Online clothing store receives ‘F' rating, BBB warns
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — The Better Business Bureau of the Mid-South sent a warning Tuesday about an online clothing store based in Collierville, Tennessee,
Valabasas currently holds an F rating, BBB announced on Tuesday.
The BBB said Valabasas received the lowest rating on their scale, 'due to a concerning pattern of complaints against the company filed by consumers, many of which remain unanswered.'
Over the past three years, the BBB says 35 complaints have been filed by consumers from all over the country. They say 26 of those complaints were submitted within the last year.
Many of the complaints have been reported to center around delayed shipments, poor communication, incomplete orders, and several cases of missing items from their order.
Customers claim that their attempts to get help from the company were ignored and that they waited extended periods without updates on their orders, even after reaching out multiple times by phone, email, or social media.
📡 for Memphis and the Mid-South.
📧 and have the latest top stories sent right to your inbox.
One customer allegedly returned a pair of jeans for a refund but received an unrelated item instead, with no explanation or follow-up. The BBB says another customer was charged $700 for orders they never placed and had to wait weeks to get a response from Valabasas.
Several customers, dating back to 2022, also left reviews of their experiences on the company's Facebook page.
On March 22, a customer left a review saying, 'Ordered a pair of shoes, they sent the wrong pair and won't return my emails to process a return where I shouldn't have to pay to ship back. You call the number and it goes to voicemail, but no one calls back.'
'Haven't received my online order from 11/29. I've called their customer service number. No answer. I've emailed them. No response, they only send out a AI email,' a customer posted on January 4.
'I ordered a order. I was missing a pair of black pants. I have reached out to them, and no reply. On my receipt, the pants were circled and said no with a happy face. No refund has been issued because no one never got back with me smh,' a customer posted on December 21, 2024. Another customer commented under that post and shared a photo of their receipt, which also showed an item circled with a smiley face that they say they didn't receive.
The BBB says they sent letters by email and mail to Valabasas about concerns, requesting a plan to address the issues. They say the company has yet to make any visible effort to resolve the problems.
'BBB urges consumers to research companies before purchasing, especially online. Check reviews, complaint histories, and BBB Business Profiles at bbb.org to make an informed decision,' the Bureau said in a statement.
WREG has reached out to Valabasas for comment and is waiting to hear back.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After Six Years, Overwatch 2 Finally Acknowledges Soldier: 76's Gay Ex-Boyfriend Again
Way back in 2019, Blizzard confirmed that Soldier: 76, Overwatch's grumpy grandpa, is a member of the queer community. The titular organization's ex-commander, whose real name is Jack Morrison, is gay and was involved with a man named Vincent many years before the events of the game. This was revealed in a short story called 'Bastet,' which focused on him and Ana, who were close comrades during the group's heyday. In the story, Morrison reflects on his old flame, and it sounds like the two split because Soldier was so dedicated to the group's cause that it put a strain on their relationship. But the game itself hasn't really acknowledged Soldier's long-lost love outside of a spray of the two giving each other the Christian Side Hug. That's finally changed in Overwatch 2's 16th season. Blizzard periodically adds new pre-match interactions between its heroes with the start of a new season and in the big mid-season patch, often spotlighting a handful of characters with each new wave, rather than adding something for all 40+ heroes at once. And with season 16, which started late last month, Soldier: 76 is one of the characters to benefit. The latest wave includes a conversation with Baptiste, who playfully asks if anyone has ever 'captured the heart' of the grizzled vigilante. Soldier doesn't mention Vincent by name, but does say there was someone, and laments that he hasn't seen him 'in a long time.' Baptiste apologizes for bringing up bad memories, but Soldier says that 'these days, that's all [he's] got.' Shot me right through the heart, Blizzard. Thanks for that. tiktok-7507005230454820138 It's been so long since we first learned that Vincent existed, some folks in the comments of videos featuring the conversation are assuming it's about Reaper, with whom fans have shipped Soldier: 76 for almost a decade. For several years, Overwatch 2's handling of queer themes existed in a weird place of plausible deniability. It came up in external media, but was rarely acknowledged in the game itself, to the point where you could push payloads without ever once having to consider that Tracer was a lesbian or Soldier was gay. In recent years, Blizzard has made a pretty concentrated effort to be more explicit about all the LGBTQ+ characters on its roster. 2023 was a real turning point for the game, starting with the release of Lifeweaver who was confirmed as a pansexual character at launch. In June, the game got its first Pride event, which confirmed a few more queer heroes, added Pride flag cosmetics, and updated the Midtown map to cover it in rainbows for a Pride parade. Venture, the shooter's first non-binary hero, was announced at Blizzcon that year and released in the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A New Working-Class GOP? If 'Working-Class' Means $4.3 Million a Year!
So much for a new, 'populist' Republican Party. So much for the GOP as a brave band of fiscally prudent, anti-deficit hawks. The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy, policy incoherence, and political vacuousness. That's its formal name, by the way, and you've already admitted a problem when you have to sell something that hard. It's no wonder that the only way the BBB passed the House was for one opponent to vote 'present' and for two others to miss the vote. One of the absent members fell asleep and missed the vote, an entirely appropriate response to an exercise in philosophical exhaustion. Defending the bill requires twisting facts into the 'alternative' variety and turning the plain meaning of words upside down. For example: The right wingers who demanded more cuts in programs for low-income people are regularly described as 'deficit hawks.' But even if they had gotten all the changes they sought, the bill would have massively increased the deficit. And most of them voted for a final product that will add close to $4 trillion to the nation's indebtedness. If these guys are hawks, I don't know what a dove looks like. Trump and his backers continue to insist that they are building a new working-class Republican coalition. But the astonishing thing about this bill is not only that it lavishes tax cuts on the very well-off; it also takes money away from Americans earning less than $51,000 a year once its cuts in Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, SNAP, and student loans are counted for. Republicans who rail against 'income redistribution' are doing an awful lot of redistribution themselves—to those who already have lots of money. The Penn Wharton budget model of the near-final version of the bill found that Americans earning less than $17,000 would lose $1,035 under its terms. Those earning between $17,000 and $50,999 would lose $705. But the small number of our fellow citizens who earn more than $4.3 million a year have a lot to cheer about: They pick up $389,280 annually. Please explain to me again why this is a 'populist' Republican Party. It's imperative not to miss what's obvious about this bill—that it ravages lower-income people to benefit the very privileged—and for progressives and Democrats to act on this. But it's also essential to notice what doesn't get enough attention: that so much of the commentary about how Trump has reinvented the GOP with a fresh set of ideas and commitments is poppycock. Trumpism is certainly dangerous and authoritarian in new ways. It is, well, innovative when it comes to a vast and unconstitutional expansion of presidential power. But it's also an ideological mess riddled with contradictions. When you look below the hood, it's primarily about the interests of people who can buy their way into Trump's golf clubs and private pay-for-play dinners—and, especially, about the enrichment of Trump and his family. On the phony populism side, Democrats in the House did a generally good job of highlighting the costs of provisions in the bill that hurt so many of Trump's voters, particularly the cuts in Medicaid and nutrition assistance, or SNAP. Senate Democrats have already ramped up similar efforts as that body's Republican leaders prepare to grapple with the steaming pile of incongruities the House has sent their way. You can tell that Republicans know how unpopular the Medicaid cuts in the bill are because they delayed their effectiveness date to minimize their electoral effect, repeatedly denied they are cutting Medicaid—and don't want to talk at all about how slashing subsidies within the Affordable Care Act would take health coverage away from millions more Americans. They are hiding the Medicaid cuts behind 'work requirements' that are really bureaucratic paperwork requirements that would make it much harder for people with every right to coverage to access it. They would make it more difficult for others to maintain continuous coverage. And if these rules were not about 'cutting' Medicaid, the GOP couldn't claim to be 'cutting' roughly $700 billion in Medicaid spending. But the GOP thinks it has a winner in its work argument. It's a tired but tested replay of a very old (and, yes, offensive) trope about alleged grifters among supposedly 'lazy' poor people. House Speaker Mike Johnson offered a remarkable version of this defense of the 'work' provisions: He said they were aimed at 'the young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day.' If ever there was a quote that should go viral, this is it. Young men, after all, shifted toward the Republicans in 2024. They should know what the party many of them voted for thinks of them. More important, progressives need to take the work argument on directly, not only by showing that the work provisions aren't really about work but also by offering amendments replacing the Medicaid cuts with provisions that actually would expand the availability of well-paying opportunities for greater self-sufficiency. Restoring the clean energy tax credits are important not only to battling climate change; they're also about preserving and creating well-paying jobs. A package of proposals on affordable housing, job training, and access to community colleges, particularly in economically depressed areas, would make a nice contrast to those who deny that government has the capacity to improve lives. What the Financial Times' economics columnist Martin Wolf nicely termed 'pluto-populism' when the GOP passed the 2017 tax cuts that this bill extends is alive and well. That populist rhetoric is being married to plutocratic policies is still not recognized widely enough. This is certainly a commentary on the rightward tilt of the media system the editor of this magazine has called out. But it also reflects a failure of Democrats to take the argument to the heart of Trump's base. It's political common sense that parties focus most of their energy on swing states and swing districts. Yet there will be no breaking the 50-50 deadlock in our politics without a concerted effort to change the minds of voters who have drifted to Trump out of frustration with their own economic circumstances and the condition of their regions. The fight over Medicaid and SNAP cuts directly implicates these voters and these places. And these voters pay more attention to these issues than either the Republicans who take them for granted or Democrats who have given up on them believe. When Andy Beshear won his first race for governor of Kentucky in 2019, he not only mobilized Democrats in urban areas; he also flipped many rural counties and cut the Republicans' margins in others. Typical was Carter County in eastern Kentucky. The county went for Beshear even though it had backed his GOP opponent and then-incumbent Republican Governor Matt Bevin four years earlier and gave Trump 73.8 percent of its ballots in 2016. Breathitt County in Appalachia also flipped, having gone for Bevin and voted 69.6 percent for Trump. Fred Cowan, a former Kentucky attorney general and a shrewd student of his state's politics, told me then that these voters understood where their interests lay. 'In a lot of these counties, the school systems or the hospitals—or both—are the biggest employers,' he said 'The Medicaid expansion helped a lot of people over there.' Sure, it's easier for Democrats like Beshear with strong local profiles to make their case. But the national party needs to learn from these politicians that giving up on whole swaths of voters is both an electoral and moral mistake. The emptiness of Republican populism speaks to the larger problem of mistaking Trump's ability to create a somewhat new electoral coalition with intellectual and policy innovation. Some conservative commentators are honest enough to admit how the BBB demonstrates that the 'old Republican Party is still powerful, the old ideas are still dominant,' as Ross Douthat observed in The New York Times. But even Douthat wants to cast the bill as an exception to a bolder transformation the president has engineered, particularly around immigration and a 'Trumpian culture war.' The problem here is that none of this is new, either. The GOP was moving right on immigration well before Trump—when, for example, it killed George W. Bush's immigration bill in 2007 as right-wing media cheered it on. The culture war and the battle against universities are old hat too. The real innovator here was the late Irving Kristol, whose columns in the 1970s introduced Wall Street Journal readers to the dangers posed to business interests by 'the new class' of Hollywood, media, and university types, along with activist lawyers. True, Trump is taking this fight to extreme places Kristol would never have gone. But, again, there's no new thinking here. And the attack on trans rights is just the latest front in the LGBTQ+ debates, now that the right has had to abandon its opposition to same-sex marriage because Americans have come to support it overwhelmingly. Even the contradictions aren't new. Since the Reagan years, Republicans have always talked about the dangers of deficits when Democrats were in power but cast those worries aside when they had the power to cut taxes. 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter' is the canonical Dick Cheney quote from 2002 when he was pushing for more tax cuts in W.'s administration. The exception proves the rule: George H.W. Bush made a deal with Democrats in 1991 that included tax increases because he really did care about deficits—and conservatives never forgave him for it. In an odd way, you have to admire Cheney's candor: At least he admitted what he was doing. The Freedom Caucus members have the gall to yell at the top of their lungs about how they care so very much about the debt—and then vote in overwhelming numbers to pile on billions more. As the debate over the BBB moves to the Senate, the immediate imperative is to expose the damage the bill does to millions of Trump's voters to benefit his Mar-a-Lago and crypto-wealthy friends. But it's also an occasion to shatter the illusion that Trump is some sort of brilliant policy innovator. Extremism and authoritarianism are not new ideas, and his legislative program would be familiar to Calvin Coolidge.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Dodge Charger Daytona EV Owner Shares How Unreliable It Is
Read the full story on The Auto Wire The Dodge Charger Daytona EV has been plagued with problems and one owner's story is a perfect example. He took to an owner's group on social media to share a story that's similar to others we've heard, although his is maybe a little the guy's frustrating ordeal with a brand new electric car clearly shows why so many are steering clear of these things. They're huge problems on wheels and it seems so many are uninterested in them, Dodge not only canceled the R/T model, it has suspended production for all 2026 models until who knows when. Posting in the Facebook group Dodge Charger Daytona EV, a guy named Micheal Darovec says his Scat Pack, which thankfully he's leasing, has already had three bricking episodes. That means the vehicle will just not start or do anything, requiring servicing to get it functioning again. Even worse, 2,300 miles later he said it bricked again, requiring it be towed on a flatbed wrecker. To do that with a disabled EV requires the tow truck operator to put the tires on something that will slide along the ground since there's no way to put the transmission into neutral. According to Darovec, he had to fight with Dodge to have the EV towed to the dealership from which he leased it, bearing some of the cost himself. We're guessing he wasn't confident in the nearest dealer service department knowing how to fix the electric car, perhaps from past experience. After a diagnostic, the Dodge Charger EV apparently had 36 error codes. Darovec says the solution 'is not an update' since that many error codes constitutes 'complete computer failure.' However, the dealer seems to have not old him what the end solution will be, probably because of the complexity of the problem. We keep hearing horror stories of these 'electric muscle cars' bricking, stranding owners and leading to nightmare service visits at dealerships. Is there any wonder Dodge is bringing the Hemi V8 back? Image via Micheal Darovec/Facebook Join our Newsletter, subscribe to our YouTube page, and follow us on Facebook.
