I wanted to tell you guys about my positively sexy Washington Mutual experience. On 6/01/08, someone hacked into my iTunes account, and using my debit card information, purchased two $200 gift cards, something I noticed when checking my online statement. I call WaMu immediately, tell them about the fraud, and they say they will issue me provisional credits, which they do. I then ask the fateful questions that started this mess:

"Is there anything I need to do or give you? Should I call iTunes? Do I need to investigate?"

The answer was a swift, resounding, no. You don't need to do anything. We will contact Apple and we will investigate.

I've had good luck with WaMu, so I honestly had no reason to think that this was not even close to the correct answer. I've never been defrauded before, so I assumed that I had done my part, and that if something came up, they have my phone number and the WaMu message center, so they could let me know immediately. This was incredibly stupid.

Fast forward two months and change, I'm taking a trip from LA to Chicago for my very first production of a play I'd written. I check my balance before I leave. I take the red eye, I buy food, gum, etc. I land in Chicago at about 6 AM, and crash. The next day I try to use my card. It's declined. I have a dress rehearsal in three hours.

I check my balance and the two credits are gone, the withdrawal dated for sometime between when my connecting flight left Las Vegas and when I woke up. I am now severely overdrawn. What's worse, the four things I purchased while in LA and in transit conveniently all clear in the day after the provisional credits are revoked, each invoking their own overdraft. No warning. No notice. No calls.

I go the bank, the teller tells me that the bank has deduced that I lied about the fraud, and there's nothing I can do. I throw a fit, he gives me a number to call. I call the number. The CSR tells me that what happened was that affidavits were sent to my graduate housing address on, literally, the day I moved out after getting my master's and because they were sent back returned, there's nothing he can do.

This is the first I'm hearing about affidavits, period. This is the first I'm hearing about affidavits being sent to an address I wasn't at, and the first I'm hearing about them being sent back. I pitch a fit. He tells me that I could try sending proof of my residency claim and info to a fax number, and address it to an Alex Wilson.

I fax my proof of residency, and call CS back to follow up, asking if I could get Alex Wilson's extension. I am told that Alex Wilson is not a real person. He is just a name for people to fax things to.

What?

Also, there is no way for me to follow up with him, or the office where the documents were sent. I have to be patient and wait for a letter in the mail. I honestly have no idea if any of this is true.

I should mention at this point that due to be being stranded and broke, I have missed the final rehearsal, and half of the shows. I call CS back again. I explain the situation, I ask if there is anything she can do. She notes that the investigation is opened back up, but that now I need to contact iTunes and fax WaMu proof that what I say happened, did.

What about the affidavits? What about the part where I didn't need to contact anyone? The CSR reinforced that she didn't know what I was told in the past, but this was what I needed to do now. And I can't have my provisional credit back, or the four overdrafts.

At this point, I have missed my show entirely. I call Executive Customer Service the day my flight is leaving, and leave a message. No response. I beg for a ride to the airport, and on my layover, write an e-mail to ECSR, explaining what happened. I get an e-mail the next day that is kind and apologetic, and says that this should be resolved in 24-48 hours. I celebrate pre-maturely.

I check in with her at 24 hours, she is still working on it. I check in at 48, no response. And then, at about 76 hours, I get an e-mail that diplomatically informs me that I am lying about how I was informed and guided after the fraud, and that it was my fault for moving (and I guess, by proxy, getting my masters) at the wrong time, and my fault for not having a future address at that time, despite my not having any idea what that address would be used for beyond account identity verification. It was phrased: "According to our policies, what you have suggested could never f*cking happen and you are full of sh*t."

And that, despite the fact that I faxed the required info when I returned to LA, that I have repeatedly referred to this as fraud, and not a dispute, that I have a f*cking phone and access to a message center that they use to inform me of other important things, I got the dreaded "we have insufficient information to dispute the charge with the merchant."

Not having the presence of mind to disbelieve what the debit fraud CSR says costs about 536 dollars, priceless memories, and a week and a half. Took a screenshot of my message center inbox, just in case. What other evidence do I need to start assembling so that I can nail these bastards?

-Kristin

The Electronic Funds Transfer Act, which governs debit card transactions, is pretty clear on this issue. If you report the theft of your card or your code within two business days, your liability is limited to $50. We're pretty sure that someone stealing your debit card information from your iTunes account and ordering gift cards with it counts as fraud and not an "error." Here's some more information about the law from the Federal Reserve.

With this in mind, why not file an official complaint with their regulator? It'll be valuable later on if you have to keep fighting with them. Here's how you do that:

1. Contact WaMu with a formal complaint. You can do this in writing, or by email. Keep a copy of this complaint for your records.
2. Figure out which agency regulates your bank by calling or using FDIC's Bank Find. We happen to know that Washington Mutual's primary regulator is the Office of Thrift Supervision.
3. Write a formal complaint letter to the bank's regulatory agency. Follow the FTC's instructions for writing a complaint.

   This document also has the correct contact information for the various regulatory agencies. Keep a copy of this complaint for your records.
   

   By filing a complaint, the regulating agency will investigate whether WaMu actually violated any banking regulations.

For more information about launching an EECB, click here.

(Photo: Stirwise )

UPDATE: 9/02/08: In response to our email inquiry, WaMu has said they're interested in checking out this story.

Motorists, residents and store owners in the area say a tow company waited until lots near the parade route were full of cars before posting towing notices and taking vehicles. Each owner had to shell out at least $170 to Rendered Services Inc. to retrieve their cars.

Police on the scene said they'd heard many radio calls about towing from vacant lots in the area, and most involved Rendered. Police said at one point they had to stop trucks from yanking the cars because the signage was erected after the 10 a.m. start of the parade.

Fun! The towing company claims that the signs were "posted and reposted and reposted," but a local business owner told the Sun-Times, "They just put it up no less than an hour ago."

Sweet home, Chicago.

Tow trucks swoop in on paradegoers' cars [Chicago Sun-Times]
(Photo: John J. Kim/Sun-Times)

From the survey:

• 77% of surveyed credit card issuers (17 of 22) answered “Yes” to the question “Can you increase my APR or change my terms ‘any time for any reason’?” This includes all Top Ten issuers – even Citibank which pledges not to change a customer’s terms before the card’s expiration date.
• Bank of America, Chase, Citi, American Express and Capital One all reserve the right to change rates without notifying consumer in advance.
• Representatives for Bank of America, Capital One and Citi cited “market conditions,” “the economy,” and ”business strategies” as factors that might cause an interest rate to increase.

• As consumers pay off large balances, creditors slash credit limits so that the balance is always close to the credit limit.
• Credit limits are reduced to levels lower than the current balance, triggering over limit fees and requiring a large “balloon” payment of the over-due amount. This practice also puts the consumer at risk of being hit with a penalty interest rate.
• Cards are declined at the point of purchase, and only then do cardholders find out that their limits have been reduced with no warning.

2008 Credit Card Survey [Consumer Action]
(Photo: Getty)

Shame, Shame, Shame: Incident at Walgreens [FOX] (Thanks to Robert!)

"The fact is, my kid has leukemia, and if he doesn't get this treatment, he will die," Robert Mitchell said. "The way they made me feel was that they were pressuring us to take him home and let him die. We'll try anything that has a chance of succeeding, and I will not give up fighting for it to be covered.

"Go to their Web site, and their mission statement says they treat each person with compassion," he said. "I think that's a bunch of hoopla."

Paul Tate, a spokesman for Primary Physician Care, said the company is not authorized to discuss Paxten's case.

(Thanks to Adam!)

"Insurance won't cover child's critical leukemia treatment" [Asheville Citizen-Times]

RELATED
www.primaryphysiciancare.com
(Photo of Paxton Mitchell: Citizen-Times)

Yes, Camaro-driving guy I saw at a gas station in Rockford, IL, I'm talking to you.

Zubaz

The law bars the government from sending a recipient's benefits directly to lenders. But many of these lenders are forging relationships with banks and arranging for prospective borrowers to have their benefits checks deposited directly into bank accounts. The banks immediately transfer government funds to the lenders. The lender then subtracts debt repayments, plus fees and interest, before giving the recipients a dime.

As a result, these lenders, which pitch loans with effective annual interest as high as 400% or more, can gain almost total control over Social Security recipients' finances.

One former payday lender employee says he was tasked with recruiting the elderly to come in for loans:

Mr. Harrod was a manager of a Check 'n Go store across the street from Fort Lincoln Senior Citizen's Village, a subsidized-housing complex for the elderly and disabled in Washington, D.C. Mr. Harrod says he was encouraged by his supervisors to recruit the elderly, and did so by often eating his lunch on nearby benches to strike up conversations with the complex's residents. According to Mr. Graves's analysis, there are at least four payday lenders within a mile-and-a-half of Fort Lincoln.

Like many payday borrowers, Mr. Hummel realized he couldn't pay off the loan when it was due so he went to another "payday" lender. Lenders rarely ask about other loans and debt, and borrowers often take out multiple loans in an effort to avoid defaulting. By February, Mr. Hummel had eight loans from eight lenders, at effective annual interest rates that ranged from 180% to 406%.

There should be a lender's prison, perhaps.

(Thanks to Diana!)

"High-Interest Lenders Tap Elderly, Disabled" [Wall Street Journal]
(Photo: Getty)

James Teegarden Jr., the former vice president of operations at Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, explained Tuesday in U.S. District Court how he and others at the company made up much of the content that appeared in Enzyte ads.

He said employees of the Forest Park company created fictitious doctors to endorse the pills, fabricated a customer satisfaction survey and made up numbers to back up claims about Enzyte's effectiveness.

"So all this is a fiction?" Judge S. Arthur Spiegel asked about some of the claims.
"That's correct, your honor," Teegarden said.

When customers ordered a product, the company's goal was to keep charging their credit cards for as long as possible, Teegarden said.

He said first-time customers were automatically enrolled in a "continuity program" that sent Enzyte to their homes every month and charged their credit cards without authorization.

"Without continuity, the company wouldn't exist," Teegarden said. "It was the sole profit of the business."

If customers complained, he said, employees were instructed to "make it as difficult as possible" for them to get their money back. In some cases, Teegarden said, Warshak required customers to produce a notarized statement from a doctor certifying Enzyte did not work.

"He said it was extremely unlikely someone would get anything notarized saying they had a small penis," Teegarden said.

Former exec: 'Enzyte' ads all lies [Cincinnati Enquirer via Fleshbot (NSFW)]

RELATED
"Jury Selection For Enzyte Trial Started Today"

The company, based in Forest Park, is best known for the male enhancement supplement Enzyte and it's spokesperson, "Smiling Bob".

The 84 page indictment accuses the company of lying about the effectiveness of its products and side effects, and well as its money-back guarantee. The company owners are also accused of making millions of dollars by charging customers credit cards without their approval. The indictment claims customer loss tops $100 million dollars.

"Company Behind "Smiling Bob" On Trial" [WKRC-TV Cincinnati]
(Thanks to David!)
(Photo of vengeful lion: Getty)

From the Madison County Record:

Shandie Deaton filed the suit Sept. 18, 2007, one month after she made a purchase on Overstock.com. She alleged her receipt violated FCRA.

The act was passed in 2003 and provides that anyone accepting credit or debit cards may not print more than the last five digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of sale or transaction.

Credit card machines put into use after Jan. 1, 2005, required immediate compliance with FCRA. Machines in use before Jan. 1, 2005, were required to be in compliance by Dec. 4, 2006.

Deaton claimed Overstock.com violated FCRA by printing the expiration date and/or printed more than the last five digits of class members' credit card or debit card numbers on the receipts provided at the point of a sale or transaction between Overstock.com and the class members.

"Overstock.com' violations were not the product of an accident or an isolated oversight," the complaint stated. "Rather, Overstock.com knowingly and intentionally continued to use Devices which were not programmed to, or otherwise did not, comply..."

According to Overstock, customers can freely access their website, however when placing an order, they must agree to the website's terms and conditions before they can continue.

"Any dispute relating in any way to your visit to the Site or to products you purchase through the Site shall be submitted to confidential arbitration in Salt Lake City, Utah," a portion of Overstock's terms and conditions reads.

"To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, no Arbitration under this agreement shall be joined to an arbitration involving any other party subject to this Agreement, whether through class arbitration proceedings or otherwise."

We took a look at this arbitration clause and noticed that there's an exception to it. If you even "threaten" to violate Overstock.com's intellectual property rights, they reserve the right to haul you into state or federal court in the state of Utah. What a piece of work.

Arbitration, not litigation: Judge dismisses federal class action v. Overstock.com [Madison County Record] (Thanks, Shelley!)
Overstock.com Terms & Conditions

He was able to have the charges reversed and the service blocked, but wanted to warn others:

The other day, a Joke of the Day company tried signing me up to their texting service without my consent and immediately charged me $9.99 for the pleasure. I was able to get the charge reversed easily by calling customer service, but I know a lot of folks would think that simply unsubscribing via the instructions in the initial text message would be all they need to do. Normally I'd just let this sort of thing slide and wouldn't try to submit it it to The Consumerist, but the CS rep I spoke with mentioned that it happened to her recently as well, so it's likely that this company is hitting quite a few people up like this.

So, Monday night/Tuesday morning, during the throes of another bout of "I can't freaking fall asleep to save my sanity," my cel phone starts chiming with a text message at 12:17AM. Half a minute later, there's another text message alert. I drag myself out of bed, worried that some sort of disaster has hit friend or family, only to find that some jackasses at a Joke of the Day business had signed me up for their service without my asking. The two messages were congratulating me on signing up and giving me my special pin number. Too groggy and angry to deal with it right away, I just assumed there would be more messages coming and turned the phone off for the night in a vain effort to get some much needed rest.

6 mostly sleepless hours later, I turn my phone back on and find that there were indeed more messages, including the day's joke. I'm reprinting it below so nobody has to cough up $9.99 for the one-month membership to receive this gem.

Joke of the Day:
Q: What did the doctor say when the patient complained, "Doctor, I feel stiff in the joints?"
A: "Then stay out of the joints!"

JokeMobi.com Tried To Screw Me Out Of Ten Bucks A Month And All I Got Was This Lousy Post [Kung Fu Rodeo]
(Photo:now brewing)

Sears accused of violating consumer fraud law [Reuters] (Thanks to Smitherd)
(Photo: Meghannmarco)

Want to know what your mom might have purchased for your birthday? Want to know which houses in your neighborhood have really nice expensive TVs?

Sears provides a website, www.ManageMyHome.com where anyone can look up anyone elses' entire purchase history at Sears—using only their name and address. This is especially convenient because these strange men keep dropping off huge lists of names and addresses on our door every year (we think they're called "phone books") and we never really knew what to do with them.

Apparently, all you need to do is create an account at www.managemyhome.com, click "Find Sears Products" and enter a name, address and phone number.

From the CA Security Advisor Research Blog:

With their consent we have tested this technique with other individuals and have received reliable results every time. If they'd had major dealings with Sears, that information is now available to the public, from a television bought in 1978 to a stove which was purchased elsewhere but had been repaired by a Sears technician.

Is Sears evil or what?

www.managemyhome.com

UPDATE: Rumor has it that all you really need is someone's name and phone number.

Executives of the three-year-old company were in deep talks over proposed changes late into the afternoon on Nov. 28, according to a person familiar with the matter. At issue is the Beacon program, which alerts members' Facebook "friends" to purchases and other activities on third-party Web sites. A spokesperson for the company declined to discuss changes, reiterating an earlier statement: "Facebook is listening to feedback from its users and committed to evolving Beacon."

Kim Garvey, a 21-year-old junior at Chicago's DePaul University, says she found out about Beacon after friends were alerted to a restaurant review she posted on Yelp. "I didn't see the little thing that popped up, and I didn't mean to tell everyone," Garvey says."For me, that was sort of uncomfortable." She adds that she was surprised Facebook "is willing to invade people's privacy."

Facebook May Revamp Beacon [BusinessWeek]
(Photo:Photo composite—Austin Cornelio)

"The online advertising business is complex, but my message to you today is simple: Online advertising benefits consumers, promotes free speech, and helps small businesses succeed. Google's acquisition of DoubleClick will help advance these goals while protecting consumer privacy and enabling greater innovation, competition, and growth."

"In our experience, our users value the advertisements that we deliver along with search results and other web content because the ads help connect them to the information, products, and services they seek. Simply put, advertising is information, and relevant advertising is information that is useful to consumers. The advertising we deliver to our users complements the natural search results that we provide, because our users are often searching for products and services that our advertisers offer. Making this connection is critical. In fact, we strive to deliver the ads that are the most relevant to our users, not just the ones that generate the most revenue for us."

Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there... to criminally prosecute its insureds on baseless fraud charges, and then to get popped for an $8 million verdict for malicious prosecution. A lawyer friend of mine in Missouri passed along this e-mail to me. I can't summarize all the bad acts State Farm committed against its insured in two sentences - you've gotta read this for yourself...

This incredibly twisted story speaks for itself, inside...

Via bflawfirm:

James P. Frickleton and Michael C. Rader after a three week trial obtained a $8,645,000 verdict for their clients malicious prosecution and tort of outrage claims against State Farm and the National Insurance Crime Bureau.

Plaintiff Jennie Hampton's 1990 Toyota Four Runner, valued at $10,300 and insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, was stolen from her residence on the night of December 21, 1997. At this time Ms. Hampton's lived with his half brother and co-plaintiff, Marvin Vail. The following day Jennie reported the theft in person to both State Farm and the Olathe Police Department. Five days later the vehicle was found burned and a total loss on a rural road in Miami County, Kansas. Subsequently, both the Olathe Police Department and the Miami County Sheriff's Department investigated the theft and arson and determined that plaintiffs were not involved.

Despite two separate law enforcement agencies finding no evidence to implicate the plaintiffs, State Farm, through its Special Investigative Unit, conducted its own independent investigation and denied Jennie's claim by concluding that she and Marvin Vail were guilty of insurance fraud. Specifically, State Farm asserted that Marvin, who was employed at a towing company, towed the Four-Runner to the rural area and conspired with Ms. Hampton to burn the vehicle in an attempt at falsely collecting insurance proceeds. Through their mechanical experts, whom they paid over $400,000 in the previous ten years, State Farm concluded that the engine was inoperable before the fire, and that plaintiffs were responsible for both the inoperability and arson.

Simultaneous with this independent investigation, Jennie Hampton filed a Breach of Contract claim against State Farm in Johnson County, Kansas. Shortly thereafter, State Farm, through its attorney, overtly threatened the unwarranted criminal prosecution of Ms. Hampton if she didn't "back off" from her claim. Regardless of this threat, Jennie continued to pursue her claim. Notwithstanding State Farms long held conclusion that plaintiffs were guilty of a crime, it was not until after this threat that they instigated prosecution.

Two years from the date of the theft, the day any potential criminal statute of limitations were to run, Marvin Vail and Jennie Hampton were charged with felony insurance fraud in Johnson County, Kansas. The bases for the State's charges derived entirely from information provided by State Farm and co-defendant, the National Insurance Crime Bureau. It was later uncovered that during their independent investigation, State Farm's Special Investigative Unit threatened an independent witness to solicit perjury, concealed and disregarded clear exculpatory evidence, reported what information they did collect in a false manner, and directed the conclusions of their mechanical expert. State Farm, knowing they did not have access to the Johnson County District Attorney's Office, then provided this one sided and erroneous information to NICB, requesting instead that they refer the case to the Johnson County District Attorney for charging.

NICB followed State Farm's instruction and, through its employee and retired KBI agent who as an active agent worked side by side with the DA, presented the file to the Johnson District Attorney. Prior to this, the NICB had done absolutely no independent investigation to either confirm or deny the facts presented by State Farm. Rather, while presenting this information to the D.A., NICB admittedly "watered down" exculpatory evidence trying to instigate charging. Additionally, while meeting with the Johnson County D.A., NICB withheld critical evidence by not informing the prosecutor that it was State Farm, not NICB, which was behind the investigation and referral.

After reviewing the information provided, felony insurance fraud charges were filed against both Jennie Hampton and Marvin Vail. Prior to this neither Hampton nor Vail had any criminal history. As a result of the charges they were arrested, faced the extreme humiliation, anxiety and expense that is tied with being criminal defendants.

Following the criminal charges, State Farm continued to work behind the scenes preparing the State's witnesses for the preliminary hearing testimony, claiming privilege on documents sought by the prosecutor, attempting to keep crucial evidence from being inspected by plaintiffs' criminal attorneys, closely monitoring the criminal trial and providing well-prepared witnesses to testify at trial.

Eventually, on May 10, 2001, after a ten day criminal trial, both Jennie and Marvin were acquitted of all charges. Rather than showing remorse for instigating the wrongful prosecution, State Farm continued to not only proclaim Hampton and Vail's guilt, but deny Ms. Hampton's claim.

After the acquittals, Jennie Hampton's breach claim in Johnson County, Kansas against State Farm was dismissed and re-filled with her and Marvin's claims for malicious prosecution and the tort of outrage against State Farm and the NICB. After a three week trial in Jackson County, but before verdict, defendant NICB entered into a 537.065 high low agreement with a high of $100, 000 and low of $110,000 for Mr. Vail and $150,000 and $160,000 for Ms. Hampton. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs on all counts, and after a post trial hearing the Court entered judgment against NICB as set forth in the 537.065 agreement. The Court also entered judgment against State Farm for $200,000 in actual damages for Ms. Hampton and $175,000 for Marvin Vail. For her breach claim against State Farm the Court entered judgment in favor of Ms. Hampton for $251,700 in attorney fees. Additionally, the court entered judgment in favor of Marvin Vail and Jennie Hampton individually for their punitive claims against State Farm in the amount of $4,000,000 each.

This was posted in January 2006... the case is still active. I discovered that State Farm has appealed the jury verdict to the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals. The parties have filed their initial briefs, and oral argument is set for July 19. Unfortunately, PDFs of the briefs are not available online, so I don't know what the basis for the appeal is. My guess is that State Farm is appealing, among other things, the size of the punitive damages award. Their argument would be that the punitive damages are more than X times the compensatory damages, which violates due process. The US Supreme Court made such a ruling a few years ago in BMW v. Somebody, probably Gore.

Many of these consumers were Providian customers, who say they were dutifully paying off their debts, found their accounts sold to SST.

Their whole game seems to be to put your account in default so they can charge you the maximum allowable default rate of 29.99%.

SST does this by arbitrarily lowering your credit limit, misplacing balance transfer checks, and misplacing payments. Their online billpay system is error prone and locks people out, resulting in a late fees of $39 (you can pay by phone, but it'll cost you $10 extra). People who try to close their accounts out are assessed arbitrary finance charges. People who complain are treated with rude customer service who tell them to take their credit balance elsewhere if they don't like it.

Anyone finding their account sold to SST Card Services should follow this sage advice.

UPDATE: Sounds like some kind of fly-by-night, boiler room operation, right? Actually, according to their About page, SST Card Services is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase Bank. Booooh. — BEN POPKEN

[ComplaintsBoard]
SST [Official Site]

Reader Ben recently had Time Warner Cable and internet installed in his new apartment. Naturally, things didn't go well. After only a few weeks the cable and internet just randomly stopped working. From Ben's email:

I call customer service, and am put through the extensive rigmarole of testing every device. The service rep (of course) has no clue why nothing is working, but she can schedule a service call for Saturday. That's a WEEK of no cable and internet. No sooner. I must wait a week.

But the very next morning, an install tech shows up, and I politely inquire if he's there to fix the service. Silly me!
"Nope, sorry," he says. "I'm a different department. I'm here to remove the previous tenant's equipment and disconnect his cable."
"But I'm not the previous tenant," I reply, reasonably enough. "You can't disconnect my cable. Besides, my cable and internet aren't working!"
"Sorry. Different department."
"So," I ask, "You can disconnect our cable, but not reconnect it?"
"Yep."
And he leaves. I scream with rage.

Ben writes:

Hi Ben and Meghann,

Long time reader, first time bitcher.

I'd just like to air a few grievances about TWC, especially since they apparently have a new head of customer service in SoCal, and he might be interested to read this.

My cable and internet were hooked up when I moved in early March. I had signed up for a DVR, but the install technician showed up to my house without it. Luckily he had an extra one in his truck, but he told me it'd be an extra $60 to install it. I told him repeatedly that I'd ordered the plan with a DVR, and signed up for it to be included on my first bill, so he told me to call customer service. He said this mistake was fairly common, and they could usually just shift my account from a regular cable box to a DVR for a refundable $50 deposit. I was annoyed enough at this point to agree. I then spent half an hour on the customer service line being shuffled from rep to rep, being told three times that what the install technician had described was impossible. Several hold periods and one supervisor later, I finally got them to do what the technician had told them.

"Oh, and by the way," he told me, "TW internet has been out all today, and we don't have any idea why." Sure enough, my newly installed cable internet didn't come back on until that night. I never found out why.

Flash forward to last weekend. My cable and internet suddenly stop working. I call customer service, and am put through the extensive rigamarole of testing every device. The service rep (of course) has no clue why nothing is working, but she can schedule a service call for Saturday. That's a WEEK of no cable and internet. No sooner. I must wait a week.

But the very next morning, an install tech shows up, and I politely inquire if he's there to fix the service. Silly me!
"Nope, sorry," he says. "I'm a different department. I'm here to remove the previous tenant's equipment and disconnect his cable."
"But I'm not the previous tenant," I reply, reasonably enough. "You can't disconnect my cable. Besides, my cable and internet aren't working!"
"Sorry. Different department."
"So," I ask, "You can disconnect our cable, but not reconnect it?"
"Yep."
And he leaves. I scream with rage.

But then a light bulb turns on in my mind. I head down to our building's primary cable hookup. Lo and behold, someone has physically unplugged our cable! My landlord and I have the same simultaneous reaction: "What the hell?!" Another call (and hour-long hold) with customer service confirms that the person who previously lived in the apartment had defaulted on his bill. So of course, OUR cable and internet were disconnected. They were supposed to send out a service tech to reconnect it this morning, but I've heard nothing from them.

And to top it all off, after all that, they'll only credit me for the time the cable was down. Not the whole earlier weekend the internet was down. Not the hours of cell phone bills I've racked up, because I have Vonage, and without an internet connection I was forced to use my cell minutes. And the customer service rep claimed a supervisor would call me back immediately, but of course, no one has. Liars.

Sorry about such a long rant, but I wanted to expose all the ignorance and foolishness that TWC dumps on their customers. It's now been three weeks I've had the service, and they've done absolutely nothing right. They've handled every problem like a troop of retarded, dyslexic baboons. If they really value us, they wouldn't treat us like this. I hope the newly-appointed head of customer service reads this, and takes a good hard look at his departments. Because the left hand clearly has no clue what the right hand is doing.

—Ben

(Photo of Good Cable Guy Who Has Nothing To Do With This: dykstranet)

FROM: KEVIN HUNSAKER

Hi guys, If/when we put the tracer in an email to the reporter, is there any chance it will be discovered? Is it something a firewall could pick up, or antivirus software? Would it make it through HP's security and get to, say, my email? If CNET knows something like that was sent to them, we could end up with some seriously bad publicity.

FROM: RON DELIA

Team, Surveillance teams were in place from 9 a.m. to noon, and no activity was observed at either residence. It appears DK has not returned from vacation. We waited in the event the family was sleeping in. However, by noon the newspapers were not picked up from the driveway. A pretext call to the residence was not answered. Surveillance activity at GK's residence revealed no movement as well.

Every Word You Say [Harper's]
(Photo: Sister72)

Jacob wrote with an update, it seems that he's having a hell of a time actually canceling his month-to-month membership. They won't stop charging his account. This isn't the first time we've heard this. Read Jacob's update inside.

Jacob writes:

Crunch Rep Janet agreed verbally in person that a fee increase might not apply to me, as I had been a member for only 5 months. She promised to email someone higher up and get back to me by phone.

Several days later, no phone call, So I call them back.

She says oh yes I heard from them and unfortunately the rate increase does apply.

Me - Ok fine, I will cancel my membership, but what about your 30-day notification of cancellation policy?

(Remember that Crunch itself failed miserably to notify its customers 30-days in advance about rates increases, it actually gave us less than a week, and their contract explicitly states a 30-day period is required)

J- Well that wouldn't apply, we don't want to be jerks about it.

Me - (thinking that is actually human of them) Ok, I'll come in and sign the cancellation papers.

So I do, and even put a note on it saying as per agreement with Janet @ Crunch, cancellation is effective by 3/1/07.

Looking at my bank statement today online, I see a fresh charge from Crunch for guess what? $69.....no. yep, $84! Not only should I not be charged at all, but they already made the increase in violation of their own policy which I pointed out to them at least 5 times.

Crunch broke their own rules about rate increases, and I bet anyone who didn't complain (and many who did) are paying higher rates this month even though they legally shouldn't.

I promptly call the gym and after 3 or four transfers get back to Janet. She apparently only has vague recollections ("your name sounds familiar") about the 3 phone conversations and face to face meeting from a week ago.

After more of the same hollow assurances to refund my money, she takes my number again, and I tell her I want this resolved by the end of the week also expressing my frustration about all the similar stories I've read about Crunch and Bally's.

I go to my bank to see what I can do about blocking future charges. They tell me that I can only dispute charges individually and since Crunch has my account info, they can run a charge through anytime they want. Her best suggestion: close the account.

I urge all consumerist readers: Go to independent health centers, yoga studios, buy a pair of running shoes and jog in the nearest park, ride your bike, walk more, just don't join another corporate money sucking scheme, I mean, gym!

Who has time to work out with all this Bull sh*t!

NPR has a "Xeni Tech" report on the story featuring quotes from RIAA-boycotting editor Adam Frucci of Consumerist's sister-site Gizmodo. It's very much worth a listen, and if any of you out there have received a letter, we encourage you to scan it and send it in. Xeni's report also includes advice from USC Law Professor, Jennifer Urban:

"It's essentially a cease and desist letter. It's a letter from a party saying, "We think that you are doing something illegal and we would like you to stop. The important thing for the student or another person who receives this letter to understand is that all this is is a letter that is claiming that the student is doing something infringing... If the university hasn't turned over their names, then by going to this website and registering they're going to be telling the RIAA who they are, and allow for the RIAA to follow-up with more action against them, because they'll then know the identity."

What payment methods can I use?

Payments can be made by check or credit card (MasterCard, Visa and Discover).

What if I cannot pay the settlement amount immediately?

For those individuals who cannot pay the settlement in a lump sum, we will consider accepting payments over a period of time. There will, however, be an additional fee to cover the administrative costs of such a program.

Will my parents find out about this lawsuit?

If you are under 18, a parent or guardian will need to be involved in this process and sign the settlement. If you are 18 or older and you settle with us prior to being named in a lawsuit, it is your choice whether to notify a parent or guardian. Once a lawsuit is filed that names you as a defendant, it becomes a matter of public record.

P2PLawsuits

RIAA Focuses on Colleges for Anti-Piracy Efforts[NPR via BoingBoing]

Debbie Foster was sued by RIAA member company Capitol Records for allegedly sharing copyrighted material on a P2P file sharing network. However, the alleged infringement was apparently committed by someone else with access to her ISP account. Foster had the case dismissed last summer, and as reported by Listening Post earlier this month, was awarded attorney's fees in excess of $50,000.

For the RIAA, which functions as the legal and lobbying arm of the labels it represents, this was very bad news indeed. If the ruling stands, the RIAA will have to be much more careful about who it sues going forward, adjusting its scatter-shot approach to filing such lawsuits in order to avoid suing the wrong people. But if the RIAA's appeal is granted, open Wi-Fi hotspots could become standing invitations for the organization to sue.

RIAA Fights Back, Threatens Open Wi-Fi [Wired News via BoingBoing]
(Photo:Andy Armstrong)

I recently tried to cancel my Verizon Wireless service because of the text messaging increase. Spoke to 6 CSRs who all gave me really bad excuses but I pressed my case and finally found a CSR who I thought was going to do the right thing and let me go. I spoke to a CSR name Donnesha (#2569) who after speaking to her supervisor briefly said she will cancel my contract with an ETF but as soon as I receive written notice in my bills for the text messaging charge increase I can call back and have a CSR waive my ETF. I then asked her again "So you will make a written note on my account so that as soon as I receive my next bill with a notice of the text messaging charge increase, I can call Verizon Wireless, speak with a CSR and based on the note you just made, I will get my $175 refund with no problems whatsoever?" She replies with "yes, absolutely". I thanked her and promptly hung up. The next day, I called Verizon again and spoke with a CSR name Troy (#9840) to check on the little note Donnesha made, lo and behold, the note does not exist! Troy then proceeds to email Donnesha to inquire about where the note went. Donnesha emails back within 5 minutes to say that I had agreed to eat the ETF and that no refund will be given.

Hang writes:

Hi guys, my name is Hang and I've been following you guys since the cell phone text messaging fiasco. Your site has become a wealth of information that just about everyone can use and I really appreciate all the work that went into it. I recently had a nasty run in with Verizon Wireless involving a lying CSR and her supervisor. Hopefully you can post my story just as a warning to everybody else about the evils of Verizon Wireless and also so I can get some advice on my next course of action. Thanks! Story below.

—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-

I recently tried to cancel my Verizon Wireless service because of the text messaging increase. Spoke to 6 CSRs who all gave me really bad excuses but I pressed my case and finally found a CSR who I thought was going to do the right thing and let me go. I spoke to a CSR name Donnesha (#2569) who after speaking to her supervisor briefly said she will cancel my contract with an ETF but as soon as I receive written notice in my bills for the text messaging charge increase I can call back and have a CSR waive my ETF. I then asked her again "So you will make a written note on my account so that as soon as I receive my next bill with a notice of the text messaging charge increase, I can call Verizon Wireless, speak with a CSR and based on the note you just made, I will get my $175 refund with no problems whatsoever?" She replies with "yes, absolutely". I thanked her and promptly hung up. The next day, I called Verizon again and spoke with a CSR name Troy (#9840) to check on the little note Donnesha made, lo and behold, the note does not exist! Troy then proceeds to email Donnesha to inquire about where the note went. Donnesha emails back within 5 minutes to say that I had agreed to eat the ETF and that no refund will be given. I couldn't believe it, she outright lied to me to get rid of me! I guess her supervisor told her to do it or something just to get rid of me since I was calling so much. Troy said he wasn't able to transfer me to Donnesha and that he emailed her to tell her to call me back, (she obviously never did and I didn't bother to pursue this issue with a known liar any further) I asked what options do I have right now since it's my word against Donnesha's, he said none, unless you contact the Verizon legal department, and they only accept snail mail. I immediately filed a complaint via the BBB, FTC and NY Trade Commissions instead.

Thanks to the BBB complaint, an executive rep from Verizon name Dekaya Seals contacted me via Email. I decided to communicate with her via Email just for the written record and also since she was impossible to reach during business hours. She completely ignored the fact that Donnesha lied to me and said the ETF was valid because another CSR had tried to issue me a $.05 difference for each text message I sent, which I said no to. I rejected that offer because I didn't want to take a risk of that CSR not honoring the offer and also because the contract specifically states I have the right to can cancel my service with no ETF. I do not lose that right just because some CSR offered me a random reimbursement, right?

I kept repeating my point to Ms. Dekeya Seals that Donnesha lied to me and also that Verizon has erroneously billed me for February when my service ended in January. She finally addressed that issue after 3 emails and responded with "sorry for the miscommunication and to promote a positive experience, I will prorate your ETF for the months of the contract that you did complete, I will offer you a credit of $70" . What the hell? That $70 doesn't even cover the error of the February bill. Plus Verizon should be taking disciplinary actions against Donnesha and her supervisor for outright lying to a paying customer. I declined the $70 credit so I can keep on pursuing my complaint.

I will be filing small claims against them for a few hundred more than they owe me for all the time I had to waste on them. Any advice would be appreciated, but mostly I just want everyone to be wary of Verizon CSRs, even if the CSR seems like a nice person. Always record your phone conversations, (I regrettably did not) you never know if you have to go to small claims court to get your money back. And also do it promptly, we all know how Verizon likes to screw up your credit without even warning you first, right?

Dear Ms. Seals,

Apologies that I was not able to check my email early enough to call you at the appropriate times, email would be fine I suppose. You have most likely already read my detailed complaint along with my desired resolution. I am positive that I was blatantly lied to by a Verizon representative and would like to see appropriate disciplinary actions taken as well as a full refund for the money wrongfully billed to my account. Please do let me know if you have any questions that would help in resolving this dispute. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Hang

Good Afternoon,

On 3/1/07 the rate for sending and receiving TXT messages for customers who do not subscribe to a messaging package will increase from $0.10 to $0.15 per message.

After reviewing your account I have discovered on 1/13/2007 a Verizon Wireless representative offered to issue a credit for the .05 difference on each text message you send or receive until the end of your contract. This credit offer would have maintained your normal billing until your contract end date, 11/30/2007. You declined this offer and disconnected services on 1/14/2007 causing you to receive an early termination fee of $175.00.

The charges on your wireless account are valid.

Dear Ms. Seals,

I don't think the issue of my complaint is even about the text messaging increase any longer and I feel that you completely ignored the entire reason for why I filed a complaint. I have already made my point about the text messaging increase to Donnesha. The main issue is that Donnesha and a supervisor agreed with me on my complaint and agreed to make a written note on my account for a future representative to issue me a full refund in the future. However, she obviously lied by not making such a note and that is the sole reason for my complaint to the BBB, FTC and NY Trades Commission. My phone conversation with Donnesha was recorded and it is clear in the recording that I would not have an issue with a full refund of the early termination fee as soon as I receive written notice via billing statements. Furthermore, the Verizon wireless rep Troy told me that he emailed Donnesha to call me the next day at my home phone and she obviously hasn't.

As for the other representative issuing me a .05 difference on future text messaging, I didn't take it because she was offering me something that was not official company policy, I would have no guarantee whatsoever that she would honor such an arrangement. She could easily have done what Donnesha did here. So with all due respect, please drop the argument with the text messaging plan increases, that is done and over with and I don't appreciate that you completely ignored the fact that a representative of your company lied to a paying customer. I know my rights in regards to the contract that Verizon Wireless and I entered. Verizon clearly made a negative material change to my contract and service, thus I can opt out even if I was given some random offer. The issue here is that a representative cheated me and appropriate actions should be taken to make sure that this does not happen again in the future. If Donnesha had disagreed with me and said that the early termination fee would stand, I would not have canceled and I would not have any need to file a complaint.

I have already made my argument very detailed and clear and I presented a solution that I feel is fair to both parties. Please let me know if I will receive a refund and whether or not disciplinary actions will be taken. I'll do absolutely whatever it takes to make sure that I am rightfully compensated and that nobody else will have to go what I had to go through, even if it involves submitting more complaints or taking it to small claims court.

Sincerely,
Hang

Good Morning,

I apologize for the miscommunication you received regarding your early termination fee. Unfortunately it is a valid charge. To promote a positive experience I will pro rate your early termination fee for the 14 months you did complete. I have issued a credit of $70.00 to your wireless account.

Your balance as of today's date 02/02/2007 is $209.40.

Thank You

Dekeya Seals
Executive Relations

This is ridiculous. —MEGHANN MARCO

(Photo: The Consumerist)

"We hope you're enjoying your copy of Twiliight Princess, but if you're finished with it, why don't you bring it to the store and trade it in? We're willing to give you $35 in trade for your copy of Twilight Princess...." I hung up at this point, and try not to curse. I really don't like this sort of phone call, but I'm almost willing to tolerate it when they're telling me a game I want to buy is coming in.

GameStop wants your trade-ins. Enough to call you and ask for something they've already sold you [Opposable Thumbs via Kotaku]

"The RIAA has sent out a letter to the ISPs telling them to stop making mistakes in identifying subscribers, and offering a 'Pre-Doe settlement option' — with a discount of '$1000 or more' — to their subscribers, if and only if the ISP agrees to preserve its logs for 180 days. Other interesting points in the letter (PDF): the RIAA will be launching a web site for 'early settlements,' www.p2plawsuits.com"

RIAA Admits ISPs Have Misidentified "John Does" [Slashdot via Gizmodo]

Many of the allegations center around Huling Brothers manager, Adrian Dillard, with an alleged history of high-pressure sales tactics, and snorting painkillers with coworkers in the bathroom and off the dashboard of a company truck.

Sales records showed Huling Brothers taking, advantage of mentally deficient customers before Dillard came on. And one sale was structured to help a drug dealer launder funds.

Most alarming, Huling Brothers apparently enjoys a very high reputation in its area. Imagine what's going on at dealerships even less sterling.... — BEN POPKEN

How drugs and greed tainted auto dealership [The Seattle Times] (Thanks to Karl!)
Previously: Car Dealership Breaks Into Customer's Home, Steals $70,000

After the daughter Brandi wrote a formal complaint letter, Southwest Airlines promised to send Richard an apology, a refund for the extra ticket, and four ticket vouchers. However, It's uncertain whether Richard will ever be able to use them. Writes Brandi...

My father is at home literally on his death bed. He has nearly lost all bowel control, is in excruciating pain due to the water pressure on his nerves, most of the time is immobile because it is too painful to stand, and his cognitive abilities come and go. Due to his liver condition, painkillers are not an option.

He has an appointment with the University of San Francisco during the first week of February, so hopefully they will take him as a transplant recipient. Fingers are crossed, as we are really down to our last straw."

Good thing for Southwest that Richard didn't go while getting denied boarding at the gate. Then they might have to give out five ticket vouchers. — BEN POPKEN

Richard Brown nearly died on Sunday, January 21st, thanks to reckless indifference by a Southwest Airlines ticket agent.

A dying hep-C patient, Richard, secured an appointment at the Mayo Clinic. After getting turned down, he was referred to the University of San Francisco.

When he went to board in Scottsdale for California, the ticket agent refused to let Richard fly unless he bought another ticket, due to his weight.

The weight gain is due to water retention because of his failing liver. Richard lives on California Disability Pay and had no funds to pay for the extra ticket. The flight was not sold out.

The ticket agent didn't care when shown Richard's medical papers, saying, "each airport has their own rules and these are ours, no extra seat, no boarding."

Family scrounged up what little money they had to help him pay for meals. Call after call to customer service ended in countless transfers and wrong numbers.

Finally, a Southwest Airlines agent in Dallas paid for Richard's ticket herself.

"All the while, Richard sat freezing wrapped in several blankets at the gate. The Southwest agent content to let him die in the boarding area," writes his daughter Brandi.

The rest of her story, inside...

UPDATE: We asked some followup questions of the daughter

Brandi writes:

Appalling. — BEN POPKEN

Brandi writes:

In July, 60 year old mentally ill Richard Grey wheelchaired into the Huling Brothers dealership in Seattle, his pants encrusted with feces and urine, and bought a truck with $30,000 in cash in a plastic bag.

The salesmen learned he had more at home and three of them broke in and stole $70,000 more.

Then they learned the man was in a psychiatric ward and visited him and got Mr. Grey to sell them the truck back for $1,200.

Now, justice. The former owner of the dealership, Steve Huling, wrote checks for $100,000 to the victim. The salesmen are going to trial.

Part 1, the arrest, is above. Part 2, the not guilty plea and Huling writing the checks, is inside...

Congrats, fellas, you just proved everything we hate about used car salesmen. — BEN POPKEN

This note was probably due to the fact that consumers often do not know how to properly hook up HDTVs, and return them thinking they are defective. In Shawn's case, the TV really was defective. So did Samsung help him? Of course not.

Read Shawn's story inside.

Shawn writes:

On November 26th I bought a brand new HDTV Plasma 50 inch HPS-5073 (MSRP 3299$) from an authorized retailer (DataVision in NYC) that Samsung's sales department referred me to. (It was out of stock at two local shops, thus my call to sales.) The television arrived on Saturday December 2nd. I unboxed it on Sunday the 3rd, switched it on and I was greeted with a flickering screen and a high pitched squeal. Great, dead on arrival.

I contacted DataVision's customer support the next day (Monday December 4th 2006) around 8am CST and asked about such situations. The customer service representative informed me that the base restocking fee is 15% but could be higher, and that I was responsible for shipping in both directions. This would total over 600$ plus another 400$ or more for the exchange fee for a television that arrived broken. I asked if Samsung would be more helpful, and the person at DataVision suggested I call them about options. To drive the point home, Samsung also put in bold lettering on the manual and box (paraphrased) "Do not call retailer for returns, call Samsung!".

I immediately called Samsung at 8:45am and spoke with Steve in customer support. Steve told me he'd send a technician on-site and had heard of this squealing "buzz" problem before. Samsung would verify the problem, see if they could fix it, and if not would send me another one. I was pretty happy about this, since I wouldn't be out over a thousand dollars.

A week later on December 11th, two service technicians came onsite and said they'd order some parts and return. They assured me, as Steve at Samsung had, that this would be resolved before the end of DataVision's return window. The technicians didn't return and after multiple calls they picked up the television to "replace parts" on December 18th. At this point, my return window to the company I bought it from had expired and I felt pretty stupid for listening to Samsung and DataVision.

On the 20th, 22nd, and finally the 27th the repair center claimed they still couldn't figure out the problem and Samsung didn't have any ideas. I contacted the corporate line and was referred to Executive Customer Relations (ECR), specifically "Todd". Todd told me they could likely refund my money as I was obviously unhappy, or could even switch out the television for a completely different model. I had to wait five more business days because of a policy that required allowing the repair center one last chance. He said he'd call me back and let me know my options, but never did.

Five business days passed, and I contacted support again on January 4th. I spoke with Robert who told me that Executive Customer Service did things differently and that no refund or replacement would ever be offered. Additionally I had to wait until January 17th before they would even work with me, and that there was absolutely nothing he could do. I asked for a supervisor and Erin answered. She told me the exact same thing, and refused to transfer me to Executive Customer Service. So I asked for her manager, and was given Alicia. Alicia called the service center and was told that the service center had never contacted support. She told me there was nothing that could be done and tersely walked me in circles until I was exhausted.

This same cycle has happened several more times, including on January 17th (the day they promised to start helping me) when I spoke to both Ken and Natasha in ECR at Samsung. Natasha claimed she would call me back, and never did. Ken refused to transfer me to Natasha, or provide any further assistance. No one ever called me back.

Update: [Jan 19th] Samsung is shipping me a new LCD (not plasma) by Feb 18th.

Samsung Saga

Madison Avenue Calling [New York Times]