New investments beat defamatory rubbish.
1 Like
So Purism doesnāt honor their own policies and FTC rules despite having the financial means to do so? How exactly does that put Purism in a better light?
3 Likes
Iām making a fuss about misinformation.
Yep, totally I accept that. You are not the OP.
Loop back to 21 days ago. This topic is Groundhog Day.
Because Purism has to follow the law. See my first answer to this defamatory rubbish thread. If FTC actually instructed Purism to pay out the refunds it would be done with no delay. The thing is that FTC never instructed Purism to do this except in a few cases. The often repeated claim that Purism breaks FTC rules is nothing but the Illusory truth effect and defamatory rubbish.
You seem to have a weird understanding of how laws work. Itās not job of the FTC to remind others to follow their rules. Itās their job to establish those rules and fine companies if they violate them.
The rules are there, layed out in great detail and Purism is absolutely violating them. We donāt even know if and how often the FTC fined them for that. They probably didnāt do it enough, likely because there are bigger fish out there and too few users actually reported them.
3 Likes
Can you quote the section(s) of the FTC rules which exempts Purism from having to provide prompt refunds in case of delayed orders?
2 Likes
Refuting perpetual defamatory rubbish? Sorry but thatās a bad strategy.
Instead I trust FTC and their rulings.
Vertebra - Iām not sure if you are really, really ignotant of the facts or acting in bad faith hereā¦ you had the oipportunity to clarify your positiion but make references to FTC ārulingsā which you refuse to provide any citation ofā¦
Iām going to give you the benifit of the doubt. You seem to be confusing the phrase āruleā with ārulingāā¦
Here is a link to the FTCās āMail or Telephone Order Merchandise Ruleā which Purism is violating by refusing refunds for Librem5 orders.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-435
Do you trust this āruleā or is there some ārulingā that supercedes this, and if so would you be willing to share it with us?
Assuming, again, that you are acting in good-faith here.
1 Like
Reads, to me, more like refusing to accept the rule could be violated since thereās been no published āweāre penalizing you for the violationā which is a bit like saying āyeah I see someone going faster than all the people doing the speed limit, but theyāre not speeding because they havenāt been convicted in court for speeding yetāā¦
ā¦is that what you are saying @Vertebra?
Crimes are only commited if a culprit is convicted?
Iāve read the rule and it looks to me like Purism is in violation. Have you read it? Do you dissagree?
Help us understand your position.
1 Like
I said Purism (The Company), Librem (The Product), and the CEO (Todd Weaver) comes up clean when you search on FTC.
Feel free to disagree with FTC who actually have the facts, legal competences and responsibility.
Thatās not how this works. When Iām running a red light Iām already violating rules, even when no cop is watching and fining me.
2 Likes
FTC is watching for sure.
So youāre argumentation is based on an assumption that the FTC is aware of Purism and found no violation. Versus our argument is based on actually applying the FTC rules to the behavior of Purism.
I mean there are even examples of other companies which almost exactly did the same shit as Purism. Lily Robotics for example allowed people to pre-order drones, then had to delay the shipment (exactly like Purism did with their Librem 5 and 13) and then later got sued for violating FTC rules, since they had to aquire the consent of their customers for the delayed shipment and if no consent was given, provide prompt refunds, which they didnāt provide. Obviously the FTC didnāt intervene immediately, but now this company is gone.
2 Likes
Lily Robotics never shipped any products. Purism is shipping current products and developing new products.
1 Like
Please quote the section of the FTC rules which says something akin to āThose rules donāt apply to you when you are shipping and developing new productsā.
2 Likes
My point was any comparison between Purism and Lily Robotics is irrelevant.
1 Like
No, youāre saying the FTC rules donāt apply to Purism without providing a source for that. Lily Robotics was sued based the same rules which Purism is violating as well, hence the comparison is completely valid.
2 Likes
No, the heading has a factual core and a derivation from it. is therefore not plucked out of thin air. Your statement, on the other hand, defeats a possible discussion!
1 Like