Rebrand Software, LLC Mike Gibson Ripped Off Payment by Failing to Provide a Usable Software Product as Promised Alexandria, Virginia

The complainant utilized the services of Mike Gibson of Rebrand Software for the purpose of providing a rebranded version of an existing software application to be used as freeware in order to drive traffic to his website.  This fact was clearly made known before any customization of the software application commenced. 

After taking several days longer than promised, shortly after downloading the application from Rebrand's Website, the complainant became aware that the $150 application that he had purchased was ill-suited for download as a freeware giveaway because of required registration codes.  In addition to that, Rebrand's Website interface which allows for registering users and assigning registration codes did not have an operable link which would have allowed the complainant access to any of the features of registering users or assigning registration codes as required by the software's programming. 

Mike Gibson kept refusing to acknowlege that the software had serious bugs and devised a one-size-fits-all username and registration code that he insisted should allow the application to be distributed as freeware.  The complainant was well aware of the fact that he did not have access to any features that would allow for the registration of users or the assignment of related codes and that those processes were required for him in order to download the application from the server, so he was reluctant to accept the overly simplified explanation that supplying a uniform username and regcode could remedy the problem. 

Finally he did admit that the links were inoperable because of faulty HTML but refused to be responsible or accountable for the worthless state of the software which was totally disfunctional.  He has refused to debug the software and to allow the complainant to download an operable version or to refund his purchase price.  This dishonest hack that masquerades as a software developer even had the nerve to blame the complaintant, who is the victim, for not viewing a tutorial on a companion website which would have no bearing on the bug-riddled application or the ill-behaved website interface which constituted the finished product that he made available to the complainant.