Disappointed in Discloser for Backpack Coupon

[Mattjax16]

Just wanted to mention how disappointed I am in the failure to disclose the expiration date for the 25$ coupon code until after you click on the virtual warranty and 25$ coupon. I was not informed of this expiration date before as it is no where in the original email sent out to people and then after you click the first thing you see is it saying 

• Receiving this discount code confirms your acceptance of the updated "Virtual Dual-layer" warranty terms and opts you out from the extended return window offer.

I would guess that since they showed the code this means reviving it….

 

this is a shame because it is only at the bottom of this page does it say 

 

• This discount code must be used before February 29^th 2024 at 11:59:59pm Pacific.

 

@LinusTech just curious as to why this wasn’t disclosed on the original email and only after you make your choice…. Also can I get a refund at this point instead. (I emailed support as well)

[LinusTech]

Yeah you can have a refund instead if you aren't satisfied either the bag.

 

No one was meant to be misled. We just needed to have an expiry of some sort on the credit for accounting purposes. 

[_thebash]

Would have been nice to have 6-12 months for the date on the coupon. Especially for those non-American folks who may do larger orders less 1-2 times a year 

[manikyath]

2 hours ago, LinusTech said:

We just needed to have an expiry of some sort on the credit for accounting purposes. 

an expiry of two months does seem short - i'm curious if the accounting purpose is the reason for this?

[Somtaw]

15 hours ago, LinusTech said:

Yeah you can have a refund instead if you aren't satisfied either the bag.

 

No one was meant to be misled. We just needed to have an expiry of some sort on the credit for accounting purposes. 

Personally speaking, I like the bag and am really not inclined to refund it, but I wish there had been some sort of "return & replace" option for when backpacks made to the original advertised spec are available. Otherwise I'm just out a backpack while I wait an indeterminate amount of time for the error to be rectified.

As to the $25 credit, it already felt pretty underwhelming since there isn't anything currently in the store that I'm interested in (plus it boils down to "just" free shipping), and giving it an expiration date just makes it a near certainty that I won't redeem it. Frankly I've been hesitating clicking either link because neither feels like a good option. And I mean, I get it, it's a rock and a hard place for everyone involved, but that squeezed feeling shouldn't be translating down to the end user. 

End of the day, I'll still be keeping an ear to the ground for whichever wave of bags reintroduces the dual layer bottom. I appreciate the warranty being beefed up, and understand how unlikely I am to wear through a single layer, but I kinda still just want the bag I bought with the features as-advertised, y'know? 

[crazzp]

5 hours ago, Somtaw said:

but I wish there had been some sort of "return & replace" option for when backpacks made to the original advertised spec are available

I think this is highly unlikely due to the associated costs. It's like providing a new backpack for tens of thousands of buyers, covering the shipping cost for all of their returns and they end up with a warehouse full of used backpacks. 

[Somtaw]

3 hours ago, crazzp said:

I think this is highly unlikely due to the associated costs. It's like providing a new backpack for tens of thousands of buyers, covering the shipping cost for all of their returns and they end up with a warehouse full of used backpacks. 

Again, I understand it's a tough situation, but not having any avenue for buyers to get the backpack they actually ordered is kind of shite, and an expiring coupon that equates to less than 10% of what came out of pocket heavily erodes a lot of my sympathy. Honestly, this whole debacle is skirting extremely closely to becoming a false advertising situation and running afoul of both federal and provincial consumer protection laws. 

[crazzp]

4 hours ago, Somtaw said:

false advertising situation and running afoul of both federal and provincial consumer protection laws

lol at "false advertising". False advertising meant that the advertiser deliberately and intentionally made a false or misleading statement. The real funny part is that Linus expose this issue himself cutting the bag live. I don't think you can ever call that false advertising. You're getting emotional here. 

 

It's not like the bottom layer is going to wear out under normal use. And if it did, you can get a NEW and FREE replacement bag! 

 

And at the end of the day, if you're not happy you can just refund it. So I'm not sure what laws you are talking about. 

[Somtaw]

1 hour ago, crazzp said:

lol at "false advertising". False advertising meant that the advertiser deliberately and intentionally made a false or misleading statement. The real funny part is that Linus expose this issue himself cutting the bag live. I don't think you can ever call that false advertising. You're getting emotional here. 

 

It's not like the bottom layer is going to wear out under normal use. And if it did, you can get a NEW and FREE replacement bag! 

 

And at the end of the day, if you're not happy you can just refund it. So I'm not sure what laws you are talking about. 

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not saying that it was deliberate by any means, but a lack of adequate testing is an aspect of consumer protection laws in BC when it pertains to an advertised feature. 

I think you should go back and read my original comment again. 

[crazzp]

14 minutes ago, Somtaw said:

but a lack of adequate testing is an aspect of consumer protection laws in BC

Oh now the goal post has shifted from 'false advertising' to 'a lack of adequate testing breaking law'

 

Yes there are test related to safety but I have never heard of tests checking whether a product is meeting its spec. Please furnish such laws that you mention of.

Besides, they did their testing and at some point of time, the manufacturer just decided to cut cost.

 

 

[Somtaw]

8 minutes ago, crazzp said:

Oh now the goal post has shifted from 'false advertising' to 'a lack of adequate testing breaking law'

 

Yes there are test related to safety but I have never heard of tests checking whether a product is meeting its spec. Please furnish such laws that you mention of.

Besides, they did their testing and at some point of time, the manufacturer just decided to cut cost.

 

 

When I say "false advertising", I'm referring to Canadian consumer protection laws that fall under the umbrella of "false or misleading representations" under the Competition Act. Sorry for not being more specific, but it's not moving the goalposts. 

Performance claims not based on an adequate and proper test (canada.ca)

Edit to add: I think I should clarify that I'm not advocating for this sort of case to be brought against LMG, nor do I *want* to see such a thing. Hell, I'm far from sure that it would meet the bar by any means either way. However, I do think it's worth noting that there is language in both provincial and federal legislation that, from a cursory layman's overview, could be seen as applicable to this situation and may be a potential pitfall. 

[Spotty]

1 hour ago, crazzp said:

lol at "false advertising". False advertising meant that the advertiser deliberately and intentionally made a false or misleading statement. The real funny part is that Linus expose this issue himself cutting the bag live. I don't think you can ever call that false advertising. You're getting emotional here. 

It was falsely advertised as having a double layer bottom when it in fact did not have this feature. Whether this was intentional or not does not change the fact that the advertisement claiming it had a double layer bottom was false. False advertisement does not require it to be done intentionally. Falsely advertising features of a product through negligence is still false and misleading advertising.

You really need to chill. This aint the big argument you're trying to make it. People can express that they're disappointed in the situation without you needing to argue that they're wrong.

[LinusTech]

53 minutes ago, Somtaw said:

When I say "false advertising", I'm referring to Canadian consumer protection laws that fall under the umbrella of "false or misleading representations" under the Competition Act. Sorry for not being more specific, but it's not moving the goalposts. 

Performance claims not based on an adequate and proper test (canada.ca)

Edit to add: I think I should clarify that I'm not advocating for this sort of case to be brought against LMG, nor do I *want* to see such a thing. Hell, I'm far from sure that it would meet the bar by any means either way. However, I do think it's worth noting that there is language in both provincial and federal legislation that, from a cursory layman's overview, could be seen as applicable to this situation and may be a potential pitfall. 

No, there's no pitfall here.

 

Anyone who was unhappy could get a refund, plain and simple. We conducted a voluntary recall. There's no issue.

 

The $25 credit was a goodwill gesture. 

[Somtaw]

2 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

No, there's no pitfall here.

 

Anyone who was unhappy could get a refund, plain and simple. We conducted a voluntary recall. There's no issue.

 

The $25 credit was a goodwill gesture. 

Here's the thing that seems to keep being missed; I don't want a refund. I like the bag. I just want it to be the bag I thought I was buying.

I would take the refund, and use it to buy a backpack that had the originally as-advertised features, except that there's no timeframe on when (or even if) two-layer bags will be available. The $25 credit *would* be a nice gesture, if a little underwhelming, but sticking an expiration date on it just means that it might as well not have been on offer at all. 

Like I say, I understand that it's a tough situation without a lot of real good solutions, but that shouldn't leave the customer feeling like they're also between a rock and a hard place when it comes to actually receiving the product they wanted. 

[LinusTech]

13 minutes ago, Somtaw said:

Here's the thing that seems to keep being missed; I don't want a refund. I like the bag. I just want it to be the bag I thought I was buying.

I would take the refund, and use it to buy a backpack that had the originally as-advertised features, except that there's no timeframe on when (or even if) two-layer bags will be available. The $25 credit *would* be a nice gesture, if a little underwhelming, but sticking an expiration date on it just means that it might as well not have been on offer at all. 

Like I say, I understand that it's a tough situation without a lot of real good solutions, but that shouldn't leave the customer feeling like they're also between a rock and a hard place when it comes to actually receiving the product they wanted. 

If it ever naturally wear through, we will replace it with an all-new bag. The 'virtual second layer' is our response to those folks. We've got u.

[Spotty]

10 minutes ago, Somtaw said:

Here's the thing that seems to keep being missed; I don't want a refund. I like the bag. I just want it to be the bag I thought I was buying.

I would take the refund, and use it to buy a backpack that had the originally as-advertised features, except that there's no timeframe on when (or even if) two-layer bags will be available. The $25 credit *would* be a nice gesture, if a little underwhelming, but sticking an expiration date on it just means that it might as well not have been on offer at all. 

Like I say, I understand that it's a tough situation without a lot of real good solutions, but that shouldn't leave the customer feeling like they're also between a rock and a hard place when it comes to actually receiving the product they wanted. 

My advice; Keep the bag you currently have. Use it till the wheels fall off so to speak and if you do ever have a problem with the bottom of the bag get it replaced under warranty. By the time you wear through the bottom of the bag (if ever) they'll hopefully have these issues fixed and the replacement bag you get would be good. If the single layer bottom bag you have never wears through with normal use then you avoided having to go through the hassle of exchanging the bag.

Accepting the $25 coupon doesn't mean you can't claim warranty if there's ever a problem with the bottom layer. It's just a little extra compensation on top.

 

Quote

UPDATE DEC 9 2023: Virtual Double-layer Clause
Originally, our messaging around the backpack claimed an advertised feature of a "dual-layer bottom panel." On December 1, 2023, it was discovered that the production version of this Backpack did not include the dual-layer bottom panel. As such, we have added an additional point of coverage for bags which feature only one layer of material on the bottom panel. In the event that this single-layer bottom panel wears through under normal use, lttstore.com will provide a replacement Backpack upon return of the damaged unit. This clause does not cover:

• damages caused by misuse, abuse, negligence;
• intentional damage;
• products purchased from unauthorized dealers; or
• unauthorized modification or alteration.

 

Though, yeah. I would like to see the coupon expiry date extended at least a few more months.

[Somtaw]

1 minute ago, LinusTech said:

If it ever naturally wear through, we will replace it with an all-new bag. The 'virtual second layer' is our response to those folks. We've got u.

And I do sincerely appreciate the effort with the warranty clause. I know I'm probably coming across as all negativity, which is definitely not how I feel about the backpack. As someone who has spent too much on too many backpacks over the years, I really, really, *really*  like this bag, and I don't want that fact to get lost in this discussion. Thanks for taking the time to reply, it's always appreciated. 

 

1 minute ago, Spotty said:

My advice; Keep the bag you currently have. Use it till the wheels fall off so to speak and if you do ever have a problem with the bottom of the bag get it replaced under warranty. By the time you wear through the bottom of the bag (if ever) they'll hopefully have these issues fixed and the replacement bag you get would be good. If the single layer bottom bag you have never wears through with normal use then you avoided having to go through the hassle of exchanging the bag.

Accepting the $25 coupon doesn't mean you can't claim warranty if there's ever a problem with the bottom layer. It's just a little extra compensation on top.

 

 

Though, yeah. I would like to see the coupon expiry date extended at least a few more months.

Yeah, that's pretty well what I settled on. I know it's not an entirely rational desire given the current build quality and the warranty extension, but a part of my brain keeps going "you didn't get what you paid for", which is 100% a "me" problem. 

I'm just going to pretend the $25 credit never existed. It can't hurt me if it doesn't exist. 

[LinusTech]

1 hour ago, Somtaw said:

And I do sincerely appreciate the effort with the warranty clause. I know I'm probably coming across as all negativity, which is definitely not how I feel about the backpack. As someone who has spent too much on too many backpacks over the years, I really, really, *really*  like this bag, and I don't want that fact to get lost in this discussion. Thanks for taking the time to reply, it's always appreciated. 

 

Yeah, that's pretty well what I settled on. I know it's not an entirely rational desire given the current build quality and the warranty extension, but a part of my brain keeps going "you didn't get what you paid for", which is 100% a "me" problem. 

I'm just going to pretend the $25 credit never existed. It can't hurt me if it doesn't exist. 

You can also just use it. Think of it as free shipping for your order when we launch the cable management stuff in Q1

[DeerDK]

4 hours ago, Somtaw said:

Here's the thing that seems to keep being missed; I don't want a refund. I like the bag. I just want it to be the bag I thought I was buying.

I would take the refund, and use it to buy a backpack that had the originally as-advertised features, except that there's no timeframe on when (or even if) two-layer bags will be available. The $25 credit *would* be a nice gesture, if a little underwhelming, but sticking an expiration date on it just means that it might as well not have been on offer at all. 

Like I say, I understand that it's a tough situation without a lot of real good solutions, but that shouldn't leave the customer feeling like they're also between a rock and a hard place when it comes to actually receiving the product they wanted. 

If you like the bag, but just want it to be as advertised, then return the one you have, get the full refund and then order a new one that is to spec. 

You can't really magic an extra layer onto your existing bag. They offer a refund, and what is keeping you from ordering a new one after that? 

[Dutch_Master]

6 hours ago, crazzp said:

the manufacturer just decided to cut cost

That's not what happened, as Linus explained in the follow-up WAN show. A new employee at the manufacturer, not involved with the original design, saw the double layer bottom in the design file, assumed it was erroneous and removed it from the design at the moment said design was approved by LMG for production. It's also important to understand this entire saga wouldn't have been so public if Linus hadn't been so impatient and cut the mining-backpack live on WAN show in the first place. If he hadn't, the Labs team would have found the error and there would have been much more time to confer with the manufacturer, who is solely to blame IMO, to work out a compensation plan for backpack buyers. The full-on "recall and replace" action I've seen being demanded earlier in this topic could very well mean a bankruptcy of the manufacturer, which is neither in the interest of said manufacturer, but also LMG and essentially, any backpack buyer as well. The current compensation plan LMG came up with is the best they could do in the timeframe they had (less then a week!) so, IMO, as LMG is not at fault, @LinusTech has a generous offer on the table with the "virtual double layer" warranty.

 

Disclaimer: I did not buy the backpack, so not affected by the issue. At all

[Somtaw]

15 hours ago, LinusTech said:

You can also just use it. Think of it as free shipping for your order when we launch the cable management stuff in Q1

Hahahaha, I appreciate the commitment to the upsell, but I'm not down for spending $30-$50 bucks (I'm guessing, I don't know what the price point for them will be) on something I don't particularly want or need for fear of missing out on the credit. Especially given the USD conversion rate right now, it feels a bit like spending ten to save a toonie. 

Edit: Tried to apply the coupon against the torx bits, because screw it, free bits. It does not appear to apply to the shipping, so can't really think of it that way. 

[Needfuldoer]

Give someone an inch, they'll take a mile. Give them a mile, they'll demand two.

[Vulpes lagopus]

7 hours ago, Needfuldoer said:

Give someone an inch, they'll take a mile. Give them a mile, they'll demand two.

I'm going to rock the boat till i get enough inches to cover the bottom of my backpack. If I ever trigger the virtual double layer I can toss in another €100 for import duties. Something that $25 with a expiration date that suits their taxes fillings is not going to cover.

[Erioch]

1 hour ago, Vulpes lagopus said:

I'm going to rock the boat till i get enough inches to cover the bottom of my backpack. If I ever trigger the virtual double layer I can toss in another €100 for import duties. Something that $25 with a expiration date that suits their taxes fillings is not going to cover.

[Razercake]

7 hours ago, Vulpes lagopus said:

I'm going to rock the boat till i get enough inches to cover the bottom of my backpack. If I ever trigger the virtual double layer I can toss in another €100 for import duties. Something that $25 with a expiration date that suits their taxes fillings is not going to cover.

Afaik you don't pay import on replacement items, which it would be? Or am I completely off base here? at the very least you should be able to get a refund for the import you already paid, since the item has been returned.