LEGO Bans - Open Discussion

[TheBrickClique]

As for operating with a single account to stay within the vendor’s technically-enforced limits, I believe this is the current state of things.
 

Cliff notes: you’ll be fine as long as you don’t go on a spending spree at Target.com, and try not to bring attention to your buying patterns by dealing with online customer service for small gripes that can be dealt with in store instead.

Target - the easiest place to get banned based simply on purchase volume online and the most aggressive against resellers in store — employees trained to identify resellers loading up carts for example.  Can still use red card in store after online ban, but using with a new email account will result in repeat ban — start receiving auto cancellations and email about possible issues including payment purchase method.  Some people have bans lifted after a period in timeout. Others indefinitely. The amount of purchases that may identify you as a reseller and get a ban? One data point: I have been unable to purchase online going on 18 months now after two months of $5k purchases on the red card. Same red card still works fine in store.
 

LEGO shop at home — with the purchase limits mechanics implemented a few years ago, it is much more difficult to get the SAH ban hammer. If you exceed a limit on any item based on past purchases of the same item, they will cancel your entire order. Be warned that if they cancel an order with a VIP Rewards purchase, the reward is not automatically credited back to your account. Also, if they cancel an item due to inventory issues, the system still tracks it as qty purchased. Qty purchased in brick and mortar stores that are purchased with VIP accounts are not counted towards SAH limits and and limits in store are done at the individual store’s discretion. If you do have to call customer service to resolve an issue, they do have easy visibility to all of your previous orders and will make comments about you “really liking LEGOs”.  No indication that that is how the ban process starts, but unless you really have an issue that needs CS, might be best to just let the small things go. 
 

Amazon — shop away. Their limits are tracked to the second on a 168-hour FIFO.  Limits apply and are tracked in that window only to items sold and shipped by Amazon.com. Buy as many third party items as you wish. Anecdotal stories of bans for excessive returns, but no clear information on the metrics used. Generally, probably best to save the returns for the really bad boxes.  Creating multiple accounts will get noticed and is the quickest way to get the warning shot emails. 
 

Barnes and Noble — similar to LEGO, has a five qty per item lifetime limit online. Exceed that amount and just that item will be cancelled from the order. No reports of bans. In store purchases do not appear to be tied to online memberships as far as adding to your 5-count quantity.  
 

Walmart — most LEGO are limited to two per order, but they won’t say how often that limit is reset.  Doing a couple of multiple limit orders in the same day has worked.  Doing dozens has resulted in order cancellations of those specific items but no bans that I am aware of. Generally, I have found one limit order per day has never resulted in a cancellation. 
 

ShopDisney — some items have limits but they are selectively enforced. If you put in multiple limit orders at the same time, they might cancel those items. If you space them out, they will be fine. I ordered a dozen castles (limit one per customer) last year and they all went through. Sometimes two in two consecutive days. 
 

Costco — has item limits on some items, but I haven’t seen any on LEGOs. Even with items with limits, possible to space them out without issue.  In store limits are usually “per day”. 
 

Best Buy — unsure on LEGO as I’ve never pushed the limits on them. In the past, I would make 50 purchases at a time of 2-dollar items that had limits and they would all go through.  I have tried to make multiple purchases of Xbox consoles and those were cancelled.  So YMMV. But no reports of bans.

Anyways, those are my observations.

[DoNotInsertIntoMouth]

There is literally no deciding factor. They just shoot gum with a ruler at a list of names.

[IMDeus]

...

There is literally no deciding factor. They just shoot gum with a ruler at a list of names.

They stole that method from Congress lol

[TheOrcKing]

There is literally no deciding factor. They just shoot gum with a ruler at a list of names.

They stole that method from Congress lol

I thought Congress made decisions by cutting off a chicken's head?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqY

Dear lord, you think Lego does the same?! :frantics:

[mcortez]

I think when people are willing to pay cash for Jeff's time to change them.  

 

What's the going rate?  $60 an hour?  How long does it take for him to run the DB queries, 10 minutes per account (assuming he batched them up and handled a couple all at once?)  $6 for a name change isn't that bad, if it's important to someone.

[mcortez]

Is that legal? If you open a BrickOwl/Link account and never have sold from it, what legal reason do they have for banning someone?

 

To ban, they need some proof of practices that contravene their rules. Like buying 50 VW Campers etc...

 

I would threaten  them with legal action based on the discrimination laws.

 

I don't know about the UK, but in the US the discrimination laws don't work that way.  You only have legal protection against discrimination of a protected class -- that is a specific set of attributes that are defined by law as being protected against:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

 

Companies are well within their rights to refuse to do business with you for any of the following reasons, with no legal recourse (unless you can somehow link it to monopolistic business activity -- or to one of the protected classes):

 

* The color of your shirt

 

* The use of currency other than 50 cent pieces (the only time they have to accept all legal tender is for debts, which is a specific term of art referring generally to loans -- not normal retail purchases.)

 

* Having tattoos

 

* Your name having too few or too many vowels in it

 

* Having bad breath

 

* Or even, your membership on a random internet web site

 

 

Note: Sorry this is one of my pet peeves, along with people stating that you should sue because a random company censored your speech -- which is perfectly legal in the US, the the first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech refers to the *government* censoring you, not other private entities that you happen to do business with.

[No More Monkeys]

I don't know about the UK, but in the US the discrimination laws don't work that way.  You only have legal protection against discrimination of a protected class -- that is a specific set of attributes that are defined by law as being protected against:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

 

Companies are well within their rights to refuse to do business with you for any of the following reasons, with no legal recourse (unless you can somehow link it to monopolistic business activity -- or to one of the protected classes):

 

* The color of your shirt

 

* The use of currency other than 50 cent pieces (the only time they have to accept all legal tender is for debts, which is a specific term of art referring generally to loans -- not normal retail purchases.)

 

* Having tattoos

 

* Your name having too few or too many vowels in it

 

* Having bad breath

 

* Or even, your membership on a random internet web site

But I think you could get FTC involved, as an alternative. Yes, businesses can refuse to do the business with you for many reasons, but there are "consumer protection" agencies, like the FTC that do handle such disputes, i believe

[IMDeus]

I don't know about the UK, but in the US the discrimination laws don't work that way.  You only have legal protection against discrimination of a protected class -- that is a specific set of attributes that are defined by law as being protected against:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

 

Companies are well within their rights to refuse to do business with you for any of the following reasons, with no legal recourse (unless you can somehow link it to monopolistic business activity -- or to one of the protected classes):

 

* The color of your shirt

 

* The use of currency other than 50 cent pieces (the only time they have to accept all legal tender is for debts, which is a specific term of art referring generally to loans -- not normal retail purchases.)

 

* Having tattoos

 

* Your name having too few or too many vowels in it

 

* Having bad breath

 

* Or even, your membership on a random internet web site

 

 

Note: Sorry this is one of my pet peeves, along with people stating that you should sue because a random company censored your speech -- which is perfectly legal in the US, the the first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech refers to the *government* censoring you, not other private entities that you happen to do business with.

 

 

Well, not exactly but this puts it in layman's terms

 

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

[Anakinisvader]

I don't know about the UK, but in the US the discrimination laws don't work that way.  You only have legal protection against discrimination of a protected class -- that is a specific set of attributes that are defined by law as being protected against:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

 

Companies are well within their rights to refuse to do business with you for any of the following reasons, with no legal recourse (unless you can somehow link it to monopolistic business activity -- or to one of the protected classes):

 

* The color of your shirt

 

* The use of currency other than 50 cent pieces (the only time they have to accept all legal tender is for debts, which is a specific term of art referring generally to loans -- not normal retail purchases.)

 

* Having tattoos

 

* Your name having too few or too many vowels in it

 

* Having bad breath

 

* Or even, your membership on a random internet web site

 

 

Note: Sorry this is one of my pet peeves, along with people stating that you should sue because a random company censored your speech -- which is perfectly legal in the US, the the first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech refers to the *government* censoring you, not other private entities that you happen to do business with.

 

The HR joke is that to be in a protected class you need to be: A female, minority, over 40, with a handicap and a lisp.  Have all this and you are golden.  Don't have it and you are screwed.

[IMDeus]

Plus, when you purchase from Lego they ask you to click the checkbox that you agree to their terms. Check there

[IMDeus]

The HR joke is that to be in a protected class you need to be: A female, minority, over 40, with a handicap and a lisp.  Have all this and you are golden.  Don't have it and you are screwed.

JACKPOT!!! I'm all thhhossssee

[CNH1974]

I don't know about the UK, but in the US the discrimination laws don't work that way.  You only have legal protection against discrimination of a protected class -- that is a specific set of attributes that are defined by law as being protected against:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

 

Companies are well within their rights to refuse to do business with you for any of the following reasons, with no legal recourse (unless you can somehow link it to monopolistic business activity -- or to one of the protected classes):

 

* The color of your shirt

 

* The use of currency other than 50 cent pieces (the only time they have to accept all legal tender is for debts, which is a specific term of art referring generally to loans -- not normal retail purchases.)

 

* Having tattoos

 

* Your name having too few or too many vowels in it

 

* Having bad breath

 

* Or even, your membership on a random internet web site

 

 

Note: Sorry this is one of my pet peeves, along with people stating that you should sue because a random company censored your speech -- which is perfectly legal in the US, the the first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech refers to the *government* censoring you, not other private entities that you happen to do business with.

Oh. Well. In that case, some bad publicity then. Stand outside the store saying I can buy from here because I belong to "this" site. Which also gives publicity to whatever site it is

Companies hate bad publicity if it gets wheels. Like the Harry Potter wars of 2000-2001 time. Load of websites popped out with Harry Potter in their URL. Which was illegal. So Warner Bros sent out cease and desist letters. To young teenagers. After a lot of bad publicity, and intervention of JK Rowling, they backed down.

But you still can't have Harry Potter in your URL. Or Lego for that matter. . but large corporations hate bad publicity if there is enough of it.

[No More Monkeys]

Oh. Well. In that case, some bad publicity then. Stand outside the store saying I can buy from here because I belong to "this" site. Which also gives publicity to whatever site it is

Companies hate bad publicity if it gets wheels. Like the Harry Potter wars of 2000-2001 time. Load of websites popped out with Harry Potter in their URL. Which was illegal. So Warner Bros sent out cease and desist letters. To young teenagers. After a lot of bad publicity, and intervention of JK Rowling, they backed down.

But you still can't have Harry Potter in your URL. Or Lego for that matter. . but large corporations hate bad publicity if there is enough of it.

And they do have Facebook page ...

[mcortez]

Well, not exactly but this puts it in layman's terms

 

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

 

Yes, individual state law and some case-law can throw a wrench in things -- but people pulling out the "sue them for discrimination" line all the time is what really annoys me.  In many cases, it just doesn't cut it.

 

In the article you linked to, the Unruh Civil Rights Act which requires a non-arbitrary business reason for refusing service is a California law -- not all states have such laws and where such laws exist their details can differ quite significantly.

 

And even in California, I believe LEGO's stated stance that reseller activity may harm their ability to serve their "normal" customers can probably be used as a business reason.  And of course, as someone else pointed out, if the VIP program and/or Web Site terms of service specifically mention that you can't be a reseller then there probably isn't much of a way to get around that (legally.)  Especially since they can indicate you are free to make a cash purchase in-store or through one of their official resellers -- thus you still have access.  

[IMDeus]

Yes, individual state law and some case-law can throw a wrench in things -- but people pulling out the "sue them for discrimination" line all the time is what really annoys me.  In many cases, it just doesn't cut it.

 

In the article you linked to, the Unruh Civil Rights Act which requires a non-arbitrary business reason for refusing service is a California law -- not all states have such laws and where such laws exist their details can differ quite significantly.

 

And even in California, I believe LEGO's stated stance that reseller activity may harm their ability to serve their "normal" customers can probably be used as a business reason.  And of course, as someone else pointed out, if the VIP program and/or Web Site terms of service specifically mention that you can't be a reseller then there probably isn't much of a way to get around that (legally.)  Especially since they can indicate you are free to make a cash purchase in-store or through one of their official resellers -- thus you still have access.  

 

I totally agree. Crying sue will not only not work in this situation but it is unwarranted. They are clear as to their terms it seems. You can choose to play within the rules or not. But here are plenty of ways to play the system.

[mcortez]

Oh. Well. In that case, some bad publicity then. <snip> Load of websites popped out with Harry Potter in their URL. Which was illegal. <snip>

 

Indeed, if we could convince the media and consumers in general that they're being "evil" by not selling to us, then ya -- the bad press might help them change policy.  I suspect though, that we'd be the ones getting tomatoes thrown at us not LEGO...

 

And in the case of Harry Potter, they were legally required to make a fuss -- otherwise they legally, would be surrendering their ownership of the Trademarks involved.  If a company fails to "vigorously defend" their trademarks, then there is precedent for them loosing them.  When handled right, trademark owners will usually do something like send an acceptable use policy & us and trademark/copyright agreement/license along with the C&D basically saying -- stop using our stuff, unless you agree to acknowledge that we own our stuff and you are using it under the following license.

[redcell]

But I think you could get FTC involved, as an alternative. Yes, businesses can refuse to do the business with you for many reasons, but there are "consumer protection" agencies, like the FTC that do handle such disputes, i believe

 

The FTC doesn't and wouldn't give a hoot about this behavior on the part of TLG because there are no applicable federal laws for the FTC to enforce.  TLG has the right to decide who it wants to do business with and in what way it wants to do business with them.  If TLG decides that it wants to restrict its wholesale distribution channel for business reasons and preclude wholesale purchasers from its retail distribution channel, why would the FTC care?  

[Ed Mack]

Lawsuits are a waste of time for a reseller.  TLG's fine print covers most activities they do not approve of and like it was stated above, they do not have to sell to you.  In my business, if a customer does something abusive, corrupt or against the basic rules of my establishment, I don't have to service them.  Same situation applies to LEGO.  They make the rules and they also give resellers the opportunity to buy in bulk if they meet certain requirements.  Even threatening bad PR for LEGO will only backfire on the reseller.  What Mom and Dad will care about some set sucking reseller complaining about being banned?  Not many...

[No More Monkeys]

Lawsuits are a waste of time for a reseller.  TLG's fine print covers most activities they do not approve of and like it was stated above, they do not have to sell to you.  In my business, if a customer does something abusive, corrupt or against the basic rules of my establishment, I don't have to service them.  Same situation applies to LEGO.  They make the rules and they also give resellers the opportunity to buy in bulk if they meet certain requirements.  Even threatening bad PR for LEGO will only backfire on the reseller.  What Mom and Dad will care about some set sucking reseller complaining about being banned?  Not many...

Sooner or later, TLG will ban someone who had no idea what Lego reselling is, happened to choose account name matching the name of some heavy ebay reseller, and ordered several sets up to the limits, just because they were corporate gifts. 

 

Anyway, all we _really_ care about is why Ikeheart is not banned.

[justafrog]

Anyway, all we _really_ care about is why Ikeheart is not banned.

 

Is that Iketart's good twin? 

[Ed Mack]

Sooner or later, TLG will ban someone who had no idea what Lego reselling is, happened to choose account name matching the name of some heavy ebay reseller, and ordered several sets up to the limits, just because they were corporate gifts. 

 

Anyway, all we _really_ care about is why Ikeheart is not banned.

Mistakes happen.  Guys like Iketart could be lucky, or maybe they have multiple accounts which enable them to stay off the radar.  Or, maybe they lie about being banned.  It's the internet and anything is possible.  I think if people honestly look at the banning situation, the majority of people who are banned though are serious resellers or "parters."  

[iahawks550]

Is that legal? If you open a BrickOwl/Link account and never have sold from it, what legal reason do they have for banning

Its a private business. They don't need any reason to ban you. They can ban you because they don't like your first name.

[Crustybeaver]

Its a private business. They don't need any reason to ban you. They can ban you because they don't like your first name.

Exactly, I mean they could ban you for being a Hawkeye fan ;)

[legoman12323123]

I just got banned today. they said I had a store in Brickowl.

 

So... Now I dont know if they just ban my vip account?

 

Or how they going to ban me?

 

By my address? by my name?

 

Why would lego ban you for basically doing afols. A great service ..  pretty idiotic for lego to ban you for helping people build awesome mocs. Does lego really expect you to buy 5-10 same sets for example if I need 1x1 sand green bricks? Oh wait if you do that you also risk the chances of a ban. I guess lego really offering no alternative to building mocs. Also that makes no sense because when I contact lego they often encourage me to use bricklink to get out of stock or retired sets soo ... I'm going to assume people getting ban are mostly people who bought those too good to be deals from illegal drop shippers.

[Ed Mack]

Why would lego ban you for basically doing afols. A great service .. pretty idiotic for lego to ban you for helping people build awesome mocs. Does lego really expect you to buy 5-10 same sets for example if I need 1x1 sand green bricks? Oh wait if you do that you also risk the chances of a ban. I guess lego really offering no alternative to building mocs. Also that makes no sense because when I contact lego they often encourage me to use bricklink to get out of stock or retired sets soo ... I'm going to assume people getting ban are mostly people who bought those too good to be deals from illegal drop shippers.

There have been rumors of LEGO going after people who part out sets recently. It is something that I never heard about until the last several weeks, but I have heard it from several different sources. I just don't know if those sources are legit enough to start people sweating. LOL.

Sent from my iPad using Brickpicker

[TheOrcKing]

* Your name having too few or too many vowels in it

I can see most of the other limits as somewhat reasonable but, pardon my language; this bit is just about the most f'tarded restriction I have heard. I wonder though if this is a way for a company of getting around serving 'people of certain nationalities