Unfair Ban and Refund Denial Despite Tool Malfunction – Violates Their Own Policy
I purchased their e-package from the website Toolcookies .com. According to their refund policy:
> "Not at All, We only & Only Refund if our tools don’t work or more than 24 Hours. Make sure to clear anything from the Live Chat Support Before Buying Anything."
The tools they provided do not function properly. Specifically, my employee primarily uses Ideogram to generate blog images, but the tool is so heavily shared that it’s practically unusable. Nowhere did they mention that the tool becomes unusable due to excessive sharing. In reality, they are reselling the same tool access to numerous users or allowing multiple subscribers to use the same account.
As a result, I applied for a refund. But they refused, which violates their own refund policy.
They also state:
> "Can I Share Your Service to my friends or family’s? No never, If you are reselling customer or you want to shared with any one, Our system catches your IP and if it is used on 2nd IP then you’ll be banned immediately."
I have never illegally shared my account with anyone. I work from both my home and office, using only my personal computer. Last night, I purchased a new package and allowed one of my employees to use the tool strictly under my instructions for our blogging work.
I use this tool package for professional blogging—I conduct keyword research using SEMrush, and my employee writes content using the purchased tool.
However, they considered this legitimate employee use as a violation of their policy and permanently banned my account. Ironically, they themselves are unethically sharing access to the same tool among many users, which is why it's not working properly. But when a single user like me allows their employee to use it under supervision, they label it as a violation.
Despite repeated requests, they did not give me any opportunity to unlock my account.
They refused my request while violating their own stated policies, which amounts to deception and a clear violation of consumer rights.
6 August 2025
Unprompted review