RELATED: Round 3: Ticketmaster vs Wachovia

From Photocritic's "secrets" article:

Here's some of what you may find on their shopping lists, and at least one reason each has its rightful place in the photog's apron pocket:

Blowtorch, for browning the edges of raw hamburger patties, the goose-bumpy skins of nearly raw poultry, and hot dogs. (Caution: simmer hot dogs for a while before torching, unless your goal is an action shot of a pink-meat food explosion.)

Motor oil, as a stand-in for unphotogenic syrups.

Glycerin, along with various sizes of artist's paintbrushes (to make seafood look like it was just caught that morning) and a misting bottle (to spritz lettuce salads, giving them that just-picked-and-rinsed look).

"werbung gegen realität" [Pundo3000] (Thanks to Ben!)
"The dirty tricks of food photographers" [photocritic.org]
(Photo: Pundo3000)

On Sept 30, 2007, I rented a 24ft Budget Truck for the purpose of moving myself and my roommates from one apartment to another. Upon rental, I opted for the optional damage waver/insurance and was informed that that waver specifically did not cover overhead damage. I proceeded with the normal inspection, noting minor wear and tear that I could see as well as graffiti damage to the truck.

While driving, I was extremely careful to observe all overhead clearances, and did not drive the truck under any bridge where it could be "clipped". Upon return of the truck, the rental agent immediately asks me what I hit, because he notices damage to the top of the truck. Incredulous, I answer that the only thing I could have hit were low-slung city trees. What looked like a minor scrape from ground level was pointed out to me, and I doubted that a tree could make that kind of damage, but there it was.

Upon returning to the inside of the office, I am informed by the Budget Agent, Dennis Neuhauser, that I had 2 options: 1) That I could pay $670 for the damage immediately up front and resolve the claim or 2) I could go through Budget Corporate, which could potentially cost me "thousands of dollars". Although I was wary of the origins/cause of the damage, I was put under extreme duress by the draconian options presented to me by the rental agent. Fearing the prospect of having to pay "thousands of dollars", I opted to pay the $670 and wash my hands of the damages. My roommate was there to witness the offer and the terms that were presented to me, and it was made clear that, by choosing to pay immediately, I could resolve myself of this issue (that was the only reason why I chose to).

November 28, 2007, I receive a Vehicle Damage Claim from Budget Corporate seeking an additional $1,910.93 for damages to the truck, for a total of $2,080.93 once the $670 I already paid was factored in. I am also sent the estimate/invoice for the repair of the truck, as well as low-res black and white images of the damage areas. This invoice has 20 line items, 12 which are marked as "judgment items". Even things that I had marked on the original inspection form as pre-existing, such as the graffiti, were included on the claim I am on the hook for. The estimate itself is dated more than 2 weeks after I returned the truck, 10/17/2007, meaning I have no way of knowing if any of that additional damage was incurred by other drivers and/or was pre-existing, since I was never given any opportunity to inspect the roof, which is where all the damage was.

I think it is pretty clear from the confluence of these circumstances that Budget is trying to frame me for charges that could have no way been incurred while I was driving the truck for a few hours. I did not hit any structures, and the damages are shown at multiple, un-related points. They clearly just wanted to fix the entire truck and pin it on my rental. This is already in addition to the fraudulent verbal contract I was offered by the agent and the coercing of an immediate payment which was obviously made no difference in the handling of the claim.

In response to the claim letter I had been sent, I wrote a letter in response outlining my objections and demanding a refund of the $670 to pursue my legal options. I have been sent 3 more letters demanding that I respond to the claim, and I have sent 3 letters in response, all of which are documented as confirmed delivered. Given my experiences with Budget thus far, I wanted all communications about this claim to be delivered in a form that could be documented, such as postal mail. All letters have been ignored, and I have just received a final notice claiming that I have made no attempt to contact the company in regard to this claim, which I obviously have. They are threatening to report the charges to a collection agency and destroy my credit. I have even emailed the truck claims examiner, Janice Messinger, directly at her janice.messinger@avisbudget.com email address, and that too has gone unanswered. All I'm faced with is a destroyed credit report if I do not pay by February 25, 2008 at 5:00pm. I am writing this because I feel it is necessary for this story to be publicized to let other know how Budget treats its customers. I don't know how else I can go about resolving this problem. I have been clear in all letters and emails that I am not running away from the claim, but I am challanging it. That said my responses are being stonewalled at every turn. Thanks in advance for any attention you might be able to give my story.

These pictures show damage to multiple points on the roof, and the damages look like they were incurred by multiple collisions, since hitting or scraping one structure, like a bridge, for example (which I didn't even do), wouldn't result in points of impact this varied. In addition, the cracking peeling of the top paneling appears as just wear and tear, and the graffiti is something I noted on the inspection form. They are charging me for ALL of it.

Kevin's story is a sad reminder to take a mess of pictures of any rental before driving away to establish a baseline to dispute any fraudulent claims. From the look of it, Budget is trying to bully Kevin into underwriting a batch of unrelated and overdue repairs. Sending disputes via certified mail is the right move, as is keeping a meticulous record of any documents. If they push the matter further, it may be necessary to consult a lawyer.

Zach writes:

My wife just opened a bag of spinach she bought at Whole Foods. As she was draining it, she found a bird feather (she's a biologist, so we're confident in her finding).

We've got stock in Whole Foods too, so we have no axe to grind, but were a little upset at how the customer service rep handled it (no concern about feathers being in other bags, saying "you'd be surprised at how much stuff people find in their food").

To complete the story, the next day my wife returned the feathered spinach to Whole Foods. The manager said that they'd pulled the spinach from the shelf and notified other area stores about the problem. My wife confirmed that there was no frozen chopped spinach available in the store. When she asked a person stocking shelves where she could find it, he said it'd been pulled. So the problem had been communicated to the staff too.

The manager offered to reimburse my wife for the purchase, but quickly realized that it cost all of $1.50, so he gave her a $25 gift certificate.

Thank you for contacting us regarding our Warranty policy as it pertains to the condition of your PLAYSTATION 3 console.

After consultation with legal counsel, SCEA has determined that the photographs of your console as returned to our service center are neither confidential nor private. Consequently, we may lawfully release these photographs to you. Because the photographs are not confidential, we may also release them to media who inquire about your recent internet postings concerning the console.

Regards,

Cindie Smith
Sr. Manager Technical Support, eService & Security
Sony Computer Entertainment America
Consumer Services Department

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

PREVIOUSLY: Sony CSR: What? No! Dust Doesn't Void Your PS3 Warranty!
Dust Voids PS3 Warranty

(Photo:moacirpdsp)

I went to dinner at the Applebee's in Woodland, CA a couple nights ago and ordered their bruschetta burger. As soon as I saw my order, I immediately took a picture and thought Consumerist needed to see it because it fits so well in the ad v. reality posts. The burger itself was a bit sloppy, but still looked similar to the menu picture. The fries, however, were a different story. In the menu photo, "garlic parmesan fries" are served in a ramekin and look quite tasty. Instead, I was served a cylinder of slimy, greasy fries with a couple pieces of parmesan cheese on top.

Enjoy!

(Photo: defective burger)

It apparently originated as a genuine rewards coupon e-mailed as part of a Blockbuster promotion, but its use is supposed to be tied to the redeemer's having earned it through participation in a specific affiliate program. Thus, the many, many consumers (other than the original intended recipients) who have been forwarded a copy of the same coupon by others and tried to redeem it at Blockbuster outlets have been informed (by store personnel and/or in-store signage) that the coupon is not legitimate and will not be accepted.

Blockbuster Coupon [Snopes via Frugal For Life]

The first is a mistake. The second is a flickr competition. If you stumble upon a misspelled Walmart sign, take a picture and submit it to our Flickr pool. Tag it "Walmart is smrt."

Of the misspelling, one Texarkana associate said, "I'm not surprised, it's not the first time." Perhaps the corporate overseers in Bentonville should consult the Franklin Children's Talking Dictionary & Spell Corrector.

My colleague came to work waving around a new pair of Sony headphone's he'd bought on the way over, still new in the blister plastic packaging. He was excited because he got such a good deal on them, and tried cutting through the package with a pair of heavy duty scissors. The plastic was unusually strong and was resisting even our most well made scissors (we work in a printing facility, and have lots of types of scissors, all high quality). He switched to the x-acto knife after the scissors were unable to pierce the thick bonded plastic.

We also use these knives regularly and have never had an accident. Well the plastic was so strong he needed to apply a large amount of force to the blade, which caused his hand to slip toward his body and into his abdomen. The cut was deep and he bled through his shirt; we found gauze in the first aid kit and dressed the wound using sterile wipes and pads until he was cleaned up enough to go to the emergency room. I had to use the x-acto knife again to open the package all the way, and it took me nearly ten minutes of precise, careful cuts to get the headphones out, and I use these knives almost every day as part of my various craft hobbies. I literally had to slice all the way around the perimeter of the package, and that was not easy. I doubt somone without a lot of cutting experience could ever have opened this package safely.

This is not a directed complaint toward Sony specifically, but to all manufacturers to make your packaging reasonably easy to open for customers that spent money on your products. More directly, you should be able to open any package with a pair of scissors in a minute or less. If not, your packaging becomes hazardous by causing people to resort to sharper utensils like knives and rasors. My colleage is recovering well and does not plan to pursue a lawsuit.

We are not surprised. Liberating consumer electronics from their protective armor can be a Sisyphean struggle. Fortified enclosures help retailers by deterring theft and making products easier to ship, but rob consumers of their ability to delightedly tear open a present. Retailers should develop a better way to cocoon their products, one that discourages consumers from accidently stabbing themselves.

I was in the electronics department at Walmart the other night and noticed something interesting on the shelves. Several flat-panel TVs were marked with their prices in big bold text. In smaller text on the same tag was the previous price, which in several cases was lower than the current one. I snapped pics of a couple of the tags, and could have taken several more if I had been bored enough.

There's really no wrongdoing here, I just found it interesting that Walmart would practically boast that the price had gone up, especially when they used to use the slogan, "Watch for falling prices." Again, Walmart manages to fumble along obliviously through capitalism.

Naturally, Aquage threatened a lawsuit. Doesn't Jamie know that the light that actually bounces off one of their products is the legal property of Aquage Shampoo? And don't you know that taking a photograph of an African native actually steals their soul right out of their bodies?

We're declaring today National "Go Into A Store And Take Pictures Of Stuff" day. Go out and steal a corporation's soul today! You know... providing they have one.

Company: Taking Pictures of Our Product Is Copyright Infringement [CL&P Blog] (Thanks, Larry & Elva!)

From the Hasbro website:

Check out the original of the cartoon for full live video effect (we had to screenshot and paste two images as the last frame, sorry Graham, please don't sue us).

UPDATE: The Amazon reviews have been deleted, but no one is safe from the almighty power of the Google cache. See what spunk we dug up, after the jump [NSFW]...

So here's what we were able to retrieve from here. There's a second page of reviews that we can't access. Let us know if anyone knows how to go to a sub-page on Google cache so that sub-page is also the cached version (or otherwise access the information).