HPShopping Gives Automatic Refunds For Items Under $50

Did you know that if you order any item under $50 from hpshopping.com and call to return it, they will let you keep it and give a full refund?

That’s what some former HP workers have told us over the tip transom.

Pretty neat, it’s like they’re preemptively matching credit credit’s chargeback policies (which typically grant chargebacks automatically for items under $50).

Dave and Bill are such nice guys. — BEN POPKEN

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Nor-Cal says:

    Yeah, I did this a couple of times when I went crazy ordering accessories like a good little consumer whore. Too bad I hate their laptops.

    One time, the rep told me to just sell it on ebay or give it away for xmas.

  2. bopo says:

    My firm has a commercial OfficeMax account, and they do the same (as I assume most large supply companies do) whenever we accidentally order the wrong thing or they send the wrong thing.

    It’s cheaper to give a credit than to either 1) send the delivery guy back out to pick it up or 2) send a shipping label and deal with restocking.

    Of course, this is usually with Post-its and pens, not a $49.99 pair of headphones.

  3. scoobydoo says:

    As of this post I guess we can say they USED to grant automatic refunds, cause you can rest assured that suddenly 100′s of people are placing $40 orders as we speak…

  4. Ben Popken says:

    I loathe comments like scoobydoo’s. “Please don’t inform consumers, you’ll ruin it for the rest of us.” Wrong attitude, plus previous commentary is slightly short of scintillating and incisive.

    Banned.

  5. Chongo says:

    Thats not nice Ben… really, he was trying to be funny!

    Plus he really didn’t say “Please don’t inform consumers”

    Ben, I love your articles and I absolutly live off of this site… but this is really the first heavy handed ban I’ve seen you give.

    Relax man, its new years! :)

  6. kimdog says:

    I don’t see what’s so wrong with Scoobydoo’s comment. This seems to be a progressive customer service policy for people who made a purchase in good faith, and are legitimately asking for a refund. Now there will be plenty of people who will be exploiting that policy to get “free” stuff. With that kind of abuse, I don’t see how the company could not change their policy.

  7. Ben Popken says:

    I don’t care if it was a joke, I’ve seen this type of comment before and it really burns my biscuits.

    Consumerist does have a certain reach, but not enough that one post is going to set off such an onslaught of abuse that a massive corporation will change a policy out of hand.

    I have faith that the majority of Consumerist readers are responsible consumers, not freebie griefers.

  8. AcilletaM says:

    I have faith that the majority of Consumerist readers are responsible consumers, not freebie griefers.

    I agree with Ben posting here won’t make a company change its policy. You have to post here and then get it Farked. But Ben, if we are indeed responsible consumers does that mean there will be no more posts about telling Verizon we moved to Cambodia and faking embassy letterhead to get out of a contract?

  9. Michael says:

    Amazon.com did the same for me on a $10 purchase that arrived damaged. I asked where to return it, and they told me they didn’t need it back and would send a replacement right away. Sure enough, the new one arrived two days later. They saved me the small hassle of returning an item and saved themselves the trouble of processing a damaged low-ticket item. A++, Amazon!

  10. Sudonum says:

    This also happened to me with an Amazon vendor. I ordered a special version of a CD and they sent me the standard version. They didn’t have the special version and apparently had mis-listed the standard one. When contacted about returning, they told me to keep it and would credit my CC, which they did promptly.

  11. Mike_ says:

    Ben, could you please post guidelines for commenting?

    I realize you’re going to need to extinguish some voices around here from time to time, but I think you’ve been a little heavy-handed. I took scoobydoo’s comment as tongue-in-cheek. If it rubbed you the wrong way, a simple rebuke should have been enough. Use words, not administrative tools.

    I know I’m not the only one who has seen you ban a user, and thought to myself, “Gee, that could have been me.” That creates a very stifling environment. It causes people (me, at least) to be very careful with how we phrase our comments, lest we offend the editor and no longer be allowed to participate. Sometimes, I say nothing at all, even when I feel like my point of view might add something to the conversation.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think you want a bunch of bobbleheads mindlessly nodding in agreement around here. So it would be helpful to know exactly what rules we’re supposed to play by. Right now, I’m feeling like the standard is: “Just don’t piss off Ben”. Can you be more specific than that?

    … at the risk of getting banned, I will now hit the “submit comment” button.

  12. Mike_ says:

    I partially answered my own question by finding this and its link to this. The water still seems a little muddy, though. Page upon page of inane drivel gets through the filter, but it’s still possible to get banned at the drop of a hat for saying the wrong thing.

  13. Kornkob says:

    Gotta add my voice to that one: I was shocked to see a ban come out of what was essentially the same kind of snarky comment I see throughout posts here.

    Did someone at the Consumerist office pee on Ben’s corn flakes this morning?

  14. matt1978 says:

    The comment didn’t sound tongue-in-cheek to me.

  15. Kornkob says:

    It’s almost identical to a comment I made a month or 2 back regarding the publication of executive support numbers. Even if not tongue in cheek, it could simply be what mine was: a prediction of likely outcome of abuse (as opposed to condemnation of providing the information as Ben interpreted it).

  16. RogueSophist says:

    I agree with Mike. The commenting guidelines should be more specific, lest you create a chilled environment for speech. I shouldn’t have to re-read every comment three times to make sure there’s nothing in it that’s going to piss you off, regardless of merit or — sometimes more important — humor.

    Further, there’s more than a bit of irony in Scooby’s ban resulting from a snarky comment on story that appears to be endorsing bad faith consumerism.

    Please reconsider.