I listened to an hour-long spiel by an MRS rep, charged the $295 for their lowest level program, then waited for the materials to arrive. During the spiel I asked the MRS rep about a refund if I wasn't satisfied w/ the package, and he assured me everything was on the up and up, etc., and that I could get a refund. I also told him I wasn't really worried about that b/c federal law allows the customer to opt out of a written contract w/i 3 business days anyway. He had no comment to that, and said they would overnight the package via FedEx, and that the package would include paperwork that I needed to sign and return.

The package did not arrive overnight. It arrived 3 days later via regular mail, not FedEx. I was expecting FedEx delivery as he said and didn't check my mailbox. FedEx delivers to the door and there would be no need to check the mailbox.

At any rate, I opened the package and found 3 forms. "Step 1" said to "review, sign and return your paperwork": (1) Affiliate Marketing Partner Agreement; (2) W-9 Form; and (3) two invoices (one of which I was to sign, date, and return). Each form also indicated that my signature was required.

Here's a summary of each form:

(1) Affiliate Marketing Partner Agreement. Among other things, this form specified our respective responsibilities. Both my signature and theirs was required. Also stated on the form as the "Entire Agreement": "This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. No modification or amendment to the agreement shall be effective until set forth in writing, executed by the parties and attached as an amendment hereto."

So, it appears that if I did not sign and return this form, there would be no "agreement" between me and them. I did NOT sign or return the form.

(2) Form W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification. What peaked my interest here was the requirement for either an "Employer identification number" or "Social security number". Since I hadn't established a company for this and, hence, had no EIN, I would've had to give them my SSN. I hesitated to provide my SSN without further review, which is exactly what I did.

(3) Invoice from "Superior Enterprise Solutions". Everything looked good until I saw near the bottom a section on "Refund Policy": "No Refunds or Credit." Oops, that wasn't good since it contradicted what the MRS rep had said. Plus, nowhere in the package did they inform me of the federal law that allowed me to opt out of the contract (assuming I would've signed it). Oh, and did I mention that at the bottom of the Invoice was a section called "Please Sign, Date, and Return", which, of course, I did NOT do.

Needless to say, I called the issuing bank for my MasterCard and disputed the charge. But, since neither I nor the bank rep knew what "reason" to use for disputing the charge, she used "Not as Described/Defective". I didn't think much about it at the time, but I now believe that particular reason code gave SES an opportunity to assert that I did in fact receive what I had "anticipated." In the meantime, the charge was charged back to SES.

The charge was ultimately charged back to me after SES sent the issuing bank a letter that included so-called "evidence" of my acceptance of the product. The letter in my (humble) opinion is very deceptive. SES also pointed out the "non-refundable" clause at the bottom of the Invoice. Well, the Invoice might carry some weight in their argument HAD I SEEN THE INVOICE BEFORE MAKING THE CHARGE. Of course, SES can deny that I was told a refund was available since MRS told me that and not SES. Nice trick.

SES also told the issuing bank that I was provided with a "unique and proprietary" website that is "currently functioning and viewable on-line." They further stated that I "commissioned" them to construct the website as part of my purchase. The website was there, but unfortunately, SES never bothered to provide me with the password to access the site. They provided the issuing bank with a screenshot of the site as "proof" that the site existed and was functional. Again, the site was NOT functional from my perspective b/c they never provided a user name and password to access the site.

SES concluded with stating that "Nowhere in the statement does Mr. <redacted> explain why he believes he was misled or that the product was delivered differently from the invoice description." First, there was no provision for a "statement" of why I did want the package and why I disputed the charge. All that was provided by the issuing bank was a "reason code" for the chargeback. Second, the invoice did not contain a "description" of the product (unless you consider the Product Name and Part Number a description; I don't).

Now I get to the really good part. After receiving a letter from the issuing bank that as a result of the "evidence" SES provided the charge would be charged back to me, I called them. I pointed out that I did not sign any of the forms that were supposed to be signed; nor did I return them. The problem was then escalated to a supervisor who contacted MasterCard for further explanation. I was told that MasterCard said that a signature was not required when a transaction was conducted over the phone or online, and that their decision to charge back was final. Well, I understand that some transactions do not require a signature, but not one that requires several signatures. I then asked the issuing bank rep about what happened to the so-called protection afforded by a credit card transaction, and he said that unfortunately once the merchant gets the credit card number they can do whatever they want. He said I could try to work with SES about a refund, but MasterCard's decision about charging back to me was final. Well, duh, given the "evidence" sent by SES to the issuing bank, why would anyone think it was possible to get a refund?

Now that MRS and SES have been closed, I guess I'll have to sue either/or or both MasterCard and the issuing bank for a refund. That sounds like it will cost a lot more than it's worth. Does anyone know whether Arizona's Attorney General got involved in this at all? Thanks for your patience in reading.