The amendment was in response to the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, the former Halliburton/KBR employee who allegedly was raped by coworkers in Iraq's green zone and imprisoned by her superiors. When she returned to the U.S. and sued her former employer for claims relating to the rape, the company tried to force her into arbitration instead of court.

Last month, a court held that Jones's case couldn't be compelled into arbitration. With this amendment, victims will no longer have to sue to be able to sue for sexual assault and discrimination claims.

The passage of this amendment is a good step toward ending forced arbitration, a secretive, unfair, and lawless system that companies force on consumers, employees, and franchise owners. A larger bill, the Arbitration Fairness Act, would ban these forced arbitration clauses from these types of contracts.

Senate OKs Measure Related to KBR Assault Claim [Houston Chronicle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Photo: twirlop)

From the Department of Transportation:

Voluntary bumping

Our rules require airlines to seek out people who are willing to give up their seats for some compensation before bumping anyone in- voluntarily. Here's how this works. At the check-in or boarding area, airline employees will look for volunteers when it appears that the flight has been oversold. If you're not in a rush to arrive at your next destination, you can give your reservation back to the airline in exchange for compensation and a later flight.

DOT has not said how much the airline has to give volunteers. This means carriers may negotiate with their passengers for a mutually acceptable amount of money-or maybe a free trip or other benefits. Airlines give employees guidelines for bargaining with passengers, and they may select those volunteers willing to sell back their reservations for the lowest price.

Involuntary bumping

DOT requires each airline to give all passengers who are bumped involuntarily a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the carrier decides who gets on an oversold flight and who doesn't. Those travelers who don't get to fly are frequently entitled to an on-the-spot payment of denied boarding compensation. The amount depends on the price of their ticket and the length of the delay:

• If you are bumped involuntarily and the airline arranges substitute transportation that is scheduled to get you to your final destination (including later connections) within one hour of your original scheduled arrival time, there is no compensation.
• If the airline arranges substitute transportation that is scheduled to arrive at your destination between one and two hours after your original arrival time (between one and four hours on international flights), the airline must pay you an amount equal to your one-way fare to your final destination, with a $400 maximum.
• If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (200% of your fare, $800 maximum).
• You always get to keep your original ticket and use it on another flight. If you choose to make your own arrangements, you can request an "involuntary refund" for the ticket for the flight you were bumped from. The denied boarding compensation is essentially a payment for your inconvenience.

When a flight is oversold and there are not enough volunteers, some airlines bump passengers with the lowest fares first. Once you have purchased your ticket, the most effective way to reduce the risk of being bumped is to get to the airport early. For passengers in the same fare class the last passengers to check in are usually the first to be bumped, even if they have met the check-in deadline.

Airlines may offer free transportation on future flights in place of a check for denied boarding compensation. However, if you are bumped involuntarily you have the right to insist on a check if that is your preference. Once you cash the check (or accept the free flight), you will probably lose the right to demand more money from the airline later on. However, if being bumped costs you more money than the airline will pay you at the airport, you can try to negotiate a higher settlement with their complaint department. If this doesn't work, you usually have 30 days from the date on the check to decide if you want to accept the amount of the check. You are always free to decline the check(e.g., not cash it) and take the airline to court to try to obtain more compensation.

In a "number of instances" between January and July of last year, Delta didn't ask for volunteers, explain why people were involuntarily chosen, or pay out adequate compensation. We doubt a relatively minor fine will teach Delta much of anything, but at least you can know your federal rights next time an airline tries to take back their seat.

DOT fines Delta $375k over 'bumped' passengers [AP]
A Consumer Guide to Air Travel [The Department of Transportation]
(Photo: zonaphoto)

It turns out there's nothing to celebrate, because apparently Digital Classic no longer exists and subscribers who want the channel will still have to shell out $5 as before. Digital Classic has been absorbed by the more expensive "Digital Preferred" tier, a customer service rep told me.

A message from Comcast and a couple calls to customer service revealed that nothing has changed from the previous setup between the domineering cable giant and the greedy NFL's pet keepaway network. If you want the NFL Network but happen to get the $57.69 (in Tucson) Digital Starter package, you'll still need to cough up $5 a month for the 14-channel Sports Entertainment package. Either that or upgrade to Digital Preferred at $74.64 monthly.

Verdict: The compromise between Comcast and the NFL Network did nothing for consumers.

(Photo: Tom Simpson)

CNN notes that "there are no restrictions on carrying large sums of cash on flights within the United States," which is something the TSA agents surely should have known. Instead, they subjected Bierfeldt to exchanges like this:

Officer: Why do you have this money? That's the question, that's the major question.

Bierfeldt: Yes, sir, and I'm asking whether I'm legally required to answer that question.

Officer: Answer that question first, why do you have this money.

Bierfeldt: Am I legally required to answer that question?

Officer: So you refuse to answer that question?

Bierfeldt: No, sir, I am not refusing.

Officer: Well, you're not answering.

Bierfeldt: I'm simply asking my rights under the law.

The officers can be heard saying they will involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration, and appear to threaten arrest, saying they are going to transport Bierfeldt to the local police station, in handcuffs if necessary.

The TSA says passengers are required to answer questions about their property. Bierfeldt says he didn't refuse, he only asked for straight answers about his rights before providing any information.

"I asked them, 'Am I required by law to tell you what you're asking me? Am I required to tell you where I am working? Am I required to tell you how I got the cash? Nothing I've done is suspicious. I'm not breaking any laws. I just want to go to my flight. Please advise me as to my rights.' And they didn't."

You can hear the entire recording here.

"Passenger says TSA agents harassed him" [CNN] (Thanks to Dooley!)

RELATED
"Audio Full Version: Campaign for Liberty's Steve Bierfeldt detained and questioned by St. Louis TSA" [Daily Newscaster]
(Photo: redjar)

From the E-Commerce Times:

The site will compare old and new policies side by side and highlight changes. With about two dozen sites covered already, TOSBack.org plans to add more agreements, from credit card, bank, cable TV and other companies.

The site makes note of each instance when the TOS are updated, but you can also drill down to side-by-side comparisons of pre- and post-update versions to see what exactly has changed, as you can see in the example below. We think it's definitely the kind of site you should add to your RSS reader, for instant notification when something changes at one of the sites you probably use daily.

TOSBack.org [EFF via E-Commerce Times] (Thanks to DK!)

But before you could say "too good to be true," along comes word — via Sports Illustrated's Peter King — that customers will most likely have to fork over some extra scratch to enter the Red Zone:

Clarifying one thing about the Red Zone Channel on Comcast. Last week, I said the league's smart deal with the cable giant would put the Red Zone (the channel that jumps from game to game on Sundays, showing all scoring opportunities) on Comcast's digital tier. No so, most likely.

Other cable outfits who make deals to put NFL Network on their digital cable tiers will probably place Red Zone on a pay tier similar to the one the league argued the Network shouldn't be on. The reason is because the Red Zone Channel is added value, not something the league wanted to give Big Cable as part of the deal to make the Network more widely distributed on the regular digital tier. So if you've got Comcast, and you want this premium channel, you'll likely have to pay an additional $7 or so per month to get it, which, over a four-month term, is probably a reasonable cost if you're an NFL devotee who loves immediacy and can't wait for the halftime or post-game highlights.

As a Comcast customer and Red Zone Channel lust mongerer, I've got the mixed emotions you feel when your team scores a touchdown but is flagged for a 15-yard excessive celebration penalty.

Peter King's Monday Morning Quarterback [Sports Illustrated]
(Photo:gumblyliberation)

According to the NYT, the NFL agreed to lower the price it charges Comcast in exchange for the cable giant placing the channel on its Digital Classic tier.

"We are very pleased that NFL Network and other N.F.L. content will be widely distributed in millions of more homes on Comcast's service," Roger Goodell, the league's commissioner, said in a statement. Brian L. Roberts, Comcast's chairman, said, "Our goal has always been to provide our digital customers with access to the N.F.L.'s unique content and, working together, we have struck the right balance between value and distribution."

Comcast also got video-on-demand rights and the ability to show DirecTV's Red Zone Channel, also known as the greatest invention in the history of mankind.

(For those of you who don't have Sunday Ticket, the Red Zone Channel is a commercial free channel that's hosted by a guy who watches all the games and switches over whenever anyone is about to score. If I had a choice between food and the Red Zone Channel, I would always pick the Red Zone Channel.)

Time Warner and Cablevision are the last remaining NFL channel holdouts, so cross your fingers.

Comcast Reaches Deal on NFL Network [NYT]
(Photo:Mr. Usaji)

Here's the interesting thing, though: Facebook is calling the Internet's collective bluff on being concerned about this. To avoid what one might call the tyranny of the easily outraged—to keep from making a major policy change because of some perfect storm of Twitter, Consumerist, and the mass media—they're requiring that at least 30% of active users in the past month participate in the vote for it to count.

We don't think that's entirely unreasonable; after all, if you care about this, it's painless and quick to cast a vote either way. It creates a huge obstacle to overcome, however. As of tonight—about 40 or so hours before the the voting ends—only 300,000 users have cast their vote. For the vote to count, somewhere between 60 and 70 million users will need to vote. Um, yeah.

Here's what you're voting for.

Facebook may have set the threshhold too high at 30% of global users considering the original pushback came from the U.S. audience, but 300,000 is an embarrassingly low number for something so many people seemed to be so upset about. Our prediction: the vote will be declared invalid due to underparticipation, and Facebook will be able to say "Well, we tried, and nobodyreally cared," and go back to the legalese practically every other site uses. And if less than half a million out of 200 million registered users bother to vote, then they may have a point.

"Facebook Site Governance Vote" [Facebook] (Thanks to everyone who sent this in over the past several days!)

The NFB and the Reading Rights Coalition point out that the Kindle 2 "promised for the first time easy and mainstream access to over 255,000 books" not just for the blind, but for anyone who would benefit from text-to-speech—for instance stroke victims, people with spinal cord injuries, people with dyslexia, people with learning disabilities, and seniors who are losing their vision.

The president of the NFB says the Authors Guild is guilty of promoting discrimination:

The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech technology to read and access information. As technology advances and more books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with print disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to enjoy access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. Authors and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e-books on the Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is blatant discrimination and we will not tolerate it.

While the Kindle requires vision to operate, it's not unthinkable that in the near future there will be other reading devices that offer voice-prompt navigation, so the text-to-speech issue is larger than just the Kindle 2.

Click here to find out more about the Reading Rights Coalition or to sign their petition.

When Amazon released the Kindle 2 in February the company announced that the device would be able to read e-books aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the Authors Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and publishers the ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of their e-books available for the Kindle 2. When the [National Federation of the Blind (NFB)] requested the Guild reconsider, the Guild told them that to read books with text-to-speech, print-disabled persons must either submit to a burdensome special registration system and prove their disabilities or pay extra for the text-to-speech version.

"Informational Protest" [Reading Rights]

Here's Jones Day's claim in a nutshell:

The first link below is trademark infringement, says Jones Day, because it confuses people by implying that the lawyer in question is affiliated with (in this example) Consumerist.com. The second link is only acceptable because it visibly displays the full url as the link.

Patrick F. McCartan
http://www.jonesday.com/pmccartan/

So, how did a law firm ever get such an absurd claim far enough to force a settlement? They had a judge who has apparently spent the last 15 years avoiding the Internet, and who therefore doesn't understand that the first example has been so common for so long that only someone who has never used the Internet (ahem) could possibly be expected to misunderstand the connection. He refused to dismiss the case, and rejected an amicus brief from digital rights groups on behalf of the start-up. The smaller company couldn't afford an expensive court case and saw the writing on the wall, so they settled. Now they format their links the way Jones Day demands.

Slate, who covered the story last week, writes,

Trademark infringement is supposed to turn on consumer confusion. For instance, if you set up a roadside coffee stand, sell instant coffee, and market yourself as a Starbucks outpost, you're probably infringing on Starbucks' trademark by tricking people into thinking that you're the company.

The idea that readers of a real estate news site would somehow be confused by links to Jones Day, on the other hand, shouldn't have passed the straight-face test. One legal blogger proposed that the attorneys who brought the suit take ethics classes. Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen described the lawsuit as a "new entry in the contest for 'grossest abuse of trademark law to suppress speech the plaintiff doesn't like.'"

What makes this case particularly nasty is that a large company successfully forced its will on another company based solely on a specious claim of trademark infringement. The next step for an ambitious company, of course, is to demand further control over how a site links to its content. After all, if you can get a judge who doesn't seem to understand the concept of hyperlinking, who knows what you can get away with under the guise of trademark infringement.

"Linked Out" [Slate] (Thanks to Sandra!)
(Photo: Brymo)

Another blogger, Kent Davidson, posted a rebuttal to Mark Zuckerberg's post that went up yesterday afternoon. Davidson writes, "As a co-founder of my own startup in the 90s (unfortunately, never anything close to the scale of the 500-lb gorilla that is Facebook), [Zuckerberg's] post is simply damage control." He then goes through Zuckerber's statement and makes several strong counterpoints.

Also, in case you haven't seen the Facebook group that formed to protest the new TOS, they've been asked by a Facebook representative to put together a list of questions they have over the new terms. They've done just that, and posted them publicly on their group page.

"Facebook terms of service compared with MySpace, Flickr, Picasa, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Twitter" [AmandaFrench.net]
"Facebook: "We have never claimed ownership" of members' content" [The Industry Standard]
"Technical rebuttal of Mark Zuckerberg's rebuttal to Facebook TOS change" [Razzed]
"People Against the new Terms of Service (TOS)" [Facebook]
(Silhouette image: Hotshoe!)

Here's what the Facebook rep told the Industry Standard:

We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload. The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site. That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend). Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user's privacy settings. So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info "in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof." Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail. For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.

"Facebook: "We have never claimed ownership" of members' content" [The Standard]
"Do you belong to Facebook, forever?" [Chicago Tribune]
"On Facebook, People Own and Control Their Information" [Facebook]

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]