posted
Just found out about this, and thought I'd pass the word along.
Apparently DeBeers recently lost a class action lawsuit for violating antitrust law, engaging in unfair business practices, and other similar nasty things. If you purchased a piece of diamond jewelry between 1994 & 2006, you could get a significant percentage of your money back. Here's the link: https://diamondsclassaction.com/Consumer.htmPosts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 1994 date probably has something to do with the statute of limitations for civil antitrust actions, which is four years, dating from the time damages would be ascertainable.
The 2006 date probably derives from when the effects of the price fixing worked their way out of the market. A federal action in 2004 put an end to their monopolistic practices (theoretically).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If memory serves correctly, I bought two different pieces of diamond jewelry in those years.
I have no idea if I qualify, and I know for a fact I don't have the receipt or anything for one of those purchases. So I'd imagine it wouldn't matter. Besides, I got them both pretty decently on sale, so, it probably wouldn't be much back anyway.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think somewhere in the FAQ it says that you don't need a receipt or any proof of purchase for pieces under $10,000, although you might need to show some sort of proof in the future (like a credit card bill).
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So is this saying that if you bought a diamond anywhere in the US, between those dates, you can jump on the claim band wagon?
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
'Cause I bought my wedding ring in 2003, and it has diamonds, but I paid cash and don't have a receipt.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back then I paid with cash. But it's probably not worth it. I think I paid less than $250 for the piece I don't have any proof for, and I can't imagine I'd get that much back for it.
I could produce the jewelry itself, though that'd involve a very strange call to my ex girlfriend.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I think so Tammy & KQ. I've heard that class action suits don't always get around to actually paying out the money, but I figure it's worth a few minutes of one's time. The worst that can happen is you never get the money, or they ask for proof & you can't show, resulting in not getting the money.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but I spent $300 on my wedding ring (although it's been appraised for about $2200.)
Plus, you know, my phobia of calling people I don't know on the phone. I can barely even make my own doctor's appointments or call when something's wrong and I've been going the same place for more than 2 years. I usually get my husband to call if he can.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: Thanks, I quickly scrolled through the link but didn't see anything popping out at me. (I admit my legalese parser is below standards)
How does the 1994 date work with that four year limit? Does that mean people proved price fixing from 1990 onwards but four years are added from that date onwards...?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it means that they have to have filed suit within four years of when the damages were ascertainable.
Because the suit was filed in 2004, I assume that the settlement is based on the assumption that damages from 1994 became ascertainable in 2000.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah, I have a mild phobia of doing the same thing. I don't even like ordering a pizza.
I don't mind doing that, 'cause I do it online!
Ah, cheater! I remember when I first saw that happen in "The Net" starring Sandra Bullock, I thought that was amazing but it'd never happen in real life. Lo and behold now it's a real thing! There's only one, maybe two places around here that do that, but none of them deliver to my house, they are too far away. Stupid California.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Plus, you know, my phobia of calling people I don't know on the phone. I can barely even make my own doctor's appointments or call when something's wrong and I've been going the same place for more than 2 years. I usually get my husband to call if he can.
KQ: There has been more than one time that you have said something that sounded like my wife, but never more than just now. Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I bought 3 pairs of diamond earrings, a diamond ring, and a single diamond earring in that time period. All are relatively small/inexpensive, and I don't have receipts for any of them. But I have all of the jewelry except the single earring, which was a gift. Hmmm.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
edit: (self indulgent stuff) I don't care about the money I could get back from this, but I am glad DeBeers lost this suit, they are a terrible organization that causes more suffering then they could ever make amends for.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kq, I am like that, too. I am always sure I am going to interupt someone in the middle of something important and they will be annoyed. I have to make a lot of phone calls at work, so I have overcome it (somewhat). I remind myself that if they shouldn't be answering the phone, they wouldn't be. They would have someone or voice mail answer it for them.
Calling the deBeers people would be good practice. They have people whose whole job it is to answer the phone. And they deserve to be annoyed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I bought my wife's engagement ring with cash in a Wendy's parking lot right before I jumped on a plane to leave the state. I wonder if I qualify for anything.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Calling the deBeers people would be good practice. They have people whose whole job it is to answer the phone. And they deserve to be annoyed.
Why do you think that people who paid to answer phones by deBeers deserve to be annoyed? They are most likely among the lowest paid deBeers employees and had nothing to do with the price fixing.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
This is the second time I've entered one of these online class-action claims. The first time was a couple of years ago against a group of Record Producers for artificially inflating the price of CDs. I think I got $10 out of that.
From the information shown as I filed my claim, it seems like anyone who spent more than $90 on any diamond jewelry, or more than $160 on any mixed gem jewelry and did not resell it is eligible for compensation, regardless of whether they purchased it in a Wendy's parking lot or not. I think they warn those numbers are approximate, since they need to gauge how many actual submissions are made. The claim statement did indicate that the maximum allowable payout for those filing consumer subclass claims was (IIRC) $640; so, even if you bought a J-Lo style $6 million ring, the most you would get back would be $640. They estimated that anyone who purchased diamond jewelry with price in excess of (again, IIRC) $2800 would receive the maximum allowable payout. The minimum allowable payout is $10. If whatever formula they're using determines you should get back less than $10, they will not send you a check (not worth the administrative cost).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, the people who answer the phones are being paid to answer these complaints. It is an annoyance for the company; it is a paycheck for the people that the company has to hire to answer phones.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: kq, I am like that, too. I am always sure I am going to interupt someone in the middle of something important and they will be annoyed. I have to make a lot of phone calls at work, so I have overcome it (somewhat). I remind myself that if they shouldn't be answering the phone, they wouldn't be. They would have someone or voice mail answer it for them.
Calling the deBeers people would be good practice. They have people whose whole job it is to answer the phone. And they deserve to be annoyed.
Totally not what it's about for me.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
