ComplaintsforVantageBP LLC

• Initial Complaint

  02/02/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Unanswered

  More info

  They ask to remove an item from a 3rd party website. I do not carry there products and they are threatening us with a law suit makes no sense.

• Initial Complaint

  04/28/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  This business sends mass emails claiming to represent a variety of brand owners. They send out thousands of emails to third party sellers claiming to represent multiple brands. They threaten to harm your business if you don't remove from the marketplace the associated brand name they have included in their form letter. They provide an email address to contact them but they have never responded to emails. This company has a simple form email and attached letter that they provide that is used over and over. This company simply fills in the blank for a brand name. As I stated we have contacted them directly multiple times but have never they have never responded. The form letters are very simplistic. Anyone can put it together in about 10 minutes. We have asked repeatedly for verification from the brand owner and their authorization they claim to act on their behalf. Again never a response to email. They claim to represent brand owners but continue to make claims in those form letters that would violate the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act. I can't follow a non-verified form letter that is blindly sent out with threats to harm our business if we don't remove products from a third party marketplace. The source of this letter could simply be another seller violating Antitrust laws to get other sellers to remove product so this person can control the marketplace pricing. A simple program to match product and send out threatening letters to get people to remove product. If they do represent the brand owners they are the greatest sales person in the world to collect money this way. This company than is a scam to the brand owner. I've attached their form letter. I removed the brand name on it but this is the same form used over and over.

  Business response

  05/25/2022

  Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2022/05/25) */ Contact Name and Title: ************* Contact Phone: ************* Contact Email: ******************** VantageBP provides brand protection services to brand owners. In representing brand owners, VantageBP's systems, combined with human oversight, identify product listings across various online marketplaces (e.g., Amazon, eBay, Alibaba) that appear to infringe the intellectual property rights of its clients. As a safeguard, prior to having such listings removed through "takedown notices," VantageBP often provides the seller the opportunity to show that the goods that they are listing do not, in fact violate any intellectual property rights. ********* contacted us through ****** Trading Company dba "Web's Best Deals," a business that sells products on various online retail platforms, including Walmart.com. In its advertised product listings, ****** represented certain products to be "new," when, in fact, there was no record of them having been sold to ****** and thus they appeared not to be "new" and (from a consumer's perspective) to deviate materially from being "new" in that they would not be covered by the manufacturer's warranty. ********* responded with a series of attacks that have continued through this BBB complaint. ********* alleges that VantageBP is engaged in a "scam" against brand owners. That is a demonstrably false statement. In fact, VantageBP provides brand protection services to brands. If ********* doubts this, he would be advised to contact the brands on whose behalf Vantage provides services. The gravamen of *********** complaint seems to be that VantageBP has harmed him with some sort of advertising claim. However, he never identifies an advertising claim that was made to him (since there was none), and his desired resolution, namely "modification/discontinuance of an advertised claim" is a non-sequitur. In fact, *********'s company is the one that appears to be making misrepresentations to the consuming public, namely by advertising goods that have drifted outside normal distribution channels, and have already been bought and sold, as being "new," even though such sale and resale invalidates the manufacturer warranty. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., is meant to provide consumers with access to reasonable and effective remedies where there is a breach of warranty on a consumer product. VantageBP has never provided a warranty for a consumer product to **. *****. **. *****'s company, not VantageBP, is the one offering goods (and implied warranties) to consumers. Accordingly, we have no idea how that statute would be germane to **. *****'s grievances, and he has offered no explanation. Finally, as noted above, VantageBP provides brand protection services to brands, not to consumers. Neither **. ***** nor ****** has ever been a VantageBP customer. Accordingly, there is no consumer resolution applicable through the BBB process. We trust that this resolves **. *****'s concerns. Consumer Response /* (3000, 12, 2022/07/11) */ This BBB claim is the only personal contact response from VantageBP. The VantageBP cold emails with attached form letter provided to BBB clearly states, "Should you wish to discuss this further, or feel as though there may be a mistake, please contact us directly by replying to this message or by emailing ********************." Based on **. ********'s BBB responds information he has quoted information from my emails I have sent him in the past. He has made the decision to represent VantageBP and those brands VantageBP claims to represent, by not responding to any emails I've sent to********************. The advertising claim: VantageBP advertising (to announce publicly especially by a printed notice) to represent brand owners and naming them clients. Is asking for private business data including but not limited to: Product Source of goods, Invoices and Purchase orders, company contact and business information. **. ********s states in his BBB response I would be advised to contact the brands on whose behalf Vantage provides services." As I've stated I would like to do that, but again VantageBP doesn't respond to those requests. **. ******** states in his BBB response, "**. ***** responded with a series of attacks that have continued through this BBB complaint." VantageBP for years has been sending blanket emails claiming to represent brand owners with statements as, "report your account to Walmart", "report your account to Amazon", "immediate removal of all (brand owner name here) products associated with your seller account immediately". **. ******** falsely states, "**. *****'s company is the one that appears to be making misrepresentations to the consuming public, namely by advertising goods that have drifted outside normal distribution channels, and have already been bought and sold, as being "new,". As I've clearly stated via email to VantageBP the product we sell does Not fall into that category. Therefore **. ******** walks the line and makes statements like "appears" and "drifted". When in fact he already knows from my communication that the product we sell is proper. VantageBP states they represent brand owners and even calling them clients. Although when pressed that we are not customers of VantageBP. We agree on that so how does this pertain to their communication to us and the CAN-SPAM Act? My resolution is that **. ******** provides me a list of the brands VantageBP claims to represent with his contact person information of said brand so I can validate VantageBP claimed representation. This information would solve this BBB claim. If VantageBP represents those brands they claim than providing the requested contact information should be very easy to provide. **. ******** put in print on this claim that I "be advised to contact the brands on whose behalf Vantage provides services." With out the correct contact information it would be preposterous for **. ******** to believe it would benefit VantageBP to cold call a large company brand. Without a specific contact person at the brand would you recommend I simply speaking with any employee that answers the phone? I would record the number called (probably the main number), the date and time and the employee's name at the brand owner office. I'll ask them if they have ever heard of the company VantageBP. I can do that as you suggest if you don't provide brand owner contact information. If you don't respond with specific brand owner contact information that will be the process, we follow. Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2022/07/19) */ This letter responds to **. *****'s renewed complaint. **. ***** seems to have abandoned his bizarre assertions that VantageBP has violated various warranty laws, and that VantageBP has made some sort of false advertising claim directed at him. **. *****'s new grievance seems to be that VantageBP has not provided him with copies of every contract that it has with its actual clients, namely the brands that it represents, and that VantageBP has some sort of obligation to put him in touch with those clients. As with his previously rambling about the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., **. *****'s new theories are unavailing. Here, **. ***** does not understand the very nature of the "principal-agent relationship." VantageBP has been appointed by its clients to serve as their representative. (The brand is the "principal" and VantageBP is the "agent.") The entire point is that VantageBP is tasked with handling communication with **. *****. To iterate, VantageBP has no business relationship with **. *****. He has never been our customer and there no "consumer" resolution applicable to **. *****'s grievances through the BBB process. For purposes of **. *****'s communications with VantageBP, the only relevant fact is that **. ***** is selling goods that he represents to be "new," when, in fact, there is no record of those goods having been sold through normal distribution channels. Thus, at a minimum, such goods have no manufacturer warranty coverage and may not legally be sold as new. **. ***** needs to refrain from advertising his goods under such pretenses. We trust that this resolves **. *****'s concerns.

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩