Weaponization, bait and switch
Highly questionable business practices at Earpress. Seller reached out to inform me post-order-placement that I needed to make an additional payment for my already-purchased order of an ear compression device. The entire situation left me feeling very concerned and turned-off for numerous reasons. 1) I was wary to give my business from the start after reviewing the seller’s many passive-aggressive responses to their negative store reviews on Etsy. 2) Seller claimed this additional payment request was intended to cover US tariffs— so instead of transparently raising their overall store prices to account for tariffs (possibly turning potential customers away), SELLER FOUND IT APPROPRIATE TO BAIT AND SWITCH ME. 3) Seller provided PayPal as an option for additional payment— PayPal’s convenient dispute process I have found is often used to finagle people out of their money. Note: the only other payment option available was an un-detailed invoice with a button to pay immediately. 4) Seller likes to communicate via WhatsApp— an untraceable comm platform known to be commonly used for scams. 5) Seller said that for this additional payment intended to cover US tariffs “I [they] charge CAD25.00 on single items”. US tariff amounts themselves are obviously decided on by the govt not merchants, and the current US tariff amount is not based on the number of items in a parcel but rather on the ad valorem value of the parcel (its actual price/transactional worth). 6) I provided the seller with detailed math calculations reflecting that their additional charge of CAD$25 was an inaccurate overcharge in accounting for US tariffs applied to my order. I asked if they would be providing me with receipts of what they pay in tariffs for my order. In response they only told me that CAD$25 covers US tariffs, zonos fees, and “a few extra dollars for a lot of extra time on my [seller’s] part”. So— the seller’s claim that their additional charge of CAD$25 was for the purpose of covering US tariffs was in-part dishonest and most definitely misleading. Note: Seller decided they’re justified to entitle themself, why?? I didn’t entitle MYSELF to “a few extra dollars for a lot of extra time on my part” in reference to the extended transit time that it would take for me to receive my international parcel due to current trade. The bottomline is that we would both deal with the inconvenience of time at some point in our transaction, so time was ultimately a weak and nonsensical justification for squeezing a larger profit out of me. One positive indication of the business’ ethicality was that the seller made it easy for me to cancel my order. Although, I DO consider that I may have just presented a “difficult con” kind of situation for the seller, so it was more convenient to just disengage me at that point. Another positive indication of the business’ ethicality was that I was soon thereafter my experience offered to re-order my product tariff-free due to recent national tariff changes. Although I DO consider that the seller’s offer could’ve been calculative seeing as how it was only valid for a persuasive limited-time of a few days, and that the seller was going to persuasively (and unethically) reinstate HER tariff prices afterward. I also consider that the seller was “offering this [deal] to potential customers who cancelled orders due to tariffs,” which indicates to me that the seller has NUMEROUS skeptics of whom didn’t fall for her bait and switch and that seller may just be trying to desperately backpedal on their con to convert their sales losses into wins. All of these untrustworthy factors of my experience individually, the benefit of the doubt regarding Earpress’ credibility is greater. All of these untrustworthy factors of my experience combined into one, the benefit of the doubt regarding Earpress’ credibility is hardly present.
By Jal