You need not be a lawyer to recognize that their policy is a violation of consumer protection laws in the US. It may be safer for BFL to hold investor pre-order funds hostage, but that doesn't supersede FTC prompt delivery regulations. Regulations which they've been in violation of for months already.
Hey, remember the old "orders will be refundable after 12/31/2012 if we fail to deliver" language? Man, those were the days!
Hey, remember the old "orders will be refundable after 12/31/2012 if we fail to deliver" language? Man, those were the days!
BFL being in violation of FTC prompt delivery regulations helps customers how? They can't be directed to deliver a product which doesn't exist. They can be directed to give refunds but to date they've been doing that voluntarily anyway. They can likely be fined, but that doesn't directly benefit customers (administrative penalties generally don't).
BFL would argue that failure to request a refund amounted to consent by the customers to the delay. Customers would argue that they failed to cancel because BFL repeatedly led them to believe that delivery was imminent.
When dealing with regulatory agencies, one of the first questions you need to ask is what you want them to do?
Don't care.
In fact I don't think much more of the FTC than I do the CFTC or even BFL for that matter. We all know what they've done. We all know how much they've cost people with their bs. We all know the character of the execs at BFL. How many people sold their FPGAs in anticipation of BFL's HONEST ABE October shipping schedule? GPU farms? They've cost a lot of people some serious change with their scammy shell games, deceptive marketing ploys, and outright lies. It's not my problem, I never ordered from them, and I sure ain't gonna run and tell daddy on them, but I also refuse to gloss over the slimy scammy nature of what these con men have done.
