I expected better from you Arturia.

[SoftSynthLover99]

You are actually incorrect. Retailers weather online or in person, cannot display incorrect prices without honoring it. FTC has laws against it with "Truth in Advertising Act".

"When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it's on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.

Now companies may not honor the price, but that is by definition against the law at least in America. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/ ... dorsements

This is for advertising. If a price is displayed wrong within a store or commerce website, it does not need to be honored.

Yes it does by law. You can't advertise incorrect prices to potential customers as that falls under false advertising as well. FTC has a lot of laws against practices like that.

Just because companies get away with it doesn't mean it's not against the law. I personally have walked into Guitar Center years ago and employees forget to take down a sale price for an item in store, and they honored the sale price since they were still advertising it.

[SoftSynthLover99]

From where did you took these assumptions? I did get a Serial Number, looks like you didn't understand what is the point, they are lying because there is regulations that must be followed and they didn't. And It has nothing to do with databases either. that price was there for over 2 weeks.

You are incorrect. If retailers display an incorrect price in error they are under zero obligation to honor that lower price.

You are actually incorrect. Retailers weather online or in person, cannot display incorrect prices without honoring it. FTC has laws against it with "Truth in Advertising Act".

"When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it's on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.

Now companies may not honor the price, but that is by definition against the law at least in America. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/ ... dorsements

And that doesn't apply when you make a mistake with pricing. Or misprint an ad, or put the wrong price on an item or display the wrong price on a website or electronic sign or advertisement

There is a difference between outright fraud and a mistake

You can't say that X product will cure cancer unless it does, but if you say X product is priced at $9.99 and that was a mistake you don't have to sell it at $9.99

Your link is also specifically talking about endorsements with advertising not mistakes on pricing on a website

It does apply and laws usually don't care about mistakes. If I walk out of a restaurant and honestly forget to pay my tab, that's still considered stealing.

Advertising incorrect prices is still against the law even if a mistake. In the OPs case Arturia had the price up for 2+ weeks. If it was a mistake it seems like they would've caught the price error before someone purchased for that price.

[bmanic]

That's is my point, mistakes happen, so tell the truth to your customers, don't tell them they bought a wrong product, I, as a customer was thinking in buying a Mini V4. The refund was not the issue here.

Even if you're right, you're starting to be reactive. For your own state of mind, I recommend you let it go and move on.

Can you blame him?

Look, all of you guys telling how evil 'alexfalcao' is here should take a damn hard look in the mirror and LOOK at the facts he has posted. This was not just "some small error" (provided that all he is claiming is true). It was a pretty big one. The email from Arturia is incredibly unclear and not at all proportional to the mistake that has been made and if it is true that Alex got absolutely no further communication on his questions, I'd file it under "malicious behavior" on Arturia's part.

The facts as we know it:

1) Alex thought he was buying Mini V 4. He clicked on the current Mini V buy now page, which is indeed version 4. He got v3. Confusion is understandable.

2) He got an email saying he was refunded and the V3 licenses (ALL OF THEM!!) were removed and that he can now go and pay more for the actual Mini V4 he thought he already had. Confusion is VERY understandable.. and even frustration is warranted and understandable

3) He further inquired for information on what actually happened. He got nothing in response. Frustration is now guaranteed and very understandable.

Almost NONE of you people here seem to understand this whole chain of events and just dismiss the guys frustration. This was not a "small" mistake by Arturia or some vague misunderstanding. The email he received was not at all appropriate nor proportionate to the error. Has nothing to do with understanding English or not.


@alexfalcao

You should definitely rename the topic though. You are not doing any favors by being malicious yourself. These are the exact situations where humility and understanding make you a better person (applies to all the rather nasty replies from the mob too, you f**king bullies) and thus also gets you better treatment overall. This does not excuse some of the absolute asshole replies you have gotten here from some people but it does explain them. You are what you eat. You also get the malicious responses due to your own malicious/negative actions. The dark side always feeds the dark side.. and yes, George Lucas is a prophet!

So I'd say nobody here is doing themselves any favors right now. Stop bullying the guy and let him vent. Yes the topic subject should be changed to something less inflammatory but the least you all could do is try to understand what actually happened and not try to trivialize this.

[Uncle E]

Yes it does by law. You can't advertise incorrect prices to potential customers as that falls under false advertising as well. FTC has a lot of laws against practices like that.

Just because companies get away with it doesn't mean it's not against the law. I personally have walked into Guitar Center years ago and employees forget to take down a sale price for an item in store, and they honored the sale price since they were still advertising it.

Yes, I personally honor incorrect prices whenever I can afford to (or at least are not losing a crazy amount of money). My guess is Guitar Center could afford to honor it and so they did. However, if you took them to court over it, you would lose.

[alexfalcao]

That's is my point, mistakes happen, so tell the truth to your customers, don't tell them they bought a wrong product, I, as a customer was thinking in buying a Mini V4. The refund was not the issue here.

Even if you're right, you're starting to be reactive. For your own state of mind, I recommend you let it go and move on.

So I'd say nobody here is doing themselves any favors right now. Stop bullying the guy and let him vent. Yes the topic subject should be changed to something less inflammatory but the least you all could do is try to understand what actually happened and not try to trivialize this.

I'm on KVR for almost 20 year, I knew what was coming...

[miloszz]

Yes it does by law. You can't advertise incorrect prices to potential customers as that falls under false advertising as well. FTC has a lot of laws against practices like that.

This is, again, incorrect. Federal law prohibits misleading customers in a variety of ways - pricing mistakes do not fall under the definition of misleading.

If you're at a Ford dealer and see that a window sticker says $4999 instead of $49999, the Ford dealer does not, in fact, have to sell you a truck for $5000.

Just because companies get away with it doesn't mean it's not against the law. I personally have walked into Guitar Center years ago and employees forget to take down a sale price for an item in store, and they honored the sale price since they were still advertising it.

This has nothing to do with the law - Guitar Center (or more accurately, the sales clerk working on commission and the store management that has sales targets to meet) wants to make the sale and keep the customer happy. Their sale price was still profitable, so they can either risk you throwing a fit/never shopping with them again or eat the 10% that expired last week.

Arturia could have done the same thing here, some shops will. They didn't - which might not be ideal but has nothing to do with "ethics."

[mellotronaut]

recently i tried to sell "Arturia efx Motions". i put "Arturia efx Motions" in the header, but didn't repeat it in the text. there i wrote, "i'd like to sell it, because i upgraded from FX2 to FX5 and so i didn't need it anymore". Gaby told me, i couldn't sell FX2, because i upgraded from FX2 to FX5. She or he or it obviously didn't read the header. i told her, i wanted to sell efx Motions and not FX2 and so i could sell it finally. i suppose, "Gaby" isn't a person, but a not too clever programmed machine learning app.

[alexfalcao]

Yes it does by law. You can't advertise incorrect prices to potential customers as that falls under false advertising as well. FTC has a lot of laws against practices like that.

This is, again, incorrect. Federal law prohibits misleading customers in a variety of ways - pricing mistakes do not fall under the definition of misleading.

If you're at a Ford dealer and see that a window sticker says $4999 instead of $49999, the Ford dealer does not, in fact, have to sell you a truck for $5000.

Just because companies get away with it doesn't mean it's not against the law. I personally have walked into Guitar Center years ago and employees forget to take down a sale price for an item in store, and they honored the sale price since they were still advertising it.

This has nothing to do with the law - Guitar Center (or more accurately, the sales clerk working on commission and the store management that has sales targets to meet) wants to make the sale and keep the customer happy. Their sale price was still profitable, so they can either risk you throwing a fit/never shopping with them again or eat the 10% that expired last week.

Arturia could have done the same thing here, some shops will. They didn't - which might not be ideal but has nothing to do with "ethics."

The reason I mentioned "ethics" in the post, was more for their response, I think was unethical on their part telling me I ordered an old version after I got my Min V registration that is not clear, it just says Mini V, not mentioning the version.

Mini Order.JPG

[miloszz]

That doesn't say anything about the version number. Hence what I said about a database glitch. You had an offer pop up tied to the previous version, a product which is retired but still exists in the database. You purchased it and they sent you an e-mail with the code for V3 - which lo and behold doesn't enter your account... because it's a retired product. So they refunded you because their site glitched and sold you a product that functionally no longer exists.

Now, why is it safe to assume a mistake/glitch? Because not a single other person received this offer - if Arturia was putting up its latest VST for $20 this would have been talked about here or on one of the many sites with 'synth news.'

[IvyBirds]

You purchased it and they sent you an e-mail with the code for V3 - which lo and behold doesn't enter your account... because it's a retired product. So they refunded you because their site glitched and sold you a product that functionally no longer exists.

Now, why is it safe to assume a mistake/glitch? Because not a single other person received this offer - if Arturia was putting up its latest VST for $20 this would have been talked about hear or on one of the many sites with 'synth news.'

In this case they purchased version 3 which is no longer available for sale

And when they placed the order they had to agree to the terms of service
In this case they agreed to a whole bunch of terms. The most relevant are the following two

"The Vendor reserves the right to modify the General Conditions and prices at any time"

So when you buy anything the vendor in the case Arturia reserves the right to modify prices and conditions at any time

And two

"In the event of unavailability of a Product after placing your order, the Vendor will inform the Buyer by electronic means and the order will be automatically cancelled and no bank charges will be made."

Both of which happened here and you got a full refund. You agreed to these terms when you place an order and the only ethical situation is when you choose to not be bound to the terms you agreed to

[thecontrolcentre]

I recently accidently re-bought an Arturia VST from a re-seller during their sale. I later contacted Arturia Support, explained my mistake, and they allowed me to swap it for any plugin I didn't already own, up to the full price of the one I bought by mistake. Took around 24 hours to sort out. Great support imho (AI or not).

[db3]

recently i tried to sell "Arturia efx Motions". i put "Arturia efx Motions" in the header, but didn't repeat it in the text. there i wrote, "i'd like to sell it, because i upgraded from FX2 to FX5 and so i didn't need it anymore". Gaby told me, i couldn't sell FX2, because i upgraded from FX2 to FX5. She or he or it obviously didn't read the header. i told her, i wanted to sell efx Motions and not FX2 and so i could sell it finally. i suppose, "Gaby" isn't a person, but a not too clever programmed machine learning app.

Arturia has generally provided me with excellent support. However, I've experienced confusing, inaccurate, and poor communications from Gaby on more than one occasion.

[felis]

That doesn't say anything about the version number. Hence what I said about a database glitch. You had an offer pop up tied to the previous version, a product which is retired but still exists in the database. You purchased it and they sent you an e-mail with the code for V3 - which lo and behold doesn't enter your account... because it's a retired product. So they refunded you because their site glitched and sold you a product that functionally no longer exists.

Now, why is it safe to assume a mistake/glitch? Because not a single other person received this offer - if Arturia was putting up its latest VST for $20 this would have been talked about here or on one of the many sites with 'synth news.'

Unless I'm reading the thread wrong, you're only getting half of the story.

He already had a mini v3 license, and they removed it when he bought what he thought was mini V4.

[miloszz]

Unless I'm reading the thread wrong, you're only getting half of the story.

He already had a mini v3 license, and they removed when he bought what he thought was mini V4.

He had two (initial post "plus I have 2 Arturia Mini V, one that I bought in 2005 and the Mini V3 that is in the V collection 9.") before the $19.99 purchase, then he had three ("Also, they deleted the Mini V3 that was in my account (I had 3 before including the one in the V collection).") after the purchase, then they refunded the $19.99 and now he has two.

[felis]

If that's the case, then I indeed misunderstood. As long as he still has a mini V3 license, it should be good.
I based my post on the quote below, from the OP:

.....Also, they deleted the Mini V3 that was in my account (I had 3 before including the one in the V collection).

Makes it sound like he doesn't have mini V3, because they deleted it from his account.