Live Chat blocked for my account, warranty denied, 8 tickets ignored [EU]

Other topics Off-topic
41

Has your AI chatbot gone wild again because it failed to understand the context of my post?

These aren’t allegations or claims; they’re facts. I’ve already provided more than one piece of proof. The EU itself warns that any organisations not appearing on the list are fake and scammers. Anyone can verify this, for example, using the link I posted.

Since you responded to the post yourself, I am also entitled to alert other users when a fake account posts something here. When did it become prohibited to warn people about fake accounts?

Besides, its not “personal” because it’s not directed at you, but your chat AI doesn’t seem to have figured that out.

These are facts, you know. Does your chat AI understand that? Facts.

See? Can your chat AI your using see this? Does it say ‘Consumer Review EU’ anywhere?

eu
eu2331×602 141 KB

Screenshot 2026-06-13 040830
Screenshot 2026-06-13 0408301586×855 138 KB

42

RetroSharky, your conclusion does not follow from your screenshot.

You searched a register of EU institutions and bodies. Not appearing in that search may show that “Consumer Review EU” is not an EU institution or official EU body. It does not prove that the account is fake, that the ticket number is fake, that the person is invented, that anyone is a scammer, or that the account is connected to me.

Those are separate accusations, and they require separate evidence.

I have not asked anyone to accept Consumer_Review_EU as an official organisation. 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, fraudulent, or part of any scam.

Also, repeated comments about “your AI chatbot” do not address the facts. They are just another attempt to move the discussion away from the topic.

If you genuinely believe there is account abuse, impersonation or fraud, flag it to the moderators with your evidence. They can review account data. Ordinary users cannot.

The thread topic remains Bambu Lab’s support handling, GDPR requests, settlement terms, warranty/support obligations, and whether other EU users have experienced similar inconsistent communication.

43

Can you please just turn off your chat AI for once so you can respond normally? Please?

I never wrote that…

I never wrote that…

I never wrote that…

I could go on and on with this list forever.

Are you confusing me with another user? Are you perhaps confusing me with EcoStang? Or is your chat AI just going completely into meltdown again?

Come on, don’t play games - the whole forum knows that by now. People could even tell when you stopped using your AI chatbot sometimes - and then turned it back on. It’s so obvious because your chat AI is completely mixing things up - users, comments, words.

You’re referring to things that I didn’t wrote, but another user did.

44

image
image1138×568 90.9 KB

Since you keep focusing on “chat AI”, here is the same text checked in a paid AI detector. It says 0% AI-generated. That should be enough to drop this side track.

Now, to the actual point.

You are correct on one narrow issue: some of the strongest claims were made by EcoStang, not by you personally. I should have separated the different users’ statements more precisely. Fair correction.

But that does not erase what you did write. You stated that Consumer_Review_EU is fake, that it is a fake account, and that it is connected to scammers. You also questioned my response to that post and framed it as suspicious that I engaged with it. That is not the same as neutrally questioning account authenticity; it creates an insinuation around my involvement or credibility.

So no, I am not confusing you with EcoStang. I am separating the exact wording now:

EcoStang made the more direct personal accusation.

You made claims about Consumer_Review_EU being fake/scam-related and then used my response to that account as part of your argument.

Both move the thread away from the actual topic.

Searching an EU institutions register can show that “Consumer Review EU” is not an EU institution or official EU body. It does not prove that a forum account is fraudulent, that a user is a scammer, or that my response to the post means anything improper.

If you believe there is account abuse, impersonation or fraud, flag it to the moderators with your evidence. They can review account data. Ordinary users cannot.

I am not asking anyone to accept Consumer_Review_EU as official. I responded to the substance of the post because it described a similar pattern of inconsistent support communication.

The thread topic remains Bambu Lab’s support handling, GDPR requests, settlement terms, warranty/support obligations, and whether other EU users have experienced similar inconsistent communication.

45

You don’t get it, do you? Nothing I wrote was directed at you, except for one tiny part:

That settled the matter as far as I was concerned - but you keep responding over and over again with the same text segments - copy & paste.

You can do that all on your own, instead of just responding like a normal person with a short sentence: “Okay, I read it, but I see it differently.” Instead, you end up with walls of text that are a mix of AI and copy-and-paste.

Besides, your screenshot doesn’t prove anything because you can give the AI instructions to sound more human. I, on the other hand, am relying on your history on the forum, as well as common sense, to know that no human would write like that. Take a look around the forum - nobody writes like that, really, nobody - or mix usernames, whole sentences, topics, and words. There’s no shame in using AI, but at least mix it in with your own sentences and opinions.

  • Above all, proofread it again to make sure nothing has been mixed up.

Even though you’ve since hidden your profile, people can still see what you posted in the past, and there were even worse AI-generated posts from you.

46

RetroSharky, I will answer this once.

You say nothing was directed at me except “one tiny part”. That “tiny part” was this:

“Anyone would speak out against a scammer like that, yet you seem to welcome his fake post.”

That is directly about me, my response, and my credibility. So yes, I was entitled to respond to it.

On the AI point: you keep treating writing style as evidence. It is not. AI detectors are unreliable enough that even older human-written texts can be flagged, and a “human” result does not prove anything absolute either. I posted the detector result only because you kept making “your chat AI” the subject instead of discussing the thread topic.

I already accepted the narrow correction that EcoStang made the more direct accusation. I separated that clearly. That does not change what you wrote: you called Consumer_Review_EU fake/scam-related and then used my response to that post as part of your argument.

My profile status, your opinion about my writing style, and repeated comments about AI do not resolve anything.

If you believe there is account abuse, impersonation or fraud, flag it to the moderators with evidence. They can review account data. Ordinary users cannot.

I am done with this side track.

The topic is 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.

47

Yeah, that’s exactly what I wrote - why are you repeating it again, and again, and again? That’s exactly why everyone thinks you’re just using AI.

…and why are you copying that under every single comment for the hundredth time? Another reason why people think you’re using an AI.

Sorry, I don’t feel like chatting with ChatGPT anymore. I think that’s exactly how the support team felt back then. It all just makes more and more sense now.

You’ve ruined your own thread. :tada:

48

To be fair, it was also ruined by others, including eco_whatever.

50

RetroSharky, this is now only personal commentary from you.

You are no longer addressing the actual topic. You are repeating claims about AI, writing style, copy/paste, and what “everyone thinks”. None of that answers anything about Bambu Lab’s support handling, GDPR requests, settlement terms, warranty/support obligations, or inconsistent communication toward EU users.

I repeated the topic because the thread keeps being derailed by exactly this kind of personal speculation.

You are free to disagree with me. You are not free to turn the thread into repeated personal attacks about how I write, whether I use AI, or whether my posts are “normal” enough for you.

I have answered the substance. I have corrected the attribution where correction was fair. I have also made clear that account-abuse claims should go to moderators, not be used as public insinuations.

This is my last reply to your AI/copy-paste side track. Further personal remarks will be flagged.

Return to the topic or stop engaging with me.

51

Tuvaaq, that is not what happened.

I did not expect first-line support to act as lawyers, and I did not discuss legal theory with a chat agent. I asked why the matter had not been properly handled, answered, or preserved through the correct support process.

There is a big difference between asking frontline staff to interpret the law and asking a company to explain why an unresolved warranty/support matter was closed, ignored, redirected or restricted.

I have also stated several times in this thread that ordinary support personnel should not be personally targeted. This is not about blaming individual agents. It is about Bambu Lab’s handling as a company: support access, warranty/support obligations, settlement terms, GDPR requests, and whether there is a documented basis for the restrictions applied to my account.

Reducing that to “you expected support staff to know the law” is not accurate.

The nursery rhyme comment does not add anything to the discussion either. The topic is Bambu Lab’s support handling and unresolved obligations. Please address that, not a caricature of what I said.

52

Fair point, and thank you for putting it more neutrally.

I do agree that this thread has been heavily derailed by personal accusations and speculation. But the underlying issue is still real: inconsistent support handling, unresolved warranty/support obligations, GDPR-related requests, and what appears to be a pattern where users who challenge Bambu Lab formally are treated very differently.

This is not about attacking frontline support staff. I have said several times that ordinary employees should not be targeted personally. My criticism is aimed at company-level handling, escalation, documentation, and policy enforcement.

There are also public examples outside this thread where Bambu Lab’s conduct toward users, creators, open-source/community concerns and legal pressure has been discussed. One example is this video:

I am not saying that video proves my case. It is simply another example showing that concerns about Bambu Lab’s handling of users and community issues are not limited to me.

As for the 21 tickets: that number is being used against me without context. Bambu Lab’s own process expects separate issues to be handled in separate tickets. If tickets remain unanswered, unresolved, redirected or closed without proper resolution, they naturally stack up. I have had many separate hardware and support issues over time, including parts replaced, repeated mechanical issues, and a laser repair after roughly one week.

The original GDPR matter started because of unsupported accusations and account-level action. That is also why I react strongly when the same pattern appears again in this thread: people making claims without evidence, instead of sticking to documents, timelines and facts.

So yes, the thread got messy. But the subject is still valid: Bambu Lab’s support handling, settlement terms, GDPR requests, warranty/support obligations, and whether other users have experienced similar inconsistent communication.

That is the topic I want the thread to return to.

53

Just seems to me like you’re a really difficult person to deal with, and the issues you have stem more from that. A “Karen”

You’re on here fighting with people a lot, dumping walls of texts, failing to read the room and moods.

I bet even an AI agent wants a shot of whisky after having to deal with you

54

Josh-3D, if you have facts about the actual issue, present them.

Calling me a “Karen”, commenting on my personality, and making jokes about support agents needing whisky does not address anything in this thread.

The topic is Bambu Lab’s support handling, unresolved tickets, warranty/support obligations, GDPR requests, and settlement terms.

If you have something relevant to add, add it. Otherwise, please stop derailing the thread with personal remarks.

55

I’m not derailing it. I’m just pointing out how difficult people can sometimes make their own problems worse.

It’s not normal the amount of friction you’re having, but from all your posting, it just comes across more like the real issue is you.

Bambu’s customer service isn’t great, we all know it, but every little rant you make about it, just gives me the vibe you’re just a huge pain to deal with on top of every thing else. 21 tickets dude, and you said you had 91 resolved already? Either you’re spamming them with tickets or you need to drop them as a brand, because of they’re failing you that much.

Seriously, if I had a product that had such levels of issues as to require nearly 100 support tickets, I would have dropped them far before that and never purchased their products again.

This whole thing comes across like you being a very difficult person to deal with, and you try and force this narrative down everyone’s throats because you can’t, and don’t want to accept, that the larger issue is you and how you’re being a “Karen”

Like we see how you act on the forum. It’s not a stretch of the imagination.

56

Josh-3D, this is a personal character judgment, not an argument.

The number of tickets does not prove that the customer is the problem. It proves that there have been many separate issues over time. Bambu Lab expects separate issues to be handled in separate tickets, so using the ticket count against me is a weak argument.

If a ticket remains unanswered, unresolved, redirected, closed without resolution, or requires a separate case for each hardware fault, the count increases. That is not “spamming”. That is how their own support structure works.

Also, “91 resolved tickets” does not mean 91 fake problems. It means I have owned, used, repaired, troubleshot, replaced parts on, and documented problems with their products over a long period. That includes separate hardware issues, support issues, warranty issues, and now settlement/GDPR-related issues.

You are also ignoring the core point: this thread is not about whether I am easy or difficult to deal with. It is about whether Bambu Lab can document a clear, lawful and contractually valid basis for restricting support access, disputing warranty/support obligations, leaving tickets unresolved, and handling GDPR requests as they have done.

Calling me a “Karen” does not answer that.

If you have facts about the support handling, warranty terms, settlement terms, GDPR requests, or unresolved tickets, bring them. If all you have is a personality assessment, then you are not contributing to the topic.

58

Maybe I can put it another way. People love digging on Bambu, pointing out their problems, helping to turn the screws, yet you come up against so much resistance in here. :thinking:

It isn’t hard to connect the dots when there’s only two dots to connect

59

Josh-3D, I will not continue a personal back-and-forth about my personality.

You have made your view clear. I disagree with it.

The topic is not whether I am easy to deal with. The topic is Bambu Lab’s support handling, unresolved tickets, warranty/support obligations, GDPR requests, and settlement terms.

If you have facts about those matters, post them. If not, there is nothing more to discuss between us here.

60

The fact is people don’t like having to deal with “Karens”

The fact is you’ve shown yourself to be “Karen”

The argument is, that the way you “Karen” towards customer support is making all of the issues for yourself worse, causing things to blow up and look like this insane situation.

Bambu’s customer support doesn’t exist in isolation. It takes two to tango bay-beeeeeee, and that other half is you. The question is, can you dance, or are you just stepping on your partner’s toes then yelling at them for not being able to dance.

Hey, that’s not to say they can dance, just that it’s difficult to even know with all the toes you’re stepping on with those flailing legs.

61

Josh-3D, enough.

You have now repeatedly ignored the actual subject and reduced the discussion to name-calling, character attacks and personal mockery. Calling someone a “Karen” over and over, speculating about how they deal with support, and ending with a comment about “failing legs” is not an argument. It is personal harassment.

You have still not addressed the actual issues once:

  • unresolved support tickets,
  • restricted live chat access,
  • warranty/support obligations,
  • settlement terms,
  • GDPR requests,
  • and whether Bambu Lab can document a valid basis for how this was handled.

Instead, you keep trying to make the topic about me personally. That is not evidence. That is derailment.

I am not continuing this with you. If you have facts about the support handling, warranty terms, GDPR requests or settlement obligations, post them. If all you have is another personal insult, then there is nothing more for you to contribute here.

I am flagging this.

62

There’s some real issues in this world with large corporations and their idea of what “customer support” is suppose to be, but that doesn’t excuse people that abuse the customer support system. Even if your issues were valid, it seems obvious enough your attitude has probably caused more issues than solved, and dragged these problems out further than they might have been otherwise. You want to make it out like it’s a failing of Bambu while completely ignoring your own Karen like behavior.