[noturbizniss]

DansDeals.com » Blog Archive » PSA: Don’t Mess With The Google!
https://consumerist.com/2016/11/17/i...-pixel-phones/

[Bearcats98]

Seems fair. They didn't follow the agreement and got caught.

[anon(9227267)]

[Zendroid1]

Good. Mess with the bull, you get the horns.

[SlappyMcgee]

I bet there are a lot more people that did this than what Google has caught so far. Part of the reason that so many of us that Pre-ordered on launch day, had to wait so long to get our phones.

[Almeuit]

Seems fair. They didn't follow the agreement and got caught.

Pretty much this.

[JoshDunc]

Good. Nice to see them cracking down on this.

[erasat]

Well not everyone that resells a phone is doing it to make a profit or trying to do some kind of fraud, so unless they did a case by case examination and determined that there was some kind of fault it seems too extreme from Google's side.

I did my pre-order from the Google Store like most of you that have the phone right now, but I ordered the regular Pixel mainly because it was the only one available and thinking that I could get used to the screen size. But as soon as I got it out of the box I knew I wasn't going to be able to keep it, I forced myself for 2 days while checking constantly on Swappa to see if I could find a good deal for a new Pixel XL and once I found it I bought a Verizon (Best Buy) version, it got here in 2 days and I just put my Pixel for sale on Swappa also. There was no profit, I even lost some money mostly on the cover and screen protectors costs, so no biggie there.

So, again, not everybody bought them to just resell them, so you can't just judge everybody by the same rule, a case by case must be done, if not, they are not being fair. What do you think they would prefer, me returning the phone for a full refund and then they needing to resell it as refurbished for a lost or just keep their original sale plus the second one of my Pixel XL?

[Runningwarrior08]

DansDeals.com » Blog Archive » PSA: Don’t Mess With The Google!
https://consumerist.com/2016/11/17/i...-pixel-phones/

This seems like they are mainly cracking down on one reseller because it also looks like a form of tax fraud may be in play.

[still1]

Well not everyone that resells a phone is doing it to make a profit or trying to do some kind of fraud, so unless they did a case by case examination and determined that there was some kind of fault it seems too extreme from Google's side.

I did my pre-order from the Google Store like most of you that have the phone right now, but I ordered the regular Pixel mainly because it was the only one available and thinking that I could get used to the screen size. But as soon as I got it out of the box I knew I wasn't going to be able to keep it, I forced myself for 2 days while checking constantly on Swappa to see if I could find a good deal for a new Pixel XL and once I found it I bought a Verizon (Best Buy) version, it got here in 2 days and I just put my Pixel for sale on Swappa also. There was no profit, I even lost some money mostly on the cover and screen protectors costs, so no biggie there.

So, again, not everybody bought them to just resell them, so you can't just judge everybody by the same rule, a case by case must be done, if not, they are not being fair. What do you think they would prefer, me returning the phone for a full refund and then they needing to resell it as refurbished for a lost or just keep their original sale plus the second one of my Pixel XL?

did u read the article?? what u just said about buying and selling in swappa is perfectly fine with google. u r buying it for yourself and u have total rights to sell it at any time.

100s of people were buying phones and shipping it to same reseller address in new hamshire directly and the reseller share part of the profit with the buyer.
this is case by case and google only banned the account for violating the policy

I am glad they did this because we were like idiots who waited weeks to get the phone and these guys bough their phones and resold it for profit

[Jeremy8000]

Worth noting that, according to that article, "Everyone who has been blocked said they have one thing in common: they bought the Pixel phones through Project Fi and shipped them to the same phone dealer in New Hampshire, who paid them a profit on each phone. There’s no sales tax in that state."

So they're going after those who were part of a coordinated attempt, not your 'average joe.'

[erasat]

did u read the article?? what u just said about buying and selling in swappa is perfectly fine with google. u r buying it for yourself and u have total rights to sell it at any time.

100s of people were buying phones and shipping it to same reseller address in new hamshire directly and the reseller share part of the profit with the buyer.
this is case by case and google only banned the account for violating the policy

I am glad they did this because we were like idiots who waited weeks to get the phone and these guys bough their phones and resold it for profit

Yes, I read the article and like I said, if they didn't go case by case then it was unfair, if they did, then obviously, I'm good with it.

[Almeuit]

Well not everyone that resells a phone is doing it to make a profit or trying to do some kind of fraud, so unless they did a case by case examination and determined that there was some kind of fault it seems too extreme from Google's side.

Since it was all going to one company I doubt a case-by-case examination is needed. Example is a multiple customers all with different billing addresses all over the country all shipping to this one shop -- seems pretty easy to spot.

[Bearcats98]

Well not everyone that resells a phone is doing it to make a profit or trying to do some kind of fraud, so unless they did a case by case examination and determined that there was some kind of fault it seems too extreme from Google's side.

I did my pre-order from the Google Store like most of you that have the phone right now, but I ordered the regular Pixel mainly because it was the only one available and thinking that I could get used to the screen size. But as soon as I got it out of the box I knew I wasn't going to be able to keep it, I forced myself for 2 days while checking constantly on Swappa to see if I could find a good deal for a new Pixel XL and once I found it I bought a Verizon (Best Buy) version, it got here in 2 days and I just put my Pixel for sale on Swappa also. There was no profit, I even lost some money mostly on the cover and screen protectors costs, so no biggie there.

So, again, not everybody bought them to just resell them, so you can't just judge everybody by the same rule, a case by case must be done, if not, they are not being fair. What do you think they would prefer, me returning the phone for a full refund and then they needing to resell it as refurbished for a lost or just keep their original sale plus the second one of my Pixel XL?

As said above this doesn't apply to you. And whether or not its a case by case its their choice and if you violate it...then you violate it. However Google is going after the big fish.

[anon(9227267)]

I spent 20 years as a Correction Officer listening to inmates trying to justify illegal behavior - thanks to those of you who try to do so here - I miss the BS.


There is no RIGHT way to do the WRONG thing

[Topweasel]

They specifically in the ToS specify commercial sales. Not person to person. Selling for profit to a business and in this case making it worse by having them delivered to the business by Google is flagrant flaunting of this policy. I don't know if they care about single device orders on eBay even if sold from a store front but someone ordering 10 of them and doing so might also grab their attention.

[Dorian Anreiter]

I spent 20 years as a Correction Officer listening to inmates trying to justify illegal behavior - thanks to those of you who try to do so here - I miss the BS.


There is no RIGHT way to do the WRONG thing

Are you suggesting that illegal behaviour is always wrong? What about those who broke the law running the underground rail road and stealing people's property ie slaves. Were they wrong? In the third reich being Jewish was against the nurenburg racial purity laws. Was their punishment okay? After all they fell foul of a law. Just because something is illegal it isn't necessarily morally wrong.

[osubeavs728]

Are you suggesting that illegal behaviour is always wrong? What about those who broke the law running the underground rail road and stealing people's property ie slaves. Were they wrong? In the third reich being Jewish was against the nurenburg racial purity laws. Was their punishment okay? After all they fell foul of a law. Just because something is illegal it isn't necessarily morally wrong.

You really swung for the fences there....

[erasat]

I spent 20 years as a Correction Officer listening to inmates trying to justify illegal behavior - thanks to those of you who try to do so here - I miss the BS.


There is no RIGHT way to do the WRONG thing

Are you suggesting that illegal behaviour is always wrong? What about those who broke the law running the underground rail road and stealing people's property ie slaves. Were they wrong? In the third reich being Jewish was against the nurenburg racial purity laws. Was their punishment okay? After all they fell foul of a law. Just because something is illegal it isn't necessarily morally wrong.

Because I'm the only one that hasn't posted a yeah, very good kind of post for Google he is clearly implying that I'm somehow approving illegal behaviors, what clearly tells me that him and those replying to me with clear accusing tones didn't understand my point as I was clearly replying to the specific thread title that says, Google shutting down accounts of Pixel resellers, and I clearly stated that if this is not done on a case by case basis then it's not fair from Google, if they did, and if it's strictly as it says in the article, then, no problem with that and I agree with them. I even explained the reason I'm also a Pixel reseller, if you don't understand that then the problem is not mine, it's yours.

[anthonium]

While I do understand the issue with Dansdeals I have a doubt regarding the general terms for the resale of a Pixel device. In the article it mentions that Google states " We prohibit the commercial resale of devices purchased through Project Fi or the Google Store so everyone has an equal opportunity to purchase devices at a fair price."
Does this mean even if you try to sell your phone through Swappa or Ebay, your account can also be locked? Is the phone's serial attached only to your Google account? So if after a year I want a newer device and try to sell my current one I can't? I'm a bit confused. Can someone clarify?

[gabbott]

While I do understand the issue with Dansdeals I have a doubt regarding the general terms for the resale of a Pixel device. In the article it mentions that Google states " We prohibit the commercial resale of devices purchased through Project Fi or the Google Store so everyone has an equal opportunity to purchase devices at a fair price."
Does this mean even if you try to sell your phone through Swappa or Ebay, your account can also be locked? Is the phone's serial attached only to your Google account? So if after a year I want a newer device and try to sell my current one I can't? I'm a bit confused. Can someone clarify?

I think the key term is commercial resale. They don't prohibit personal resale.

[noturbizniss]

http://www.dansdeals.com/archives/98444
Google has reactivated the suspended accounts!

Here is the message that they each received:

“Hello Google user,

Your Google Account was suspended as part of our fraud prevention efforts, based on violations of our Terms of Service and Terms of Sale for Devices. After reviewing your appeal, we are re-enabling your account.
Google takes violations of our terms very seriously, and we ask that you review relevant terms and product policies to ensure that you understand them. Repeated violations of our terms may lead to account termination.
In order to access your Google account, please sign in. When you sign in, you will be asked to verify a security code via SMS. Once you verify the code, you will be able to access your account again.
Last but not least, we wanted to remind you that Google users can always export and download their data from Google products like Gmail, Photos, and Drive while their account is active. In a few easy steps, you can create an archive to keep for your records or backup your data to another service. More information about backing up your data can be found at google.com/takeout.”

[anon(9227267)]

“We identified a scheme in which consumers were asked to purchase Pixel devices on behalf of a reseller, who then marked-up the cost of those devices in order to resell them to other customers. We prohibit the commercial resale of devices purchased through Project Fi or the Google Store so everyone has an equal opportunity to purchase devices at a fair price. Many of the accounts suspended were created for the sole purpose of this scheme. After investigating the situation, we are restoring access to genuine accounts for customers who are locked out of many Google services they"
-----------------
This explains what happened and why the accounts were originally suspended - they are restoring "genuine" accounts.
I had this happen to me with my TechNet account - some one on a site I frequented was buying TechNet keys and selling them - an illegal act - after MS completed their investigation they reinstated my account and credited me for the time it was not available to me. Goes to prove that companies do keep an eye on things.

[Almeuit]

Because I'm the only one that hasn't posted a yeah, very good kind of post for Google he is clearly implying that I'm somehow approving illegal behaviors, what clearly tells me that him and those replying to me with clear accusing tones didn't understand my point as I was clearly replying to the specific thread title that says, Google shutting down accounts of Pixel resellers, and I clearly stated that if this is not done on a case by case basis then it's not fair from Google, if they did, and if it's strictly as it says in the article, then, no problem with that and I agree with them. I even explained the reason I'm also a Pixel reseller, if you don't understand that then the problem is not mine, it's yours.

And did you read my response to you? .

[erasat]

And did you read my response to you? .

Yes, and I wasn't talking about you, yours was the only one that doesn't sound like if it was accusing me, sorry if you thought I was talking about you.