Banned from buying from LEGO S@H

hantot

^ depends on if the reason is also against any local laws of course (discrimination against certain groups) but reselling clearly would be a valid reason

dougts

CCC said:

all they can do (if they cannot for whatever reason produce more of what is in high demand quickly) is try to make the stocks they have reach consumers rather than resellers.

but again, it's a blunt approach to a very specific problem. I can think of only two examples in the last couple of years where resellers have been able to control the supply of in-production items - Minecraft and Lloyd. Anything else can generally easily be obtained through retail channels by any consumer who wants one.

The easiest and most effective way for LEGO to "fix" the problem is to produce more inventory, like they do for the other 500+ sets per year. They have two anomalies - one of their own making (Lloyd), and one that probably caught them by surprise (Minecraft), and now they are possibly creating another one on purpose (Series 10/Goldie). They want to fix all this by going after resellers. A) it's not really effective, and B) it's the wrong approach anyway - just institute and enforce purchase limits and be done with it.

BrickDaddy

cloaked7 said:

BeardedCastleGuy said:

Depending upon the State and it's various laws it might be harder to come up with a viable, legal reason to bar in store purchases.

I'm no legal expert, but I think a retailer or store owner can ban an individual from purchases, or from even entering their store, and don't have to explain or justify it in any way. A seller can't be made to sell to a customer if they don't want to.

Right, unless it's discriminatory based on bias against a protected class. Race, gender, etc. Resellers aren't a protected class unless a retailor decided to ban only male resellers and continue to allow female resellers to purchase from them.

y2josh

@cloaked7 - In Indiana, at least, you're completely within your rights to refuse service to any customer for any reason... it's just typically bad business to do so.

LegoFanTexas

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Resellers are not in that list. :)

Some states have added things to that list, sexual orientation is common in many states now. California has perhaps the broadest laws, you can't discriminate against a long list of things there, but alas, resellers aren't on their list either.

It is also worth noting that you CAN discriminate against protected classes when you have a compelling business reason to do so. This is why Hooters can have only female waitresses, it is their entire core business. They have been sued over it and won.

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

adol7

I'd understand the concern of items being bought up if there were a set limited amount, like the 5,000 gold minifigs. However, if a set like Minecraft is being bought up by resellers, why can't they just make more or extend its life so even more are bought by kids & resellers? That'd only be more money sales/money for them. That'd only hurt resellers, which wouldn't be their concern anyway.

LegoFanTexas

^ That works if they have spare production capacity, but the problem is that TLG has been running at 100% capacity for some time now, they are bringing more online, but they are also growing 30% a year, so they are not getting ahead of it.

If they forecasted for 15% growth and planned for 25% production capacity growth to give themselves a 10% margin, then they are actually 5% behind and having a hard time keeping everyone supplied.

Then when a Minecraft hits, they simply have no more production time on the floor to make more sets, regardless of what the demand is. The only other option is to take other sets offline to supply Minecraft, but then Amazon or Walmart doesn't get their City Police Stations, so what is TLG to do?

Basta

LegoFanTexas said:

..... so what is TLG to do?

Ban LFT :P

Dread_Pirate

I have now read most of this thread and I can feel your pain. I also understand part of Lego's side as well. In the early 90's most of us remember the Dot-Com rush and subsequent failure. This hurt alot of companies that were planning on and tooled up for massive orders. Those suppliers and manufactures took a huge loss and some even had to close their doors. Alot of companies will no longer sell to internet only resellers because of bad memories from the 90's and it is not just the music. I have inquired to Lego about a ITD account and the initial purchase is 10K and there were no monthly requirement but there was a reorder minimum amount. You were also required to maintain a certain percentage of their lines. All and all the only requirement I was given is that I had a B&M storefront and my orders were to ship to the store not my house. They wanted me to sell other products but it was not a requirement. I asked about this as I wanted to start with lego only and work into other product lines. I also was told my company could not have the name Lego in it. It all seemed fair to me as far as requirements for ITD.

As for your situation I dont know why you could not be put on "probation" for your lego purchases. It sounds like your local Lego store has done this already but why not S&H? As for the 5 sets per lifetime sounds more than fair for personal use type purchases.

Good luck with your adventure.

y2josh

CCC said:

y2josh said:

CCC said:

It may create ill will from you, but it might also create good will from other customers if they know that lego are now doing something about stopping resellers buying huge amounts direct from lego for resale.

It's worth noting that, at least as evinced by this thread, they're actually creating ill will amongst other paying customers that aren't resellers. And that's certainly not a good thing.

If you'd stop buying from them because of it, then go for it.

I rarely buy from S@H anyway, so I'm sure they're not concerned about losing me, personally, as a buyer from that channel.

And to be clear, it's not even the banning resellers (or specifically LFT) that I believe is reflecting poorly on the company (though I think some others appear to disagree). My chief gripe, and where I think they're stepping into dangerous territory, is rooted squarely in S@H's move to say one thing and then do another. They're certainly within their rights to do so, but it's still bad business.

cloaked7

^ LEGO is a large company, that's a given. So, they have a good amount of bureaucracy.

My guess is that one department handles the reseller issues. Other departments are handling the Mr Gold promotion. Others deal with fiascos like Minecraft. I think LEGO contradicts themselves because different rules, initiatives, promotions come from different departments and they either don't fully know, or care about, what other departments are doing.

What they need to do is add to their bureaucracy to help better manage their bureaucracy. :-) Hey, governments do it all the time! :-)

MCNwakeboard

@LFT, sorry to hear about your troubles ordering online. I had an order of mine cancelled a while back and never received a message from them that it had been cancelled. I've sold a bit on the side when items go out of production, but Lego is really trying to make you feel like a criminal for doing this.

If there weren't so many awesome sets coming out this year, I would sign a petition to ban purchasing Lego sets for treating customers poorly, maybe next year...scratch that, maybe when the LOTR license runs out...

CCC

LegoFanTexas said:

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Resellers are not in that list. :)

Surely resellers are not on that list because they are a business, not a person. I'm not sure about US law, but in the UK businesses are not afforded the same rights as people.

So the problem then is using a personal account for business purposes. You are no longer a person, but a business.

doriansdad

Sorry to hear that LFT!

TLG gave me the runaround last year. There are plenty of ways to still order from them online, the only question is do you still want to? Maybe 50% off B-Wing will pursuade you lol.

LegoFanTexas

CCC said:

Surely resellers are not on that list because they are a business, not a person. I'm not sure about US law, but in the UK businesses are not afforded the same rights as people.

So the problem then is using a personal account for business purposes. You are no longer a person, but a business.

See the "Citizens United" ruling in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

In short, corporations are people and are entitled to the same general rights as people. In this case, the right of free speech, as promised in our 1st amendment to our Constitution.

Farmer_John

CCC said:

So the problem then is using a personal account for business purposes. You are no longer a person, but a business.

So even when you're working for yourself, you're still working for the man? And here I was wanting to start my own business... ;-)

tmgm528

Farmer_John said:

CCC said:

So the problem then is using a personal account for business purposes. You are no longer a person, but a business.

So even when you're working for yourself, you're still working for the man? And here I was wanting to start my own business... ;-)

So would that make everyone the man? The 60's and 70's are suddenly flashing before my eyes! The lies..oh the lies....

doriansdad

CCC said:

Should "the rules" be published though. If they publish their algorithm for banning people, it will be abused up to whatever the limit is.

For <$200 and around 30 mins work you can have the name and addresses of every big lego reseller on feebay. Ooops!

tmgm528

.

tmgm528

CCC said:

^ Amazon is in it's own category. Of course Lego will negotiate with the world's biggest online store to get their products on there.

Sorry everyone is just quoting you so I figure I'd get in on the fun. d:

FollowsClosely

LegoFanTexas said:

Just tell me the rules of the game so I can play.

They don't want you to play. I have not axe an order since my warning either. I will test my fate in the morning with a b-wing.

neiname

Just read through this, sucks LFT. I had a similar thing happen a few years ago when I was banned as a seller on Amazon. This was the heyday of the LE video game market (Demon Souls, ME2 collector's, Assassin Creed 2 ME, MW2 Prestige). Was able to preorder multiple copies of each and sell for 2-3x when released. Amazon got pissed when you sold a preorder so they sent notices to stop selling items as you only had 48 hours to send them out (this was pre-amazon fulfillment). I listed my preorders the day before but that was the catalyst for the banning. Will be almost impossible to set up another selling account as they track MULTIPLE sources (IP, CC#, address, name, etc.)

No matter how you slice it, it's hard to come up with a compelling reason why any company (besides ebay) likes resellers. It can negatively affect the brand and screws up the forecasting/planning. I am not entorely convinced that there would have been an issue with minecraft if a bunch of resellers weren't constantly buying up the inventory and controlling the market.

jasonord69a

neiname said:

I am not entorely convinced that there would have been an issue with minecraft if a bunch of resellers weren't constantly buying up the inventory and controlling the market.

Who were the resellers selling to?

The same issue with availability would have happened, the only difference is more end users would have paid the retail price for the set instead of an inflated price.

binaryeye

jasonord69a said:

The same issue with availability would have happened, the only difference is more end users would have paid the retail price for the set instead of an inflated price.

The inflated price is the problem, is it not? It's not in LEGOs best interest for all of their stock of a current set to be controlled by third parties.

dougts

binaryeye said:

jasonord69a said:

The same issue with availability would have happened, the only difference is more end users would have paid the retail price for the set instead of an inflated price.

The inflated price is the problem, is it not? It's not in LEGOs best interest for all of their stock of a current set to be controlled by third parties.

which LEGO can easily remedy by making enough product to meet demand. They dropped the ball on TWO sets - Minecraft and Lloyd, while over-producing on almost all their other hundreds of sets. This is a serious over-reaction to their own miscalculation.

cheshirecat

How exactly were they to judge demand for minecraft? I remember a lot of people here saying they thought it was rubbish! TLG miscalculated sure, but it was the resellers that made them look like an ass and turned disappointed customers into angry ones.

lulwut

dougts said:

binaryeye said:

jasonord69a said:

The same issue with availability would have happened, the only difference is more end users would have paid the retail price for the set instead of an inflated price.

The inflated price is the problem, is it not? It's not in LEGOs best interest for all of their stock of a current set to be controlled by third parties.

which LEGO can easily remedy by making enough product to meet demand. They dropped the ball on TWO sets - Minecraft and Lloyd, while over-producing on almost all their other hundreds of sets. This is a serious over-reaction to their own miscalculation.

Like the B-Wing right? Right? The problem with resellers is they create unnecessary demand and makes it incredibly hard to gauge how many sets to produce.

You make only enough to meet the end users, the resellers dip in, and causes a reselling frenzy. If you overproduce to compensate, resellers lose interest, and the set stays stagnant. In effect, they have to deal with two markets: buyers and resellers. Lego is clearly trying to eliminate the latter.

prof1515

Hmmm, as a semi-reseller (typically, I keep mint-condition sets and sell the non-mint sets that I receive) I wonder if I'll be targeted. I doubt it as I don't deal in more than a couple thousand in sales a year. Then again, as I haven't bought anything from Shop-at-Home in a few months (only been buying Kre-O since Star Trek trumps any license Lego is presently producing) who knows? Maybe I'm banned too! *shrug* It'd probably be a good thing since it would help motivate me to quit collecting Lego. :-)

dougts

lulwut said:

Like the B-Wing right? Right? The problem with resellers is they create unnecessary demand and makes it incredibly hard to gauge how many sets to produce.

No resellers in their right mind are going to hoard up current-production sets at anything over 30% off RRP, unless the sets are on the way out the door or there is a severe supply shortage. The b-wing sold because it was 50% off. minecraft got hoarded because it supply was MUCH less than demand. both of these circumstances were created directly by TLG. Resellers aren't creating some unnecessary demand in the marketplace in general - that would be a foolish money-losing proposition for an item that isn't, for all intents and purposes, in limited supply at all.

That said, LEGO is certainly withing their rights to expend energy trying to kill of the reseller market. Good luck with that ...

BeardedCastleGuy

CCC said:

BeardedCastleGuy said:

So effectively what they're doing is mildly reducing the number of resellers by a few and claiming victory.

Where have lego claimed victory?

They probably know that they cannot stop all reselling of current sets, since control of customers from all other stores which they supply is virtually impossible. But what they can do is stop known resellers (to them) buying from them direct, which is what they have done at S@H. There is no victory to be had, all they can do (if they cannot for whatever reason produce more of what is in high demand quickly) is try to make the stocks they have reach consumers rather than resellers.

LegoFanTexas said:

The consumer in me wants 1 to build.

The reseller in me wants 50 to resell.

Clearly the consumer should be taken care of first, the reseller comes second. If the needs of the reseller interfere with the needs of the consumer, then the reseller has to take a back seat.

I'm perfectly ok with this and I totally understand it. Just tell me the rules of the game so I can play.

I think lego S@H have made the rules clear, even if half way through the game. They know you are a reseller and resellers are no longer allowed to play.

@ccc
The way I'm seeing it the ban *IS* thier way of declaring victory, LFT is at least currently done being able to order from S@H for any purpose.
I'm not a reseller myself but it doesn't fill me with warm fuzzy feelings when they Retroactively apply a ban like this. To me it's being arbitrary and capricious when they go, even though it wasn't against the rules when you bought those items we're now going to ban you after the fact and there's nothing you can do about it. I'm sure the word of at least some of the bans is getting around, we're talking about it here and Brickset is just one outpost in this mass of tubes called the internet.

So @ccc if you are playing a game of say, football, you'd be alright with the referee's ejecting you from the second half of the game for a play that was legal during the first half after they decided to make a rule change at halftime? It's not telling you before the start of the game or before you make the play that they will ban you for, it's after. That's basically what has happened to LFT and that's why I think it's a raw deal. It appears that we disagree on this and I can accept that, doesn't mean we are not each entitled to our opinions though.

When source of my hobby starts acting arbitrary and capricious towards a segment of those that support said company, it gives me pause. Is it a segment of supporters it particularly wants? nope, and I understand why that is. But it still makes me wonder down the road are they going to pick out some OTHER segment of those whom buy from it and start banning the newly selected segment for what are now past actions? Anyone can say no, they'll never do that at this point in time but that whole being capricious thing means we'll never know for sure...

BrickDaddy

Has anyone considered the possibility that LFT was banned because he is LFT and S@H knew he'd be a great person to make an example of? Like the IRS going after celebrities mostly to make everyone else live in fear of them so they don't cheat.

I'm sure employees of LEGO read this forum and other sites relating to LEGO collecting and investing. I wouldn't be surprised if they ultimately decide to ban other high profile people to make people think twice about their S@H buying and reselling - look at all the fear in the May 4th topic. Specifically, I also wouldn't be surprised if they bring the hammer down on the brother owners of a certain other website that prides itself as serving the LEGO investor...

lulwut

dougts said:

lulwut said:

Like the B-Wing right? Right? The problem with resellers is they create unnecessary demand and makes it incredibly hard to gauge how many sets to produce.

No resellers in their right mind are going to hoard up current-production sets at anything over 30% off RRP, unless the sets are on the way out the door or there is a severe supply shortage. The b-wing sold because it was 50% off. minecraft got hoarded because it supply was MUCH less than demand. both of these circumstances were created directly by TLG. Resellers aren't creating some unnecessary demand in the marketplace in general - that would be a foolish money-losing proposition for an item that isn't, for all intents and purposes, in limited supply at all.

That said, LEGO is certainly withing their rights to expend energy trying to kill of the reseller market. Good luck with that ...

Lego may have underestimated the initial demand of the Minecraft set but the resellers blew it up in their face. There were two markets in the Minecraft debacle: the resellers and buyers. As supply dwindled and and buyer demand spiked, so did demand with resellers. Resellers were buying them up left and right, creating a slew of new demand to cater to the other market, the buyers.

Of course they will never be able to eliminate the reselling market as it comes and go as it sees fit, but they can at least do some damage control.

Pitfall69

BrickDaddy said:

Has anyone considered the possibility that LFT was banned because he is LFT and S@H knew he'd be a great person to make an example of? Like the IRS going after celebrities mostly to make everyone else live in fear of them so they don't cheat.

I'm sure employees of LEGO read this forum and other sites relating to LEGO collecting and investing. I wouldn't be surprised if they ultimately decide to ban other high profile people to make people think twice about their S@H buying and reselling - look at all the fear in the May 4th topic. Specifically, I also wouldn't be surprised if they bring the hammer down on the brother owners of a certain other website that prides itself as serving the LEGO investor...

I don't think that is case. I'm sure Lego uses some algorithm to make these decisions. If Lego has issue with resellers and maybe thinks it has some responsibility to protect their consumers, then they need to focus most of their attention on drop shippers and con artists peddling their product and ruining their image. I think resellers are the least of their worries. IMO, I think TLG just wants LFT to participate in their wholesaler program.

icey117

It makes perfectly sense that TLC makes this move. Rounding all resellers up gives TLC a fair overview of the market, and all independant sellers even and fair options.

Altogether its a fair call from their side.

CCC

BeardedCastleGuy said:

@ccc
The way I'm seeing it the ban *IS* thier way of declaring victory, LFT is at least currently done being able to order from S@H for any purpose.
I'm not a reseller myself but it doesn't fill me with warm fuzzy feelings when they Retroactively apply a ban like this. To me it's being arbitrary and capricious when they go, even though it wasn't against the rules when you bought those items we're now going to ban you after the fact and there's nothing you can do about it. I'm sure the word of at least some of the bans is getting around, we're talking about it here and Brickset is just one outpost in this mass of tubes called the internet.

I don't see that as DECLARING victory. They have not made a public statement that LFT is banned. LFT made it common knowledge that he is banned. That was up to him, not lego.

BeardedCastleGuy said:

So @ccc if you are playing a game of say, football, you'd be alright with the referee's ejecting you from the second half of the game for a play that was legal during the first half after they decided to make a rule change at halftime? It's not telling you before the start of the game or before you make the play that they will ban you for, it's after. That's basically what has happened to LFT and that's why I think it's a raw deal. It appears that we disagree on this and I can accept that, doesn't mean we are not each entitled to our opinions though.

There are many analogies possible, on both sides of the argument. Another sport analogy would be when a competition wants to be amateur sportsmen only - all professionals are banned. They may not have known that before the sport body decided on making it amateur only, but they are now banned. This is in effect what lego have done - banned all professional resellers (using their own definition of professional reseller). Anyone that they know are professionals are now banned as they (presumably) want to move more towards direct-to-consumer only.

CCC

Pitfall69 said:

If Lego has issue with resellers and maybe thinks it has some responsibility to protect their consumers, then they need to focus most of their attention on drop shippers and con artists peddling their product and ruining their image. I think resellers are the least of their worries. IMO, I think TLG just wants LFT to participate in their wholesaler program.

(Legal) drop shippers are no real different to resellers of current items. I don't think the (illegal) con artists using stolen cards etc are that big a problem. Yes, it happens and should be minimised, but I doubt the problem is as big as you think. The Minecraft issue did damage the image of lego for some parents and it was significantly more public and thus image damaging. Many places sold out of a highly sought after toy except for ebay sellers charging huge amounts.

prevere

Even if Lego is rounding up "big-time" resellers, there are thousands who buy a little bit to resell to support themselves. Many of those are core brand enthusiasts, and Lego shouldn't want to discourage them.

CCC

^ Presumably they are not. I would be hard to root out this type of small time reseller without banning someone buying for personal use.

In fact, I'm one of those. I even participated in the Minecraft saga, buying four and selling them all on. No doubt my purchase amount from S@H is bigger than most members of the public, but way smaller than most resellers and (up to last year) about average for an AFOL.

We have something similar with people buying cheap alcohol / cigarettes abroad importing them into the UK. It is obvious when someone brings back an entire van it is not personal consumption. But if they bring back a sports bag full of cigarettes? They might smoke the lot, some of them they might sell to friends. One of those is allowed, the other isn't. Policing it is impossible.

Legobutterfly

This is worrying me a little as both of my sons and my husband collect star wars LEGO and some sets I would potentially want to order 3 of and have done from JL or Argos in the past so I had one for each of them. In the most part I guess I buy where I get the best price which is not always S@H, I buy only what I need for me and my family, I do not resell at all and would never try and bypass purchase limits if I wanted to by a quantity for my family (i.e 3) larger than a limit set by S@H (say 1 or 2). I guess I'm talking about sets I could only get from S@H or if there was a good set reduced for May 4th but I would never be trying to order 3 b-wings or ucs x-wings, MFs or DSs. I guess some of it is me being paranoid but I'd hate to be mistaken for someone reselling when all I really am is someone trying to please all the boys in my life.

tamamahm

@bishop_beth
I really do not see your case as something to worry about. I am sure Lego recognizes that some families have multiple kids or people to buy for. I do not see 3 of a product fcausing a flag.
American Girl has had similar issues with resellers, and they also put in reasonable order limits on certain items.

I think TLG is mainly concerned about flagging cases that seem to be large resellers.

Legobutterfly

Thanks @tamamahm, that has put my mind at rest quite a bit, I kind of hoped as I had my two sons on the lego club bit of my vip acct that they may realise it's them I am buying for but I still kind of panicked lol.

cheshirecat

There are two cases of bans im aware of. The first was some one who told them they were a reseller. The second is someone who was spending $50k a year at S@H. I dont think anyone more than a small number of big resellers need worry at all.

CCC

^ I wouldn't worry either. Loads of people spend $5-10K per year at S@H. While not "normal", lego knows many of its fans are not normal. What their threshold is, who knows. But it is surely a high figure to catch the resellers that are apparently bad for their business (or bad for their exclusives?) and not to catch someone buying one set for themself and a few to sell on later.

Phonebooth

^i wouldn't worry either.

Phonebooth

^i wouldn't worry either.

doriansdad

BrickDaddy said:

Has anyone considered the possibility that LFT was banned because he is LFT and S@H knew he'd be a great person to make an example of? Like the IRS going after celebrities mostly to make everyone else live in fear of them so they don't cheat.

When you ship an item on feebay and you are a volume seller then make sure the sender name and address is different than your VIP info. LFT is not the only one blacklisted.

jeffgedgaud

Rules are rules, they don't want to deal with you because you broke their rules, live with it and order from a reseller.

CCC

^ The sticking point is that no reseller rules were in place (in the USA) when LFT broke them / didn't break them.

tamamahm

Exactly!! In addition he was emailed as a reminder about it, and replied back that he understood, wouldn't do large orders from then, hadn't, and yet they still pulled the plug.

It's like telling your kid...don't jump on the couch, or no dessert... and then telling the kid who had stopped, sorry, you did jump on it before the warning, so I've decided to still not give you dessert.

Bandit

@LegoFanTexas - did the 2nd order you said you tried ever go through, or was that cancelled too? Did you ever end up getting through on the phone to anyone competent?