Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/06/2025

  Type:Product Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  On May 1 2025 the business owner billed me for services I did not agree to by signed contract. My payment was captured via stripe credit card on file without my authorization.The business also made no commitment to correct and reimburse fulfillment errors made after providing a detailed incident report.

  Business Response

  Date: 10/15/2025

  Better Business Bureau Response Complaint from Former Client (****** *** ****) 
  Business: Instant Fulfillment, LLC 
  Date: October 11, 2025 
  Subject: Response to BBB Complaint Alleged Unauthorized Billing and Lack of Resolution 
  
  This response and its case evidence has been attached in full as PDF and JPEG attachments as well. This is the written response in writing. 
  
  Overview 
  Instant Fulfillment LLC acknowledges receipt of this complaint and wishes to provide a complete, factual clarification of the sequence of events, as well as documentation showing that all charges, communications, and policies were issued in accordance with our operating terms and with significant advance notice to the complainant. 
  The complainant asserts (1) he was billed for services not contractually agreed upon, (2) that the charge was unauthorized, and (3) that the business refused to correct fulfillment errors. Each of these claims is demonstrably false or misleading when viewed in full context. 
  The attached timeline of events, as well as thorough examples of evidence, outlines the events in chronological order with supporting timestamps, messages, and written communication between March and October 2025. 
  
  1. Core Issue: Storage Charges on Invoice BWVWDOG8-0003 
  The disputed invoice included monthly storage fees reflecting Instant Fulfillments April 2025 transition from a cubic-foot to a carton- and pallet-based storage model. This change was communicated company-wide in advance through both written and digital channels: 
  
  March 31, 2025: A formal FAQ update was posted in the companys Discord server, announcing new carton-based storage tiers. 
  April 2, 2025 (1:06 PM): An email titled Instant Fulfillment Service and Policy Changes Effective April 15, 2025 was sent to all clients, including the complainant. 
  Both the email and FAQ contained identical pricing and policy language; there were no discrepancies between them. 
  
  The complainants original signed client agreement dated August 30, 2024 states: 
  
  Prices are subject to change as our business grows and services improve. Any changes will be communicated in advance, as well as addressed in an updated service agreement. 
  
  This clause was followed precisely. The policy changes were communicated well in advance, and a revised contract was issued prior to being invoiced. A new Docusign was sent on May 8, 2025. Invoice BWVWDOG8-0003  was sent on May 12. The invoicing date was pushed back 12 extra days as the owners of Instant Fulfillment give ****** some extra time to personally remove the invenotry, on top of the formal extensions. He made no effort to do so. 
  Attachments included show evidence of the contract being sent and voided due to one or more parties declining the terms. The client in multiple instances acknowledged these upcoming charges and chose to do nothing about it. Instant Fulfillment owner, ******** ******, even messaged ****** *** **** directly outlining the amount that would be billed, and it was acknowledged by ******. Since the complainant chose not to sign the updated version, and did not act on the sitting inventory, our warehouse team decided to begin the removal process ourselves.  
   
  The disputed portion of the invoice pertained to carton-based storage fees only, not palletized storage. The carton storage totaled approximately $600, which was subsequently discounted by 75%, reducing the amount to $272. The remaining balance of $605.50 on the invoice primarily reflected valid local pallet storage and a small portion of residual carton storage after the courtesy credit. Instant Fulfillment extended this 75% goodwill discount, clearly itemized on the invoice as a Service Provider Credit Final Courtesy Discount (-$616.50).  
  ****** was not willing to pay for the storage charges, regardless of the discounts, due to him not agreeing and signing off on the new contract that he was sent. We provided clear and timely communication on the billing changes. However, due to the unwillingness to sign and pay the invoice, we had to explore an alternate billing policy for the removal of his aged inventory.  
  
  2. Communication Timeline & Transparency 
  The claim that these charges were unannounced or unclear is inaccurate. Company records and message timestamps confirm that the rollout was transparent and uniform across all clients. The following changes were publicly outlined: 
  Storage billed every 30 days for items stored at our warehouse 
  Transition to carton-based and pallet-based storage rates 
  Disposal or liquidation of items held 60+ days without activity 
  Revised FBM fulfillment pricing by item type and weight 
  All clients were informed simultaneously. Many took proactive action to relocate inventory before April 15. The complainant, in contrast, was given an extra two-week ***** perioda courtesy not extended to any other clientto help manage stranded FBA inventory. 
  
  3. Verbal Extension & Grace ****************** or around April 2, 2025, owner, ******** ****** personally informed the complainant: 
  
  Im giving you an extra two weeks to try to remove or start selling your stranded inventory because I know you have a large amount on hand. *** also granted you super-permissions in the warehouse system so you can manage your own items without incurring service costs during that time. 
  
  This statement, supported by internal records and security logs, shows a goodwill extension, not a contradiction. The client enjoyed free storage through April 30 and raised no dispute until weeks later, after the billing cycle began. 
  
  4. Revised Billing Structure Applied to Invoice BWVWDOG8-0003 
  Following several weeks of delay and refusal by the complainant to remit payment on the open invoice, Instant Fulfillment proposed a revised billing structure to help bring the matter to resolution in good faith. 
  Rather than enforcing the original invoice in full, Instant Fulfillment offered to charge the complainant only for the labor hours required to remove and process his remaining inventory, as a simplified and more equitable settlement. This offer was communicated transparently via text message by Instant Fulfillment owner ***** ****, and the complainant explicitly acknowledged and accepted this revised billing structure in writing. 
  Text correspondence between ****** *** **** and ***** **** clearly confirms the complainants acceptance of the new invoice terms.  
  
  5. Authorization of Payment 
  The assertion that Instant Fulfillment processed payment without authorization is utterly false. 
  After the invoice was dispatched, ****** confirmed acceptance of the invoice terms and balance in writingdocumentation of which is attached. Stripes authorization records verify the payment was validly captured under this continuing authorization.  
  
  Matter of fact, we have screenshot evidence from the logs of our payment processor, ******, indicating the complainant made the payment via Apple Pay. This requires a ***** face ID verification. There is no possibility that Instant Fulfillment could have authorized such a payment. Further demonstrating the complainant, ****** *** ****, is lying about an unauthorized charge. See attachments and evidence at the bottom of this document for the logs from Stripe.  
  At no time did the client revoke permission or remove his payment method. His acknowledgment of the invoice and the subsequent successful capture both occurred in accordance with our standard billing procedures. Multiple texts directly from ****** *** **** to Instant Fulfillment owners, shows ****** clearly accepting the billed services, and authorizing the payment himself.  
  
  Additional attachments provided in this section demonstrate the clients direct acceptance of the invoice, including clear written statements acknowledging both the charges and the terms. 
  
  Jordan: I appreciate you coming to a fair solution and I can immediately agree to it. 
  ******: Yes I response to your message agreeing to pay the invoice for labor. 
  
  6. Response to Lack of Commitment to Correct Errors 
  The claim that Instant Fulfillment made no commitment to correct and reimburse fulfillment errors is inaccurate. 
  The company clearly stated in writing, on Jun 16, 8:53?PM via email, that any outstanding fulfillment discrepancies would be reviewed after resolution of the open invoice dispute. This sequencing ensured accurate accounting and reconciliation before adjustments were made. This was sent to ****** in the document Invoice Dispute BWVWDOG8-0003", and a screenshot is attached below.  
  
  Evidence from document Invoice Dispute BWVWDOG8-0003" 
  
  The complainant then ceased communication and voluntarily ended services, preventing any review from taking place. Once an account is closed, the company cannot legally or operationally process refunds tied to a terminated service relationship.  
  
  7. Good-Faith ******* & Prior Accommodations 
  Throughout the partnership (August 2024 June 2025), Instant Fulfillment repeatedly extended goodwill accommodations beyond contractual obligation, including: 
  Waiving or discounting over $892.50 in accumulated storage and service fees across prior months. 
  Granting super-user warehouse permissions and local access privileges not extended to any other client 
  Not applying storage charges to fulfillment related inventory in our warehouse in 2025.  
  Allowing multiple extensions for stranded or slow-moving inventory past normal 30-day limits 
  These actions demonstrate an ongoing pattern of cooperation, flexibility, and professional courtesy. 
  
  8. Summary & Position 
  Based on the complete record: 
  The May 1 billing was valid, pre-announced, and authorized. 
  The client explicitly acknowledged and accepted the invoice in writing. 
  The disputed carton storage charges (~$600) were reduced to $272 (a 75% courtesy discount). This charge was ultimately removed entirely, as the services were agreed to be billed on labor hours instead.  
  The claim of unauthorized billing is unsubstantiated. 
  The company maintained transparent communication and extended multiple accommodations. 
  The complainant voluntarily ended the relationship before any further operational review could take place. 
  Instant Fulfillment therefore considers this matter closed, with all obligations fulfilled in good faith. 
  
  9. Resolution Statement 
  The complainants requested outcome is no further contact by the business. Instant Fulfillment will respect that request and never attempted to further communicate with the client upon the partnership ending. The account is closed, communications have ceased, and there is no remaining balance or open dispute. 
  Instant Fulfillment LLC remains committed to transparency, fairness, and professional standards across all client relationships and submits this as its response to the BBB. 
  
  Sincerely, 
   ******** Garcia 
   Founder & CEO Instant Fulfillment LLC 
   ***********************************************;
   ************************************************* 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/19/2025

   
  Complaint: 23966801

  I appreciate that Instant Fulfillment has agreed to my request for no further contact. However, their response includes several inaccurate and misleading claims.

  To clarify, one of the companys own owners, ***** ****, acknowledged in writing on June 19 in a text thread:
  Jordan, youre initially upset from receiving storage charges that are not necessarily in your contract and believed to be a bit inaccurate. I believe there is relevancy to that as Ive seen some of the discrepancies myself.

  I want to note that I believe ***** acted in good faith and genuinely tried to make things right. In fact, without ***** creating a resolution that shifted billing to labor hours, I do not believe **** ****** would have made that concession or attempted to resolve the dispute at all. His message confirms that the billing issues I raised were real and internally recognized.

  As an individual, I have experienced nothing but professionalism, integrity, and genuine effort from ***** ****, and I would highly recommend working with him. He consistently demonstrated ethical business conduct and made sincere efforts to address concerns fairly.

  In contrast, I believe the owner, **** ******, acted unethically by moving forward with billing despite knowing there were acknowledged discrepancies with their newly instated and not contractually signed Bin System. Calling it a courtesy discount does not justify assigning a random number to an unapproved charge. That is not a legitimate billing practice, especially when the client never signed the new agreement.

  Additionally, several reimbursement requests tied to documented fulfillment errors were never reviewed or processed before the account was closed, despite written assurances that they would be handled. I have attached my fulfillment error log showing multiple unresolved cases totaling more than $1,800 in direct business losses, all attributed to Instant Fulfillment.

  I am not seeking further contact or reimbursement. My intent is to ensure the BBB record accurately reflects that the billing dispute and reimbursement issues were legitimate, internally acknowledged, and financially damaging. My experience shows a significant risk of inaccurate billing, unethical practices, and unaddressed losses, which is the reason I had no choice but to cut ties with the company, as **** ****** demonstrated a track record of unethical behavior. It is especially concerning as I was the first client of his business at its founding and once shared a warehouse space with the company, having supported its growth from its earliest stages.
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *** ****

  Business Response

  Date: 10/20/2025

  Instant Fulfillment Rebuttal Complaint #********
  
  Instant Fulfillment reaffirms that every element of the complainants initial submission has already been proven false by direct evidence included in our original response to the BBB. The complainants latest statement introduces no new facts or documentation and serves only as a personal and emotional reaction aimed at discrediting ownership, rather than addressing the factual evidence already presented. Nonetheless, the assertion of unethical behavior will be clearly addressed in our response below.
  
  Proven False Claims
  
  The complainants original allegations were threefold, and each has been conclusively disproven through verified documentation already on file with the BBB:
  
  Claim #1: Unauthorized Charge This claim was proven false by Stripes payment authorization logs, showing the transaction was completed via Apple Pay with Face ID verification. It is not possible for Instant Fulfillment to process or force such a payment. Stripes records confirm that the transaction was voluntarily completed by the complainant himself, making this claim categorically false.
  
  Claim #2: Unapproved or Improper Billing This claim was disproven by written text message exchanges between the complainant and Instant Fulfillment partner ***** ****, in which the complainant explicitly agreed to the revised hourly labor billing structure to resolve the dispute. This agreement was reached in writing prior to payment. ****** statement to the complainant confirms this resolution clearly:
  ******, youre initially upset from receiving storage charges that are not necessarily in your contract and believed to be a bit inaccurate. I believe there is relevancy to that as Ive seen some of the discrepancies myself.
  After reviewing the matter internally, both partners **** and *****, agreed to convert the charges to a fair hourly rate a resolution the complainant accepted in writing and paid for in full.
  
  Claim #3: Unethical or Misleading Billing Practices This claim is directly contradicted by ***** ***** own statements to the complainant,
  which demonstrate that both partners including **** ****** acted fairly, transparently, and in good faith:
  **** *** have been sarcastic in his response to your message, but ultimately, I think that the objective solutions provided were fair and a good attempt to move past this. I personally dont want to s**** you over in any way. After speaking with ****, I know that is not his goal either.
  To further clarify, the final resolution that ****** agreed to was not created by ***** **** alone. The complainant selectively quoted one short sentence from the broader text thread previously provided in our last response. For full transparency, Instant Fulfillment will again provide the complete conversation, which clearly shows that ***** **** not only acknowledged and addressed ******s concerns but also defended **** ******* actionsnoting that **** conducted himself objectively, fairly, and with genuine consideration for ****** and his business.
  ***** wanted to include a personal statement on this case:
  **** and I both discussed the ongoing dispute and collectively developed the compromise to shift billing to an hourly structure. I served as the messenger at that point, as every attempt from **** ****** to follow the original contract terms was rejected by ****** seemingly out of personal vindication rather than contractual disagreement. Frankly, I am disappointed that ****** is making these false claims in the first place and attempting to publicize them. I thought the matter to be finalized, but instead these new claims may now affect me and my ownership interest in my business.
  These statements collectively confirm that **** ******* actions were ethical, solution-oriented, and fully consistent with Instant Fulfillments professional and transparent business practices.
  
  Response to Unapproved Charge and Misleading Billing Practices Claim
  
  The complainants statement that Instant Fulfillment issued an unapproved charge or mislabeled a courtesy discount is false, misleading, and another blatant lie.
  No unauthorized or random charge was ever processed. The revised pricing structure was communicated to the complainant over 40 days in advance, supported by two written notices and an updated service agreement that detailed the new storage and fulfillment rates. The complainant received and acknowledged these updates but raised no objection prior to the billing date. When he later declined to sign the new agreement, Instant
  Fulfillment offered an alternative hourly billing resolution, which he accepted as a fair compromise.
  The records further show that the original invoice actually understated the true storage usage. Warehouse logs confirmed roughly 190 cartons across five size tiers, which would have totaled about $1,227.00 under the published rate card. However, Instant Fulfillment only billed $822.00a 33 percent reductionreflecting a conservative and good-faith adjustment, not an overcharge. This was then discounted another 75%, as a courtesy to ******. To suggest a random number was used, is again, unsubstantiated. We have attached proof of the carton consumption, and photos we sent the complainant when his inventory was removed. See attachment from an internal ticket thread below.
  These carton counts and ID references were provided directly to the complainant in a support ticket thread at the time of billing. He never disputed the data or responded to the detailed breakdown after it was shared.
  Accordingly, the allegation of an unapproved or illegitimate charge is entirely inaccurate. The billing was transparent, supported by documentation, and in line with standard policy communicated well in advance. Carton Count Case Evidence Ledger: Original invoice #BWVWDOG8-0003 Ledger:
  
  XS (Extra Small): 18 cartons $3.00 = $54.00
  
  S (Small): 42 cartons $4.00 = $168.00
  
  M (Medium): 33 cartons $6.00 = $198.00
  
  L (Large): 39 cartons $8.00 = $312.00
  
  XL (Extra Large): 9 cartons $10.00 = $90.00
  Grand Total = $822.00 (reduced to $272, after 75% reduction)
  Actual Carton Consumption after Reconciliation by Staff:
  
  XS (Extra Small):17 $3 = $51
  
  S (Small): 54 $4 = $216
  
  M (Medium): 20 $6 = $120
  
  L (Large): 75 $8 = $600
  
  XL (Extra Large): 24 $10 = $240
  Grand Total Billing = $1,227.00 This is what should have actually been posted. Instant Fulfillment acknowledged to ****** that there may have been some discrepancies, but that it was discounted for that reason. He agreed to this compromise clearly in text threads provided.
  
  New Claim #4: Fulfillment Errors and Follow-up
  The complainants statement that documented fulfillment errors were never reviewed or processed before the account was closed is false. Instant Fulfillment provided written confirmation on Monday, June 16 at 8:53 PM, committing to review and correct the noted FBM order issues after the updated contract was signed and operations resumed. (See attached screenshot: Document Invoice Dispute BWVWDOG8-0003 Response)
  This message clearly outlined that all FBM order issues would be addressed once the new DocuSign agreement was executed. However, ****** *** **** declined to sign the updated contract and ceased communication immediately after paying invoice #BWVWDOG8-0003, preventing any further action from our side.
  It is also important to note that Instant Fulfillment has never issued direct cash reimbursements for service-provider errors; instead, we have always applied credits toward future fulfillment invoices, a long-standing company policy consistently followed with all clientsincluding ****** prior to this dispute.
  Because the complainant elected not to renew his contract or continue service, no credits could be applied. To suggest otherwise is inaccurate and reflects a personal grievance rather than a factual account of events.
  
  Reputational Sabotage and False Online Reviews
  In addition to the false claims already disproven through documentation, Instant Fulfillment has obtained clear evidence of a coordinated effort to damage its business reputation through fabricated online reviews.
  Specifically, the complainants acquaintance and friend, ******* G. ************ ***** (23, of Andover, **), has been identified leaving false 1-star reviews on Instant Fulfillments official ****** business page, along with additional fake accounts connected to the complainant. Two of these reviews were even posted on an unrelated business listing not connected to Instant Fulfillment, showing that the intent was not to share a genuine customer experience but to slander and harm the companys reputation.
  All reviews have been documented with screenshots, account identifiers, and timestamps, and have been reported to ****** for policy review and removal. These coordinated actions further confirm that the complainants conduct has shifted from a factual dispute to a personal retaliation effort, aimed at damaging Instant Fulfillments public image rather than resolving matters in good faith. We have provided the screenshots of these reviews, clearly showing one of the names is Max **** a hyphenation of Maxs full name. These ****** accounts have no previous reviews, other than the most recent fake 1-star reviews on Instant Fulfillment, and Instant Gym.
  
  Nature of the Follow-Up Submission
  The complainants most recent message does not refute any of the evidence submitted by Instant Fulfillment. Instead, it consists entirely of personal opinions and speculative statements that aim to discredit ownership rather than address factual inconsistencies in his original complaint.
  It is evident that this follow-up was written as an emotional reaction after being confronted with irrefutable proof that his initial allegations were false. The complainant presents no new evidence, no corrections to his prior claims, and no factual rebuttal to the Stripe verification, written agreements, or message logs already provided.
  Instant Fulfillment has operated transparently and professionally throughout this entire process, providing complete billing records, Stripe payment verification, and internal communications confirming that all resolutions were conducted in good faith.
  It is therefore inaccurate and hypocritical for the complainant to suggest unethical conduct when the documented record shows that Instant Fulfillment acted with integritywhile the complainant, by contrast, submitted false claims to the BBB and publicly misrepresented material facts.
  The companys ethical approach is further reinforced by its willingness to compromise, revise invoices, and accommodate custom billing solutions all of which were agreed upon by the complainant before payment. The suggestion that these actions were unethical is not only unfounded but disproven by his own written acknowledgments.
  
  Final Position
  Instant Fulfillment has provided overwhelming evidence that the complainants allegations were false, misleading, and contradicted by the complainants own written records. The follow-up statement represents a personal attempt to harm reputation rather than resolve a legitimate issue. Given that all factual elements of the original dispute have been addressed and resolved with full transparency, Instant Fulfillment will not engage in further correspondence regarding this matter. We advise and ask the complainant dismisses these claims, as it was understood to be resolved, months ago. This complaint has been conclusively addressed, documented, and closed in good faith. Instant Fulfillment remains committed to professionalism, transparency, and ethical conduct in all business operation
  
  Sincerely,
  ******** ****** & ***** ****
  Co-Owners Instant Fulfillment LLC
  **************************************************************************************
  *************************************************
  
  
  Case Evidence Attachments:
  
  Attachment 1: Document Invoice Dispute BWVWDOG8-0003 Response - Instant Fulfillment verbiage sent to ****** containing verbiage committing to resolution, upon
  signing of the new Docusign. Sent on Mon, Jun 16, 8:53 PM via Gmail.
  
  Attachment 2: Full Text thread ****** quoted in his response showing ***** acknowledged the dispute, **** was involved in the offer and in the thread, and full explanation of our offer on June 19th, 2025.
  
  Attachment 3: Fake 1-star Reviews from Spam Accounts on ****** Business
  
  Attachment 4: Communication from Staff to ****** about actual Carton Consumption and proof, sent on 6/19/2025, 8:51pm EST.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/22/2025

   
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I stand by my original complaint and my previous statement submitted to the BBB. Retroactively billing a client for services rendered before any signed agreement or clear consent contradicts fundamental principles of fair dealing and mutual assent that govern ethical business practice. Documented fulfillment-related losses exceeding $1,800 remain unresolved. Rather than acknowledging responsibility for these service failures, Instant Fulfillment has maintained that no reimbursement obligation exists. This conduct demonstrates a clear disregard for accountability and client trust, and it reaffirmed my decision to terminate the relationship.
  While I am not seeking further contact or reimbursement, it is important that the record reflect that this dispute was legitimate, substantiated, and financially damaging. My intent is simply to close this matter with an accurate and factual record of my experience.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *** ****