Diamonds International review: Rolex watch

I would like to bring to CFPB attention a serious concern regarding my recent purchase at Diamonds International in St. Maarten on August 26, 2025, during a Royal Caribbean cruise. I purchased a Rolex watch for $25,000 USD from your sales associate, Amit. Before completing the purchase, I specifically asked Amit if I would be able to return the watch in the United States should I change my mind. He clearly stated yes, I could return it at any Diamonds International location in the U.S. Based on this assurance, I proceeded with the loan application and finalized the purchase. At the time of signing, the receipt provided to me did not have any “Final Sale” stamp. However, once I returned home and reviewed the documents, I was shocked to discover that a “Final Sale” stamp had been added to my receipt after the transaction was completed. This action is misleading and constitutes a clear misrepresentation of the terms of sale. When I contacted Amit via WhatsApp regarding this issue, he acknowledged my concern and asked how it could be resolved. I explained that I would accept one of two solutions: 12/5/25. I have the document sign. I add a PDF to prove my point I, Alain Alberic, hereby affirm and state the following based on my personal knowledge and experience: 1. Initial Refund Request and Response 1.1 On my first communication with Ms. Caroline M. of Diamonds International, I formally requested a refund for the Rolex watch purchased at the St. Maarten location. 1.2 Ms. Caroline immediately invoked Diamonds International’s “Final Sale” policy, asserting that it applied to my purchase. 1.3 She stated that Diamonds International possessed video footage of the transaction. 1.4 When I respectfully requested access to the video, she refused to provide it. 2. Refusal to Provide Legal Contact Information 2.1 I requested contact information for Diamonds International’s legal counsel, Mr. David Feingold. 2.2 Although Mr. Feingold’s professional information is publicly available, Ms. Caroline declined to provide his details and restricted access to further communication. 3. My Efforts to Resolve the Matter Professionally 3.1 Throughout this process, I acted calmly, respectfully, and professionally. 3.2 I made multiple attempts to resolve the matter amicably with Ms. Caroline M., Gregory M. (Manager), and Mr. David Feingold (Diamonds International Counsel). 3.3 Even under pressure and despite inconsistent responses, I maintained professionalism and followed all communication protocols. 4. Documentation of the Purchase Process 4.1 I am submitting a copy of the receipt as evidence. 4.2 I did not sign the back of the receipt, and no one ever instructed me to do so. 4.3 The receipt contains a large “Final Sale” stamp that was never verbally disclosed to me before or during the transaction. I saw this stamp only after returning home. 4.4 I did not fill out any portion of the receipt. 4.5 Store employees took my government-issued identification and wrote down all of my personal information themselves. 5. Sales Environment, Distraction Tactics & Withheld Evidence 5.1 While one employee filled out the paperwork using my ID, another employee kept me and my wife engaged in conversation to distract us from the documentation process. 5.2 I trusted Amit, one of the store managers in St. Maarten, who presented himself as helpful and reassuring. 5.3 At no time did anyone verbally inform me that the sale was final, nor did anyone indicate that I would have no opportunity for refund or return. 5.4 I strongly believe the in-store video — which Diamonds International refuses to release — would show: • The exact time of the final purchase • The moment the salesperson wrote my personal information on the receipt • That I did not sign the back of the receipt • The presence and use of the large “Final Sale” stamp • The conversations used to distract me and my wife • The drinks offered to us (champagne and soft drinks) • The overall sales environment and pressure applied 5.5 I am requesting access to the video footage specifically to verify these facts. 6. Offer Drinks Offered and Sales Environment 6.1 Employees provided my wife and me champagne during the sale twice. 6.2 Later, at our request, they provided soft drinks. 6.3 This hospitality contributed to a relaxed environment, which I believe influenced our ability to focus on the documentation process. 7. Credit Card Decline and Alternative Financing Attempt 7.1 The initial credit card transaction was declined due to the large amount and because it was processed overseas. 7.2 Instead of pausing to ensure full disclosure or clarity, Amit immediately looked for alternative ways to complete the transaction. 7.3 He attempted to apply for financing and stated that he could “find a way” to finalize the purchase. 8. Summary 8.1 All statements above are true to the best of my knowledge and based solely on my firsthand experience. 8.2 I have documentation, emails, screenshots, and other evidence supporting the events Re: Request for Federal Enforcement Investigation — Diamonds International’s Use of Unlawful Non-Disparagement Clauses, Coercive Refund Conditions, and Suppression of Lawful Consumer Reviews To Whom It May Concern: I am submitting this complaint to formally request an FTC enforcement investigation into Diamonds International (DI) and its legal counsel for violations of federal consumer-protection laws, including: • The Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45b(a)–(c) • Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) prohibiting unfair and deceptive business practices • Interference with lawful consumer reporting and government-filed complaints My experience with Diamonds International shows a systemic pattern of coercion, deception, review suppression, and retaliation that directly violates federal law. DI demanded that I sign an illegal settlement agreement containing prohibited gag clauses, compelled review removal, and restrictions preventing me from communicating with regulatory agencies — all as a condition of receiving a lawful refund. This is not a misunderstanding — the prohibited language was written directly into Paragraph 5 of their proposed contract. 1. Unlawful Non-Disparagement and Review-Removal Demands (CRFA Violations) DI’s attorney, David Feingold, explicitly required me to: • Delete online reviews • Withdraw BBB complaints • Withdraw complaints filed with my credit card company • Stop communicating with any media or online platforms • Replace all statements with a pre-approved script • Remove all truthful, factual statements about DI • Remove posts before they processed my refund These actions constitute clear violations of the Consumer Review Fairness Act, which prohibits any business from: • Restricting or penalizing consumer reviews • Imposing contractual terms that suppress truthful experiences • Conditioning benefits or refunds on the removal of reviews CRFA makes such clauses void and unenforceable, and the FTC has repeatedly taken enforcement actions against companies engaging in similar conduct. Diamonds International attempted to use these clauses as leverage, pressuring me to silence my truthful complaints in exchange for the refund I am legally entitled to. 2. Deceptive and Coercive Practices (FTC Act § 5 Violations) The proposed contract — particularly Paragraph 5 — is coercive, misleading, and retaliatory. DI’s conduct demonstrates: • Unfair methods of competition • Deceptive acts or practices • Coercive conditions tied to a refund • Retaliation for filing lawful complaints Attempting to force a consumer to retract or delete government-filed complaints (BBB, Attorney General, credit disputes) is not only unethical — it is expressly prohibited by federal guidance. Additionally, DI’s attorney demanded that I sign the agreement by midnight, despite the fact that he failed to send the revised contract that we discussed. This was an obvious attempt at intimidation and pressure. 3. Interference with Government-Filed Complaints Diamonds International attempted to require me to: • Withdraw BBB complaints • Withdraw complaints to credit-card issuers • Withdraw Attorney General inquiries • Cease communication with regulators This interference is alarming and raises significant regulatory concerns. These actions may constitute: • Obstruction of lawful consumer-protection processes • Retaliation for seeking regulatory assistance • Suppression of public-interest information Consumers have a protected right to file complaints with government agencies. No company may condition a refund on retracting those complaints. 4. Pattern of Abuse, Not an Isolated Incident Diamonds International has a long and well-documented history of: • Deceptive pricing • High-pressure tourist-directed sales tactics • Failed refund practices • Misrepresentation of product value • Non-delivery of promised services • Hostile response to consumer complaints My experience aligns with numerous past cases and demonstrates a repeat pattern, not a one-time mistake. 5. Request for FTC Action I respectfully request that the FTC: (1) Open an investigation into Diamonds International’s use of illegal gag clauses, consumer-review suppression, and coercive settlement practices. (2) Issue formal warnings or enforcement actions for violations of the Consumer Review Fairness Act. (3) Evaluate DI’s pattern of obstructing consumer reporting including their practice of conditioning refunds on the removal of reviews and government complaints. (4) Require DI to cease use of prohibited contract language and to notify consumers who previously signed such agreements that the clauses are void and unenforceable. 6. Exhibits Included Exhibit A: Copy of DI’s proposed Settlement Agreement (with illegal Paragraph 5) Exhibit B: Email correspondence with DI attorney David Feingold Exhibit C: Timeline of phone conversations (including agreement on November 24 at 11:16 AM) Exhibit D: Screenshots of DI’s coercive demands Exhibit E: BBB and credit-card complaint filings Exhibit F: Comparison to known FTC enforcement actions involving similar conduct (If you want, I can generate all exhibits in proper format.) Conclusion Diamonds International’s conduct demonstrates: • unlawful suppression of consumer rights, • abuse of contractual language, • coercive refund practices, and • deliberate attempts to silence truthful consumer experiences. I request immediate FTC review and enforcement. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, A.J.A BBB At this point, there is no longer any negotiation between myself and Diamonds International. I have made every good-faith effort to reach an amicable and reasonable settlement. Despite this, I received an email from Diamonds International’s Counsel, Mr. David Feingold, informing me that our discussions are “terminated” and that there is no agreement. For clarity and for the protection of my rights, I respectfully request that you review: 1. All email communications exchanged between myself and DI Counsel, 2. The verbal terms that Mr. Feingold and I agreed to during our phone discussion, and 3. My written request directing Counsel to accurately incorporate those agreed-upon terms into a revised contract. To this moment, I have not received a revised Settlement Agreement reflecting the actual terms that were mutually agreed upon. Instead, DI Counsel issued an ultimatum demanding my signature by midnight—without ever providing the corrected contract necessary for review, which contradicts both our conversation and basic standards of fair dealing. Given these actions, I am requesting your review and intervention so that the complete record—including the communications demonstrating my good-faith cooperation—is preserved and evaluated in full. Please let me know the next steps you recommend. Respectfully, A. J. A I wish to provide this closing statement so that my complaint accurately reflects the full development of events with Diamonds International. Over the past several weeks, I made every effort to resolve this matter amicably and in good faith. I communicated openly, cooperated fully, and even engaged directly with Diamonds International’s legal counsel, Mr. David Feingold, to reach a mutually acceptable settlement. On November 24, 2025, Mr. Feingold and I discussed clear and reasonable terms over the phone. During that call, he agreed to revise Paragraph 5 of the proposed settlement to remove the unlawful non-disparagement and “gag-clause” requirements, and to replace them with terms that reflected our actual conversation. He specifically acknowledged that those provisions were not binding and would be removed. Despite that agreement, Diamonds International never provided the promised revised contract. Instead, I was repeatedly pressured with arbitrary deadlines to sign an agreement that did not reflect what was discussed and that contained multiple clauses violating: • New York General Business Law §§ 349, 350, and 391-r, • the Federal Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), • and general principles prohibiting coercive or deceptive refund conditions. Rather than correcting the agreement as promised, Diamonds International abruptly informed me—by email—that they were “terminating discussions” and that we “have no agreement,” despite my continued willingness to proceed under the terms we had already agreed to. It is important for the record to reflect the following: 1. I negotiated in good faith at all times. 2. Diamonds International agreed verbally to revise the settlement to lawful terms. 3. They failed to provide the promised revised agreement. 4. They attempted to enforce unlawful speech-restriction clauses. 5. They then prematurely ended negotiations after I requested compliance with New York and federal law. I am therefore asking the BBB to keep my complaint open and continue its review, as Diamonds International’s conduct raises serious concerns about: • transparency, • honesty in negotiations, • compliance with consumer-protection laws, • and retaliation against consumers who assert their legal rights. I remain willing to resolve this matter properly, but not under illegal or coercive conditions. I appreciate the BBB’s continued involvement and assistance. 2. Complaint Letter to the Florida Attorney General Office of the Attorney General – State of Florida Consumer Protection Division PL-01 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL [protected] Re: Consumer Complaint Under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) Dear Attorney General, I am submitting a formal complaint against Diamonds International regarding deceptive and unfair business practices related to a jewelry purchase made under Florida jurisdiction. The company’s conduct raises serious concerns under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Fla. Stat. §501.201–501.213. Diamonds International has engaged in misleading sales practices, provided inconsistent information, withheld requested transaction evidence (including video footage), and failed to resolve the matter despite repeated attempts on my part to address it professionally. These actions have caused financial harm, emotional distress, and a significant breakdown in trust. I respectfully request the assistance of your office in reviewing this matter and investigating Diamonds International’s practices to ensure compliance with Florida law and protection of consumers. I am prepared to provide all supporting documents, evidence, and communication records upon request. Thank you for your time and assistance. 🚨 PUBLIC CONSUMER WARNING: My Experience Buying a Rolex from Diamonds International on August 26,25 I am sharing this detailed review as a public warning to other consumers, based entirely on my personal experience with Diamonds International. During my trip to St. Maarten, I purchased a high-value Rolex watch from Diamonds International. At the time of sale, the presentation appeared professional, but after returning home, I discovered several issues that I believe other customers should be aware of before making a purchase. ❗ 1. Important Information Not Disclosed at the Time of Purchase When I reviewed the paperwork at home, I found a large “FINAL SALE” stamp above my signature. This was never verbally disclosed to me at the store. Had I known this, I would have reconsidered the purchase. ❗ 2. Difficulty Obtaining Basic Documentation I requested the video recording of the transaction — something they told me they had. However, despite multiple requests, the company did not provide it. In my opinion, a reputable business should have no issue releasing evidence related to a customer’s own purchase. ❗ 3. Inconsistent Communication My attempts to resolve the issue were met with shifting explanations, delays, and responses that, in my opinion, felt dismissive and not transparent. This raised concerns for me about the company’s internal practices and customer service standards. ❗ 4. Other Customers Report Similar Experiences While researching Diamonds International, I discovered that many other consumers have reported issues similar to mine — including undisclosed sales terms, difficulty obtaining refunds, lack of transparency, and inconsistent customer service. This pattern increased my concern and prompted me to share my experience publicly. ⚠️ MY WARNING TO OTHER CONSUMERS Based on everything I experienced, I strongly advise consumers to exercise extreme caution before purchasing anything from Diamonds International. I recommend: • Get everything in writing before paying • Don’t rely solely on verbal statements • Carefully examine all documents before signing • Request clarity about refund or return rights • Do independent research about pricing and value • Be cautious about high-pressure sales tactics in tourist areas In my opinion, the company’s sales process and after-sale support did not meet the standards I expect from a business selling luxury items at high prices. 🔍 WHY I AM POSTING THIS I believe consumers deserve full transparency when spending thousands of dollars on jewelry or watches. This review reflects MY truth, based on documented events, and is shared to help others avoid the frustration I went through. This is not an accusation of criminal behavior — it is a factual account of my experience and my personal opinions about how the company handled the situation. ⸻ 🛑 Final Statement (Legally Protected) Everything stated here is true to the best of my knowledge, based on my documented experience, and includes my personal opinions, which are protected under the First Amendment and the Consumer Review Fairness Act.

Consumer Complaint – Potential Unfair or Deceptive Practices by Diamonds International

To the Federal Trade Commission:

I am submitting this complaint pursuant to Section 5 of the FTC Act, alleging potential unfair or deceptive business practices by Diamonds International involving:
• Failure to disclose a binding “Final Sale” policy
• Refusal to release transaction video evidence
• Misleading verbal representations
• Inconsistent communication during dispute resolution
• Employees completing official documentation without my involvement
• Providing alcohol during the sale while withholding key terms
• Attempted financing after declined card without adequate disclosure

These practices may violate:
• FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45
• Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
• Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA)

Attached are:

✔ My Legal Demand Letter
✔ Litigation Hold Notice
✔ Sworn Affidavit
✔ Exhibit Index

I request that the FTC review Diamonds International for potential systemic consumer harm, particularly affecting U.S. cruise travelers.

Sincerely,
Alain Alberic

View 0 more photos