Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Aktiiv LLC's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Aktiiv LLC has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Aktiiv LLC

  4804 NW Bethany Blvd Ste 1-2 # 144 Portland, OR 97229-9195

• 

  Aktiiv LLC

  Portland, OR 97229-1134

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/02/2025

  Type:Product Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  On April 7, 2025 I received two pairs of leggings I purchased from Aktiiv LLC. They were both see through, so I returned them within the required time (approximately 7 days later). I never wore them and only tried them on to see if they were see through or not for 30 seconds. The company claims they have patented technology fabric that makes them not see through but I saw my underwear through them. I returned them with tags on and never worn. The company claims that I wore one of the pair and damaged it and crusted it. That is disgusting. The company sent me this pair of leggings in that condition and unfortunately I did not take the pictures before I sent them back to the company. I never wore them and have asked them for a refund several times and they have basically called me a liar and sent me emails defaming my character. They refunded $83 for one pair and refuse to refund me for the second pair of $106.55. This is fraud. They sent me a pair of damaged, crusty, see through leggings and refuse to refund me for them.

  Business Response

  Date: 05/02/2025

  Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
  
  ********* is a premium, sustainable, women's activewear brand operating in full compliance with Oregon business statutes, and California consumer protection laws. We take all customer concerns seriously and respond with full transparency, factual evidence, and strict adherence to our policies.
  
  Order and Return Summary:
  The customer purchased two pairs of leggings. One pair was returned in new, unworn condition with hang-tags attached and was refunded in full ($83.00). The second item, however, arrived at our facility with clear signs of wear, including:
  
  1.  Interior peeling inconsistent with unworn condition
  2.  White crust-like residue on the right pocket
  3.  General surface wear not compatible with resale as a first-quality item
  
  Attachments:
  A. Returned Garment - Interior Peeling.png
  B. Returned Garment - Exterior Crust.png
  
  These images were taken immediately upon receipt at our facility and confirm the condition of the returned item. Based on our refund policy, the item was not eligible for a refund.
  
  Refund Policy Disclosure:
  Our refund policy is publicly disclosed in four separate locations during the customer journey:
  
  1. On each product page under Return & Exchange Policy
  2. On a dedicated page: *********************************************************************************
  3. As a clickable link during checkout
  4. In printed form inside the shipment on an 8.5" x 11" insert
  
  By completing a purchase, the customer agrees to these terms. No exception was made or warranted in this case.
  
  Response to Allegations:
  Several serious public claims were made in the BBB complaint that require factual correction:
  
  1. Tampering/Damage by Staff: The customer alleged that ***** staff damaged or tampered with returned items. This is false. All merchandise is inspected, sealed in a biodegradable tamper-evident bag, and tracked via internal intake logs. No product is altered by ***** staff during the return process.
  
  2. Sending Defective/Worn Items: The customer alleges ***** sent her worn or crusted leggings. This is also false. Our internal shipment records show the item passed final quality control and was sealed prior to shipment. There is no evidence supporting this claim.
  
  3. See-through or Defective Fabric: While opacity can vary with fit and lighting, the customers claim that the leggings were completely see-through is unsupported. ktiivs fabric is designed for compression and opacity, and the following evidence is included:
  
  Attachment C. Broad Daylight Squat Test in All Positions.png
  
  Independent verified customer reviews confirm coverage under physical tension:
  
  They pass the squat test. They are so soft.  ?????  ******
  
  Its squat proof and stays put while working out.  ?????  Talya
  
  Buttery soft, super cute, and squat proof.  ?????  ***
  
  4. Allegation of Fraud: The customer stated, this is fraud. ***** has not committed fraud. One refund was issued, and the other declined with full written explanation and supporting documentation. This statement is baseless.
  Defamation Allegation: The customer stated ***** called [her] a liar and sent emails defaming [her] character. These claims are untrue. At no point did ***** or any of its representatives use defamatory language or personal accusations. All correspondence was professional and focused solely on the products return eligibility. All emails are preserved and available upon BBB request.
  
  ktiiv's Final Position:
  1. One product was refunded in full.
  2. One product was returned in worn condition and is not eligible for refund.
  3. Our return policy was clearly disclosed and followed.
  4. All internal processes, photographs, and email correspondence have been retained.
  5. ********* considers this matter resolved.
  
  Sincerely,
  *********
  *********************************

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/09/2025

   
  Complaint: 23266715
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  The seller should absolutely refund me the money for the leggings.  I only had possession of the leggings for 7 days, most of which were in packaging contents awaiting immediate return because they are see through.  I did NOT damage the leggings.  The seller claims to have pictures, however, this proves nothing as those pictures could have been of someone else's pants or they could have caused the damage when they unpackaged them.  They also could likely have caused the damage on purpose so as not to have to give a refund.  I never wore the pants and would take a lie detector test to prove so.  I have pictures of the pants and it shows that they have no damage.  Regardless, in response to the pictures the company took where they claim there was damage to the leggings at issue, I say this, if pants can be damaged like that within a 7 day period of sitting in packaging waiting to be returned, then they are horribly made and definitely not worth $106!  Even if that damage was caused by me trying on the pair of leggings, then they should refund me my money.  I would never spend $106 on clothing that would damage just by trying on to discover they are completely see through!

  I have attached pictures to show that there is no damage to the pants.  I have also attached pictures showing the pants are see through.  I didn't even have to do a half a squat to show how see through they are.  You can see my full underwear under these pangs at the top of that picture.  The pictures also show there is nothing on the right pocket.  In addition the tags are still attached which prove I never wore them.

  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** ******

  Business Response

  Date: 05/23/2025

  ********* Final Business Response to BBB Complaint #********
  Filed by: *********
  Submitted to: Better Business Bureau, ********************
  Date: May 23, 2025
  Complainant: ***** ******
  Jurisdiction: ****** (Governing Law), ************* (Federal Arbitration Act)
  
  Thank you for the opportunity to submit this final statement regarding Complaint #********.
  
  ********* has provided full documentation of the returned product, refund status, return policy disclosures, and product performance evidence. We now respectfully address the evolving public claims made by the complainant using her own words which contain material contradictions, defamatory assertions, and unsubstantiated allegations that undermine her credibility.
  
  I. Executive Summary
  This correspondence serves as ********** final response to Complaint #********, following the complainants rejection of our initial resolution. We respectfully reaffirm our position in full. The consumer received one full refund for a qualifying item and was denied a refund for a second item that arrived in worn and unsellable condition, consistent with our published return policy. Further, the complainants rejection includes statements that materially contradict her original narrative and introduce new claims that are unsubstantiated, speculative, and, in some cases, defamatory. All statements below are supported by records preserved by ********* and may be presented in arbitration or judicial proceedings if necessary.
  
  II. Factual Timeline and Evidence Summary
  April 3, 2025 ***** ****** places an order for two Proterra leggings on *********************************, totaling $189.55 after applying a 15% discount code ("activist15").
  
  April 4, 2025 Both items are fulfilled and shipped by *****. Customer receives shipping confirmation.
  
  April 17, 2025 Customer initiates a return for one of the two items using ktiivs self-service return portal (Return ID: **************************-R1).
  
  April 23, 2025 Return is received and inspected.
  
  Item 1 (Proterra Legging - $98.00) is accepted and refunded in full.
  
  Item 2 (Proterra High-Rise Pocket Legging - $125.00) is returned in visibly worn condition with:
  a. Peeling on the interior waistband - Surface wear inconsistent with a new or unworn product
  *. ***** crust-like residue on exterior of the pocket
  Photo evidence of this item was immediately captured and preserved (Attachments A & B in original filing with BBB) and are attached in this response as well.
  
  April 28, 2025 Refund of $83.30 (net of 15% discount) is issued via ****** for the one accepted item.
  
  April 29, 2025 ***** sends a series of emails to *****, including accusations of fraud, defamation, and tampering. She demands a full refund and threatens legal action and a BBB complaint.
  
  April 30, 2025 The worn/damaged second garment is returned to the customers address via ***** tracking ending in *7314), marked as delivered at 12:43 PM to **********, ***
  
  May 2, 2025 BBB complaint #******** is formally filed by ***** ******. ***** responds in full.
  |
  May 22, 2025 ***** rejects ktiivs response. In her rejection, she contradicts her original claims and introduces speculative theories unsupported by any physical evidence. Her statements are addressed in Section III of this response.
  
  May 2025 In addition to filing a BBB complaint, ***** ****** initiated a dispute with ****** seeking the same refund. ***** provided ****** with the same refund documentation and inspection photographs. This duplicate filing underscores the customer's intent to dispute the same matter across platforms despite having already received a partial refund and full written explanation.
  
  III. Analysis of Inconsistencies in Complainants Record
  
  A. Contradictory Claims of Fabric Transparency
  Original Claim (April 28, 2025): Leggings were completely see-through.
  Subsequent Claim (May 23, 2025): Visibility only occurred during stretch; states she did not even have to do a half squat.
  Legal Interpretation: These statements are materially inconsistent. The original claim implied fabric failure under normal conditions. The updated language acknowledges standard behavior under compression and tension. The original basis for refund is therefore unsupported.
  
  B. Contradictory Statements Regarding Garment Use
  April 29, 2025: I never wore them.
  May 23, 2025: Even if that damage was caused by me trying on the leggings
  Legal Interpretation: The customers own admission that wear may have occurred contradicts her original assertion that the product was unworn. This is a material inconsistency relevant to refund eligibility.
  
  C. Unsubstantiated Defamatory Claims
  Public Allegations Without Evidence:
  This is fraud.
  You damaged the pair of leggings on purpose.
  Your staff defamed me and called me a liar.
  You sent me leggings someone else wore.
  
  Legal Position: These statements are false, inflammatory, and unsupported by any documentation. They were made in writing, in a public forum, and could be construed as commercial disparagement or defamation under applicable law. ***** staff followed all standard operating procedures, and timestamped intake photos confirm the garments condition upon return. We categorically reject all such allegations and reserve our legal rights accordingly.
  
  IV. Governing Contract and Dispute Mechanism
  The complainant agreed to ********** Terms of Service at the time of purchase. These terms are legally binding and include:
  
  Section 21 Governing Law: All disputes governed by Oregon law.
  
  Section 22 Binding Arbitration Clause: All disputes must be resolved through individual arbitration in the State of Oregon in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act (***) and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 36.620).
  
  Legal Position: ********* does not waive its right to contractual arbitration. We will not participate in BBB-facilitated alternative dispute resolution. This matter is subject to the arbitration agreement that the complainant agreed to at checkout.
  
  V. Final Position
  1. One product was refunded in full based on compliance with return conditions.
  
  2. One product was returned in worn, unsellable condition and was not eligible for refund.
  
  3. The customer submitted photographs, including one image of a legging under stretch, alleging the product is see-through. However, the image does not depict the garment returned to ktiiv and shows the fabric under excessive tension, which is inconsistent with standard wear conditions. It does not refute the documented condition of the returned item, which included interior peeling and white crust-like residue on the pocket. It also does not contradict our daylight performance tests or verified customer reviews, which confirm opacity and compression under normal use.
  
  4. The customers public accusations are untrue, damaging, and legally unsupported5.
  
  5. All further claims must be resolved through binding arbitration, not via BBB or duplicative platforms (e.g., PayPal).
  
  ********* considers this matter fully closed. All documentation has been preserved.
  
  Sincerely,
  Compliance & Risk Management Team
  *********
  *********************************
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/27/2025

   
  Complaint: 23266715
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  

  Aktiiv claims that I contradicted statements of Fabric Transparency, however, that is completely false.  The original claim is consistent with every claim I have made throughout, which is that the fabric is completely see through.  I did not have to squat in order to show it is see through, I can take another picture to illustrate this if needed.  I only did a little bit of a bend to illustrate on camera to the BBB how see through it was if I even wanted to walk down the street in public.  The claims by Aktiiv is that it is squat proof, so I was disputing that,showing it is absolutely not even a quarter of the way squat proof.  They market it as such, which is fraud.  Claiming fraud and giving proof of fraud shows that it is not defamation at all.  Truth is an absolute defense of fraud.  It is the truth that by claiming such pants are not see through because they pass the squat proof test and then showing a picture that they are see through with even a quarter of a squat, illustrates the company is committing fraud.  There is no defamation involved on my part.
  
  Aktiiv defamed me in an email saying that basically I am lying and that I wore the leggings, when I did not.  They defamed my character to all their employees in that email.  When I claimed that if the pants were damaged it was by their employees or someone/something else, I was stating the truth because the truth is it was not damaged by me at all. My responsive comments were to their disparaging comments that I was the one who damaged the leggings,and it was sent in an email to customer service and or the person in charge.  Where is the proof that the leggings are even the exact leggings I sent back?  There is no proof.  Any picture could have been taken of any other leggings that were returned by other customers.  There is no chain of evidence. 
  
  The picture I took of the see through pants of me barely bending to a quarter of a squat was taken after Aktiiv sent those leggings back to me the second time when they refused to give me a refund.  They refused the refund after receiving the leggings back and right away just sent leggings back to me in lieu of a refund.  That is when I put the leggings on for the purpose of taking such picture to now prove how see through they are, and again, this was done after they sent the leggings to me a second time.  I did not try to squat in them the first try on time of 30 seconds. I saw the leggings were see through without even having to bend so I knew they would never cover anything up when I even walked, let alone did a squat.  There was no compression or tension causing any damage.  Again, if just trying the leggings on for 30 seconds damaged them in any way (which it did not, but if it did) it would not be worth $125 and thus they are made horribly and the public have the right to know not to waste their money on a pair of leggings that wont even last a 30 second try on.
  
  Also,keep in mind, AKTIIV REFUNDED ONE PAIR OF LEGGINGS FOR BEING SEE THROUGH.  This is proof that they accepted that fact and refunded for it.  They are now trying to say that the other leggings were not see through.  They are the same leggings made from the same material.  The only difference is one pair has pockets.  So essentially THEY ADMITTED THE LEGGINGS ARE SEE THROUGH BY REFUNDING ONE OF THE PAIRS FOR THAT REASON.
  
  I submitted a complaint to the BBB because of the companys outrageous angry response to a human being asking for a refund because leggings will show her underwear and everything else underneath.  They first were not even willing to have a discussion and just through out there that I was a liar and completely attacked my character.  A reputable company would not do that and would actually show care and concern.  So I responded in like, stating that my character is golden and that must mean that someone at their company committed the fraud, because I never wore the leggings.  Why in the world would I file a claim with the BBB if I was in the wrong?  This is such a stressful thing to do and look how much time I have spend on this $125 pair of pants.  It is insane.  The only reason I am doing it is because this company needs to change its ways and treat people with respect and care.  I am not doing this for the refund anymore.  It is purely about kindness and respect and fairness.  I want everyone else to be able to see this claim on the BBB website and know that if this happens to them they are not the only one, but also to beware. 
  
  If the BBB decides that this is a matter for arbitration because of their arbitration clause then so be it, I obviously will not spend any more of my time or energy on this negativity.  It is making me very ill healthwise and I need to take care of my mind and spirit.  I would ask that at the very least the BBB rule in my favor and put this on their website to warn others against this company.  Thank you very much for your time and energy.  No one should have to go through this.
  

  Sincerely,
  
  ***** ******