Well, after asking the BBB's investigator for some clarification about why BFL was judged as doing nothing wrong, here's what I got:
I think if you take them to court, you have a case for a refund. I also think they have a case for not providing one. There's always nuance.
Sections of contracts/agreements trump federal regulations all the time and vice versa. Sometimes regulations dictate that certain agreements are inherently deceptive, and void the agreement. On the other hand (more often), if you agree to certain provisions, regulations that guard consumers no longer apply. They are simply nullified by your assent.
By explaining that your funds are being used right now in the development process, and stating that all pre-order sales are final, they can certainly make the case in court that no refunds are due, because everyone agreed to the terms. At that point, a judge would determine if the company is making a good faith effort to provide the pre-ordered products. This is where it gets tricky because it's completely subjective. How many months should consumers wait for a product that should have, by all accounts, been delivered in May or June? We frequently run into this problem with open-ended roofing contracts, in which customers are waiting way too long for service. Court cases conclude with varying results on a case-by-case basis.
A few things:
1. I think we all agree that Butterfly Labs made mistakes and angered a lot of customers, especially with their use of "two months or more."
2. Based on their reputation in the industry, and materials they've provided, it appears that they are making a good faith effort to provide customers with the ordered products.
3. It is, in reality, implausible for BFL to retract their funds from development. Even though this isn't the customer's problem, it is a practical hurdle when trying to get a company to resolve a complaint filed through the BBB.
In most delivery complaints, the BBB is looking for the company to either produce the ordered products or provide refunds. In this case, they have consistently said they will provide the products by a specified date. We want to give the company an opportunity to correct this problem before turning the issue over to any regulatory agency. If we hear from you or any other customers that the goal posts have been moved back again, and they haven't made any progress with deliveries by Sept 30, we will re-open the complaints and likely contact the Attorney General's Office about it. But, right now, we think that would be premature and yield little results.
So it doesn't look like they're going to be much help until October, if at all.
