CC chargeback does not even remotely prove anything other than producing a track record of transacation that reflects what has happened. It is a consumer protection tool but having NO legal bearing. The real estate agent certainly got her money back but that does not give her any advantage in the context of court.

Speaking of auto renewal, no case for her, period.

You go to a store, buy some orange, see a sign says "minimal purchase of 3, no refund", you still make a payment, then you accept and enter into a contract. You can bark however hard as you wish but you have no legal basis of arguing

1. there is no contract in writing; 
2. the contract does not come with a full fledged term of use, which are often regarded as fine prints consumers actually fight against; 
3. that, after you ate the orange, why the store owner forces customers to buy at least 3 and refuse to issue a refund if you suddenly decide not to like orange.

Speaking of other cases she might seek to have, in one of the screenshots hers real name probably is visible. Please note that it is not illigal to disclose someone's real name on social media; It is not illigal for business to disclose their side of evidence or proof of events on social media. Digital Privacy Act goes two ways to protect both parties. A lawyer, assuming there is such one who is bored to death therefore taking on this case, would first exmine

1. whether it is done to defame the party involved.
2. whether the real name, for instance, does make her identity more public than before.

Neither of these raised a red flag to me, provided Rolia merely posted the screenshot of the conversation after the plantiff-yet-to-be posted a piece of incomplete material that potentially brings effects of defamation to Rolia Inc. The owner of Rolia did not make much comments afterwards. Plantiff-yet-to-be should present evidence if they believe Rolia Inc., in his wrongdoing, instructed any others to damage their reputation.

Rather, plantiff-yet-to-be posted something irrlevant to this case to reveal Rolia's owners personal life. I believe someone has saved the screenshot of that. Though this could be used against platiff but I cannot comment as I did not witness.

It's clear to most of us it is the proxy ID (Temufs) who tried hard flipping the fact and causing some heated conversation during the aftermath. This individual can possibly be ruled under offense of incitement.

This is governed under Ontario Consumer Protection Act (CPA), where it says the merchant, including e-commerce vendors, SHOULD

1. acknowledge of the complaint or inqury within 7 days of receipt,

2. endeavor to address the complaint within 45 days of acknowledgement.

It's worth noting that the term SHOULD carries different legal implications than MUST. The use of "SHOULD" in an Act indicates a recommendation or a best practice. It is not leagally binding therefore it results neither a legal consequence nor a legal obligation.

Before the end of July, 2005, these were governed by the older version of CPA, which did not include provisions for e-commerce but the section about Service Level Agreement (SLA) says the same -- While the response time for customers' inquries about goods and service is a critical metric as far as customer satisfaction concerns, business can operate without a SLA.

I agree the customer service can be done better as pointed out by others -- probably we would also agree the same can be said for vast majority of the companies -- but the owner of Rolia did not breach the contract in this regard.

Disclaimer: During my tenure, I am forced to be specialized in Digital Privacy Act and PIPEDA with a strong focus on Software and BioTech. I also moonlight for CPA related disputes. I am likely qualified to give information more aligned with legal framework. I know neither the owner of Rolia nor the involved other party.

I have no incentive to take side. Being in this particular legal arena for many years makes my eyes itchy when I witness someone deliberately disseminates false information, such as the implication of chargeback, their claim about cyberbully and violation of privacy, their misinterpretation of business conduct and contractual obligation, and their definition of "西方规则".

What's important is, as human we should uphold ethical standards. This world is ruled by both laws and morals. The justice and fairness should be found as a "harmony between action-guiding aspirations and action-committing obligations" -- This is what the best judge is made for, this is the motto I learned from Osgoode Hall on my first day, I dare not to forget.

只能贴在这了。高段位网友英文，法律知识，思维妥妥的加拿大,粉你👍也去狗相关法律，找到这段话，但不知是不是enforceable legal term.

客户自己承认她没看。

[10:40, 2023-01-22] Yihan: I thought I never see auto renewal optional ,misunderstood