[durfeecoach1]

Always read about people not getting there redemption filled and being replaced with stuff they never asked for. Always thought that if a product is marketed as having a product and then if the producer fails to produce the product and replaces it with a lesser product or a product that the customer didn't want or ask for isn't that "Bate and Switch" marketing which is illegal.

Why hasn't someone already sued Topps and Panini on this issue. It's pretty much the definition of Bait and Switch?

Is there any fine print on those redemptions that lets Topps and Panini just to give you whatever junk stock they have instead of the card that you are redeeming?

[bojesphob]

I haven't looked specifically, but I would be seriously surprised if they didn't have some small print some where that stated that they will make every effort to fulfill the redemptions, but that they aren't liable for them not being signed.

[Marinocollector]

Pretty sure there's law suits out there on Topps.

[coltsfansince85]

This can be fun to read:

http://www.bbb.org/dallas/business-revie...complaints

[ZSDOne]

the one redemption card i have sitting around (which reminds me, I need to go enter it), is from Upper Deck and it says "In the event we cannot provide the card within one year from submission, a comparable trading card will be sent in its place at our discretion." That type is in the same font as the other type

[jonathani]

the one redemption card i have sitting around (which reminds me, I need to go enter it), is from Upper Deck and it says "In the event we cannot provide the card within one year from submission, a comparable trading card will be sent in its place at our discretion." That type is in the same font as the other type

But "comparable" sometimes means different things to us that does to card companies, unfortunately.