A "small claim" is a dispute about a small amount of money. For example, if the electronics store broke your MP3 player when you took it in for service, you have a small claim.

Small claims court is pretty much what you see on daytime courtroom dramas like Judge Judy, but without the sass. Lawyers rarely appear, and the money in dispute is usually fairly small (although it the upper limit is usually several thousand dollars).

Most states make it easy to start a lawsuit in small claims court. For example, in Minnesota, you can download forms and instructions from the courts' website. The court clerks are helpful, and some counties even have self-help centers that can coach plaintiffs through the process.

If you have a small claim and want to file a lawsuit yourself, find your state or county small claims court. Look for forms, instructions, and self-help resources.

Some important things to remember:

• Include all the money you want in your statement of claim;
• Gather up all your documentation, and bring an extra copy to court to share with the judge and/or the defendant;
• Wear a suit, because the other guy probably will;
• Be ready and willing to settle, but do not feel like you have to settle;
• Stay calm, especially in front of the judge or referee, because the party that gets upset is usually the party that loses; and
• At the hearing, focus on why they owe you money; don't digress, Boston-Legal style, into a catalog of the company's human rights abuses.

Things that are not small claims

Many consumer protection laws provide for attorney fees, which means the person or company you sue will have to pay your lawyer, so you don't have to. Not quite a free lawyer, but it means you should not have to pay your lawyer unless they get money for you. In many cases, you will get more money if you hire a lawyer than if you represent yourself.

Here are a few things you should talk about with a consumer rights lawyer instead of bringing a lawsuit yourself:

• Debt collection abuse and harassment;
• Credit report errors;
• Credit, housing, or other forms of discrimination;
• Problems with credit repair companies;

To find a consumer lawyer, the best place to start looking is the consumer lawyer database at the National Association of Consumer Advocates.

Get going

The statute of limitations may be as short as one year, so get on it!

Remember, filing a lawsuit is serious business, even in small claims court. Frivolous lawsuits will get tossed, and if you file one, you may even get sanctioned. But there are times where you are right, the company is wrong, and the only way to get what you deserve is to open up your closet and put on your lawsuit.

Sam Glover is a consumer rights lawyer, enemy of shady debt collectors, previous Consumerist contributor, and writes the Caveat Emptor blog. His column appears the first Monday of every month on Consumerist.

(Illustration: Leo Espinosa)

My office recently sent out an email stating "Any employee who wishes to take time off work to vote must request that time by the close of business today. This time will be unpaid."

Unfortunately for them, that's a violation of state law.

Even if your state doesn't have laws about getting time off for voting, don't let your employer stop you. Vote!

Time Off to Vote for Employees — A State by State Survey [Employment Law Post]
(Photo: msmail )

Here's his story:

In June I signed up for an introductory 0% APR Discover Business card and after reading through the "Discover Business Card Account Card Member Agreement" pamphlet that came with my card I found on page 13 that I could voluntarily reject binding arbitration. The section reads:

"You may elect to reject the arbitration of disputes section by providing us a notice of rejection within 30 days after receiving a card, at the following address: Discover Business Card, PO Box 30938, Salt Lake City, UT 84130-0938... You're rejection notice must include your name, address, telephone number, account number and signature and must not be sent in with any other correspondence..."

Eager to retain my right to sue the good ole' fashioned American way, I sent in my very own ole' fashioned handwritten rejection of arbitration certified letter, attached below. You'll have to trust me that my information is below the black bars :)

I sent the letter on June 19th (delivered the 23rd) and Discover got back to me on July 5th (delivered July 7th). The letter I got back says "Unfortunately, we are unable to honor this request since it did not contain all of the required information as set forth in the Notice of Right to Reject Arbitration. Enclosed is the Cardmember Agreement that pertains to your account."

I wasn't sure what I had done wrong, so I cut out the section of the enclosed booklet and attached it to my next letter (sent July 8th, delivered July 11th):

I clearly state that since Discover took a bit to reply I was no longer within the first 30 days of opening my account. Surely this time it would work?

Nope. August 6th rolls around and the same letter described above arrives in the mail with the same pamphlet.

So at this point I call in and ask around to see what's up and nobody really knows what's going on... Finally a "manager" says he will look into the problem and get back to me.

So a few weeks roll around until finally today I'm going over my bills and remember that nobody ever called me back, so I call in today and get redirected 6 times to 7 different people, with 5 cold transfers and only 1 warm transfer. I went all over the country hopping from call center to call center, each time explaining to a new Discover rep my entire story and in two cases spelling out A-R-B-I-T-R-A-T-I-O-N until finally I just began asking each operator right up front if they knew what arbitration was, and if so if they could figure out why I can't get rid of it.

Guy numero 7 tells me that if I "reject binding arbitration or anything else in the contract, Discover will cancel the account." After I point out again that I am granted the option of opting out, he tells me that my 30 days have passed and so I'm probably not eligible anymore to opt out, but recommends that I contact the legal department and gives me the address, which if you can guess is the same one I sent my original letters to already.

At this point I'm really frustrated and tell the rep that I'd like to close my account if I can't resolve this issue soon, so he tells me that someone will "call me by Wednesday with an answer."

This is my first Discover card and I've really enjoyed using it but I just don't have the patience for this run around. I've spent two hours dealing with this and I just wish they could figure it out.

Have any of your readers been able to opt out of binding arbitration?

Has anyone with a Discover business card account tried this? If so, did it work for you? We can't figure out what Discover thinks John is doing wrong, other than trying to opt out in the first place.

(Photo: Getty)

I am a 56-year-old grandmother who has never had so much as a speeding ticket. But on July 26th, I was taken by armed officers, in handcuffs, off JetBlue flight 195 for refusing to delete a video I had taken of a minor altercation between passengers over a screaming kid.

The flight crew made up a charge of interfering with the crew. My recording proves I did nothing wrong. I never even stood up. I was left with the threat that I will never be able to fly on JetBlue, that I will go on the no-fly list, and have a report written about me filed with the FAA.

Parver has turned the footage over to ABCNews (apparently we should watch for her on Good Morning America) so that ABC's legal team can fight off the pitbulls at JetBlue.

The Kingman Daily Miner also has a description of the incident:

Approximately 30 minutes after the dispute, Parver said she was approached by the flight crew who were asking passengers questions about the altercation. When Parver told them she had recorded the incident, they requested she accompany them to the back of the plane, Parver said.

There she showed the video to three or four crew members, Parver said.

"After viewing the video, they demanded that I delete it," Parver said. "I asked, 'Why?' The head-stewardess went as far as to tell me that I had broken a law by using an electronic item during the flight."

At that time, another flight attendant accused Parver of wanting to put it up on YouTube, a video-sharing Web site.

"I do not even know how to download a video on the Internet," Parver said.

After refusing and returning to her seat, the crew asked Parver to return to the back of the plane again, she said.

"This time they told me that the captain demanded that I delete the video," Parver added.

Parver requested to speak to the captain by telephone to confirm the demand. She was not granted this request.

"If the captain had nicely asked me to delete the video, I don't think I would have disobeyed a pilot," Parver said.

Parver again refused the flight crew's request. At that point, one attendant told Parver that if she disobeyed the captain, federal agents would be involved and she could face criminal penalties.

"This was all a case of bullying," Parver said.

Grandmother arrested after refusing to delete JetBlue fight video [Elliott]
Woman detained by airline over video [Kingman Daily Miner]

The problems associated with banks that begin foreclosure proceedings when they do not have proper legal standing are now looming larger in the mortgage meltdown. Loans were heaped into trusts with little documentation of ownership or proper loan assignments — it was all about volume and the fees that came with it — and now that sloppiness is hurting both lenders and borrowers.

Mr. Rothbloom said he had another case in which the lender’s representative has been unable to prove ownership for two and a half years.

Meanwhile, consumer lawyers fear that borrowers are being pushed out of their homes by companies that have no right to do so. Such a prospect is particularly worrisome for residents in states that allow lenders to foreclose without court supervision, known as nonjudicial foreclosure states.

Losing a home is devastating for any family. Such monumental and consequential proceedings should adhere to letter of the law, and if they don't, families shouldn't hesitate to ask a court to defend their rights.

How One Borrower Beat the Foreclosure Machine [The New York Times]
(Photo: Getty)

At a local trip to the CVS by Rancho Bernardo High School I was appalled to discover the low regard for customer service. When you walk in there is a line where they segregate teens from adults. They allow the adults to just walk in while teenagers have to wait in a long line where only two can go in at a time. The whole time this lady and a security guard stand there while they sneer at teens. When asked about the policy and they commented that it was to prevent shoplifting and that it was legal because it wasn't excluding customers it was just dividing them by age. To me it seems to be blatant ageism, which I'm appalled at. To think that you can be discriminated against by a factor you can not control angers me deeply. Bad customer service doesn't prevent shoplifting. If anything it encourages it. It's a horrible policy on their part seeing how about 50% of their customers are students. Not just that it's an unfair bias to place on high school students, as if they are the only ones who shoplift. In addition it isn't even an effective means to prevent shoplifting, monitors at door would be a more effective option that doesn't infringe upon customer service. It's unfair for teenagers to be treated as second class citizens. When a student asked an adult, who was more than willing, if she would mind purchasing an item for him the lady at the door said to "please not disturb the customers". As if discriminating against your customers isn't disturbing the customers. The local CVS has lost my business.

It's not completely unheard of for stores to restrict the after school crowd, but it's unreasonable to think that only minors shoplift. Clearly none of these teens are Consumerist readers, or they'd already be outside the store with signs proclaiming "CVS Hates Teens!" Would you shop at this store, or are you grateful for CVS keeping the teen scourge at bay? Let us know, in the comments.

(photo:foundphotoslj)

So, my wife & I stopped in at Wal-Mart to get a few things. I didn't have long before I had to be at work, but we had enough time to do our shopping. So we get what we need, pay at one of their express lanes, and then went to leave the store. It's at about this point that we notice a line of several carts waiting for the people greeter to search through their bags and check their receipts.

Since I didn't have a lot of time to waste, I simply went around the line and started out the door. At this point the people greeter told me I had to stop and allow her to go through everything I just purchased. I politely told her that she did not in fact need to search my property, and that they lost any right to go through the items in my cart when I paid for them. I proceeded to walk out of the store.

While I was transferring everything from the cart into the car, several Wal-Mart asset protection employees approached me, and asked to see my receipt. I told them no, at which point they stated that the merchandise was stolen. I told them I paid for everything, but did not have any more time to waste with them. I started to back out of the parking spot, when one of them tried to walk behind my car, I told him to move out of the way, that I didn't want to hit him. He said he was getting the license plate, so I waited a few seconds for him to write it down, then proceeded to back up. Another one of their employees called the local police department. I also called to give them my contact information, and let them know what happened.

Then I called the store manager to make a complaint about the way I was treated. He stated that they had just started a policy to check receipts for any unbagged items. I explained that they were going through every bag in every customer's cart, and that the delay this created was unacceptable. He said he had not heard anything from his staff, but he would follow up with them to find out what was going on. I gave him my name and phone number, and he said he would follow up with me. I have not heard anything yet.

About thirty minutes later my wife received a call from an officer of the local police department. He asked for our side of things, and then said he would smooth things over. While I understand that most people would just show the receipt and let them poke through your things, there really is no reason to do so. If you were any where else, and someone accused you of being a thief, and then asked you to let them search through your things to prove your not, would you allow it? I wouldn't, in fact my reaction would be to leave, quickly. Thats what I did in this case, and thats what I plan to do in the future. If enough people were willing to stand up for their rights, this would stop happening.

Other readers have had luck referring their complaints about overzealous receipt checking to the executives at Wal-Mart. Here's some instructions on how to craft an EECB to lauch on Wal-Mart, as well as some contact information.
(Photo: Jeff Holbrook )

In March, a court told EMI it couldn't demand that MP3tunes turn over all the music stored by customers on its servers. Robertson writes on his corporate blog that the request is absurd:

Files are not MP3tunes' possessions any more than the contents of a safety deposit box are owned by the bank that houses them. The storage provided by MP3tunes is the user's own space. A Locker is empty when someone opens an account and that customer decides what files are placed into their Locker. All files are stored at the request of the user. People who choose to utilize remote storage should be guaranteed the same level of privacy they have for the files stored on their local hard disk.

As you may be aware, the major record label EMI has sued MP3tunes, claiming our service is illegal. You can read about the case here. Much is at stake — if you don't have the right to store your own music online then you won't have the right to store ebooks, videos and other digital products as well. The notion of ownership in the 21st century will evaporate. The idea of ownership is important to me and I want to make sure I have that right and my kids do too.

"Court Ruling Denies EMI Access to Millions of Personal MP3 Files" [MIchael Robertson]

Dr. Susan M. Trocciola, who was a resident in trauma medicine at the time, testified that she placed a finger in Mr. Persaud's rectal area after conducting a physical exam of his spine to check for a spinal-cord injury.
 
Whether the rectal exam was performed was a matter of dispute. Mr. Persaud testified that he felt a finger inserted in his rectum, but Dr. Trocciola said the exam was never carried out.

Mr. Persaud was not necessarily the most sympathetic plaintiff. It emerged during the trial that Mr. Persaud, a native of Guyana who did not complete high school, had been convicted of two misdemeanors: attempted aggravated harassment for making phone calls to an ex-girlfriend's mother in 2001 and criminal mischief for threatening a fellow motorist with a baseball bat after a minor car accident in 2007. Mr. Persaud had filed a workers' compensation claim and also sued the owner of the site where he was injured. He was awarded about $4,000 in the compensation claim, but the suit was settled for a negligible sum, Mr. Marrone said.
 
In a phone interview, Mr. Marrone said of his client, "He's not a perfect person, but he's not a criminal by any standard of the word. He's got a lot of anxiety. He reacts negatively in stressful situations and he has a short temper."

RELATED
"Doctor Forces Rectal Exam, Patient Punches Doctor, Police Arrest Patient, Patient Sues"
(Photo: Getty)

A Conyers man may continue criticizing Wal-Mart with parodies on T-shirts that compare the retail giant to the Holocaust and al-Qaida terrorists, a federal judge has ruled.
Timothy Batten in Atlanta ruled that Charles Smith may maintain his Web sites, www.walocaust.com and www.walqaeda.com. Smith also may continue to sell novelty, satirical merchandise that criticizes the company, the judge said.

"It's great," Smith, 50, from Conyers, said Tuesday about the ruling. "I'm relieved. Whenever you go into litigation against such a big company, you never know the outcome."

"This is a resounding victory for First Amendment rights and sends a clear message to big corporations that would try to use their deep pockets to intimidate and silence their critics," said one of Smith's attorneys, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen.

Wal-Mart possesses strong and widely recognized trademarks, and the terms "Walocaust" and "Wal-Quaeda" are clearly a play on the famous Wal-Mart name, Batten wrote. For that reason, the judge ruled, it is unlikely that someone would confuse Wal-Mart's trademarks with Smith's parodies — "particularly one that calls to mind the genocide of millions of people, [and] another that evokes the name of a notorious terrorist organization."

Batten added that he found the designs to be "successful parodies."

Court upholds Conyers man's criticisms of Wal-Mart [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Over on Venture Chronicles, some Clear customers have left feedback, calling it "security theatre" and saying it "can cut 15 minutes out of the process"—which we're not sure is worth $100 bucks a year. Some were upset by the idea of retinal scanning and fingerprinting—all of Clear's data is routed through the TSA, so the government gets access to that data, if you worry about that sort of thing. One commenter named Celeste notes that Clear doesn't let you bypass some of the more onerous security activities:

I signed up as well and realize that, for now, I'll be at the front of the line. My two questions are, since I still have to go through all the security checks (i.e., shoes, laptops, bag screening, etc., as I understand it), why do they need a retina scan and thumbprint? Basically, I've paid $100 to bypass 150 people but I've still got to take off my shoes. Also, at $100 a year, won't the FlyClear line be as long as the regular security line in a year, once more airports become available? They haven't reduced the actual screening time. In fact, it's been increased by going through the retina and print scan, haven't they? We'll see if it's a benefit next year before I decide to renew.

I did find myself thinking "crikey I hope they have some killer data security with everything I am giving them".

I guess it's a Faustian bargain at it's heart, paying $100 because our government can't figure out how to have effective AND efficient airport security pisses me off, but I won't be thinking about that as I breeze through the Clear security lane while everyone else is waiting 100 people deep.

I'm less concerned about the prospect that my civil liberties will be infringed because at some point in the future they may share it with some agency, maybe I should be but I just don't get worked up about it for whatever reason.

Leaving San Jose on a flight last week, there was a short line to go through security — but long enough to make trying CLEAR worthwhile. I walked up and handed my card over — strike one, since after scanning my eyes and fingerprints, why do I need a card?

Next, I had to put my right ring finger down. Hard. Like really hard, to the degree it physically hurt, in order to get a good images. Yeah, I'm a big baby. C'mon — it wasn't comfortable. And then the finger wouldn't work.

Next to my "backup" finger, my left index. Again, a hard pressing down that hurt, but eventually an image was captured, and I was me.

So why then was I next asked for picture ID? All these biometrics, and they want my driver's license? Apparently, the CLEAR folks are different from TSA — and TSA wants the picture ID checked.

RELATED
"FlyClear" [Venture Chronicles]
"Using CLEAR To Clear Airport Security — This Is Efficient?" [Daggle]

Mr. [redacted]:

The situation with the Web site RateMyCop was absolutely NOT about censorship in ANY way.

The site's operator has publicly disclosed the concerns were over bandwidth. More accurately, Go Daddy's concerns were about how the RateMyCop site was far exceeding the amount of server usage for which it had contracted.

This customer paid for a shared server plan. The connections to his site were six times more than an entire 'shared server' accommodates. While he was paying for a service that cost $14.99 a month, his site actually required a much more extensive set-up.

Basically, he was paying for compact car, when he really needed a semi-truck.

The customer was not willing to work with our staff to resolve the issue.

While the "censorship" allegations certainly make for an edgy "story," they simply had nothing to do with this situation.

- Go Daddy
Office of the President

(Thanks to Mike!)

"Go Daddy Shuts Down RateMyCop Watchdog Site"
"GoDaddy Silences Police-Watchdog Site RateMyCop.com" [Wired]

RELATED
RateMyCop.com

One Consumerist reader sent Go Daddy the following letter this morning to voice his concerns that the company might be selectively censoring content (which certainly is within Go Daddy's right, but might turn off some customers):

I am writing to express my concern over Go Daddy's recent action in taking down the "RateMyCop.com" site hosted for one of your customers. Recent media attention has raised some controversy and your action was to suspend the site and post an "oops" page asking for the site's owner to contact you.

While I'm not necessarily a fan of "RateMyCop" or its message, the content of this site did not violate any laws, nor did it violate any normal standards of decency. That Go Daddy would censor this site, without warning or consultation to the site's owner, is deeply troubling to me.

I have been a Go Daddy customer for many years, and recently went through significant steps to transfer the last of my domains from previous registrars/hosts to consolidate under Go Daddy. I am now seriously considering taking my business elsewhere.

My domains are "hobby" websites, which I'm sure makes them very profitable for Go Daddy because I pay for Premium level services but place very little load on your systems, in that traffic is steady but not massive. I pay for this type of hosting so that I have absolute control over the content and presentation of my domains, free from advertising, bias, or other restrictions.

If Go Daddy is going to insist that constitutional protections extending to publications on other media do not apply when published on Go Daddy's servers, then I'm afraid I will feel the need to publish my speech elsewhere. And I promise to do so in as noisy and spectacular a manner as possible.

I look forward to hearing your response, and furthermore hope that you will reconsider your policies regarding censoring the content of the sites you are paid to publish.

"GoDaddy Silences Police-Watchdog Site RateMyCop.com" [Wired]

RELATED
RateMyCop.com

Yesterday (2-28-08) late afternoon I bought a $25 shower rack at the Wal-mart in [redacted] New Hampshire, and then tucked the receipt safely inside my wallet so I wouldn't lose it in case I had to return the item. The cashier did not bag the shower rack, so after I was done at the register I picked up my item and headed for the door. As I was approaching the door, the receipt checker Bob said, "Do you have your receipt?" To which I responded, "Yes, it's in my wallet" and I kept walking towards the door. Behind me, I could hear him yell "Sir! Sir! I need to see your receipt!", but being an avid Consumerist reader, I knew I didn't need to stop, so I kept walking. Bob ran up in front of me and stood between the slider doors, blocking my exit and budging me back inside. Appalled that the Wal-mart employee had just touched me, I said "excuse me", but Bob refused to budge, demanding again to see my receipt. I attempted to walk around him, but he kept stepping in front of me, and I would bounce off of him. Now, I was bigger than Bob, but I didn't wish to get physical and blow the situation out of proportion.

At this point however, a random male customer came to Bob's assistance blocking the exit and pushing me back inside. The customer, who was bigger than me, told me to show Bob my receipt. When I refused, the customer responded with "Maybe I'm a cop". So now I have Wal-mart employee Bob and a customer impersonating a police officer physically blocking my exit and budging me back inside when I try to press by them. I was scared. I repeatedly asked the two of them if I was free to go, to which Bob said, "No, you need to show me your receipt." At this point a female employee shows up (I think her name was Cindy) and joins in telling me that I need to show my receipt. The police officer-impersonating customer disappears at this point, but Bob is still physically rebuffing my attempts to exit.

I argue with the female employee for a while, getting nowhere, but for some reason Bob FINALLY stops pushing me back when I try to walk past him, and at this point I consider my illegal detainment to have ended. As I am outside the store and about to walk away, the female employee says something to the extent of "Fine, we'll just write down your license plate number and tell the police you were shoplifting!"

Now, due to the nature of my work, I cannot get in trouble with the police, and any arrest, regardless of my guilt, could cost me my job. So at this point, I responded to her with "Are you kidding!!?? You're going to lie to the police?" She shrugged, and walked back inside. I followed her, demanding to know what her name was, and although she didn't tell me, I think her nametag said "Cindy".

Currently standing back inside Wal-mart near the exit, I whipped out my cell phone and called 1-800-Walmart, and reported what just happened to someone at corporate. At this point there was a lot of onlookers because of the commotion, and I was extremely embarrassed. Anyways, I pulled out my receipt in order to read the person at corporate the store number, and I could see the look of surprise on the other employees' faces. The corporate phone jockey took my name, number, and said someone would get back to me. After I hung up, I switched my phone to camera mode, looked at Bob who was still standing a few feet away from me, said "Smile, Bob", and snapped his picture (attached).

At this point, General Manager David arrived on the scene, and told me that I can't take pictures of his employees, that it's a violation of their privacy (Hah!). I explained to David what just went down, and how it was not acceptable for his employees to lay their hands on me and to threaten me with making a false police report. I was actually surprised with the following discussion I had with David, who was nothing but professional and sympathetic. He understood how completely wrong his employees were, claimed that he'd review the security cameras (yeah right), and that his employees definitely needed some "retraining". I thanked David for understanding, shook his hand, and went home.

I'm still waiting for the call from corporate. Wal-mart needs to understand just how much is at stake when their employees illegally detain customers. Their employees are literally putting their lives on the line. What happens when a customer is carrying for self-defense and fears for his life when a Wal-mart employee illegally detains him? Is it really worth it, Wal-mart?

I'm considering making a police report about the situation, but I'm not sure I want Bob arrested. Sure, I think that what he did was criminal, but he was just a below-average-intelligence, under-paid, and under-trained employee trying to do his job. Should I make the report?

Bob probably will not be arrested if you file a police report about the incident. If you were thinking of filing a lawsuit against Walmart for their behavior, you'd need to file one to use as evidence, but you didn't mention that in your letter.

A formal complaint to Walmart is appropriate. If you file a police report, include it with your complaint. These employees obviously had no idea that what they were doing was wrong and are in need of some guidance. We're surprised to hear a story like this from New Hampshire. Aren't you guys supposed to be all "Live Free or Die?" Did the Walmart employees not get that memo?

The airlines, horrified at the thought of being required to give people water and then provide a place where said water could be disposed of after it had served its intended purpose, tried to stop the law but lost when U.S. District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn ruled in favor of the bill of rights.

The law went into effect yesterday.

NY's Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Goes Into Effect [Gothamist]
(Photo:balmes)

Apparently he gets sued, like, every damn day:

First, he was sued in Florida by the infomercial company GlobalTec, which sells day-trading software. GlobalTec alleged that, by posting reviews of GlobalTec products that turned up in Google searches, Leonard was infringing the company's trademark. With the assistance of Public Citizen, Leonard filed a motion to dismiss, pointing out that, among many other problems with the lawsuit, he lived in Arizona and had no connection with the state where he had been sued. Last month, the court accepted Public Citizen's arguments and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Next, Leonard received a subpoena from Video Professor, an infomercial company that sells video-based courses, demanding that Leonard turn over IP addresses and other personally identifying information about everyone who posted reviews of the company's products. Leonard objected, again with the help of Public Citizen, and yesterday Video Professor withdrew its subpoena, although it did not drop its lawsuit and is apparently still pursuing another subpoena to discover the identity of a Wikipedia user, who the company claims defamed it in the online encyclopedia.

So it came as no surprise to Leonard when he learned of yet another lawsuit against him, this time in Michigan, brought by the Infomercial company Lifestyle Lift, which performs a facelift procedure that it claims takes only about an hour.

The Hazards of Running a Consumer Review Website [CL&P]

Stephen O'Brien wants to buy a foreclosed apartment building on Warwick Street in Roxbury. He wants to keep the ground-floor tenant, James Evans, 77, who is partially blind and living on Social Security.

But the company that is selling the foreclosed building told O'Brien it must be emptied of tenants before it can be resold, a standard industry practice.

"It's insane," said O'Brien, who lives near Evans and owns three apartment buildings in the neighborhood. "It's just obviously insane. And even if they're trying to manage it in a way that benefits them, then the problem is that they have absolutely no concern for the individual."

O'Brien called the law firm that handled the foreclosure for Deutsche Bank. He wanted to inspect the building so he could determine a fair price.

"The lawyer I spoke to said they wouldn't let anybody in until everybody is out and they've cleaned it," he said.

He said he received a similar response from New England Property Solutions. Then, he tried to contact Deutsche Bank directly. No response.

A spokesman for Deutsche told the Globe, "We're going to decline to comment for the piece. We just don't see an upside in explaining this stuff."

As foreclosures mount, tenants suffer [Boston Globe] (Thanks, Arthur!)
(Photo:Globe Staff / Mark Wilson)

PREVIOUSLY: What To Do When Rental Gets Foreclosed?

The Gap, Nike, and Levi Strauss actually have comparatively large inspection teams for U.S. companies, but "large" in this sense means about 90 inspectors for the Gap—the number of inspections-per-plant for the Gap in 2006 still worked out to about one every six months.

The current inspection process has only been around since the early to mid-90s, and clearly the current level of inspections aren't working:

A forthcoming study from the Worker Rights Consortium examined 50 factories serving these top companies and found major problems at each location, like verbal abuse, lack of access to drinking water and bathrooms, and the inability for workers to organize. In 84 percent of those factories, workers didn't understand how their salary was determined.

Sanchez drives a truck for Norfolk-based Jumpn' G's Ice Cream. He was convicted three times this summer in Portsmouth General District Court for the illegal use of noise from an ice cream truck.

He appealed the last conviction, which stemmed from a stop by police Officer Jim Conrad on Sept. 5.

Conrad has been enforcing the city's ice cream vendor regulations since a 10-year-old girl was hit by a car as she walked away from an illegally parked ice cream truck in May. The girl suffered cuts and bruises.

Sanchez also has been convicted in Portsmouth of driving without a license and not having proper equipment. He and his employer have paid conviction fees and costs of $496, court records show.

Ice cream truck driver challenges Portsmouth's music ban [AP]
(Photo:The Vista Dome)

The two major issues in the unlocking restriction are:

• The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which "makes it illegal to break digital locks to get at copyrighted works." But last year, the librarian of Congress issued an exemption for unlocking for personal use:

As the librarian wrote, the locks "are used by wireless carriers to limit the ability of subscribers to switch to other carriers, a business decision that has nothing whatsoever to do with the interests protected by copyright."

• Your terms of service, which Apple claims you violate if you unlock the phone. The columnist's opinion here is a bit murkier—Apple has taken great pains to make their unlocking ban legally enforceable by lumping it under "reverse engineering," but "copyright allows reverse engineering for compatibility as a 'fair use,'" writes the author.

As readers pointed out in this post, maybe it's time we ban the practice of locking phones altogether, to prevent companies from engaging in anti-competitive behavior like this.

"The iPhone Freedom Fighters" [Slate]

RELATED
"Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" [Library of Congress] (look at Section 5 on page 5)
(Photo: Getty)

Verizon had initially claimed that the text messages violated their policy against messages that were "highly controversial." From the WSJ:

In a statement Thursday, Verizon Wireless spokesman Jeffrey Nelson said, "The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to this isolated incident."

He added, "Upon learning about this situation, senior Verizon Wireless executives immediately reviewed the decision and determined it was an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy."

Verizon Wireless said Thursday its policy had been developed before text messaging protections such as spam filters "adequately protected customers from unwanted messages." It was designed, the company said, to ward against communications such as anonymous hate messaging and adult materials sent to children.

Verizon Wireless Ends Ban On Abortion-Rights Group [WSJ]
(Photo:meghannmarco)

Why? Because she doesn't like the obvious marketing tie-in. Southwest's apology to Kyla came in the form of a press release touting their new "mini-skirt" fares.

"They are exploiting me again by using my traumatic experience as a marketing ploy," Ebbert told ABC News.

Well, yes. That is exactly what they are doing, and they're not really being shy about it. Southwest's so-called apology was littered with cute phrases such as "great legs" and "hot flashes."

Interestingly, ABC news didn't quote the part of the "apology" that offended Kyla, instead choosing to paraphrase it to make it sound more heartfelt.

ABC News:

Ebbert did get an apology on Thursday from Gary Kelly, CEO of Southwest, who issued this statement: "Kyla, you are a valued customer, and you did not get an adequate apology. We could have handled this better, and on behalf of Southwest Airlines, I am truly sorry. Our company is based on freedom even if our actions may not have appeared that way."

Southwest offered Ebbert two free round-trip tickets. But Ebbert said she felt the apology was "back-handed" and "two months late."

"From a Company who really loves PR, touche to you Kyla! Some have said we've gone from wearing our famous hot pants to having hot flashes at Southwest, but nothing could be further from the truth. As we both know, this story has great legs, but the true issue here is that you are a valued Customer, and you did not get an adequate apology. Kyla, we could have handled this better, and on behalf of Southwest Airlines, I am truly sorry. We hope you continue to fly Southwest Airlines. Our Company is based on freedom even if our actions may have not appeared that way. It was never our intention to treat you unfairly and again, we apologize."

Southwest 'Cover' Girl Is Still Angry [ABC News]

This coming from the "LUV" airline that used to force its flight attendants to wear hot pants and boots that Britney Spears would wear to a funeral.

What the hell, Southwest? From CNN:

Setara Qassim said a flight attendant confronted her during the trip from Tucson, Arizona, to Burbank, California, and asked whether she had a sweater to go over her green halter-style dress.

Qassim, 21, told KNBC-TV in Los Angeles she was forced to wrap a blanket around herself for the rest of the flight. She complained that if Southwest wants passengers to dress a certain way, it should publish a dress code.

Second woman says Southwest made her cover up [CNN] (Thanks, Anne!)
(Photo:NPR)

It's just really not offensive at all. Tacky, yes, but white denim isn't illegal. Neither is flashing a little bit of your underwear as you sit down. Kyla assured Matt Lauer that she had her legs crossed and wasn't showing off her... you know.

If this outfit is enough to get you a public lecture from a flight attendant we must have missed the part where they constantly publicly humiliate men for rampant exposed butt crack. Does that take place during the safety lecture? We never pay attention.

Southwest gave the Today Show a statement:

"Southwest Airlines was responding to a concern about Ms. Ebbert's revealing attire on the flight that day. As a compromise, we asked her to adjust her clothing to be less revealing, she complied, and she traveled as scheduled. When a concern is brought to our Employees' attention, we address that situation directly with the Customer(s) involved in a discreet and professional manner. Fortunately, as an airline that carries approximately 96 million Customers a year, these situations are extremely rare."

Thrown off plane for outfit deemed too skimpy [Today Show]

Not knowing who the father of the fetus is couldn't be used as an excuse under the new law. Women would have to provide a list of potential fathers who would then be required to submit themselves to paternity testing until a father is found. It would also make it illegal for a man who isn't the father to provide the permission.

What about rape or incest? A woman seeking an abortion would have to provide "reasonable cause" for the doctor to believe the rape of incest occurred, which, in our estimation, would probably mean police reports and charges filed.

Talk about the government getting all up in your private business. Proponents of the bill are saying it's a "men's rights" issue, but fail to mention a man's right not to be subjected to random paternity tests. This is real life, not the effing Maury Povich show.

Between the forced paternity testing of a random list of men to the "permission slips" and police reports... thank goodness this unconsumer-friendly hunk of crap is unlikely to pass.

Abortion law would give fathers a say State legislators propose change; opponents blast bill as 'extreme' [Record-Courier] (Thanks, Melinda!)
Text of The Bill [Ohio State Legislature]

The rules would cover any public place in the city of New York, including sidewalks. A spokesperson from the mayors office said the rules are not intended to apply to families and tourists, but who is to say who is a family and who is a tourist?

From the New York Times:

"These rules will apply to a huge range of casual photography and filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short videos for YouTube," said Christopher Dunn, the group's [New York Civil Liberties Union ] associate legal director.

Mr. Dunn suggested that the city deliberately kept the language vague, and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing the rules. In a letter sent to the film office this week, Mr. Dunn said the proposed rules would potentially apply to tourists in places like Times Square, Rockefeller Center or ground zero, "where people routinely congregate for more than half an hour and photograph or film."

City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography [NYT via digg]
(Photo: Meghann Marco)

Luckily, the TSA foiled Granny's hijacking attempt.

From KOMOTV:

On the trip home, screeners with the Transportation Security Administration at Los Angeles International Airport found it deep in the outside pocket of a carry-on cooler. Beaman apologized and told them it was a mistake.

"You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener announced. "And you're considered a terrorist."

Beaman says she was told her name would go on a terrorist watch-list and that she would have to pay a $500 fine.
...
She says screeners refused to give her paperwork or documentation of her violation, documentation of the pending fine, or a copy of the photograph of the knife.

"They said 'no' and they said it's a national security issue. And I said what about my constitutional rights? And they said 'not at this point ... you don't have any'."

'This Is Not Right' [KOMOTV]

"While still on board, our cabin crew worked to ensure the comfort of passengers providing snacks, beverage refreshments and a hot meal. Many passengers were asleep on board as we provided refreshments and updates on the delay," the airline said in a written statement.

The passengers, on the other hand, tell a different story:

"We sat there three hours before they said anything," said Mark Valenta, a newlywed for whom the flight was to have been the start of a dream honeymoon to Asia. "Then the PA system went down, the lights were going on and off, babies were crying. It was a nightmare."

"They finally said there was some kind of technical issue, but they were not sure what it was, and were trying to resolve it," Valenta said. "But the pilot was so nonchalant about it. There were no snacks, no drinks, nothing."

Passengers boarded Flight CX873 to Hong Kong just after midnight Tuesday for a 1:20 a.m. departure. They never left the gate. For 7 hours passengers sat with little information and few refreshments. At 4 am they were allowed to go back into the terminal for "juice" according to one passenger. Eventually the crew told the passengers that they would be delayed until a broken part was flown in from the East Coast. Even so, the flight wasn't officially canceled until 7:30 am. —MEGHANN MARCO

SFO nightmare — 400 stuck on plane 7 hours [SFGate] (Thanks, Glenn!)
(Photo: fuggle)

David Lopez, a visitor from Wisconsin, contacted the commission after eating at the restaurant with several friends last October.

He and his girlfriend knew something was wrong when a waiter told them that a serving of rice would cost them extra. They had noticed Asian customers munching on similar dishes served over a bed of rice.

"Being Hispanic, we both like rice," said 46-year-old Lopez. "We saw other customers getting a different menu. We were told we could order from it if we spoke Chinese."

The prices on that menu, written in Chinese, were an average of $1 cheaper per dish.

How mean for chow mein! [New York Daily News via Gothamist]
(Photo: OS2k)

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)

How to Explain DRM to Your Dad [Wired News]

To ask Burger King Corporation to pay a penny more a pound for tomatoes to increase workers' wages is similar to asking shoppers to voluntarily pay a penny more per pound at the grocery store for tomatoes to increase workers' wages. Both Burger King Corporation and grocery store shoppers have no business relationship with the workers and cannot get the extra penny to them.

"We have spoken to CIW representatives about our interest in recruiting interested Immokalee workers into the BURGER KING system. We have offered to send Burger King Corporation recruiters to the area to speak with the CIW and with workers themselves about permanent, full-time employment at BURGER KING restaurants. Burger King Corporation offers ongoing professional training and advancement opportunities around the country for both entry-level and skilled employee jobs, and we are hopeful the CIW will accept our offer."

Statement from Burger King (Press Release) [NAMC Newswire] [Photo: carlosjwj]

Coalition for Airline Passenger's Bill of Rights

The Proposed Passenger's Bill of Rights:

All American air carriers shall abide by the following standards to ensure the safety, security and comfort of their passengers:

Establish procedures to respond to all passenger complaints within 24 hours and with appropriate resolution within 2 weeks.

Notify passengers within ten minutes of a delay of known diversions, delays and cancellations via airport overhead announcement, on aircraft announcement, and posting on airport television monitors.

Establish procedures for returning passengers to terminal gate when delays occur so that no plane sits on the tarmac for longer than three hours without connecting to a gate.

Provide for the essential needs of passengers during air- or ground-based delays of longer than 3 hours, including food, water, sanitary facilities, and access to medical attention.

Provide for the needs of disabled, elderly and special needs passengers by establishing procedures for assisting with the moving and retrieving of baggage, and the moving of passengers from one area of airport to another at all times by airline personnel.

Publish and update monthly on the company's public web site a list of chronically delayed flights, meaning those flight delayed thirty minutes or more, at least forty percent of the time, during a single month.

Compensate "bumped" passengers or passengers delayed due to flight cancellations or postponements of over 12 hours by refund of 150% of ticket price.

The formal implementation of a Passenger Review Committee, made up of non-airline executives and employees but rather passengers and consumers - that would have the formal ability to review and investigate complaints.

Make lowest fare information, schedules and itineraries, cancellation policies and frequent flyer program requirements available in an easily accessed location and updated in real-time.

Ensure that baggage is handled without delay or injury; if baggage is lost or misplaced, the airline shall notify customer of baggage status within 12 hours and provide compensation equal to current market value of baggage and its contents.

Require that these rights apply equally to all airline code-share partners including international partners.

Slashdot tells us that Microsoft is tightening the thumbscrews in Windows Media Player 11, by removing the ability to transfer music from machine to machine. This includes mp3s that you rip from your own CDs.

"If you rip your own CDs and the 'Copy protect music' option is turned on, WMP11 will require you to 'connect to a Microsoft Web page that explains how to restore your rights a limited number of times."

Of course, you don't HAVE to use Windows Media Player, but a lot of people do. Other programs can be unwieldy and complicated, and a lot of users are clueless about DRM. One only has to take a glance at the comments on Slashdot to understand, as one commenter said, "why iTunes is so hugely popular..." Ugh. Maybe we should all go back to vinyl?

Click here for more vitriol about WMP11

Do we as consumers, as owners of our own vocal cords, as speakers of words coming out of our mouths, have a legal right to those recordings?

Can you call up and request copies or request their destruction?

Find out and tell us!

Operators are standing by.

We think Ben's on the wrong track. A copy-protected album isn't an Audio CD? Of course it is. It's a CD, it plays audio — it's just one needlessly crippled. We sympathize with Ben's argument, but the bottom line is that this tactic is just a waste of time and degrades the argument. It is the sort of sullen semantic whinging that any teenager in a freshman philosophy course can be successful at making, yet never win his argument. And what is the argument? It's not what a legally purchased album is, but what rights you have as its owner.

Further thoughts on your rights as a CD owner after the jump...

What record companies are trying to do is claim that when you have bought a CD, you don't own it — you've merely licensed the rights to listen to it. There is no contract, no negotiable terms and conditions — tearing open the cellophane is enough. Not only is it not a legally valid contract but it is absolutely lop-sided, allowing companies to silently change the rights they grant you without notification or consent. We, as consumers, not only need to fight the record companies' assertions, but strongly argue our own rights as well — that when you buy a CD, you have the right to play it on whatever hardware is capable of doing so, whenever you feel like it, even if it's been translated by you into a different format. If the record company had its way, if it is allowed to get the DRM foothold that it wants, you won't be able to play your albums on your computer or on your iPod. You won't be able to sell a used CD or lend it to a friend. And if you want to listen to music you legally own in another format, you'll have to buy another copy. The record companies will have all the rights and you'll have none.

If Ben wins his semantic victory, what then? Amazon changes all listings of Audio CDs to the equally generic "Album" and Ben's accomplished nothing. Semantic arguments are cheap — it's tirelessly asserting the rights you believe you have and boycotting products when they don't grant you those rights that is the essence of good consumerism.

Amazon and Trade Descriptions [Ben Laurie's Links (Thanks, Matt!)
Amazon and Trade Descriptions, Round 2 [Ben Laurie's Links]