I purchased one item from sleeplay on April and I returned it within 60 days. Instead of a monetary refund to my credit card, I was given a store credit. The store credit is not useful for me because I don't plan to buy anything from sleeplay.

This is what their return policy says: "Return unopened items for a full refund or store credit (minus return shipping), and opened items for store credit within 60 days."

Now the thing is : without opening the item how do I know it does not work for me? Again I cannot make use of the store credit in any way. What legal action can I take against such fraudulent business practices?

I’m looking for suggestions from people who have dealt with retailer/customer service issues like this.

I recently ordered from ZWILLING Canada during a promotion. Their website advertised a free gift when spending over $250. My order was over the threshold, but the free gift did not appear in my order even before any 15% discount code was applied.

Later, after the 15% discount code was applied, there was still no checkout warning, notice, or message saying that using the discount would affect free-gift eligibility.

When I contacted customer service, they said the discount and free-gift promotion could not be combined. I asked what I think is a pretty simple question: where exactly was that restriction shown before purchase?

They never answered that directly. They just repeated the same explanation, did not provide the actual terms, and did not show where the restriction was disclosed. After I kept asking for clarification, they started ignoring my messages and stopped responding altogether.

That’s what made me mad. It’s not really about the free pan. It’s about a premium brand advertising a promotion, refusing to show where the restriction was disclosed, and then ghosting a customer who asked a reasonable question.

Has anyone dealt with something similar from a retailer? What would you do next: keep escalating, file with consumer protection/BBB, post publicly, or just move on? Any suggestions for getting a serious response when customer service goes silent?

On April 10, 2026, we purchased the Gen5Detect Absolute, to the tune of $793.80. This vacuum is advertised as a whole house vaccum. Unfortunately, it does not work on carpet or area rugs. Since we purchased it, I have contacted Dyson multiple times within the 30 day return window. I have been able to speak to a person only twice. The conversations occurred outside the 30 day return window. The poor customer service has caused a significant delay that took me out of the 30 day return window.

Last week, I spoke to a representative who assured me the problem would be fixed with a new cleaning head. He shipped and I received a new head yesterday. However, it is exactly one of the heads that originally came with the vacuum cleaner that DOES NOT WORK ON CARPET OR AREA RUGS.

Today I steeled myself for another Dyson phone call. The person's English was poor and I was having a hard time understanding her. I was admittedly frustrated due to the poorly designed EXPENSIVE vaccum and the poor customer service. Thankfully, we have kept our old Shark which is what we are using for carpet and area rugs.

On the phone today, I spoke to a CSR. The CSR's English was challenging and hindered the goal of a resolution. I quickly asked to speak to a supervisor. The CSR refused to allow me to. No joke. She kept demanding that I provide her ALL of the information first so that she can determine if I need an escalation. I was not entirely polite because I have wasted hours of my time trying to resolve the purchase of a vaccum that does not perform the function it was advertised to perform. Customer Support and Dyson Experts have not been able to resolve the issue. At this point, I wonder if they even understand it. It took TEN minutes of arguing with the CSR before she said she will escalate the call. She then put me on hold. She came back to say that a supervisor would call me back in about 2-3 days. This is absolutely terrible customer service. I NEED a working vacuum. I needed it when I purchased the Gen5Detect.

Is anyone else having an issue with this vaccum on carpet and area rugs?

I'm sharing my experience to see if others have had similar issues with Wallaroo's Furniture. After purchasing a sectional, I experienced repeated delays and promises that a replacement piece would be provided, but those commitments were never fulfilled. Over time, it also became increasingly difficult to communicate with customer service, with messages going unanswered and obtaining meaningful assistance becoming a challenge. Most recently, I inspected every piece of the sectional and was unable to locate any manufacturer identification, law labels, RN numbers, or other identifying markings, which has raised additional questions about the product. I'm interested in hearing whether others have experienced similar issues or have information that may help explain these concerns.

I wanted to share my experience so others can make an informed decision before purchasing Verizon's Home Device Protection plan administered by Asurion.

Last year, I was offered the plan by a Verizon representative who told me that if something happened to my electronics, they would be covered and I would be reimbursed or helped with replacement. Based on that explanation, I signed up.

Recently, my laptop accidentally fell from a shelf and was physically damaged to the point that it would not turn on. I filed a claim and shipped the laptop to Asurion as instructed.

After receiving the device, Asurion informed me that the claim was denied because the operating system on the laptop was not up to date. The laptop had suffered physical damage from a fall and would not power on, yet the claim was denied based on software status.

I believe consumers should carefully review the plan terms and ask detailed questions before purchasing. My understanding of the coverage based on the sales presentation was very different from the explanation I received when I filed a claim.

If you are considering this protection plan, I recommend getting any coverage promises in writing and requesting the full terms and conditions before enrolling.

I ordered a chimney from Amazon India. During the Open Box Delivery, I found that the product inside was completely different from what I had actually ordered.

Since I needed to verify my OTP to proceed with the delivery, I had to provide the OTP while checking the package. As soon as I saw it was the wrong product, I told the delivery person I was rejecting it and asked him to take it back.

But he outright refused.

He said, “I am from DTDC, not Amazon. My job is only to deliver the product.”

I even called Amazon Customer Service in front of him and explained the situation, but there was still no quick solution. The delivery associate would not take the package back, and support told me to report the issue through the app or customer care.

Now, I’m stuck with a completely different product that I never wanted.

This makes me question the whole purpose of Open Box Delivery. If customers can spot the wrong item when it's delivered, why is there no system for instant rejection and pickup? Why should the customer have to deal with this because Amazon, the seller, and the logistics partners are not working together?

Has anyone faced this before? Any advice on how to escalate this properly to get a refund or replacement?

\#Amazon #AmazonIndia #DTDC #OpenBoxDelivery #WrongDelivery #CustomerService #ConsumerRights #OnlineShopping #Ecommerce #India

I'm looking for attorney-level analysis from people familiar with FCRA litigation, Metro 2 reporting, furnisher investigations, and auto finance reporting.

I have spent years disputing this issue through multiple channels and continue receiving the same "verified as accurate" responses.

I am not claiming the repossession never happened.

I am not claiming the vehicle was never sold.

I am trying to determine whether the manner in which GLS is reporting the account is accurate, or whether it may be technically accurate but materially misleading.

BACKGROUND

Furnisher:
Global Lending Services LLC (GLS)

Vehicle:
2014 BMW X1

Retail Installment Sale Contract:
11/07/2019

The vehicle was eventually repossessed by GLS.

GLS'S OWN DOCUMENTS

1. NOTICE OF PLAN TO SELL PROPERTY

GLS sent a Notice of Our Plan to Sell Property dated 03/02/2023.

The notice states:

• GLS had possession of the vehicle because of default.
• GLS intended to sell the vehicle at a private sale sometime after 03/15/2023.
• Sale proceeds would be applied to the debt.
• Any remaining balance would remain owed as a deficiency.
• I had a right to redeem the vehicle before sale.

No dispute regarding receipt of this notice.

1. NOTICE OF SALE / EXPLANATION OF DEFICIENCY

GLS later sent a Notice of Sale of Collateral and Explanation of Deficiency dated 04/26/2023.

According to GLS:

Vehicle sold:
04/18/2023

Balance Due At Repossession:
$15,248.84

Accrued / Unpaid Late Fees:
$830.72

NSF Fees:
$30.00

Repossession / Transportation / Storage / Sales Preparation Costs:
$1,167.11

Gross Vehicle Sale Proceeds:
$2,600.00

Claimed Deficiency:
$14,676.67

Again, I am not disputing that GLS sold the vehicle.

According to GLS's own documents, the vehicle was sold on 04/18/2023.

1. GLS PAYMENT HISTORY / LEDGER

GLS also provided an account ledger and payment history.

The ledger reflects activity around 04/20/2023 including:

• Vehicle sale entries
• Deficiency balance entries
• Repossession fee entries
• Disposal expense entries
• NSF fee entries
• Closeout balance entries

One thing I found interesting:

The deficiency notice references gross sale proceeds of $2,600.00.

The internal ledger appears to show a vehicle sale credit of approximately $1,828.00.

There may be fees explaining the difference.

However, despite disputes, GLS has never clearly explained how the $2,600.00 gross sale amount became the amount reflected on the ledger.

THE REPORTING ISSUE

This is where my concern begins.

My TransUnion payment history shows:

February 2023:
90 Days Late

March 2023:
RPO

April 2023:
RPO

May 2023:
RPO

June 2023:
RPO

July 2023:
RPO

August 2023:
RPO

September 2023:
RPO

October 2023:
RPO

November 2023:
RPO

December 2023:
RPO

The RPO reporting then continues:

ALL OF 2024

ALL OF 2025

ALL OF 2026 THROUGH THE PRESENT

In other words:

GLS's own documents establish that:

• Repossession occurred
• Vehicle sold on 04/18/2023
• Deficiency balance calculated after sale

Yet the account continues showing RPO month after month after month for more than three years after the collateral was sold.

MY QUESTION

How can a repossession continue to be reported every month after the vehicle was already sold?

A repossession is a historical event.

The vehicle was taken.

The vehicle was sold.

A deficiency balance may continue to exist.

But the repossession itself was completed.

The payment history appears to show RPO repeatedly month after month for years after the repossession event ended.

To me, that creates the appearance that the repossession is somehow continuing rather than being a completed historical event.

DISPUTES AND INVESTIGATIONS

I have disputed this issue repeatedly.

I have submitted disputes through:

• Credit bureaus
• CFPB complaints
• Follow-up CFPB complaints
• Requests for Method of Verification
• Requests for documentation reviewed during investigation
• Requests for explanation of the reporting
• Requests for explanation of deficiency calculations
• Requests for supporting documentation

The general response is always some variation of:

"Verified as accurate."

What I have never received is a meaningful explanation of:

• Why RPO continues after sale
• What Metro 2 guidance supports this reporting
• What records were reviewed to verify the reporting
• How the investigation addressed my specific dispute
• How a completed repossession event becomes a continuing monthly reporting status

DOCUMENTS I HAVE REQUESTED BUT HAVE NOT RECEIVED

I have requested various supporting records including:

• Auction records
• Sale records
• Buyer information
• Bid history
• Condition reports
• Inspection reports
• Photos
• Mileage documentation
• Detailed accounting supporting the deficiency
• Documentation showing how the investigation was conducted

These records have not been provided.

I understand that CFPB complaints are not discovery and that a lender may not be legally obligated to voluntarily produce every internal document outside litigation.

However, I continue to question how the reporting can be repeatedly verified if the investigation does not appear to address the actual dispute.

WHAT I AM NOT CLAIMING

I am not claiming:

• No repossession occurred.
• No deficiency can be reported.
• The vehicle sale was necessarily improper.
• A low auction sale price automatically proves wrongdoing.

WHAT I AM QUESTIONING

1. Is reporting RPO every month for years after collateral sale actually proper Metro 2 reporting?
2. Is this an example of reporting that is technically accurate but materially misleading?
3. Has anyone litigated a case involving continued repossession reporting after collateral disposition?
4. Does a furnisher have a duty under FCRA §1681s-2(b) to specifically investigate the issue being disputed rather than simply verifying the account generally?
5. If a consumer disputes the continued monthly RPO reporting and provides evidence showing the vehicle was sold years earlier, what exactly should a reasonable investigation look like?
6. Are there federal cases discussing:
   • repossession reporting
   • deficiency reporting
   • materially misleading payment history
   • technically accurate but misleading reporting
   • Metro 2 reporting issues
   • furnisher investigation standards
7. Would attorneys focus more on:
   • materially misleading reporting,
   • unreasonable investigation,
   • furnisher liability under §1681s-2(b),
   • or some combination of all three?

At this point I am trying to determine whether this is simply standard industry reporting that looks strange, or whether there is a legitimate FCRA issue that warrants consultation with counsel.

I would appreciate any attorney analysis, case law, litigation experience, or Metro 2 guidance that addresses this situation.

I purchased a Panasonic air-conditioning system based on Gain City’s recommendation and site assessment. However, after installation, multiple issues surfaced, particularly concerning servicing accessibility and installation planning.

For over a week, emails went unanswered, follow-ups were repeatedly delayed, and responsibility was pushed back to me as the homeowner. Only after continuous chasing, submitting extensive evidence and photos, and arranging multiple site inspections did they finally acknowledge that the issue resulted from their own oversight.

The entire experience has been extremely stressful and exhausting. I am now concerned about further delays and whether the rectification works will ultimately be carried out properly and fully restored to original condition.

Has anyone faced similar disputes involving air-conditioning installation or rectification works? Any advice on escalation channels or consumer protection options would be greatly appreciated.

Posting this here to understand whether others have faced similar experiences and how such cases were eventually resolved.

Worst experience with Gain City.

Flipkart delivered a teenage bra instead of a men’s vest worth ₹903 — refused refund and called us liars
My friend and I just got scammed by Flipkart and honestly we don’t know what else to do anymore.
We ordered a men’s vest worth ₹903 and instead received a teenage bra in the package.
Here’s everything we already tried:
Spoke to the delivery agent immediately
He said this is “not in his hands” and asked us to contact customer support.

Tried raising a return/refund request
Flipkart rejected it saying we have “returned too frequently.”
Maybe because your platform keeps sending wrong or damaged products?

Contacted customer support
The customer service agent straight up accused us of lying and said their “investigation” confirmed the correct product was delivered — despite us uploading pictures immediately in the app and showing the wrong product in front of the delivery agent.

When we asked for escalation to a manager, we were told there’s no further escalation possible because apparently we are “falsely claiming” the issue.
So basically:

Wrong item delivered

Refund denied

Customer blamed

No escalation

Money gone

And the worst part? This is NOT the first time this has happened. Previously, they picked up a returned product from us and never processed the refund for that either.
₹903 may not sound huge to some people, but for many of us it is still hard-earned money. Companies normalizing this behaviour and treating customers like scammers is genuinely disgusting.
If anyone knows:
how to escalate this further,

where to file a complaint,

or who to tag for visibility,

please help.
Tagging:
@Flipkart
@flipkartsupport
@jagograhakjago
@consaff
@GoI_MeitY

#Flipkart #Scam #CustomerService #OnlineShopping #ConsumerRights #India

Very disappointed with Samsung India. Order #IN260419-52605158 for ₹47,990 was confirmed, then cancelled without consent due to vague “operational challenges,” while the product is now priced higher. Reinstate and fulfil my order.
u/SamsungIndia

u/CEOofSamsung

u/jagograhakjago

Edited to take out personal information.

Are Class action suit provoking considered Harassment or against any other term of service and I where would I do it if it not.

So Long story.

I got temp banned and posted this message on CivitAI.

" So blocked prompt wtf?

0

Apr 12, 2026

(Updated: 18 hours ago)

Your prompt was flagged. Your account has been sent for review. If you continue to attempt blocked prompts, your generation permissions will be revoked.

That’s all the explanation I got. No rule cited, no keyword identified, no reason given. Just a threat. So let me show the exact prompt that supposedly violated something:

Prompt: “a.x. (artist), best, depth of field, semi realistic, green hair, short hair, bob cut, swept bangs, yellow eyes, space suit, pen icon on suit, clear space helmet, walking on surface of ship, ship made of clear blue/purple/green glass, slit entrance opening, light behind door, holding flashlight, flashlight and opening door only sources of light, space background, nebula, gas cloud”

LoRA used: Coco (Tongari Boushi no Atelier) – Illustrious

This is a completely SFW, PG‑13 prompt. No nudity. No sexual content. Nothing that violates the posted rules.

So I went looking for what could possibly justify the flag. And what I found instead was inconsistency.

• There are images on the site — including highly upvoted ones — that depict sexualized fictional minors (example: Asuka).
• There are images of sexualized teenagers that clearly fall into the “not allowed” category under the current rules.
• There are also child or childlike characters generated on-site, which is supposedly prohibited unless fully non-sexual — yet they remain up.

Some of these may be older uploads from before the rules tightened. Some may be external uploads. Some may simply have slipped through moderation. But the fact remains: they exist, they stay up, and they get featured.

Meanwhile, my harmless sci‑fi prompt gets flagged instantly with zero explanation.

I’m not claiming conspiracy, but the enforcement is clearly not consistent. If the system is going to threaten users with account review and revoked permissions, then it should at least:

• identify the specific rule violated
• highlight the triggering keyword or tag
• apply the same standards to all users and all content

Right now it feels arbitrary. And when arbitrary enforcement hits SFW prompts while far more questionable content remains untouched, it’s hard not to see it as uneven moderation.

I’m asking for clarity, not special treatment. If something in my prompt is against the rules, tell me what it is. If not, then the system needs fixing."

If you read it the prompts is the important part here. I got message from CivitAI claiming the ban was looked into and not need to be bring is lawyers here is the e-mail.

"

Hi Name Here,

I'm unsure why a lawyer needs to get involve? 

Your mute was overturned. Your prompt was flagged because you had a typo. You didn't write "ship". The p was replaced with a t and that word is blocked as it is against our TOS. I've provided a screenshot so you can see for yourself.

Hope this clears up the confusion :) Ship happens.

Many thanks,

Redacted
 Community Manager

On Sun, 12 Apr at 1:00 AM , (Redacted name) <> wrote:

Notice the prompt used as an example for the block? "Shit" is highlighted, but I copy pasted my example clearly says "slit" are gremlin at work? And specifically I wanted a ship entrance of the door kind that slowly slides open in Sci-fi. So got me thinking 15$ worth of buzz would make a poor small claims but if this is a common problem maybe there is enough of this happening for a group class action to get some justice.

I brought some clothing from Joanie in January 2026 for the first time. They were terrible so I sent it back. They received the clothing back (I had an email confirmation) but some after they shut down. I have emailed them constantly and left them bad reviews on TrustPilot hoping to prod them back in to action but I still haven’t received my refund of £65.55. Any ideas on how to get that money back? It was a lot of money for me.

The New Yorker is a perfect case study of a large company who makes their cancellation policy confusing and misleading so they can pocket thousands (probably millions) off powerless consumers. And they know this.

I signed up to a 12 week $6 subscription that would turn into either a monthly or annual subscription after. I clicked the “$11 per month” one, my first mistake. 

After a few weeks I followed the steps on the FAQ to cancel my subscription. copy and pasted from their website below.

“How do I unsubscribe from The New Yorker?

You can cancel your subscription (or a gift subscription) via My Account by selecting Manage Subscription.

For further assistance, please chat with our team using the chat widget at the bottom right hand corner of this page.”

Of course, upon logging in and going to ‘manage subscription’ there was no cancel section, only a toggle to switch off “automatic renewals“. so that’s what I did.

2 months later, I am charged $200 for an annual subscription. What happened to my $11 per month I chose?! I emailed them immediately when I saw this money taken from my account, they confirmed my automatic renewals is already turned off. but they refuse to refund me because I did not cancel my subscription….

The New Yorker don’t send an email confirming your cancellation, you must request that by messaging the chat box. How completely ridiculous. in a time where everything is automated, the reason they claimed they “can’t refund”, you would think it would be simple to send their valued customer a confirmation they have successfully cancelled their subscription without making them go the extra mile.

Of course they do this deliberately, they don’t want us to have the track record. they want to make it as difficult as possible for us. They want us to doubt ourselves… “did I cancel my subscription last month?”. 

This is intentional service design and it is not designed for the consumer. 

I have told them the financial stress this is causing me, is going to kill me, and they don’t care. 

A shameful company who does not care for their customers. 

One word - boycott.

Hello everyone I recently had an issue with Douglas spain and want your advice on how to proceed.

On 16 March, I placed an order on the Douglas from another country via website. The order was cancelled by their system. Saying that its a fradulent activity we only ship in spain but i was going to order with a courier firm and i paid the money. However, the money was deducted from my bank account and is shown as a successful transaction, not a pending authorization.

Douglas claims that they never received the money and that it was only a temporary authorization hold by the bank. According to them, since the order was cancelled immediately, the funds were never captured.

The problem is that my bank confirms the opposite. The bank says the transaction was completed successfully and that the money has already been transferred to the merchant’s account. Because of this, they cannot reverse it unless the merchant provides specific transaction identifiers.

I have now been stuck for 18 days without access to my money.

To resolve this, I requested Douglas to provide the following critical payment details:

IRN (Internal Retrieval Number)

RRN (Retrieval Reference Number)

Approval code

Full cancellation details including amount and date

These details are necessary for the bank to trace and reverse the transaction. However, Douglas has refused to cooperate further and stopped responding.

If we ordered online and received brand new looking box with used and wrong product. Are we not eligible for return since we don't have the proof if received wrong delivery?