Trial beauty kit costs £57.95

wealdroam

viking_may wrote: »

Deep sea kit had a complaint against them uphold at asa, complaint ruling Complaint Ref: A12-202609 (asa org uk Rulings Adjudications 2012 11 DS-Marketing-Ltd SHP_ADJ_202609.aspx)...

Yes, was reported on this thread over two months ago...
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/58478247#Comment_58478247

viking_may wrote: »

...but by changing their name...

Changed their name have they?
According to the bottom line on all their webpages (just one example), they are still called DS Marketing Ltd.

viking_may wrote: »

...they have just started breaking all the same rules again.

Have they?
Please elaborate.

viking_may wrote: »

I recommend that anybody who falls for anything by this parent company DS-Marketing-Ltd make the complaint again to asa.org.uk and get screen shots to send in if you come across them again.

I would only bother doing that if I felt they had broken any advertising rules.

theytakeliberties

viking_may wrote: »

Since I have followed their terms and conditions I am hoping that I get no more issues off them, but I think this could be difficult.

With clear fraudulent misrepresentation and fraud there is no such thing as Terms and Conditions ! You may as well say that you followed the burglar's legal terms and conditions and hope that he won't legally burgle you again.

20 years ago these people would be in jail and certainly not have a Visa or Merchant account.

Everyone who has had money taken from their cards they didn't knowingly agree to WHOEVER the merchant might be should claim a chargeback under Mastercard rules if the merchant doesn't refund.

Even in genuine situations (which obviously this isn't) where a customer misunderstood something, he still has control of what gets taken from his card. In such genuine situations it would be up to the supplier to obtain alternative form of payment.

dalesrider

theytakeliberties wrote: »

With clear fraudulent misrepresentation and fraud there is no such thing as Terms and Conditions !

I'm as sick of these companies as everybody else as I deal with the results everyday.
But where is the fraud. It is very open on the site and in the T/C exactly waht they will charge you going forward.

theytakeliberties wrote: »

Everyone who has had money taken from their cards they didn't knowingly agree to WHOEVER the merchant might be should claim a chargeback under Mastercard rules if the merchant doesn't refund.

On what basis?

Go on the basis of unrecognised (card provider know who these retailer are and know what to look for.) Company simply comes back with name, address and printout of agreement and customer gets redebited....

theytakeliberties wrote: »

Even in genuine situations (which obviously this isn't) where a customer misunderstood something, he still has control of what gets taken from his card. In such genuine situations it would be up to the supplier to obtain alternative form of payment.

Just because you are not happy with the debit. Is not a reason for a chargeback.
Your card provider have to be able to prove your case of it will be rejected.

The_Actress

This is indeed a very ELABORATE SCAM and a very convincing one at that. I discovered today that the company is advertising for 'product testers' via a Facebook portal - and that this is how they ensnare women mostly (let's be honest it's our hopeless gullibility in the face of the cosmetic industry's promises of eternal youth). Interestingly there were many 'feedback' messages posted discouraging members from either joining up or testing the product - presumably from disgruntled 'guinea-pigs' like myself. Surely the company is in breach of copyright law when it clearly displays well-known cosmetic brands (Estee Lauder, Clarins etc.) and could be had up for misleading advertising through the ASA?

wealdroam

The_Actress wrote: »

Surely the company is in breach of copyright law when it clearly displays well-known cosmetic brands (Estee Lauder, Clarins etc.)...

Surely that's a matter for the copyright owners to pursue?
Perhaps the copyright owners are happy with the situation.
I don't know whether they are or not, do you?

The_Actress wrote: »

...and could be had up for misleading advertising through the ASA?

Have you read any of the posts since your original post on 8 March?

If you had you will have seen that it was mentioned only four days ago that there was an ASA ruling last year...
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/11/DS-Marketing-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_202609.aspx

dalesrider

The_Actress wrote: »

This is indeed a very ELABORATE SCAM and a very convincing one at that.

I would say its SIMPLE.
People fail to read even the most BASIC of T/C. Yet happly tick that they have agreed to them....
NO SCAM.

The_Actress wrote: »

Surely the company is in breach of copyright law when it clearly displays well-known cosmetic brands (Estee Lauder, Clarins etc.) and could be had up for misleading advertising through the ASA?

Its not against the law to mention other products. Some of these sites say as featured on C4 (USA one) BBC etc....
They are correct that they have.

Just that people take it (See sig) and think Oh its a good product.... Not look and find that it was on Watchdog etc...:rotfl:

The_Actress

In answer to your postings: dalesrider and wealdroam - your comments are somewhat scathing to a 'new poster' such as myself who readily agreed that we as women are easily entrapped by the promise of eternal youth - or did you not read that part of my post? However, I disagree with you that this is NOT a scam - it is, pure and simple a form of entrapment - and most importantly (to me anyway), the products although nicely packaged do not have foil seal protection to show that they have not been tampered with, nor a list of ingredients on each jar. The company is misleading through lack of information - and for all we know the contents of the jar are nothing more than aqueous cream and glycerin available over the counter in most chemists. WEALDROAM: In certain countries comparative advertising is illegal - I was going on that basis. And YES, I did in fact read the posting about the findings of the ASA - but only after I had posted my opinion. Sorry I don't have the eagle eyes that you possess - I am new to the workings of this site and was navigating my way around it - and still am. Best not be too smug.

wealdroam

The_Actress wrote: »

In certain countries comparative advertising is illegal - I was going on that basis.

You may well be right on that point.
I admit that I was only considering this country, sorry.

Were they saying that product X is better than product Y then?
That, to me, is comparative advertising.

If all they were doing were showing company logos, where's the harm in that, other than perhaps to the copyright owners?

dalesrider

The_Actress wrote: »

In answer to your postings: dalesrider and wealdroam - your comments are somewhat scathing to a 'new poster' such as myself

If you think that was scathing... I deal with these companies on a daily basis and hear these entraped stories as well....
SORRY... Who entered the card number. Ticked AGREE to the T/C without reading....

I have yet to find one of these sites that does not make it clear in their T/C exactly what you are buying into.
Even to the extent of staff in our department signing up to see just how clear they are and how easy it is to cancel.

The_Actress wrote: »

who readily agreed that we as women are easily entrapped by the promise of eternal youth - or did you not read that part of my post?

Read it yep.... Means nothing at all, to a OLD man.... People have been searching for ETERNAL YOUTH ever since man stepped on earth. As far as we know, they are still searching :rotfl: Of course, women seem to believe everything some companies tell them.

The_Actress wrote: »

However, I disagree with you that this is NOT a scam - it is, pure and simple a form of entrapment

Who entered the card number. Ticked AGREE to the T/C without reading....
SCAM, is a word used by people who fail to understand exactly what they have agreed too.

The_Actress wrote: »

- and most importantly (to me anyway), the products although nicely packaged do not have foil seal protection to show that they have not been tampered with, nor a list of ingredients on each jar. The company is misleading through lack of information - and for all we know the contents of the jar are nothing more than aqueous cream and glycerin available over the counter in most chemists.

So why not research 1st and if happy then buy....
If not happy take it up with the legal bodies.

The_Actress

Thank you for your (suitably sheepish) comments wealdroam and dalesrider. I have been set straight on several points and will not make this expensive mistake again. I take it you work in the financial services industry.

It is one thing to have made a foolish mistake and realised it, but another thing entirely to have realised that it was a mistake that could easily have been avoided by the careful checking of the small print. Having worked in advertising myself I am more than aware of the T&C's attached to special offers - and know that they usually appear in miniscule font sizes. As I said previously, I wish I had listened to my intuition when I sensed a problem on the site because of all the spelling errors.

Time is a precious commodity - and online shopping is every busy Mum's dream as it saves us hours in the day, and speeds up the process of shopping for goods and services by doing the legwork for us. However, I wish I had taken the time to remember: "If an offer seems too good to be true - it probably is just that." :cool:

I have today, in my own way, succeeded in getting DS Marketing to give me a refund on proof of payment. I will let you know what happens.

Thank you for your comments. :eek: