216 Digital, Inc.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/04/28) */
Dear Revdex.com Representatives,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to Mr. [redacted]'s claims.
Dr. [redacted]s has been a 216digital client since October, 2013. He has paid $95.97 per month via credit card for his hosting services each...

and every month since he began hosting with us.
In January 2014, Miva announced their new non-compliance policy for running out dated versions of their software. In February, 2016, Mr. [redacted]s was assessed a non-compliance fee for his Miva Merchant ($55.00) for running an outdated version of the Miva software on his website (anything older than Miva 9.0004 was Non-Compliant as of 10/26/2015 and the client was running Miva 9) . In advance of billing Dr. [redacted] non-compliance fees, we sent out email notifications informing him of the new policy and urging him to upgrade his store to the latest compliant version before October 25, 2015 to avoid penalty fees. A 68-Day notice was also sent to all Miva clients on August 19, 2015 and a 21-day upgrade notice was sent on September 24, 2015. The emails included detailed instructions on how to upgrade their stores themselves. Dr. Scott [redacted]s did not upgrade his store by the specified deadline, therefore had to pay for a month of non-compliance. He engaged our team to upgrade his store on February 24, 2016 per Work Order# 02172016-1 (approved by the customer on 02/17/2016 - 2 days after we received the non-compliant invoice from Miva). Miva Merchant submits Non-Compliance invoices on the 15th day of every month.
We received notice from Miva Merchant in October of 2015 that all Miva Merchant clients' fees would be determined based upon the revenue their online store generated for the past 12 months. We sent an email announcement of this new policy to all of our Miva clients in December of 2015 (The Revenue Based Policy was to take effect on April 1, 2016). Dr. [redacted]s received his first Miva Merchant Revenue Based Fee on April 6, 2016, based upon the revenue tier Miva reported for Mr. [redacted]'s store ($500,000 - $1,500,000) to 216digital. He then called into speak with Greg M[redacted] (owner of 216digital, Inc.) about the invoice he received and refused to pay for his Miva Merchant license and Hosting fees (which were provided to him and being used by the customer). After a long negotiation over the phone and a detailed explanation of Miva Merchant's policies (which had been previously sent to the customer in email announcements), we agreed to delay his price increase until the month of May. It should be noted, Mr. [redacted] Dr. [redacted]s did agree to pay an additional $9.96 in April but later reneged and we subsequently processed a refund of the additional $9.96.
Just to reiterate, 216digital, Inc. has complied with all requests from Dr. [redacted]s. We have even gone as far as waiving his Miva Merchant licensing fee increase for a month (a fee increase of $219.96) after the client called in threatening the company and demanding refunds for services rendered.
Dr. [redacted]s submitted a notice of cancellation of all services effective on April 27th. We subsequently cancelled all services per his request.
Please see non-compliance announcement and revenue tier group based pricing announcement included as part of this report. Feel free to contact me with any and all questions you may have. Thank you.
Greg M[redacted]
President
216digital, Inc.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/05/03) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
216digital and Greg M[redacted] have not been honest with their response to this complaint. 216digital continued to bill me month after month for a bogus noncompliance fee even after I paid 216digital to upgrade my site and they certified that the site was 100% compliant. Despite being compliant, they continued to bill me as noncompliant. Secondly, Greg M[redacted] and 216digital illegally billed me for revenue based fees for revenues ($500,000 - $1,500,000) although revenues were less than $50,000. Furthermore, illegal charges were made to my credit card without my authorization. Although 216digital has the right to assess a noncompliance fee and to use tier group based pricing, they have overcharged me by placing me in a tier that is 10 times my actual revenues. They continued to bill me as noncompliance while providing certification to me in writing that my site was compliant.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2016/05/04) */
In response to Mr. [redacted]'s rebuttal:
In October 2015, Miva announced a new licensing business policy, where customers would be charged based upon the annual revenue generated in their Miva shopping cart. Under our agreement with Miva, we were given until April 1st for the new pricing policy to take effect. Miva also went to a non-compliance policy whereby all Miva licenses must be upgraded to the current version within 90 days of a new version release.
Miva provides their partners, such as us, with store revenue information to base the licensing tier groupings. They reported 500K-1.5M for intelligentweight.com. We invoiced the client for their reported tier group in April. Mr. [redacted] called and objected to the new pricing. I agreed to research the revenue calculation with Miva and not charge the increase for the month of April. He cancelled hosting with us before the end of the month, so any claims of overcharging are simply not true.
Additionally, Mr. [redacted] claims we fraudulently changed his credit card on April 18th. He and I talked on April 18th and Mr. [redacted] approved a final charge of $9.96 on the card as a final charge to the card prior to its removal from our billing system. When I latter learned he was disputing the charge, I elected to refund it to his card to save us all some aggravation. So this should now be a non-issue.
Mr. [redacted]'s Miva store was non-compliant on 3 occasions. When he complained we cancelled and did not charge 2 out of 3 of the bills. He really had no room to argue for consideration on the non-compliance bill we charged.
I hope this clears any confusion or misunderstanding in this matter. I appreciate your help in promptly resolving this matter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Greg M[redacted]
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 12, 2016/05/06) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The business owner is simply not honest with his response. Although my revenues are less than $50,000, 216digital fraudulently billed my credit card without my authorization for fees for a store that has revenues of $500,000-1.5M. Greg M[redacted] has blamed Miva for the error but refused to correct the error and continued to fraudulently bill my credit card forcing me to terminate the contract. In addition to this Revdex.com complaint, additional complaints filed with my credit card company, MIVA corporate office and the Ohio State Attorney's Office.