ComplaintsforKetonatural Pet Foods

• Initial Complaint

  07/16/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Unanswered

  More info

  This company promotes a "money back guarantee" and the promise you can try their product "risk free." which they refused to honor without "proof" I donated the product despite their website saying "all we ask is that you donate it to a worthy cause." When I requested a refund they ignored me until I'd asked 3 times at which point they demanded "proof" of a donation even though what their website says about donation is they "ask," not require, a donation and moreover, they say "needy friends and homeless people with dogs are also good options." Obviously, needy friends and homeless people do not have a way to offer proof of donation. Moreover, there is no animal shelter I ever heard of or could imagine that would even accept loose kibble, and since this kibble is sold in a bag that once opened cannot be resealed, e.g., via ziplock, like most people who love their dogs / don't want to waste food, I poured the kibble once opened into a large air-tight container. Even if I'd kept the empty bag, which would have been quite impractical, again, no shelter I ever heard of would accept a donation of a open bag of kibble. I don't know any homeless people, but I have a close friend with two dogs and no job so I gave the kibble to him. He did not give me a receipt as he's an unemployed friend, not a 501(c)(3) charitable entity with IRS reporting requirements. Yet, after explaining all this, the company changed the "risk-free" guarantee that "asks" that the food be donated to "you can submit your information for a refund with proof of donation," which makes their "risk-free" guarantee a scam if not fraud.

  Business response

  07/18/2024

  Our evidentiary requirement is intended to ensure that our guarantee isn't taken advantage of. Without it, disingenuous customers could easily claim that they donated Ketona when in reality they just used the entire product and asked for their money back anyway (which is obviously not what the guarantee is intended for). The customer seems to think that the only form of acceptable evidence is some kind of receipt from a 501c3 entity, but that isn't the case. We clearly state the following on our website (screenshot attached, link here: **************************************************************************************************
  
  "If your dog doesn't like Ketona just drop us a line and we'll immediately issue you a full refund and cancel your subscription. It's that simple. You won't be out a single penny.
  All that we ask is you give the unused portion to a local rescue or some other worthy cause and provide us with a photo, a receipt, or some other basic evidence of your generosity. That's it."
  
  If this customer actually donated unused product to a neighbor, as he claims, all he had to show us was a photo of him doing so and he would be compliant with our policy and would get his money back. He didn't.
  
  Daniel Schulof
  KetoNatural Pet foods

  Customer response

  07/18/2024

  
  Complaint: 21998447
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

   

  1. The business libelously implies that I am engaged in fraud, without any evidence, instead of responding to the evidence that I included with my BBB complaint. The bulk of their response is that they are concerned they will be “taken advantage of” by “disingenuous customers” who “used the entire product and asked for their money back anyway.”  That is libelous, but it also ignores the complaint and evidence that shows that the purchase was EXPRESSLY promised to be “risk-free” and they “ASK” that if consumers are not happy, they donate any unused product.  
  
  2. As stated by the complaint, you cannot refuse a promised refund based on the lack of “proof” of something you “ask.” 
  
  3. The so-called “condition” cited here and now was not part of the readily visible website, and I never viewed it before purchase. It is irreconcilable with the website’s urging consumers to try the products “risk-free” because there is a clear risk, as is clear from their refusal to issue a refund. 
  
  4. It is beyond dispute that a “risk-free guarantee” attached to consumer products by definition, per se, means that you have to issue a refund upon request. The merchant has instead invented a scheme where the focus is shifted to the donation, despite this being legally and ethically irrelevant to the sale and promised refund. It’s one thing to “ask” that products be donated rather than returned or thrown away. But the merchant did not request any return and instead focused on the nature of the “evidence” of a donation.  
  
  5. The merchant claims that they are entitled to refuse a refund because no proof was offered but the fact is that there WAS proof - my statement is evidence - it is proof that what I say is true. The merchant rejected my statement by implying that I am a “disingenuous customer” who “used the entire product and asked for their money back anyway.”  That this is their response makes it CLEAR that the sale was not “risk-free” - there was a risk that the merchant would demand more proof of a donation, without showing any reason my word was not good enough. 
  
  6. It is especially telling that the merchant did not dispute that I am “not happy with the switch,” but instead of, as promised, giving me “100% of your money back. No return shipping. No risk” — and instead of honoring their promise that “All we ask is that you donate it to a worthy cause,” they now claim that this “all we ask” was really a binding series of conditions that must be met for a refund to be issued and that they determined I had not done so. That makes this anything but “risk-free” and makes their promises false, misleading, and unethical. 7.  I attached screenshots of the merchant’s website showing how they promote their false promises, but the merchant response ignores this & instead attaches their own screenshot of a less-visible part of their website that discusses “proof.” However, even if the main website had not, as I showed it does, emphasized that the purchases are “risk-free,” even the language the merchant now cites as a reason to refuse to issue a refund does not, as they claim, impose a “condition” for refunds but, as I said in the initial complaint, it merely “asks” that consumers donate unused product. If the sale had actually been “risk-free” then the merchant could not as they have here, refused to issue a refund based on baseless, defamatory speculation that a consumer is engaged in fraud. The merchant may well issue refunds to others (but they have shown no evidence they ever have), but that THIS is their response makes it clear that calling the purchase “risk-free” was a bald-faced LIE. The “risk” is not just real, but here, it has been actualized. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  John Griffin

*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. ↩