(9 of 2273 reviews match)
I pay for Amazon Prime. I ordered two items, both said Prime Free Same Day Shipping. I even screen printed each page that showed that. I put items in cart, went to checkout - shipping charge showed for Same Day! Ordered items anyway, accepted 2 day, the only free...
- False advertising
Reason of review
Poor customer service
Amazon in Austin, Texas - Wrong Part Sent; Can't Understand Rep; So Far NO GOOD!!
This is my first time ordering from Amazon. Ordered a part for my wife's car. Seller (FU-Auto) sends the wrong part. As you can see from the picture below, there are no letters on the grill. The description says it's for a GTI and GLI. The one I received has GTI on it. Wasn't expecting it to have any letters. I started the return process. Seller offers me $8. EIGHT!!! Now I know what the *** stands for. Called Amazon b/c I don't know what's going on. I cannot understand a *** word the rep is saying. Also cannot hear what she's saying because of all the background noise AND she keeps breaking up for some reason. So far Amazon SUCKS!!! I emailed *** to try and understand if I understood him/her correctly. That was just a few minutes ago. I hope like *** they have better news for me.
Reason of review
Return, Exchange or Cancellation Policy
Resolved: Amazon in Austin, Texas - Never delivered!
I usually love Amazon, but recently I ordered a product online and that changed my entire view about them. product never arrived from amazon seller! I will never order from Amazon again, next time I will go with ebay! I usually love Amazon, but recently I ordered a product online and that changed my entire view about them. product never arrived from amazon seller! I will never order from Amazon again, next time I will go with ebay!I usually love Amazon, but recently I ordered a product online and that changed my entire view about them. product never arrived from amazon seller! I will never order from Amazon again, next time I will go with ebay!
Reason of review
Problem with delivery
Amazon in Austin, Texas - DEFRAUDED OUT OF $321
Three years ago I clicked on the "FREE SHIPPING" link when I purchase some items. I do not know why I was not informed that this free shipping was going to cost me an annual membership of $107 a year. They said a pop-up came up and in small print it states the annual membership fee. I have pop-up blocker and need reading glasses too. I never saw that message about the membership fee. I often bought through Amazon over the past three years so with my busy schedule and frequent purchases I didn't notice the $107 charge till recently. Amazon refuses to pay the money back. My shipping would have been much less had I not clicked on the "FREE SHIPPING" link! I REFUSE DO BUSINESS WITH AMAZON AGAIN! I contacted a class action attorney who told me about the two laws below that our SUPREME COURT passed. IT IS URGENT THAT WE VOTE WISELY THIS ELECTION SEASON! Corporate America is buying our freedoms from the REPUBLICANS who constantly side with Corporate America instead of the united States citizen. PLEASE CLICK ON LINKS TO READ THE ARTICLES OR READ THE ARTICLES THAT I PASTED BELLOW! The ‘Citizens United’ decision and why it matters http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters?gclid=CjwKEAjwuYOeBRCy3pLljpjDkDcSJAAhA4mt-eNDxKF2qYF9gaktIoR9tFzDPuKuPX-ZjEB_PmZaoBoCdGjw_wcB By now most folks know that the U.S. Supreme Court did something that changed how money can be spent in elections and by whom, but what happened and why should you care? The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates. In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. The decision did not affect contributions. It is still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office. The court said that because these funds were not being spent in coordination with a campaign, they “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” So if the decision was about spending, why has so much been written about contributions? Like seven and eight-figure donations from people like casino magnate and billionaire Sheldon Adelson who, with his family, has given about $40 million to so-called “super PACs,” formed in the wake of the decision? For that, we need to look at another court case — SpeechNow.org v. FEC. The lower-court case used the Citizens United case as precedent when it said that limits on contributions to groups that make independent expenditures are unconstitutional. And that’s what led to the creation of the super PACs, which act as shadow political parties. They accept unlimited donations from billionaires, corporations and unions and use it to buy advertising, most of it negative. The Supreme Court kept limits on disclosure in place, and super PACs are required to report regularly on who their donors are. The same can’t be said for “social welfare” groups and some other nonprofits, like business leagues. These groups can function the same way as super PACs, so long as election activity is not their primary activity. But unlike the super PACs, nonprofits do not report who funds them. That’s disturbing to those who favor transparency in elections. An attempt by Congress to pass a law requiring disclosure was blocked by Republican lawmakers. The Citizens United decision was surprising given the sensitivity regarding corporate and union money being used to influence a federal election. Congress first banned corporations from funding federal campaigns in 1907 with the Tillman Act. In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act extended the ban to labor unions. But the laws were weak and tough to enforce. It wasn’t until 1971 that Congress got serious and passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, which required the full reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures. It limited spending on media advertisements. But that portion of the law was ruled unconstitutional — and that actually opened the door for the Citizens United decision. Spending is speech, and is therefore protected by the Constitution — even if the speaker is a corporation. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/att-mobility-v-concepcion/ Docket No. 09-893 Op. Below 9th Cir. Argument Nov 9, 2010 Tr.Aud. Opinion Apr 27, 2011 Vote 5-4 Author Scalia Term OT 2010 Holding: California state contract law, which deems class-action waivers in arbitration agreements unenforceable when certain criteria are met, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act because it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Plain English Holding: Under the Federal Arbitration Act, California must enforce arbitration agreements even if the agreement requires that consumer complaints be arbitrated individually (instead of on a class-action basis). Judgment: Ninth Circuit Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on April 27, 2011. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters?gclid=CjwKEAjwuYOeBRCy3pLljpjDkDcSJAAhA4mt-eNDxKF2qYF9gaktIoR9tFzDPuKuPX-ZjEB_PmZaoBoCdGjw_wcB WHO WILL YOU VOTE FOR THIS YEAR? CUT AND PASTE THESE LAWS AND PASS THEM ON.
Book Rental Review
Rented a book for a fair price and blindly trusted the service because I trust Amazon. I returned the book on time and in the same condition I received it. Today I received an email informing me that my return was "rejected" (because of supposed torn pages) and I was simultaneously charged over $350! What a scam! The book is not even worth $300 brand new! Apex Media needs to be marked fraudulent because they stole my money! They are thieves! *It is worth mentioning that Amazon's representatives seemed to do all they could to help me. Still, I can not say I am impressed with their policy on this issue. I am a college student and already facing financial hardships. What a burden this has become!
Amazon in Austin, Texas - Amazing.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I LOVEEE Amazon. We ordered two pairs of shoes and 1 arrived on time and the other even arrived a day early! We love it. Also Amazon has everything. There isn't a thing that I have looked for that I haven't found there before. It's absolutely wonderful. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Unfair treatment by Amazon customer service
This company not only staffs rude people at the bottom, but sets policies showing bad decisions at the top. I joined for a free trial of Amazon Prime, then one week later received a Smart TV for xmas, which said it came with a 30 day trial. So I cancelled the membership on the PC the next day. Then in a week and a half, the membership on my television stops working. I call and explain the misunderstanding and am told that only one trial membership per person will be given. OK, so please give me the rest of the 30 days that I have not used yet on either device. No one listens, no one cares. One girl laughs and hangs up on me when I ask to please speak to management. I'm certainly not going to get any help from people that read from a script, so of course I'd like to talk to someone who will answer: how is this a good business decision? I will never join Prime, never buy another book from Amazon on my Kindle, and will make sure this company never gets another penny from me. And will share this will my friends and colleagues.
Amazon Stealing iPhone 5 Order Funds
On December 13 2012, I placed an order online for an Apple iPhone 5 Unlocked for $780.94. On Amazon's website, it shows the phone was to be shipped by D's Sportswear and arrive for Christmas. On December 17th, we received an email from D's Sportswear informing us that Amazon has severed its relationship and that my order would not be filled. They promised to refund Amazon as soon as possible. Amazon's Customer Service states that D's Sportswear is a 3rd party supplier and that Amazon has no control over their suppliers. My position is I purchased from Amazon. Amazon tells me that I must pay for another Apple iPhone 5 and hopefully sometime after Christmas a refund will be processed by Amazon. Financially that is not an option for me and secondly, Amazon should stand behind its corporate reputation and not place consumers in the middle between it and its suppliers. I do not want my money refunded - I simply want what I purchased at the price that I paid Amazon. Amazon is ruining Christmas for customers!!
Never buy textbooks from Amazon
Amzon and its supplier are deliberately holding back shipments to force customers to buy more expensive shipping options. and when you buy textbooks that are required by school start, you can get stuck paying them more money for a delayed delivery. esp. because of their sneaky business practices. On their website they say their super saver shipping takes 5 to 10 business days, but they dont event ship for 10 days, and then it takes 5 more days in shipping to reach you thus taking as much as 3 to 4 weeks before you get your textbooks. and the worse thing is the "other" sellers on Amazon are taking their cue from Amazon and doing the same thing.
Thank You for Your Reply!
Thank You for Your Reply! We are processing your message.
Thank You for Your Submission
Your comment is successfully posted.
Do you have something to say about Amazon? What happened? What can we help you with?