In March of 2008, I used a debit card on an online poker site, which happened to be a foreign vendor. I know it wasn’t wise, but I did. I had no issues at all with site, until I made a withdrawal in mid-April. A few days after that withdrawal I spotted several large charges pending on my WAMU debit card account that I did NOT authorize. The poker site used a foreign third party card authorizer and apparently they decided to have some fun with my card. I contacted the poker site and informed them of the problem, and they refused to do anything for me. The third party does not even have a contact phone number. I then called WAMU before the charges could even post, and was told that I would have to wait until they posted before the dispute could be done. After all was said and done, 15 unauthorized charges totaling $3,400 hit my account. I canceled that debit card, filed the dispute and was given a provisional credit within 5 days.

The following week, I received a letter from WAMU stating that I needed to contact them about what documentation they needed in order to pursue the dispute. That’s all it said. I called on April 29th and spoke to a CSR about what I needed to send the fraud claims department. She told me that all I needed to send was a written and signed affidavit detailing what had happened and what I had done to remedy the situation. I did exactly that and faxed it to them that same day.

I hadn’t heard anything for about a month and called the claims department. After waiting on hold for over half an hour, I was told that they had no new information.

Two more months go by. I received a letter from WAMU stating that I had not provided them with enough documentation to pursue the claim, and they reversed the provisional credit. I called them immediately and after being on hold for 45 minutes this time I spoke to another CSR, and then a manager. I was informed that they sent out a letter on April 30th, the day after I faxed my affidavit, which said I still needed more documentation. That second letter magically never arrived. They told me that it was too late and they would deny me the ability to fight these charges with the vendor. I explained to them over and over again about how I did exactly what was asked of me, and did NOT receive the second letter. Finally to get me off the phone, the manager suggested I submit a re-assertion letter to get the claim reopened, along with any documentation I could provide. There wasn’t a lot of documentation to provide, since it’s kind of hard to prove you didn’t authorize a charge online. I provided them with copies of emails to the poker site and the third party vendor demanding they credit the unauthorized charges.

Three weeks later, I am told that again they will not pursue the claim. The CSR is extremely rude to me and almost seems to gloat about me being screwed. She said, “You didn’t send in enough documentation within the prescribed deadline. Now you’ve sent in the documentation, but it’s still past the deadline.” Too bad…so sorry. I was told that I should have read the important information on the back of their notices (one of which I didn’t receive) informing me of the deadline.

Now I’m not stupid. I realize that WAMU is pre-judging me based on the fact that I dealt with an online poker site. But I believe they are breaking my rights by not even pursuing this dispute. All I’m asking is that they continue on to MasterCard and file the dispute with the vendor. I’m not asking for any provisional credit. If they would actually let this claim continue, the burden would be on the vendor to provide documentation. The vendor can not have any documentation, since I did NOT authorize the charges. I’m only asking that they follow the law. They have gotten around this by failing to send me a second notice, and never actually providing me a list of sufficient documentation on the first notice. Because of that, I missed the deadline.

I filed a claim with the Better Business Bureau. A CSR from WAMU called and left a message on my cell phone in a very haughty tone, saying that they were aware of the complaint I had made, and that they were so sorry, but I missed the deadline. They suggested I sue the vendor.

They know I can’t file a lawsuit against the vendors, since they are not in the U.S.

I plan on contacting the Office of Thrift Services, but do they actually have any clout in this matter?

Sincerely,

Rob K

OTS is WaMu's bank regulator, so yes, they do have clout. You can also try contacting their executive customer service team. Then, after you get your money back, switch banks.

Then, next time you want to play poker, consider a friendly game with your buddies. As your letter states, online gambling doesn't attract the most savory of business people. If you do have to scratch the itch, at least use a credit card, not a debit card. That way, if the account gets hijacked, it's the bank out the cash and not you.

We asked WaMu whether this was standard policy or if their letter-sending facility is having an error, and await their response.

(Photo: Getty)

Here's the apology email sent to "valued Pizza Hut customers:"

From: Pizza Hut
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 2:05 PM
To: The Internet
Subject: We apologize for the errant email

Dear Valued Pizza Hut Customer:

You may have received an email on Wednesday that appeared to be from Pizza Hut with the subject line "Sports - 2 Medium pizzas, 1 one-topping and 1 specialty or up to 3 toppings". We were testing new functionality that will better serve our customers. It was not the intent of Pizza Hut for this email to be sent to you. We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion this may have caused. We value your relationship with us and understand that communicating with you via email is a privilege not to be taken lightly. We have identified the cause of the mistake and have taken steps to make sure this does not happen again.

Again, we apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that email message may have caused. We appreciate you as a customer and want you to be 100% satisfied with us.

Pizza Hut and YUM! Brands are committed to your privacy and the privacy of your data. As such, we recently updated our privacy policy. View our Privacy Policy here.

The Pizza Hut name, logos and related marks are trademarks of Pizza Hut, Inc.

(C)2008 Pizza Hut, Inc., 14841 Dallas Parkway, Dallas, TX 75254.

Oh, they're striving for 100% satisfaction, eh? Here's an idea: don't force your customers to sign up for unsolicited emails!

(Photo: Scott Ableman) (Thanks to everyone who sent this in!)
PREVIOUSLY: Pizza Hut Forces You To Opt-In To Spam Marketing When Ordering Online

Matt writes:

I have had the most unbelievable experience with Citi Card this week. In a nutshell, an error on their website led me to schedule two full payments and they won't give me the money back. Hopefully this story will prevent some of your readers from experiencing a similar problem.

On July 12, I received my Citi Card statement via email. The bill was $755.34 and was due on August 4. I went to the Citi website and scheduled a full payment to post on August 1. A couple weeks went by, and on August 1, I was getting ready to leave on a business trip, so I decided to check and make sure that the payment was indeed scheduled. I went to my Scheduled Payments page on Citi's website and it told me I had no scheduled payments. I then went to the page with my account status, and it still said I owed $755.34 by August 4. I assumed I either didn't schedule the payment, or I did and something went wrong. Either way, the website told me I had a bill due in three days and no payments scheduled, so I scheduled another payment of $755.34 for August 4.

As you can probably guess by now, on August 4, Citi made a deduction of $755.34 and then on August 5 made another deduction in the same amount. This brought my checking account within $52 of overdrafting, and my family and I were about to take a vacation to a small town where not every store takes credit cards. I called Citi and explained the situation, and they offered to return the money in 7 to 14 days, which was unacceptable. This was Wednesday. My wife and I would be paid on Friday, but we were going to be in a car without access to cash all day Thursday, so we needed the money immediately. They also blamed me completely for the debacle. When I repeatedly explained that I checked the scheduled payments page and was told nothing was scheduled, all they would tell me was that I should have called or emailed. But, why would I call or email, when I assume I can trust their website? Should I call or email every time I schedule a payment to confirm they received it? They then told me to call my bank and claim it as an unauthorized charge. I did so and was told an investigation would take place and I would have the money back in 7 to 10 days. Again, completely unhelpful. I said no thanks.

I called Citi back, argued with a supervisor for half an hour, and got absolutely nowhere. Just the same unbudging runaround. Completely infuriated, I told her to go ahead and put in the refund request, even though it didn't really do me any good.

So now, I get my mail today and find a letter from Citi, again blaming me entirely and telling me that no refund will be issued after all. So, Citi Card has a shitty website and gets to take out a $755 interest-free loan from me without my permission, and the whole stupid thing is my fault. I've dealt with a lot of bad customer service, but never any as sloppy and stubbornly unhelpful as this. I will be closing my Citi Card and would urge all of your readers to do the same.

Matt, we think you should escalate this higher up the Citibank food chain. It's unreasonable that a bank would hold their customer responsible for an error on their part, and it's absurd to think that it takes a bank up to two weeks to electronically re-deposit funds that they removed within a fraction of a second. Check out our Consumer's Guide to Fighting Back for suggestions on how to appeal to (hopefully) more reasonable minds at the executive level, including how to launch an Executive Email Carpet Bomb.

If you're thinking of doing business with either website, read this post first and look for an alternative you can better trust.

(Photo: Getty)

Brett writes:

Mark (my boyfriend) and I decided to move our accounts to the same bank to facilitate account transfers easier. Figured why not try a new bank while I was at it. We chose WAMU based on some research that showed them to have the lowest fee's and the no charge ATM fee's for foreign banks.

We opened our accounts online, after answering all the security questions we were in business. I switched my direct deposit, and began using the account. When it came time to pay the rent, mark attempted to get me his portion of the rent. He did a $1000 transfer using his debit card from commerce (considering it a cash advance). We waited a few days, and when we tried to buy new iPhones , he swiped his wamu MasterCard (debit) and it came back declined. After calling he found out that his deposit was put on hold and flagged as suspicious.

Unfortunately I had already deposited his check. My deposit was also put on hold. Needless to say neither of us had this money available. They apologized for the inconvenience, but was assured we wouldn't get caught with any bounce fee's. Finally a week after he made his deposit we received a letter outlining this hold, I've attached an example.

A week later it happened to me, a check I deposited was put on hold resulting in a bounced check to my roommate. I also made a deposit of my payroll check later that week, also put on hold. After several calls to customer service and talking to supervisors, I had most of the holds removed. In order to get the $1000 from the bf to pay my roommate, we went into a branch, we asked for the $1000 as cash, and then we would then deposit the cash into my account. The teller at the station told us she would do a transfer from his WAMU account into my WAMU account, assuring us it would be treated as cash, and would be available as such.

As my boyfriend was closing his account, the branch manager told us in the future if he wanted to reopen an account, to do so in person. She said these problems are common for those who open accounts online. After waiting a few days, and feeling confident there wouldn't be any other holds set on my account, I gave the go ahead to the roommate to cash the check. He did, a week later I get the attached letter; it happened again!

So I called Loss Detection,and she said that the branch had processed it as a check and not cash. I was admittedly upset by this time, and told her as such. Her response to me was she would hang up on me if I insulted her. I of course was level headed through out the conversation, but was taken aback her immediate response was to threaten me. In the end, she was able to clear the hold, but not before the other check bounced.

Apparently WAMU has a policy putting new customers on "probation" for 90 days, this is a ridiculous amount of time and terrible customer service. I understand most banks have probation periods but not as long, or as strict.

We have both since switched to chase and closed these accounts.

It's disingenuous to advertise signing up for banking online like it's super easy and awesome, and then use a different set of rules that punish the customers that just did what you told them to do.

I want to point out the timestamps. Yup, that's more then 6 hours from when "someone will be with me shortly". And to think, when I connected I was only number 14 in queue!

Way to keep the whole world moving at Sprint Speed!

The rate was set to expire in August. That's in the upper limit of what's being offered out there. Via Bankrate, the only one that I can find with no fees and for balances under $10,000 is "Flagstar Bank," which, while FDIC-insured, I've never heard of and it has a very simple website. Then there's FNBO, which has a lower interest rate, but it's compounded daily instead of HSBC's monthly, ultimately giving a higher yield. (hat to commenter bonzombiekitty).

Note: There's been some confusion over company names, and Johnny Chan with eBoost Consulting wants you to know that his company is not involved in this story.

If a company promises to increase your Google PageRank, run! Rogier fell for eBoost Media's sweet words—they promised an increase in Google popularity "within about a week, at least for people entering specific search terms such as 'Maine photographer' and the like." But after three and a half weeks of no results, Rogier decided to cancel the service, which is when eBoost Media's dark side emerged.

I informed [my sales rep] Ashley that I wanted my money back and the agreement canceled. She put me in touch with a customer service rep named Denette.

When Denette finally got back to me, the news was not positive. She refused to say whether she would issue a refund. When I insisted (and sure, I wasn't particularly friendly, but I didn't use profanity or even raise my voice by more than a hair), she hung up on me.

I then canceled the credit card I'd given eBoost media and wrote Denette by e-mail that I'd file fraud complaints with the authorities if she did not let me know within 24 hours that eBoost Media consented to return the $99.

On Thursday of last week, she called again, trying to sweet-talk me into changing my mind. I said I wouldn't and that I had been given no reason to trust eBoost media — on the contrary. I reiterated that all I wanted was a refund. After about 20 minutes of exasperating back and forth, she hung up on me again.

On Friday, when I had left for the day, my voice mail received the psycho phone messages that I've attached.

Here's the first message, along with our concept art of Denette at the phone:

powered by ODEO

And here's the name-calling message, left only 5 minutes later, again along with our concept art:

powered by ODEO

Rogier played the messages back to eBoost and asked them for a comment:

When I called him yesterday, eBoost's acting CEO Michael Luvano agreed to listen to the recording. He then acknowledged that the second call had come from someone at eBoost Media, but curiously enough, he denied it was Denette. The mystery culprit, he said hours after hearing the messages, had already been "dealt with" — she'd been "severely reprimanded." When, puzzled, I suggested we ought to let other people listen to the messages on the Internet and solicit their opinions on whether or not it's the same voice, he got huffy and accused me of being out to badmouth his company.

Nonetheless, Luvano offered to have the CEO, Kevin Johnson (who he said was on vacation) write me a personal apology. He also said the company would finally refund the dough, which I appreciate.

As of yesterday, Rogier had received neither the apology nor the refund.

"Lend Me Your Ears, or, Who You Callin' a Faggot?" [Nobody's Business]
(Photos: Getty)

"When AT&T provides broadband service by speed, it will do so in discrete, non-overlapping tiers," Quinn said in written testimony. "We will strive to provide service within the speed tier purchased by the customer and, if we find that we are not providing service within the ordered speed tier, AT&T will take action either to bring the customer's service within the ordered tier or give the customer an option to move to a different tier."

There's actually no word on pricing yet, but we're going to make a bold, brave prediction that you'll pay more than your current package for the better tiers.

"AT&T To Create Tiered Internet Access For Subscribers" [CNN Money]
(Photo: Getty)

"H&R Block apologizes for gays' tax snafus" [Gay.com] (Thanks to Sharon!)

Apart from the quite adequate assortment of calculators, it's all a big heap of plain-Jane articles slotted into categories by simple tags.

...maybe you're better off thinking of it as a fat news feed, packed with ads and a layout that can get tiresome for long articles.

The New York Times says eBay should still police for counterfeits if it wants to win back customers:

eBay would generate enormous goodwill if it instituted a policy of proactively fighting fraud on the site, instead of forcing companies to point out individual items, day after day, which it then takes down.

That's true, but eBay would also win goodwill if it didn't allow luxury companies to bully individuals who are obviously reselling their used luxury goods—it's pretty obvious that when a company like LVMH goes after a person selling a single used, slightly damaged luxury case, they're not really concerned with stomping out counterfeiting rings.

This hard-to-read press release from something called the "Luxury Institute" (an institute for luxury? I want to work there!) calls the ruling an "egregious injustice to the consumer" because it removes any protection from the customer—a valid claim (despite the source) that resonates with anyone who's been scammed on eBay. The Luxury Insititute suggests alternate luxury auction sites like Portero.com.

BusinessWeek quotes an e-commerce advocate who says the ruling also helps keep the marketplace more open, by taking some of the power away from companies like LVMH and Tiffany:

Many of the smaller vendors that make a living selling through eBay were also relieved at the verdict. Had the U.S. judge echoed the opinions of European courts, major brands that did not want their merchandise to be resold on a discount site would have had a strong weapon to keep resellers from advertising their brand names online, even when dealing with genuine articles. "This was never about controlling counterfeits. It was really about how consumers could buy and sell Tiffany's products and maintaining margins," says Steve DelBianco, executive director of NetChoice, a coalition that advocates for e-commerce. "If you aren't born with a Tiffany silver spoon in your mouth, you can buy one on eBay."

What do you think? Should eBay be required to police luxury brands more closely, and would that help shoppers in the long run? Or are companies like Tiffany and LVMH using the counterfeit issue to solidify control over online sales of their merchandise?

"Judge to Tiffany: Police Your Own Brand" [BusinessWeek]
(Photo: jillclardy)

We know shipping accidents happen, but what's unacceptable about J.Crew's response is how they keep putting Kimberly off instead of working with her to resolve the problem.

My credit card was charged on the day of purchase for the full amount of my order. When I first called on the 8th the rep had suggested for me to wait the full 7 days, I did not have a problem then with the wait. On the 11th I checked their website and noticed the aforementioned status change that led to another call immediately.

I was refunded $49.99 on the same day on the item that was supposedly returned but I never received, but their rep did not even want to look up my address to see whether or not it was sent to the wrong address. When I insisted that he check, he told me that they had the correct shipping address but I should wait 10 days to call back anyways.

It's not like Kim's a novice shopper who doesn't know how shipping works. Now the question is: is there anyone at J.Crew who knows how shipping works? You two should talk.

Normally I avoid Walmart like the plague, but having just moved I am skint (broke, out of money, impoverished). My computer monitor was broken (cracked, actually) sometime in the process of moving residences, and I needed a replacement ASAP. So I was price comparing online, and the Dell SE198WFP seemed like a nice enough deal.

Walmart advertises the SE198WFP for $188.72 on their website, and the site also says it's in stock at my local store. **The website also specifically says "Not Sold Online."**

Well, we get to the Walmart in Okemos, Michigan and find the monitor. It is tagged as $198.00, $10 more than the price as listed online. I grab the girl at the electronics counter (as she sighs because I am interrupting her text messaging), and inform her I need a monitor. At this point I am assuming this is a non-issue, and they will happily give me the web advertised price. Not so.

As she is unlocking the monitor from its electronic alarm, I mention the price discrepancy. She now has a sour look on her face and says she can't sell it to me for that price. But I read The Consumerist every single day. I felt bad enough shopping at Walmart to begin with, I wasn't going to let them get away with this.

I point out that advertising one price to lure customers into the store and then trying to charge another higher price is tantamount to false advertising. She says there is nothing she can do (lies!), and I need to talk to a manager. I ask for a manager.

Well, she walks away and ostensibly calls a manager with the issue. We wait for around five minutes, and the girl comes back. I get some more information, but the manager never appears.

She proceeds to tell me that when a product is sold out online, the website says "Not Sold Online," but they can't "comp" themselves. She then informs me she dealt with this same issue earlier in the day; someone wanted to buy a computer advertised online for $50 less than the store had it listed for. She continued with this talk of not being able to "comp" themselves, and how even though the website says "not sold online," lists a price, and informs you of your local stores stock status, that the price isn't actually valid.

I wasn't having it. I asked point blank, "so you are unwavering on the issue?" She says yes.

My response is simple. I tell her that it was unacceptable for a corporately controlled chain to lure customers into their stores with no intent to honor prices advertised by that very same corporation. Furthermore I tell her to do so is illegal in the state of Michigan (it is). I go on to say that if they were insistent, I was left with a specific course of action. I would file with the state AG office, file with the BBB (even though it does nothing), call exec.. cu... tive... I am cut off mid-sentence. That's all she needed to hear.

In a huff, she unlocks the monitor, takes it to the counter, and rings me up at the web advertised price without so much as a call to her manager. Apparently they can "comp" themselves.

What concerns me is not a measly $10. What concerns me is that, as she evidenced, this happens often. How many customers are going to brick and mortar stores to pick up items advertised online, only to find prices markedly higher than advertised? And how many of those customers cave in, not being aggressive about their rights as a consumer?

-F Scott

We hear about this sort of thing often. Some general advice: Some stores have mouse-print on their websites that specifically excuse themselves from having to price match their own websites. If you're going to try to get them to price match, make sure to bring a printout of the website with you, as some retailers have a habit of trying to skirt the issue by tricking you into thinking that the "sale ended while you were in the car."

As far as Walmart.com goes, "not sold online" is a very misleading way to say "out of stock." You were correct to demand the "not sold online" price. We're so proud!

A reader named Ben writes,

Chase.com doesn't know how to protect their customers passwords. Their login page does not use a secure connection
(see attached). It uses http instead of https. That means that your password is not encrypted when submitted, which is pretty bad for a financial site. (However, they do care enough to include a meaningless, fake "secure" lock icon next to the login form.) I spoke with them a month ago, but they haven't changed anything.

Once you've logged in, everything is encrypted, but that initial password transmission on the home page isn't. Fortunately, if you're a Chase customer you can change the address manually to https (just add an "s" to the end of the "http" and hit your enter key) to trigger the encryption.

Note: A couple of initial comments were lost from this post, but we thought this one from beavis88 was good to know:

As long as the target of the form is an https url (and it is), the data will be encrypted. This is bad form, no question, but they are not total and complete idiots at least.

Five-piece set includes headboard, footboard, wood rails/slats, dresser and mirror.

That's right, the bed is actually three pieces. That nightstand and other dresser must have wandered onto the set accidentally.

Scott, who tipped us to this, writes, "So to Value City, a bed = 3 pieces? Sheesh! Why not consider each side rail a piece and call it a 6 piece set!?!" Great idea! We think we've discovered a whole new way to increase profits without raising prices: segmentation. Why, that dresser can be listed as a 7 piece storage system by itself, a pizza with twelve pepperoni slices on it is suddenly a 12-topping pizza, and KFC's 2-piece chicken meal immediately doubles to a 4-piecer if you count the bones as individual units.

The important thing to remember is to use misleading photographs, though, or else your customers might not take the bait.

"Classic Cherry Queen 5-PC Bedroom Package" [Value City Furniture] (Thanks to Scott!)

EBay has countered that LVMH's lawsuit has nothing to do with counterfeiters, but rather that LVMH is trying to control "the territories in which its products can be sold."

“When counterfeits appear on our site we take them down swiftly, and today’s ruling is not about our fight against counterfeiting,” eBay said. “It’s about an attempt by LVMH to protect uncompetitive commercial practices at the expense of consumer choice and the livelihood of law-abiding sellers that eBay empowers every day. We will fight this ruling on their behalf.”

"EBay Ordered to Pay $61 Million in Sale of Counterfeit Goods" [New York Times]
(Photo: MoonSoleil)

In case you needed more evidence that Direct Marketing Services isn't exactly a top-of-the-line company when it comes to data security, management, or customer relations, the breach wasn't even discovered internally:

Direct Marketing Services' CEO, David Milgrom, said the financial company Citigroup detected the computer invasion in December. By going through HomeVisions.com, another Direct Marketing Services site, hackers had plundered the database that holds account information for all the company's retail properties.

After the story broke last week, the company announced plans to contact the victims of the breach.

Direct Marketing Services says it now plans to contact the victims of the breach, but of course that's only to avoid further bad press now that the story has broken. Fortunately, they contacted credit card companies when they were first notified of the breach, so the industry has been monitoring suspect accounts and/or issuing new cards as needed. If you shopped at the Montgomery Wards website and found your Discover, for example, you may have been a victim. Congrats.

So why wasn't it reported? Because it's financially more rewarding to flout the regulations that require it if you're dealing with online transactions:

Such silence was the norm in the industry for years. But in response to fears of identity theft, 44 states have passed laws that generally require organizations holding consumer data to tell people when their information has leaked, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Clements and other security analysts say that despite those laws, many breaches still are kept quiet, judging by the data being hawked in online black markets. Avivah Litan, an analyst at Gartner Inc., believes unreported data breaches might still outnumber the ones that do get publicized.

Litan says it especially is the case with online merchants. She believes it happens because of a lack of pressure from credit card companies, which are not responsible for fraudulent charges in "card not present" transactions over the Web and mail order. Until fraud actually appears on the card, they'd rather avoid the cost of voiding compromised cards and giving consumers new ones, she said.

"What it reveals is the convoluted banking system," she said. "If this had taken place at a grocery store, we all would have heard about it."

You know what would make for some good PR? If an online company stepped forth and made a commitment to reveal data breaches in a timely manner, and hired an outside auditing firm to enforce said pledge. Instead, we'll start the countdown to a class action lawsuit against Direct Marketing Services.

"Wards didn't tell consumers about credit card hack" [Associated Press]

Maybe her friend, Mr. Moneybags, can shower Congress with cash and buy some of that tasty warrantless wiretapping immunity! Whoops, too real!

So who are the other members of the Online Liberation Movement, you ask? The ironically-named Ms. Proof and Ms. Forgetful, obviously.

Isn't this so !@$% fun? It's like we're living in a book!

AT&T's Latest Ad a Sick Joke [Reading For Dummies via Boing Boing]

Last year, I worked for Walmart.com as an inbound frontline agent, and was promoted to a resolutions agent several months later...so I know my stuff. This is my advice to the person with the issues with walmart.com.

I used to work for one of the walmart.com call centers a few months ago and have heard stories like this way too many times, especially with the Nintendo Wii bundles. That is part of the reason that they have removed the number from their website and require customers to send in emails now, that a good bit of the agents that are in the US instead of the Philippines barely read...which explains the reply you received. That experience is why I don't even shop at walmart now.

In Walmart.com world, the charge "supposedly" does not clear until the order ships. Until then, it is placed as a hold on your account. If the item has not shipped by the date promised, it can be marked as "lost in transit", even though it really isn't lost, it can be placed in this category according to walmart.com policies told to us agents. Some company documents specify a time period of a week after the estimated arrival date to be considered lost in transit. Because of the price, a supervisor will have to mark the customers account so that they can be refunded. After this happens, the funds will take around a week to be credited (even though a supervisor will tell you 2-3 business days).

Another way to get refunded is to have your credit card/bank card issuer to contact walmart.com and verify that the order is technically "lost in transit". This will verify to the bank that this item is not going to be shipped. By doing this, the bank can then lift the hold. Walmart.com agents can also contact your bank to have the hold removed.

These are the only two ways that I know of that walmart.com will be able to refund the money. Mind you, I did work there until late last year, so some policies may have changed. I hope that you will be able to resolve this soon. I know how hard it is dealing with walmart.com.

Sincerely,
A former Walmart.com Call Center Resolutions Agent

Update - 06/27/08: The Unicorn says Wal-Mart called her today and offered to cancel the order!

Update - 06/26/08: The Unicorn posted a slight correction after we published this story: "hey, just to clarify — after Chris (I think) responded to my email re: the Terms of Service issue, I doublechecked my bank account & the funds haven't actually been withdrawn yet." However, she notes that since she can't cancel the order, those funds remain unavailable.

Here's her full story:

So, the Monday before last (6/16), my husband & I came to the unfortunate realization that the 80GB Playstation 3 we'd been saving up to buy was only available through a limited-edition bundle, & that the Metal Gear Solid 4 bundles were basically unavailable in any store near us. After contacting every Game Stop, Circuit City, Best Buy, Target, etc. in the Chicagoland region, we reluctantly expanded our search to the Walmart website, & after checking back several times, all of a sudden an "add to cart" option appeared next to the listing for the MGS4 PS3 bundle. And rationalizing that patronizing Walmart was worth it in order to get a rare piece of game equipment, we placed an order for the system, which the site said would arrive between Friday 6/20 & Tuesday 6/24. After the order was placed, it showed up as "processing" in Walmart's order tracking system, & I was told I'd receive a second email whenever the system shipped. I figured that was good news, but I was a little worried, because the MGS4 bundle showed up as "out of stock" immediately after the order was placed, & it seemed like a crazy coincidence that I would've gotten the last one.

Here's the thing: don't ever buy anything from Walmart, ever. I knew this, & ignored it, & now I'm paying the price.

Coincidentally, that same Monday night, my husband & I rented a movie from Blockbuster, & in the course of some chitchat the clerk randomly told us that they were the only Chicago store to have the MGS4 bundle in stock. (This was the one in Uptown, for any fellow Chicagoans, although I don't know if they'd have any more.) Since the order from Walmart hadn't shipped yet, we decided a PS3 in-hand was better than the promise of one from a retailer we hated, we took the Blockbuster clerk up on his offer & went home with our new toy.

Our plan was to cancel the Walmart.com order, but as it turns out, it's not possible to cancel online orders once they're placed. Fair enough; we figured we'd just sell the second system at cost on eBay or Craigslist whenever it arrived, or else return it to the store & eat the shipping charges.

...Except, the order is still listed as "processing" in Walmart's order tracking system. It hasn't shipped, & it certainly hasn't arrived by this past Tuesday like it was supposed to. But Walmart was certainly happy to take $550.00 out of my debit account as soon as the order was put through back on the 16th! I've emailed them through their website three times now, explaining that I need the funds freed from my account so that I can patronize a brick-&-mortar store that has the systems in stock. (I figured it would needlessly complicate things to say I already bought another system; the only reason that was even an option is that we're currently flush with wedding-present money, & usually having $550.00 missing from my checking account would automatically preclude any other purchases of similar magnitude.) My last response from Walmart came on June 21st, & it was just a scripted message explaining that they can't cancel online orders in progress because their distributors usually ship things so quickly that it's impossible blah blah blah — clearly not the case here, when the order in question has been languishing unshipped for over a week & Walmart still doesn't have the item in stock. All of this makes me really glad that I actually bought a real-live PS3 when I had the chance, but given that I don't know if Walmart's even going to be getting any additional MGS4 bundles, I'm starting to get worried this order will be stuck in "processing" for the rest of time.

Do you guys have any ideas as to how I can get them to refund the money they're holding hostage? I saw your list of executive numbers, but I don't know that any of those would necessarily be appropriate for an online purchase, & as much as I dislike Walmart, I'm hesitant to call up random people in their corporate office who probably have no recourse to help me with this issue.

We say it's time to go corporate. Don't worry about bothering them—it's why they get paid, to make things happen. In particular, they need to be made aware that they're not honoring their terms of service as listed on their website.

Update!: A former Wal-Mart call center employee has shared some tips on how to resolve outstanding orders like this one.

Terms and Conditions [Wal-Mart]
(Photo: Clean Wal-mart)

In 2006 I received a pre-approved card from Capital One, I had used it once or twice and always payed my bill on time, In early spring of 2007 I had cut up the card as I did not want to use it anymore, and just wanted to pay it off. In Jan of 2008 I was no longer able to log in to the online bill payment section of the site, which was fine for the first month as I just sent a check in the mail to pay the bill.

I moved in Feb and called them to change my address, I had the lady on the line repeat it back to me to make sure it was correct and it took her 3 time to get it correct.

I had also asked her to fix my online account so I could pay my bill online once more and she transferred me to the online support. I asked the guy who I was talking to to fix the account and he said that he would un-freeze it. (I never bothered to ask why it was frozen in the first place). He told me to wait up to 24 hours for it to become unfrozen before I log in, I tried to log in later that week to pay my bill, and was still unable to.

As I was unable to pay my bill online I just waited for my statement and once again payed with a check, I payed with a check until May when I called to ask them to fix my account once again, and they claimed I had a bad check. But upon checking my bank statement It showed that the check went through.

In total I had talked to over 10 people during a three month period, and payed over 200 dollars to them. I requested a new card, which was never received.

This last week I had payed my bill 2 weeks before it was due, and payed more than the minimum amount. I checked on the account today and noticed that the payment went through and somehow I now have a past due payment, which I did not have before, and that I was -0 available credit, I don't see how this is possible seeing as I had been paying the minimum amount each month for a year, without using my card and had over 100 dollars available earlier that week and that it went down after paying my bill...

I have tried to fix this multiple times with no results... I am a young individual, and now I have horrible credit... Was just hoping you guys could help.

Perfect Credit, no more... Thanks Capital one

Okay, Joseph. We're not sure what your current balance is, or your current financial situation, but here's what we think you should do to fix this situation.

First, go over your story and document it in as much detail as possible—there's a lot of gaps in the above account. The months where your check cleared but they marked it late are particularly important. Also document to the best of your recollection every customer service call you made, what it was you requested on that call, and whether or not it was followed-up on the Capital One side. If you started using the account again after cutting up the card, or if you took cash advances, note it. Put all of this in a single document and make sure it's easy for you to reference while you're on the phone.

Make sure you have a case before the next step—if it turns out you mailed payments later than you thought, or missed a month, or you charged up your balance again in the past 12 months and forgot to include that in your story, then accept responsibility. When you contact Capital One, it should be to request that they correct an error on their part that you have clearly documented—not to help bail you out of a mistake you made.

Call Capital One's executive customer service line and request assistance. (Try these numbers: 703-720-2500 and 800-548-4593.) Explain that you've been repeatedly locked out of your account, that your checks are clearing before the due date yet payments are being marked late, etc. Make it clear what you want to accomplish, for example:

• remove any incorrect late fees
• regain online access to your account
• receive a new card

If Capital One can't help you and you have proof that you're right and they're wrong, file a dispute with each credit reporting agency. Check out this post for advice on how to file disputes.

Another thing you should do if Capital One won't help you is close the account. You'll have to pay it off like an open credit card but won't have access to it anymore, and yes, it will impact your credit score. But if you can't trust Capital One to report your payments correctly and they refuse to help you correct the matter, you're better off avoiding them entirely and waiting for another credit offer to come along to build up credit. The ding from closing the account will be less damaging than repeated dings from billing errors, if they won't fix them.

Stay on top of your credit history and Capital One—remember to check your credit report every four months. It's free if you use annualcreditreport.com and request your free report from only one of the three agencies each time. Do not use freecreditreport.com!

And lastly, always pay more than the minimum on any credit card bill, even if it's just $5-10. You'll ultimately save more money in the long run by paying less interest, and some creditors may even report you as paying more than the minimum.

Today I read yet another despicable story about the ineptitude of U-Haul and its local representatives. I had a similar experience during my last move.

Like many others, I chose to use a rented truck and perform the move myself. I made an online reservation about 3 weeks in advance, and surprisingly was scheduled for a truck pickup at a store more than 20 miles away (even though there are at least 3 U-Haul reservation centers within 5 miles of my old home). This was annoying right off the bat since I was obviously going to be paying for this imposed mileage. I accepted the possibility that these other centers had no trucks available and decided to move forward.

On the day of the pickup, I arrived at the store with a printout of my reservation and stood in line at the counter. Upon being called forward and presenting my reservation, I was bluntly told that no trucks were available, reservation or no. I made it clear that this was unacceptable, but the "manager" to whom I was speaking simply waved me away and began helping the next customer.

I stepped out into the parking lot and called U-Haul corporate to get this resolved. I spoke to a very helpful woman (whose name I unfortunately can't recall) and explained the situation. She said that she would call the store and get me a truck.

About five minutes later, I received a call back and told that there was a truck available for me now. I walked back in and immediately received a stare of disdain from the manager with whom I dealt previously. It was obvious that he wasn't too happy with the situation, but at this point I really couldn't care less!

He slid the paperwork across the counter for me to complete, and began telling me how much of an inconvenience I was causing. "Corporate called me and is making me give you a one-way truck," he said. My reservation was local; that is, picking up and returning to the same location. Apparently, he had a separate inventory of trucks intended for renters who pickup up in one location and return to another, and the corporate response to my complaint was to require him to rent me one of those trucks for my local use. What's the big deal?

So, fast-forward to the day after my move is completed. I drove the truck to the rental center, pulled into the parking lot, and stepped out. I walked into the office, but no employees were inside. Walking back out, I saw — sadly — the same manager from before, standing outside. I call over to him that I am returning a truck, and his response is, "Just leave the keys in the drop box and leave the truck where it is." Sounds good to me; I drop off the keys wrapped in a copy of my contract, and I head home.

Three days later, I'm at work. During my lunch break, I decide to check my home voicemail and am surprised to hear an angry message from U-Haul: "This is Alexandria U-Haul Rentals. Your rental truck was due three days ago and you haven't returned it. If you don't return our truck today I will call the police." *click*

Imagine my surprise.

I immediately start by calling the rental center and explaining exactly what happened. The gentleman on the other end explains that the manager (humph) personally walked the entire lot and my truck was not there. I explain that the manager personally saw me there on the day of my return and instructed me to place the keys in the dropbox. I am told that there is nothing he can do, and he hangs up.

I then placed a call to U-Haul corporate again, and get escalated to corporate security. I explain the situation again, and the agent I'm working with agrees to call and speak to the store, and get back to me. Remarkably, I receive a call from him about 20 minutes later... but nothing has been resolved. I tell the agent that although I didn't know the name of the manager I saw that day, I could describe him. "6 feet tall, brownish-blond hair, shoulder-length. Very slight build, and a smoker." The response: "Huh. Sounds like Tom, the assistant manager. Let me call the store again, and I'll get back to you."

Less than 10 minutes later, the agent calls back again. "I spoke with Tom. He walked the lot again and found your truck. Sorry for the inconvenience."

What a surprise. Suffice it to say that U-Haul won't be getting any of my business in the future.

It's a good day when reader complaints can be resolved without police involvement. U-Haul recently settled a class action suit over their broken reservation system, so honoring his original reservation saved them $50. Unfortunately, the manager's malice or incompetence cost them more in the long run. If you get stuck with a U-Haul problem and the normal channels aren't working, don't forget CEO Joe Shoen gave out his number on Inside Edition, and says he wants to help.

(photo:elisharene)

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)

First, here's what happened to trigger the suspended account in the first place:

I attempted to order a memory card from Newegg.com. I say attempted because beyond running the financial transaction and holding my money hostage for a week, nothing else was processed. The only reason I became aware that there was an issue was due to wanting to check the status of my order and attempting to log in. They locked my account which was less than 24 hours old. So I played the customer service game.

First came the email I sent, "I do not understand why my account is suspended.... I just wanted to check my order status. I tried to log in for the first time and it is suspended. Help me understand please."

Then the reply, "We apologize for the misunderstanding. However, we have an account that has a charge back with the same information you have provided. This is the reason we are unable to service you at this time. You will have to take care of this matter before we can further assist you."

Jenn called Newegg to talk to someone about the matter, and was surprised when "they gave me the name on the other account without prompting. The privacy act does not seem to be in their training. The name was my brother's, who lives at my house with me."

Jenn asked the CSR directly, "So, does that meant I'm not allowed to have an account because my brother has an issue with you?" She was told they'd get back to her via email:

The next email they sent said, "Unfortunately, we are not able to re-open your account. Apparently, there is a 3rd account yours is linked to. I have no further information than this.I apologize for the inconvenience."

Now annoyed, Jenn tried reasoning with Newegg via their live chat customer service, which is where the really shocking part of the story comes in—that Newegg is holding Jenn accountable for her brother's actions:

In that chat they gave me my brothers full name and account number. This is making me nervous as that's all private information that should not be released, I don't really care if we live at the same house. They proceeded to tell me,

Phoebe: We have checked that your acct is related to account with customer number CENSORED That account has charge back record with us. so we block that account. The account holder name is CENSORED.

Jenn: Yeah, thats my brother.

Jenn: We have the same address.

Jenn: Shipping and billing, or do you mean credit card information.

Phoebe: Sorry for keep you waiting.

Jenn: Not a problem.

Phoebe: I have checked that you need to let your brother to reversed the charge back with his bank and provide us with proof that shows the reversal was successful done.

Phoebe: We will then be able to further assist you.

Jenn: in order to have an unrelated bank and account unlocked....

Phoebe: Yes, please send the proof of the reversal to [redacted].

Jenn: I have absolutely no idea what you mean by reversed charge either.

Jenn: Are you kidding....

Jenn: Seriously are you kidding?

Phoebe: It is the issue between your brother and the bank. He may have issue with bank.

Jenn: So you're telling me, that I have to go to my brother, tell him that you guys gave me his personal information, tell him that unless he calls you, finds out what it is that you want done, takes care of it, emails you proof that its been taken care of, that I cannot order anything from you.

Jenn: My brother, who has nothing to do with my money and I have nothing to do with his.

Jenn: I just live in the same house.

Jenn: And this is the only way I am going to be able to order anything from you ever....

Phoebe: Sorry for all the inconvenience this may have caused you. I have checked with our related department that we will not unblock your account.

Jenn: Is there a reason why?

Jenn: Is there something I did that violated terms of service in any respect?

Jenn: Or is it simply that my account is related to my brothers account?

Jenn: And I still need to know if its banking information or credit card information thats related.

Jenn: Rather shipping and billing.

Jenn: Sorry.

Phoebe: You brother's account has charge back record with his bank. Your account is related to him since the address is the same.

Jenn: Gotcha, just so I have the facts straight.."

That was all strange enough, but then Jenn filed a complaint with the BBB and her story took a weird turn when a Newegg rep called her directly to explain why they would really never, ever, not in a million years, ship anything to her (emphasis ours):

Since going through their customer service did not get me the desired result, I filed a Better Business Bureau complaint. I was not happy about being used as a collection agency, the financial transaction being done before address verification, or the amount of information they were willing to release to me about someone who I have no legal bond to. Well, they got the BBB complaint, and they called. I answered and the woman on the other end of the phone seemed appalled and apologetic of the behavior of the customer service department and was totally utterly shocked. She requested all the emails and the chat logs to be emailed to her, so I did.

She called me back about 45 minutes after that conversation and said that it had nothing to do with me or my brothers account. Someone, who's name I don't recognize as they gave me that too, did something so horrible years ago that they have banned our address until the end of time. Absolutely no dealing with anyone at that shipping or billing address allowed. I politely said well that's fine but we've only lived here for 3 years that person is no longer here. She said "Well I cant help you, it doesn't matter that you haven't been the owner of that house for very long, its a security issue and we will never ship to you.

I find it truly terrifying that a business can ban an address until the end of time. She also told me that I could still order from them if I got a new address, shipping and billing of course. Which is kind of funny. I have absolutely no intentions of moving or changing my billing, address so I can order things from Newegg.com. I wonder if that's going to go along with Inspection reports when you buy a house from now on? Who will and will not do business with that address? I guess what bothers me more than anything is that I had to find this all out by chance. I was never contacted and told that due to security reasons my money was being refunded and my order was not going to be processed. They obviously don't need the business or the money.

Was Jenn's house the former site of a massive scam perpetrated against Newegg? Was the Newegg rep making up a story to put an end to the drama because the billing department refused to cooperate? We may never know, but it's clear that even Newegg has its limits when it comes to making sure the customer is satisfied. Or is even a customer in the first place.

(Photo: Getty)

After several depressing months of steadily declining rates, the yields on a few online savings accounts rates rose a tad. With .45 percentage points, HSBC Direct had the biggest jump and at 3.5% reclaims the title as the highest yielding online savings account from a big-name bank with no minimum balance. However, this is only a promotional rate through August 15. Tricky like a rock rhythm. (I found the big red "DEPOSIT MORE NOW" button in the announcement email HSBC sent out especially amusing). You might instead want to look at the online savings account offered by Provident Bank at 3.5%. That's down from 3.75 but the cut was tracked to the decrease in the federal interest rates. So with the Feds saying we're done with cuts for the near future, it's probably decent bet the Provident Bank rate will hold. Here's a good number of the rates that have gone up, and those that have stayed the same or decreased since the last time we posted this info.

For the most up-to-date information on these rates, Bankrate.com's dynamically updated rate charts is where you want to go.

Increased Rates

HSBC Direct: 3.5% APY (no min) (+.45)
Umbrella Bank: 3.4% APY (min of $100) (+.15)
Etade: 3.15% (no min) (+.1)

—-
Unchanged or Decreased

OneUnited: 3.6% APY (min of $1000)
Provident Direct: 3.5% (no min) (-.25)
Washington Mutual: 3.30% APY
iGoBanking: 3.28% (no min)
FNBO Direct: 3.25% (no min)
M&T e-Money Market: 3.25% (no min)
GCFBank.com: 3.14% (only for 90 days) (-.2)
WT Direct: 3.16% (min of $10k) (-.15)
Savings Square: 3.05% (no min) (-.2)
E-Loan: 3.01% APY (no min)
ING Direct: 3.0% APY (no min)
Capital One: 3.0% (no min) (-.5)
GMAC: 3.0% (no min)
Emigrant Direct: 2.75% APY (no min)
Citibank e-Savings: 2.65% APY (no min) (-.5)

(Photo: Getty)

Before we get to the typical bad-company shenanigans—in this case, Dell's $599 discount mysteriously shrank to $400 between when he placed it in his shopping cart and when he reached the confirmation screen—we want to share this bit of ridiculousness. Dell's CSR Vanessa gives us the scoop on Dell's sophisticated order fulfillment system:

Jack: Can you look at sales history today and verify whether you sold this system at $599 off today? This was to be my third dell purchase, now I will not purchase again!
ATG Vanessa: There isn't a cart history unfortunately.
Jack: Sales history! Actual people who purchased this system today!
ATG Vanessa: We don't keep record of that.
Jack: You're telling me dell does not know what it has sold today?
ATG Vanessa: Remember this is done online and there's some confidential information we usually erase to protect customers.
Jack: Like what computers you have to build?
ATG Vanessa: So no, there isn't a record where you can see how much have been sold.
Jack: How do you know what you have to ship?
ATG Vanessa: It depends on what we have available at the moment.

Aside from that nonsense, the problem here is that Dell enticed Jack with a weird bait-and-switch, and worse still, they snuck it in at the very last moment before he hit submit.

I had found a link for an XPS system that had a $599 instant savings. I configured my system and added it to the cart and the $599 savings still was applied. I chose to then apply for financing beacuse there was no payments for 12 months. Once I was approved, i proceeded to checkout. Once I reached the confirmation page to submit my order I saw that the price had risen by $200.00 when I went back to check what happened the instant savings had dropped to $400. Confused I then initiated a live chat which led to nothing.

---

ATG Vanessa: Thanks for holding, I have checked and the instant savings changed. Please be aware that configuration, pricing, tax, shipping & handling and monthly payment information that appears in your cart is estimated and presented for your convenience only, and is subject to change without notice.

Not only was Vanessa less than helpful, but she was pretty apathetic at the end, too:

Jack: Well dell just lost a customer.
ATG Vanessa: Is there anything else I can help you with at this time?

Umm, no.

(Photo of computers: Extra Ketchup)

This website has a similar complaint from an anonymous customer:

# PL TN — 2008-04-25

I agree that HotWire is a scam! I booked a 3-night stay in Savannah at what their website showed was a 3-star hotel. When I got the confirmation, it was a 2-star, without very good customer reviews. I could have made the same reservation myself at that location and paid only $10 more! I've asked them to change,gave them screen shots of better hotels, etc. and now they tell me that their "Research Team" is looking into it. Unfortunately, that will take 7-10 days to get a reply, which the 10th days is the day before I leave for my trip. And the longer they wait, the fewer good rooms are left. Anyway, I'm not holding out much hope. But be assured I will never use HotWire again and I will make sure all my family, friends, acquaintenances and anyone else I find will know what a rip off this company is

One problem may be that Hotwire uses its own rating system for hotels, according to a USA Today article from 2005 (when the original lawsuit was first filed).

Like other leading travel sites, Hotwire has its own hotel star-rating system. That's because there is no single accepted star-rating system in the USA.

The problem with all these different rating systems is that even when they're accurate, they don't necessarily jibe with travelers' ideas about what star ratings mean. Your notion of what a constitutes a three-star property may not match Hotwire's (or any other site's) definition. And there's little consistency among the systems.

The site creates star ratings for hotels by consulting ratings from other industry sources. Hotwire may also visit the property, though not all hotels are inspected in person. The company adjusts star ratings to conform to its own scale.

The Days Inn that Hotwire gave 2.5 stars merited just two stars from Orbitz, Travelocity, Priceline and AAA. Mobil doesn't rate it.

Here's an excerpt from the email Ryan received. Based on the third paragraph, it seems that the lawsuit isn't about Hotwire using a more lenient rating system, but actually selling lower-rated rooms as higher-rated ones.

THE FOLLOWING EMAIL REGARDS THE "HOTWIRE LITIGATION."

A proposed class action lawsuit is pending against Hotwire, Inc. Our client filed this case on behalf of certain California consumers who, since 2004, used Hotwire.com to reserve and pay for hotel rooms. We received your email agreeing to disclose your name to our office and we appreciate your help in investigating these claims.

This lawsuit alleges that certain Hotwire customers (including yourself) used Hotwire.com to book and pay for a hotel room with a certain "star rating" (as given by Hotwire's "Hotel Ratings Guide", one version of which is attached to this email for your review) but when the specific hotel name was revealed (after your non-refundable purchase), you actually received a hotel equated with a lower star rating than what you requested and purchased.

Hotwire has advised that at some point since 2004, like our client, YOU booked and paid for a hotel room of a certain star rating, but actually received a hotel equated by Hotwire with a lower star rating than what you requested/purchased. We are seekin