🚨 ALERT: If you used ShopBack for Uber Eats as a new customer, check your account NOW!
• Promised $25 cashback?
• But only got $0.10
• When fixed, ShopBack labels it as "Online Bonus" (not cashback!)
Why it matters:
"Bonus" = They can add expiry dates or block withdrawals later!
What to do:
1️⃣ Check your ShopBack transactions
2️⃣ Look for Uber Eats "Bonus" instead of Cashback
3️⃣ Comment #ShopBackScam if affected
Don't let them cheat you out of $25!
Speaking of Scams, how many UberEats first order bonus accounts have you used?
Cashback = LEGAL obligation (they MUST pay)
Which law?
cashback offers can be legally binding
Which law?
Contract law?
What is the contract with ShopBack?
@jv: Clear offer + conditions met = Legally binding
If a cashback platform advertises a specific promotion (e.g. “Get $25 cashback on your first order”), and:
You strictly follow all the required steps, and
Complete the transaction as instructed,
Then this may form a legally binding contract, and the company could be obligated to pay the cashback.
Refusing to do so might be a breach of contract, and you may have rights under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
@jv: The customer’s consideration is the purchase made, while the business’s consideration is the promise of a cash refund.
The customer’s consideration is the purchase made
They purchase from the seller, that is who the contract is with, not ShopBack.
@jv: The customer's consideration is actually performing the tasks specific to purchase conditions to qualify for the cash back.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1893
@jv: There are three parties involved here — the customer, ShopBack, and Uber Eats — so there are three contracts. Which one are you talking about?
@alec168: You're right, there are three contracts, but I was really only thinking about those with the buyer in keeping with jv's line of thinking.
Sorry about that.
I was really referring to contracts one and two, but yes, you are right, contract three is humming along in the background.
It seems that contract three was remedied by mutual agreement (obviously, I don't know the terms of that contract, it could be that the solution provided was within those T&C thus discharging that contract by performance).
Regardless, the buyer is not a party to that contract, hence, the focus on the two which do involve the buyer.
Of those two contracts, the failure seems to be in contract two which is the one to which I'm referring and the one to which Jv (maybe unwittingly), referred.
Presumably contract three has now been discharged, the solution to which was passed on by contract one, effectively discharging that contract as well.
That just leaves contract two. That seems to be where the ball got dropped and buyer isn't satisfied with the remedy they've provided.
The customer’s consideration is the purchase made
You:
The customer's consideration is actually performing the tasks specific to purchase conditions to qualify for the cash back.
The cashback tasks:
Get $25 cashback on your first purchase made with Uber Eat… click through via shopback blah blah blah etc
How is reading comprehension so difficult for you?
@tenpercent: I quoted Jv.
He is on the right track. There are two different contracts on foot.
Regardless, you are wrong.
Good try though.
BTW. Don't think I didn't see what you wrote in that comment that you deleted below.
jv is on the right track
The track that contract law is involved? Yes, funny how the conversation ended up here.
There are two different contracts
Yes of course there are two contracts.
One contract is with Uber Eats (which goes without explicitly saying for normal minded people with even primary school aged reading comprehension capabilities), and the other is with Shopback.
The customer's consideration for the contract with Uber Eats is the money given to them.
The customer's consideration for the contract with Shopback is fulfilling the contract with Uber Eats having clicked through via shopback and paid with non-excluded payment methods and completed this in the specified timeframe and not exceeded any caps and rubbed your belly and tapped your head while hopping on one foot at the same time etc etc. Or put more succinctly for the normal minded readers here, "the customer's consideration is the purchase made").
Regardless, you are wrong.
How am I wrong?
@tenpercent: You've confused shopback with back track. Or in your case, just making stuff up.
Go away now, the grown ups are trying to talk.
@Muppet Detector: You sure do dish out a lot of condescending assertions.
What have I made up?
How am I wrong?
BTW. Don't think I didn't see what you wrote in that comment that you deleted below.
So now I know that you know that I know.
@tenpercent: You don't know what you think you know. You provide proof of that too many times to count.
But wanna say stuff like that? Go right ahead matey, tell the mods. See how that works out for you.
@jv: The contract consideration is you buy thru their link so you get cashback.
(Their link provides them without whatever they have negotiated with actual seller).
The contract consideration is you buy thru their link
It’s not their product and they’re not the seller.
• Cashback = contractual obligation (they MUST pay)
• Bonus = discretionary gift (they can add/change rules anytime)
• Future problems: Bonuses often have hidden conditions (expiry dates, minimum withdrawals, etc.)
Cashback vs. Bonus Discrepancy:
Cashback is a contractual obligation tied to specific purchase conditions, with clear approval timelines.
"Bonus" implies discretionary rewards, often subject to additional terms. Relabeling my cashback as such could unjustly impose hidden conditions or affect payout eligibility.
The email from ShopBack:
====================================
Weiloon (ShopBack AU)
11 Jul 2025, 14:46 SGT
Hello ShopBack User,
Thank you for your continued patience with us, and sharing the Cashback discrepancy information with us.
Glad to share that we'll manually credit the discrepancy amount to you, therefore you may expect the Cashback amount to be added in your ShopBack account within 5 working days.
The Cashback entry will appear under the title 'Online - Bonus', and you may click on it to view the corresponding Order Number listed in the description.
Once again, thank you for your patience—I truly appreciate your assistance and understanding.
If there's anything else we can help with, feel free to reach out!
ShopBack Customer Service
=====================================
I don’t use trashback etc so DILLIGAF
Here i fixed the title:
ShopBack = Scam. Full stop.
Fixed, thanks
I'm not affected but I'll be watching this closely in solidarity.
Glad I could comment before the monotonous ADACBHS taunters show up.
before the monotonous ADACBHS taunters show up.
Sorry for being late.
Camry broke down?
Never.
@mapax does this fall within the board of directors outlines and fair use policy. Is it the correct formatting? Would ADASBHS be a better alternative?
Also, please pass on my deepest condolences to Mrs Perez as well in this troubling time.
It is within fair use and the correct formatting.
ADACBHS is preferred as it brings awareness to potential issues with all cash back programs, however ADASBHS is also acceptable.
Thoughts and prayers.
Why is OP speaking in tongues? I mean, ChatGPT.
ADACBHS.
You people still haven't learnt. In addition, you are now wasting time and effort to get your "free" $25.
ADACBHS
Obligatory mocking:
R u Okay?
lol you realised cash back schemes are scammy, welcome to the interrnet
All cashback providers have the same issues unfortunately. Need to make sure you check all the T and Cs or it's easy to get screwed over.
As a bonus point, not using Uber Eats will save you hundreds and far more than any cashback bonuses you'll receive.
I closed my account.. Shopback are dodgy liars
Have you actually had a problem withdrawing a 'bonus' amount, or are you just jumping at shadows?
I have read a lot of the CBHS threads and I don't recall ever seeing someone complaining that a bonus had been credited to them and it was then taken away or expired. Personally I have over the years received manual credits from both SB and CR and have not had them expire, be limited in any way or be taken away.
It seems like (in this instance at least) they did the right thing when an issue arose and credited you the correct cashback amount, but for some reason you are still not happy and want to claim something is an issue when it is simply not.
Thanks for the sharing, but there are actually quite a few cases where ShopBack gave out a bonus or manual credit, only to later reverse or reject it without clear explanation. I suggest you take a look at some of the reviews on https://www.productreview.com.au/ — many users have shared similar experiences. It’s not just “jumping at shadows” when there’s a consistent pattern reported by multiple people.
Stopped using these Shysters.
Sticking with CR & Topcash
Topcashback has been great so far. All disputes so far, investigated and paid
Someone seems to have changed the title earlier today. I’ve just switched it back for now — let me know if there’s a reason behind the change!
Thank you for your response.
I would like to kindly request that the title be changed to: ShopBack’s Bait-and-Switch: $25 Cashback Ends Up $0.10. Thank you.
Just for further clarity, the title did not describe the issue but also due to past legal issues/advice the following applies:
I would also like to use this opportunity to remind our users here to be responsible when you participate in discussions online, especially regarding to the words you use. Please keep your descriptions factual and be very careful when you use injurious words. For example, when you write out the title describing your recent experience with some company,
Okay: CompanyName sold me SomeProduct, took 8 weeks to deliver, and turned out to be something else
Bad: CompanyName is scam! SomeProduct is dodgy!
Everyone's had their own good/bad experiences… but for me, they've always fixed all of my 'technical' issues.
I've had quite a few 'Online Bonuses' like you OP, and can assure you all mine have been approved to this day.
I think instructing people to spread a hashtag they're scammers, before you've even given them time to approve your bonus, is unfair. They have in writing they're helping so give them a chance at least. & you can always tag their rep @gotyourback, which is why ozb is so great for getting help 👍
I understand you've had positive experiences, and that's great to hear. But from a broader perspective, I do question why ShopBack chooses to complicate things by turning what should be straightforward cashback into “Online Bonuses.”
If the cashback is genuinely approved and intended for the user, why not just credit it directly as normal cashback? Why the extra layers, extra terms, and potential delays? It creates unnecessary confusion and distrust.
To me, when a platform starts changing the form of rewards like this, it raises red flags. There’s no need to make something simple so convoluted — unless there’s a catch.
There are three parties involved here — the Buyer, ShopBack, and Uber Eats — which means three separate contracts:
Between the Buyer and Uber Eats
Between the Buyer and ShopBack
Between ShopBack and Uber Eats
Let’s focus on the contract between the Buyer and ShopBack.
ShopBack promoted an offer clearly stating that new Uber Eats users would receive $25 cashback if they made a purchase via ShopBack’s link. Acting in reliance on this promise, the Buyer followed ShopBack’s instructions, clicked through their platform, and placed an order on Uber Eats as a new user.
At this point, ShopBack should have fulfilled their end of the contract — that is, providing the Buyer with the promised $25 cashback.
Instead, ShopBack has unilaterally changed the nature of the reward, quietly converting it from "$25 cashback" to "$25 Online Bonus."
And that’s where the problem lies. Cashback and Online Bonus are two very different things, both in terms of value and usability. This is not a trivial change — it's a major shift, and it raises serious concerns about the fairness and transparency of the offer.
There’s more to this story than meets the eye — I’ll leave it to everyone to draw their own conclusions.
At this point, ShopBack should have fulfilled their end of the contract — that is, providing the Buyer with the promised $25 cashback.
Agreeing with everything so far…
Though, whilst I agree with "should", I might need convincing that this is the stage where they must physically provide it.
Need to think about that a bit more, the rules for electronic contracts differ to traditional contracts in some areas.
Instead, ShopBack has unilaterally changed the nature of the reward, quietly converting it from "$25 cashback" to "$25 Online Bonus."
See, here is where your reasoning falls down a bit for me. Legally, we need proof that this is what they intended to do. Until we have that proof, (and with my limited knowledge of coding languages etc - I know binary and HTML, that's all), I think we could accept that they experienced some technically glitch, or made a coding mistake or something like that.
That would definitely be the defence (Defence of accident maybe?) they would rely on if this went to court, anyway.
But you have to prove they intended to do it, they don't have to prove they didn't.
I'm further convinced that this was probably unintentional purely because they provided you with the amount promised as soon as you bought the discrepancy to their attention.
I'd believe that because of how the program was written, they were prevented from processing the extra $24.90/$25 as "cash back", at least after the transaction was supposed to be completed.
I'm thinking, the only way they could (or knew how to) provide you with the correct amount was to manually over ride the system or use a work around called "bonus" (or whatever) to get you the money they were supposed to provide you.
Unless they've told you there's some kind of limitation on that $25, It really does sound like you're just using semantics and probably a bit apprehensive (it's actually called hysterical historical).
This is not a trivial change — it's a major shift, and it raises serious concerns about the fairness and transparency of the offer.
I just don't see this. They haven't gained anything by doing this. Whichever way we package this thing, it's still cost them $25 (plus they've pissed off a customer) and you've still got $25.
If they didn't want to give you $25, why would they even attempt to offer it in the first place?
Intentional or Not? The Pattern Behind ShopBack’s Cashback “Errors”
Some have argued that the issues with ShopBack’s cashback system could simply be honest mistakes — a technical glitch, a coding oversight, or a system limitation. One commenter recently claimed: "Until we have proof of intent, we should assume it was accidental. They didn’t benefit. You still got your $25. Case closed."
But here’s where that reasoning falls short.
Yes, intent matters in a legal setting. But patterns matter too. And there is an undeniable pattern of behaviour that goes well beyond one-off glitches. Numerous users have reported eerily similar experiences: promised cashback not appearing, being credited only after follow-ups, or worse — bonus amounts being quietly removed later without explanation.
Let’s be specific.
Cashback that was initially tracked as a bonus was later marked as “declined” — sometimes weeks after being issued.
In multiple cases, ShopBack has manually adjusted user accounts only after complaints, showing they clearly can intervene in the system.
More disturbingly, many users were never notified that their cashback was reversed or rejected — they only discovered it by manually checking their account history.
Despite marketing terms like “guaranteed $20/$25 for new users,” the actual disbursement is sometimes blocked or rerouted into non-withdrawable categories like “Online Bonus,” which ShopBack reserves the right to cancel at will.
These aren’t isolated cases. Just take a look at the reviews on ProductReview.com.au, where dozens of users have documented near-identical experiences. When so many unrelated people report the same issues — across different merchants, platforms, and timelines — it stops looking like random technical error and starts looking like a business practice.
And no, the fact that a user eventually receives their cashback after lodging a complaint does not prove good faith. If anything, it shows that the system isn’t working as advertised — and that ShopBack only acts when held accountable.
This is not about semantics, nor is it about “hysterical historical” paranoia. It’s about transparency, trust, and whether a company stands by its own offers without users having to chase them down. If a retailer promises $25 for a first-time Uber Eats order, that $25 should appear automatically — in full — and be fully withdrawable, as advertised. Anything less is a bait-and-switch.
The question isn’t if ShopBack has the technical ability to resolve these issues. They’ve already demonstrated that they do. The real question is: why do users have to fight for what was promised in the first place?
This is not about semantics, nor is it about “hysterical historical” paranoia.
Paranoia was your invention.
The real question is: why do users have to fight for what was promised in the first place?
What is their motive?
Initially it was a scam, now it's bait and switch…
Let's pretend this is a bait and switch scenario (have you looked up what activities qualifie for this?
To what did they switch?
What was in it for them to offer this to you in the first place?
What is in it for them to bait you with something, only to switch it to something else?
They haven't even asked you to buy something else, far less something priced significantly higher.
The real question is: why do users have to fight for what was promised in the first place?
THAT'S the question that you raise with ACCC, but avoid all the defamatory allegations (especially the two you've floated so far).
What you have is proof of nothing, just potentially supporting information to provide to ACCC, presuming you have proof for those allegations as well.
At this stage though, you can't even prove your own allegations without worrying about what other unsubstantiated accounts you have.
Why does anybody breach a contract? Because they can? Really?
Let me add my experience here:
I made a purchase on Taobao and was supposed to receive around AUD 11 cashback through ShopBack. But I only got AUD 0.22. After contacting customer service, they manually credited the remaining AUD 10.78 as an Online Bonus.
Now that bonus has suddenly disappeared — marked as “rejected” with no explanation. I've already contacted support again to get this resolved.
Below is the email I sent to follow up…
Dear ShopBack Team,
I am writing to formally dispute the recent rejection of the $10.78 bonus that was credited to my account as part of the resolution to the Taobao cashback tracking issue. This action is both unacceptable and directly contradicts the clear commitment made by your team in Tata’s email dated 23 June 2025, which stated that the amount was issued as a “one-time goodwill gesture” to honor the original $11 compensation offer.
To be clear:
The $10.78 was not a generic “Online Bonus,” but a compensation explicitly issued in response to ShopBack’s failure to track the original cashback transaction—an error your team acknowledged.
Tata’s email clearly outlined that this amount, combined with the previously credited $0.22, would fulfill the full $11 commitment. At no point were any “bonus eligibility conditions” mentioned.
The subsequent reversal of this compensation under the guise of “Online Bonus” rules is misleading and severely undermines the goodwill your team intended to restore. Had this amount been properly issued as cashback (as it rightfully should have been), this issue would not have occurred.
I request the following actions immediately:
Reinstate the $10.78 to my account as cashback, not as a bonus, to accurately reflect the nature of the compensation promised.
Provide a written explanation for this discrepancy and an assurance that similar errors will not occur again.
This is now the second time I’ve had to escalate the same issue due to internal processing errors on ShopBack’s end. Should this matter remain unresolved, I will be forced to consider further action, including but not limited to raising the matter publicly on social media platforms.
I appreciate your urgent attention to this matter and expect a prompt resolution.
Kind regards,
I had a bad experience with ShopBack, here is what I shared:
ShopBack Promised Me $20 – Then Quietly Took It Back
Just a warning to anyone still trusting ShopBack.
On 24 June 2025, their rep Hanny emailed me confirming that my $20 cashback bonus had been approved and would be credited to my account shortly.
But just days later, they quietly rejected the exact same $20 bonus — no email, no explanation — just a hidden update in my account saying it “did not meet bonus eligibility conditions.”
This is dishonest, misleading, and completely unacceptable. First they make a written commitment to compensate me, then they backtrack as if nothing ever happened.
Judging from others' experiences, this seems to be a pattern of bait-and-switch tactics from ShopBack — approve the cashback to keep you quiet, then reverse it quietly later.
If you’ve had similar issues, I highly encourage you to speak up and file a complaint with the ACCC or Fair Trading. Don't let them get away with this.
The saga continues……
As a new Uber Eats customer, I used ShopBack to place an order during their "$25 cashback for new users" promotion. But instead of receiving the promised $25, I only got $0.10 tracked.
After raising the issue with support, ShopBack manually added two $24.90 "Online Bonuses" to my account — not a proper cashback adjustment. This raises serious questions.
Why two bonuses? It seems clear: “Online Bonus” isn’t real cashback. Cashback adjustments are obligated to be paid after the pending period. But bonuses? ShopBack seems to treat them as throwaway numbers — added to make complaints go away, with no real intention of ever paying them. If that’s the case, then it doesn't matter if they credit one or two (or ten), because they can quietly reject them later — which is exactly what happened.
Is this just incompetence, or a deliberate bait-and-switch? Either way, it's not how a trustworthy platform should operate.
Have others experienced similar issues?
And the story continues… ShopBack is running the same $25 Uber Eats new user promo again today. If you're thinking of joining — be careful. There’s a risk you might not get the full cashback as promised.
Post:
I'm frustrated with ShopBack AU for refusing to honor their $20 bonus promotion despite meeting all the terms. My shopping cashback exceeded $10, clearly qualifying me for the reward. Instead of resolving the issue, they're now demanding "proof" and dragging their feet.
This isn't just about $20—it's about trust. If a company promises rewards, it should deliver. Shame on you, @ShopBackAU, for treating loyal customers this way. #BrokenPromises #ShopBackFail #CustomerServiceFail
P.S. Anyone else faced similar issues? Share your stories!
Two weeks have passed since I made my new Uber Eats purchase, but the cashback still shows only $0.10. Could you please advise what happened to the promised $25?
I ordered Uber Eats on Friday via ShopBack, but only got $0.10 cashback instead of the expected promo.
Did this happen to anyone else?
ShopBack's Sign-Up Bonus Is a Scam – Don't Fall for It I signed up to ShopBack through a friend's referral link, followed all the rules, completed the qualifying purchases — and guess what? No bonus. They later rejected my sign-up reward with no reason. ShopBack doesn't honour their own promotions. Avoid this platform if you don't want to waste your time.
Another deal popping up, looks like ShopBack is cashing in nicely.
Tried Uber Eats Friday for the first time – cashback was just $0.10. WTH?
Shopback cashback is a joke! Ordered Uber Eats last Saturday and got a whopping $0.10 back. What even is the point?
Warning to anyone thinking of using Uber Eats via ShopBack: don’t bother. I followed all the rules for the $25 new customer promo, but ended up with just $0.10 cashback. When I reached out to their support, I only got vague, unhelpful replies. Looks like ShopBack is happy to advertise big promos but not honour them.
Under no circumstances should you join this promo. My cashback was only $0.1, what a (profanity) scam.
Happened to me too. The dodgy cnts
alec168 on 12/07/2025 - 19:54 Comment score below threshold.
