Fredericks of Hollywood

3 reviews & complaints.

Most Popular | Newest | More Options >
More filter options:
Credit SCAM
Posted by on
I ordered some "clothing" for my girl for XMAS the other night from Frederick's of Hollywood online store. The bill came up to over $100. I had to sweat it out as I know these things aren't going to be cheap. After I confirmed payment and finished the deal (confirmation# and everything) I noticed a bright red star in the top right corner of my screen that said "click here to receive a $20 rebate on this order." I did and gave them my email address to send the rebate to. The link mentioned that I would get an immediate $20 rebate and another rebate $20 for my next purchase. What I didn't read (which was partially my fault for not reading the fine print further down the page) was that they would automatically sign me up for a 'membership' that directly charged my account $80 for this 'membership' and automatically charge me to renew the 'membership' from here on out if I said nothing. They did not ask me to provide a credit card number for this membership (which is usually what alerts me to this kind of fraud.) They used the credit card number from my last transaction to make the charge. I found a number on their email confirmation to call and cancel the membership (before they could charge me the $80) but nobody answered the line. I had to call back the next day to get a hold of someone. I did, and they said they would cancel the membership and would not charge my account. 1 day later they charged my account anyway. I called back and they said they would snail-mail me a 'refund request'. Why did they need to mail it, I was already on the phone with them? They could take the money out electronically without a request but they can't put it back in?

So now I have to wait 7-10 business days for this refund request to show up in the mail so I can get my money back in god-knows-how-long. LAST time I ever do business with these crooks. They just couldn't leave well-enough alone with my $100 purchase. They just HAD to steal more. FOH can burn in hell!

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
     
Read 42 RepliesAdd reply
User Replies:
goduke on 12/18/2009:
Technically, it's not a scam if they disclose the details to you, which you admit they did.
PepperElf on 12/18/2009:
How is not reading the rules before agreeing to them only "partially" your fault?

The company did nothing wrong.
They didn't lie to you, didn't cheat you... they displayed an offer that you accepted without question, without reading the rules to.

Yet they're the ones being blamed for it.


"They just couldn't leave well-enough alone with my $100 purchase."
They physically grabbed your hand and made you click an attractive link?
JR in Orlando on 12/18/2009:
I figure any "rebate" or other percentage off AFTER the purchase has been made is some kind of gimmick to hook you into more costs. If it was a true rebate intended to induce a purchase this time, they would have mentioned it upfront.
Anonymous on 12/18/2009:
"FOH can burn in hell!"

Jeez, dude, calm down.
Anonymous on 12/18/2009:
But was the website in English at least?
Skye on 12/18/2009:
Wheres the scam?? It's all spelled out right in front of you. Another person, not wanting to take responsibility for something they signed up for, because they didn't read.
DebtorBasher on 12/18/2009:
That's unfortunate that this happened...but at least you admitted you didn't read all the fine print. You're warning others is appreciated.
Anonymous on 12/18/2009:
"which was partially my fault for not reading the fine print further down the page"

Partially? How is it partially your fault? You said they had it spelled out on the page, which you didn't read. It was made known, so how is it a scam?
PepperElf on 12/18/2009:
it's the way of the double standards, bkk

a mistake by a customer is a "small mistake" or only "partially" their fault
while a mistake by a company is unforgivable and they're 100% fault for everything, even for things the customer does wrong

Class Advocate on 12/18/2009:
I fully support the author on this one. These membership companies design systems to specifically mislead consumers. I am firmly of the belief that once a consumer gives his credit card information to a web site, any further products, programs or services must be clearly articulated for the consumer, and not in fine print or after clicking on a hyper-link.
Anonymous on 12/18/2009:
Well said Class Advocate! I totally agree.
memoryx57 on 12/18/2009:
First off, let me say that I'm a firm believer in being responsible. With that said, I have to wonder why some people believe that this type of behavior by companies is perfectly OK and acceptable. It makes me question the ethics that are being taught to kids today! I'm sorry if I offend somebody but I have to call a spade a spade. This type thing is wrong on way tooooo many levels and to give this type behavior a pass is just bizarre!
jktshff1 on 12/18/2009:
VH review, shows people that reading the fine print is always necessary.
Anonymous on 12/18/2009:
There you go, it costs money to deck your girl out. There's no discount.
Anonymous on 12/18/2009:
If it seems to good to be true.....Greed will get you every time.

Not their fault you didn't read the disclosure before clicking that link old pal.
tnchuck100 on 12/18/2009:
No, it wasn't Frederick's fault but it sure was their INTENT to mislead!
Anonymous on 12/18/2009:
How is it misleading to give a customer exactly what is offered WITH the disclosure in black and white? READ people.
memoryx57 on 12/18/2009:
Spot on tnchuck...as usual..
jaypea on 12/19/2009:
OK PeepeeElf, I can see where you are coming from. With your 4000+ posts on here and your recommended site being http://notalwaysright.com/ I can tell you have plenty of life experience and an unbiased view.

Anyway, to brush all the negativity aside from all of you finger-pointing naysayers who feel the need to "keep it real", this post was a warning to others, not a "it's all FOH's fault, wah wah wah poor me" rant. I was pissed at the situation and decided to use this site to let it out in a healthy, non-destructive manner. Yes, I didn't read the fine print until after I clicked OK. That was 100% MY FAULT. That's a no-brainer.

The problem I have with FOH is that they seemed to purposely set out to mislead their customers, especially after the customer has already bought their merchandise. They seem to reward a customer purchase with a misleading rebate offer ($80 for a $20 rebate.) It's misleading when you only mention the (continuous) annual fee toward the bottom of a 12,000 word rebate offer. It's also misleading to not put a dollar sign in front of that fee so it doesn't catch the eye as well.

Again, YES, I didn't read it all. It's my own dumb fault for not reading it all the way through regardless of the reason. That does not make what they did right, nor does it make it a good business practice. What added insult to injury (the 'last straw' inspiration for this 3 cents) was that after they stated to me, with a confirmation #, that the "membership" was canceled and that I WOULD NOT BE CHARGED, they went ahead and charged me anyway. Then they set in motion a long, drawn out fight for that 79.99 refund. THAT is the SCAM of which I was referring to.

Hopefully that clears up the motive for "my 3 cents". If it doesn't, I would highly recommend that you steer clear of my future posts. I would hate for you to go through the pains of reading my opinions again.

To EVERYONE who responded, I appreciate your point of view and I wish you all the good things in life that I wish for myself.
Principissa on 12/19/2009:
You know, I think it's wrong that companies do this. Yes it is the customer's responsibility to read all of the fine print, but come on! Eighty bucks for a 20 dollar rebate? Am I the only one who thinks that's absolutely insane? These membership companies purposely do this because they have it worded so that they can get away with it. I firmly believe that these things should be clearly worded and not available after you click on about 14 links to go sign up for whatever it is you're signing up for. It should be worded so that a 5 year old would be able to understand what they are signing up for and what signing that box entails.
PepperElf on 12/19/2009:
"peepee elf"??

is that the best insult you can come up with?

you have to resort to name calling because I didn't take your side? because I said you should have read what you signed your name to?


name calling is the best you can do?


Attacking me with name calling - even if that kind of grade-school level humor makes you feel better - won't change the fact that you agreed to something without reading it, and then blamed the company.
jktshff1 on 12/19/2009:
I missed that spelling Pepper! LOL!!! (BA)
PepperElf on 12/19/2009:
thanks JKT

I must have hit an nerve on him too since he's blocked me.... I can only assume because I dared disagree with him
Anonymous on 12/19/2009:
the op admitted they didn't read the terms completely. the op admitted they should have. the op, when realized his mistake, immediately called frederick's to rectify. the op then had to jump through hoops. op was told the transaction would be cancelled and *not* charged. op was lied to. op had to call back and find out he'd need to wait up to 10 days for a refund request. op's fault? sure, for not reading the fine, fine print.

certainly some of you critics out there can understand how one might think a rebate won't have any strings attached to it. I know, I know. all you all are perfect and have never erred in your life. instead of thanking this person for warning others of yet another sneaky way to lure people in, you'd rather tear him a new one for daring to post his complaint. yea, that makes sense.

jaypea, file a dispute with your cc company. don't wait around for those morons to send you a refund request. that's simply ridiculous. next you'll find out they said they mailed it out, you never get it, then they deny your refund.
PepperElf on 12/19/2009:
the issue is he claimed it was "partially" his fault

partially doesn't cut it.
no one forced him to click the link

"partially" means that he feels the blame also lies with another entity - mainly the store for having such an attractive link he couldn't control himself in clicking on it.

as I said before many people like to call their own mistakes "little" while the mistakes of a company are "unacceptable"

it's a double standard
PepperElf on 12/20/2009:
*bursts out laughing*

you know that does fit with the kind of name he called me.
it is consistent with that age level of humor >:-)
Anonymous on 12/20/2009:
Twisted, show me my misspelled word darlin. I clearly typed CLICKING.
PepperElf on 12/20/2009:
*sits back with some popcorn*
Nohandle on 12/20/2009:
Let's forget for a moment who was at fault and certainly overlook the name calling. Had not some members warned others of some of the tricks practiced I honestly might have clicked on to accept an offer having to do with a rebate. Live and learn from our mistakes or the mistakes of others.

I've always felt those conditions should be stated upfront, not hidden in the fine print somewhere. Many have ordered something online. I've yet to see two websites the same. I absolutely love those that have blocks already checked everywhere. None of that select one. You spend half the afternoon trying to figure out what's going on. It happens.
PepperElf on 12/20/2009:
nohande except only one person here was name-calling that I recall and it wasn't us... =)
Nohandle on 12/20/2009:
LOL Pepper. I never said who it was. I still think some of those websites go out of their way to make it as difficult as possible for the customer. I've been fortunate thus far, but who knows what might happen tomorrow. I dread the thought.
PepperElf on 12/20/2009:
LOL
Anonymous on 12/20/2009:
spot on, nohandle.

to accuse someone of being ignorant/stupid/ridiculous/and so on, for *gasp* falling for yet another sneaky way of luring unsuspecting customers to sign up for something they never intended is simply ludicrus. ya'll that do so and insist on blaming the op for standing up for themselves after being told such nonsense should be ashamed of yourselves.
PepperElf on 12/20/2009:
JK you're forgetting that the OP seems to like a taste of name-calling if people don't agree with him.

one can't play the "I'm innocent" card when not acting innocently
Anonymous on 12/20/2009:
most people do not appreciate being attacked and will retaliate in some form or another. jaypea admitted his error in not fully reading the terms and was simply posting an informative review [which btw was a new one most have not heard of before e.g. offering a rebate that auto signs one up for add'l services].

call me crazy but it didn't seem necessary to shove it down his throat that it was his fault for clicking before reading since again, he'd already admitted it. and by partially, I'm quite certain he was referring to the confusing terms that many companies used to bait consumers in, then make it near impossible to get out of. probably why so many of these companies end up getting sued?

eh well, carry on. I keep forgetting. all consumers are at fault, never the company in question.
*Brenda* on 12/20/2009:
BA King James
PepperElf on 12/20/2009:
So...

disagreeing with someone's opinion means they're being attacked and then they have the right to use grade-school level language and name calling then.


if you read my post again, I never actually attacked the guy
I simply said his statements were wrong - especially the fact that he was only "partially" at fault?
and that he is blaming the company for his own actions.


if you care to re-read my post I never attacked him or called him names.
so you can't really say that name-calling and attacking "back" is justified.


in fact nothing I said was aggressive even
but apparently there are some people who feel that "they disagreed with me" automatically means "they're attacking me! help help I'm being repressed! come see the violence inherited in the system!"

which of course may allow them to fool themselves into thinking it's therefore OK to attack back
Anonymous on 12/20/2009:
[sigh] one more time. pepperelf, jaypea admitted he only partially read the terms. once he realized his mistake, foh first lied to him by stating they would cancel his membership and his card would not be charged. next, foh decided they would snail mail him a refund requst form that could take up to 10 days to reach him. therein lies the root of his complaint.

getting hung up on words like [partially] is a tad ludicrus. rather than looking for any reason to blame the consumer, might I suggest reading with a bit more objectiveness. obviously the terms were not completely clear, else he most likely would have noticed right away that he was signing up for a membership. this is a well known tactic used by many [sleazy] companies. my goodness all one has to do is a simple google search to find thousands upon thousands of complaints about various online borderline scams.

are all those people simply ignorant? I don't think so. but eh, I've been wrong before.
PepperElf on 12/20/2009:
o yes you're absolutely right

he was entirely justified in name calling of course

we were so wrong in disagreeing with him. however did I not see it before

we must never disagree with a complaint

because that means we're attacking them

and of course then they have the right to call names and stuff like that.

thank you for making it clear
Anonymous on 12/20/2009:
Pepper, we also must NEVER tell the customer they are at fault for clicking those links. To do so is to be rude and make the customer feel that he is not right...when we all know that the customer is always right. Can't hurt their feelings now.
jaypea on 12/21/2009:
Either I have failed to get my point across clearly or some of you just need to bash people to make yourselves feel superior. You must not have made any bad decisions in life. If that's the case, I REALLY wouldn't envy you. Heavy weighs the crown of ego. Your dark and twisted perfect soul must be terribly lonely around all of us ignorant people. Good luck with that and good times!
PepperElf on 12/21/2009:
"just need to bash people to make yourselves feel superior."

which explains his name-calling

o but wait, we can't disagree with a letter-writer because that's an attack
Close commentsAdd reply
Frederick's of Hollywood
Posted by on
I have only shopped with Frederick's of Hollywood twice and doubt I ever would again. The first time was just a few years ago when I placed a phone order for an outfit I found in their catalog. It was for a complete outfit which consisted of a stretchy denim mini dress, denim garter belt, denim thong, 5" denim pumps and stockings. The mini dress was strapless, was much like a mini skirt and bustier in one and had a full length zipper up the back. Upon receiving this outfit I tried it on. It fit fine, mini dress being snug but not too tight. However, garter clips kept popping off stockings as clips were cracked and shoes had Staples inside, probably from manufacturing process. Received replacements weeks later. Same problem with replacement shoes. Sent them back, finally got ones with no Staples. Shortly after, my husband and I went out and I wore this outfit. What a catastrophe. Shortly after sitting down in a restaurant the rear garter belt straps popped off the stockings as the clips broke. After exiting restaurant, while walking toward car, the zipper slide on the back of the mini dress popped off, causing the mini dress to spring open and come off. I was totally humiliated. I did not bother sending it back as it was a discontinued, special purchase item. I figured, at the very least, I still had the pumps and thong. Wrong. Shortly later the pumps began to disintegrate. While wearing them out one evening of shopping with friends, we sat down and one of my friends stated that it was time for me to buy new shoes. I said they were new, then looked down only to find that the denim wrap on the heels was peeling off and the soles, starting at the toes and going back about 2", were peeling away. They were falling apart on my feet. My friends thought it funny, but I didn't and had to buy new shoes immediately or I would have been barefoot. That was an experience that happened a while ago, but just recently someone gave me 2 bras that were purchased from the same place. Brand new, and within about 2 wearings they began to fall apart! They are on the landfill somewhere now. The quality of their items is definitely lacking.
     
Read 12 RepliesAdd reply
User Replies:
FlShopper on 12/28/2010:
I bought something from them once. The quality was absolutely inferior. My husband enjoys browsing through the catalogs, but I'll never spend a dime on any of their items again.
Anonymous on 12/28/2010:
The clothing isn't meant to make it past the bedroom.
trmn8r on 12/28/2010:
You said that your friends were laughing. I have to admit I was also, at your description of your wardrobe disintegrating. But it isn't funny for you. It was almost like the plot of a bad sitcom.

Helpful review.
Anonymous on 12/28/2010:
Good review and I agree about the low quality. Then again, I only wear things from Fredericks once.
karleebarlee on 12/28/2010:
I've never bought anything from Frederick's, I always go to Victoria's Secret. Their products are probably much more expenive, but everything from VS is very good quality.
Anonymous on 12/29/2010:
Someone next to me inadvertently sat on my skirt in church one time. When I stood up to sing I was mortified to discover that I was standing in front of the congregation in my underslip, lol.
MRM on 12/29/2010:
Thank you, Ript, for sharing with your readers your embarrassing moments! I like the word you used "mortified" as it is a strong feeling.
Anonymous on 12/29/2010:
MRM, please share with your readers an embarrassing clothing calamity.
momsey on 12/29/2010:
ript, thank God you had a slip on!
MRM on 12/29/2010:
The only embarrassing clothing is when I wore two different color (brown and black) shoes when going to work.
PepperElf on 12/29/2010:
I never considered FoH clothing to be something you'd wear in public. Now for a naughty outfit for wearing at home yes, but for wearing out on the town?... um no.
laidebug on 11/26/2013:
have bought panties twice from there, and all of them fell apart and the lace ones all got holes in them where there shouldn't have been holes. the crappiest crap I've ever bought! they should rethink their quality or shut it down. never been more disappointed in the quality of anything ever. how are they even IN BUSINESS?!!!! but it sucks, b/c they have the sexiest lingerie!
Close commentsAdd reply
Ripped OFF
Posted by on
Recently I ordered 3 bras from Fredericks of Hollywood. I didn't have an occasion to wear one for a few months. When I wanted to wear it, I opened the plastic bag took it out for the first time,. I noticed the under wire on one side was showing through the material. I returned it with tags still attached, pointing out the defect and telling them it had not been worn and was as shipped to me. Because I had it for several weeks, I didn't ask for a refund, but expected a replacement since they could see it was defective. After I didn't hear from them in a few weeks I called customers service. they acknowledged receipt of same, but said they would not give me a refund, exchange or gift certificate for it. I asked that they please return the bra to me since it was paid in full. (their bras are expensive.) They informed me they would NOT return it. I think this company ripped me off, probably sold it to someone else. I also wrote the supervisor informing them of the incident and how rude I had been treated, they made no response. I learned this company is not even in Hollywood CA. Its in AZ. I will Never order from them again. I hope this will inform others of the way this company does business.
     
Read 11 RepliesAdd reply
User Replies:
Soaring Consumer on 03/30/2010:
If they refuse to return it back to you, then they must give you your money back. I suggest filing a suit in small claims court for the purchase price.
spiderman2 on 03/30/2010:
In this first paragraph you stated you ordered the bras and didn't wear them (or try the on apparently) for "a few months." In the second paragraph you stated you had them for "several weeks." Which was it? This may be key in this case. Their return policy is 90 days, but you will not get refunded your shipping costs.
http://www.fredericks.com/Help4/Help4,default,pg.html
yoke on 03/30/2010:
Even if the return policy is 90 days, if they were not going to give credit or replace they have to send the garment back. They refused to do that also. They have to either give a refund or the garment.
goduke on 03/30/2010:
Just out of curiosity, under what provision of the law are we going that says if the customer sends a product back to the retailer, without following the proper refund channels, the retailer is required to send it to the customer at the retailers expense or provide a refund?

Their site says the following:

....Frederick’s of Hollywood is not liable for returns received after 90 days......
Anonymous on 03/30/2010:
Good grief why does everything have to be about what a company is legally required to do or what they can get by with by hiding behind their miles of disclaimers. Frederick sold the OP a defective bra. Frederick should replace bra. Fredrick refuses to replace bra. Frederick lost customer for good. It's pretty simple.
goduke on 03/30/2010:
I'm not disagreeing with you, Stew. If I were in charge of Freddie's, I'd replace it. What they should do isn't always the same as what they have to do.

But everyone is saying "they MUST return it to you," "if they don't return it to you sue them." I'm just asking, why MUST they return it, and if you sue them because they didn't, under what provision of the law are you going to hang your hat.
yoke on 03/30/2010:
goduke, so what you are saying is they get to keep the item and the money. I agree with the OP when she stated the item was probably sold to someone else. IF they won't give the money they can't keep the item, even if the OP has to pay for the shipping. I have a feeling they do not have the defective garment anymore.
goduke on 03/30/2010:
If the OP says "I'll pay for you to send it back to me," that's one thing. That's not what was being said or suggested.
Ytropious on 03/30/2010:
That sucks, you'd think they'd either send it back to you or give a refund. A refund is cheaper but then they probably think you wore it or something and don't give refunds for that sort of thing. It's a tricky situation, but you're out money and you have nothing to show for it, and that's not right.
jaypea on 06/20/2010:
Yeah these guys are dishonest all the way around. There are plenty of competitors with better quality merchandise. Eventually they will bury themselves with these kinds of transactions.
clotheshorse on 06/24/2012:
What about store credit? If they will not return the bra to you (and frankly why would you want it back) or give you a refund, I feel that would be the perfect solution. I don't think FOH is doing that well, I've read awhile ago that business was slow. Maybe it's the way they handle their customers. Life is more about going that extra mile, doing whatever you can as opposed to doing the bare minimum. FOH needs to show more character, they need to step up their game.
Close commentsAdd reply
Top of Page | Next Page >