Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
The longest one I have seen so far is 17 years!
There's been a significant lack of communication in advance of a lot of the changes they've introduced which hasn't been ideal; and this has resulted in quite a bit of friction which is highly evident in the community forum. I'm really surprised LEGO have allowed Bricklink to act in the way they have on several occasions - it can't be good PR for them.
The one positive is that they seem to have invested quite a bit in trying to sort out the IT issues - and it's certainly far more stable than a few years ago. The (totally pointless) changes they've made to the catalogue are just meddling for the sake of it.
And, don't get me started on the addition of VAT to Bricklink fees - despite their assurances that they wouldn't change them. It reminds me of George Bush's classic speech of 'No new taxes'.... which evolved into 'No taxes for newts!' If LEGO really had to collect VAT that's fine, but considering their incredible profits in the last few years, you'd have thought they could have eaten the cost themselves and kept it at 3%- but apparently not.
But I agree their communication is awful. I don't think LEGO really cares what they do, as their latest joint LEGO/BL message seems to indicate they are still pursuing Bricklink XP.
It's a bit ridiculous to ask for deferred fees from 2003. Are they going to de-activate accounts that don't pay the invoice?
I haven't sold anything ever on BL, but I'll have to see if I get the invoice.
Unrelated - I sincerely hope they don't sync their B&P with the piece inventory for BL. There are SO many bricks missing from the B&P inventories. (And replacement parts inventories, as well.)
Given that I've always known I technically owed them money, I don't feel I can really complain when they finally change their (rather stupid from their point of view) policy to ensure I have to actually pay them!
The fact that they deferred the fees and sellers forgot about them doesn't absolve anyone of their contractual obligations.
Anyway, it seems to me like Bricklink is still being run at arms length from Lego.
Regardless, to @samiam391's point - even if it is $100,000 in actual cash, is it work aggravating and/or scaring off users?
Sending someone a bill for $0.16 seems pretty petty.
But for a company as large as LEGO sometimes PR > $. In this scenario I don't think the $ outweighs the PR.
How many sets do they give away for reviews and PR. Yet here, tighter than a gnat's chuff.
I wouldn't characterize this as a 'mess', but a glaringly annoying bit of nonsense.
Given that LEGO haphazardly discontinued the Osprey on an arguably questionable over-reaction, and severed a strategic partnership with Shell. This is a company that downplayed their current financial success during the pandemic... their current approach is definitely odd.
The commission due only became chargeable if certain thresholds were met. They can change that going forward but they cannot apply it retrospectively. It is no different to them saying, "I know the terms said 3% but now we're asking for 30%, back-dated to the very beginning of BL."
Bricklink may be a US company but they have to comply with UK/EU law when dealing with their UK/EU users. I am amazed this got by their legal people.
If someone in the EU who received a demand brought it up with their consumer authority, TLG could end up in bother with the very real potential of negative headlines ("Lego company sends out illegal demands for $0.01").
I can't speak for the legality etc, but it's definitely not the same as them saying they're now asking for backdated 30% fees.
However, I don't think there's maliciousness or petty minded penny pinching in this. This is probably just automated, I doubt they really want these tiny quantities of extra fees (an accounting headache IMO), I think they want a system that is (in layman's terms) legally accountable. I reckon there were some pretty ugly accounts anomolies and this is just them trying to straighten things out.
FWIW, debts older than seven years are still collectible, legally too, google informs me.
Totally agree about bad PR, but there must only be a really small number of folks irritated by this, and I'd suggest those might be people who lost interest in their shop or the hobby in general.
Dunno, just thoughts, not looking for an argument if I've made ill-informed comments.
Changing one contractual term is the same as changing another. The level or value of impact does not come into it.
Look at all the money we can make if we just manipulate the numbers!!! Bricklink users won't suspect a thing...
Hey @SumoLego I'm sending you a bill for $4 because you stole a meme I posted on here 5 years ago. My memes come at a price.
^ And I agree - if Bricklink can't substantiate the purported fees due - I'd dispute the invoice.
I also get the impression that BL may need to do their due diligence to try and collect the fees before they either write them off or ignore them.