You are publicly suggesting that I created a fake account and impersonated a consumer activist group. I deny that allegation.
If you have evidence, send it to the moderators. If you do not, then please retract it. Disagreeing with me is perfectly fine. Accusing me of deception or impersonation without evidence is not.
I am not going to derail the thread into personal accusations. The matter I am discussing concerns documented GDPR requests, a settlement, warranty/support terms, and subsequent support restrictions. Those issues stand or fall on their own evidence.
Fair point about the wall of text — I probably do have a legal way of making a simple issue look like a database dump.
But the core issue is actually quite simple.
The equipment was not shipped to me as a random goodwill gift without guarantee. Technically, what I received was:
1x H2D Laser Full Combo 40W
3x AMS 2 Pro
This was part of a settlement connected to an active GDPR complaint. The settlement proposal came very shortly before a legal assessment/decision was expected in that GDPR matter. In exchange, I withdrew that GDPR complaint.
From Bambu Lab’s side, that was a very inexpensive way to avoid the matter continuing toward potential GDPR consequences. From my side, receiving a new printer setup instead of simply seeing an administrative or financial measure imposed on them was an easy decision, provided the settlement terms were clear.
The condition that made me accept the settlement was not “free hardware with no rights”. It was written confirmation that the machine and accessories would have full warranty and full support. The limitation they wanted included was that I could not return the settlement items and ask for a cash refund. That part was acceptable to me, because I was not interested in converting the settlement into a refund claim.
So the issue is not that I am trying to return settlement hardware for money. The issue is that warranty and support were explicitly part of the agreement, and that is the part I believe they have now breached several times.
That is why I do not see this as a normal support annoyance. The moment a company resolves a GDPR matter by settlement, confirms warranty and support as part of that settlement, and later treats the items as a “gift” or restricts support access, the situation becomes much more serious.
EcoStang, stop turning speculation into accusation.
You have now suggested that I created or used another account, that Consumer Review EU does not exist, and that I am doing this for attention. Those are not arguments. They are unsupported claims.
If you have evidence, provide it to the moderators. If you do not, then retract the accusation and stop derailing the thread.
The topic here is not your personal theory about me. The topic is documented support handling, GDPR requests, settlement terms, warranty/support obligations, and whether other EU users have experienced similar inconsistent communication.
I am happy to discuss facts, documents and timelines. I am not going to entertain invented accusations without evidence.
When you start making accusations of laws being broken, you probably got routed to legal and that isnt specific to where the company is located - it happens in many instances. That poor soul working the chat isn’t a lawyer and probably lacks any decision making once that pops up and the red lights start blinking. When people start throwing walls of text at agents and getting all legal sounding it’s not going to be resolved.
They said it was a duplicate and asked you not to respond to that closed ticket. They didnt say go away, sounds like they feel there is already a ticket on the issue open, or they are considering you a high maintenance user - 21 active tickets is quite a bit for one person.
I agree that ordinary support agents are not lawyers, and I have no interest in attacking frontline staff. I have actually stated several times in this thread that support personnel should not be targeted personally.
However, that is not what happened here.
I have preserved the chat that led to the support restriction, including the last message I sent before the chat operator closed down my access to normal support handling. It was not a “wall of text” or legal ranting at an agent.
Bambu Lab has already addressed this themselves in writing, and the issue is now about why that support restriction was applied, on what basis, what internal records exist, and whether the handling was consistent with the settlement terms and GDPR obligations.
So yes, support staff should not be personally blamed for legal escalation. I agree with that completely. But this is not about blaming an individual chat agent. The question is whether Bambu Lab can document a lawful, transparent and contractually valid basis for restricting support access after GDPR rights were exercised.
Please read the full thread before reducing this to “one duplicate ticket”.
The issue is not that Bambu Lab marked one ticket as duplicate. The issue is the wider sequence: live chat access being restricted, warranty/support being disputed despite settlement terms, multiple tickets being left without proper resolution, and then ticket communication stating “do not reply” while the customer is still left without a clear official answer.
Also, “many tickets” is not evidence of a user being high maintenance. If support repeatedly closes, ignores, redirects or fragments an unresolved issue, the number of tickets becomes a symptom of the handling — not proof that the customer is the problem.
The question remains the same: can Bambu Lab document a lawful, transparent and contractually valid basis for restricting support access after GDPR rights were exercised and after warranty/support were confirmed as part of a settlement?
EcoStang, “this is a public forum” does not mean forum rules stop applying.
Bambu Lab’s own forum guidelines include “Always Be Civil”, “Respect Others”, “Respect the Forum”, and “If You See a Problem, Flag It”. Publicly accusing another user of inventing a representative, using another account, or pretending to be a consumer group is not a factual contribution to the topic. It is a personal allegation.
You were already given the correct route: if you have evidence, provide it to the moderators. Your answer was: “No. This is a public forum” and “I have a theory, I am going to share it.”
A theory is not evidence. “Prove me wrong” is not how accusations work. The person making the accusation carries the burden of proof.
So again: either provide evidence to the moderators, or stop derailing the thread with unsupported personal claims.
The topic here is Bambu Lab’s support handling, GDPR requests, settlement terms, warranty/support obligations, and whether other EU users have experienced similar inconsistent communication. Please return to that topic.
I’m not talking about the user’s name; I’m talking about the alleged organisation:
Consumer Review EU is a made-up name; no such organization exists. The name is associated with scammers attempting to appear legitimate.
Firstly, if it were an EU organisation, it would be listed in the official registry. Secondly, it would have its own website. Now, let’s think about this logically. An EU organisation doesn’t just post on a Bambu forum; it publishes an open letters that anyone can read, because that’s the only way to make sure it’s official.
All in all, a pretty clumsy attempt to come across as official organisation from a scammer.
Whether this is your second account or not isn’t for me to judge - others can do that.
What I find strange, though, is your response to it. Anyone would speak out against a scammer like that, yet you seem to welcome his fake post.
RetroSharky, stop making public accusations without evidence.
You are no longer discussing the topic. You are claiming or implying that:
Consumer Review EU is fake.
The ticket number is fake.
The representative was invented.
The post is from a scammer.
This may be my second account.
Those are serious personal accusations, not arguments.
“No such organisation exists” is your claim. “The number is fake” is your claim. “Scammer” is your claim. “Second account” is your insinuation. The burden of proof is on the person making those accusations. I do not have to disprove a theory you chose to publish.
Bambu Lab’s forum rules include Always Be Civil, Respect Others, Respect the Forum, and If You See a Problem, Flag It. If you genuinely believe there is impersonation, fraud or a fake account, flag it to the moderators with evidence. Do not use the thread to publicly smear another user or derail the discussion.
I am not going to litigate your theory in public. Either provide evidence to the moderators or stop making unsupported accusations.
The topic remains Bambu Lab’s support handling, GDPR requests, settlement terms, warranty/support obligations, and whether other EU users have experienced similar inconsistent communication. Return to that topic.
In the past, Satan has been very useful to me. Some of his answers to third parties were decisive in helping me understand certain things about these machines (before I only had anycubicss). I can’t believe that account is actually his.. maybe I think he’s not stupid enough to get caught so easily?!?!? Anyway, I died laughing at that banner about prostate supplements
I had that question too. About an hour ago when I saw EcoStang’s post, I became curious and clicked at that user Consumer_Review_EU, and it said the user’s public profile is hidden. But now it is not longer hidden.
It is possible that this Consumer_Review_EU user also happened to come in right after EcoStang’s post and changed their profile status. But the timing is peculiar and naturally it raises questions in people’s mind.
That is a fair observation, and I have no problem with people asking reasonable questions about a newly created account.
What I object to is the leap from “this looks unusual” to public accusations of fake accounts, impersonation, scamming, or suggesting that I control that account.
I cannot verify who operates Consumer_Review_EU, and I am not asking anyone to take that account’s identity on faith. If there is a concern about account authenticity, hidden profile status, or possible impersonation, that should be flagged to the moderators so they can review account data that ordinary users cannot access.
My position is simple: I responded to the substance of the post because it described a similar pattern of inconsistent support communication. That does not make the account mine, fake, or fraudulent.
So yes, ask questions. But do not turn timing or profile-status changes into unsupported personal accusations.
The actual topic remains Bambu Lab’s support handling, GDPR requests, settlement terms, warranty/support obligations, and whether other EU users have experienced similar inconsistent communication.
It discusses the topic because it calls into question your credibility.
The burden of proof would be a lot easier if I had access to IP addresses and CIA surveillance but with the anonymity of the internet I am not getting any of that.
The court of public opinion has ruled, you are a scammer.
Well, I tried to plays devils advocate and give you something to consider, but instead you just start throwing walls of text at me. I’ll see myself out, good luck with whatever you do in life.
EcoStang, you have now moved from “I have a theory” to directly calling me a scammer.
That is a personal accusation, not a factual argument. I will not provide identity theatre on demand, and I will not derail this thread because you want to run a public trial without evidence.
If you believe there is account abuse, impersonation or fraud, report it to the moderators with evidence. They have the tools to review account data. Ordinary users do not.
I am reporting this post. The thread should return to the actual topic: Bambu Lab’s support handling, GDPR requests, settlement terms, warranty/support obligations, and inconsistent communication toward EU users.
Anyway, I died laughing at that banner about prostate supplements 
