Not sure if you are joking? I think we all know that the nature of the scam makes it very unlikely for most people to detect that they were defrauded within the 30 days money back guarantee time frame.
Are there lots of examples of people who were defrauded by a completely fake product like this, called amazon 31 days later, and were denied a refund? I've not seen any discussions of this.
My understanding of the scam is that the victims wouldn't notice for a long time, or even fully understand that they were scammed. Given they are buying from a product category that doesn't actually exist, they are not tech-savvy and would just use it in the inferior capacity or throw it away assuming they did something wrong.
So are you saying that the scam is actually ok, because in theory Amazon would refund indefinitely into the future, which wouldn't happen, because users are not asking for a refund anyway? How does this make it ok? I'm not sure if I can follow the argumentation here.
I’m not saying it’s okay. It hurts consumers — not ok - and likely hurts amazon too in the longer run.
I was answering a question that someone posed — that people aren’t suing amazon because then ones who care enough to sue are instead getting their money back. What damages would they sue for?
If I’m wrong and at 31 days amazon refuses to give money back for a fraudulent product like this, then perhaps there’d be basis for a lawsuit. But I’ve not heard of that happening, and I’ve read a decent number of articles about this issue.
