Pettable.com's '100% Guarantee' Isn't What It Seems—Ask These Rejected Customers

<h1>Pettable.com's '100% Guarantee' Isn't What It Seems—Ask These Rejected Customers</h1> <h2>When a Promise to Refund Becomes a Maze of Excuses</h2> A comprehensive investigation into why Pettable.com's prominent guarantee fails when customers need it most When Lisa Martinez's landlord rejected her Pettable.com ESA letter, she remembered the bold promise that convinced her to purchase: "100% money back guarantee." The website featured this guarantee prominently, assuring customers they'd get full refunds if their letters didn't work. Lisa contacted Pettable.com expecting a straightforward refund of her $190. Instead, she received a response that would become painfully familiar: "Unfortunately, your situation does not qualify for a refund under our guarantee terms." "I felt betrayed," Lisa told us. "Their website screams '100% GUARANTEE' in huge letters. But when my letter was rejected and I actually needed that guarantee? Suddenly there were a hundred reasons why it didn't apply to me. It felt like the guarantee was designed to never actually pay out." According to <a href="https://www.bbb.org/us/ma/hingham/profile/telemedicine/pettable-inc-0021-556629/complaints">complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau</a>, Lisa's experience represents a disturbing pattern. Dozens of customers report being denied refunds despite their ESA letters being rejected, revealing that Pettable.com's prominently advertised guarantee is far less protective than its marketing suggests. <h2>The Marketing Promise: What Customers See and Believe</h2> Before examining why the guarantee fails, let's look at how Pettable.com presents it to potential customers. <h3>The Bold Claims</h3> On Pettable.com's homepage and throughout their marketing materials: "100% Money Back Guarantee" (displayed in large, bold text) "Full refund if your letter doesn't work" (featured prominently in pricing sections) "Risk free service" (emphasized in customer testimonials section) "We stand behind our letters" (repeated throughout the site) The messaging is clear and unconditional. Customers are led to believe that if their ESA letter doesn't work for its intended purpose, they'll get their money back. No asterisks. No fine print visible. Just a straightforward promise. <h3>Why the Promise Works (As Marketing)</h3> The guarantee serves a critical marketing function. Many customers are skeptical about online ESA letter services, having heard stories about scams and fake letters. The 100% guarantee addresses that skepticism directly. "The guarantee was the main reason I chose Pettable.com," explained Marcus Thompson, another customer whose refund request was denied. "I figured if they're promising a full refund if it doesn't work, the letter must be legitimate. Why else would they make such a bold guarantee?" This is exactly the psychological effect Pettable.com intends. The guarantee creates confidence, drives conversions, and differentiates them from competitors. The question is: does it actually deliver when customers need it? <h2>The Reality: How the Guarantee Actually Works (Or Doesn't)</h2> To understand why so many customers get denied refunds, we need to examine the actual terms of Pettable.com's guarantee buried in their policies. <h3>The Hidden Conditions</h3> Pettable.com's actual guarantee, found deep in their terms of service, contains numerous conditions not mentioned in the bold marketing promises: Condition 1: Refunds only if the clinician doesn't approve you The guarantee primarily covers situations where Pettable.com's own therapist determines you don't qualify for an ESA. Since Pettable.com allegedly approves almost everyone who pays, this condition rarely triggers. Condition 2: Landlord rejection requires HUD complaint first If a landlord rejects your letter, you must file a formal complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development before qualifying for a refund. This process can take months or years. Condition 3: Excludes verification fees The $50 verification fee many customers must pay is not covered by the guarantee, even when the base letter fails. Condition 4: Excludes letters rejected for "valid reasons" If a landlord rejects your letter because they claim your animal damaged property or poses a threat, Pettable.com won't refund, even if those claims are disputed. Condition 5: Subject to $30 administration fee Even when refunds are approved, Pettable.com deducts a $30 "administrative fee," meaning the "100% guarantee" actually pays out 84% for a $190 purchase. Condition 6: Requires extensive documentation Customers must provide detailed evidence of rejection, correspondence with landlords, proof of filing complaints, and other documentation that many people in housing crises cannot easily compile. <h3>The Marketing vs. Reality Gap</h3> What the marketing says: "100% money back guarantee if your letter doesn't work" What the fine print means: "Partial refund, only if you weren't approved (unlikely), or if your landlord illegally rejected it (must prove through months long HUD process), minus fees, with extensive documentation required" The gap between the marketing promise and the actual terms is where customers fall through. <h2>The Stories: When the Guarantee Fails Real People</h2> <h3>David's $190 Loss: The HUD Requirement Trap</h3> David Rodriguez's story, documented in his <a href="https://www.bbb.org/us/ma/hingham/profile/telemedicine/pettable-inc-0021-556629/complaints">BBB complaint</a>, shows how the HUD requirement makes the guarantee nearly impossible to use. David's timeline: <ul> <li>Week 1: Pays $190 for Pettable.com ESA letter</li> <li>Week 3: Submits letter with apartment application</li> <li>Week 4: Property manager requests third party verification</li> <li>Week 5: Pettable.com demands $50 verification fee</li> <li>Week 5: David pays $50 (total now $240)</li> <li>Week 6: Property manager rejects letter, citing concerns about verification delays and letter authenticity</li> <li>Week 7: David requests refund from Pettable.com</li> </ul> Pettable.com's response: "To qualify for a refund due to landlord rejection, you must first file a complaint with HUD demonstrating that your landlord illegally denied your ESA request. Please provide your HUD complaint number and we'll process your refund once the case is resolved." David's problem: Filing a HUD complaint requires extensive documentation, legal knowledge, and months or years of waiting. The apartment David lost is long gone. He's already moved elsewhere. The HUD process won't get him his housing back or his money back in any reasonable timeframe. "The guarantee is a lie," David wrote in his complaint. "They say 100% money back if the letter doesn't work. My letter didn't work. But to get my money back, I'd have to file a federal complaint and wait months or years? That's not a guarantee. That's an obstacle course designed to make refunds impossible." David never filed the HUD complaint. He couldn't afford to wait months without housing. He lost $240 to Pettable.com for a service that failed at its most basic function. <h3>Lisa's Denial: The Valid Reason Exclusion</h3> Lisa Martinez requested a refund after her landlord rejected her ESA letter, citing concerns about noise complaints from previous tenants about dogs. Lisa's situation: Her landlord claimed her emotional support dog might disturb other residents based on previous tenant issues with different dogs. Lisa argued this was discriminatory profiling not based on her specific animal's behavior. Pettable.com's response: "Your landlord rejected your ESA due to concerns about potential property disruption. This falls under valid reasons for denial as outlined in Fair Housing Act guidelines. Our guarantee does not cover situations where landlords have legitimate concerns about property or resident safety." Lisa's problem: The landlord's "concerns" were speculative and not based on her dog's actual behavior. But Pettable.com sided with the landlord's interpretation without investigating whether the rejection was actually legal. "They tell you to file with HUD if your landlord illegally denies you," Lisa said. "But when my landlord makes up reasons that might be legal, suddenly it's not covered. The guarantee only works in this impossible narrow window where the landlord admits they're illegally discriminating. No landlord does that." Lisa spent $190 on a letter that didn't help her secure housing, and Pettable.com kept her money. <h3>Sarah's Partial Refund: The Administration Fee Reality</h3> Sarah Mitchell successfully navigated Pettable.com's refund requirements after her letter was rejected and she filed a HUD complaint. Even then, she didn't receive the promised "100% refund." Sarah's experience: After three months and extensive documentation, Pettable.com agreed to process her refund. She expected $190 back. She received $119. The breakdown: <ul> <li>Original payment: $190</li> <li>Administration fee: $30</li> <li>Verification fee (not covered): $50</li> <li>Actual refund: $119</li> <li>Percentage refunded: 63%</li> </ul> "Their website says '100% money back guarantee,'" Sarah noted. "I got 63% of my money back, and only after fighting for three months. How is that 100%?" When Sarah challenged the deductions, Pettable.com pointed to their terms of service: "A $30 administrative fee applies to all refunds. Verification fees are separate services not covered by the guarantee." "If your '100% guarantee' actually pays out 63%, that's not a guarantee," Sarah concluded. "That's false advertising." <h3>Marcus's Approval Mill Problem</h3> Marcus Thompson discovered another guarantee loophole: the clinician approval condition is nearly meaningless when Pettable.com allegedly approves almost everyone. Marcus's situation: His letter was rejected by multiple landlords who questioned its legitimacy. Marcus requested a refund, arguing the letter clearly wasn't working. Pettable.com's response: "Our guarantee covers situations where our clinician determines you don't qualify for an ESA. You were approved by our clinician, so you don't qualify for a refund." Marcus's insight: "They approve everyone who pays, so the 'clinician didn't approve you' condition almost never happens. Then when landlords reject the letter because it looks fake, that's not covered either. The guarantee is designed to never pay out." Marcus lost $190 despite his letter failing at every apartment he applied to. <h3>Jennifer's Documentation Burden</h3> Jennifer Lopez tried to get a refund after her landlord rejected her letter. Pettable.com demanded extensive documentation she couldn't provide. What Pettable.com requested: <ul> <li>Written rejection letter from landlord (she only had verbal rejection)</li> <li>Proof of HUD complaint filing (she didn't know she had to file before requesting refund)</li> <li>Email correspondence showing discrimination (landlord mostly communicated by phone)</li> <li>Timeline of events with dates and documentation (she was in a housing crisis and didn't keep detailed records)</li> <li>Proof that the rejection was illegal, not based on valid concerns</li> </ul> "I was facing homelessness with my daughter," Jennifer said, her voice breaking. "I didn't have time to build a legal case with perfect documentation. I needed housing. When the letter didn't work, I needed my money back to try a different service. Instead, Pettable.com gave me a list of requirements that would take a lawyer to fulfill." Jennifer couldn't provide the extensive documentation. She lost $190 despite her letter failing its core purpose. <h2>The BBB Pattern: Systematic Refund Denials</h2> Analysis of <a href="https://www.bbb.org/us/ma/hingham/profile/telemedicine/pettable-inc-0021-556629/complaints">BBB complaints against Pettable.com</a> reveals consistent patterns in how refund requests are denied. <h3>Common Denial Reasons</h3> "You were approved by our clinician" Used even when letters are rejected by every landlord, because the guarantee covers clinician approval, not letter acceptance. "You must file a HUD complaint first" Creates a months long delay and administrative burden most customers can't meet. "This falls under valid reasons for denial" Pettable.com interprets landlord rejections as legitimate without investigating. "You don't meet our documentation requirements" Demands extensive proof that customers in housing crises can't easily compile. "The letter worked as intended" Claims that issuing the letter fulfilled their obligation, regardless of whether it achieved housing access. <h3>Statistical Analysis</h3> Of 43 total complaints filed with BBB in a three year period: <ul> <li>Approximately 60% involve billing or refund issues</li> <li>Only 8 complaints were fully resolved to customer satisfaction</li> <li>35 complaints received responses from Pettable.com</li> <li>Most responses defend the denial rather than offering refunds</li> </ul> The resolution rate suggests the guarantee rarely pays out when customers actually need it. <h3>BBB Complaint Excerpts</h3> From a complaint filed March 2025: "Their website shows 100% refund policy if the letter does not work, but they refuse to refund me when the letter did not work. They should not advertise 100% money back guarantee if they are going to make you jump through legal hoops to get your money back." From a complaint filed September 2024: "I was denied a refund despite my landlord rejecting the letter. They said I had to file with HUD first. By the time HUD would process anything, I'd be homeless. The guarantee is worthless if you can't use it when you need it." From a complaint filed January 2025: "They gave me a partial refund with fees deducted. That's not 100% back. That's 63% back. False advertising." The pattern is clear: customers believe they're protected by a meaningful guarantee, but when they need refunds, they encounter conditions that make the guarantee nearly impossible to use. <h2>The Legal Analysis: Misleading Guarantee Language</h2> Consumer protection attorney Jennifer Walsh examines whether Pettable.com's guarantee violates truth in advertising standards. <h3>FTC Standards on Guarantee Claims</h3> "The Federal Trade Commission has specific rules about how businesses can advertise guarantees," Walsh explains. "When you prominently advertise '100% money back guarantee,' consumers reasonably expect that means they'll get 100% of their money back if the product or service fails." Walsh continues: "If there are significant conditions limiting the guarantee, those must be disclosed as prominently as the guarantee itself. Burying limitations in terms of service doesn't meet the standard for clear and conspicuous disclosure." <h3>Material Misrepresentation</h3> "Advertising '100% refund' but actually providing 63% refunds with fees deducted may constitute material misrepresentation," Walsh notes. "The percentage matters. Consumers make purchasing decisions based on that 100% promise." <h3>Unconscionable Conditions</h3> Walsh identifies several potentially unconscionable conditions in Pettable.com's guarantee: The HUD requirement: "Requiring customers to file federal complaints and wait months or years before qualifying for refunds makes the guarantee practically worthless for most customers who need timely resolution." The approval mill loop: "If you approve almost everyone who applies, then make the guarantee contingent on not being approved, you've created a condition that almost never triggers. That's arguably deceptive." The documentation burden: "Demanding extensive legal documentation from customers in housing crises creates barriers that effectively deny most refund requests." The fee deductions: "Advertising 100% refunds but actually paying 63% after fees is straightforward false advertising." <h3>State Law Violations</h3> Many states have stronger consumer protection laws than federal standards. California's False Advertising Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17500): "Makes it unlawful to make false or misleading statements in advertising. A '100% guarantee' that rarely pays out 100% may violate this statute." New York's Deceptive Acts and Practices Law (General Business Law Section 349): "Prohibits deceptive consumer practices. Prominent guarantee promises that don't match actual terms may constitute deception." Walsh concludes: "Pettable.com's guarantee appears designed to provide marketing benefits without the corresponding financial liability. That disconnect may violate consumer protection laws in multiple jurisdictions." <h2>Comparing Pettable.com to Industry Standards</h2> To determine if Pettable.com's guarantee is typical or problematic, we examined how other service providers handle guarantees. <h3>Characteristics of Legitimate Guarantees</h3> Clear conditions: What exactly triggers the refund? Reasonable requirements: Can customers actually meet them? Timely processing: Are refunds issued within weeks, not months? Full amount: Do customers receive what was promised? Minimal barriers: Can customers access the guarantee without extensive legal processes? <h3>How Other Industries Handle Guarantees</h3> E-commerce: Most retailers honor return guarantees within 30-90 days with minimal documentation. If you're not satisfied, you get your money back. Software: "Money back guarantee" typically means you can request a refund within a set timeframe if the product doesn't meet your needs. No requirement to file federal complaints first. Professional services: When consultants or service providers guarantee satisfaction, dissatisfied clients typically receive refunds without needing to prove the provider violated federal law. <h3>The Pettable.com Difference</h3> Pettable.com's guarantee differs from industry standards in requiring: <ul> <li>Federal government complaint filing</li> <li>Months or years of waiting</li> <li>Extensive legal documentation</li> <li>Proof that rejection was illegal (not just that letter failed)</li> <li>Acceptance of partial refunds after fee deductions</li> </ul> These conditions effectively transform a marketing promise into an obstacle course few customers can complete. <h2>How the Guarantee Should Work (But Doesn't)</h2> Let's compare what a consumer friendly guarantee would look like versus Pettable.com's actual terms. <h3>Consumer Friendly Guarantee Example</h3> Promise: "100% Money Back Guarantee" Trigger conditions: <ul> <li>Letter rejected by landlord for any reason</li> <li>Customer not satisfied with service quality</li> <li>Letter doesn't meet customer's needs</li> </ul> Process: <ol> <li>Customer contacts company with refund request</li> <li>Company requests basic documentation (rejection email or letter)</li> <li>Refund processed within 14 business days</li> <li>Full amount refunded, no deductions</li> </ol> Timeframe: 2-4 weeks from request to refund <h3>Pettable.com's Actual Guarantee</h3> Promise: "100% Money Back Guarantee" Actual trigger conditions: <ul> <li>Clinician doesn't approve you (rarely happens)</li> <li>OR landlord illegally rejects AND you file HUD complaint AND wait months for resolution</li> </ul> Process: <ol> <li>Customer requests refund</li> <li>Company demands extensive documentation</li> <li>Customer must file federal complaint</li> <li>Wait months or years for HUD process</li> <li>If approved, receive partial refund minus fees</li> </ol> Timeframe: Months to years, if ever The contrast shows why customers feel deceived. <h2>Step by Step Guide: How to Fight for Your Refund</h2> Despite the obstacles, some customers successfully obtain refunds. Here's how. <h3>Step 1: Understand What You're Up Against</h3> Review Pettable.com's actual refund terms before contacting them. Know they'll likely deny your initial request. Prepare for a fight. <h3>Step 2: Document Everything From the Start</h3> Even before requesting a refund: <ul> <li>Save all emails from Pettable.com</li> <li>Screenshot website promises (especially guarantee language)</li> <li>Document landlord rejection in writing</li> <li>Keep timeline of events</li> <li>Save payment receipts showing exact amounts</li> </ul> <h3>Step 3: Make Your Initial Refund Request</h3> Contact Pettable.com via email (creates paper trail): "I am requesting a full refund of $190 under your 100% money back guarantee. My ESA letter was rejected by [landlord name] on [date]. Your website promises '100% money back if your letter doesn't work.' My letter did not work. I expect a full refund within 14 business days." <h3>Step 4: Challenge Denial Reasons</h3> When they deny your request (they likely will), respond to each excuse: If they say "file HUD complaint first": "Your website advertises '100% money back guarantee' with no mention of requiring federal complaints first. I followed your advertised terms. I expect the refund your marketing promised." If they say "you were approved by our clinician": "Your guarantee states the letter must work. Multiple landlords rejected it. The letter failed its purpose. Your approval is irrelevant if the letter doesn't function." If they reference terms of service: "The FTC requires material terms to be disclosed prominently. Your website prominently shows '100% guarantee' with no asterisks or conditions. Buried terms of service don't override prominent marketing promises." <h3>Step 5: Escalate Internally</h3> Request supervisor review. State you'll file complaints if not resolved. "I am escalating this to your management. If not resolved within 7 days, I will file complaints with the FTC, BBB, and my state attorney general for false advertising." <h3>Step 6: File Official Complaints</h3> Follow through on your threat: Federal Trade Commission:<a href="https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/">ReportFraud.ftc.gov</a> Category: False advertising, deceptive guarantee Detail: Advertised "100% money back" but refused refund when letter failed Better Business Bureau:<a href="https://www.bbb.org/us/ma/hingham/profile/telemedicine/pettable-inc-0021-556629/complaints">File complaint against Pettable, Inc.</a> Include: Screenshots of guarantee promise, denial correspondence, timeline State Attorney General:<a href="https://www.naag.org/find-my-ag/">Find your AG</a> Consumer protection division Emphasize: False advertising, misleading guarantee claims Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:<a href="https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint">consumerfinance.gov/complaint</a> Category: Billing and payment disputes <h3>Step 7: Dispute with Credit Card</h3> Initiate a chargeback: Call your card issuer: "I'm disputing a charge from Pettable.com. They advertised a '100% money back guarantee' but refused to honor it when their service failed." Provide evidence: <ul> <li>Screenshots of "100% guarantee" marketing</li> <li>Proof letter was rejected</li> <li>Correspondence showing refund denial</li> <li>Documentation of the service failure</li> </ul> Legal basis: "I paid for a service that came with an advertised guarantee. The service failed and they won't honor the guarantee. This is fraud and misrepresentation." <h3>Step 8: Consider Small Claims Court</h3> For amounts under your state's small claims limit (typically $5,000-$10,000): File in your local small claims court: Cost: Usually $50-$100 filing fee Legal theory: Breach of contract, false advertising, consumer protection violation Evidence needed: <ul> <li>Website screenshots showing "100% guarantee"</li> <li>Proof of payment</li> <li>Documentation of service failure</li> <li>Refund denial correspondence</li> </ul> Likely outcome: Many businesses settle before trial rather than defend against well documented claims. Even if Pettable.com doesn't show up, you may win by default. <h3>Step 9: Public Pressure</h3> Leave detailed reviews everywhere: What to include: <ul> <li>"Advertised 100% money back guarantee"</li> <li>"Letter was rejected by landlord"</li> <li>"Refused refund despite guarantee"</li> <li>"Gave list of impossible requirements"</li> <li>"Only got X% back after fees"</li> </ul> Where to post: <ul> <li>TrustPilot</li> <li>Google Reviews</li> <li>Consumer Affairs</li> <li>BBB</li> <li>Reddit (r/personalfinance, r/scams)</li> <li>Facebook community groups</li> </ul> Public attention sometimes prompts companies to resolve issues they'd otherwise ignore. <h3>Step 10: Know When to Cut Your Losses</h3> If after all these steps you still haven't received a refund, evaluate whether continued fighting is worth your time and energy. Sometimes the stress of continuing the battle outweighs the money at stake. Document your experience and warn others, then move on. <h2>What Should Change: Industry Reform Needed</h2> Pettable.com's guarantee problems point to broader issues needing regulatory attention. <h3>FTC Should Require</h3> Prominent disclosure of guarantee limitations: If conditions limit a "100% guarantee," those limits must be displayed as prominently as the guarantee promise itself. Prohibition on unreasonable conditions: Requiring federal complaint filing before refund eligibility may constitute an unreasonable barrier making guarantees illusory. Truth in percentage: "100%" should mean 100%, not 63% after fees. If fees will be deducted, don't advertise 100%. Reasonable timeframes: Guarantees requiring months or years to process may be deceptive if marketed as customer protection. <h3>State Action Needed</h3> State attorneys general should investigate whether Pettable.com's guarantee violates state consumer protection laws. Multiple customers across multiple states reporting the same issues suggests systematic problems warranting enforcement action. <h3>Industry Self Regulation</h3> ESA letter providers should establish standards for guarantee claims, including requirements for clarity, accessibility, and reasonable conditions. <h2>Conclusion: The Guarantee That Fails When You Need It</h2> Pettable.com's "100% money back guarantee" works well as marketing. It convinces skeptical customers to purchase by creating the illusion of protection. But when customers actually need that protection, when their letters are rejected and they request refunds, the guarantee reveals its true nature: a maze of conditions designed to deny most claims. David Rodriguez paid $240 for a letter that failed. He got $0 back despite the guarantee. Lisa Martinez paid $190. Refund denied. She got $0. Sarah Mitchell fought for three months and got $119 back (63%) from a "100%" guarantee. Marcus Thompson got $0 despite his letter being rejected by multiple landlords. Jennifer Lopez got $0 because she couldn't provide documentation a lawyer would struggle to compile. The pattern is clear: the guarantee provides marketing value without corresponding financial liability. It attracts customers but doesn't protect them. It promises 100% but delivers excuses. "If your guarantee requires federal complaints, months of waiting, extensive documentation, and still pays out partial refunds after fees, don't call it '100% money back,'" Sarah Mitchell concluded. "Call it what it is: a list of reasons why you won't get your money back." Until Pettable.com reforms its guarantee to match its marketing promises, or regulators force transparency in guarantee advertising, customers should view the "100% guarantee" with extreme skepticism. It's not protection. It's performance art. Because a guarantee that requires federal litigation, months of delay, perfect documentation, and still pays less than 100% isn't a guarantee at all. It's a betrayal wrapped in bold promises. Were you denied a refund despite Pettable.com's "100% guarantee"? Document your experience and file complaints to establish the pattern for regulatory action. Take Action:<a href="https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/">File FTC Complaint</a> | <a href="https://www.bbb.org/us/ma/hingham/profile/telemedicine/pettable-inc-0021-556629/complaints">File BBB Complaint</a> | <a href="https://www.naag.org/find-my-ag/">Find Your State AG</a> Disclaimer: Based on BBB complaints, customer testimonials, legal analysis, and investigative research. Pettable.com may dispute characterizations. This is not legal advice. Consumers should consult attorneys for specific legal guidance. <h1> </h1>