New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
If all those high-RAM systems are causing problems, turn on KSM. If that's not enough, enable memory ballooning. Sure, people won't be particularly thrilled about that, but it's a whole lot better than being kicked off.
Didn't you say you didn't have access to the previous accounts where the payments for the special deals were received?
That doesn't make any sense. If you want to save yourself the hassle with PayPal/Stripe, it would make much more sense for you to initiate the refund. Do you have access to the PayPal/Stripe account or not?
I understand that you block every account that has received a refund, but if I understand correctly, you also block customers who have only asked for a refund (did not receive it) but have not filed a dispute.
So you are Lewis? Because why would you use his PayPal and be responsible for it?
This is exactly what I've been saying this entire time. The resources don't matter at all. It's actually the labor/support costs that's a bigger issue along with making sure everything is legal and complied with the TOC.
You're missing a zero there's like 3000 clients
We're officially registered in the US and with the ICO. Everything above board and correct and easily able to find.
So you charged back... Did you file a ticket and say so? Or just leave your service active? If active are you still using the service?
Correct I don't have access to Lewis's accounts. But PayPal and stripe apis allow anyone to check transactionIDs against dispute status. They don't give any info other than if there was a dispute or not. It also gives us the ability to report a transactionID as fraud.
This is what any payment vendor can do with any transactionid.
We're responsible for not being complicit in a users fraud against lewis. If they knowingly are trying to steal from him and keep their service we provide. If they want their money back we much use any resource available to cancel service. This is just basic law.
BECAUSE IT'S NOT FRAUD
Fraud would be misrepresenting the situation with the payment provider to get the chargeback. If you tell them the truth and they choose to honour the chargeback, it's not fraud. It would only be fraud if, for example, you tell them the service is already cancelled when it hasn't been. If you simply tell them the facts as you currently know them and they agree with you, it's not fraud.
What happens with the service carrying on after that is irrelevant. But even if you did carry on using the service (which I personally wouldn't do), it wouldn't be fraud.
And just to be clear - I absolutely think the customer should have no expectation of service after a successful chargeback, but what I'm saying is that you are accessing personal information between stripe, Lewis and the customer in determining whether to shut down the service. From what you've previously indicated, Lewis did not authorise you to read these e-mails, rather you're getting by virtue of gaining ownership of the domain name.
Then you don't offer the service for renewal or increase the cost at renewal time.
Again stop with this bullshit. THE CHARGEBACK IS NOT FRAUDULENT. Whether the service remains operational afterwards or not is a you problem.
And to be clear, I think it is a you problem. As far as I can tell, you have no legal method of discovering who has done a chargeback unless Lewis chooses to tell you. Presumably, he will only choose to tell you that if you two make an agreement, perhaps by covering the amount being refunded. If you just access his e-mails without permission you are breaking the law.
Well, he does that and he said that himself already
Why can't customers send a work order explaining the reason for the refund when you are unable to provide normal service
hmmmm
2026-01-05T23:51:46+00:00
So, it's likely him
There are more holes in 'Eric's' stories than in a San Francisco homeless guy's clothes!
He's clearly full of shit, everything from the tone to the words he's using scream pretend. The constant shrieking about fraud is a good example. I suppose it's possible the enterprise he's talking about is the company he works for and he's stretching the story.
And let's not forget the alt account, literally yesterday.
Cut him some slack, buddy. Most likely, he isn't paid enough to face customers that gaslit him over and over again (As he said, 7 figure annual salary) nor had experience and ability dealing with karens.
Let's just assume @VeloxMedia stance against fraud aren't asymmetrical, and they had or currently filing sar/daml, but hasn't communicate it with the customer.
You're saying purchasing service, then charging back and getting a refund while continuing to use the service isn't fraud?
Who said lewis didn't authorize me to have access to these emails? Also none of this applies you keep adding all this nonsense. Unless you're an attorney specialized in gdpr and willing to state your license number then let's not discuss random rules that don't apply.
So everyone was perfectly fine with purchasing from lewis who didn't have a company, no legit anything, no gdpr, not registered with ico nothing, and now we're a legit corporation, registered with the ICO fully GDPR compliant and everything following rules and regulations to the letters, all that you've verified.... And yet you're now not happy?
Meanwhile almost every other company on here isnt registered with ICO nor do they have any of their info verified. How come such a double standard?
Anyways, imma go back to focusing on growing our company and making great solutions. I wish y'all the best of luck feel free to reach out on discord or check out website for updates. Lots of great things coming soon
This won't be monitored anymore.
Its completely contradictory to say you have access to those emails and not have access to the payment accounts themselves. The payment accounts do not belong to your domain?
From a paypal email that i've received.
Smells me that you're lying. But i dont want to point the finger until everything is clear.
Who are we talking to today? Are we talking to Eric? Andrew from legal? FBI?
Here we go
If you paid for a VPS service, issued a chargeback, and continued using the service, you would likely be committing theft of services (also called "theft by deception" or "obtaining services by deception" in some jurisdictions). The specific legal terminology varies by location.
Here's what would typically apply:
Criminal aspects:
You'd be receiving a service of value without payment
The chargeback would be fraudulent since you're claiming you didn't receive the service (or had some legitimate dispute) while actually continuing to use it
This could also potentially constitute wire fraud or computer fraud depending on jurisdiction, since it involves electronic transactions and continued unauthorized access
Civil aspects:
The VPS provider could sue you for the unpaid fees
You'd likely owe the original amount plus additional damages
There could be penalties for breach of the terms of service
Practical consequences:
Chargeback fraud can get you banned from payment processors
The VPS provider would almost certainly terminate your service once they became aware
You could face criminal charges if the provider chose to pursue them
This type of action is both legally and ethically problematic because you're deliberately obtaining something of value without paying for it. If you have a legitimate dispute with a VPS provider, there are proper channels to resolve it through their support, dispute resolution, or small claims court rather than fraudulent chargebacks.
"what if the original payment was to a UK sole trader and the sole trader has sold the services to a US business/entity/person would it still be fraud?"
Yes, it would still be fraud. The transfer of the business from a UK sole trader to a US entity doesn't change the fundamental nature of what you'd be doing.
Here's why:
The core issue remains:
You're receiving services without payment, regardless of who owns the company
The fraudulent chargeback and continued use of services constitutes theft of services in both the UK and US
How the ownership transfer affects things:
If the business was legitimately sold or transferred, the new US entity typically acquires the rights to payment for services rendered. The contract would generally transfer with the business assets unless specified otherwise.
Where it gets slightly more complex:
The jurisdiction question might affect where legal action could be pursued and which laws specifically apply, but both the UK and US have laws against:
Theft of services
Fraud
Unauthorized computer access (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the US, Computer Misuse Act in the UK)
The chargeback itself:
Your chargeback would likely be with the UK sole trader (the original merchant of record), but you'd be defrauding whoever is actually providing the service you continue to use - in this case, the US entity.
The ownership structure doesn't create a loophole. If anything, it might complicate enforcement slightly, but it doesn't make the action legal or ethical. Both entities would have grounds to pursue legal action, and you'd still be committing fraud against whoever is actually providing the services.
Courtesy of ChatGPT Legal AI which holds the same qualifications as the LET LEGAL team right here lol
Correct. In the hypothetical situation of continuing to use the service after a chargeback, it wouldn't be fraud.
The chargeback can be done completely honestly based on the evidence of your own words, and there's a reasonable suspicion that anybody's service might be terminated at no notice.
Whether the service continues to be provided after a successful chargeback is entirely up to the provider. It is not fraud to fail to inform you of a chargeback. The reason you don't already know is because the matter doesn't concern you, it's a matter solely between the customer and stripe, and stripe and Lewis.
You did.
LOL. It seems your legal department can't even tell you what is and isn't fraud.
But yes, what I said earlier is very much true. If you read email intended for Lewis and you are not authorised to do so, then you are breaking the law. If that email contains PII of an individual within the UK and EU, then you are also breaking GDPR rules. If your legal team can't even understand this, then perhaps you need to hire a better legal team.
😮💨
The arguments provided by ChatGPT represent a standard, "textbook" defense of a service provider, but they rely on several critical assumptions that do not align with the specific facts of your case.
ChatGPT is essentially arguing from the perspective of a clean transition of a healthy business, whereas you are describing a distressed transfer of a fraudulent one.
Here are the details ChatGPT's argument missed or assumed (which you can clarify), and why those omissions change the legal conclusion:
ChatGPT’s Argument: You are getting service for free, which is theft.
The Missing Detail: The victims already paid for the service.
ChatGPT’s Argument: The contract generally transfers with the business assets.
The Missing Detail: The Buyer explicitly told you "he's gone with money, contract."
ChatGPT’s Argument: A chargeback is fraudulent if you are still using the service.
The Missing Detail: The chargeback is for "Service Not as Described" or "Merchant Failed to Provide Service" because the Sole Trader vanished.
ChatGPT’s Argument: The US entity acquires the right to payment.
The Missing Detail: The "Taint" and the Buyer's knowledge of the crime.
Lol, the end is nigh!
Meanwhile ...
My VPS is running fine and hasn't been rebooted or otherwise interrupted for a single second since the takeover/reinstall which was a bit before this thread clusterfuck started.
And from what I can see @VeloxMedia was pretty much right and did a good job even regarding legal and formal things.
What I care about is that I paid and, modulo a short hiccup during ownership transfer, got and have running fine a quite cheap but really nice VPS. Which to me means: Lewis/Eric/VeloxMedia and myself made a deal and not only did they honour it and deliver and take care but they also seem to have done the company/operation transfer quickly and well.
The only thing to complain about I see is their communication - but facing a highly emotional clusterfuck here IMO that is understandable and forgiveable.
So, @raindog308 @DP @FAT32 how about unsuspending their provider tag?
are you serious?
Please disclose your company's information so that further complaints can be filed against your company with the relevant authorities in your jurisdiction.
As for the charges against you, the relevant department will clarify them after investigation. If you have done nothing wrong, the investigation results will be made public. Beyond that, everything you've said is nonsense—no one will believe it.
Because you maliciously deleted user data, anonymously controlled and manipulated users' private information, and claimed to have taken over the company while failing to honor existing contracts between the company and its clients.
Well "his" companies are all registered in Ohio. There Benthost LLC, Velox Media LLC, Velox Media INC, Shield Management Inc, just search it up.
https://businesssearch.ohiosos.gov/