Eric says:

I placed an order for an external TB firewire LaCie drive from buy.com and waited for it's arrival. Nothing came. Several days after the date that was indicated in my shipping email I tried contacting them and after several false starts- they have a terrible support system- my order was reviewed and I was told I already had the item. That it was delivered, and that since Buy.Com does not request a signature the item was "left outside". Now my wife works from home, so she's always home, so I'm not sure how she didn't hear the delivery person ring the bell. Worse yet the "delivery" date was Mischief night, October 30th, so it's hard to believe they would leave a 300 dollar item outside without getting a signature.

Buy.com "reviewed" my claim and denied me via an automated email with no option for appeal. After writing them back I was told this,

Per company policy: "Title to goods passes to you upon delivery to the common carrier." (http://www.buy.com/corp/legal.asp). Basically this says that once a product is in transit via the shipping carrier, the ownership and responsibility of the product has passed from Buy.com to the customer. It is the customer's responsibility from this point forward to make sure someone is at the delivery address provided to accept the package. If no one is available at this address at the time of delivery, the carrier is authorized to leave the package at the door and the order is considered completed at that time. Basically, the security of the delivery location provided by the customer falls under the responsibility of the customer.

So apparently when you make a purchase from Buy.com you are actually not buying it yourself, but rather purchasing the item for a delivery service that may or may not send you the item. So what is to prevent the delivery agent from keeping the item, giving it to a friend, covering it with glitter and making a puppet friend?

I have tried to file a claim with paypal (what I used to pay), but I was hoping you might have some more information on what my rights are as a purchaser? Also if nothing else, please let others know this policy.

Filing a claim with PayPal was the right thing to do, but you might also want to contact the delivery company, assuming that you know who they are. We'd suggest sending an EECB to Buy.com's executives, but if they have an automated email set up to deal with this complaint, it kind of shows you how they feel about it. Still, it can't hurt.

Has anyone else had this problem with Buy.com? Did you get it resolved?

Reader Karen says:

Yesterday, I got the mail and in there was a renewal form for my Wired subscription. I figured I must be getting towards the end and grabbed my checkbook (Yes, I still write checks). I looked at the price, $48, and thought to myself that Wired must've raised their prices due to the economy. As I was about to write the check, I remembered that in the past I had made the check out to "Wired"...

Suspicion kicked in and I turned the form over. Sure enough, this wasn't Wired themselves, but someone trying to become a middle-man between me and Wired.

I like to think of myself as a pretty savvy consumer so it was pretty sobering to almost "fall for it". I guess I let my guard down.

Thanks for the heads up, Karen. We're sure you're not the only savvy consumer to almost fall for this sort of shady marketing. Their business counts on it! Oh, and we checked. 2 years of Wired does not cost $48.

Around 11:45am on Monday I was headed home to San Diego from JFK. As I arrived to the Jetblue terminal I noticed the lines inside were super long, so for the first time I decided it was worth a $3 fee to take advantage of the curbside check in.

Upon checking in, the attendant took my bag and brought it to the other check in station (if I were actually thinking and anymore paranoid I would have watched him weigh the bag). When he returned he told me my bag was overweight and there is a $50 fee for any baggage over 50lbs. Before I could even respond with "are you kidding me?" he told me he could he get it through if I "gave him a big tip". I quickly weighed my options and decided the tip option was clearly the way to go. As soon as I told him to go ahead with that option and handed him all the money I had ($15 tip + $3 fee) he took one look at the cash and asked "this is a big tip right?". He then counted it in front of me and was clearly unstoked with the amount, so I assured him it was all I had. He printed out my boarding pass and I headed to the gate.

As I sat on the flight I felt like A) I had been scammed, and B) it was my own fault. As soon as I got home I weighed the bag and sure enough, 46lbs. The following morning I called Jetblue to file a complaint, and also sent them an email. Their representatives were of course very apologetic and disgusted by the transaction, and promised to look into the situation.

I'd like to get my money back as much as the next guy, but I'm fine with leaving it here. My major issue is that in this day and age where the average traveler is being gouged for everything possible by the airlines, someone else has to take it one step further and take advantage of customers outside of the business bubble.

I wonder how often this happens at every airport? Do I blame the attendant, his employer, or myself?

Desperate times make for desperate measures.

We think everyone deserves a little blame here, but you shouldn't beat yourself up about it. JetBlue has certainly had its share of low-life scamming employees working at JFK. You only lost $15 and now you're sharing your story so that others can avoid this scam, and you reported the scammer to his employer. I'm sure that our readers, and JetBlue itself, appreciate your sleuthing!

And, just for those of you who are from out of town and flying through JFK, don't take anything anyone says at face value when you are in that airport. Stick to the straight and narrow, and if you know Obi Wan Kenobi, ask him if he'd mind picking you up.

(Photo: ellimac )

TV stations all over the country recently got together and tested a bunch of dishes from chain restaurants and fast food places to see if the nutritional information they were advertising actually matched the food. The report targeted menu options from chains such as Applebee's, Macaroni Grill, Taco Bell and Chili's that were marketed as healthy. So did the calories in the food match the calories on the menu? Nope. Of the items tested, all but one were way over on calories, or fat content... or both.

For example, the Pollo Magro Skinny Chicken from Macaroni Grill was supposed to have 500 calories and 6 g of fat. It actually had 1022 calories and 49 g of fat. (This total includes the bread and huge vat of cheese that comes on the side) Chili's Guiltless Grill Salmon claimed to have 480 calories and 14 g of fat when it actually contained 664 calories and 35.5 g of fat. Taco Bell's Fresco Grilled Steak Soft Taco is billed as having 160 calories and 4.5 g of fat. Watch out if you plan on eating a few of these, because the sample they tested contained 297 calories and 19.6 g of fat.

You can see the rest of the results here.

What's On the Menu [WXYZ](Thanks, Jack!)

A few months ago Azureus petitioned the FCC, which led to a FCC hearing in February. One of the complaints from the commission was that there is little data available on the scope of BitTorrent throttling, a gap Azureus now tries to fill by collecting data on the prevalence of TCP-resets among ISPs worldwide.

Last month Azureus published a plugin through which users can help distinguishing the good from the bad ISPs, and today we have a preview of some early findings. A massive 1,000,000 hours of data from over 8000 users has been collected over the past few weeks. The preliminary results again confirm that Comcast continues to use TCP-resets to manage BitTorrent traffic on their network, but they are not alone.

BitTorrent Throttling ISPs Exposed by Azureus [TorrentFreak via Digg]

"The Transportation Department's inspector general released a document Wednesday showing that the number of such events involving Continental planes jumped from 19 in 2005 to 42 in 2006 to 96 in 2007," the paper said.

Internal Continental memos show that management was encouraging pilots to skip refueling stops:

None of the flights examined in the report landed with less than the minimum quantity of reserve fuel mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration. But the report cites two internal Continental memos, in February and October of last year, urging pilots to reduce refueling stops when possible.

In a statement stressing that "safety is our top priority," Continental said it "doesn't cut corners on ensuring aircraft have enough fuel. We put on ample fuel at the start of each flight, and there is a significant reserve."

By declaring a fuel emergency or telling controllers they have "minimum fuel" aboard, pilots get expedited handling from traffic controllers. The FAA is working to clarify when pilots should resort to those phrases.

As early as August 2006, according to the report, there were suspicions in a local FAA office that Continental pilots were using fuel issues as a "flight-planning tool" to avoid going to an alternate airport. Continental has about 70% of the traffic at the Newark airport, and it accounted for 65% of the overall fuel events last year.

Even if such incidents pose no direct safety threat to passengers, the report concludes, they create "a burden on the air traffic system and an extra distraction for controllers" in a busy region.

Continental's Low-Fuel Claims Rise [WSJ]
(Photo:Meghann Marco)

For four months, James Hastings searched through trash bins outside People's United Bank branches in Fairfield County. He pulled out bags of paperwork with private information, including customers' Social Security numbers and account information.

The bank last month won a restraining order against Hastings, 56, requiring him to not discuss the matter or distribute paperwork. He has since been interviewed by the Connecticut Post.

People's Bank said Hastings is trying to extort money and claims he asked to be hired as a "fraud consultant." Bank officials also are demanding that the information be returned.

Brent DiGiorgio, a spokesman for People's Bank, said its primary concern is protecting the customers' information that Hastings has taken. The bank promises to provide a year of free credit monitoring to customers whose information was taken and has contacted affected customers, he said.

Judge Thomas P. Agresti of the Federal Bankruptcy Court in Pittsburgh on Tuesday approved an inquiry into "the impact of Countrywide's bankruptcy procedures on the integrity of the bankruptcy process" by the Office of the United States Trustee, a Justice Department arm that polices bankruptcy filings.

Judge Agresti dismissed Countrywide's protests that authorizing an investigation by the trustee's office could have "staggering implications" for other big mortgage lenders by starting an investigatory "free for all."

He said an investigation was warranted because the trustee's office had demonstrated "a common thread of potential wrongdoing" in several bankruptcy filings involving Countrywide.

The trustee's office has asserted that it needed to look into accusations that Countrywide had chronically mishandled mortgage payments, pumped up bills with improper fees and charges and ignored court orders while pursuing troubled consumers.

Court Approves Review of Countrywide Practices [NYT]
(Photo:meghannmarco)

Barry writes:

Well, I went to test drive a 135i demo at BMW of Columbia in Columbia, SC. The car in question was being pulled in from a test drive as we drove onto the lot. A salesman (note that I refuse to call these particular clowns Client Advisors...no offense to BMW CA's in general) followed us around as we looked at the car, sat in it, played with controls, etc. He knew virtually nothing about the 135i but that didn't worry me a lot.

I asked if I could test drive the car and was told yes we could take it out after they took my license info. We went inside the dealership and after waiting a few minutes the salesman came back and said the manager wanted to keep the miles down on the demo, therefore I wouldn't be able to drive the car unless I demonstrated I was "a serious customer". I'm not sure what could have indicated that we weren't serious, and the salesman wasn't clear on what we needed to do to demonstrate "seriousness". I politely informed the salesman that I wasn't going to be buying today but in no case would I buy a car without driving it first. His response was "well, we just need to know that you're serious...", again without indicating what would be required to demonstrate this. At that point I simply said "congrats, you just lost a potential customer". I then found the sales manager and told him the same thing before leaving in a huff. Sorry, I'm a sensitive guy.

Some answers to potential questions about this incident:

• I was with my wife and 23 year old son, who drove his own BMW onto the lot. Needless to say, we looked like customers that could afford a 1-series...
• The demo had just returned from a test drive with "serious customers" who subsequently left without buying a car.
• Neither the salesman or sales manager indicated what their metric for customer "seriousness" was, and I was in no mood to attempt mind-reading. If they'd simply ran our credit score they would have been showing us most anything on the lot...
• I've contacted the dealership and BMWNA about the incident. I don't expect anything to come of it but if anyone knows how to get their attention please let me know.
• I do have other satisfactory options for where to buy to the car, but I will not excuse the sleazy behavior of this particular outfit.
  

Note that I'd already been warned by an enthusiast acquaintance of mine that BMW of Columbia is a low-class leasing mill. My experience seems to bear that out, as we probably didn't look like we were going lease anything (being "buyers").

(Photo: Getty)

(Thanks to Erin!)

"Blue iPod Nano" [sdppro]

I wrote a few days ago regarding DirecTv trying to charge me a $480 cancelation fee.

As an update, I called the CEO's office and was called back 3 hours later by a Steve from the President's office (208-363-6015 or (800-577-4388).

After explaining my situation to him calmly and clearly, he stated that DirecTv's CSRs would never activate a receiver without warning a subscriber of the 2 year commitment and that I have to either live out the commitment or pay $480 to cancel the service. I asked if I could just pay full price for the receiver and not have a commitment, to which he replied that I could not. He apologized for the inconvenience and said I had to understand that "it is what it is, sir."

They did waive the $10 fee for canceling HBO, though, so that's nice.

Thanks for the help, Consumerists. I only wish I could have provided a more happy ending.

-Daniel

(Photo:a3r)

I'm currently out of town on a long business trip, and my wife told me about a somewhat disturbing thing that happened.

While I've been gone, I started receiving issues of Entertainment Weekly (which neither I nor my wife have any interest in reading). The label had my name on it, so it wasn't a matter of us getting someone else's magazine. My wife, who is rather wary of such things, called up EW and asked what was going on. The EW employee with whom she spoke told her that Hollywood Video had run a promotion, where customers received eight free issues of EW. The next logical question, of course, was "what happens after those eight issues?"

My wife was told that unless the customer canceled, they would be billed for a one-year subscription of EW. Now, I had never heard of the promotion, and never would have agreed to receive the free issues in the first place even if they had been offered to me. I don't know whether this has happened to anybody else, or whether this is an isolated incident, but I thought it might be worth sending in.

Thanks,
Ammon

My wife recently set up an account at the local Hollywood Video branch. We haven't had this membership two weeks and today I got what looked like an advertisement from Entertainment Weekly Magazine in the mail. It was a glossy post card that I almost threw away. Instead I read it and noticed that it was a notice about my "subscription" to Entertainment Weekly and it had a Hollywood Video logo on the front of it.

Apparently when my wife signed up for the video rental account they automatically (as in without asking her permission) signed her up for a subscription to Entertainment Weekly. The notice I received said we would be getting 8 free issues and then they would bill our credit card $29.95 under the Automatic Renewal program if she didn't cancel. I wondered how they would bill a credit card number they didn't have so I went to the website they pointed me to, http://ww.ew.com/customerservice and logged in with the account number on the post card. Sure enough there was my credit card number and an outstanding balance of $29.95. I quickly canceled my "account" with EW.

I can't believe Hollywood Video would be so bold as to hand over my credit card number to another company without even asking first. If this isn't dirty I don't know what is.

Thought you guys might like to know.

Stephen

Has this happened to anyone else? Please tell us about it at tips@consumerist.com. Put "Hollywood Video" in the subject.

(Photo:Sister72)

BusinessWeek introduces us to Van Rathavongsa, a factory worker from North Carolina who declared bankruptcy in 2002. One of the debts that was discharged by the judge was $9, 523 to Capital One, the huge (and notoriously shady) credit card company.

From BusinessWeek:

But Capital One continued to report the factory worker's discharged debt to credit bureaus as a live balance, according to documents filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Raleigh.

This kind of failure by creditors to update credit reports happens with some frequency, consumer lawyers and court-employed bankruptcy trustees say. And it can have consequences: In September, 2003, when Rathavongsa tried to close on a $274,650 mortgage for a new house, his would-be lender, Wachovia (WB), said he would either have to pay Capital One or show proof from the credit-card company that the debt had been discharged. Despite several calls and a letter from his attorney, he says, Capital One never revised the credit report. To obtain the home loan, Rathavongsa eventually did what many consumers in this situation do. He gave in and paid Capital One $9,523 he no longer legally owed.

Owners of canceled liabilities can revive their value in two main ways: by directly pressuring consumers to cough up cash or by gaming the credit system, as allegedly happened in the Rathavongsa case.

Prisoners of Debt [BusinessWeek](Thanks, Jason!)
(Photo:loauc)

I am a first semester graduate student who needs a computer. In mid-September (2007) I placed an order for a laptop with Dell. The laptop finally shipped in early October, and it arrived at the DHL warehouse in Las Vegas (where I live) on Thursday, October 4. On Friday, October 5, I called DHL to see when my order would arrive at my apartment. I had to call the national 800 number as I could not find the local DHL number. They let me know that my order would arrive by the end of business that day. My order had 3 parts: a printer, software and my actual laptop. The printer and software arrived fine, but my laptop did not. I called DHL again and they gave me the first of many apologies. They said that for whatever reason, the laptop "didn't make it onto the truck." They assured me that my laptop would arrive at my apartment by the end of business on Monday (they don't deliver on the weekends). This didn't make me happy as I had many papers due the following week.

Monday, October 8 rolled around and still no computer. I tracked it online and called DHL at 200pm to find out where my laptop was. I talked to someone (who apologized) and he said that he would contact the local Las Vegas DHL office and ask them to call me back within an hour. They would not give me the local number. At 320pm, I called DHL again and let them know that no one had called me back. The customer service rep apologized (of course) and told me that he would send another message to the local Las Vegas office and "hopefully they would contact me before they closed for the day at 500pm." I didn't like that answer, so I asked to speak with a supervisor. I explained what was going on to the supervisor and she apologized. She put me on hold while she contacted the local office. After about 10 minutes, she came back on the line, apologized, and let me know that they could not find my package, that it was "missing". I then asked her if DHL would be paying for a new computer and she told me I needed to file a claim with Dell. She said this like it was no big deal. She also let me know that DHL would not be searching for my package any more.

I wasn't too happy, but I contacted Dell (via email, since the customer service queue was closed). The next morning Dell contacted me and told me that they had talked to DHL and my laptop was indeed "missing." The Dell rep told me that they would be creating a new laptop for me (the exact same as the old one) and that it would ship on or before October 15.

I waited and on Saturday, October 13, my Dell account showed that my replacement laptop had been shipped. I tracked it to the local DHL office and by that day, it had arrived at the Las Vegas warehouse.

On Monday, October 15, I called DHL because I noticed in the shipping info online, they did not have my apartment number, they just had the street address. The DHL rep apologized and let me know that my laptop would arrive at my apartment by 300pm that day. At 310pm, I called my apartment office (they would be signing for my computer). They let me know that nothing had been delivered for me. I then called DHL and asked to speak with a supervisor. I got one on the line and asked where my laptop was. The supervisor apologized and let me know that the delivery driver for my laptop had to be pulled in (she never told me why), but there would be a PM delivery and my laptop would arrive that night. At 630pm on Monday, I still didn't have my computer. I called DHL, and asked to speak with a supervisor. The supervisor apologized and let me know that the delivery drivers would not deliver that late at night and that I would not be getting my laptop that night. She also let me know that the Las Vegas warehouse had closed so she couldn't even find out what was going on. She suggested I call at 800am the next day when the center opened to see what was going on.

At 820am today (Tuesday, October 16), I called DHL and asked to talk to a supervisor. I got one and she apologized, and let me know that the Vegas warehouse didn't open until 830am. She said she would send them a priority message and have them call me back within an hour of them opening. At 1000am, I still hadn't heard back from DHL. I called them, got a supervisor (who apologized) and then she transfered me to a supervisor at the Las Vegas office. The supervisor at the Las Vegas office did not give me her name and she was rude to begin with. She said "I am going to be honest with you, we cannot locate your package." At that point I was not happy and I yelled "What?" She then yelled back "I am being honest with you, so don't yell at me." I was dumbfounded. She said she would look further for the package and get back to me. I then told her that maybe she should be looking for security cameras and trainers for her warehouse since there were obviously a bunch of thieves working there. She snapped back at me "We're working on that!" and she hung up.

I never did hear back from the Vegas office. I heard back from the "executive customer service" department who talked to me for about 2 minutes and said they would look at providing further Loss Prevention training for the Vegas office. I then called DHL back at 300pm and got a supervisor. I told him I just wanted the update I was promised. He said the computer had been updated at 1130am and it said my laptop was officially "missing." I vented to him for awhile and he said that Dell is very experienced in taking claims from DHL and that this type of thing was all too common. He was the only decent customer service person I dealt with. He seemed generally sorry for my inconvenience.

So that's where I'm at. I have filed another claim with Dell and am waiting to hear back from them. I still don't know what was with the Vegas supervisor and the whole "I'm being honest" thing. It was like she thought she deserved a medal for telling me the truth.

I will be telling Dell that my next computer needs to be shipped by FedEx, UPS, USPS or courier pigeon for all I care, just not DHL

(Photo:zyphbear)

GET THE REST OF THE MONTH FOR ONLY $4!!! Soon into my week, Andy @Crunch called me and offered me the rest of the month of July for $4 if I signed up as a member. I agreed to that but made absolutely sure that if I canceled in the appropriate amount of time (before the end of the month) I would not be charged for anything, which he said was true. The rest of the month for a couple bucks? I thought, "Why not?" I should mention that I was/am member of another gym and couldn't possibly afford to belong to both at the same time. I was indeed looking for a change; otherwise I wouldn't have even accepted the free week pass. However, even if I would have loved Crunch and wanted to join immediately, I would have had to wait a month and cancel my other gym membership. Moving on... "YOU HAVE TO GIVE 30 DAYS NOTICE" A couple days before I knew I would start to be billed and default into a permanent membership, I went into Crunch to cancel. Immediately, I was told that even if I canceled I would still be billed for a month and charged a cancellation free. WHAT?! Naturally, I re-explained my situation and what I was told (that if I came in canceled I wouldn't have to pay any more money). The response I got was actually quite non-sensical - "You have to give 30 days notice" [to not be charged]. Let's think about this for a moment. I got my pass in mid-july and went in to quit on the 30th. How, mathematically, could I have possibly given 30 days notice??! Ugh, you suck Crunch. But that's why I am writing this.

I GOT CHARGED TWICE!!!
A week after getting nowhere with the manager and being ask to fax documents around as proof of my cancellation, I checked my bank account and found out that I was actually charged twice ($69x2). I would later find out that this was because was told I was breaking my year contract (DOUBLE WHAT?!!!!), and also that I would be charged August dues (even though I canceled in July).

My advice. Don't accept free passes from Crunch. Don't even look at the place when you walk by it.

(Photo:meghannmarco)

The FCC filing says that a complaint was filed by the Center for Media and Democracy alleging that on September 21, 2006, Comcast broadcast a VNR for Nelson's Rescue Sleep without providing the sponsorship identification required by law. Comcast argues that they're not covered under that law because they didn't receive any compensation for showing the VNR.

The VNR in question was shoehorned into a daily "consumer issues" segment on the CN8 show "Art Fennel Reports." From the FCC:

CN8's cablecast featuring "Nelson's Rescue Sleep" was part of a daily segment on "Art Fennell Reports" focusing on consumer issues. concerned non-prescription sleep aids. The segment featured only "Nelson's Rescue Sleep," a commercial, natural sleep-aid product, and included portions of a VNR produced by D.S. Simon Productions on behalf of "Nelson's Rescue Sleep."

The VNR material used in this consumer-issues segment contains extensive images and mentions of the product and includes the statement that "If you are one of the estimated 70 million Americans who have trouble sleeping - Rescue Sleep may be what you're looking for."

We do not believe that this type of promotional material, furnished by a product manufacturer, can or should be considered within the scope of the proviso, which is directed to material that contains only fleeting or transient references to products or brand names. We conclude that even though CN8 received this material at no charge, it falls within the exception specifically set forth in the rule and that a sponsorship announcement was thus required. We therefore find that Comcast violated Section 76.1615(a) of the Commission's rules by willfully airing the VNR material at issue without proper sponsorship identification.

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE (PDF) [FCC]
FCC proposes 'fake news' fine [Yahoo!]
(Photo:cmorran123)

For those of you new to this issue, Best Buy was caught using a duplicate website to fool customers who tried to compare internet prices with in-store prices.

Customers who asked why the price was higher in the store were often told that "the sale must have ended" in the time it took them to drive to the store. They were then told to "check the website" to see for themselves, then were shown an identical-looking website that displayed different "in-store" prices.

We think Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said it best back in May (right after he sued Best Buy):

"Best Buy gave consumers the worst deal - a bait-and-switch-plus scheme luring consumers into stores with promised online discounts, only to charge higher in-store prices," Blumenthal said.

"The company commonly kept two sets of prices - one on its Internet site and an often higher set on its in-store, look-alike, available on kiosks. The in-store site was an Internet look-alike, commonly with higher prices, which were charged to consumers. Best Buy broke its promise to give the best price - an Internet version of bait-and-switch - a technological bait-and-switch-plus.

"Best Buy used in-store kiosks to conceal lower online prices and renege on its price match guarantee. Consumers seeking bargains were led to believe that lower online prices had expired or never existed. Best Buy treated its customers like suckers, not patrons to be prized."

Attorney General, DCP Commissioner Sue Best Buy For Deceiving, Overcharging Customers [Connecticut AG]
(Photo:Thanks, MK!)

PREVIOUSLY: Connecticut Sues Best Buy For Tricking Customers With Secret Internal Website
UPDATE: Best Buy Still Using Its Secret Website
Best Buy Confirms The Existence Of Its Secret Website
Connecticut State's Attorney's Office Launches Investigation Into Best Buy's Secret Intranet Site
Best Buy's Secret "Employee Only" In-Store Website Shows Different Prices Than Public Website

The retailers have been quietly pulling the items off shelves. CPSC rules stipulate that a retailer has 24 hours to report a defect that has potential to cause injury, a rule that companies regularly ignore.

Target disclosed that two products it sold recently — David Kirk Happy Giddy Children's Garden Trowel and Sunny Patch Safari Children's Chair — had hazardous levels of lead. It did not say how many of the items were sold before it became aware of the lead contamination in August.

Dollar General said that 192,000 metal key chains appeared to be contaminated, while Tween Brands, owner of Limited Too stores, said it had discovered lead paint on a decorative flower-shaped object included in the wrapping of a shower gel and body lotion set.

Discount School Supply, a retailer based in Monterey, Calif., reported that three products in its inventory that were made in China or Taiwan appeared in preliminary tests to have lead contamination. The items were sold under the names Giant Measuring Chart, Rolling Storage Rack and Shaving Paint Brushes.

Representatives for Target, Dollar General and Discount School Supply did not respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Tween Brands said she did not know how many of the bath sets had been sold. A spokesman for the Consumer Product Safety Commission also declined to comment.

We're keeping an eye on the hearings and it seems that Mattel chose not to respond to the committee's survey, and Dollar General chose not to attend—angering Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Bobby Rush (D-IL) respectively. The terms "obstruction of justice" and "perjury" were used.

More Retailers Found to Have Lead-Tainted Items [NYT]
(Photo:smcgee)

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the class-action prohibition is "unconscionable," and therefore it cannot be enforced. From the CL&P Blog:

The court held that as applied to a claim such as the one in this case, the prohibition on class actions is unconscionable because "[w]ithout the benefit of a class action mechanism, the subscribers would effectively be precluded from suing Comcast" for the violations at issue. As the court explained, "[t]he cost of vindicating an individual subscriber's claim, when compared to his or her potential recovery, is too great." Permitting Comcast to avoid litigation through the class-action waiver, the court held, would "allow Comcast to engage in unchecked market behavior that may be unlawful. Corporations should not be permitted to use class action waivers as a means to exculpate themselves from liability for small-value claims." (emphasis added).

This act follows a ruling by the California Supreme Court that Circuit City could not enforce a clause that prevented its workers from seeking class-action status in a lawsuit against them, and, of course, the recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court that prevented Cingular from dropping the class-action ban hammer on customers suing them in California.

Unconscionable is officially the word of the day.

Eleventh Circuit Strikes Down Arbitration Clause Containing Class-Action Waiver [CL&P]
(Photo:cmorran123)

The story is always the same: Consumers sign up and begin paying their monthly payments but the computer never arrives. Blue Hippo says they don't offer refunds.

Earlier this year Blue Hippo was recently sued and settled with the Maryland Attorney General for "unfair and deceptive trade practices by selling computers, televisions, and other goods to consumers for two or more times their retail price, and then placing undisclosed conditions on delivery of the items that prevented many consumers from ever receiving their purchased items."

According to Tampa Bay 10, the Florida AG is now warning people to stay away from Blue Hippo. Here's a piece of the transcript:

Chris Day, Bought from BlueHippo:
"I just said, 'Give me the $418 you took out of my account and we'll call it even.' They wouldn't do it."
The company's website indicates there are no cash refunds. The only option for customers is to pick a different product from the website.

Bill McCollum, Florida Attorney General
"We think that overall, this is a very deceptive trade practice."
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is also investigating allegations the company fails to disclose the true cost of computers, overcharging consumers.

Bill McCollum, Florida Attorney General
"It really is too good to be true. In the case of the BlueHippo Financing, we're finding complaints that are real, that they are selling their products and that they're paying a lot more for them than in a retail store."
The Federal Trade Commission has launched its own investigation after accumulating more than 8,000 pages of complaints. The Better Business Bureau has logged more than 1400 grievances stemming from all 50 states.

BlueHippo says it's working to resolve the issues saying:

"BlueHippo Funding is committed to providing clear and accurate information to consumers and continues to provide outstanding customer support."

AG cautioning consumers about BlueHippo [Tampa Bay 10] (Thanks, Sean!)

From the Journal-Sentinel:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has avoided millions of dollars in state taxes by paying rent on 87 Wisconsin properties in a way that the state Department of Revenue calls an "abuse and distortion of income."

As a result, state tax auditors say, Wal-Mart owes more than $17.7 million in back corporate income taxes, interest and penalties for 1998, 1999 and 2000. More could be due for later years.

Revenue Department lawyer Mark Zimmer argues that the world's largest retailer is not paying its fair share of taxes that support public schools, local police and fire departments and the highways it uses to transport what it sells in Wisconsin.

As a result, Wal-Mart shifts the burden of paying for those services "to individuals and small businesses who are unable to set up such elaborate mechanisms," Zimmer told the Tax Appeals Commission, which is considering the matter.

"Anything Wal-Mart can do to lawfully lower its costs allows the company to pass it along through lower prices," said company spokesman John Simley. "This is a lawful (tax) structure in Wisconsin."

Time to change your tax laws, Wisconsin. Walmart is too clever for you.

Wal-Mart owes back taxes, state says [Journal-Sentinel]
(Photo:Morton Fox)

Now, we're not sure to what extent the magazines are responsible for this company's actions, but the story is always the same. You cancel your subscription to a magazine or "free trial", then, magically you get an official-looking letter from NCAC that tries to scare you into renewing your subscription by citing the THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT and OTHER SCARY LANGUAGE.

National Credit Audit Corporation is owned by Choicepoint, and the complaints on the internet are all pretty much the same as the one Brian just sent us. People sign up for trial subscriptions to magazines, then are sent the scary collection notices. If you get one of these letters we suggest reporting the company to your local attorney general.

Brian writes:

Ben, Meghann, and Carey:

I thought I'd share a story about my experience with Popular Science Magazine and their parent company, Bonnier Corp's , efforts to renew the subscription I let expire by sending me a bogus debt collection letter.

About a year and a half ago, I had the opportunity to subscribe to Popular Science Magazine for $0.01. I never would have paid to subscribe to their magazine, but since it was basically free, I thought I 'd give them a shot. Their subscription card indicated that the subscription would automatically renew . Being clever, I crossed that sect ion out, initialed it, wrote in " DO NOT RENEW", and taped a penny to the card (so they wouldn't have my credit card or checking account information), and mailed it off. Honestly, I didn' t think that they'd accept it , but issues starting arriving a few weeks later.

Well, the magazine turned out to be about as boring as I thought it would be, so after a year of tossing issues into trash as they arrived, I let the subscription expire. They sent me the typical renewal requests with "Urgent" and "Time Sensitive Materials Enclosed Act Now !!" splashed across them, but I wasn 't interested.

Fast forward to today when I receive what appears to be a debt collection notice from a company called National Credit Audit Corporation (8512 Allen Rd, Peoria, IL 61615).

The letter implies that Popular Science engaged them because I " placed an order" for their magazine (which I never did), but failed to pay the $15.94 subscription fee . It then goes on to state that the matter can be easily resolved if I simply send them a check. It then goes on to say that, upon receipt of payment, the publisher will reinstate my subscription.

Near the bottom of the letter, there 's a full paragraph of very official-looking language that references the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, disputing the "debt " within 30 days etc. I can scan and send you a copy of the letter if you' d like.

I called the long distance number listed on the letter for NCAC and listened to the prompts. Their menu system lists a number of prompts, one of which was "If chose to accept a free offer and do not wish to continue the subscription ..." After entering the 19 digit code from their letter, I was told that my subscription would be canceled and that I should disregard any future mailings.

So, they're trying to retain me as a customer by sending renewal offers disguised as bogus debt collection notices from a so-called debt collection agency? I' ve heard of some shitty customer service, but this takes the cake!

I then called Popular Sciences' customer service line, and after speaking with one of their agents for several minutes, was told that this is a common practice to try to get past subscribers to renew their subscriptions and she went out of her way to assure me my subscription would be canceled and that they were not really going to send it to a collection agency.

This smells like fraud to me. I tried calling Popular Sciences' corporate offices at 212-779-5297, but had to leave a message. I don 't expect that I' ll hear back from anyone. I'm therefore submitting this story to you, contacting the Kansas Attorney General's Office and am calling my local sensationalist news channel's "Problem Solvers" team to expose this company's attempt to prey on its customers.

How many consumers would fall for this scare tactic, thinking that f or the small sum of $15.94, they can resolve this "debt" without it impacting their credit rating? How many consumers are already receiving legitimate collection notices and would pay this to have it resolved? How many elderly or otherwise impaired individuals would simply pay this because it says they owe it? This is predatory, pure an d simple, and it needs to be stopped .

To Popular Science: This, you blithering idiots , is why the internet is eating your lunch!

Brian

Overland Park, KS

Choicepoint [Wikipedia]
National Credit Audit Corporation [Complaints.com]
National Credit Audit Corporation Re: Golf Magazine [Ripoff Report]

Sure enough, the feature the strange Verizon rep had offered her showed up on her bill. Now Christy is mad. Really. Really. Mad. She doesn't think that sales reps whom she's never done business with and who are based in different cities than the one she lives in should be able to access her account and add features without her permission. Read her email inside.

UPDATE: Steve, our Verizon confessor, writes, "This is way more prevalent than you think. So much so they emphasize that it is not OK in their training."

Christy writes:

I received a strange phone call on my cell phone a few weeks ago from a Verizon salesperson. The number is from my area code and starts with the same three digits as my cell phone. This guy, who does not give his name, claims to be the person who sold me my last phone (a female actually sold me the last phone). He then proceeds to inform me that VCast is now available in my area and I can try it free for a month. I told him that I don't use the internet or anything but text on my phone so I did not have use for it. I politely thanked him and he quickly hung up. I just walked away slightly confused but thought nothing of it.

In yesterday's mail I get a notice from Verizon stating there has been a change in my account. You have to look over these things carefully because they just lay out your entire plan and do not highlight changes for you. I finally noticed that a VCast package had been added for $15/month. This was apparently added around the same time I received the mysterious cell phone call from the salesperson. I immediately called the 800 number on the bottom of the statement to find out what was going on.

Now the fun begins... A helpful sales rep answers my call named Kwan (sic). I inform him that I did not make the changes on my phone line and asked if he could give me information concerning my account. I explained the entire situation to him and he quickly removed the VCast and even credited my account $13 for the trouble. I then asked him for information on how this could be added to my account without my permission. I wanted to know who added this also. He then told me that I was called by a saleperson in a different city and they added the VCast. The city where the sales person called from has my same area code, thats why I thought he really was local. He then gave me the store phone number and the person's employee number.

Kwan informed me that he was going to call the store and find out what was going on too. I even asked again if this guy was from a Verizon store or an independent retailer since I had read on your site about issues with sales calls from them. He verified that he was indeed from a Verizon retail store located in a mall. For good measure I then asked to speak to a supervisor.

I was put on hold and a female supervisor then got on the line. She had been told about the whole situation by Kwan. I explained to her that I felt violated and wanted to know how someone could access my account from a store in a different city and add features without my permission. She was immediately defensive. She proceeded to explain to me that it was valid for local sales reps to call concerning new features but she was "concerned" that he added it without my permission. I told her that over my 5 year period with Verizon, I have NEVER had anyone local call me for any reason. If anyone calls me, it's from a call center and it directly relates to my usage or bill.

She repeated that it was normal for local reps to call and if it bothered me I could be placed on a "do not call" list. I once again told her that my issue was the account violation, not the call. We then began going in circles as to how to handle the fact that I had serious issue with my account being changed without my permission. I told her that I was very sensitive to these kinds of things due to previous identity theft. I was not comfortable that a salesperson outside of my market could do this randomly.

She then changed her story to tell me that it was not a salesperson from that city in fact, it was a call center employee. I asked her how she knew that and why the story was changing now and she proceeded to ask me if I was planning on going to confront the employee! I never even asked for his name! All I wanted was to make sure this didn't happen again and make his manager aware of the problem. She treated me like I was going to hunt him down. We were getting nowhere, so she asked how she could make me happy since they had already fixed my account and given me a credit. I told her I was tired of having billing and technical issues with them and if she couldn't guarantee that this wouldn't happen again, let me out of my contract.

She then told me that it would never happen again and I asked her if she could promise that. Her response was "I can say those words for you if you'd like". What the hell? I repeated that since she couldn't actually promise my account would be secure, I wanted out of my contract. Of course that was quickly denied and she claimed that I could only do that due to death or leaving the Verizon access area. Since she apparently could not make me happy, she bid me good day and hung up. I'm now about to begin round two. I am determined to be done with Verizon before the day is done.

Christy

RELATED: Watch Out For This Cellphone Scam

(Photo: Meghann Marco)

Reader L. writes:

I love Consumerist. If it were a woman, it would be really large with multiple personalities, but I'd date it all the same.

Seriously, I got a contract from Comcast stating that if I don't sign and send it back within 30 days of my service being set up then they'd bill me for everything at current market prices. It gets better though. They also state that if I make any changes to my account then I may be penalized with a $150 early termination fee. The only problem was that I set up service on 4/04; the letter they sent to me was dated 4/23 and I didn't get it in the mail until 5/05. Before I even had the contract I was already in violation of it, if I were to sign it.

To give you some background, I signed up for their famous "Triple Play" and when I did so the person setting up the order said he could give me the price for 2 years instead of one. It made no matter to me because I only signed up because Verizon takes a while to set service up and I need something quickly to get online. Sure I know that customers like me are what Comcast would like to discourage but all their marketing says that it's 12 months, no contract and then you get the old bait-and-switch and a scary letter sent to you.

Needless to say that I have a very lengthy conversation with Comcast and had my account changed from 24 to 12 months so I don't have to think twice about them getting creative with my billing. Please feel free to share my story as I'm sure other Comcast or potential Comcast customers should be aware.

NewsCenter 5's Sean Kelly reported that six years ago, [Diane] Turk hired Home Depot to install her new windows, but after shelling out thousands of dollars, she claims the job was never done right. "I don't think if you have a reputable contractor they would have left the window looking like this," she said.

Now, because of a Team 5 investigation, Turk's windows are finally getting fixed. Gary White is vice president of Home Depot's At Home Services Division.

"It was only after we brought this woman's name to your attention that somebody from Home Depot called back and said, 'We're going to come fix your windows.' That to me doesn't sound like taking care of your customers," Kelly said.

Home Depot Takes Action After Investigation [WCBV]
(Photo:dM.nyc)

RELATED: Home Depot's Contractors Instructed to Intentionally Inflate Estimates, Charge For Items Not Installed
Home Depot Investigated For Scammy Remodelling Services
Home Depot Remodelling Service Investigated For Sucking

Currently called Luma , the nutraceutical drink was trademarked as a tea-based ready-to-drink beverage by Coca-Cola's Beverage Partners Worldwide division. The drink, which is still in the early stages of development, is expected to contain ingredients that will help women care for their skin, per a source.
...
Luma is expected to target active, influential, image-conscious women over the age of 25 who embrace health and wellness. Coke is interested in marketing and distributing Luma like a beauty brand instead of a soft drink. Early plans call for distribution in Saks Fifth Avenue (instead of Coke's usual venues, like 7-Eleven).

Coke And L'Oreal Partner On New Health Beverage [BrandWeek]
(Photo: Welvis Tarn)

I have read on your website about deceptive practices involving Best Buy where they advertise one thing on their website for a price, and then it is different when you go in the store.

Today I wanted to purchase a simple CD for Son Volt's new album, The Search. On bestbuy.com it is advertised at 9.99, available for in store purchase, or online. I drove to a local Best Buy store to find it listed for 13.99. I took it to the customer service counter, and the person at the desk showed me a website listing it for 13.99. He stated, "maybe thats a special on-line pricing for the CD." I shook my head in disgust and walked out. Misleading advertising will doom this company. Hopefully people will catch on at some point.

(Photo: cmorran123)

PREVIOUSLY: Best Buy Confirms The Existence Of Its Secret Website
Connecticut State's Attorney's Office Launches Investigation Into Best Buy's Secret Intranet Site
Best Buy's Secret "Employee Only" In-Store Website Shows Different Prices Than Public Website

(Corporate hotels have little to worry about because if they foul up, Marriott will just send in a glut of extra labor to fix the problem.) So how to keep labor costs way down and keep the scores way up? Easy.

Based on logs of guest problems kept by the "At Your Service Agent" (the hotel operator) and the on-property comment cards, the franchise managers know in advance which guests are likely to give the property a low score. Before or soon after the guest checks out, the list of problem guests gets copied to the hotel's reservationist, the person responsible for updating records in Marriott's massive guest database called OSCAR. The reservationist opens each problem guest's file and "updates" the guest's e-mail and postal addresses—actually changing them to invalid or just plain fake addresses. This way, if the guest gets selected for a GSS survey. . . the survey never arrives. This way, only happy, satisfied guests ever get the surveys, and the franchisors can run a hotel into the ground while laughing all the way to the bank.

Marriott, "the leader in brand loyalty," prides itself on having some of the best customer service in the industry—so much so that the corporate Quality Assurance group uses some really tough metrics. And the stakes are high: these QA metrics determine whether a given franchise hotel gets to keep the Marriott "flag," or the right to use the brand. Guest surveys are split into two types: on-property comment cards, which alert staff to problems while a guest is still around, and "Guest Satisfaction Surveys." As the name suggests, the former is just a bellwether, it never gets seen by anyone outside the property. The latter, however, is a corporate metric.

After any given stay, a guest may be randomly selected to receive a "Guest Satisfaction Survey" by e-mail or post. Guests are asked to rank nearly every aspect of the hotel, from breakfast to meeting room temperature, on a scale from 0 to 10. What the survey doesn't mention is that there are really only two valid scores: 0-7 counts 0, 8-10 counts 1. A hotel's GSS "Score" is calculated as the percentage of all responses that are 8 or above. Precisely because the stakes are so high, franchise hotels are willing to do anything to keep their scores high. (Corporate hotels have little to worry about because if they foul up, Marriott will just send in a glut of extra labor to fix the problem.) So how to keep labor costs way down and keep the scores way up? Easy.

Based on logs of guest problems kept by the "At Your Service Agent" (the hotel operator) and the on-property comment cards, the franchise managers know in advance which guests are likely to give the property a low score. Before or soon after the guest checks out, the list of problem guests gets copied to the hotel's reservationist, the person responsible for updating records in Marriott's massive guest database called OSCAR. The reservationist opens each problem guest's file and "updates" the guest's e-mail and postal addresses—actually changing them to invalid or just plain fake addresses. This way, if the guest gets selected for a GSS survey. . . the survey never arrives. This way, only happy, satisfied guests ever get the surveys, and the franchisors can run a hotel into the ground while laughing all the way to the bank.

I doubt Toyota and Marriott franchisors are the only ones who have found the holes in the system....I'm not surprised. It's the culture of modern business.

I am a librarian at the University of Dallas. We have not received our issue of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition even though we have an active subscription. The serials discussion list I am on has been abuzz on this topic. It turns out no libraries have received their issues. The publisher has decided not to send it to any institutions. Librarians who call in to complain are being offered an subscription extension of two issues. That will not satisfy patrons who are looking for the swimsuit edition. They'll just have to go buy it on the newsstand (surely that's not the publisher's intent!)

It should be up to the institution to decide whether or not they choose to make the issue available to patrons. The publisher should send the issues we've paid for. If we throw them in the trash, that's our prerogative.

Anyway, this is shady behavior by Time, the publisher of Sports Illustrated. Boo. If libraries want to provide the swimsuit issue then that's their business.—MEGHANN MARCO

Message Board Full Of Pissed Off Librarians

Sports Illustrated Withholds Swimsuit Issue from Libraries, Schools [Library Journal]

The old terms and conditions read:

Registration. You must first register for this offer on http://paypal.promotionexpert.com/gr...nup/index.html using your PayPal account's primary email address.

The revised, restricted terms and conditions now read:

Registration. You must first register for this offer on http://paypal.promotionexpert.com/greatshopping/signup/index.html using your PayPal account's primary email address. You are only eligible for this offer if you receive this offer in an email sent to you directly from PayPal.

Don't take our word for it. We have pictures, inside.

How nice, a spring rebate. Uh-oh, where did the rebate go?

We are very interested to know why PayPal changed the rebate terms. If you were able to redeem the rebate before the change, or if you received an invitation email, let us know in the comments. — CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER

My Money Blog (Thanks to Bud!)

I called my local Gamestop, where I know most of the employees by name, and asked what to do. They said they couldn't help me directly, but to call customer service at (800) 883-8895. I called that number, waited on hold for a few minutes, got a CSR and asked that my name be removed from the solicitation list. I said that I don't mind the calls telling me my reserved games are in, but that the solicitations needed to stop. He said that the two systems are linked, and that I couldn't be removed from one without being removed from the other. I said that was acceptable, since I really didn't want the solicitations. He asked for my phone number, I gave it to him, and he said he'd "put in a request" to have me removed from the system.

I actually like the "Your game is ready" calls. But I'd rather have no calls at all than the solicitations.

This policy is insane. Our tipster says at no time does GameStop inform customers that by accepting a "reminder" call they are opening themselves up to solicitation calls. They also offered the tipster no confirmation that his name had been removed. —MEGHANN MARCO

(Photo: stan)

The state attorney general's office has started an investigation into whether Best Buy maintains a secret intranet site that may have been used by some salesmen to deny customers discounts that appear on the company's public Internet site.

Regardless of current legality, we think maintaining an identical website with different prices is a deceptive practice and should be investigated. The State's Attorney will also be investigating other chain stores to see if the practice is common. Are there any Consumerist readers who would like to take it upon themselves to document these practices in other stores, or at Best Buy? Photos would be helpful.—MEGHANN MARCO

State Begins Investigation Of Best Buy's Sales Practices [Hartford Courant]

PREVIOUSLY: Best Buy's Secret "Employee's Only" In-Store Website Shows Different Prices Than Public Website

I asked whether I needed a rebate form, I was told no, and went home.

The next day, I checked my receipt and the Autozone website to look for a rebate form, not finding one, I headed back to the store. A completely dis-interested employee begrudgingly looked through some rebate forms and then picked up the flyer and said "See, it says not available in all stores". My reply was that the shelves have signs about the Free-After-Rebate product, right under where the product is sold. "Well, I guess its back there then" was his response. I searched again, and still no rebate form.

Matt's full email inside.

Matt writes:

This doesn't exactly live up to the level of multi-thousand dollar
rip-offs, but little things like this add up.

I went to my local Autozone (Fort Collins, CO at Manhattan Ave and
Horsetooth Ave) to return some motor oil and buy some radiator fluid.
Autozone sometimes has specials, so I checked their flier and they were
advertising "Free After Rebate" on Gum-Out Complete Fuel System Cleaner
(reg $5.99 each). I use this product on occasion, so I figured, if its
free, I may as well buy two of them (one for my wife's car and one for
mine). As I checked out, I asked whether I needed a rebate form, I was
told no, and went home.

The next day, I checked my receipt and the Autozone website to look for
a rebate form, not finding one, I headed back to the store. A
completely dis-interested employee begrudgingly looked through some
rebate forms and then picked up the flyer and said "See, it says not
available in all stores". My reply was that the shelves have signs
about the Free-After-Rebate product, right under where the product is
sold. "Well, I guess its back there then" was his response. I searched
again, and still no rebate form. At this point, I left the store and
called Autozone Customer Service. I ended up leaving a message for the
regional office in Denver, Colorado, requesting them to contact me.

Since I still haven't heard from them this morning, I returned all my
purchased items to Autozone. They seemed relatively unconcerned about
the process, even after I explained the reason for the resturn. The
"Free" sign is still up on the shelves and the flier is also still on
the counter. I am attaching a scan of the flier and although I took a
picture of the in store signage with my phone, I found out today that I
need a picture-mail account to email the pictures to myself... You will
have to trust me that it is in-fact still there, and says FREE in large
red letters.

I wonder how many other people this has happened to?

Matt

Spoke.com is selling your friends' Outlook address books [BoingBoing]

"The holidays...time to give thanks, spread joy and shop for the best sales. Now, here's the perfect "gift" to help you stretch your holiday dollar. Volkswagen Credit is offering you the opportunity to 'skip' your December 2006 payment on your current account listed above. [...] Upon receipt of your extension agreement, we will assess your account a $25.00 extension fee, payable on your next due invoice. There is no need to send money at this time. [...] Happy Holidays!"

Volkswagen targets stupid people, tries to rip them off [I Will Teach You To Be Rich]
Full Scan of the Letter [Flickr]