The OP touches upon the ‘why’. I don’t care about the ‘why’ though, because it is still a loss of consumer privilege and it affects all of their customers there. Hence, I feel free to comment on this, whatever Apple’s reason. I believe that return rights should be upheld everywhere and a decent company should try to adhere to that.
‘Rated the highest’ and ‘renowned for their customer service’? Are we talking about Apple? Has it occurred to you that this might be a highly subjective observation or might not be true in all countries?
By obliging all of their Hong Kong customers to agree that there will be no obligation upon Apple for returning or exchanging goods? They take good care indeed. Some other commenters here have outright said what this is about: to combat scalpers. Don’t even pretend that this is about consumers.
Your anger toward Apple, (it's unfortunate that they did something that has caused you to be so consumed with antipathy towards them), is causing you to make irrational statements. You make the ludicrous statement that Apple doesn't care about consumers, only "combatting scalpers," when the primary reason you "combat scalpers" is to protect consumers from scalpers buying up tickets, phones, etc., and then forcing consumers to buy them from the scalper at a greatly inflated price.
For your own well being, let go of your anger.
[doublepost=1474046440][/doublepost]
It should be noted that this is intended to reverse charges if there is a dispute. It is not a catch all solution to "buyer's remorse" and the purchaser could be liable for the amount later if no justification was found for the reverse. In other words, this is intended to protect you from a situation like mail order goods never arriving or finding a purchased product is dead when unboxed and the merchant being unwilling to do anything about it. Buying a product and later deciding you don't want it, although the credit card company would reverse the charge, could result in a claim against you personally.
No, you are misstating it. It isn't intended "to reverse charges if there is a dispute." It is intended to put the charge on hold while a good faith investigation takes place. The outcome of the investigation might be to remove the charge, but that depends on the results of the investigation.
Last edited: