You could try by pointing out things like how the outer packaging only said that the contents would be Product not Product+OtherProduct, and how the checkbox for the non-advertized and un-expected extra was pre-selected and visually tiny. We "just know" that's bs, but it's possible and it's hard to disprove purely on the face of it. If an installer always proposes an extra, or 2, or 13, then the vendor can claim "I'm just offering this extra that I honestly and sincerely believe the user might be interested in and might benefit from". The special difference is just that it exposes the intent which was theoretically deniable otherwise, even if everyone "just knows" what's really going on. That dynamic reactive 2nd attempt to trick you, which is only invoked if you caught and declined the first, is materially different from the first attempt, and different from if the installer always presented both extras. I think it would be a very weak case and practically impossible to make that argument. It might possibly qualify as an attempt to deceive. I didn't say it was illegal, just dickish.įraud.
0 kommentar(er)
