First of all, Karafun is not operated by Karafun itself but by Reciso, who market the rights to Karafun and from whom the bill comes.The criticism of Karafun does not then apply to Reciso, who are responsible for the negative point of reality, it is the same with almost all karaoke operators - some provide the content and others provide the bill and perhaps a third party provides the hardware and all together operate in a legal gray area of dissent.In the event of problems during use, they always shift the responsibility for their borderline actions to the other side and the customer bears the damage. ROXi operates similarly.The Ottonormal customer, who does not constantly travel through the bars with a karaoke singer, wants Karafun for specific events or family celebrations for a day, a weekend, or a month if several events take place in quick succession.As other negative reviewers have noted and I can confirm, lacking explicit consent to an automatic renewal - that's the legal issue you're going to get if you get sued in the EU and that's what I'm going to do because here especially young people are lured into a subscription trap - as a person affected I need a reason for action and I have it now. Now I can take action against Reciso before an EU arbitration board for consumer protection.I had two events in July, the first of which was severely restricted without karaoke due to the health problems of the guests and the second event was canceled completely because the main character was ill.As a result, I was not able to use the monthly pass from July and Reciso also wants to pay for August when no event is planned at all, was not logged in for either month or activated something.Reciso does not clearly point out to the customer that a permanent subscription should be taken out without a concrete declaration of intent and that there is no way to purchase the pass for exactly one month and if the customer notices that he has been ripped off, he does have to pay another month.However, the immoral business practice arose when the contract was concluded, precisely when no extra consent to the automatic extension was requested, and that is exactly where I am now intervening because of dissent, namely with a warning under competition law, which is subject to a fee, and requesting a fundamental decision for all media services that are used primarily by young people , in order to fundamentally prohibit subscription traps without the possibility of avoiding them when the contract is concluded, be it karaoke or ring tones.--Addendum 11.08.2022: If Karafun always writes that he would clarify the case - that's a lie - there is no known case of the negative ratings where something was turned around for the better - you just have to read through the negative ratings every time - horrible - that's why the case will soon end up in front of you EU court because of the subscription trap - there are already such fundamental judgments for the ringtone mafia and a similar judgment is being sought for the karaoke industry and there is a good chance of getting through there because the methods are the same, so the same tenor of the judges can also be expected . The value in dispute will be around 600 euros solely because of the costs of the pleadings, plus the costs of the monthly fee and the costs that Paypal has additionally charged. Karafun believes that this is an empty announcement, as can be seen from this week's reply - Karafun will be amazed at what EU courts are capable of when it comes to competition law. In the beginning they were still arguing about the radius of curvature of cucumbers and bananas, but now it's a real problem because they don't want to make a complete laughing stock of themselves - the turning point came with the decisions in favor of satellite dish when the lawsuit was brought up under competition law.
Claim your business profile now and gain access to all features and respond to customer reviews.
