LuLaRoe is intentionally deflating ex-retailer refund amounts

I’ve noticed a trend in my internet travels, when I read articles about ex-retailers and the refund verification process: LuLaRoe is intentionally deflating ex-retailer refund amounts.  It’s absolutely sickening. These ex-retailers are waiting on this money for mortgages, household bills and in not-so-rare-cases, to avoid bankruptcy.

So the process goes like this: you send our inventory back to LuLaRoe and you wait for them to count your inventory and come back to you with a total that they “think” that they owe you, in the form of a “verification email”. From there, you confirm or deny that the supplied total is accurate. The thing is, before you send back your inventory, you fill out return authorization forms that tell LuLaRoe exactly what you are sending back. Not only do they have the actual boxes full of your inventory, they also have the return authorization forms that tell them what you’ve sent. LuLaRoe should be checking their physical count with the amount that was submitted on your RA form to ascertain where the discrepancy lies. THEY AREN’T (no surprise, right?).

The image that you see above is a shortage of at least $7713. Is this an intentional mistake by LuLaRoe? Maybe not. But there are very, very FEW cases where the verification email amount matches the actual amount owed to the ex-retailer. In most cases it’s off by a few hundred.

But I have a theory: people are accepted “short” amounts because they are SO SICK of the waiting and the worrying and just want to be done. I completely understand that. But in the process, LuLaRoe SEES this and takes every advantage of it that they can. Let’s do some math. Let’s say 10,000 retailer have decided to going out of business and have their refund issued by LuLaRoe. If each person takes $200 LESS than what they are owed, that lining LuLaRoe’s pockets with $2,000,000.00 (yes, TWO MILLION dollars).

Why WOULDN’T they try to short everyone??? Because they are SO HONEST and care about BLESSING LIVES and STRENGTHENING FAMILIES? You’ve got to be kidding me. They are shysters who will do anything to make, or not lose, a buck.

Oh! And there’s also this gem too.

Yes, you read that correctly. She was shorted $4500 in her check. I certainly hope that she fights back and get’s what is owed to her.

Moral of the story: LuLaRoe is intentionally deflating ex-retailer refund amounts to save them money, so FIGHT until you get what’s owed to you. They’ve already got your wasted blood, sweat and tears. Don’t allow them to keep one more thing from you!

ALL CONTENT QUALIFIES UNDER FAIR USE POLICY.

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

THIS SITE MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. WE ARE MAKING SUCH MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN AN EFFORT TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL, POLITICAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, ECONOMIC, DEMOCRACY, SCIENTIFIC, MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING, PYRAMID SCHEMES, AND TACTLESS AND INSENSITIVE SELLING METHODS, BLATANTLY HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES, ETC. WE BELIEVE THIS CONSTITUTES A ‘FAIR USE’ OF ANY SUCH COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO: HTTP://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/USCODE/17/107.SHTML

IF YOU WISH TO USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FROM THIS SITE FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR OWN THAT GO BEYOND ‘FAIR USE’, YOU MUST OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER.

THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZES A “FAIR USE” OF COPYRIGHTED CONTENT. SECTION 107 OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT ACT STATES:

“NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 106 AND 106A, THE FAIR USE OF A COPYRIGHTED WORK, INCLUDING SUCH USE BY REPRODUCTION IN COPIES OR PHONORECORDS OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS SPECIFIED BY THAT SECTION, FOR PURPOSES SUCH AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING (INCLUDING MULTIPLE COPIES FOR CLASSROOM USE), SCHOLARSHIP, OR RESEARCH, IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.”

THIS BLOG AND MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL, IN GENERAL, MAY CONTAIN CERTAIN COPYRIGHTED WORKS THAT WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO BE USED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S), BUT WHICH I BELIEVE IN GOOD FAITH ARE PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND THE FAIR USE DOCTRINE FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE REASONS NOTED ABOVE.