MSCL.com

http://www.mscl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=11755#11755

Just when I think to myself "it cannot get worse, or weirder than it is..."

The guy who built the AU site itself had received 3 bounced checks from AU.com, and he is going to be filing a claim against the company. I am simplifying things, but he worked for the old owners of AU.com, and he was hired for 6 weeks by the new AU to convert the old site for their needs. They still owe him money from over a year ago.

So, if anything, the high profile of this project appears to be pulling a lot of other things out of the woodwork, and bringing the various parties together.

There is strength in numbers. And I do believe that this bodes well for those hoping to see refunds for double bills or cancellations.

Jason Rosenfeld

Jason Rosenfeld wrote: There is strength in numbers. And I do believe that this bodes well for those hoping to see refunds for double bills or cancellations.

Or not. Could mean they would just close up, file for bankruptcy and move out of town.

moviezzz wrote:Or not. Could mean they would just close up, file for bankruptcy and move out of town.

What makes you think that wasn't Ross' plan all along though? I'll play alarmist and say that this is what's been planned all along since the initial round of double charges. After all the money has to have gone somewhere and it certainly didn't all end up back with the customers or BMG.

reading the other thread, i concluded:

1) there is a high probability that staff at anotheruniverse.com manually entered cc transactions;

2) therefore, a reasonable person might conclude that the overcharges were intentional; and

3) mscl.com should look into advertising it's potential as a fraud fighting website .

actually i am thinking more about this...raprazant was talking about the advanced order (AO) cart... didn't we order through the standard au.com shopping cart? maybe raprazant could talk about the regular shopping cart, since I think that is what we ordered from

I don't know what happened here, pgh_kenny. It seems like AU blamed a shopping cart, when the orders have been entered by hand all along because the backend that it needed was not available per raprazent.

it sounds like it could not have been an automated problem. so, in other words, it looks like AU lied to us about this.

it also sounds like $3,500 would have bought AU a working advance order shopping cart, and that they knew they didn't have one because they did not pay the developer and builder of the shopping cart.

I take back the countless insults I hurled at the builder of the AU.com site. It sounds like it didn't work because he wasn't paid to complete it. And AU continues to use this for all of it customers.

I'd say that this is a good reason to get the message out to other potential customers.

Jason

(Deep Sigh.)

Holy cow, Is there absolutley no low that AU will not sink to? AU has double and triple charged customers, not initially paid BMG or GeeWhiz, not paid Jason, not paid former free lancers, sued Marvel Comics and not even bothered to pay the person who orginally designed their site. Is evil too strong a word here? What do you guys think?

I have been amazed by AUs actions in the past and just when I think okay, I know all there is to know about their many misdeeds, Wham! I find out yet more. Stay tuned...

Lance Man

lance wrote:(Deep Sigh.)

Holy cow, Is there absolutley no low that AU will not sink to?

Well, there's the small matter of skirting the U.S. economic embargo against Yugoslavia a few years ago, but that's not something I can detail.

(You think I'm joking, don't you?)

Jason Rosenfeld wrote:It sounds like it could not have been an automated problem. so, in other words, it looks like AU lied to us about this.

From the programmer it sounded very much like the double charges could have occurred automatically with their hodge podge of systems. That doesn't excuse them, but how in that did you conclude that the double charges must have been intentional?

my understanding based on the linked thread above was that anotheruniverse.com manually transcribed billing information from shopping cart output to authorize.net. therefore the only way for a double bill to occur would be by human intervention. as i said back in the day, it's not like the shopping cart would suddenly grow a mind of its own.

my theory: anotheruniverse.com stating that the double charges were 'caused by a problem with the shopping cart' was really just a euphuism for ' we purposefully recharged some of our customers to generate temporary cash flow'.

The programmer essentially said that the part of the site that processed the charges was not complete. I did not deduce from this that the double charges were intentional. He did say that charges would have to be entered by hand though.

Giving AU the benefit of the doubt you could say that someone manually entered double charges in by mistake not realizing the amounts had already been billed. HOWEVER, the lack of interest AU has shown in refunding that money indicates some much more devious purpose now.

Every time you call Wade or whoever picks up the phone they can see how much you've been charged and whatever "notes" (i.e. got this sucker twice, need to bill him again when we ship) have been entered towards the account. Therefore it should be pathetically easy for another human to pick up a phone or type on a keyboard and refund that charge.

While most places will say 1-2 billing cycles I've never had a refund that's been entered by a human take more than a few business days. Some companies I've talked to have completed the credit while I was on the phone with them and I've received a credit the following day.

In short: Whatever happened, AU is now deliberately keeping our money.

Howard wrote:Well, there's the small matter of skirting the U.S. economic embargo against Yugoslavia a few years ago, but that's not something I can detail.

(You think I'm joking, don't you?)

I was wrong: AU/RR can still surprise me. Now what? Slobodan Milosevic is a comic book fan? Does AU also deliver to his cell in The Hague?

Jason Rosenfeld wrote:The programmer essentially said that the part of the site that processed the charges was not complete. I did not deduce from this that the double charges were intentional. He did say that charges would have to be entered by hand though.

That's fair. Since none of us really know, it probably is not fair of me to overuse the office space "jump to conclusions" mat. I am just saying if they weren't intentional, there would have been no reason to delay returning the money. Unless it was a crime of convenience after the mistake was made. ("Look what we found").

I mean, finding out the first time I called them in september that they had in the database that a double charge occured and then still having to dispute the charges does not exactly inspire confidence that their intentions were pure. IMO, a decent accoutant could have cleared things up for everyone in a few days.

Oh well, let's forget about this, the dvds will be here soon from amazon or au and I've got to go vote.

I am coming closer to officially saying that there is a high probability that the double bills were intentional. Will give more details when I can.

Jason Rosenfeld wrote:http://www.mscl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=11755#11755

That thread is a somewhat interesting read. The next few days, if not weeks could turn out to be quite enlightening indeed.