[blamb1]

Seems like I shouldn’t of changed my method of refunding this, I tried to do the way that the console with controllers are missing instead to void the external investigation delay, but I got the refund denied.

I’m going to go forward with a chargeback, is Visa willing to refund often?

So you've said the meta box was empty or just the controllers?
Your refund was denied on what grounds?

Said the meta box is missing the headset and controllers both, denied on the grounds of the destination allegedly being a freight forwarding and they said that they confirmed with their warehouse team that the devices were packed successfully and handed over to the courier intact “and they have no control over what happens with it next”

That's really interesting. Can you copy and paste the exact reply from them my friend?

[Nabeshin]

Could this be the end of an era?

[bunnyslippers]

Could this be the end of an era?

Probably not. It sounds like they got their Quest delivered to a reshipper and Meta is implying that the contents of the package could've been stolen by them.

[mothered]

It sounds like they got their Quest delivered to a reshipper and Meta is implying that the contents of the package could've been stolen by them.

That's a big accusation without any form of (solid) evidence.

[bunnyslippers]

It sounds like they got their Quest delivered to a reshipper and Meta is implying that the contents of the package could've been stolen by them.

That's a big accusation without any form of (solid) evidence.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable possibility to me. Why would Meta be liable for a package that was successfully delivered to where they were told to deliver it? What happens after that is out of their control. Also seems reasonable to assume OP *did* get it delivered to a reshipper, as they've done it in the past + Meta states that's where it was delivered.

[kakakakakaroto]

Started the claim today. Will update you soon.

[mothered]

Seems like a perfectly reasonable possibility to me. Why would Meta be liable for a package that was successfully delivered to where they were told to deliver it? What happens after that is out of their control.

That's stating the absolute obvious.

I'm referring to this:

It sounds like they got their Quest delivered to a reshipper
and Meta is implying that the contents of the package could've been stolen by them.

Such an Implication Is not explicitly backed by any form of evidence In any way, shape, or form, hence It's premature to accuse another entity on those grounds.

[bunnyslippers]

Seems like a perfectly reasonable possibility to me. Why would Meta be liable for a package that was successfully delivered to where they were told to deliver it? What happens after that is out of their control.

That's stating the absolute obvious.

I'm referring to this:

It sounds like they got their Quest delivered to a reshipper
and Meta is implying that the contents of the package could've been stolen by them.

Such an Implication Is not explicitly backed by any form of evidence In any way, shape, or form, hence It's premature to accuse another entity on those grounds.

And it's an unreasonable assumption why? If they had doubt as to whether they actually shipped the product in the box, they'd surely investigate further. As it was delivered to a reshipper, their liability was waived and the blame transferred to the reshipper.

I fail to see what your point is. Nothing I've said is outlandish or even needs to be backed by "evidence", hence my use of the word "could've" and not "has".

[Xx3003]

I mean, I don't even know how I can even try to explain something so easy

- Order a Quest 2 with a guest account
- When it arrives, claim completely EB (nothing at all in the parcel) on their support page (I went with chat)
- They asked for photos of the outside and the inside of the box, provided them through the chat
- "We'll start an investigation with UPS"
- Wait 3 days
- We're still investigating but whatever, customer is always right, replacement or refund?
- Your choice, really

Done
Zero PR, zero extra questions, nothing at all but 3 days of silence and a refund.. the label on the package even registered 2kg as weight and yet not a single complain

Just to be on the safe I won't turn this on until this Sunday just to give it a couple days but in case it's blacklisted or something (doubt it but you never know) I'll either:
- play pirated games on it, offline
- buy a new one from any other shop, ask for a legit return and put the blacklisted one in the package

EDIT: for the love of whatever, DO NOT TURN THE DEVICE ON until you get your refund
I've already read about 2 different people getting their refund denied because they couldn't wait 2 days to play with it, obviously Meta WILL see the s/n went online and will cancel your claim, just wait until your money are back and then a couple days just to be sure

Wow do they not check the weight??

[mothered]

Seems like a perfectly reasonable possibility to me. Why would Meta be liable for a package that was successfully delivered to where they were told to deliver it? What happens after that is out of their control.

That's stating the absolute obvious.

I'm referring to this:

It sounds like they got their Quest delivered to a reshipper
and Meta is implying that the contents of the package could've been stolen by them.

Such an Implication Is not explicitly backed by any form of evidence In any way, shape, or form, hence It's premature to accuse another entity on those grounds.

And it's an unreasonable assumption why? If they had doubt as to whether they actually shipped the product in the box, they'd surely investigate further. As it was delivered to a reshipper, their liability was waived and the blame transferred to the reshipper.

I fail to see what your point is. Nothing I've said is outlandish or even needs to be backed by "evidence", hence my use of the word "could've" and not "has".

You're totally missing the point.

I'm not referring to who the liability falls on (that's purely a matter of common sense), but rather what you've stated as follows:

Meta is implying that the contents of the package could've been stolen by them.

The operative words are Meta is implying

I reiterate, that's a direct accusation (not a liability claim) and Is not based on any form of solid evidence and the like, and should not be taken lightly by the party Involved.
Understood?