Misleading product page....
dragoneyes002
Posts: 205
here is a page which as MANY other texture pages do, they DO NOT include the line that the purchase needs the original prop having the word texture in the title only tells people who are familliar with how daz sells its stuff which means this is open to misinterpretation and therefore misleading sales practices.
https://www.daz3d.com/dforce-spring-mini-outfit-textures
you'll notice in this second example the line REQUIRED PRODUCTS: is there while that line is not in the above example.
https://www.daz3d.com/belle-dress-morphs
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
We have reported this. Please could you please alter your thread title as the product page is not misleading, it is incomplete. Thank you.
It's not misleading, it's most likely an accidental oversight. With it having "textures" in the name, and reading the What's Included, you'll notice the mesh isn't actually part of the product. File a help ticket to report it so it gets fixed.
are you kidding the page is not alone in being misleading its not the only page to be such.
that shows a patern of misleading pages which effectively SUCKER new buyers if they don't know that you need the original product before buying textures. since DAZ doesn't do a damn thing for anyone who happens to purchase one of these misleading sales pitches .......still waiting for a reply five MONTHS later ...... saying they are midsleading is 100% accurate and you trying to cover their asses by wanting the post altered is frankly BULLSHIT!
Daz offer a 30 days refund system - how is that doing nothing.
???
If you accidentally buy the product, you can return it within 30 days, no questions asked. 30 days! Not seven days, or two weeks. 30 days! That's a pretty decent refund policy, ensuring that you only end up with products that you can really use and that you really want.
It's not intentionally misleading, at all. The title of the product says "Textures", the list of what's included only lists Textures, and as others have said, they also have a 30-day return policy. The store adds a ton of new content every day, sometimes the "required product" is accidentally missed by the PA or QA. There's nothing nefarious about it. They're definitely not intentionally trying to "sucker" people, as you have stated. lol
If you have any idea how complex and time consuming the submission process is and how many little boxes and lists have to be filled out in the submission page you'd realize that something like the required products can be missed every once in a while. There is no intent to mislead anyone.
There used to be a several year old bug where the "Required Products" field would mysteriously disappear and reappear on product pages at random, last time I brought it up they still didn't know why, so maybe it's still there. At one time I was experimenting with logging in and out in different browsers to see if there was a logged in/out pattern which there seemed to, but it seemed quite unpredictable when the field would disappear and return again, so there are probably more than one factor involved. Here are some screenshot I made when experimenting, you can see from the SKU it's the same products. Differences in price etc. is because I was either logged in (PC+ discounts) or out.
It looks like in all of your screen captures when the price was lower (you were logged in then I guess), that's when the "required products" field disappeared? So perhaps some glitch with the coding when factoring both PC+ user information, as well as the coding for the required products field.
It looks like the required products info showed up when you weren't logged in, but when you're logged in it doesn't - so perhaps some coding glitch when also factoring in personal info like additional PC+ discounts?
Yes, I was thinking the same in the beginning when I did these tests, but when I continued testing to verify it it suddenly started acting differently so I was unable to reproduce the results again. AFAIR the fields no longer disappeared (or no longer reappeared), no matter what I did. So it seems to be complex.
What? The product requirements are wrong. Why is that being made so complicated for the OP?
The clarication is in the title of the product. When it says "Outfit Textures", you get the textures for an outfit and not the outfit. Although I can understand the confusion for a newbe.
It's like when you buy an iPhone 7 app for $6.99... the phone doesn't come with it.
LOL !
It should still have a "Required Products" field stating which product it's an addon for, it's standard even if it may be obvious from the product name. This one has it, for example (at least right now):
https://www.daz3d.com/renardeau-outfit-textures
Wow, just wow. The moderator made a POLITE REQUEST.
And this was sorted out at 09:30am this morning, ie 30 minutes after the office opened at Daz. Kudos to the helpful staff. I did say Thank you to them.
To be fair, "misleading omission" is exactly the legal phrasing that would be used in UK sales law if something left out of a product description (even unintentionally) led a consumer to buy something they would not have done otherwise, so it's not automatically an insincere use of the English language; the userbase here does come from all around the world.
I had a very long argument via e-mail about a laptop on that very matter. (The company involved had left out the detail that their BIOS was set up to lower the CPU's thermal limits, which considerably stunted its performance compared to what would normally be expected of that CPU model number).
But how was this misleading in the first place? It says it's a texture in the product name, the product details section clearly says that it's a texture addition for the product, it even tells you exactly what is included.
A technical field was not displayed, but it's like saying in the description that the speed of the CPU is 2.4 GHz, just not including a line for it in the specifications section of the laptop.
Sure, this can be annoying, but we're all humans.
Thank you, Chohole! We appreciate all that you do around here! :) The fact that the mods are VOLUNTEERS is something that escapes a lot of people's attention, but you all do a lot of work to keep things running smoothly (and take abuse at the same time like getting cussed at for making a very polite request). Oy, I don't know how you guys do it but I'm thankful that you do!
As far as UK law would be concerned, mostly because someone has said "I was mislead by this". If the consumer can provide a good reason why it was misleading (such as "The store normally tells me when a product has pre-requisites, but it didn't this time"), then that would trump the other arguments.
The law is intended to protect the average consumer in an average buying situation. Nobody takes the time to fastidiously check that the red soda cans with a white cursive logo they're putting in their cart don't actually say "Kola-Koka", so expecting consumers to carry out a full cross-examination of everything they buy and never rely on any reasonable assumption (such as "Red can with white logo is Coca-Cola" or "Daz informs me when products have prerequisites") would make the entire law pretty useless.
Since we are enjoying a good whine
I occasionally come across this rather annoying discontinued product in my library
http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/read_me/index/169/start
it was a morph pack for some really old Zygote clothing for V1 to update it to V2 apparently
http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/artzone/azproduct/169
destinied to never be useable in any way
my own silly fault for buying it but it was only a couple dollars I see
the sad thing it was actually years before I realised I cannot use it
Just because they usually tell you, does it make it a legal requirement for the future? That seems odd. Daz usually has giftcard sales before a new pro bundle comes out. Yet I don't think that just because of this, any law would *require* them to have these sales in the future, too.
Anyway, I think we've talked about this way more than necessary.
That's not really a valid counter example.
Unless you're getting into fairly convoluted circumstances, not having a gift card discount cannot be a breach, as no purchase contracts have been or could have been made under the terms of a sale Daz never offers.
Ah. I see your point.
Anyway, I'm happy with the refund policy, so if I ever run into an issue where I misinterpreted the product, I'll just use that option. I'm not a fan of overcomplicating anything. :)
.
I have it too but as part of the Victoria 2 Bundle which also contains the clothing pack it's for. Got the whole thing for less than $10 here at DAZ.
That seems an odd analogy, Matt; having a soda with a white and red can named Koka Kola seems a lot more fraudulent or intentionally misleading than 'this product that says X Textures doesn't specify it's just textures.'
Seems a bit more like advertizing iPhone cases and forgetting to say specifically 'doesn't include the iPhone.'
I actually have all those others things listed too but not that one pack, bought separately
its no biggie just raising as it was a classic case of something being very unclear in its product description, it simply sounded like an upgrade for V2 but irrelevant as no longer in the store
the Original Poster’s example is pretty clear in its description that it’s a texture addon so has no case in my opinion at all.
It is often hard to prove the difference between fraudulence and negligence. Given that difficulty, and the undesirablity of both to the consumer, there is little legal distinction made as far as the remit of the laws involved; both situations are covered under the same legislation. (Sentencing would however generally be different, depending on whether the courts believed the seller was deliberately misleading the consumer).
That specific example is one of the ones most commonly used against the idea of "Well, if the consumer looked close enough..." arguments, and given that both malice and incompetence are rolled into the laws, the analogy does extend.
While I've had cause to read up very well on consumer legislation by virtue of having had to leverage it in my favour in the past, I'm not a veteran barrister, so I'm afraid I don't have much in the way of examples about omitted information (rather than outright incorrect information or downright shoddy products) beyond my own laptop one I earlier mentioned - in that case, I was ultimately proven to be in the right, although we could argue until the cows came home about whether the company was being intentionally or unintentionally misleading.
(As an aside, I actually said "Kola Koka" rather than "Koka Kola"; as much I'd like to pretend I was clever enough that it was a trick to illustrate that people do make assumptions about what they've read and seen, honestly, I only realised the relevance now).
Since the oreiginal issue has been fixed this thread has been locked.