Is usergoing.com safe?

Who runs the shop, and what buyers have reported

The terms page says the site is managed by 'il team di USERGOING' and refers to 'noi' and 'nostro' throughout, but names no company, registration number, jurisdiction or address. The only contact route published is a generic service@usergoing.com mailbox; no phone number and no postal address appear on the captured page.

An Italian anti-fraud reporting site lists usergoing.com and service@usergoing.com as a fraudulent website. Comments left there describe shoes of poor quality that were not the ones shown on the site, repeated attempts to obtain a return and refund with no result, and a delivery arriving by courier in a bag under an unrelated sender name.

Independent reputation checks also rate the domain poorly: one scanner describes it as a fraudulent e-commerce site that takes payments and personal data through misleading tactics, and a trust-score service gives it a very low rating.

The sales pitch and the promises attached to it

The product page pushes orthopedic unisex shoes in waterproof, non-slip calf leather with a '50% off, limited time, while stocks last' framing, and the listing shows struck-through list prices roughly double the sale price (€69,00 against €150,00).

The copy claims the shoes are made in Australia and hand-sewn, with arch support and pain relief. Nothing in the shop's own disclosures identifies a maker, a workshop or a company behind that claim, and the domain was registered through Alibaba Cloud (HiChina) with ownership details not publicly available.

A site-wide banner promises a free return within 30 days, which is the promise the fraud-report commenters say they could not get honoured. The rendered header logo also reads 'SERGOING' while the domain and product copy say 'USERGOING'.

Clean connection, unresolved customer risk

Nothing technical points to malware or phishing: the browser threat feed returned no threat warning, the saved TLS check found a valid encrypted connection, and the hosting address carries an abuse confidence score of 0/100. One saved antivirus observation marks the URL as suspicious, but that data is stale and comes from a single engine, so it is context rather than a confirmed detection.

The domain is about 2 years 7 months old, which is old enough that age alone says nothing either way. The risk here is commercial rather than technical: an operator who cannot be identified, a contact channel limited to one mailbox, and independent reports of goods that did not match and refunds that did not arrive.