Goderma Inc.

To whom it may concern, The customer in question submitted a case via our application and received an answer from a board-certified dermatologist within 48 hours. The customer was diagnosed...

and informed that he should see a dermatologist within the next 30 days to receive a prescription. On the [redacted] of October, the customer contacted our customer service via email and demanded a refund claiming that the answer he received was not provided by a dermatologist. A diagnosis delivered via [redacted] includes treatment suggestions, a recommendation regarding an in-person visit, as well as a general description of the disease. While the description of a disease can be general information, the treatment advice provided by the doctor is always tailored to the patient’s needs. A prescription can be provided at the doctor's discretion. However, the consulting dermatologist considered this case to be unsuited. [redacted] does not advertise the possibility of prescriptions and we do not claim to provide online prescriptions in exchange for payment. Despite the correct diagnosis made by the dermatologist, we concluded that we should refund the customer’s payment in line with our satisfaction guarantee, which states the following: The highest aim of our doctors is to provide comprehensive advice for possible treatment. In the event that this is not possible, you will immediately receive your money back within a period of 14 days. ([redacted]) On the [redacted] of October, we had collected the necessary information to refund the customer’s payment. Unfortunately, this is when we failed to deliver on our 14 day refund promise. The customer contacted us again on the [redacted] of November, inquiring about his refund, and subsequently submitted his complaint to the Revdex.com. After an internal investigation, the customer was refunded on the [redacted] of November. We have taken precautions to prohibit such an incident from happening again and our founders have contacted the customer to apologize personally.

Review: This company is the [redacted] of an app called [redacted] and that specifically is the service I am complaining about. The app markets itself as being a way to get expert advice from a dermatologist and talks about how its convenient and replaces having to travel to a doctors office. This is clearly false advertising because after paying more than an average copay would cost me, the only advice I got was a generic copy and pasted response I could have gotten off [redacted]. The response said literally nothing about me specifically and did not cite my symptoms or ask any further questions to narrow down a diagnosis. They just sent a generic description of a condition. It was also included with a disclaimer that basically said the doctor was only guessing this was the correct diagnosis and I should really go see a doctor in person. If I had the time to see a doctor in person I would have done that, I assumed they were true to their word and that their service was a way to avoid that hassle. This app employs false marketing to get people to pay money for useless generic advice but still needing to go to the doctor. I contacted the company to get a refund since they have a "satisfaction guarantee" I was promised this refund over a month ago and it still has not happened. I followed up last week thinking they would take care of it and it still has not happened. Terrible service.Desired Settlement: I think they should be forced to change their marketing language, but I have had enough hassle with them, so I just want the refund I was promised in writing by two different representatives.

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern, The customer in question submitted a case via our application and received an answer from a board-certified dermatologist within 48 hours. The customer was diagnosed and informed that he should see a dermatologist within the next 30 days to receive a prescription. On the [redacted] of October, the customer contacted our customer service via email and demanded a refund claiming that the answer he received was not provided by a dermatologist. A diagnosis delivered via [redacted] includes treatment suggestions, a recommendation regarding an in-person visit, as well as a general description of the disease. While the description of a disease can be general information, the treatment advice provided by the doctor is always tailored to the patient’s needs. A prescription can be provided at the doctor's discretion. However, the consulting dermatologist considered this case to be unsuited. [redacted] does not advertise the possibility of prescriptions and we do not claim to provide online prescriptions in exchange for payment. Despite the correct diagnosis made by the dermatologist, we concluded that we should refund the customer’s payment in line with our satisfaction guarantee, which states the following: The highest aim of our doctors is to provide comprehensive advice for possible treatment. In the event that this is not possible, you will immediately receive your money back within a period of 14 days. ([redacted]) On the [redacted] of October, we had collected the necessary information to refund the customer’s payment. Unfortunately, this is when we failed to deliver on our 14 day refund promise. The customer contacted us again on the [redacted] of November, inquiring about his refund, and subsequently submitted his complaint to the Revdex.com. After an internal investigation, the customer was refunded on the [redacted] of November. We have taken precautions to prohibit such an incident from happening again and our founders have contacted the customer to apologize personally.