[begin edit]
I just removed a verbatim copy/paste of http://caulkett.com/2checkout.htm to save space.
-Cliff (2CO Staff)
[end edit]
These people say that unlocked cellular phones are not allowed to be sold using their system, and must be removed from the vendor’s website before the vendor can use their system. However, nothing in the terms and conditions indicate that unlocked cellphones can not be sold. This constitutes false advertisement and false Terms and Conditions. Anything that is prohibited must be stated in the Terms of Services. Otherwise, it is allowed. The company I work for (Four Crests) is prepared to take neccesary legal action, up to and including a lawsuit for this illegal activity.
6 Comments »
+3
-0
First of all, I’d like to apologize for any inconvenience and for truncating your message. I’ve included the URL of the site you quoted, so everyone can still read it.
Your complaint and the complaint you link to are not identical, but I’m not comfortable discussing another specific vendor’s account status on a public forum. However, since you’ve posted this thread, we will address your concerns. A representative from our Risk department will be posting an explanation of why our Prohibited Products list includes your products, shortly.
Also, the complaint there is over 4 years old. We’ve made a lot of improvements to our services and internal processes in that time. We’re not perfect, but we are dedicated to improvement.
+4
-1
Hello Arrowhart,
No advertising or claims of 2Checkout accepting unlocked phones exist, nor does any promise to allow carte blanch to services or products that are not explicitly listed within our PPL. That being said, our goal is to create, accept and retain as much good business as we can, not to intentionally turn away potential suppliers.
To address your particular case, the products offered from your site do in fact fall under restrictions stipulated on our PPL.
Mobile device manufacturers enter into exclusive contracts with cellular providers for certain devices. When they do so, these devices are not sold as untethered products, rather they are distributed to the consumer with network specific encoding. The act of ‘unlock’ing a phone for sale is a circumvention of product feature intended to provide consumers with a feature which they have not expressly paid for.
While we appreciate your frustration, we must reiterate our decision not to accept your account as submitted. Contrary to the stance presented within your post, it is not only well within our legal and ethical rights to do so, it is necessitated by our Operating Policies.
I apologize we were unable to allow your account, and certainly wish you the best of luck in your future business ventures.
e
+1
-4
Four Crests Legal Dept.
Michael A. D’Angilo, Esq.
Senior Legal Advocate
legal-department@fourcrests.com
I have looked into this issue very carefully, and have conculuded that we can persue a company discrimination case against 2checkout. It is illegal for any company to deny a consumer of something that is not in their terms of service. The terms of service must be made public by companies if they have a terms of service. The terms of service must also be made very clear for anyone to understand. If it is not clear, then the terms of service is considered null and void. There is nothing in the Prohibited Items list (https://www2.2checkout.com/documentation/prohibited.html) that specifically say that unlocked cell phones are prohibitted. That is what makes your terms of service null and void. Secondly, according to the United States Attorney General, no company can legally turn a business down because they sell unlocked cellular phones. Not only is that illegal due to discrimination, but that is also against FCC regulations. Third of all, if you guys say that you sell the items on your site, and the vendors are your source of selling, who says that the vendor will sell unlocked cell phones on your site if that is infact in your terms of service and the vendor has to agree with it? These are all facts that will be brought up in the case against you. I will be contacting your company tomorrow to obtain the contact information for your legal department and/or senior management department. If you would like to post it here, that will be fine and greatly appreciated.
+2
-0
arrowhart, I’m sorry that communication has somehow broken down between us and that you now feel it necessary to seek legal counsel.
While we regret that we had to deny your product, we are confident that we made the correct decision. If you have not done so already, I urge you to read our TOS in it’s entirety.
If you still feel it necessary to send or to request documentation to or from us, you or your counsel may fax your request for information to 614.921.2451.
+3
-0
Wow.
There is nothing in the Prohibited Items list (https://www2.2checkout.com/documentation/prohibited.html) that specifically say that unlocked cell phones are prohibitted. That is what makes your terms of service null and void.
That’s going to look really good in court as an argument from a ‘Senior Legal Advocate’.
Why not take me in for aiding and abetting since I take 2CO’s side and say that under any legal jurisdiction they are entitled to deny service to anyone or any business at their discretion if doing otherwise could bring them into disrepute or constitute a felony.
Sice 2CO does not hold a monopoly on credit card processing alternatives, it would be very hard to find grounds for company discrimination.
Just as face control is perfectly entitled to deny entry to a private establishment, any business is entitled to accept or decline orders.
As for your case with 2Checkout – sorry, but it would be thrown out before you got a hearing because 2Checkout is not providing a service. Our (vendors’) agreements with 2Checkout allows 2CO to sell our goods on our behalf. 2CO agrees to become our distributor. I cannot sue Walmart for refusing to distribute my widgets, you cannot sue 2Checkout. (Correct me if I’ve muddled the roles in the 2CO/vendor relationship).
But do try – the precedent could be useful to deter others.
+1
-0
I don’t really have a comment.
bobs12 said what I was thinking, almost in a scary way.