HELP: Capital One Potentially Reversing Refund After Kickstarter Scam - Botnono Project

dataworf

A_Geordie said:

Beyond my consumer rights, I haven’t even looked in detail yet, but it seems Kickstarter may be violating several laws in the UK and even in their home country.

I suspect you're barking up the wrong tree with this one. Kickstarter operate on the same basis as eBay, Amazon, Booking.com and other similar sites in that they are a platform provider acting as the middleman that allows two sides to meet together and agree a contract. You and Kickstarter have no contractual relations regarding the project set up by the creator and is solely between yourself and the creator.

You're not sounding anymore convincing when you're suggesting that they may be breaking several laws in the US (without actually mentioning what laws they're breaking) unless you've suddenly become an overnight expert on US federal and New York state law.

Realistically, if you want a refund you more than likely pursue your card provider through the chargeback method or if there is a way to get a refund on the basis of a scam/fraud, although what I am not exactly sure on is whether such a refund can occur when the oney paid goes through an intermediary - would have to consult the policy/guidance by the Payment Systems Regulator to confirm. 

I have already successfully filed a chargeback with my card provider and received a provisional credit. However, Kickstarter is now contesting it. My first post says this.

I started this thread to connect with others in the UK who have faced this same situation and to gather advice on how to effectively argue my case to secure a just outcome.

eskbanker

dataworf said:

eskbanker said:

dataworf said:

By permitting this fraudulent campaign to continue, Kickstarter has not only facilitated the scam but also breached its own terms and profoundly failed its community.

The creator of this fraudulent campaign is still listed on Kickstarter as being based in Denver, Colorado and as of today (2025-08-24), remains active on their site/ platform.

While Kickstarter says that it is not a store and does not guarantee rewards, it does claim to enforce rules against fraud, misrepresentation, and other violations. Yet, despite hundreds of backer warnings through comments and clear evidence of misconduct, no action has been taken. In fact the campaign’s webpage still includes an active “Order Now!” button, allowing further exploitation of unsuspecting users.

I've already written this in my initial post - The sheer imbalance of Kickstarts effort:

• Protecting Users (Zero Effort): Despite hundreds of reports and clear evidence of fraud, Kickstarter did nothing. No project suspension, no warnings, no investigation, no notices or warnings to it's users.

• Retrieving Funds (Maximum Effort): The second their revenue is threatened by a chargeback, their legal team springs into action to defend it. It shows they have the resources to act - but only when their money is on the line.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/botnono/botnono-worlds-smartest-chat-gpt-companion-robot/description

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/botnono/botnono-worlds-smartest-chat-gpt-companion-robot/creator

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/botnono/botnono-worlds-smartest-chat-gpt-companion-robot/comments

So, if you're convinced that you have a strong enough case in terms of contractual liability then take some action against them.

In court.

In New York.

Why would I - or anyone in my position - want to go to court? That is for the bank to do if needed. All I want is fairness. That’s why I posted on this UK forum seeking support. I didn’t expect responses from Americans here, but I appreciate them nonetheless. In a fair system, the platform would intervene when there’s obvious fraud rather than hiding behind fine print.

Beyond my consumer rights, I haven’t even looked in detail yet, but it seems Kickstarter may be violating several laws in the UK and even in their home country. At the end of the day, I just want my money back. I shouldn’t have to be stuck in this situation, waiting for an outcome that should never have happened in the first place.

Are you under the impression that the bank's role is to represent you in your dispute?  Their role is very tightly constrained here, in terms of the rules of the chargeback scheme, controlled by Visa/Mastercard, so don't expect them to be helping you as such, they're just obliged to relay messages between merchant and customer, rather than acting as judge and jury, and they're certainly not looking at chargeback claims from the perspective of what consumer rights you may or may not have.

Don't get me wrong though - I'm not saying that you're wrong to be aggrieved or that it's unreasonable to be seeking redress, but I'm simply challenging the notion that there's an actionable breach of the law or the contract, or that there are third parties who can easily be held liable.

born_again

dataworf said:

Ergates said:

@dataworf We can simply this argument to get the point across.

If, as you believe, the US company Kickstarter are subject to UK consumer law.  What do you imagine will happen If they simply refuse to comply with them?

Would a UK court issue a fine?  What would happen if the US company refuses to pay?

Would UK police officers get on a plane, travel to New York and start arresting people?

lol. The bank will. Failing that, FOS.

Banks do not get involved in court cases like this. neither will FOS. As again they are UK based, & know the limits of their jurisdictions. 

I have already successfully filed a chargeback with my card provider and received a provisional credit. However, Kickstarter is now contesting it. 

There is nothing in this thread that would give a pre arbitration claim on your part a hope of winning.
You will lose that refund.
S75 claim has no grounds at all on the point that it does not cover investments & no debtor creditor link.

Emmia

dataworf said:

eskbanker said:

dataworf said:

By permitting this fraudulent campaign to continue, Kickstarter has not only facilitated the scam but also breached its own terms and profoundly failed its community.

The creator of this fraudulent campaign is still listed on Kickstarter as being based in Denver, Colorado and as of today (2025-08-24), remains active on their site/ platform.

While Kickstarter says that it is not a store and does not guarantee rewards, it does claim to enforce rules against fraud, misrepresentation, and other violations. Yet, despite hundreds of backer warnings through comments and clear evidence of misconduct, no action has been taken. In fact the campaign’s webpage still includes an active “Order Now!” button, allowing further exploitation of unsuspecting users.

I've already written this in my initial post - The sheer imbalance of Kickstarts effort:

• Protecting Users (Zero Effort): Despite hundreds of reports and clear evidence of fraud, Kickstarter did nothing. No project suspension, no warnings, no investigation, no notices or warnings to it's users.

• Retrieving Funds (Maximum Effort): The second their revenue is threatened by a chargeback, their legal team springs into action to defend it. It shows they have the resources to act - but only when their money is on the line.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/botnono/botnono-worlds-smartest-chat-gpt-companion-robot/description

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/botnono/botnono-worlds-smartest-chat-gpt-companion-robot/creator

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/botnono/botnono-worlds-smartest-chat-gpt-companion-robot/comments

So, if you're convinced that you have a strong enough case in terms of contractual liability then take some action against them.

In court.

In New York.

Why would I - or anyone in my position - want to go to court? That is for the bank to do if needed. All I want is fairness. That’s why I posted on this UK forum seeking support. I didn’t expect responses from Americans here, but I appreciate them nonetheless. In a fair system, the platform would intervene when there’s obvious fraud rather than hiding behind fine print.

Beyond my consumer rights, I haven’t even looked in detail yet, but it seems Kickstarter may be violating several laws in the UK and even in their home country. At the end of the day, I just want my money back. I shouldn’t have to be stuck in this situation, waiting for an outcome that should never have happened in the first place.

The bank isn't going to spend their money on legal representation to give you a "refund" . 

If you want to hire and pay for lawyers in the US over this, then crack on. It would be throwing good money after bad though IMO.

Platforms like Kickstarter and Crowdcube are just  platforms, they don't guarantee a return and normally the T&Cs include wording that you can lose all your money invested. I'd chalk this one up to experience myself.


Also I suspect that as a UK focused forum, there are very few Americans on MSE. 

Grumpy_chap

dataworf said:

I have already successfully filed a chargeback with my card provider and received a provisional credit. However, Kickstarter is now contesting it. 

You may have misunderstood the significance of a "successful" chargeback.  Chargeback is the equivalent of stopping a cheque and simply returns the funds from the business back to the individual.  It does not have any significance in terms of the payment no longer being outstanding and the business can either reverse the chargeback or pursue other means of debt recovery.  The bank will not undertake any investigation as such in the case of a chargeback.

When payments are made by credit card there is sometimes the option for pursuing S75 which makes the CC equally liable as the supplier.  I do not believe that S75 is available in this case because the supplier - debtor - creditor link is not there.


In places, your grounds for a refund seem possibly confused.  There is a lot of ranting about your Consumer Rights, but also many references to this as a scam / fraud.  Consumer Rights offer some protections in the case of under-performance by the business but do not really protect against a scam / fraud.  If this was a scam / fraud, then the business and the bank are equally victims as the individual.  In the case of a scam / fraud, the route would be to report to the Police (possibly even overseas) and Action Fraud as a crime and to report to the bank as a fraud case.  The latter will be responded to under different processes to a consumer rights chargeback / S75 consideration.  I am not sure that, if this is a fraud, it would be covered by the types of fraud where the bank has to reimburse the customer.

born_again

Grumpy_chap said:

dataworf said:

I have already successfully filed a chargeback with my card provider and received a provisional credit. However, Kickstarter is now contesting it. 

You may have misunderstood the significance of a "successful" chargeback.  Chargeback is the equivalent of stopping a cheque and simply returns the funds from the business back to the individual.  It does not have any significance in terms of the payment no longer being outstanding and the business can either reverse the chargeback or pursue other means of debt recovery.  The bank will not undertake any investigation as such in the case of a chargeback.

When payments are made by credit card there is sometimes the option for pursuing S75 which makes the CC equally liable as the supplier.  I do not believe that S75 is available in this case because the supplier - debtor - creditor link is not there.


In places, your grounds for a refund seem possibly confused.  There is a lot of ranting about your Consumer Rights, but also many references to this as a scam / fraud.  Consumer Rights offer some protections in the case of under-performance by the business but do not really protect against a scam / fraud.  If this was a scam / fraud, then the business and the bank are equally victims as the individual.  In the case of a scam / fraud, the route would be to report to the Police (possibly even overseas) and Action Fraud as a crime and to report to the bank as a fraud case.  The latter will be responded to under different processes to a consumer rights chargeback / S75 consideration.  I am not sure that, if this is a fraud, it would be covered by the types of fraud where the bank has to reimburse the customer.

As the OP made the payments as far as bank goes on a card payment it would not be fraud. It would be treated as a dispute.
As unlike a app scam, there is no fraud protection when you make card payments. It has to be a unknown 3rd party using your card details. Which is simply dealt with by a Fraud Chargeback. Which gives the retailer the same right to contest with details of why. Usually providing purchasers details.
S75 does not cover fraud.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

born_again said:

S75 does not cover fraud.

Putting the OP aside, if someone calls up pretending to be the bank and gets you to transfer your money I understand (assume?) that's not a contractual agree.

However if someone advertises a camper van and I pay £20k on my credit card and it transpires the van never existed that's still fraud (again I assume?) but is also a contract(?) so misrepresentation applies?

Back to the OP, I understand the link is broken via Kickstarter but if someone paid to invest in something and that turned just to be a scam to rip people off isn't that both a contractual agreement and misrepresentation meaning S75 applies? 

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said:

S75 does not cover fraud.

Putting the OP aside, if someone calls up pretending to be the bank and gets you to transfer your money I understand (assume?) that's not a contractual agree.

However if someone advertises a camper van and I pay £20k on my credit card and it transpires the van never existed that's still fraud (again I assume?) but is also a contract(?) so misrepresentation applies?

Back to the OP, I understand the link is broken via Kickstarter but if someone paid to invest in something and that turned just to be a scam to rip people off isn't that both a contractual agreement and misrepresentation meaning S75 applies? 

I give you a couple of banks view. 

https://www.lloydsbank.com/credit-cards/help-and-guidance/section75.html

https://www.bankofscotland.co.uk/creditcards/help-guidance/section75.html

dataworf

Does this draft better describe Kickstarter?
note. I'll finish editing later.

What Kickstarter Really Is: A Backer's Reality Check

Executive Summary: The Illusion vs. The Reality

Kickstarter masterfully sells a dream but is engineered to deliver a gamble. This report, compiled from a detailed  analysis, exposes the platform's operational model as a sophisticated risk-transfer engine. It cultivates the trust and excitement of a retail community while deploying an impenetrable legal fortress to ensure that when projects fail - as they frequently do according to countless reports from unhappy backers - the financial and emotional damage lands solely on the backer. Kickstarter collects its toll and walks away, leaving a trail of broken promises from New York to London and beyond.

1: The Bait & Switch - The "Back This Project / Order Now" Mirage

The Illusion: A curated, trustworthy marketplace. During the funding phase, the prominent green button reads "Back This Project," invoking the supportive, community-driven language that defines Kickstarter's brand. However, once a project is successfully funded, this button changes to "Order Now" on the campaign page. Combined with reward tiers, delivery dates, and professional marketing, this terminology intentionally mimics trusted e-commerce platforms like Amazon. This shift in language creates a powerful psychological transition from "supporting an idea" to "completing a purchase," reinforcing the expectation of a retail transaction.

The Reality: A high-risk casino. Regardless of the button's text, the fundamental transaction does not change: it is not a purchase but a pledge - a bet on an unproven idea. Kickstarter's 5% fee is collected the moment a campaign ends successfully, regardless of whether backers ever receive a reward. The house always wins its cut; the backer always assumes the entire risk of loss.

Direct Evidence:

Kickstarter's Terms of Service, Section 4: Explicitly states, "Kickstarter is not a store... You are not buying a finished product." This critical disclaimer is buried in legal documentation, directly contradicting the post-funding "Order Now" user experience designed to lure backers into a false sense of security.

The "Botnono" Project Page: Serves as a live example. Now that the campaign has ended, the button prominently displays "Order Now," further solidifying the e-commerce illusion for any visitor, despite the project being widely understood by backers to be abandoned or fraudulent [1].

This deliberate change in terminology is not a minor UI detail; it is a core part of the psychological architecture
that obfuscates the true, high-risk nature of the transaction until after the money has been committed.

Even with overwhelming evidence of fraud and no product delivered, Kickstarter leaves the Botnono page active, still displaying an "Order Now" button [1]. This inaction demonstrates how the platform facilitates fraud.

[1] "Botnono" Project Page https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/botnono/botnono-worlds-smartest-chat-gpt-companion-robot/description

2: The Architecture of Imbalance - A Legal Fortress for the Corporation, A Trap for the Backer

Kickstarter's primary innovation isn't fostering creativity; it's constructing a system that is legally impregnable for them and financially risk-free.

The ToS Shield: A unilaterally drafted contract that absolves Kickstarter of all liability. It states creators are solely responsible for fulfillment and that backers' only recourse is to contact the creator directly. Kickstarter "offers no guarantees," even in cases of demonstrable fraud.

The Wrong Entity Problem: When backers file chargebacks against Kickstarter (the merchant of record), the platform successfully argues it provided its service - hosting the campaign - and that the failure lies with a third party. This technicality allows them to systematically reverse chargebacks.

Direct Evidence:
Kickstarter's Terms of Service (Section 4) are weaponized in payment disputes. The platform successfully argues to banks that it provided the service it promised - hosting a campaign and that the failure lies with a third-party creator. This technicality, backed by the user-agreed ToS, consistently leads to reversed chargebacks¹, proving that the platform is legally insulated from the financial fallout of failed projects, regardless of backer loss.

3: The Global Victim - How Backers Worldwide Are Left Holding the Bag

For the US Backer: Left in a Regulatory Wasteland

US backers are abandoned in a void. With no dedicated crowdfunding regulator and Kickstarter's powerful ToS, their recourse is minimal. They are forced into costly, impractical civil lawsuits against often-bankrupt or anonymous creators. They are victims of a system that prioritizes corporate profit over consumer protection.

For the International Backer (e.g., UK): A Compounded Injustice

The harm is magnified. While US-centric advice often incorrectly tells them they have no recourse, UK consumers have powerful statutory rights under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This law makes the credit card provider jointly liable for breaches of contract by the supplier (the creator).

The Catch: Kickstarter's structure and Terms force UK backers into a grueling, uphill battle to enforce these rights against their bank. The platform itself provides no support, deliberately designing a system that renders strong consumer protections nearly unenforceable for the average individual against a multi-million dollar company.

4: The Black Box - How Kickstarter Obscures Failure & Actively Enables Fraud

A core criticism is that Kickstarter prevents informed decisions by hiding data and failing to act.

No Transparency on Failure: Failed and fraudulent project pages are left online without clear warnings. A new user might only see the original, optimistic campaign and a greyed-out "Order Now" button, missing the thousands of comments detailing the scam. There is no "Trust Score" for creators or public data on success rates.

Passive Facilitation of Fraud: The platform is notoriously reluctant to intervene in active campaigns, even when overwhelming evidence of fraud is presented in the comments. This allows scams to continue running, collecting money from unaware backers. Kickstarter profits from these transactions.

Direct Evidence:

User comments from various projects, including Botnono [2], show backers collectively identifying scams months before a campaign ends, pleading with Kickstarter to intervene - with no action taken. The platform only acts against the most blatant fraud (e.g., hate speech) to protect its own brand from legal risk, not to protect backers.

[2] "Botnono" Comments Page https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/botnono/botnono-worlds-smartest-chat-gpt-companion-robot/comments

5: The Greater Societal Impact - The Ripple Effect of Broken Trust

Kickstarter's model causes damage far beyond individual backers.

Erosion of Trust: It betrays the communal trust it cultivates. It uses the language of community and shared dreams to facilitate transactions but abandons that community when those dreams turn into nightmares.

Enabling Grifters: The platform provides a weaponized tool for sophisticated con artists who use stolen identities and compelling narratives to exploit the trust generated by Kickstarter's brand.

Stifling Genuine Innovation: High-profile failures and scams deter people from backing future projects, poisoning the well for honest creators with genuine ideas who rely on the platform. The system punishes the very innovation it claims to support.

6: The Hypocrisy of Effort - Maximum Protection for Revenue, Zero Protection for Users

The case of the "Botnono" project is not an anomaly; it is a perfect case study that exposes Kickstarter's operational priorities. The platform's actions reveal a stark and damning hypocrisy in where it chooses to allocate its resources and effort.

The "Botnono" Case: A Textbook Example of Platform Negligence

The project “Botnono: World’s Smartest Chat-GPT Companion Robot” (Creator: Melyu CHEN from Devor, Coldorado (according to their Kickstarter Creator Page)) serves as a glaring example of the system's failure. The analysis reveals:

- $125,441 raised from 338 backers.

- Estimated delivery date passed over 100 days ago.

- Creator is completely unresponsive, and for months had previously provided only "incoherent" updates in communication.

- Backers have collectively concluded it is a scam, with comments dating back months identifying the fraud and pleading for action.

- Kickstarter's Response to "Botnono" (The Zero Effort Model):

- No Project Suspension: Despite hundreds of reports and clear, overwhelming evidence of fraud presented in the comments, the campaign was left active for its entire duration, maximizing the number of victims.

- No Warnings: No banners, labels, or alerts were placed on the project page to warn new or potential backers of the suspected fraud.

- No Investigation: There is no evidence of any proactive investigation into the creator's identity, claims, or capabilities.

- No Support: Reports submitted via official channels were met with silence, providing no acknowledgement or reference number to the victims.

This represents a complete and total abdication of any duty of care. Kickstarter's effort to protect the users who fund its platform was absolute zero.

The Chargeback Response (The Maximum Effort Model):

The moment a backer attempts the only recourse available - a credit card chargeback - Kickstarter's posture changes instantly and dramatically.

- Instant Activation: The second their revenue is threatened, their legal and financial teams spring into action.

- Vigorous Defense: They vigorously dispute every chargeback, deploying their meticulously crafted Terms of Service as a legal shield to prove they provided the service (hosting the platform) as described.

- Systematic Victory: They systematically succeed in having provisional refunds reversed, ensuring their 5% fee ($6,272 from the Botnono project alone) is never clawed back.

This proves Kickstarter has the resources, the legal expertise, and the operational capability to act decisively. They choose to deploy this capability only to protect their revenue, never to protect their users from harm. The imbalance is not a flaw; it is a deliberate feature of their business model.

The Regulatory Paradox: Why is Kickstarter Different?

As consumers we rightly asks: "Banks are regulated, casinos are regulated, betting sites are regulated, investment sites are regulated. Why is Kickstarter any different?"

It isn't. In function, it is a hybrid of all these - it has the financial transactions of a bank, the risk profile of a casino, the chance-based outcome of a betting site, and the unsecured nature of a high-risk investment. Yet, by cleverly defining itself as a "platform" and using its ToS to disclaim all responsibility, it has successfully operated in a regulatory no-man's-land.

- It facilitates the movement of millions of dollars without the consumer protections mandated for other financial institutions.

- It enables high-risk betting on outcomes without the oversight and fairness regulations imposed on gambling operators.

- It promotes unsecured "investments" in startup's without the transparency and accountability required of regulated investment platforms.

By refusing to act on projects like "Botnono," Kickstarter is not merely being passive; it is facilitating illegal activity. Allowing a known scam to continue operating on its platform to collect money from victims is a form of enablement. The platform provides the stage, the lighting, and the payment system for the con artist to perform, all while claiming it is merely a "neutral" venue. This legal fiction allows it to profit from fraud while accepting none of the responsibility that any other regulated entity in the financial ecosystem would bear.

Conclusion: The Kickstarter Paradox - A Betting Platform in Store's Clothing

Kickstarter presents itself as a patron of the arts and a community for innovators, but this analysis reveals its true nature: a sophisticated risk-transfer engine. It is not a store, a responsible marketplace, or a curator of creativity. It is a platform meticulously engineered to monetize optimism through a veneer of community, while its legal and operational framework ensures that when that optimism collides with reality - through failure, incompetence, or outright fraud - the financial and emotional impact lands solely on the backer.

The platform’s most damning characteristic is its hypocritical imbalance of effort. It demonstrates a conscious, ethical bankruptcy by investing maximum resources into self-preservation and profit protection - vigorously fighting chargebacks against individuals the moment its revenue is threatened - while allocating zero effort to protecting its user base from predators. Projects like "Botnono" stand as monuments to this failure: scams that operate in plain sight, funded by trusting backers, and enabled by a platform that looks the other way.

Kickstarter collects its toll and walks away, leaving a global trail of broken promises and eroded trust. It is a case study in how a company can be legally compliant yet morally vacant, a casino that designs its tables to look like store shelves. For backers everywhere, the house always wins, and the promise of innovation is nothing more than a carefully crafted bet that they were always destined to lose.

A_Geordie

born_again said:

S75 does not cover fraud.

S75 covers misrepresentation, of which fraudulent misrepresentation is a sub-category. 

Grumpy_chap said:

If this was a scam / fraud, then the business and the bank are equally victims as the individual.  In the case of a scam / fraud, the route would be to report to the Police (possibly even overseas) and Action Fraud as a crime and to report to the bank as a fraud case.  The latter will be responded to under different processes to a consumer rights chargeback / S75 consideration.

The above is not quite true. You now have the Authorised Push Payment Rules where if the OP qualifies, it is an automatic reimbursement. Rules of the scheme are below. 

https://www.wearepay.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/FPS-Reimbursement-Rules-Schedule-4.pdf

An Authoised Push Payment Scam is defined: 

Where a person uses a fraudulent or dishonest act or course of conduct to manipulate, deceive or persuade a Consumer into transferring funds from the Consumer’s Relevant account to a Relevant account not controlled by the Consumer, where:

(a) The recipient is not who the Consumer intended to pay, or

(b) The payment is not for the purpose the Consumer intended 

So long as the payment is sent via faster payments or CHAPS and sent to another UK bank account, the OP may be covered. I think however, with Kickstarter being a US company, the payment was unlikely sent to a UK bank account and so there is a high chance the OP won't be covered under these rules - still worth checking though to confirm.