Storm8 makes games like Vampires Live and iMobsters, that operate very similar to the popular Facebook game "Mafia Wars," including letting you spend real money to get better weapons and more energy in the game. Many of Storm8's titles are top iPhone game app downloads, probably because each game says that you can get extra points in it if you download one of their other games.

BoingBoing reports that the number harvesting was hidden until the company noted it in August, chalking it up as a bug. However, the lawsuits says that only "very specific and specialized software code" could do that. Storm8 has not returned BoingBoing's requests for comment.

Lawsuit text (PDF)

iPhone game dev accused of stealing players' phone numbers [BoingBoing] (Photo: Cаvin 〄)

The lawsuit says there are two specific promises that Cash4Gold makes and breaks: 1) that there is a 12-day return policy and 2) items sent in will be handled with the highest care. Cash4Gold breaks the first, claims the lawsuit, when checks are received by customers either after the return period is over or close to it, or when the company melts the jewelry before the expiration of the return period - allegedly a frequent occurrence.

Cash4Gold breaks the second when it "repeatedly 'loses' the items sent," frequently blaming the mail service for "an absurdly high number of 'lost' items," according to the suit.

The lawsuit says, "These promises are lies. In a massive scheme to defraud tens of thousands of consumers throughout the nation, Cash4gold breaks both of its well-publicized promises with abandon, all the while committing a series of other frauds and misconduct, including attempts to silence former employees who dare to expose this fraud."

Furthermore, Cash4Gold employs "a deliberately frustrating so-called "customer service" system which results in most individuals eventually giving up attempting to receive compensation for their "lost" or greatly under appraised jewelry."

The various techniques Cash4Gold customer service reps use to delay and discourage consumers from getting their money's worth or their gold back illustrate how Cash4gold's "institutional culture is corrupt to its very core, designed at all levels to commit fraud," says the lawsuit, which seeks treble damages.

Reached for comment, Cash4Gold responded, "Cash4Gold has not been served with a complaint and therefore has no comment at this time."

Read the entire lawsuit here. (PDF)

More information about the suit can be found in the press release on the plaintiff's lawyer's website.

PREVIOUSLY:
Cash4Gold Drops Consumerist From Lawsuit
Cash4Gold Threatened Jail If Negative Comments Weren't Removed
Cash4Gold Defendant Liberis Files To Vacate Default
Cash4Gold Activates Magical Press Release Machine
The Article Cash4Gold Doesn't Want You To Read
Cash4Gold Counters Critics With Super Polite Blog Posts
Florida AG Examining Cash4Gold Complaints
10 Confessions Of A Cash4Gold Employee
Cash4Gold Offers Blogger $3,000 To Remove Negative Post
How To Avoid Getting Ripped Off By Cash4Gold

Retailers have always been protected from having to pay those kinds of damages to customers who have had their data stolen, but now there's a case going up before Maine's state Supreme Court that asks whether that should change.

The retailer in question is Hannaford Supermarkets, an east coast grocery chain. A year and a half ago they reported that 4.2 million customer credit card records had been intercepted by crooks and sent overseas. Some of those customers sued Hannaford for damages.

The lawsuit came to a halt last May, when U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby ruled that Maine's law "allows consumers to recover damages if the merchant's negligence caused a direct loss to the consumer's account," and since customers were protected from direct loss due to zero-liability coverage by banks, Hannaford was off the hook.

The plaintiffs asked Judge Hornby to consider letting the state Supreme Court weigh in on the law, to determine whether it can be interpreted to also cover things like time lost dealing with the breach, or future dings on credit scores. He agreed, and wrote that the question that needs to be answered is, "Do time and effort alone, spent in a reasonable effort to avert reasonably foreseeable harm, constitute a cognizable injury under Maine common law?"

If the state Supreme Court decides they do constitute a "cognizable injury," it would be a first for a retailer, and possibly open the way for other consumers to sue in civil court for damages that aren't directly covered by zero-liability protection. That would in turn make it a lot harder for retailers to get off with a simple, "oops, sorry!" the next time they don't adequately protect customer financial data.

"Retail Data Breach Liability Shield May Get Gutted" [StorefrontBacktalk via Wired Threat Level]
(Photo: Zach Klein)

Banks defend the practice by saying 1) the contract says they can process transactions in any order they want, so neener-neener and 2) most people's biggest checks are for their mortgages and medical bills and they'd rather their customers bounce a check for a candy bar than for their house. Of course, people should be keeping track of their balances using tools like my awesome free excel budget sheet, getting their balance by cellphone, using all-in-one personal finance management tools like mint.com, or a slew of other tools, but the policy does hurt the less-sophisticated or simply momentarily forgetful. The multi-state lawsuits are getting consolidated and seek class action status.

Wachovia, BofA, Citibank Sued Over 'Bad-Faith' Overdraft Fees [Law.com] (Photo: freeparking)

No Denny's dish contain less than 500 milligrams of sodium, and 75% of them contain more than the maximum recommended allowance, including:

• Moons Over My Hammy, a ham, egg, and cheese sandwich, has 2,580 mg of sodium by itself-more than even a healthy young person should consume in a day. It's served with hash browns (adding 650 mg of sodium) or grits (an additional 840 mg).
• The Super Bird sandwich, served with regular French fries, has 2,610 mg of sodium-more than twice what someone with high blood pressure should consume in a day.
• Denny's Meat Lover's Scramble, which has two eggs with chopped bacon, diced ham, crumbled sausage, Cheddar cheese, plus two bacon strips, two sausage links, hash browns, and two pancakes has 5,690 mg sodium, or 379 percent of the advised daily limit.
• A full meal at Denny's consisting of a bowl of clam chowder, a Spicy Buffalo Chicken Melt, and a side of seasoned fries contains an alarmingly high 6,700 mg of sodium. It's a big meal, to be sure, with about 1,700 calories. But that's more sodium than what 70 percent of Americans should consume in four and a half days.

Denny's: Public Health Enemy # 1 [Consumer Law & Policy Blog]
(Photo: oddharmonic)

The basic charge is that from 2001 to 2006, Babies R Us forced manufacturers to disallow online retailers from discounting their products, so that the brick and mortar chain could price competitively without having to take a loss.

If they resisted, Babies "R" Us threatened to cut off the manufacturers, according to the suit, and refuse to sell their products in Babies "R" Us stores. Since Babies "R" Us sold 30% to 50% of these companies' products, Medela, which is based in Switzerland, and other brands like BabyBjörn, the Swedish strapmaker, and Maclaren, the strollermaker based in the U.K., had no real choice but to go along.

According to the judge, one manufacturer named in the suit said, "It's hard to say no when they [Babies R Us] have over 50% of our business!"

Although nobody is disputing that Babies R Us took a hard line with manufacturers and either withheld or threatened to cancel orders if they offered Internet retailers discounts, that's not necessarily illegal anymore.

In 2007 the Supreme Court overturned a nearly century-old ruling that used to make these types of pricing deals inherently illegal. Now such practices must be evaluated under "the rule of reason." For the plaintiffs to win, anticompetitive effects of the minimum-pricing agreement between the manufacturer and retailer must outweigh the pro-competitive effects.

Time notes that although it can be hard to prove this, there's some evidence that sales for the manufacturers actually decreased during this time period. The case will likely go to trial in 2010.

"Did Babies "R" Us Gouge Mommy and Daddy?" [Time]
(Photo of the cutest baby ever: TedsBlog)

Under the terms of the settlement, Costco will continue to backdate renewals but only by 2 months or less. In addition, if you were on the receiving end of a truncated renewal period between March 2001 and March 2009, Costco will automatically credit your membership by extending it from 1 to 3 months, depending on how badly you were screwed.

But Jeff Blyskal at Consumer Reports points out that the best way to protect yourself from any truncated renewal is to ask the Costco clerk to date it correctly when you renew:

[Costco] told me that customers renewing expired memberships can ask that the back-dating policy be waived. "Because of the membership-based nature of the Company, our local warehouse managers are vested with substantial discretion to accommodate member requests in a wide variety of contexts, based on the facts and circumstances. Our policies help guide the exercise of that discretion but do not strictly dictate all outcomes," said John Sullivan, Costco's associate general counsel, in an e-mail.

Blyskal did just that, even without the Costco lawyer's recent approval: "When I renewed [last] November I asked that my renewal be dated as of the actual date of renewal. The counter clerk at Costco customer service was happy to accommodate me."

"Costco's renewal rip-off" [Consumer Reports Money & Shopping Blog]
(Photo: Orin Optiglot)

[USAToday]
(Photo:The Cornballer)

PREVIOUSLY: Girls Gone Wild Customers: "For God's Sake! Stop Sending Me Boobs!" (Photo: Wormbrain)

Rose Settlement Website via TopClassActions

The announcement would bring to an end a three-and-a-half year legal battle between the iPod maker and unhappy customers. It all began mere weeks after the nano's release in September 2005, as early adopters began to express discontent with the players' susceptibility to scratches and, in some cases, cracks in their LCD displays. Apple acknowledged the cracking in a statement, but said it was a "real but minor issue involving a vendor quality problem" that only affected less than one-tenth of 1% of the total iPod nano units shipped.

In a complaint filed the the following month, owners claimed the device "scratch[ed] excessively during normal usage, rendering the screen ... unreadable." Nano owner Jason Tomczak said even the act of rubbing a paper towel on the face of the nano left "significant scratches."

The settlement covers all first-generation Nanos, including ones that were free after rebates. For more information including claim forms, visit the class action's website.

In re iPod nano Cases
Apple to pay $22.5M in suit over scratched iPod nanos [AppleInsider]
(Photo: re-ality)

Unfortunately, your part will only be $78, although you can still file an objection or ask to speak to the court about the fairness of the settlement. Go here for all the info; claims, requests, and objections must be postmarked by 1 May 2009.

www.clossonsettlement.com [via TopClassActions.com]
(Photo: TheTruthAbout...)

The giveaway is the culmination of a class action suit that accused Macy's, Bloomingdale's, Bergdorf, Dillard's, Filene's, Lord & Taylor, Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, and Saks Fifth Avenue, among others, of fixing cosmetics prices. Though the giveaway runs from January 20-26, we'd be shocked if the products last for a full day. Consider Macy's giveaway strategy:

...free products will be set on tables in the cosmetics department, said Jim Sluzewski, a company spokesman. "When they're gone, they're gone," he said.

Consumers will be limited to one product worth up to $25, and they will be required to sign a form declaring that they purchased the covered products between May 29, 1994 and July 16, 2003, which, um, you did, right?

For more information, including participating stores and products, visit the class action's website.

Cosmetics Cases Information Website
Cosmetics giveaway starts Tuesday after price-fixing settlement [The Chicago Tribune]
PREVIOUSLY: Class Action Settlement Sets Up Massive Cosmetics Giveaway

(Photo: xanteen)

RCRWireless reprinted part of T-Mobile's response:

“Although your letter states that carriers’ prices for text messaging appear to have increased since 2005, the opposite is true,” states Robert Dotson, president and CEO of T-Mobile USA Inc. “Since 2005, the prices that T-Mobile charges for text messages — 90% of which are purchased in texting package plans — have fallen by more than half.

AT&T came right out and (almost) blamed Senator Kohl for the spate of lawsuits:

“As you probably know, since your letter was made public, 20 class-action lawsuits have been filed around the country against AT&T and other national carriers, specifically alleging price-fixing for texting messaging services. All but one of these cases cite your inquiry as one of the bases of alleged collusion. We are therefore eager to clear up any misunderstanding,” said Timothy McKone, executive VP for federal relations at AT&T.

If fees for text messaging bundles have dropped, while fees for single-serve text messages have shot up 20 cents, then in a way both sides are right—but if that's the case, we think the carriers are being intentionally dense about the true meaning of the Senator's line of questioning, which (we think) is an attempt to determine whether the carriers colluded to hike individual rates enough to drive customers into more profitable bundle services.

Wireless carriers counter antitrust concerns over rising costs of texting [RCRWireless]
(Photo: Getty Images)

[via TopClassActions]

Short Codes to look for on your bills:

1103
20795
21000
22999
24000
25516
25692
26000
27000
28394
29000
29940
31000
33555
33999
34135
35322
36000
37215
38297
39999
40544
40684
41933
44674
44999
45555
46357
46621
47777
51000
52975
56846
57396
58560
59999
61240
63556
63937
64651
65589
66047
67777
71888
72449
72545
75556
75557
76036
76284
77444
78448
79171
81636
84287
85960
86455
87313
87572
88015
88789
88922
89147
89623
91097
95521
95787
98651

(Photo: blueoneiam)

Mobile Messenger was a classic middleman, managing the billing for third-parties who sold ringtones, games, alerts, jokes, horoscopes, and applications. Since they didn't directly provide services, your itemized bill might display a short code instead of "Mobile Messenger." Carefully check this list of codes (pdf) for anything familiar that might have cropped up on your bill.

The scammy subscription pusher's settlement covers anyone who received an unauthorized charge between January 1, 2005 and August 13, 2008. Mobile Messenger had previously agreed to settle a class action covering only AT&T subscribers; if you're eligible for both settlements, you can only file one claim form. Sorry!

Class members who received a one-time charge are eligible to dip into a settlement fund of up to $12 million. Anyone who was billed for subscription services without authorization can receive a refund for up to three times the amount of their monthly fee. The settlement is great news for the mother whose son charged $600 in a single month. She can look forward to an $1,800 payout.

The claim forms are available at the class action's website.

Gray v. Mobile Messenger Class Action Settlement [via Top Class Actions]
(Photo: KB35)

Apple originally agreed to settle the suit early this year, but recently expanded the number of eligible models. Class members are eligible for the following payback:

For adapters purchased before October 14, 2008, fill out and submit your claim form by February 11, 2009. For replacement adapters purchased after October 14, 2008, submit your claims within 120 days of the purchase, or by May 31, 2009; whichever is earlier.

More details are available on the class action's website.

Gordon v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Apple settles class-action suit over faulty notebook adapters [AppleInsider]
(Photo: Educational Technology Blog)

Under the terms of a preliminary settlement agreement, [Timberland and e-commerce company GSI] will pay $7 million into a cash fund to reimburse those who received the messages, according to KamberEdelson LLC, one of the law firms that helped bring the suit.

To sign up for your slice of the $7 million pie—pending court approval—visit www.timberlandtextsettlement.com and register as a claimant. You have to register by Feburary 2nd, 2009.

"Timberland pays out to settle text spam lawsuit" [InfoWorld via IntoMobile]

TopClassAction [Official Site]

1) free credit report monitoring for six months, plus cash if there's any money left over in settlement fund and you still get to sue them if you want
2) all the benefits of option one but you can't sue them any further.
3) 9 months of credit monitoring, access to some free credit scores, and free use of TransUnion's mortgage simulator service - but no cash payment. For more information, visit the settlement site at ListAction.com or call 1-866-416-3470.

ListClassAction [Official Settlement Site] (Thanks to Scott!)
PREVIOUSLY: Massive TransUnion Settlement To Reveal Credit Scores (Photo: dbdbrobot)

In Re Vienna Beef Ltd. Litigation: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT INFORMATION [The Consumer Advocacy Center]
Just in Time for Lunch: Hot Dogs & the Law, Part I [Wall Street Journal Law Blog]
(Photo: Meghann Marco)

VerizonETFSettlement [Official Site] (Photo: Ben Vershbow)

So, why was this particular arbitration clause unconscionable, anyway? Groklaw says that it includes provisions that have nothing to do with the purpose of arbitration — such as the requirement for secrecy.

The court explains:

It forbids class actions and requires that all arbitrations be kept confidential. The agreement also states in relevant part that "[n]o dispute may be joined with another lawsuit, or in an arbitration with a dispute of any other person, or resolved on a class-wide basis," and "[a]ny arbitration shall remain confidential. Neither you nor AT&T may disclose the existence, content, or results of any arbitration or award, except as may be required by law or to confirm and enforce an award." CP at 718-19. The dispute resolution section also provides that any claim must be brought within two years and limits a consumer's right to collect punitive damages and attorney fees.

They also added that AT&T just wasn't fooling anyone by trying to hide a bunch of baloney in the arbitration agreement:

Limiting consumers' rights to open hearings, shortening statutes of limitations, limiting damages, and awarding attorney fees have absolutely nothing to do with resolving a dispute by arbitration. Courts will not be so easily deceived by the unilateral stripping away of protections and remedies, merely because provisions are disguised as arbitration clauses.

AT&T EULA's Terms Are Found "Unconscionable" - What Does That Mean? [Groklaw] (Thanks, tz!)

(Photo: Todd Kravos )

From the P-I:

They allege in the complaint that the lender misrepresented the terms of ARMs (adjustable-rate mortgages), marketed risky complex loans by emphasizing low teaser rates while misrepresenting later steep monthly payments and routinely encouraged borrowers to refinance only months after an affiliated broker sold them a loan.

The plaintiffs in this case include June Taylor, a Renton resident, who refinanced a home loan with Countrywide in 2006. She didn't receive a good faith estimate or a truth-in-lending statement before she closed on the loan — both required by law, according to the complaint. In addition, her truth-in-lending statement listed her monthly payments, but failed to note that it represented only the minimum payment that Countrywide was willing to accept rather than the actual amount she owed. Thus, she ended up with a loan that actually grew over time, the suit alleges.

Oh June, who doesn't want a mortgage that grows over time? You're just not looking at the bright side of things. Like... um... never mind. Nobody wants a growing mortgage. Good luck with your lawsuit.

Homeowners sue Countrywide [P-I]
(Photo: So Cal Metro )

The lawsuit alleged that department stores and cosmetics companies conspired to sell products at the manufacturers' suggested price only - never at a discount. It also alleged that special promotions were coordinated in a way that ensured there would be no competition among stores.

In addition to the $175 million giveaway, the department stores and cosmetics companies agreed to pay up to $24 million in attorney fees, and enter a court order that prohibits them from engaging in price-fixing schemes and certain marketing practices.

The settlement was originally reached in 2004, as reflected by the dated registration site, but the giveaway will start in January 2009. Consumers will be required to sign a form declaring that they purchased the covered products between May 29, 1994 and July 16, 2003 in order to receive free merchandise worth up to $25.

To sign up for giveaway notifications, call (877) 604-5776 or visit the settlement's website.

A sweet deal in antitrust case [The Boston Globe]
Cosmetic Cases Information Website
(Photo: Getty)

Study Finds Settling Is Better Than Going to Trial [NYT] (Photo: Brymo)

According to the lawsuit, this ruling will affect about 2 million Californians, and may affect other, similar lawsuits that are pending in other states, says the San Jose Mercury News.

"We are disappointed," Sprint Nextel spokesman Matthew Sullivan told the paper.

Consumer's Union (you know them as the publisher of Consumer Reports) were pleased with the ruling.

“This is a huge victory for consumers,” Chris Murray, senior legal counsel for Consumers Union said in a press release, but expressed concern that the FCC might step in and start regulating the fees.

“Not only did this case generate an extensive record showing that these fees are not really used to subsidize wireless phones, but are instead simply used to lock consumers into contracts. Contract law says that's illegal. Let's hope the FCC doesn't turn around and give the wireless industry a get out of court free card.”

We're looking forward to seeing how this affects our readers in California, so if you're battling Sprint over an ETF and you live in CA, send your story to tips@consumerist.com. Let us know how they're reacting to this ruling!

Sprint loses early termination fee case in California [Consumers Union]
Sprint early termination fees are illegal, judge rules [Mercury News] (Thanks, Gilbert!)
(Photo: smcgee )

Russ writes:

I called Select Comfort, and informed them that my 3000 series king bed has mold issues, both on the pad and the air chambers. I informed them that I’ve done my research and am fully aware that there is a pending class action lawsuit against Select Comfort for this issue, and as a result I want a new bed shipped to me with return shipping labels for the defective bed. The customer service agent placed me on hold for a minute or so, and then came back and agreed to my request. Select Comfort is sending me a new bed, with return shipping labels.

I’ve always had great success when working with them in the past, but thanks to The Consumerist, I pretty sure I got better service then I would have normally.

Keys to this reader's success, he...

1. Researched the issue
2. Let them know he knew the facts about how widespread the issue
3. Explicitly asked for what he wanted
4. Read The Consumerist

...taking his experience from a 0 to a 100.

PREVIOUSLY: The Sleep Number Difference Is Mold

PREVIOUSLY: Pet Food Companies Agree To $24 Million Settlement Over Killer Pet Food
(Photo: Ariana Lindquist)

Verizon Wireless Suit Settlement Puts Sprint At Risk [Dow Jones]
(Photo: Ben Popken)

I just wanted to share with you my story all about how the uhaul company is a poorly managed company that you should avoid at all costs.

Last weekend I moved. As part of this move, I made a reservation for a 17 foot Uhaul truck. I made this reservation weeks in advance, and after doing so I received a confirmation email (complete with confirmation number and everything!) I even received a nice phone call from someone at uhaul confirming my reservation. At this point I was very pleased and I was impressed with the way Uhaul actually called me to confirm. These people were really on top of things... or so I thought.

The day of the reservation comes, and I show up at the alloted time (9 am) at the Uhaul location on my reservation:
U-HAUL CENTER SUNNYVALE
939 E EL CAMINO REAL
SUNNYVALE, CA 94086
(408) 735-7060

Inside the uhaul place there is a long line of people in front of me. Directly in front of me in line is a girl and when it's her turn she walks up to the counter and says "I have a reservation for a 17 foot truck" (the same type of truck I had reserved). At this point point the clerk behind the counter looks at his board of truck keys which is conspicuously missing keys in the "17 foot Truck" section of the board. He looks back at the girl... looks again... pauses... looks back at the girl
and says "you have a reservation?"
"yes"
"I'm all out of 17 foot trucks"

At this point it was obvious that my day was not going to go as planned. So after a lot of frantic calling around and talking to people, the clerk does his best to come up with a solution for the girl. The solution was to give her a 14 foot truck instead of 17 foot. She reluctantly agreed and commented that now she would have to take two trips. The clerk told her it was his last 14 foot truck.

Now I was becoming nervous I wasn't going to get a truck at all... then I started thinking about how I had a reservation, and how it had been confirmed both via email and a phonecall.

It was then that I noticed the large poster behind the counter that said in big bold letters "RESERVATION GUARANTEED" Under the big bold letters it had check boxes for "Equipment", "Location" and "Time" indicating that these were the three criteria guaranteed by the reservation. Lastly, it stated that Uhaul would compensate the customer $50 should they fail at providing their guarantee.

OK... so.. at least I had that, I thought to myself. Surely I was entitled to this $50 as clearly my 17 foot truck that I was promised was not in stock.

I get to the counter, and inform the man that I too had a reservation for a 17 foot truck. At which point he tells me to stand to the side while he figures it out. He makes more frantic phonecalls in a valiant effort to track down my missing truck. As expected he offers me a 14 foot truck just like he did the girl before me. At this point I was happy to have a truck at all, seeing as I had to be out of my apartment that day and had already rounded up a group of my friends to help me.

I agreed that while not ideal, I could use the 14 foot truck he was offering instead. He then tells me that the girl before me got the last 14 foot truck at our location and that I had to drive a few miles down the road to another uhaul to get my truck. I was thinking in my head that it seems like they should at least drive the truck to me, seeing as how they were the ones who had screwed up my supposedly "guaranteed" reservation, but I took comfort in the fact that surely I would be able to get this $50 discount that was clearly posted on the wall.

I said to the clerk "so, I'm getting a 50 dollar discount on this, right?" and he tells me he cant do that. I point to the poster and say "Your poster says that I'm guaranteed equipment, location and time... none of those criteria have been met today." He turns around and looks at the poster like he's never seen it before in his life, and turns back around and says "well you are getting a truck, i cant give you 50 dollars and a truck."

I knew this was complete BS, but it was obvious I wasn't going to get anywhere with this clerk and I was already an hour behind schedule. So I decide to go to the other location and get the 14 foot truck.. which I get, and have the same conversation with the clerk there about this so called guarantee. I get the same answer from him. Of course after all of this i was seething mad, and I decided that I better go home and read the fine print on this "guarantee", before I strangle the guy behind the counter.
Here it is:

Item number 5 does indeed state that they can substitute equipment, but ONLY if it is of equal or greater value than the equipment reserved.

I was promised a certain truck (or better) at a certain location, at a certain time, or else I would receive 50 dollars. What I got was a different truck at a different location at a different time, and no 50 dollars.

So, this means that Uhaul doesn't make good on their guarantees and you cannot rely on them.

After having this experience I was dismayed to find that there was already a class action lawsuit against Uhaul for this exact same issue:

It appears as though Uhaul has not changed it's policies one bit.

I have sent this story to the uhaul customer service address and were given a confirmation that I would be contacted in two business days. It has been over two days and I have not been contacted yet... which I am not really that surprised about. I'm really less concerned about being compensated my 50 dollars and more concrned with making sure no one else has to deal with the extreme hassle that I had to deal with. I don't know what I would have done had they been completely out of even the inferior trucks.

The so-called $50 guarantee was actually the product of the class action settlement — so unless we're crazy you're actually legally entitled to it. We'd report them to the California Attorney General's office for not living up to the terms of their settlement. Anyone have any other ideas? Anyone managed to collect on this $50 "guarantee?"

(Thanks to Ronald!)
(Photo: Mike McCaffrey)

Violated cardholders can select from two options:

(1) Basic relief. Free credit monitoring for six months, which gives you daily access to your credit report and credit score and 24-hour credit-monitoring service. This normally costs $59.75. Those who elect this option may get a cash payment if there’s money left from the $75 million settlement fund.

(2) Enhanced relief. An alternative enhanced set of services” in exchange for a full release of claims. This options includes nine months credit monitoring, a suite of insurance scores and TransUnion’s mortgage simulator service. This option normally would cost $115.50. You won’t be entitled to any cash payment under this option.

Option 1 could generate cash, but option 2 might provide your actual credit score, depending on which news outlet you believe. Option 2 has the potential to be worth significantly more to the average consumer.

Even better: "Under the settlement, a credit card number would not be required to sign up for either service. After the free service ends, TransUnion could not charge for an extension unless it was requested by the consumer."

The settlement still needs to be approved, but if it is, it'll be a huge win for consumers.

Ken McEldowney, executive director of Consumer Action, a national advocacy group based in San Francisco, called the settlement mind-boggling.

"It's everything we tell consumers that they need to find out if they have problems with their credit," he said. "They are getting information on how to improve it and information about whether they are creditworthy. This is astonishing."

You can start filing claims on June 16 at the settlement website, or by calling (866) 416-3470.

Consumers will soon know the (credit) score [L.A. Times]
TransUnion Free Credit Score Settlement [Blueprint For Financial Prosperity]
(Photo: RobotSkirts)

Select Comfort claims to have addressed the rampant mold problem, a claim that provides little solace to allergy sufferers whose beds are already infested with mold:

Margaret of Stanville KY (04/05/08)
Just found black mold growing under the foam top and on top of both of the air chambers. Purchased in October 2002 and notified Select Comfort today by email. I have allergies to mold and have been to Dr.'s concerning this. My husband has been coughing every night when he lays down in the bed. Just read the comments from others and hope we can reconcile this issue. The foam borders are flimsy as well as the bottom material of the top mattress cover. It has shredded and has holes in it.

Terry of New Lenox IL (05/04/07)
After less than 3 years of sleeping on our select comfort bed, we noticed a very bad odor coming from it. We proceeded to take it apart, piece by piece. The sheets were fine, the mattress pad was fine. But when we got down to the zippered comforter, it smelled terrible. Under the comforter, there is a foam pad, which was full of mold and bacteria. It smelled horrible. We are now sleeping on the floor, because we had to discard most of the bed.

Mold and bacteria cannot be removed from the foam pad, and the zippered comforter would fall apart if it was washed. We got burned badly on this one!

Lana of Brooklyn MI (9/3/03)
The Select Comfort system allows mold and/or mildew to form on the convoluted foam topper and on the air mattresses. Select Comfort's solution 'use a light bleach solution to clean the mattress.' It's impossible to clean the foam. Their product is unhealthy for people like me who have allergies to mold/mildew.

According to the class action:

Purchasers of the beds are being told by Select Comfort to return the beds, often at a significant cost to the purchaser. The Class Action seeks not only to have Select Comfort provide notice to purchasers of its Sleep Number® bed of the potential for mold infestation, but also to have the class members compensated for their losses, including the costs of shipping they have incurred or will incur to return their beds to Select Comfort.

Do you have a Sleep Number bed? Tell us in the comments if your experience was a 0 or a 100.

Select Comfort Sleep Number Bed Class Action Litigation
Select Comfort - Mold [Consumer Affairs]

The lawsuit is seeking class action status, and will include passengers who traveled on Southwest's planes from 2002 until this month— though presumably one would have to have flown on an MD-80?

Lew Garrison, a Birmingham lawyer who represents the passengers, said Tuesday the class could include hundreds of thousands of people who traveled on Southwest planes from January 2002 through last month.

Garrison, in a telephone interview, said the lawsuit primarily seeks reimbursement for tickets for those flights on the grounds that the Dallas-based airline did not comply with government regulations and did not honor its contract with its customers.

The NYT says:

Oprah Winfrey, Howard Stern, Kevin Costner and other stars endorse the product, and the teacher-inventor has appeared on the "Dr. Phil" and "Live With Regis and Kelly" television shows and others, chattering away about Airborne's benefits.

The company does not admit wrongdoing, but if you want your refund you can have it. Here are some instructions to help you get your money:

To file online:

Go to AirborneHealthSettlement.com

If you'd like to file by mail:

Download a claim form and submit it by September 15, 2008 to
Airborne Class Action Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 1897
Faribault, MN 55021-7152

You may also call: 1-888-952-9080

The settlement says:

If you are unable to provide proof of purchase, you will be entitled to reimbursement for the average retail price of $6.99 per box of Airborne Health Formula, $2.75 per box for Gummi, $10.50 per box of Seasonal, and $6.99 per box for the remaining Airborne Products, for up to six (6)Airborne Product packages.

Makers of Airborne Settle False-Ad Suit With Refunds [NYT]
Airborne Health Settlement