those programs.
Robert
Buffalo,New York,
U.S.A.
I know it's a POLICY
#8Consumer Comment
Wed, March 19, 2008
not to accept a return, other than to exchange it because of bad media.
Employees claim that it's a violation of US copyright law to accept a return of an opened software package.
Where's a reference to the actual section of US copyright law that states this?
Just because a merchant tells a consumer it's a violation of law doesn't make it so. I have searched for a reference to backup the claims of these employees and I haven't found it. So far, according to my research, this is simply a POLICY of the merchants.
If you know of a reference to US copyright law that forbids a merchant from excepting a return of an OPENED software package, kindly post the reference.
FYI, back in the mid/late 1980s, I wrote some database programs for dBase 3+ for tracking avionics maintenance actions and fixes (knowledge base) and I am the copyright holder for those programs.
Qwerty777
Eden Prairie,Minnesota,
U.S.A.
it is the law...
#8Consumer Comment
Tue, March 18, 2008
The first poster is right...it is against the law for them to take back any opened software, no matter what the reason. If it is defective, they are able to give you back the EXACT same item ONLY. This is to stop people from copying the software to their own discs and selling it back to the store and they still have the software. Every store you buy software from has this same rule, whether you go to Target, Best Buy, or Wal-Mart, they all have the same policy. I work at Target, and my boyfriend is a computer nerd and buys a lot of software, so I know this policy well.
Robert
Buffalo,New York,
U.S.A.
Please explain copyright law.
#8Consumer Comment
Tue, March 18, 2008
I know of no provision of US copyright law that states that purchased software that is opened cannot be returned to the merchant. If this is the excuse that your store uses, kindly post the reference from the copyright laws.
More likely, this is an agreement between the software produces and your store as part of the contract for carrying their product.
Craig
Nampa,Idaho,
U.S.A.
Law not policy
#8UPDATE Employee
Mon, March 17, 2008
The issue of the software return is a result of a federal copyright law not a Wal-Mart policy. They are only abiding the law in that instance.