The spike in prices is being blamed on a decrease in gas production and a weak dollar — not on an increase in demand.

"Until consumers are confident in their jobs and future income, they're going to be very hesitant in spending,"[a senior economist with Moody's Economy.com] told the AP. "And higher gas prices are just another excuse to keep money in the pocket."

Retail gas prices nearing summer highs [AP]
(Photo:ibelli)

A Consumer Financial Protection Agency would unify the various organizations that regulate parts of the financial services market into a single, streamlined agency. Hopefully. Most of the legislation is necessarily vague (the legislation "Requires the Agency to seek to promote transparency, simplicity, fairness, accountability, and access in the market for consumer financial products or services"), in the hopes that it can be applied to nasty new bank practices that we can't even think of yet. Below are some specifics.

• The CFPA would have the authority to restrict or ban mandatory binding arbitration. You know how we feel about mandatory binding arbitration.
• The CFPA would also have the authority to designate fees, charges, or behaviors as unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices, and ban them as the agency sees fit. So if Bank of America, for example, dreams up a new way to screw you that wasn't banned by the recent credit card law, the CFPA could review it, ban it, and start ringing up the fines. Fines for violating these bans range from $5,000 to $25,000 per day.
• CFPA legislation would require the Fed to review the consumer credit card market-including credit card agreements, practices, costs, and availability-every two years to judge market innovation, competition, and fairness. This is a good proactive approach that would keep the agency on top of developing issues and potentially dangerous trends and actions.
• Importantly, the CFPA legislation treats federal action as a floor, not a ceiling, so individual states would be allowed to enact stronger laws as necessary and appropriate. This is especially important considering that...
• One thing CFPA legislation definitely will not address is usury-a cap on interest rates. Earlier this year, a senator attempted to attach a usury cap to the credit card reform legislation that was signed into law; the amendment failed by a large margin and would probably fail again or doom the underlying legislation it was attached to. Fortunately, some states already have existing usury bans that curb excessive interest rates.

The legislation can be read in its entirety here. A (large) handy comparison chart is viewable here. For more information, check out Consumer Reports's financial policy blog, Defending Your Dollars.

(Photo: frankieleon)

Here are the four critical goals this group says can't be accomplished with existing regulatory structures:

1. We need "a single place to concentrate federal rulemaking authority over consumer financial transactions joined with primary enforcement authority over them."
They argue that current agencies have proven they're not up to the job:

At critical moments of consumer confusion and vulnerability, regulators of financial institutions, including the Federal Reserve Bank, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Office of the Comptroller, have demonstrated unwillingness to expend resources to develop appropriate rules and guidelines and to police mortgage and credit instruments. The two-decades-long delay in effectively regulating credit card practices, despite many warnings from consumer groups, responsible lenders, and scholars, for example, is a well-documented and catastrophic lapse that continues to inflict serious financial injury.

2. We need "the power to restore banking federalism so as to better accommodate consumer interests."
The power of states to regulate financial companies has been undermined in the past 30 years and needs to be restored and protected:

State legislatures and courts need to be able to continue to develop consumer protection law. Many of the types of non-bank financial products that will be within the jurisdiction of the CFPA have been regulated up until now only by the states, and their good work should not be undermined. In addition, problems are much more likely to grow larger if they can be addressed only at the federal level and not also by states where they first appear.

3. We need "the authority to improve opportunities for consumers to enforce their rights."
Arbitration agreements rarely work fairly for the consumer; they're almost always more favorable to the financial company. These guys say that "existing agencies have not acted effectively to promote the availability, impartiality and quality of arbitration tribunals." They say we need the ability "to regulate consumer arbitration to insure that it is conducted fairly, or, if that proves impossible, to ban it altogether."

4. We need "the ability to establish standards for fairness and honesty in agreements for financial products and services."
Current disclosures don't adequately inform consumers of the real costs of a financial product. The legal scholars note that

If disclosures alone were adequate to enable consumers to obtain appropriate loans, it would not be possible for mortgage originators to "steer" borrowers who could qualify for prime loans to more expensive subprime loans, and yet such steering has been alleged repeatedly.

"Consumer and Banking Scholars Show Support for the Consumer Financial Protection Act" [Hofstra University School of Law]
(Photo: swimparallel)

We already enjoy something called the Funeral Rule, an FTC regulation that requires funeral homes to follow certain rules, and that means you can report any fraudulent behavior to them for possible follow-up. But it looks like Bereaved Consumers Protection Act would cover far more than just truth-in-advertising, by creating a set of minimum record-keeping standards that all states would have to follow (although they could add their own laws on top).

"Rep. Bobby Rush introduces cemetery oversight act" [Chicago Tribune]
(Photo: chuckp)

The report spotlights a consumer determined to sock away cash and pay down debt following the stock market and real estate crashes. Households have saved about 5% of their income in recent months, vs. less than 1% before the downturn.

Long-term, the trend "puts (consumers) in a healthier financial position" by trimming interest costs and encouraging investments for "future needs like college education and retirement," says John Ryding, chief economist of RDQ Economics.

In the short run, though, "This does not bode well for a significant, sustained rebound in real consumer spending," Steven Wood, chief economist for Insight Economics, said in a report.

In other words, what's good for us as individuals is bad for financial institutions. And for the overall economy, which counts on Americans to spend, spend, spend.

But don't let that stop you from being, you know, responsible and sensible with your finances.

Consumers cut outstanding credit by record $21.5 billion [USA Today] (Thanks, snarkysnake!)

(Photo: Arria Belli)

NAAG's list:
1. Debt Collection
2. Auto Sales
3. Home Repair/Construction
4. Credit Cards (tie)
4. Internet Goods and Services (tie)
6. Predatory Lending/Mortgages
7. Telemarketing/Do-Not-Call
8. Auto Repair
9. Auto Warranties (tie)
9. Telecom/Slamming/Cramming (tie)

NAAG writes that credit card and predatory lending complaints are new entrants on the list, reflecting the current economic times. We're confused why telecom issues, slamming, and cramming are joined as one category; we assume this is a reflection of problems with cable and internet providers, and not some massive phone slamming epidemic that we weren't aware of.

Top Ten List of Consumer Complaints of 2008 [National Association of Attorneys General]
(Photo: onlymefairmay)

Question 1: Since Amazon only sells licenses and not digital copies of the ebooks themselves, why don't the product pages clearly say "Buy License" instead of just "Buy"?

Response: The Specialist told me that they had received a lot of feedback from customers regarding this situation, and that "the marketing department is working on it."

I asked him if there was anything more specific—what might be changed, for instance, and when might we expect it? He said he had no idea because it was the marketing department's decision, and that if any changes were made they'd appear on the Amazon site.

Translation: Oh yeah, we're going to look into that probably.

Question 2: How do I find out the number of devices I can download a book to?

A couple of months ago, a reader discovered he'd hit his limit on the number of devices his license would cover, and consequently he couldn't open an ebook on his new iPhone.

Amazon was able to reset some of the authorizations for old devices so that he could access his ebook, which works even though it's a clunky way to do things. (By contrast, iTunes lets customers authorize and deauthorize devices as needed without contacting customer support for permission. Update: It now appears Amazon works this way, too. Hooray!) The real problem—and what my question is referring to—is Amazon says the publisher can set the limit and is permitted to set it lower than 5 devices.

Response: The Specialist noted that as of sometime earlier this month, product pages for ebooks now list the device limit clearly.

He's right, but you can drive a oil tanker through the loophole it creates:

I pointed out that this only indicates the maximum allowable devices, but that it doesn't tell me if this particular book has a lower limit. It certainly says it might have a lower limit depending on the publisher's whims, but it keeps that actual information hidden away.

The specialist told me he could not answer this and would have to escalate it and get back to me.

Translation: You can't find out exactly, so just trust us.

Question 3: How do I find out the limit to the amount of a book I can highlight or 'clip' with my Kindle?

A few months ago, a reader discovered that she'd suddenly reached a "clipping limit" on the ebook she was reading. (Clipping is basically saving excerpts into a note file.) Even after deleting her previous clips and highlights, she was still forbidden to clip anything else.

Response: Amazon is still passing the buck on this one. The Specialist told me that "because books are self-published on the website by the publishers, they set this limit and can change it." I asked him how a consumer can find out the limit beforehand since it's not listed under the product details of a book, and since technically his explanation means a publisher can set a clipping limit to zero. He said he would have to escalate the question and get back to me.

Translation: You can't find out exactly, and it's not our fault.

I'm optimistic that Amazon will indeed respond with better answers, and if they do, I'll post them. As for now, however, we're still pretty much where we were earlier this summer when it comes to knowing full well what you're buying from Amazon when you buy a Kindle ebook license:

• You're not buying a permanent copy of the book, only a permanent license to access Amazon's copy (which leaves considerable power and responsibility in Amazon's hands instead of yours);
• There's no way to tell whether a particular ebook has special restrictions on the device limit; fixed!
• There's still no way to tell what sort of restrictions a publisher may have placed on your ability to highlight or clip selections from the ebook.

What's most frustrating is that Amazon has basically diffused the responsibility for their DRM policies. They blame the publishers, as if if to imply that if you want to know what your rights are for an ebook you should contact the publisher before buying it through Amazon. Presumably both the device and clipping limits are set with flags when the publisher uploads an ebook to Amazon, so we don't see why that information can't be made part of the public product listing.

These aren't outrageous demands; they wouldn't give consumers special rights at the expense of publishers. Without them, though, consumers are buying Amazon ebook licenses in the dark, trusting that an online retailer will ultimately put their interests ahead of its own.

Update: To address a reader's comment below that I didn't choose the right path to get these answers: actually, I deliberately chose the customer service path to highlight a point, which is that Amazon is not doing anything to provide answers to consumers about the licenses they're buying. Your typical consumer is going to follow the route I followed, not search for media contacts.

In addition, these are questions people in the media have been asking for months, and Amazon hasn't been answering them. Cory Doctorow in particular has tried to get their DRM details spelled out explicitly, and Amazon first said they'd get back to him, then ignored him entirely. Ignored him, a published author with a business interest in knowing the fine points of the DRM being applied to his work before being sold on the store.

As far as "Kindle Specialist," this is not the front line person you get when you call in for help. The front line Kindle CSR transferred me to this so-called Kindle Specialist after she read through my questions and realized she couldn't answer them. This was some mysterious second tier in the system.

I actually emailed these questions to Amazon originally back in early July and was ignored. I emailed them again in early August and pointed out that they promised to respond to most questions in 12 hours or less. They responded in about 12 hours and said they couldn't answer them via email but would answer them if I called. So I called.

(Photo: twirlop)

"Nobody else could pull this off," said Michelle Harvey at Environmental Defense Fund, one of the groups involved in the creation of the index.

The question, of course, is whether even Wal-Mart can make it happen.

[...]

Wal-Mart plans to begin by asking its more than 100,000 suppliers around the world to answer 15 simple questions about the sustainable practices of their companies. Questions include "Have you set publicly available greenhouse gas reduction targets? If yes, what are those targets?"

The first set of questions focus on four main areas, including "energy and climate, material efficiency, natural resources, and people and community."

The rating system is certainly ambitious, and if successful, would empower consumers to judge a product's green credentials at a glance. Expect the ratings to appear on products sometime within the next five years.

At Wal-Mart, Labeling to Reflect Green Intent [The New York Times]
Wal-Mart To Become Green Umpire [The Big Money]
Walmart's Sustainable Product Index aims to develop green rating [Consumer Reports]
(Photo: genebob)

Bloomberg says:

Confidence among U.S. consumers fell in July for the first time in five months as mounting unemployment and depressed wages shook households.

The Reuters/University of Michigan final index of consumer sentiment decreased to 66, in line with forecasts, from 70.8 in June. A preliminary reading was 64.6.

So far, the economy has lost 6.5 million jobs and unemployment might reach 10% by the end of the year. Meanwhile, housing prices haven't yet stabilized.

According to the article, consumers are saving their money and shopping at discount retailers such as T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, and 99 Cents Only Stores, while cutting back on eating out — even at fast food joints.

Yum Brands, the parent company of Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, cut its outlook for same-store sales growth this year.

Consumer Sentiment Index in U.S. Decreased in July (Update2) [Bloomberg]
(Photo:glory_box829)

Although we're glad to see these companies exit a portion of the privatized justice racket, this only applies to credit card disputes. There are still plenty of opportunities for consumers to be forced into arbitration, including agreements for nursing homes, retirement plans, insurance, cell phones and utility service, employment contracts, and franchise agreements. Arbitration won't be fair until consumers have the right to choose whether to use it after a dispute arises. That's why it's important for Congress to pass the Arbitration Fairness Act.

For more information on forced arbitration, check out our archives, the Fair Arbitration Now coalition (of which we are a member), or if you're really intrigued, tune in at 2 this afternoon for a House subcommittee hearing on the issue, where the Minnesota Attorney General who sued the National Arbitration Forum last week is scheduled to testify.

(Photo: samwilkinson)

Consumer lawyers say the banks will then have to reveal the cost involved, and that as a result of the changes the size of exception fees could fall dramatically. The banks argued during the passage of the bill that customers would "seek to avoid their obligations" to pay certain fees even though they would have agreed to the charges laid out by the terms and conditions of a particular account.

Almost every type of bank account, credit card, personal loan and mortgage, "numbering tens of millions", could be affected, says the association.

Wouldn't it be great if *ahem* our own Congress passed a similar law?

New law puts $1b in bank fees at risk [The Sydney Morning Herald via Consumer Law & Policy Blog]
Write Your Senator
Write Your Representative
PREVIOUSLY: How To Write To Congress
(Photo: Pascal Vuylsteker)

The chief concern for G.M. and the government is whether customers who have claims about existing products but have not yet filed lawsuits can sue the company in state courts. Because bankruptcy case law is murky on the matter, G.M. and the auto task force chose to assume the liability instead of risking a delay of the company's emergence from bankruptcy.

[...]

Courts typically allow companies under bankruptcy protection to leave claims behind in bankruptcy and emerge with a clean slate, a precedent G.M. and the government are relying upon. Chrysler, which completed a government-backed restructuring this month, left both product liability claims and unwanted dealers with its old estate, now known as Old CarCo. Claims left behind in bankruptcy generally have a slim chance of being paid.

G.M. set aside almost $1 billion last year to settle product-liability claims. Anyone with an existing product-liability suit against the company is probably out of luck, as G.M. still plans to shed those claims when it exits bankruptcy.

G.M. to Maintain Legal Liability for Claims [The New York Times]

Typically, insurance guaranty associations cover up to $300,000 in death benefits, up to $100,000 in cash-surrender values on whole and universal life policies and up to $100,000 in the present value of an annuity, said Peter Gallanis, president of the National Organization of Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Associations.

But that varies. California's guaranty association essentially imposes a deductible, saying it will pay the lesser of 80% of the failed insurer's contractual obligation or up to $250,000 in death benefits. It will also pay up to $100,000 in cash-surrender or withdrawal values.

New Jersey, on the other hand, provides up to $500,000 in coverage for death benefits and annuity payments, without the deductible. Arizona's guaranty association fits neatly into the industry standard — up to $300,000 in death benefits and $100,000 for annuities and cash value — but it doesn't pay for guaranteed investment contracts at all.

Generally speaking, you would be covered by the guaranty association in the state where you reside. However, if you bought an insurance policy through a company pension plan — as some people buy guaranteed investment contracts through a 401(k) — you could be covered by the association in the state where the plan is domiciled, Gallanis said.

Check out the National Organization of Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Associations for a full listing of all state protections.

National Organization of Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Associations
How to check your life insurer's health [The Los Angeles Times]
(Photo: JasonRogersFooDogGiraff eBee)

The primary concern for members of the RCA, which encompasses over 80 rural cellular carriers, is that by tying up new handset models with specific carriers the national companies are shutting out smaller carriers from competing. For consumers, the charge is that aside from generally limiting choice, exclusivity deals help create a digital divide by preventing customers in certain areas from access to the latest phone technologies.

Earlier this year, other parties also came out against carrier exclusivity deals:

The Consumers Union, the New America Foundation, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as software provider Mozilla and small wireless carriers MetroPCS (PCS) and Leap Wireless International (LEAP), are lining up in opposition not only to the Apple-AT&T partnership, but to all manner of arrangements whereby mobile phones are tethered exclusively to a single wireless service provider.

But as CNET points out, the problem with breaking up the exclusivity party is that both manufacturers and carriers make a lot of money with the current arrangement, so they have zero incentive to change it.

For consumers, obviously if you could buy an LG Voyager, Palm Pre, or Apple iPhone and use it on any network you like, you'd have far more choice. The only consumers who can do that now are those with the technical savvy and contrarian DIY nature (not to mention the money to afford an unsubsidized phone) to go the jailbreak route, which isn't an ideal solution.

"Exclusive cell phone deals called into question" [CNET]
"Setting the iPhone Free from AT&T" [Business Week]
"US senators ask FCC to review mobile handset deals" [Reuters via mocoNews]
(Photo: raisin bun)

Fewer Americans said jobs were "hard to get," the survey found, with that measure slipping to 44.7 percent from 46.6 percent. Those saying jobs were plentiful climbed to a still meager 5.7 percent, but that was still higher than April's 4.9 percent.

"Consumers are considerably less pessimistic than they were earlier this year," said Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board's Consumer Research Center.

Respondents claiming that "jobs are plentiful" were reached during a tropical cruise in Alaska. On a boat full of mermaids and unicorns.

U.S. consumer confidence sees biggest jump in 6 years [Reuters]

(Photo: dooleymtv)

On Wednesday, consumer groups and arbitration victims will head to Congress to demand passage of the Arbitration Fairness Act, which would ban mandatory binding arbitration clauses in consumer, employment, and franchise contracts. We'll be sharing the stories of some arbitration victims here throughout the week. Today's story is by Deborah Williams, a small business owner who was forced into arbitration and ended up paying over $4,000 just to feed, house, and transport the other side's witnesses and lawyers.

Being trapped by the fine print of a contract transformed my dream of opening a coffee bar with my husband into a nightmare.

We had wanted to open a small neighborhood coffee shop, where everyone recognized each other and we would get to know the people and spirit of our community. We wanted a "Cheers" on caffeine.

In 2004, the vice president of Michigan-based Coffee Beanery told us that, in the right location, our café with their franchise could yield $125,000 a year, so we talked it over and decided to sign a 15-year agreement. What the vice president conveniently neglected to tell us, however, is that nearly 40 shops in the Coffee Beanery franchise had failed within three years of opening, leaving their owners bankrupt.

My husband and I soon found ourselves following a similar path. We were receiving bills amounting to far more than we signed up for – and the quality of some of the franchise products we had to use was abysmal. The real costs were so much greater than expected that we had to take out an additional $50,000 loan just to open the store. It didn't take long to realize we were in deep trouble. We struggled to keep up with our expenses but quickly began to fall short.

Then we heard from two other Coffee Beanery franchise owners whose shops were not just failing to thrive, but losing money fast. We had to face the fact that we'd been duped. We tried to get out of our contract but were dragged through the company's mandatory arbitration process. When signing the contract to open our store, we also had to sign away our right to take the franchise to court. You might think arbitration resembles mediation, but you would be wrong. It is biased from the start because the company typically selects the arbitrator it wants.

In our case, the company's lawyer had already worked with this arbitrator and won, making it extremely unlikely that we would do any better than the previous franchise owners. The arbitrator also used the same accounting firm as Coffee Beanery, a conflict of interest that further reduced our chances of having an impartial hearing. As if that wasn't bad enough, an investigation conducted by Maryland's State Attorney General's Office concluded that Coffee Beanery committed fraud in selling us our franchise, a key finding the arbitrator elected to ignore. We should have known that justice would never be served.

Coffee Beanery made us travel from our Maryland home to Michigan for the arbitration. We were forced to fly there four times in the 11 days of hearings, driving up our already hefty arbitration costs. In the proceedings, the company attributed our store's downfall to our own mismanagement, not its faulty sales concept.

The arbitrator unsurprisingly sided with Coffee Beanery, ordering us to pay $187,452 in legal fees and arbitration costs – including almost $17,000 for the arbitrator's services and $500 to cover the cost of Coffee Beanery lawyers' lunches.

We lost everything; we have nothing left. Our home is being foreclosed. We are living out of boxes until the bank sells our house. This past winter, our pipes froze because we could not afford to pay for heat, leaving us without water for three days. Our simple coffee shop dream wrecked our whole life

What's worse, though, is that ours is not an isolated case. Many others have been subjected to the unfairness of binding mandatory arbitration.

Had we been allowed to go to civil court, we would have had a fighting chance for justice. Mandatory arbitration is deceitful and skewed to favor the big companies, not the small entrepreneurs trying to make a living. This isn't just a problem for business owners like us; people unknowingly sign binding arbitration contracts all the time – when they buy a cell phone or house, apply for a credit card, go into a nursing home or take a job.

Besides writing your members of Congress, you can also check out the Fair Arbitration Now website and sign a petition to ban forced arbitration.

(Photo: freaksanon)

On Wednesday, consumer groups and arbitration victims will head to Congress to demand passage of the Arbitration Fairness Act, which would ban mandatory binding arbitration clauses in consumer, employment, and franchise contracts. We'll be sharing the stories of some arbitration victims here throughout the week. Today's story is by Marlene Owens, whose late father was killed by a nursing home's negligence, but was prevented from suing because the nursing home had gotten her elderly and incapacitated father to sign a new contract that included an arbitration clause.

My dad, John Donahue, spent his last thirteen years living in a nursing home. By the age of 93, his caretakers needed a mechanical lift to transfer him in and out of his bed, his bath, his chair. One evening in 2005, an aide tried to put Dad to bed using the lift by herself when the machine required two people to operate it. Not only did the lift severely rupture my father's eye and crush his eye socket, but the aide put him to bed for the night leaving his injuries untreated. The emergency surgery to remove his eye two days later was followed by a horrible infection that killed Dad after six weeks of unnecessary pain and suffering.

The next blow came when I tried to file a lawsuit against the nursing home and learned that, even though my dad's death was caused by its staff, I had no right to sue the home because of three words that I had never seen together before: binding mandatory arbitration. Here's what happened: I originally signed a contract to admit Dad to the Embassy Care Nursing Home which, four years later, was purchased by Kindred Healthcare Inc. The new owner decided to limit its financial liability for patient care by adding a new and unfair agreement to the facility's admission contracts, including those of patients already in residence.

Kindred staff took the outrageous liberty of rounding up a group of residents, including Dad who by then was 91 and had suffered a stroke, and read the arbitration agreement to them. There was literally no way he could have understood what that paperwork was about. The staffer then extracted "voluntary signatures" from these fragile, medicated and confused residents so the nursing home could cheat them and their families out of having their day in court if serious problems with care came up.

While I never knew Dad was put in this abusive situation, I know this for certain: He never trusted the woman who presented him with this paperwork, and he would never have voluntarily cooperated with her. She had the nerve to claim he "eagerly" signed the form that I knew nothing about until after his death, something I will always have serious doubts about.

Nursing homes by definition are supposed to care for the frail and elderly. If they are doing their job right, why shouldn't they accept responsibility for those patients? By trying to eliminate people's right to sue, doesn't that just make it easier for facilities to be careless and abusive, like they were in Dad's case?

Kindred Healthcare has been trying to force me into arbitration over my father's wrongful death for four years now, but my anger has given me the strength to fight back. Just this month, thanks to their own questionable tactics, a real judge has decided that my case against Kindred deserves a jury trial in a real court of law, not some arbitrator bought and paid for by the nursing home. I've asked for a speedy trial because I'm 74 and I want to be around to see Kindred lose this case. For me, it's not about the money. I want to see our story in the newspapers. I want people to know the ugly truth of what this business did to my father and how they've tried to get away with it all this time.

Here's how to contact your Representative and Senators to ask them to support the Arbitration Fairness Act.

Previously: The Arbitration Fairness Act Is In The House
Mandatory Binding Arbitration: The Worst Choose Your Own Adventure Ever
What Is Mandatory Binding Arbitration?
(Photo: gregthemayor)

Underhill says that most American consumers fall into one of these three categories:

• Those "who are in immediate danger of being downwardly mobile." Regardless of current socioeconomic level, layoffs and other financial emergencies have caused them to stop spending entirely.
• Those who aren't in danger now but know someone who is, and who have stopped spending out of extreme caution and a sense of needing to be more financially responsible. "It's fundamentally healthy over the long term, but it's painful over the short term."
• Those who "have very real piles of money" but who have "learned that conspicuous consumption is bad manners," and/or who have adopted the idea that financial responsibility is a moral issue.

Other highlights from the interview:

• Retail stores are getting messier, because people are picking up items, carrying them around, and then taking them out of their cart at the last minute.
• Reading labels is a more popular activity: "It used to be that label reading was linked to income and education. And now that's linked to literacy. Everyone is doing it."
• The concept of buying used seems to be increasing in popularity.
• "We have reached the apogee of the big box," and going bigger now "is actually starting to be counterproductive." Underhill says retailers are going to have to learn to edit. We find this interesting because he also points out that consumers have greater pricing transparency than ever before thanks to web access via mobile phones. How does a retailer compete on choice and pricing without bloating up their inventory?
• "I think, as a culture, we are over-stored. All store chains would be healthier if they were smaller."

Read the full interview at Time.com.

"How Consumers Shop Differently Today" [Time]
(Photo: Intangible Arts)

From Reuters:

Scott said this downturn may fundamentally change people's spending habits.

"I'm not necessarily convinced that just when all this liquidity and things hit, if you're going to have the same immediate desire to go back to consumption and debt," he said, referring to a potential U.S. government stimulus plan.

"There are a lot of young people who have learned what it's like when you are living on the edge and the bad times come."

UPDATE 3-Wal-Mart CEO sees no quick rebound for US economy [Reuters]
(Photo:Da Nes)

We were unable to find the actual votes on the CPSC's site, but we assume they were on these four proposed exemptions (PDFs). According to the L.A. Times, the CPSC agreed to exempt:

• Items with lead parts that a child cannot access
• Clothing, toys and other goods made of natural materials such as cotton and wood; and
• Electronics that are impossible to make without lead

If your fears still aren't assuaged, take heart: the CPSC is underfunded and can't afford to come after your Etsy store:

Whether federal regulators will enforce the rules—which might entail inspections at thousands of secondhand stores and toy shops across the country—is another question.

"The CPSC is an agency with limited resources and tremendous responsibility to protect the safety of families," said Scott Wolfson, a CPSC spokesman. "Our focus will be on those areas we can have the biggest impact and address the most dangerous products."

Regulators Rethink Rules on Testing Children's Clothing and Toys for Lead [LA Times]
(Photo: jalexchasick)
PREVIOUSLY: Consumers Union Asks Nancy Nord, CPSC To Do A Better Job Explaining These New Toy Testing Rules
New Toy Safety Rule Has Collateral Damage: Handmade Toy Manufacturers

And its not just cars that are piling up. The port usually exports recycled paper. They send it to China where it is turned back into the boxes that you rip open during the holidays to reveal all sorts of consumer products. TVs, toys, video games. Whatever. But the demand is slowing. The paper is piling up...

Long Beach is an important port, particularly for the West. It is where imported products arrive and filter through the tributary of trucks, trains and retailers into the hands of consumers. But now, products are just sitting.

“We’re supposed to move things, not store them,” Mr. Wong said.

The NYT says this phenomenon is nothing new for Detroit — American cars are housed at the Michigan's state fairgrounds and at its airports.

A Sea Of Unwanted Imports [NYT]

“This allows them the possibility to move inside the store without having to carry all the items in their hands with the handheld baskets,” spokeswoman Judy Chong said. “When you’re picking up a half gallon of milk and two-liter bottles of soda, it gets heavy.”

According to their North American distributor, another big benefit of being able to pull the Shop n’ Roll baskets is that they prompt some shoppers to load them with more groceries, instead of perhaps heading to the checkout when carrying them becomes fatiguing.

“They promote more items being purchased,” said George Braeunig, who handles North American sales for distributor SCS Inc. in Boca Raton, Fla.

We like it. It's like a basket and a shopping cart had a little baby. You should just be aware that there's an intentional "buy more stuff" side effect if you're not careful.

"Shaw’s rolls out baskets with wheels" [Boston Herald] (Thanks to Henry!)
(Photo: Larsz)

In general, says the study, Boomers are usually the "breadwinners in the household," and "make most or all of the family spending decisions."

The study tosses out the following labels, and we toss in our own thoughts about how this could influence advertising:

Promiscuous Purchasers

40-59 spend more than three times the amount of money per month on spouses ($514) than adults under 40 ($169). Additionally, they spend nearly twice as much per month on kids ($295 vs. $158) and three times the amount per month on teen children ($494 vs. $136). With so many purchase decisions to make for the household, these "Promiscuous Purchasers" are an important marketing sector even when they are not the prime target.

[Translation: Boomers are gatekeepers, so ads targeting youth need to also secretly target their parents, or train the primary target audience to advocate for the product in Boomer-friendly language.]

Free Agent Shoppers

40 and 50-somethings are more open to new brands and less brand loyal than people under 40. Twenty-six percent of Boomers said they are not at all brand loyal versus 21% of Gen X and Millennials. In fact, Gen Y are the most likely to say that once they have made a commitment to a brand, they will stick with it, no matter what. The willingness of 40 and 50 year-olds to buy new brands carries over across virtually every product category including electronics, personal care products, restaurants, automobiles and more. And when compared to the Generation who came before them these "Free Agent Shoppers" have very different spending habits. No longer will this age group buy the same products based on lifelong brand decisions and spend less as they age. This demo is redefining brand loyalty and determining purchase decisions based on the effectiveness of products. Today's 40 and 50-somethings stick with a product for as long as it's good and fulfills their complex needs. They are not afraid to change for something they feel will improve their lives.

[Translation: Boomers like to shop around, and they like to self-improve. Combine the two activities and you've got a compelling brand.]

Savvy Switchers

While Boomers are very open to new brands, they will not switch just because something is new. Ninety-one percent of people in their 40s and 50s want the brand to provide more value versus 83% of Gen X and Millennials. Boomers will consider new brands if that brand is a better alternative—the product or service must be more useful, functional and provide the most benefit/value. Unlike Millennials and Gen Xers they are less likely to be influenced by the notion that the brand is more prestigious or the latest style; instead, their purchase decisions are based on reliability and quality. The product/service needs to have the best features, not necessarily the most features.

[Translation: Ads that focus on movements, fashions, or trends don't work as well on Boomers—probably because they're not as relevant.]

The study also found that newborns, or "Generation Teat," will buy anything that's offered to them online, provided you place the cursor over the "buy it now" button and place the keyboard next to their feet. Now there's a demographic to go after.

"Breadwinning Boomers Responsible for Multi-Generational Brand Decisions, TV Land's 'Generation BUY' Study Finds"
(Photo: Getty)

Apparently the super-market shrink-ray has a "reverse" option too. I've been collecting and re-purposing old scoops from laundry detergent boxes for years now, and have almost exclusively been a Cheer Color Guard (or it's current incarnation) customer during that time. Rather than use the scoop from a new box, I usually just continue using the previous scoop. Therefore I can't tell you how old this one is, but it's at least three or four years old.

So the scoop on the left is an older one, used in the cheer boxes many years ago. The one on the right is a new one from a box I purchased this month. Notice anything immediately? If you're like me, you don't sit down and painstakingly measure out your detergent, you eyeball the partially filled scoop and pour. For years I've used about 3/4 scoop to wash my clothes, no problems. If I applied that logic to the same scoop from a new box of Cheer, I'd have been using significantly more in my laundry.

However, to give Cheer a fair chance, I decided to measure them out as per the directions on the scoop. Each has 3 levels. Medium, Large and Heavy Soil for the old scoop and a 1 and 2 for the new scoop. The new scoop however has three lines on it and the directions state they are for Medium Loads, Large Loads or Heavy Soiled Medium Loads and Large Heavy Soiled Loads. So to try and judge fairly, I filled the large scoop to the maximum amount (3rd line from the top) with water.

Looking at the two side by side, it actually appears that the larger scoop requires less detergent for a large heavy soiled load. Perhaps Cheer tweaked their formula over the years and I'm judging them harshly. So I decided to see, because it seems to take a completely full old scoop to equal what a 3/4 full new scoop does. So I poured the larger scoop into the smaller, attempting to transfer all of the liquid to the old one. I couldn't do it.

If you'll notice, not only is the smaller scoop completely full (including the handle) but there's still water left in the large scoop. Two and one-half tablespoons worth.

So my conclusions are either Cheer is either trying to gently encourage us to use more washing powder than necessary, or they've reformulated their detergent over the years to actually be less effective.

-Mark

If you catch the Grocery Shrink Ray in action, approach warily with a camera, and send the results to the tipline.

The California Public Utilities Commission and state officials believed that crisis-era pacts with San Diego-based Sempra Energy and others were costing consumers an extra $1.45 billion to $3.08 billion — an amount they had hoped to return to electricity customers, possibly by reducing or eliminating future charges.

A Washington utility had hoped to get relief from a nine-year power contract with Morgan Stanley Capital Group. Under that contract, the Snohomish County Public Utility District is paying $105 a megawatt-hour, well above the historic norm for the Pacific Northwest of $24 a megawatt-hour, but also well under the $3,300 a megawatt-hour hit at the peak of the energy crisis that spread beyond California's borders, according to the court's synopsis.

Justice Scalia scolded the states for whining about "buyer's remorse." Roger Berliner, a lawyer for Nevada utility Sierra Pacific Resources, applauded the Justice for his unrivaled ability to blind himself to reason:

"It was the failure of regulators to protect consumers from market manipulation" that caused the utilities to overpay for power. I don't think the court appreciated the extent to which the dysfunction in the market made it impossible for there to be just and reasonable contracts."

Supreme Court deals blow to states on electricity [Los Angeles Times]



(Photo: Getty)

The New York-based research group Conference Board said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index dropped to 50.4 from a revised 58.1 in May. The reading was the lowest since February 1992, when it was 47.3.

Economists had expected the index to decline to 56, according to Briefing.com.

Because I accidentally and stupidly made this political by mentioning that dreaded "B" word, here's what your two presumptive presidential candidates (well, actually it was just their campaigns) had to say about the numbers. We'll leave it up to you to guess whose campaign said what (or you could just read the CNN article):

Potential President X: "We know that the public has been concerned and regardless of whether the geeks in the world think there's a recession or not, the public feels like that."

Potential President Y: "The disappointing consumer confidence numbers are yet more evidence that we need a change in our economic policy."

Consumer confidence tumbles to 16-year low [CNNMoney]

Avid tech consumers were also likely to be low in modesty and may be perceived as conceited or arrogant by others.

Low levels of modesty also correlate with what Welch calls "badge-buying", or a tendency to buy luxury brands. "So there's an element of pride in being able to have the latest and greatest, not just in the realm of technology, but in all other areas."

The researcher behind the study said it could have implications for technology companies looking to attract new consumers. Coming soon: a gadget with the tagline, "You're better than everyone else. Now prove it."

"Gadget buyers more assertive, even arrogant" [Reuters via ZDNet]
(Photo: Getty)

The starting point for comparison is 1996, when Congress deregulated the telecom industry, ostensibly to spur competition. Startups and cable companies quickly trammelled the telecoms' ability to dictate prices, but nobody emerged to take on cable.

Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the F.C.C., said in an interview that since 1996, when Congress increased competition in telecommunications, prices have dropped for many other services.

“We’ve seen the opposite occur in the cable industry,” he said. “The dramatic increases in pricing we’ve seen are one of the most troubling issues from a consumer point of view.”

In 2007, average monthly revenue for each Cablevision subscriber was $75, up from $65 in 2005, according to SNL Kagan, a research company. At Time Warner it was $64, up from $54.50.

The industry isn't changing its prices or practices because consumers aren't changing their habits.

“I work eight hours a day facing a computer. When I come home, the last thing I want to do is mess with another computer,” said Eric Yu, 24, a college student in San Francisco who pays around $80 a month for cable.

Mr. Yu said he watches only a handful of channels, including some in high definition like National Geographic. But to get them, he has to pay for a premium package. “I just pay the bill and try to forget about it,” he said. “It lessens the pain.”

Well, some are...

Evelyn Tan, 22, a friend of Mr. Yu, takes a different approach. She pays Comcast $33 a month for Internet access and does not get cable television — but she does watch TV programming.

In fact, she watches ABC shows like “Desperate Housewives” and “Gray’s Anatomy,” which are free on the Web. When she wants to watch shows or movies that are not readily available online, she says she easily pirates them. “I would not pay for cable TV at all,” she said.

A la carte programming isn't coming anytime soon, but the monopolistic anti-consumer juggernaut Verizon might provide some relief as it elbows its way into the television business. While Verizon is no better than its cable competitors, its arrival opens a brief window for competition by allowing consumers play one giant against the other to eek out slight savings on cable programming.

Of course, those slight savings might only bring your rates closer to what you were paying two or three years ago. Neither the Times nor the FCC think cable is worth the cost. What do you think?

Cable Prices Keep Rising; Customers Keep Paying [NYT]
(Photo: Getty)

Alpha Consumer, who was at the hearing, recounts:

[Susan Wones of Denver said one] of her Chase credit cards jumped from a 14.9 to 25 percent interest rate after she got close to, but didn't exceed, her $6,000 credit limit. She said the interest rate on a second Chase card similarly shot up after she went $15 over her credit limit in the middle of a billing cycle, even though the beginning and ending balances were under the limit.

The NFL does not allow one team, in the midst of the fourth quarter, to unilaterally move their end zone 20 yards in their favor just because they don't like the point spread. The rules are laid out before the kickoff, and the umpires enforce the same rules for both home and visiting teams for the whole contest. It's time for legislation at the federal level that tells the credit card industry, "Game Over" to unilateral, one-sided, rule changes.

As a registered Republican, it has typically been my philosophy that business and commerce flourish and perform better with minimal government interference. However, when an industry sector proves time and again that it is unable to police itself and behave and engage in fair and ethical trade practices, legislative intervention is required.

"credit card abuses faced by our middle class families add insult to injury ...charging interest on penalty fees is wrong...contracts are totally incomprehensible...if this problem is going to be resolved it is going to be resolved here in Congress...The fed is looking at disclosures, it's (looking is) endless."

The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights is a wonder-packed piece of legislation that would:

• Ban arbitrary rate increases
• Force creditors to provide 45 days notice of any rate increase
• Ban double-cycle billing
• Empower cardholders to set limits on their cards and ban over-the-limit fees once that ceiling is reached
• Ban excessive fees
• Ban lending to subprime borrowers
• Require creditors to mail bills at least 25 days before the due date, instead of 14 days as currently required
• Require creditors to apply payments first towards high interest items

The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights: Providing New Protections for Consumers [House Financial Services Committee]
Live blog from credit card hearing [U.S. PIRG]
Credit Card vs. Consumer [Alpha Consumer]
HR 5244 - The Credit Cardholder's Bill Of Rights [THOMAS]
Write Your Senator
Write Your Representative
PREVIOUSLY: How To Write To Congress
Credit Card Victims Muzzled, Ordered To Release Financial Histories Before Sharing Their Experiences
(Photo: the illustrious untitled13)

Let's first check out the professor's relevant credentials:

Professor Levitin's research focuses on financial institutions and their role in the consumer and business credit economy, including credit card regulatory and competition issues, mortgage lending, identity theft, DIP financing, and bankruptcy claims trading.

I called Citi and disputed the charge. The charge is a billing error under 15 CFR part 226.113(a)(1). Unfortunately my dispute did not compute in the Citi system. Because I was contesting an unliquidated amount of the charges, however, my case didn't fit into one of their eight dispute check boxes. (Note that Reg Z does not require that I know the amount of the error. See 15 C.F.R. Part 226.113(b)(3).) Finally, after speaking to a supervisor, I just decided to dispute the entire amount because that was the only way I could go forward with a dispute given the unbending parameters of Citi's computer system. I also contacted PACER to make sure that they had processed all my fee exemptions.

Fast forward to earlier this week. I still hadn't heard anything from Citi or PACER about the dispute's resolution. But, to my great surprise this month's Citi statement arrived. It says that I owe the full PACER balance and there's a finance charge tacked on for the disputed amount.

When I called Citi to inquire, I was told that I hadn't disputed the charge the previous month. This was in spite of fact that there were numerous notes about the nature of the dispute in my file. In other words, Citi had taken down all sorts of details about my dispute, but never actually processed that I was disputing the charge. Citi entered the dispute a month late, and only after I called to check up on it.

Well, Citi has now (supposedly) removed the finance charge and recorded the charge as contested. But Citi tells me that I need to submit documentation about the dispute or the charge will be reinstated. That means I have to send some 50 pages of court orders to Citi at my own time and expense for a merchant's mistake. The duty to investigate a billing error is Citi's. Nothing in Reg Z requires that the cardholder submit written documentation to the card issuer at my own expense. So why am I footing the bill? (Maybe there's language to that extent buried in my cardholder agreement...)

1. His credit report may take a ding from the late payment, something he has no control over and Citibank's CSRs are too incompetent to fix.
2. The surprise rate on the finance charge was 101.211%
3. After futzing with a compound interest calculator for half an hour, the professor couldn't figure out how Citibank was calculating the finance charge.
4. The late payment could trigger universal default provisions with his other creditors, causing a world of financial pain from Citi's mistake.
5. He can't close the account without losing his rewards or further dinging his credit score.

We take away one very simple lesson that every policymaker should appreciate: a renowned expert on credit cards is being harmed by his creditor and is practically powerless to fight back. Does this seem fair or reasonable to anyone?

My Very Own Risk-Based Repricing Experience [Credit Slips]

Card & Payments writes, "The report, dated this month and drafted by a lab hired by U.S.-based mobile phone maker Mobicom Corp., clearly shows the Citi logo on the front of the tiny handset." They say Citigroup tested a similar technology last year in partnership with AT&T, and that the report indicates the phone is for the U.S. market.
 
We can't think of a single way this could be used to steal money from a Citibank account. Oh wait, yes we can.
 
"Citigroup Developing A Citi-Branded NFC Mobile Phone" [CardForum] (registration required)
(Photo elements: Getty and Mobicom)

Other interesting findings from the study:

• Complaints rose by 40% from 2003 to 2006
• "Telemarketers generated the most, 178,079 out of 454,373 complaints.
• Billing rates for both wireline and wireless telephone providers were second, accounting for 117,875 complaints.

"Report Faults FCC on Complaint Tracking" [Associated Press]
(Photo: Getty)

One analyst is quoted as saying that just as consumers are getting fed up with false promises of "quality" service, companies are tightening return policies and policing fraud more stringently: "You'd have to go back a long way to see the kind of acrimony that you're seeing now."

The Internet is doing a lot to empower consumers who were formerly isolated, notes the article. They mention Dan Ortiz, who couldn't get anything resolved with Comcast last fall:

Then the 26-year-old bike messenger logged on to The Consumerist, a blog with more than 2 million unique visitors a month that's part of Gawker Media's digital empire of snark. [<— That's why we made the snarky comment above about the masks. -Consumerist] There he found a consumer vigilante's gold mine: a list of e-mail addresses for more than 75 Comcast executives and employees, along with instructions for launching what the blog calls its "executive e-mail carpet bomb."

Ortiz got lucky. After firing off a note copying all those names the day before Thanksgiving, he quickly had an inbox full of out-of-office replies, complete with contact information containing direct numbers. He called a Chicago manager at home, who put his lead technician on the case. Ortiz says a swarm of eight trucks showed up on his block. "Once you get ahold of [executives], they bend over backward for you," he says. He adds that Comcast sent him a tin of gourmet popcorn for Christmas and more than $700 in credits. Even better, he now has the mobile numbers for the lead technician in his area. "I'm not calling customer service ever again," he says.

"Consumer Vigilantes" [BusinessWeek]
(Photo: BusinessWeek)

...research suggests that much of the time it's not the companies offering rebates that are creating the problem. It's the customers. Their tendency to procrastinate and inability to follow multistep directions—albeit often explained in tiny print—result in as many as half of all rebates going unfulfilled. "It's their own inability to have self-control and say, 'I'm going to get this done,' " says Tim Silk, assistant professor of marketing at the University of British Columbia.

Because people tend to believe they will redeem the rebates and then they don't, they often pay more for items than they expect. "You see something that has a rebate associated with it, and you are overly optimistic that you will do all of what's required," says John Gourville, professor of marketing at Harvard Business School.

...promotion managers informed us that redemption rates tend to be "very low" when the reward is below $10, that rebates of $10 to $20 on a $100 software product range between 10% and 30%, and that redemption rates on consumer electronics average approximately 40%.

Why Shoppers Love to Hate Rebates [U.S. News & World Report]
Why we buy but fail to redeem? (PDF) [Tim Salk]
Managing Mail-In Rebate Promotions (PDF) [Tim Salk]
PREVIOUSLY: Rebate-Processor Parago Caught In A Lie
HOWTO: Rebate Whore
Redeem Rebates With Hard Work And Luck
(Photo: Mecha Wendy)

... what's the interest rate on the credit cards you're carrying? How about the default rate? Do you know what constitutes an event of default? What will trigger a penalty fee or surcharge? How much are those fees? If you're like most Americans, you probably cannot answer many or all of these questions.

The absence of this vital information has indebted millions of Americans and nourished the subprime meltdown. The professor concludes that under our current system, it is "virtually impossible to determine the potential costs of carrying a balance."

Credit cards' complex, non-transparent pricing structure also invites abusive fees and billing practices like late fees that do not correlate with either the balance or time a payment is late, universal cross-default and two-cycle billing. If you are among the nearly two-thirds of Americans who do not consistently pay off your card bills in full and on time, then you've probably been hit with some combination of these fees.

The complexity of credit card pricing helps explain the soaring growth of American credit card debt, now approaching $1 trillion. Credit card debt has strong correlations with consumer bankruptcy filings, and contributes to inflation and decreased savings rates and purchasing power for new goods and services. Dollar for dollar, as Ronald Mann of Columbia Law School has shown, people with credit card debt are more likely to file for bankruptcy than people with any other types of debt. Society as a whole ends up holding the bag for the widespread costs of skyrocketing credit card debt.

The Byzantine complexity of credit card pricing structures makes it impossible for people to possibly use credit cards intelligently and responsibly. No amount of increased Truth-in-Lending disclosure or consumer financial literacy education will change this. I qualify as a savvy and dedicated reader of financial contracts, but frequently I cannot calculate with certainty the costs of carrying a credit card balance, and my calls to card issuers' 800-number servicing lines have done nothing to clarify matters. The lack of straightforward, easily comparable and understandable pricing is a major factor in the growth of credit card debt.

Complex pricing of credit cards should be simplified [Chicago Tribune]
(Photo: Maulleigh)

The report describes what it calls a "plethora of inadequacies," including:

• inadequate inspections of manufacturers, noting that foodmakers, for example, are inspected about once every 10 years.
• A "badly broken" food-import system and food supply "that grows riskier each year."
• A depleted FDA staff, which is about the same size as it was 15 years ago despite huge growth in agency responsibilities.
• A workforce with a "dearth" of scientists who understand emerging technologies.
• An "obsolete" information-technology system, with handwritten inspectors' reports and "piles and piles" of paper documents that are in warehouses with no backup, including clinical trial data.

"These people were horrified by what they found," [said William Hubbard, a former FDA associate commissioner]. While the subcommittee was supposed to look ahead to where the FDA needs to be, Hubbard says it came away concluding that "it cannot even do its job now."

Mr. Stone and his daughter Montana began their testing nine months ago after Montana heard news reports about lead in children's jewelry. She asked her father about the safety of the jewelry she had received as favors at birthday parties.

Mr. Stone, 68, used a lead testing process that he usually uses on deer carcasses to test for bullets in New York. (It is illegal in some circumstances to shoot deer with guns rather than bow and arrow.)

Mr. Stone found that more than half of his daughter's jewelry tested positive. Soon, the Stones bought 75 more pieces of jewelry in stores near their home in Albany. Of those, 56 pieces contained more than 0.06 percent lead, the federal limit, and some were half lead, Mr. Stone said, adding that he plans to continue testing children's jewelry even after the recall.

Mr. Stone works in an agency of New York state government unrelated to the attorney general, but he took his test results to Mr. Cuomo's office last February. Mr. Cuomo then started an investigation of children's jewelry sold in the state, including additional testing.

"As an individual, it's like a voice screaming in the wilderness. It's hard to be heard," said Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League, a nonprofit organization in Washington. "Bureaucracies are not really set up to listen to the public."

LTE is what you expect from a next generation of communications protocols: it can fit more information into less bandwidth than its predecessors. It is meant to reduce the complexity of wireless communication by converting both voice and data communications into packets using Internet Protocol. Loosely speaking, it competes with the WiMax standard being promoted by Sprint and Clearwire, a startup founded by Craig O. McCaw, the cellphone entrepreneur.

They key fact isn't anything technical here. LTE is the format that has been endorsed by the GSM Association, which coordinates the wireless standard used in most countries. And it has been endorsed by AT&T. What it means is that in a few years, you will be able to buy phones and switch them between the two largest wireless networks in the United States—Verizon and AT&T—as well as carriers in most of the world.

It could just be us, but Verizon seems a little less evil lately. The decision to open their network coupled with the move to GSM will undeniably benefit consumers - unless, of course, Verizon lets their usual profit motive mangle their seemingly good intentions.

Verizon's Real Move to Openness [NYT]
PREVIOUSLY: Verizon To Open Its Network To Any Compatible Device
(Photo: Maulleigh)

• Debix: For just $99 per year, whenever someone tries to open a line of credit, Debix will call and play your own pre-recorded approval message. Credit will be denied unless you enter the super-secret PIN.
• LifeLock: Maybe not the best of the bunch, LifeLock offers to place and preserve fraud alerts on credit files. CEO Todd Davis promoted his company's services by bandying his social security number about the internet, challenging anyone to defeat his company's software; a scammer successfully pried $500 from a check-cashing firm using his identity.
• TrustedID: For $12.95 per month, TrustedID places alerts and freezes on credit files. The credit reporting agencies recently began allowing consumers to request credit freezes for free - but they only last 90 days.

If the three privately-owned, for-profit credit reporting agencies want to keep the exclusive high honor of determining each American's credit worthiness, they should offer these defenses to every consumer, free of charge.

In ID Theft, Some Victims See Opportunity [NYT]
(Photo: jyesko)

Judy Cardin, section chief for weights and measures with the state, said that in the case of bulk coffee, the weight of the packaging materials was included when the price of the product was determined. The state had tested one-pound bags of Cameron brand coffee beans, which were found to be 3/100ths of a pound over the actual bagged content.

While that doesn't seem like much, it translated to an overcharge of 21 cents per pound, Cardin said.

"This is something that's difficult for the consumer to know it's even going on," she said. "How would someone know they were being overcharged? This is why weights and measures checks products to make sure consumers are getting what they paid for."

Cardin said Wal-Mart was fined $25,000 in January 2006 for overcharging for bulk coffee.

Wal-Mart hit with $89,705 state fine [Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter]
(AP Photo/April L. Brown)