Columbia Türkiye Rejects Defective Product With Photo!
On February 17, 2025, I purchased a Columbia Watertight II Men’s Rain Jacket, advertised as “waterproof,” from The Moose Bay Aqua Florya store, paying $133. However, the product allowed water to pass through during the very first rainfall and clearly failed to deliver the promised waterproof performance. When I took the jacket back to the store due to this defect, I encountered a practice that felt deliberately discouraging to consumers. Instead of sending a technical product with a waterproofing complaint for proper inspection, the staff only took a single photo of the jacket from the front and sent me away. When I asked why the product was not physically sent for examination, I was told, “This is how our process works.” About a week later, I was informed that my request had been rejected based solely on this so-called “inspection” conducted using the photo. I find it extremely difficult to understand how the waterproof performance of a technical garment can be evaluated without a physical inspection or a water pressure test, relying only on a photograph. This approach gives the impression that the consumer’s intelligence is being insulted. Under Law No. 6502, the burden of proof lies with the seller, yet my request was rejected without any concrete data or test results, based entirely on a subjective decision. This creates the impression of an unethical business practice driven by the assumption that “most consumers will not pursue their rights to the end.” I do not accept this treatment and have therefore filed an application with the Consumer Arbitration Committee, and I will follow the process through to the end. What I expect from a brand like The Moose Bay is that it stands behind the products it sells, puts an end to this unprofessional “photo-based inspection” practice, and refunds the amount I paid for this product, which I believe is defective.
