Amazon Black Friday scam

PILES

Fella wrote: »

You're the only person who said it was fraud.

Ok, avoid my question again. My last post on this (to everyones delight), Scam always involves fraud.

Fella

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

The RRP is a price that the manufacturer sets for the retailers as a guide.

If you look for the item in other shops, you will see that the majority list the RRP as £100.

As such, the saving on the deal of 55% against the RRP was correct.

True and entirely irrelevent since at no point did I say it wasn't correct. As you know if you've been keeping up the scam is that they're hoping (correctly) that lots of people will see the 55% reduction & not realise it relates to a mythical RRP.

visidigi wrote: »

So let me get this straight, you think Amazon are a scam for stating bogus numbers.

And in your post you state a bogus number?

Epic fail.

Sorry but you've made yourself look epicallly foolish there. 88% was correct at the time of posting. The figure has now gone up to 100% which proves my point even more. Tip: best to avoid sayings like epic fail if you're going to mug yourself up well and truly.

barryboris wrote: »

You've been utterly dominated in this thread. Sorry but you lost.

Lol if you think several people agreeing with themselves for making the same very poorly reasoned argument = being dominated. If anyone one of them (including you) could acutally make a compelling argument it'd be different. No sign of that yet though.

PILES wrote: »

Ok, avoid my question again. My last post on this (to everyones delight), Scam always involves fraud.

No it doesn't. Fraud has precise legal meaning & there are lots of scams that don't meet it. This is one.

visidigi

Fella wrote: »

Sorry but you've made yourself look epicallly foolish there. 88% was correct at the time of posting. The figure has now gone up to 100% which proves my point even more. Tip: best to avoid sayings like epic fail if you're going to mug yourself up well and truly.

Sorry there is only one foolish person in this thread and he started the thread.

You have no grounds nor basis to say that the 88, now 100% of buyers wouldnt have bought the item if they had known, thats a complete stab in the dark.

You have no proof, you have no evidence and no doubt your childish reply will include something along the lines of them being 'idiots if they did so'

Tip: best to avoid calling a specific company a scam when the entire UK retail market all works the same way and is legally allowed by the regulators in this country.

Fella

Sigh. Really don't need "proof" that something which is actually more expensive than it was a week ago being advertised as 55% off is a scam.

But feel free to try to argue otherwise until you're blue in the face

lovinituk

Fella wrote: »

Sigh. Really don't need "proof" that something which is actually more expensive than it was a week ago being advertised as 55% off is a scam.

But feel free to try to argue otherwise until you're blue in the face

So we all agree that its a misleading marketing ploy used by thousands of online and offline retailers all year round and that you appear to be the only one who labels it a scam?

What have Trading Standards said when you phoned them? Or is it not a serious enough 'scam'?

Fella

lovinituk wrote: »

So we all agree that its a misleading marketing ploy used by thousands of online and offline retailers all year round and that you appear to be the only one who labels it a scam?

Very possibly. It does look as if none of you are prepared to call a clear scam a scam.

lovinituk wrote: »

What have Trading Standards said when you phoned them? Or is it not a serious enough 'scam'?

Just remind me when I said I was going to contact trading standards & I'll respond to that. Although actually I won't since that's just you trying to have a little dig again I guess not being able to make a cohesive argument is bringing that out in you. Why don't you try some more insults followed immediately by whining about insults :rotfl:

lovinituk

Fella wrote: »

Very possibly. It does look as if none of you are prepared to call a clear scam a scam.

...or because its not a scam

Fella wrote: »

Just remind me when I said I was going to contact trading standards & I'll respond to that. Although actually I won't since that's just you trying to have a little dig again I guess not being able to make a cohesive argument is bringing that out in you. Why don't you try some more insults followed immediately by whining about insults :rotfl:

I would have thought that as you found it serious enough to post about it here, you would have done your civil duty to bring it to the attention of the relevant authorities. Or are you happy for others to continue to be 'scammed' (in your eyes) when you could have done something about it?!

I know if I'd seen a scam, I'd do my utmost to get something done about it. I and the majority of the others posting just don't see any scam here.

Fella

No, you were quite wrong thinking that. Posting it here is as much as I can be bothered to do. Feel free to do it for me though

lovinituk

Fella wrote: »

Feel free to do it for me though

Why would I? There's no scam to report.

JimmyTheWig

OP, do you think that what Amazon have done here is against the law?
Do you think it is against some rules that they should be following?

Or do you think it is technically within the rules but manipulative nonetheless?

If the latter, out of interest, do you believe that the rules should be changed in some way to prevent things like this from happening?