Friday, May 20, 2011
GlitterSnifferCosmetics.com is Gone
It appears GlitterSnifferCosmetics.com is gone.
I tested it in several browsers (Firefox, IE, and Chrome) after clearing cache and cookies to be sure and it didn't load in any of them. People have also tried in Safari and Opera and from mobile phones. Aside from one person who was able to access the site from Safari there were no reports of the site being able to load.
As I posted yesterday there is still a 30 day grace period for the site to be recovered by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics. As far as I could determine the renewal costs just under $25.00.
The recall FAQ is no longer available for the public to be informed. There are bits and pieces on this blog, but they are incomplete. I will be uploading the screenshots in full this weekend to GlitterSniffer Complaints MySpace as it has unlimited free picture uploads. They will be set for public viewing without having to 'friend' the profile.
I tested it in several browsers (Firefox, IE, and Chrome) after clearing cache and cookies to be sure and it didn't load in any of them. People have also tried in Safari and Opera and from mobile phones. Aside from one person who was able to access the site from Safari there were no reports of the site being able to load.
 |
| Firefox |
 |
| Chrome |
 |
| Internet Explorer |
The recall FAQ is no longer available for the public to be informed. There are bits and pieces on this blog, but they are incomplete. I will be uploading the screenshots in full this weekend to GlitterSniffer Complaints MySpace as it has unlimited free picture uploads. They will be set for public viewing without having to 'friend' the profile.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
GlitterSnifferCosmetics.com
According to tucowsdomains.com /whois the domain for GlitterSnifferCosmetics.com is set to expire today. It is my understanding that should GlitterSniffer Cosmetics fail to renew it the domain will be held for a 30 day grace period by the domain holder. It will remain on their server but be inaccessible/unusable. After the grace period there is a chance it will be held for an additional 30-35 days at which point it will either be deleted or sold if there is interest by a third party.
Should the domain be allowed to lapse gone with the site will be the official recall notice and FAQ posted by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics to alert customers that there may be issues with previously purchased products. The Fan Page is still down, but the recall notice was deleted from that page by the company long ago. The recall letters the company stated to FDA that they sent to customers on or around February 7, 2011 have still not arrived. With the domain expiration there will be no official record issued by the company of the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics recall readily available to the public.
I have screenshots of all the recall and FAQ information. I will be uploading them soon so that the information is still available. .
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics: Paypal and FDA-New Information
There have been a couple of developments over the last few days with regards to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics handling of the recall.
A customer who had previously sent a letter from her attorney to GS (which was ignored) requesting a refund of $1,169.15 for all her products and her intent to pursue the matter civilly if it was not remitted in a timely manner contacted Paypal on Monday to inquire about possible recovery of her funds. The customer has several hundred GS pigments and was denied a refund by GS for all of her merchandise. When she inquired about her refund the company denied any of her products were unsafe, despite 92 of them being on the recall list. She then advised the company she would see them in court. The only response she received was a simple "<3".
The injury referenced in the message possibly related to use of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics were corneal abrasions to both eyes, sustained after use of pigments in the Charity Collections. It is unknown which pigments were used specifically, as the customer purchased all three (TWLOHA, GLAAD and ASPCA) and they came in a package together, unlabeled. The customer visited a physician, was unable to wear any eye makeup for a few weeks and continues to this day to have eye sensitivity, despite not having any issues prior to use of GS.
She contacted Paypal at 402-935-2050 and was advised the following:
I posted on May 10, 2011 about a phone call from FDA to a GlitterSniffer Cosmetics customer regarding the recall. The customer was contacted again by FDA on May 18, 2011, this time from the Houston Field Office, Dallas District. The content of the call was the same, and the customer was specifically asked about the recalled pinks. Unlike the last phone call the call was identified by Caller ID as being from FDA. FDA is still apparently pursuing the investigation into the handling of the recall by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, and the investigation has now spread to a third confirmed Field Office, this time in the South Central portion of the country. The Dallas Field Office is the office I contacted back in January that took one of my original complaints and forwarded it on to the Detroit Office.
A customer who had previously sent a letter from her attorney to GS (which was ignored) requesting a refund of $1,169.15 for all her products and her intent to pursue the matter civilly if it was not remitted in a timely manner contacted Paypal on Monday to inquire about possible recovery of her funds. The customer has several hundred GS pigments and was denied a refund by GS for all of her merchandise. When she inquired about her refund the company denied any of her products were unsafe, despite 92 of them being on the recall list. She then advised the company she would see them in court. The only response she received was a simple "<3".
The injury referenced in the message possibly related to use of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics were corneal abrasions to both eyes, sustained after use of pigments in the Charity Collections. It is unknown which pigments were used specifically, as the customer purchased all three (TWLOHA, GLAAD and ASPCA) and they came in a package together, unlabeled. The customer visited a physician, was unable to wear any eye makeup for a few weeks and continues to this day to have eye sensitivity, despite not having any issues prior to use of GS.
 |
| Read from the bottom up |
She contacted Paypal at 402-935-2050 and was advised the following:
According to Paypal if fraud is determined then Paypal would begin paying out claims from money in the GS account until that money is exhausted, though it is currently barred from use by the company itself. This is at odds with the information provided by GS at the time the accounts were frozen, as they clearly stated customers would have to wait 180 days for refunds. Additionally, if a civil case is brought by any individual and a subpoena issued all financial records related to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics would have to be released in pursuit of the matter. Should anyone choose to pursue the matter in this way they would then be privy to any and all financial records Paypal has for both GS accounts. Information such as this could clarify where the money GS earned during its most successful years went, in addition to showing exactly how much was owed in claims and provide further supporting evidence of refunds both issued (currently count: one) and denied by the company.
I posted on May 10, 2011 about a phone call from FDA to a GlitterSniffer Cosmetics customer regarding the recall. The customer was contacted again by FDA on May 18, 2011, this time from the Houston Field Office, Dallas District. The content of the call was the same, and the customer was specifically asked about the recalled pinks. Unlike the last phone call the call was identified by Caller ID as being from FDA. FDA is still apparently pursuing the investigation into the handling of the recall by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, and the investigation has now spread to a third confirmed Field Office, this time in the South Central portion of the country. The Dallas Field Office is the office I contacted back in January that took one of my original complaints and forwarded it on to the Detroit Office.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics and the FDA Enforcement Report Followup
I posted about the March 23, 2011 FDA Enforcement Report regarding the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics recall on April 12, 2011. The post outlined concerns with the information provided by GS to FDA, including the lack of receipt of recall letters by GS customers, the number of units distributed, and unapproved mascara not included in the recall.
Today one of the page Admins, ALC, pointed out an item I'd missed during that post. Here is the distribution list provided by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics to FDA in regards to the reach of the recalled products.
According to the information provided by the company to FDA the recalled items affected customers nationwide (US), and in Canada, UK, Taiwan, Australia, Denmark, Spain and Brazil.
On August 4, 2010 blogger Eplefe posted about her experience buying from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics. On March 21, 2010 Eplefe purchased The Super 80's Collection. The Super 80's Collection was recalled by GS in December of 2010 as either containing soap dyes and/or not being FDA approved for use around the eyes. Also interesting to note is that Eplefe's Etsy listing contains absolutely no disclaimer about the collection not being FDA approved, despite GS' continued insistence that it was disclosed in all listings. Eplefe lives in Norway.
On June 9, 2010 blogger Aijuswhanakno posted about her experience with GlitterSniffer Cosmetics. She too purchased the unlabeled Super 80's Collection and initially gave GS a positive review, even amending her review to include the FDA disclaimer from her listing. After researching she discovered that the Super 80's Collection was not only unapproved for eye use, but was made with soap dyes, which are not approved for cosmetic use at all. She contacted GS and Lela Warren's response was to refund her and state that she had used the colors with no problems at all. At the time of purchase Aijuswhanakno resided in Japan.
Norway and Japan appear nowhere on the distribution list provided to FDA by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics as being affected by the recall. A quick Google search for GlitterSniffer Cosmetics shows that Aijuswhanakno's post regarding the Super 80's Collection appears 4th on the search list. Even given the benefit of the doubt that both of these bloggers Paypal receipts somehow went missing from GS records the information for at least one of them was readily and publicly available and very easy to find. These two instances, coupled with the other discrepancies with the information provided to FDA, beg the question what, if any, information provided to FDA by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics was correct.
It is speculation at this point as to whether these oversights in the information provided FDA were intentional. It could be that the company did not know how many recalled products were sold, or to whom, or where, or that they forgot they ever sold mascara, or that the Dearborn Heights Post Office was having another one of its GS related issues and lost every single recall letter the company sent out in early February. After all, in GlitterSniffer Cosmetics own Recall FAQ posted in January 2011 they stated unequivocally that they would comply with any request made by a federal agency.
Today one of the page Admins, ALC, pointed out an item I'd missed during that post. Here is the distribution list provided by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics to FDA in regards to the reach of the recalled products.
According to the information provided by the company to FDA the recalled items affected customers nationwide (US), and in Canada, UK, Taiwan, Australia, Denmark, Spain and Brazil.
On August 4, 2010 blogger Eplefe posted about her experience buying from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics. On March 21, 2010 Eplefe purchased The Super 80's Collection. The Super 80's Collection was recalled by GS in December of 2010 as either containing soap dyes and/or not being FDA approved for use around the eyes. Also interesting to note is that Eplefe's Etsy listing contains absolutely no disclaimer about the collection not being FDA approved, despite GS' continued insistence that it was disclosed in all listings. Eplefe lives in Norway.
On June 9, 2010 blogger Aijuswhanakno posted about her experience with GlitterSniffer Cosmetics. She too purchased the unlabeled Super 80's Collection and initially gave GS a positive review, even amending her review to include the FDA disclaimer from her listing. After researching she discovered that the Super 80's Collection was not only unapproved for eye use, but was made with soap dyes, which are not approved for cosmetic use at all. She contacted GS and Lela Warren's response was to refund her and state that she had used the colors with no problems at all. At the time of purchase Aijuswhanakno resided in Japan.
Norway and Japan appear nowhere on the distribution list provided to FDA by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics as being affected by the recall. A quick Google search for GlitterSniffer Cosmetics shows that Aijuswhanakno's post regarding the Super 80's Collection appears 4th on the search list. Even given the benefit of the doubt that both of these bloggers Paypal receipts somehow went missing from GS records the information for at least one of them was readily and publicly available and very easy to find. These two instances, coupled with the other discrepancies with the information provided to FDA, beg the question what, if any, information provided to FDA by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics was correct.
It is speculation at this point as to whether these oversights in the information provided FDA were intentional. It could be that the company did not know how many recalled products were sold, or to whom, or where, or that they forgot they ever sold mascara, or that the Dearborn Heights Post Office was having another one of its GS related issues and lost every single recall letter the company sent out in early February. After all, in GlitterSniffer Cosmetics own Recall FAQ posted in January 2011 they stated unequivocally that they would comply with any request made by a federal agency.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Lets Play GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Connect the Dots
This post is a bit of a Mobius strip so please bear with me as post what amounts to a game of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Connect the Dots.
Dot One: In December 2010 GlitterSniffer Cosmetics announced a recall of all pink pigments and those that were made using soap dyes. A preliminary list was drawn up which contained the 80's Collection. The 80's Collection was on the first and all subsequent lists, including the list provided to FDA, as per the March 23, 2011 Enforcement Report.
Dot Two: On January 9, 2011 GlitterSniffer Cosmetics posted the recall/refund information to their website, including the information that they had already been in contact with FDA.
Dot Three: According to the FDA Enforcement Report from March 23, 2011 GlitterSniffer Cosmetics stated they sent a letter to all of their customers informing them of the recall on or around February 7, 2011, copies of which were provided during FDA home visits to GS customers this month. Per Title 21 Subpart C Section 7.49 a recall communication must contain several items.
Dot Four: GlitterSniffer Cosmetics released the Chocolate Collection on or around February 8, 2011.
Dot Five: This screenshot, undated, shows GlitterSniffer Cosmetics facilitating a sale of product they personally recalled, the 80's Collection. It appears to be near the same date of February 8, 2011 as the exact same announcement regarding the Chocolate Collection is seen posted just below it.
Connect all the Dots and here is the picture that is formed: GlitterSniffer Cosmetics knew that the 80's Collection was recalled in December of 2010, spoke with FDA in January 2011, provided FDA with a recall letter prior to February 7, 2011 that had to, by law, state that further distribution of the recalled product should cease immediately, and yet on or around February 8, 2011 attempted to facilitate the sale of the recalled 80's Collection knowing that this violated not only the terms of the recall letter but FDA regulations regarding a firm initiated recall.
The company can spew semantics all they wish regarding the business decisions prior to the recall (Quote from the Recall FAQ: "I have had no issues with the pigments, and in turn assumed that other people would not either."). What is not debatable at this point is that the company knew they were violating Title 21 by facilitating the sale of recalled product and yet chose to do so anyway, possibly putting at risk uninformed consumers and those selling the recalled product with the company's assistance. That's not a pretty picture to end up with for the company, their customers or for those they attempted to assist in violation of federal regulation.
I will be following up with FDA to provide them with this information.
5/17/11 ETA: Corrected year in the third to last paragraph from January 2010 to January 2011.
Dot One: In December 2010 GlitterSniffer Cosmetics announced a recall of all pink pigments and those that were made using soap dyes. A preliminary list was drawn up which contained the 80's Collection. The 80's Collection was on the first and all subsequent lists, including the list provided to FDA, as per the March 23, 2011 Enforcement Report.
Dot Two: On January 9, 2011 GlitterSniffer Cosmetics posted the recall/refund information to their website, including the information that they had already been in contact with FDA.
Dot Three: According to the FDA Enforcement Report from March 23, 2011 GlitterSniffer Cosmetics stated they sent a letter to all of their customers informing them of the recall on or around February 7, 2011, copies of which were provided during FDA home visits to GS customers this month. Per Title 21 Subpart C Section 7.49 a recall communication must contain several items.
(a) General. A recalling firm is responsible for promptly notifying each of its affected direct accounts about the recall. The format, content, and extent of a recall communication should be commensurate with the hazard of the product being recalled and the strategy developed for that recall. In general terms, the purpose of a recall communication is to convey:
(1) That the product in question is subject to a recall.
(2) That further distribution or use of any remaining product should cease immediately.
(3) Where appropriate, that the direct account should in turn notify its customers who received the product about the recall.
(4) Instructions regarding what to do with the product.
(b) Implementation. A recall communication can be accomplished by telegrams, mailgrams, or first class letters conspicuously marked, preferably in bold red type, on the letter and the envelope:“drug [orfood, biologic, etc.]recall [orcorrection]”. The letter and the envelope should be also marked:“urgent” for class I and class II recalls and, when appropriate, for class III recalls. Telephone calls or other personal contacts should ordinarily be confirmed by one of the above methods and/or documented in an appropriate manner.
(c) Contents. (1) A recall communication should be written in accordance with the following guidelines:
(i) Be brief and to the point;
(ii) Identify clearly the product, size, lot number(s), code(s) or serial number(s) and any other pertinent descriptive information to enable accurate and immediate identification of the product;
(iii) Explain concisely the reason for the recall and the hazard involved, if any;
(iv) Provide specific instructions on what should be done with respect to the recalled products; and
(v) Provide a ready means for the recipient of the communication to report to the recalling firm whether it has any of the product, e.g., by sending a postage-paid, self-addressed postcard or by allowing the recipient to place a collect call to the recalling firm.
(2) The recall communication should not contain irrelevant qualifications, promotional materials, or any other statement that may detract from the message. Where necessary, followup communications should be sent to those who fail to respond to the initial recall communication.
(d) Responsibility of recipient. Consignees that receive a recall communication should immediately carry out the instructions set forth by the recalling firm and, where necessary, extend the recall to its consignees in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
Dot Four: GlitterSniffer Cosmetics released the Chocolate Collection on or around February 8, 2011.
Dot Five: This screenshot, undated, shows GlitterSniffer Cosmetics facilitating a sale of product they personally recalled, the 80's Collection. It appears to be near the same date of February 8, 2011 as the exact same announcement regarding the Chocolate Collection is seen posted just below it.
Connect all the Dots and here is the picture that is formed: GlitterSniffer Cosmetics knew that the 80's Collection was recalled in December of 2010, spoke with FDA in January 2011, provided FDA with a recall letter prior to February 7, 2011 that had to, by law, state that further distribution of the recalled product should cease immediately, and yet on or around February 8, 2011 attempted to facilitate the sale of the recalled 80's Collection knowing that this violated not only the terms of the recall letter but FDA regulations regarding a firm initiated recall.
The company can spew semantics all they wish regarding the business decisions prior to the recall (Quote from the Recall FAQ: "I have had no issues with the pigments, and in turn assumed that other people would not either."). What is not debatable at this point is that the company knew they were violating Title 21 by facilitating the sale of recalled product and yet chose to do so anyway, possibly putting at risk uninformed consumers and those selling the recalled product with the company's assistance. That's not a pretty picture to end up with for the company, their customers or for those they attempted to assist in violation of federal regulation.
I will be following up with FDA to provide them with this information.
5/17/11 ETA: Corrected year in the third to last paragraph from January 2010 to January 2011.
Monday, May 16, 2011
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics: Where Are They Now?
I have published a great many stories since the inception of the blog, most anonymously. There have been a few that for various reasons were published with names. I receive a lot of email with questions about these folks so I wanted to give you all a brief update on where they are all at now.
Lela Warren, Owner and President of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics: Currently incommunicado. I have received reports that she has taken a job outside of the home in the food services industry. It was also confirmed via her personal Facebook (prior to her self imposed lockdown) that she was looking into modeling in the Detroit area and possibly attending makeup artistry school. There has been no word on the future of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
Christie Brooks, subject of one of the December Fundraisers: Christie has not received the money for her family from the December Fundraiser and has contacted the Michigan Attorney General to advise them of the issue. Christie still confidently and happily buys Indie cosmetics, especially lip balms, but holds out little hope that she will ever see the revised amount of $114.00 due her.
Vanessa Barfield, creator of GS cosmetic bags: Vanessa has moved her shop from Etsy to Artfire, where she continues to sell unique handcrafted bags, clothing, and accessories. She recently teamed up with another indie MMU seller to offer cosmetic bags on their independent site. Vanessa is still awaiting payment of $448.00 from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics for the bags made for the company and at last update was pursuing the matter through all available means
Christina, received the infamous voicemail from GS proprietor Lela Warren: Christina went on to be interviewed for the Michigan Radio story. It has been documented that Christina did not, as has been claimed, release any personal information about Lela Warren. Christina has opened her own Indie cosmetics company, which specializes in products for sensitive and acne prone skin, such as bronzer, blush, and facial cleanser.
Digital Soaps, creator of the original Mountain Dew scented Nintendo Controller Soap: Digital Soaps is still selling all manner of soaps via Etsy as well as sites such as ThinkGeek. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics has previously denied knowing about the company prior to selling their own Mountain Dew scented soap in the Video Game Collection earlier this year, despite Lela being provided a link to Digital Soaps as early as August of 2010.
Issanna, Former Vice President of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics: Issanna is happily ensconced in California, where she continues to work on her own cosmetics line which launched this weekend. She continues to pursue avenues to recover the $6,000.00 owed her by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics for services rendered, as well as legal issues stemming from the unauthorized access of her personal email.
I want to thank everyone, both named and unnamed, for sharing their stories. I wish you all luck going forward in recovering from your association with GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
*Note: This is purely for informational purposes only and should not be construed as an endorsement or recommendation of any information linked in this post.Thank you.
Lela Warren, Owner and President of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics: Currently incommunicado. I have received reports that she has taken a job outside of the home in the food services industry. It was also confirmed via her personal Facebook (prior to her self imposed lockdown) that she was looking into modeling in the Detroit area and possibly attending makeup artistry school. There has been no word on the future of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
Christie Brooks, subject of one of the December Fundraisers: Christie has not received the money for her family from the December Fundraiser and has contacted the Michigan Attorney General to advise them of the issue. Christie still confidently and happily buys Indie cosmetics, especially lip balms, but holds out little hope that she will ever see the revised amount of $114.00 due her.
Vanessa Barfield, creator of GS cosmetic bags: Vanessa has moved her shop from Etsy to Artfire, where she continues to sell unique handcrafted bags, clothing, and accessories. She recently teamed up with another indie MMU seller to offer cosmetic bags on their independent site. Vanessa is still awaiting payment of $448.00 from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics for the bags made for the company and at last update was pursuing the matter through all available means
Christina, received the infamous voicemail from GS proprietor Lela Warren: Christina went on to be interviewed for the Michigan Radio story. It has been documented that Christina did not, as has been claimed, release any personal information about Lela Warren. Christina has opened her own Indie cosmetics company, which specializes in products for sensitive and acne prone skin, such as bronzer, blush, and facial cleanser.
Digital Soaps, creator of the original Mountain Dew scented Nintendo Controller Soap: Digital Soaps is still selling all manner of soaps via Etsy as well as sites such as ThinkGeek. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics has previously denied knowing about the company prior to selling their own Mountain Dew scented soap in the Video Game Collection earlier this year, despite Lela being provided a link to Digital Soaps as early as August of 2010.
Issanna, Former Vice President of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics: Issanna is happily ensconced in California, where she continues to work on her own cosmetics line which launched this weekend. She continues to pursue avenues to recover the $6,000.00 owed her by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics for services rendered, as well as legal issues stemming from the unauthorized access of her personal email.
I want to thank everyone, both named and unnamed, for sharing their stories. I wish you all luck going forward in recovering from your association with GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
*Note: This is purely for informational purposes only and should not be construed as an endorsement or recommendation of any information linked in this post.Thank you.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics and the Recall/Refund Process-A Total
Within the past 48 hours at least one refund was issued to a GlitterSniffer Cosmetics customer that had unreceived/incorrect orders since the switch to Google Checkout, an issue unrelated to the December recall. This refund was requested by the customer and unlike several others issued by Google Checkout was issued by the company themselves. Information has been scant as to exactly how many refunds GS has issued for matters related to the December recall and previous missing orders.
I was sent a document today by Daphney, an ex-Admin for the Fan Page, which outlines exactly how much, as of January 18, 2011, GlitterSniffer Cosmetics owed for recalled product sent back to the company and unreceived orders/money owed to other Artisans for products created for GS to sell on their site but for which payment was never rendered. I am publishing that information now with permission but not the entire file as it contains personally identifying information.
In all there are 42 names on the list as being owed a refund by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics as of 1/18/11. They range from $448.00 at the highest to $6.50 at the lowest. Some have a tracking number attached and two of them are confirmed as being received by the company. The total amount owed in refunds as of 1/18/11 is $4,011.96. This total does not include all Paypal claims/money requests (confirmed by the fact that my name appears nowhere on the list), recalls not sent back to the company, or anything past January 18, 2011.
I have confirmed with Daphney that as of 4/21/11 I am the only person who received a refund from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics for issues related to the recall. I was refunded $21.50. Daphney issued my refund personally from the second GS Paypal account, out of order and at Lela Warren's insistence, despite my request not meeting any of the terms of the recall to qualify for a refund.
At this point there is no firm number as to how much GS now owes for refunds related to the recall as the information provided to me is several months old, but it does illustrate that although the company had access to their second Paypal account as late as January 28,2011 and the means and money to refund at least some of the claims made prior to mine (there were two for $6.50 which could have easily been paid out had my $21.50 refund not been issued on January 16, 2011, a refund issued despite my request that I be refunded in the order in which my claim was received) they simply chose not to do so.
By no means do I wish to sound dismissive of my refund, but let's get down to brass tacks. It was undeserved in terms of the refund/recall process. I have always been upfront about my request being about concerns about formulation and packaging. Nothing I had was on the recall list. I did not send my items back. My refund served no other purpose than to be published for all to see. That people are still waiting while I have my refund is but another in a long line of self serving choices the company has made, from using unapproved ingredients to make more sales to refusing to remit funds for charities and product created specifically for the company to using the cash infusion from the December investor to start sales again instead of issuing any refunds due. That the company is now issuing refunds to new customers who are ex-Admins and who are being outspoken about the company only further shows that the company has not changed much, if at all.
I'd like to thank Daphney for providing this information. As someone who was very much involved, though not employed, by GS during the time in question she has first hand knowledge that may help put the pieces together as to what exactly happened.
I was sent a document today by Daphney, an ex-Admin for the Fan Page, which outlines exactly how much, as of January 18, 2011, GlitterSniffer Cosmetics owed for recalled product sent back to the company and unreceived orders/money owed to other Artisans for products created for GS to sell on their site but for which payment was never rendered. I am publishing that information now with permission but not the entire file as it contains personally identifying information.
In all there are 42 names on the list as being owed a refund by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics as of 1/18/11. They range from $448.00 at the highest to $6.50 at the lowest. Some have a tracking number attached and two of them are confirmed as being received by the company. The total amount owed in refunds as of 1/18/11 is $4,011.96. This total does not include all Paypal claims/money requests (confirmed by the fact that my name appears nowhere on the list), recalls not sent back to the company, or anything past January 18, 2011.
I have confirmed with Daphney that as of 4/21/11 I am the only person who received a refund from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics for issues related to the recall. I was refunded $21.50. Daphney issued my refund personally from the second GS Paypal account, out of order and at Lela Warren's insistence, despite my request not meeting any of the terms of the recall to qualify for a refund.
At this point there is no firm number as to how much GS now owes for refunds related to the recall as the information provided to me is several months old, but it does illustrate that although the company had access to their second Paypal account as late as January 28,2011 and the means and money to refund at least some of the claims made prior to mine (there were two for $6.50 which could have easily been paid out had my $21.50 refund not been issued on January 16, 2011, a refund issued despite my request that I be refunded in the order in which my claim was received) they simply chose not to do so.
By no means do I wish to sound dismissive of my refund, but let's get down to brass tacks. It was undeserved in terms of the refund/recall process. I have always been upfront about my request being about concerns about formulation and packaging. Nothing I had was on the recall list. I did not send my items back. My refund served no other purpose than to be published for all to see. That people are still waiting while I have my refund is but another in a long line of self serving choices the company has made, from using unapproved ingredients to make more sales to refusing to remit funds for charities and product created specifically for the company to using the cash infusion from the December investor to start sales again instead of issuing any refunds due. That the company is now issuing refunds to new customers who are ex-Admins and who are being outspoken about the company only further shows that the company has not changed much, if at all.
I'd like to thank Daphney for providing this information. As someone who was very much involved, though not employed, by GS during the time in question she has first hand knowledge that may help put the pieces together as to what exactly happened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
