Dussedorf Reviews 

147
TrustScore 3.5 out of 5

3.7

While we don't verify specific claims because reviewers' opinions are their own, we may label reviews as "Verified" when we can confirm a business interaction took place. Read more

To protect platform integrity, every review on our platform—verified or not—is screened by our 24/7 automated software. This technology is designed to identify and remove content that breaches our guidelines, including reviews that are not based on a genuine experience. We recognise we may not catch everything, and you can flag anything you think we may have missed. Read more

Company details

  1. Clothing Shop

Written by the company

Welcome to our store! We are a global e-commerce platform specializing in delivering high-quality, unique products right to your doorstep.


Contact info

3.7

Average

TrustScore 3.5 out of 5

147 reviews

5-star
4-star
3-star
2-star
1-star

No recent history of asking for reviews

This company hasn't invited customers recently, so reviews may not be representative

Replied to 35% of negative reviews

Typically takes over 1 month to reply

How this company uses Trustpilot

See how their reviews and ratings are sourced, scored, and moderated.

3.7

All reviews

(147)

135 reviews in the last 12 months

Write a review

We perform checks on reviews

Companies on Trustpilot aren't allowed to offer incentives or pay to hide reviews. Reviews are the opinions of individual users and not of Trustpilot. Read more

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Anke Schlingemann

Anke Schlingemann – Anatomy of a Botched Summer Fling

In this travel situationship an adult couple share private time together in Düsseldorf and for a while, it seems to go well. The woman then decides to instigate negativity and destabilizers the friendly dynamic. Repeated drama and dysfunction on her part prove to be too much and the man decides to walk out on her, leaving her in tears. The man is fazed, but sticks to his principles and walks out with her gaslighting end crying hysterically. This leaves him disrupted with a bad taste in his mouth and an unpleasant travel memory.

Years later now into the digital age, the woman who caused this but never made amends googles herself and sees the story widely shared online by this former wronged lover anonymously as a travel memoir and cautionary tale. Her unique name causes it to be at the top of the search results permanently. Ironically, this becomes more negative and further reaching than the discomfort, inconvenience and negativity she caused him.

Online consequences are far more extensive and enduring than the original unpleasant encounter, but not necessarily because the original conduct was more serious.

The two experiences operate on completely different scales.

The man’s experience:

It was direct and personal.
It was limited in time.
It affected one individual.
The emotional impact may have lasted for days, months, or even years.
The audience was essentially one person: the man himself.

The woman’s later experience:

The criticism is no longer private.
The audience expands from one person to potentially anyone searching her name.
The story becomes searchable.
The account may be repeatedly rediscovered over many years.
Every future search can reactivate the negative association.

Three factors amplify the impact.

1. Permanence
An unpleasant travel experience eventually ends.
Search engines can preserve information indefinitely. If a person has a distinctive or uncommon name, a single widely circulated story can become closely associated with that name.

2. Scale
Opposition between two people is a one-to-one conflict.
An online account transforms a one-to-one conflict into a one-to-many communication.
Even anonymous memoirs and cautionary tales can reach thousands or tens of thousands of readers if they are shared widely.

3. Loss of control
A private disagreement allows both people to participate in the conversation.
Once a story becomes established online, the subject often loses control over:

Who reads it.
How readers interpret it.
How often it is rediscovered.
Whether it remains visible.

That said, there is another dimension to this outcome.
The woman’s reaction years later would probably depend on several questions:

Does she believe the account is accurate?
Does she feel remorse?
Does she recognize her role in the conflict?
Did she ever attempt reconciliation or an apology?

A person who sincerely regrets past behavior might experience the online account as painful but understandable.

A person who never accepted responsibility might experience the same account as humiliating, unfair, enraging, or deeply disturbing.

Finally, there is an important distinction between the original behavior and the consequences that follow from it.

The annoyance caused during a failed situationship or unpleasant trip and the reputational consequences of an enduring online narrative are different kinds of harm. One is primarily interpersonal; the other is reputational and potentially public.

Whether the later online consequences are proportionate to the original conduct is ultimately a subjective and ethical question rather than something that can be measured objectively.

8 January 2026
Unprompted review
Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Loved this top for holidays

Loved this top for holidays. Looks great with black pants and really more like a tunic then a dress. I’m 70 and don’t do short dresses, but good with leggings, too.

19 July 2023
Unprompted review
Show reviews in all languages. (147 reviews)

The Trustpilot Experience

Anyone can write a Trustpilot review. People who write reviews have ownership to edit or delete them at any time, and they’ll be displayed as long as an account is active.

We use dedicated people and clever technology to safeguard our platform. Find out how we combat fake reviews.

Learn about Trustpilot’s review process.

Here are 8 tips for writing great reviews.

Verification can help ensure real people are writing the reviews you read on Trustpilot.

Offering incentives for reviews or asking for them selectively can bias the TrustScore, which goes against our guidelines.

Take a closer look