Circuit City Sells Counterfeit Camera For $1134.99, Customer Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Circuit City sold Ronald a fake camera for $1134.99, and now they're holding the fake and his money hostage. The camera was no Kodak disposable, but a Nikon D90 Digital SLR. When he opened the box at home, inside was a D50 covered with crappy D90 stickers and affixed with a fake serial plate. Circuit City should give him his money back or a new D90. Why should Ronald be punished for Circuit City's inability to maintain control over their supply chain? He shouldn't. He should file a chargeback with his credit card company. Ronald's letter of complaint to Circuit City's consumer affairs group (consumer_affairs@circuitcity.com), inside...
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to convey my displeasure concerning an ongoing, completely unsatisfactory retail experience with Circuit City. Yesterday, October 28, 2008, I purchased a Nikon D90 Digital SLR camera at store number 854 for $1021.49 ($1134.99 -10% coupon) plus Maryland state sales tax. It was sold as new and unopened. Upon unboxing later that evening, I discovered the camera was in fact counterfeit. A lesser model, the D50, had been altered to appear to be a D90. Crude D90 stickers covered the model badging and a false serial plate was placed on the underside. A number of accessories were also missing and the included product information was entirely Spanish. (If needed, I can provide all serial numbers attributed to the box and its contents and photos to support my statements)
I contacted the store via telephone early this morning and explained my findings to the Floor Leader, Charles. He was immediately suspicious of me and first and foremost explained that I should not expect an immediate refund or exchange, and that they needed the camera to "investigate." I visited the store this afternoon to return the camera and review my options with Charles. Charles again stated he would not refund or exchange the counterfeit camera and stated loss prevention was going to investigate, and that I would be contacted in 24-48 hours. He was not open to, nor would he discuss any alternatives. The Manager on duty made no attempt to address the situation. The Floor Leader simply ran back and forth between me and the manager conveying next steps and my options.
I returned to the store later in the afternoon on October 30, 2008 to take pictures of the counterfeit camera for my reference and to obtain a record from the store stating they were in possession of the merchandise. The gentleman I worked with earlier in the morning, Charles, was "on his way out the door" and would not see me. The Manager on duty would not see me either. The CSA Supervisor stated he was the Manager and would help me. The record I obtained from the store to state they are in possession of the counterfeit camera was a handwritten note and initials on the bottom of my receipt. This is simply unbelievable for a major retail chain. I was told "Nikon was tracking the serial numbers." I frankly do not understand why I am being held "hostage" in this matter. The fact that Circuit City has somehow allowed counterfeit/altered products into its supply chain is not the consumers' problem, yet, the consumer is being held at fault for this issue. The store and it's staff have from my perspective, labeled me guilty until proven innocent.
The customer service staff made no effort to apologize for my inconvenience ( I live 30 miles from the store, and I'm facing four to five trips to take care of this) or for the sheer embarrassment of a major specialty retail outlet selling customers counterfeit merchandise. I am deeply disappointed in Circuit City's handling of this situation thus far.
In the end, I sit here writing this account with no faith in the company or it's store employees, no camera, and Circuit City holding approximately $1100 of my funds.
I hope to expedite the handling of this issue and pass along my observations of store personnel and vague policies that continue to damage the reputation of your company.
Respectfully,
Ronald P.
Post a comment
Comments:
Interesting issue. Obviously the OP expects to be believed and taken at face value.
Assuming he is telling the truth, how does any business, even sucktastick CC determine his legitimate issue from someone buying a camera from a street vendor and trying to return it claiming the exact same scenario?
I'd have just charged it back, personally. Although I would never have spent so much cash at CC - it's just asking to be kicked in the face.
@nicemarmot617: You guys are getting quicker, only three posts before the "durrr, you got what you deserve for shopping at xxxx" post.
Sounds like someone bought the camera before him, swapped it out with their own D50, and returned it. IIRC Nikon does not seal camera boxes, so you cannot tell if a box has been opened before.
Yeah man, Thats, so wrong, so horribly wrong. I would have walked down chargeback road and gotten my money back. Hopefully you took pictures of the camera before you returned it. (NO PUN INTENDED) Maybee small claims court or EECB? Good Luck Ronald!!!
Hello Mr. Store Manager of [insert store here]. I just opened the factory sealed box of my [big screen TV / dishwasher / DVD recorder]. Instead of having the correct product, it was filled with [floor tile / used gym shoes / kittens]. I am outraged that you [don't believe me / actually want to 'investigate' before handing me a cash refund / are wearing that tie].
Rinse / lather / repeat.
Sounds like a perfect time for a chargeback.
Good god, this guy sure does like his flowery writing. A word to the wise: If your letter is unnecessarily long and it looks like every third word is plucked straight from Roget's, people are going to think you're an idiot trying to sound smart.
I see both sides here... CC does need to investigate, and the consumer wants his money back. Consumer should contact this credit card company and tell them the situation, and they should start their own investigation. Should get things moving. Also should contact the local police and make sure forms are filled out and both sides of the story are documented.
Well, shopping as Circuit City has always been a dangerous adventure.
Now even more...
I wonder, how many other customers, less tech savvy, but wanting a higher end model, fell for the scam?
@SkokieGuy: if a [big screen TV / dishwasher / DVD recorder] box was filled with kittens, I wouldn't complain!
CC should offer him his refund on the condition that he provide them with sufficient identifying information (i.e. his name, and address). If he used a credit card, they probably can find a way to get it already. So what is the point of them keeping the money and the camera? I'm sure they could negotiate some sort of transaction with the credit card company as well if he turns out to be a fake.
@SkokieGuy: A moral of the story : ''OPEN your box right on the spot''! Since this type of stories tend to repeat a lot, lately.
On a side note, what I suspect they want to do is just give him another camera in the end so that they don't lose the sale. Of course, now the guy is going to return it and buy it somewhere else.
Such a tough call on everyone's part. The store/company wants to protect themselves from people doing this on purpose, but the customer is being treated as guilty, and really given no breathing room.
Lose-lose situation, but I think the customer is being a TAD impatient. It's only been two or three days, and this is no small issue. I think if he is a bit calmer and more patient with the guys/gals at CC, he might have better success.
NOT to say he is wrong, just needs more patience.
This is why I open ANY product I buy like a camera, a computer, or anything inside the store.
This way they can't tell me "You took it to your car and switched it on us you scam artist" as I've never left the store
@illtron: Seriously, what's wrong with the letter he wrote? I don't see the "flowery" aspect to it that you mentioned, nor are there are any really uncommon words used. It would seem to me that the more detail provided in the letter the better, especially considering the lack of documentation provided by Circuit City in terms of the repossession of the camera he purchased, but maybe I'm wrong. If anything, I sincerely doubt the letter is going to make him look like an idiot.
@Victo: Textbook writers get paid by the length of their writing, not the quality.
I may not use my Journalism degree very often, but I still had to earn it. This guy needs a copy of Strunk & White.
@Victo: at least with really really really REALLY expensive purchases at large chains. if this was a little mom n pop camera shop it probably would've been handled differently.
@SkokieGuy: open another one. if its in the supply chain more than one will be there. they have shrinkwrap machines they can make it look new again.
@Modred189: To be fair to the OP, the management of the store blew him off, made the Supervisor run back and forth as though they were playing "Telephone," and wouldn't even directly acknowledge his problem.
Also, he waited 24-48 hours before returning back to the store for an answer - which is what they told him to do.
$1,100 is a lot of money. At least one of the two managers should come down from their ivory towers and talk to him.
@SkokieGuy: It's simple. Circuit city does not have policies in place to prevent items like this from being returned and resold. So it doesn't matter if they believe him or not. Next time instead of just validating serial numbers at the time of return(assuming they even did that), they should log serials that are sold and returned. If they did that they would know within seconds if the item was a return and they should also know the employee who accepted the fraudulent return and should have logged the dln number of the person who returned it. Circuit city, with minimal effort, could prevent things like this. They did not, they need to take the hit. Not the customer.
A similar thing happened to me. I purchased a funky new router last year at Futureshop in Canada and took it home only to see that the inside of the box was filled with old Xbox games.
Upon returning to the store, I told the manager that I had not touched the xbox games and I had documented everything. If he couldn't help me I'd simply go to the local police and let them know of this fraud. I'd assume that fingerprints on the games would at least be entered into some database.
When the manager heard my proposed course of action, he was only too happy to refund my money.
CC's handling of this situation is nothing new. I worked at one many years ago and we used to see the 'bricks in the box' situation several times a year. It always went to loss prevention for investigation. The reason for this is pretty obvious, if a store develops a reputation for being easy to scam this way, they will be buying back lots of worthless crap from people who want free merchandise.
I'm not saying that the consumer is trying to scam CC though. The most likely scenario is that an inattentive CSR took the remarked camera back from someone else and this guy was unlucky enough to pick that one from the shelf. In these situations the honest guy pretty much always gets screwed in some way. I would just hope that it ends favorably, with CC offering some kind of compensation for the inconvenience.
@illtron: I don't see it either.
"Expedite" is the closest I see to what you're complaining about. Just because he didn't include emoticons doesn't mean its overly complex.
@SkokieGuy: My guess is if he had been trying to scam CC, he would have just returned the camera without a mention of it being a knock-off. Also, he probably wouldn't have attempted to talk to a manger, have his case sent to fraud department, and continued to follow-up on everything.
There are far easier ways to scam a company, and if that is what he's doing - he sucks at it.
@Namrepus:
Agreed. I get nasty looks from retailers sometimes, but I always pay for the purchase and then move off to the side of the counter to open up the merchandise. I do this even for games and CDs now....it's what the world has come to.
So, how many scam artists will try this same crap with CC/BB in the next 24 hours?
Sad but true, way too many of these scams are daily events. I wonder how many submitters to The Consumerist are actually trying to assist their scam efforts by generating additional outrage?
And let's not forget.... BB employees with nothing better to do than creating consumer outrage at their competition.
Does this crap really happen? You bet it does. So why not give the company a chance to fix the problem before firing off a letter to The Consumerist?
While I believe the letter is very good, it should be understood that the store is not a government entity, and is therefore not obligated to assume someone is "innocent until proven guilty". The store is absolutely within its rights to assume the person is "guilty until proven innocent".
Please do not confuse the Constitution and the protections afforded by it with whatever remedies might be available to you under civil law.
I believe the company already had more than a reasonable chance. They haven't dealt with this in a manner that is reassuring to the customer, and quite frankly, they've acted more like this is a big deal to them, not to him. Seeing as how they retail to consumers, and seeing as how they've done a bad job in this case, Ronald has every right and reason to write this letter.
Seems like CC should inspect all returns before putting the box back on the shelf. I have returned items before (not necessarily to CC) and no store ever actually looks inside the box to verify the item. In this day and age, it should be store policy everywhere. And no, I wouldn't be offended.
@Corporate_guy: This is still trusting CC to do everything you propose. I assume they already have procedures in place (open the box, make sure everything inside) that clearly, based on other Consumerist stories, are not being followed.
Increasing the return documentation will likely decrease compliance, but regardless, it still puts the consumer in the position of trusting the store to create a return trail to prevent this.
Frankly, opening the box and matching box and product serial numbers while in the store is the consumer's only real protection.
I think it's time to involve the cops and district management.
@stacye: I'm not saying HE is a scammer, but that clearly the same chain of events could be perpetrated by a scamner.
Yes, let's blame the consumer here since there is no way that this could happen at Circuit City nor any other retailer.
Sarcasm aside, it can and does happen. It's happened for years and years because like bad retailers, there are bad consumers.
I've had bad "opened" box experiences with:
Target: Someone bought a new Xbox, stuffed their old broken one in the box and returned it. I bought this one for my kid for Xmas. Nice surprise Xmas day, and I received a whole world of grief and the ol' stink eye from Target over this one. Thank GOD American Express went to bat for me. As far as Target is concerned, will never step foot in there again.
Lowes: New pressure washer was missing two parts because some moron ruined their unit, went and bought this one, put their old pump on this one and returned it.
Best Buy: Canon ELPH camera missing battery.
It's important for retailers and manufacturers to get their poop in a group concerning returns and restocking because there are people taking advantage of it, regardless which side of the game Ronald P. is playing.
@Piedmont: I know, right? Someone actually ads some detail and uses "expedite" which is, I guess, now considered a "big scary word" and he's being too detailed? Whut? Something tells me illtron doesn't read much outside of e-mails and texts.
@Real Cheese Flavor: In this case it is a valid point. They are going under. Warranties and returns via circuit are not guaranteed.
My comment might receive some harsh replies but hopefully it'll attain some fair and well made replies instead.
I am somewhat sympathetic to the store. Not Circuit City but the particular store itself. I have worked on the retail end when I was younger and have experienced several cons' where customers would return items that were obviously replaced with dupes. The great 56k modem scam of 1990, where people would buy a 56k modem and replace the internals with parts of an old 28.8 modem. I had one instance where I was literally chewed out because a customer decided to bring it upon himself to return a 50gig harddrive inside the box of a 100gig'er. Stuff like this happens all the time.
Now I'm not saying that the customer is 100% guilty or not, there's very little chain stores can do in terms of investigating the events. It's literally a "He said, She said" kind of thing. I'm surprised though that Circuit City would challenge a customer though, most of the time. The customer will get a refund or replacement. These stores don't have much to do in terms of retaliation.
Plus, it's definitely the right of the store to hold the item & the $$$. That's just wrong.
@stacye: THIS. He's been perfectly patient. If they were, oh, I don't know, professional toward him instead of literally blowing him off, I'd agree -- but they are blowing him off completely.
@Canino: I'm pretty sure he was just trying to add some emotion to the letter to help get his point across: "Hey, you're treating me like a freakin' criminal here, when I am the one that got screwed!"
Man, some people here take everything SO literal.
1) The letter is too long.
2) I agree with corporate shill. This just happened IN THE LAST 48 HOURS. Why not give CC a chance to fix the problem?
3) How the heck did his get a D90 for so cheap? 1021.99 with a lens is ridiculously low even for CC. On CC's website, it lists for 1300.
4) For someone so empowered to email consumerist, why didn't he photograph the counterfeit BEFORE he gave it back to CC?
5) You go to B&H.
Contact the cops. Seriously.
@pmcpa2: From my point of view the problem with that is that CC isn't the FBI.
How much investigation can they really do? Not very freaking much. They can check if they've had a D90 returned recently and even then it would only partial support the guy's claim. How far back do they want to check? I don't know how often they go though D90s but if its anything like retail stores I've worked in you sell so few of those in the first place that the return could of been 6 months back and the wrong camera sitting on the shelf for that long.
Maybe the guys in the back switched it out. Their buddy comes in buys the cheaper D50 and the warehouse guy swaps out the camera in the back before giving it out. So you'd have to look at all your recent D50 sales.
All of this (again based on my experiance) could be done in 30 minutes in a back room and in the end all you've got is more maybes and probablys. Their "investigation" will never definitively show that the op was or wasn't the one who swapped the camera so to play otherwise is silly.
Thats the game though. What CC is doing is seeing if the guy follows through. If he really calls back, comes in to check on the camera, and writes a letter to the company. He is probably on the level. If the guy made a stink at first but never follows up, you've got to give him the benifit of the doubt because you'll never prove otherwise and any further action is just going to make it worse for the company.
minimum wage sales people probably don't give a hoot.
I guess this is a little better than opening what appeared to be a brand new box and finding a bunch of bathroom tile.