Putting aside all other matters, in a communication age, the lack of clarity, communication and consistency is alarming; it simply indicates that this Campaign is far from professional and for this and other reasons, totally untrustworthy. In any other other industry, a gaurantee of less than $194 - reported mid-term as MUCH LESS but then removed - would be the end of a Company if the guarantee proves to be worthless, as it was in the case of Ivars.
Sondors Fact Finding. Due Diligence. Scrutiny.
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
FTC Complaint
Active Member
Fact;
1) No product liability insurance
2) No margin to provide customer support
3) No regulatory compliance
4) No safety testing
5) Misrepresentations in law and in fact, false advertising
6) Failure to pay vendors as evidenced by a lawsuit
7) Near 25% gross lost to marketing costs
This "nay-saying," is just fact speaking. (In my case, from an expert in this field)
Failure to recognize fact is delusion, greed plays directly into delusion and cannot be countered by fact.
Last edited:
FTC Complaint
Active Member
Yep, you can outline facts to someone who is delusional and it will have no effect. The lawsuit is "a major factual red flag" that would be hard for anyone with logic or common sense to ignore even if they know nothing about ebikes and the business of selling them.
The correct course of action is not denial, it is to ask for a refund.
Hmmmm, ask for your money-back or take the risk that you will lose everything and be left with nothing... some people will still keep their hand in, personally I am glad I never invested but it quickly became apparent that this was no oridnarily-run show, highly suspect from the start - the continued lies about the first production bike etc., there is one working bike and one working bike only!!
Hurley
Active Member
Guys, I think contributors are feeling bad enough. This redundant babbling is doing no one any good. You two should just exchange phone numbers and have a long conversation to get it out of your system. The persons with the least amount invested are the most vocal. We get it, you guys are smart.
Why are contributors feeling bad enough? The message doesn't seem to be getting through to most people. Happy to engage in discussion, but not when you post patronising stuff - are you a funder @Hurley ?
FTC Complaint
Active Member
This has nothing to do with feelings;
I have "done my job" by alerting people to inconsistencies in this offering prior to the lawsuit, following through with several members of the press, drafting complaints that can be filed with the FTC and CA AG, and by pointing out the recourse you have at this point in this debacle.
Preserve your rights by asking Indiegogo and Sondors for a refund.
Last edited:
Hurley
Active Member
The only thing I have funded is empathy to this campaign. In terms of patronizing, this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Back when Sonders first started this and when yahoo got excited over it, I warned people back then. Obviously, it fell on 7,000 deaf ears.
pxpaulx
Well-Known Member
Full Definition of NAYSAYER
: one who denies, refuses, opposes, or is skeptical or cynical about something
Might as well embrace it! Let's face it, the rabid fanboys are one side of this two sided coin at this point. I would also say if I had to pick a side, it wouldn't be yours, or the a$$hole fanboys (no doubt some of them show zero redeeming quality) - it would be most of the other contributors who are expecting a bike - I hope they get what they have paid for.
I have a question - would you expect any of that if you bought a bike directly from alibaba? Would this have been ok if it had never taken off beyond covering, or maybe doubling their goal? It would have just been a big group alibaba purchase, one and done, no major discussion, no big press articles (and I agree, paid puff was all they were) - would you still be here posting everything that you are? Why does the scale change that game?
It is pretty obvious that suggesting someone is a funder is a back-handed insult in your mind, your tone sounds pretty patronizing as well. I'm sure there are funders that are concerned - the two of you have raised many valid points, but considering they are selling about a bike a day at this point, is it really worth all this time and effort? Anyone who has contributed I'm sure has seen all the postings over at IGG already a dozen times - they are endless, and not hard to find. The guys defending are stepping well beyond any form of reasonable debate, with sales at a crawl what sense is there trying to continue to argue with them?
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
I guess most would agree that lying to potential customers for financial gain is greedy. You could even say selling something with exaggerated claims is greed. Is purchasing something from a seller because you feel you are getting more than you feel you should or would otherwise get elsewhere, greedy? If both are true than run for office and make changes. Become a bureaucrat and make changes. Write your congressman. At this point you are either preaching to the choir or the deaf.
I would hate to think if there are 7000 new ebike owners out there this year or next, what they will think when arriving here at EBR. I wouldn't stay, I wouldn't read the advertising either. The damage being done by all sides of this stinks. I mentioned the damage before and got little response. Everyone claims to respect EBR and Court, show it! Let this happen or not now, if it does Court will review it.
I would hate to think if there are 7000 new ebike owners out there this year or next, what they will think when arriving here at EBR. I wouldn't stay, I wouldn't read the advertising either. The damage being done by all sides of this stinks. I mentioned the damage before and got little response. Everyone claims to respect EBR and Court, show it! Let this happen or not now, if it does Court will review it.
stevenast
Well-Known Member
Interesting idea. Maybe Indiegogo will subsidize Sonder's deliveries... for a while.
Sonders probably will deliver some fractional number of the promised bikes, that will take some of the heat off.
pxpaulx
Well-Known Member
That was an auto correct error
I meant to say praying! praying he delivers to save face for them
FTC Complaint
Active Member
In this campaign, the information flow was carefully managed to preclude and/or to stop the asking of questions integral for vetting or understanding the veracity of the offer.
The questions regarding liability insurance, post-sales customer support, testing, and regulatory compliance were asked directly to the parties and by the press. I have a scathing email log which confirms that the campaign refused to answer any questions.
Agency 2.0 did not see the need to answer any questions because they anticipated they would be rolling in money from this campaign. Now Agency 2.0 is taking Storm to court as his strategy is to stonewall (as deadbeats do). Buyers of the bike are in a similar position anticipating something that won't be delivered to expectation.
People have paid for a defectively-incomplete product (that might not be delivered) and now have zero recourse other than to ask for their money back.
I will take another rest-bit from posting until the next event cycle as the stupidity of frozen thinking is palpable. If you are lucky enough to get your money back, buy a reputable bike from the many listed on this site.
The questions regarding liability insurance, post-sales customer support, testing, and regulatory compliance were asked directly to the parties and by the press. I have a scathing email log which confirms that the campaign refused to answer any questions.
Agency 2.0 did not see the need to answer any questions because they anticipated they would be rolling in money from this campaign. Now Agency 2.0 is taking Storm to court as his strategy is to stonewall (as deadbeats do). Buyers of the bike are in a similar position anticipating something that won't be delivered to expectation.
People have paid for a defectively-incomplete product (that might not be delivered) and now have zero recourse other than to ask for their money back.
I will take another rest-bit from posting until the next event cycle as the stupidity of frozen thinking is palpable. If you are lucky enough to get your money back, buy a reputable bike from the many listed on this site.
Last edited:
@pxpaulx - I don't believe I have been patronising, if I have come over that way I apologise - why is being a funder a back-handed insult given that my FB page is designed to help and inform the very people who have been misled due to no fault of their own? Nowhere else in business would any Company get away with raising funds on the back of worthless and hollow "guarantees", false claims and wildly misleading specs. This is a discussion site surely, or should discussion on EBR be restricted to the merits of ebikes, groupsets, motor and tyres only? Given the interest in this ebike campaign which has delivered nothing to date but lies and has reneged on guarantees to funders, I think this is what EBR should be for personally.
"we get it, you guys are smart" was the comment that irked me. Obviously you are smarter, I took a few days of researching and considering the merits of the Campaign before I decided it stunk. If any of my posts have come over as patronising, I apologise.
wa5
Well-Known Member
Bruce Choate
19 minutes ago
It appears Agency 2.0 lawsuit is gonna take a bit longer than expected, this is one of the latest hearing dates filed
11/25/2015 at 08:30 am in department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Motion to Quash
(QUOTE FROM BRUCE CHOATE , TAKEN FROM IGG /STORM COMMENTS PAGE)
Storm is obviously using delaying tactics. given we all know what happened with the last judgement against him (IE still outstanding), it seems obvious that this is just a delaying tactic.. to hold off having another judgement against him for as long as possible. not that it matters, he probably wont pay it anyway.
19 minutes ago
It appears Agency 2.0 lawsuit is gonna take a bit longer than expected, this is one of the latest hearing dates filed
11/25/2015 at 08:30 am in department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Motion to Quash
(QUOTE FROM BRUCE CHOATE , TAKEN FROM IGG /STORM COMMENTS PAGE)
Storm is obviously using delaying tactics. given we all know what happened with the last judgement against him (IE still outstanding), it seems obvious that this is just a delaying tactic.. to hold off having another judgement against him for as long as possible. not that it matters, he probably wont pay it anyway.
PowerMe
Well-Known Member
Lawsuits happen to take a long time as court dockets fill up with lots of people suing lots of other people/companies.
The mess between Agency 2.0 and Sonders should only be a concern if it causes the campaign funders to not receive their bikes. Otherwise... pfffftttt... I see tiny violins playing for Agency 2.0.
The mess between Agency 2.0 and Sonders should only be a concern if it causes the campaign funders to not receive their bikes. Otherwise... pfffftttt... I see tiny violins playing for Agency 2.0.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 4210
- Off-Topic Non-Ebike Discussion