Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon let a fraudster keep my Sony A74 IV and refunded him

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–295 of 295 posts

Re: Amazon let a fraudster keep my Sony A74 IV and refunded him

#291

Post by heavyset_go »

RandomBacon wrote: post #219
heavyset_go wrote: post #144

I'm getting ads that state if I buy the ad-purchaser's product on Amazon and leave a good review, they'll refund my money. Basically, they're ads that say "Free [Product]!" and when you click them, they ask you to purchase the product, leave a positive review and then they'll refund you. I tried to look for a way to report the seller to Amazon, but from what I found, I need to have a seller account with Amazon to do…

jeff@amazon.com

Yeah, this is the email that a lot of the Quora-esque answers have. The product I put in my OP is still up with the reviews, despite sending a message containing the link + evidence to that address. I was hoping for a way to reach out to a real human being, and it doesn't seem like that address is the way to do it.

But thanks anyway.

Re: Amazon let a fraudster keep my Sony A74 IV and refunded him

#292

Post by axaxs »

joncrane wrote: post #290
axaxs wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine is returning a phone, and having them ask for my Gmail password three times. Maybe it's my fault I didn't disassociate something prior to factory reset, but the phone was fine. And new. They claimed they couldn't complete the return until they had full access. That alone tells me they are selling used phones as new. After I refused, they told me to just change it to something temporarily so they could log in. I…

Wait, you need to enter the previous owner's credentials in order to wipe a phone?

You had to disassociate your own google account before factory resetting. If you forgot, then yes, it requires the previous owner's gmail password to continue.

Re: Amazon let a fraudster keep my Sony A74 IV and refunded him

#294

Post by filoleg »

gefh wrote: post #248
_underfl0w_ wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really bad advice, but remember that two can play at this game. You have this idiot's real name and address, as well as the make and model of the car they drive. Food for thought.

Quite possibly an innocent address the fraudster is using as a dead drop.

Yup, that's as much as I confirmed myself, if you take a look at my other comment in the thread. It seems like the fraudster used the name and address of his gf as the shipping info.

Re: Amazon let a fraudster keep my Sony A74 IV and refunded him

#295

Post by nulbyte »

milankragujevic wrote: post #161
nulbyte wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some merchants certainly are. And in GP's case, PayPal might be playing the role of merchant, since they technically took the payment. I wonder if they just offer refunds to avoid having to accept chargebacks as such.

Yes, PayPal is the merchant, and as the CSR in the Ireland call center explained to me, they HAVE to issue the refund, or they risk extreme fines (the representative also told me PayPal could "lose the license to accept payments", but I doubt that, given their size. Regular merchants would, but PayPal is too valuable, so it would just get extreme fines and higher processing fees).

I believe this to be a case of telephone (no pun...scratch that, pun definitely intended). That sounds plausible, so the CSR probably believes it and regurgitated it. But chargebacks do not signify immediate fines (or else a merchant would never take cards!). An inability to counter chargebacks with evidence of your compliance is what gets a fine. If you swindle your customers and they file chargebacks, you have a problem. On the other hand, if you have a (or had a) customer who tried to game the system, but you have proof of purchase, good faith attempts to resolve, and written rules that are clear, conspicuous, and reasonable, then you can fight them successfully. PayPal just doesn't care, and apparently neither does their merchant bank.
Post reply on HN