Consumerist... a haven for SC's...

[sirwired]

I occasionally read the blog called "The Consumerist". It consists primarily of what you would expect; consumers writing in with gripes about companies or service.

The vast majority of the gripes appear to be legitimate. (Screwed up billing, repair folks that don't repair, phone reps that don't keep their promises, etc.) However, a quite a few of the folks are SC's, pure and simple.

The ones that amuse me most are those that whine and complain that they get asked for ID when using a credit card. Gee, I WANT businesses to ask for ID, so somebody that steals my wallet doesn't make my life miserable. These clowns cite obscure, and ignored, parts of the Visa/MC customer agreement and get all in a huff that a merchant wants to prevent fraud and/or theft.

Similar are the complaints about LP staff that peek at receipts on the way out the door. Yeah, I think it's poor customer service for the LP guy to not just pay attention to the registers, and ask for receipts from those that skip them; but that is no reason for the customer to claim false imprisonment when they detain you for refusing to show a receipt. If you don't want to shop there anymore fine, but leave the legal silliness out of it.

I got banned from commenting a couple of days ago after the site posted a followup to a story wherein I pointed out that the site requesting the other side of a story before posting would not be nearly as entertaining. The story in question involved some confusing language on Progressive's website where they were talking about military service possibly causing insurance quotes to be higher. It turns out that they were stating that rate changes due to a gap in coverage caused by overseas service might not be considered properly when presenting quotes from Progressive's competitors on Progressive's website. Progressive itself ignores gaps in coverage caused by military service.

The site was all up in arms about thinking Progressive charged more if you were in the military, when all it was was some confusing legalese that could have been fixed with a two-minute e-mail to the company. (After the story was posted, Progressive stated they were working to clear up the language.)

I logon to the site the next day, and notice that "Commenting has been disabled for this account", and the comment in question had been deleted, as was the one I was responding to, which merely asked the open-ended question as to why the company wasn't contacted initially, prior to the original story.

I guess pointing out the the customer isn't always right just isn't allowed there. Pointing out that the employee isn't always right certainly doesn't get you banned here...

SirWired

[Rapscallion]

It's true that we like to have both sides of a story on this site, if at all possible. I'd also like to remind people that we have a rule about starting a ruckus on other sites in the name of this one - there is plenty of identifying information in the above post to give someone a guide to which thread etc. I'm just a little leery of attracting trolls and the like.

Rapscallion

[trunks2k]

I read the Consumerist all the time too. If I comment, I'm usually one of the people who ends up "siding" with the company, or at least giving the company the benefit of a doubt. A few times I've outright criticized Consumerist for posting bad stories and potentially bad legal advice. For example, they posted on several occasions a guide on how to "trick" a representative into agreeing to being recorded. This tactic was not thought up by a lawyer, but by some random person, and no lawyers have agreed that the trick is legal. This could potentially lead a person into a compromising legal position. Another bad one was when they posted a leaked training manual from Best Buy claiming it says that Best Buy thinks that Extended Warranties are a myth. However, if you read the damn thing it clearly was talking about the myth that Extended Warranties and some other warranty type thing with a different name are the same thing. I don't think I've had any of my comments deleted yet. Meg seems to be the most egregious offender when it comes to posting poorly researched stories.

The Progressive story was another good example of consumerist, and many of the posters jumping the gun. Although to be fair in the Progressive story there were multiple posters, myself included, saying that there's no indication that Progressive uses military service to charge higher rates and that the assumption that it does is probably false.

Some of the posters on the site are crazy. So many people jump immediately to lawsuits, etc and just have unreasonable expectations.

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

I have nothing to do with that site anymore. Entitlement whores the lot of them, and if you are post a contrasting opinion you get labeled as a corporate whore or some such thing.

I never even commented. I just got sick of the full-on exhibitions of stupid I regularly ran across in the comments.

The only things I used to find of value on that site were the "Confessions" stories, where an employee of a particular business would let everyone in on what they do in their job, how they respond to different customers and issues, etc. Most of the commenters found those to be of no value. If it isn't pointing fingers at The Man it's no good I guess.

[Princess-Snake]

I read the Consumerist sometimes when I'm in the mood for a laugh.

[Eben56]

I go there fairly often and have posted a couple of times. Their regular complaint fare is the typical "should have read the fine print" "did too" "did not" etc.

I do like that they keep fairly up to date on news items like the latest mergers, changes in company policies, that kind of thing.

That said; what I notice most when going to sites that have a particular agenda is that often times exceptions can be perceived as the general rule. For instance, if CS was the only site I visited, I would end up paranoid and afraid to walk into Walmart assuming all I would find would be 100 elderly lepers spitting on the floor and yelling at the employees.

The "consumer" sites are a lot worse. They feed on the complaints until the regulars there assume everyone in the world knows BB is the worst company ever and CC and Sears, and Kmart, and Comcast, etc. EVERY company in the world is out to get you. I personally think that a lot of this constant publicity about what is wrong with business fosters a lot of the SC attitudes we get. People walk into stores assuming the store is going to screw you. And the stores do it JUST enough that they feel justified.

Sears takes a lot of crap on those sites. Ok, maybe they aren't the gold standard of customer service they were in the 60s, but I have never had a single problem with them. Deliveries on time, courteous employees, clean stores, good values. We folks sometimes forget that if you have a chain with hundreds of stores and you sell millions of appliances, 10 or 20 complaints to these boards is a pretty good track record.

The Kmart where I shop is clean and friendly, I've had Dish for years without a problem, I've never had a billing or bank problem that wasn't taken care of, my electronics from CC and BB all work fine. Maybe it has something to do with Maine being "the way life should be".

Most of those sites have constant jackels who feel like it is their job to jump all over any one who posts. Only very rarely have I seen anything here that I thought might have gone a little over the line. Keep up the good work Raps and all you other great moderators. I feel better protected here than by homeland security.

[Difdi]

The ones that amuse me most are those that whine and complain that they get asked for ID when using a credit card. Gee, I WANT businesses to ask for ID, so somebody that steals my wallet doesn't make my life miserable. These clowns cite obscure, and ignored, parts of the Visa/MC customer agreement and get all in a huff that a merchant wants to prevent fraud and/or theft.

The number on the front of the credit card + the number on the back of the credit card + an ID card is all the data you need to impersonate someone in an online transaction. The contract the merchant signed with mastercard prohibits making an ID check a condition of the sale, unless the ID check is for an age-restricted item or an address check for delivery purposes. Why should I hand a store clerk everything he or she needs to rip me off, in order to accomodate a store policy that is in breach of the contract that allows the store to accept the credit card in the first place?

I'm not saying every clerk is a crook, or most, or even, probably, 1 in 100. But the amount of harm that can be caused by one crook in that situation is staggering, and a big mac or a Tom Clancy novel is not worth that level of risk.

Similar are the complaints about LP staff that peek at receipts on the way out the door. Yeah, I think it's poor customer service for the LP guy to not just pay attention to the registers, and ask for receipts from those that skip them; but that is no reason for the customer to claim false imprisonment when they detain you for refusing to show a receipt. If you don't want to shop there anymore fine, but leave the legal silliness out of it.

The LP guy has the same right to inspect a receipt, as he/she does to demand to inspect ID, credit history, or contents of safety deposit boxes at the bank across town. None whatsoever. There are legal procedures in place for handling shoplifting, but asking to see a receipt is not one of them. Sure, you can voluntarily show it, just like you could show your ID, credit history, or bank contents. But it's not an obligation, and the demand to see it is a violation of privacy. Some stores make you sign a membership contract before shopping there, such as Costco does. Part of the contract may then include mandatory showing of receipts. But the only remedy they have for refusal to show it is cancellation of membership.

I am not a thief. I do not shoplift. I do not lie. Treating me as if I do those things is highly offensive to me. It may also be slander or libel, depending on the manner in which the accusation is made. On many items, I decline a receipt at the register. I literally do not have a receipt to show at the door, most of the time. This does not make me a shoplifter. If my response to a demand to see my receipt is "I threw it away", it is not probable cause to detain me. If I don't feel like waiting while you inspect my receipt (or there's a long line for LP to do so) my walking out without doing so is not probable cause to detain me. There cannot ever be probable cause, under Shopkeeper's Privilege, because I do not pocket items without paying for them, or attempt to leave without paying; If I don't do it, then no one can see me do so, and anyone who says I did is lying. And that lie is the tort of slander.

It's not legal silliness to object to assault being committed against me. If someone blocks my path out of the store, that's assault...shopkeeper's privilege offers them a defense against an assault charge if it then turns out I am actually shoplifting, but if I'm not shoplifting, then they are guilty of misdemeanor assault.

It's not legal silliness to object to the gross misdemeanor of battery being committed against me, which it is if they actually lay hands on me to stop me from leaving the store; Again, shopkeeper's privilege offers a defense against a battery charge, but again, only if it turns out I am actually shoplifting. And because I do not shoplift, there cannot be any such proof.

And it's certainly not legal silliness to object to the felony of unlawful detainment being committed against me. If someone commits a violent felony against you, the law recognizes your right to engage in self defense, providing the level of force you use is proportionate to the force of the felon uses. No taking a knife to a fistfight, in other words (though it's worth noting that in most jurisdictions, any level of force used by a female victim against a male attacker is considered to be legally justified).

I value my privacy very highly, and my honor and good name higher still. I obey the law even when no one is looking. Nowhere in the law does it say I must submit to being slandered, assaulted, battered and illegally detained. I can and will sue for the first one, and will use appropriate levels of force, as taught to me by my instructors in judo, aikido, tae kwan do and tai chi, in self defense against any and all criminals who attack me.

[Andara Bledin]

Similar are the complaints about LP staff that peek at receipts on the way out the door.

As was mentioned, they can't actually make you show your receipt or keep you from leaving if you refuse to show it.

I, personally, don't mind showing my receipt because, for the most part, it has nothing to do with what's on your receipt and how it matches what's in your cart/bag as how you react to them asking to check. I know that of the two places I shop that do that, I haven't had an exit person do more than the most cursory glance at each and wave me through with a 'have a nice day.'

As for the whole "I don't want to show my ID because of identity theft" that's really closing the barn door after the horses are out. The only component required to clear out a bank account and run up a lot of charges is the number itself, and that can be gotten just as easily (possibly moreso) by someone stealing your mail or trash.

Sure, the security card makes it a little harder for some thief to spend your money, but not by much. (and AmEx puts the security number on the front. way to defeat the purpose) As for the ID being protection, I'm hardly ever asked for my ID. Oh, and my cards have never been signed and nobody has ever mentioned it.

I've had my bank card compromised twice. Once by some jerk in Pennsylvania (the other side of the country from me) who didn't have the brains to figure out that if the card didn't work for an $80.00 transaction to try something smaller. The bank locked that one out. And the other time was some punk with a brute force hack on a 7/11 ATM and it took one call and a promise that I would press charges to have all the funds put back. I <3 online banking.

^-.-^

[sirwired]

Difdi,

1) An ID is not necessary to rip you off in an online transaction. Just the numbers on the card and your address, which is trivial to obtain whether it be from the phone book, public databases (such as voter registration lists), etc. Asking for ID stops somebody that swipes my wallet from buying $4000 TV at Best Buy before I realize the wallet is gone. (I know my liability is zero, but it is a hassle to straighten all that out.) Yeah, Visa/MC have a poorly enforced policy against it, but all it does is create unnecessary loss by honest store merchants (who are usually the ones that end up paying) that are just trying to prevent the most easy-to-spot form of fraud.

2) If you don't like stores that ask to see your receipt then why don't you just shop somewhere else? To call them tapping you on the shoulder and requesting that you remove a small slip of paper from your shopping bag and show it to them "Assault and Battery" trivializes a real crime. (Good luck trying to get them arrested for that one.) To call them requesting you to stick around while they look in your shopping bag "Unlawful Detainment" and a "Violent Felony" worthy of a mighty ass-kicking, again, trivializes a real crime. If you don't agree with the store's LP policy, the easiest solution is to shop at another store. Vote with your wallet. I know that if I was managing a retail store with a receipt check policy and you start screaming about your rights being violated and threatening "judo, aikido, tae kwan do and tai chi" when the LP guy asks to look at your receipt, yeah, I'm going to let you go, as legally required, but you also aren't setting foot in my store again. Refusing service to anyone most certainly is legal, as long as it is not done for legally prohibited reasons, such as racial discrimination.

I personally think the whole receipt check thing is stupid too, but more as poor customer service due to lazy LP guys that aren't paying attention to the register lines, not as some horrible rights violation doomed to end democracy as we know it.

SirWired

[CaroPhoenix]

When I went to Wal-Mart yesterday, I had 3 overly large mailing envelopes that couldn't be placed in a bag, so I had to carry them out in my hands. The door checker chick asked to see my receipt (I also had 2 bags in my hands), and I had no problem with showing it. It's part of her job to do so. I know I paid for them, so what's the big deal?

At work, I ask for ID. If someone is using someone else's credit card, and it turns out it's fraud, we have to eat the cost ourselves. (Sure the Credit Card company will pay back the victim, or whatever they do, but they don't help out the merchant in anyway shape or form). It's just to cover the merchant's a$$. *knock on wood* I've never had a customer yell at me or refuse. They're all happy to oblige. Must be gamers are of a different mind set than most consumers.

[Eben56]

I don't recall ever being asked for ID when I used a card and I would not create a hassle for the clerk. I'd just show it.

What I find interesting though, is that to me it would affirm a double standard. How many times have we heard when a customer is surprised by something in the fine print of the contract "you should have read it" "if you find the contract objectionable, don't buy the product" etc.

Wellllllll...... If the store does not want to adhere to the contract from Visa, don't take visa.

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." 1755 (Usually attributed to Ben Franklin...incorrectly)

[trunks2k]

I don't recall ever being asked for ID when I used a card and I would not create a hassle for the clerk. I'd just show it.

What I find interesting though, is that to me it would affirm a double standard. How many times have we heard when a customer is surprised by something in the fine print of the contract "you should have read it" "if you find the contract objectionable, don't buy the product" etc.

Wellllllll...... If the store does not want to adhere to the contract from Visa, don't take visa.

From what I've been told the oft touted clause that says a merchant can't ask for ID is part of a general contract that may be overridden by the merchant's individual contract. So the merchant may be allowed to ask for the ID in the individual contract.

[Andara Bledin]

To call them requesting you to stick around while they look in your shopping bag "Unlawful Detainment" and a "Violent Felony" worthy of a mighty ass-kicking, again, trivializes a real crime.

Actually, if they don't allow you to leave the store without showing the receipt, that is unlawful detainment and is an actionable offense.

However, brining the words "violent felony" to the table seems to be a gross overreaction.

I value my privacy, too, but I don't understand how a person glancing at my receipt could possibly be any sort of violation when there's a goodly chance that same person just watched me buy all that stuff in the first place. If you're that paranoid, you need to get a locking mailbox, drop all your outbound mail at the post office (unless you have a locking mailbox bank, like at an apartment complex), shred all of your receipts once the return period has expired, shred anything identifiable before throwing it out, and do every transaction in cash. Using a credit card at all seems to defeat the whole purpose of privacy, don'cha think?

^-.-^

[Difdi]

However, brining the words "violent felony" to the table seems to be a gross overreaction.

Unlawful detainment is a felony. Committing battery (which is what would be required to detain me unlawfully) makes it a violent one (as opposed to simply locking someone in a room when they turn their back). Reacting to the crime of battery with a physical act of self defense is not an overreaction, gross or otherwise.

I value my privacy, too, but I don't understand how a person glancing at my receipt could possibly be any sort of violation when there's a goodly chance that same person just watched me buy all that stuff in the first place.

If they just watched me pay for the items, then they have no need to check the receipt. And even if they didn't watch me, they have no authority to compel me to show one. Naturally, shopkeeper's privilege applies to situations where they witnessed me shoplifting, but every state has fairly strict rules on the privilege, and mere suspicions aren't enough; And since I do not shoplift, they can't have any such witness. Once I've paid for the items, they are now mine. Any attempt to prevent me from leaving the store with them starts with attempted theft and escalates rapidly. Further, the checking of a receipt implies (strongly) that I may not have paid for the items, and am in fact stealing them. This is slanderous behavior, and I am not obligated to tolerate it or acquiesce to it. Assuming, hypothetically, that I was a shoplifter, and they can prove it, shopkeeper's privilege will, of course, grant them an absolute defense against the assault, battery and detainment charges...but only if they can prove it...if they cannot prove it, then they have committed at least two misdemeanors and at least one felony, with no defense at all.

If you're that paranoid, you need to get a locking mailbox, drop all your outbound mail at the post office (unless you have a locking mailbox bank, like at an apartment complex), shred all of your receipts once the return period has expired, shred anything identifiable before throwing it out, and do every transaction in cash. Using a credit card at all seems to defeat the whole purpose of privacy, don'cha think?

I have a locking mailbox. I also have a locked outgoing mailbox. I spread my shredded receipts among random multiple garbage cans. I use cash for most transactions, and only use my credit card for transactions where a paper trail is useful. But I take precautions with the card, and while I will admit to a certain level of paranoia, I come by it honestly. And in this age of identity theft and companies with idiots in charge of their customers data, can you really claim it's entirely unwarranted?

1) An ID is not necessary to rip you off in an online transaction. Just the numbers on the card and your address, which is trivial to obtain whether it be from the phone book, public databases (such as voter registration lists), etc.

True, it's possible to rip you off without an ID. But most of what is needed is printed on the ID. The rest is printed on the credit card. Why should I make it easier for a scammer or identity thief?

The address my business and banking related mail goes through is not the one listed along with my name in any phone book, and my number is not listed. I prefer to maintain a separate mailbox for such things, in addition to my home address. I don't use my home address as a verified shipping address with anyone, partially for security reasons, and partially due to the absurdly small size of my apartment's mailbox.

Anyone who knows where I live and attempts to use that information to verify a credit card transaction is in for a nasty surprise. Good luck finding out my billing address from public databases.

Still, since I can be verified as living at my home address, I don't like people having ready access to it. Paranoid? Arguably, but I've never had my identity stolen, so so far, so good. While it's true knowing the address on my ID won't help much with my credit cards, I have done some computer security work before, and am firmly of the belief that you should not ever give any information you don't have to out where people you don't trust (or even those you do) can get it.

2) If you don't like stores that ask to see your receipt then why don't you just shop somewhere else? To call them tapping you on the shoulder and requesting that you remove a small slip of paper from your shopping bag and show it to them "Assault and Battery" trivializes a real crime. (Good luck trying to get them arrested for that one.)

I don't usually shop at stores that do such a thing, and when I do shop at one, I politely decline to show a receipt, assuming I have it. I very often don't. I work for an appliance repair shop, I am unlikely to need to return a broken appliance, and often repair such things on my days off, for fun. So it's not unusual for me to toss a receipt on the way to the door, or simply decline one at the register; And since appliances are what most people save their receipts for potential returns on, it's not a big deal for me.

To call them requesting you to stick around while they look in your shopping bag "Unlawful Detainment" and a "Violent Felony" worthy of a mighty ass-kicking, again, trivializes a real crime.

They can request, I can refuse. The only way they can prevent my walking out the door at that point is by means of assault and/or battery. Either of them committed with the intent of preventing me from leaving would then be unlawful detainment. And since the felony detainment happens by way of violence, it is therefore a violent felony.

If you don't agree with the store's LP policy, the easiest solution is to shop at another store. Vote with your wallet.

Wow, store policy in your area trumps city, county, state and federal laws? Wow. Just, wow.

I know that if I was managing a retail store with a receipt check policy and you start screaming about your rights being violated and threatening "judo, aikido, tae kwan do and tai chi" when the LP guy asks to look at your receipt, yeah, I'm going to let you go, as legally required

I wouldn't be the one screaming. If you commit assault, I will inform you, politely, of how unwise such an act is, and the illegality thereof, then step around you. I wouldn't be making any threats at all. If you commit battery, you will find that I am better at it, but odds are I won't be the one screaming and threatening in this case either. Unarmed battery, while normally a gross misdemeanor, becomes a felony if committed in the course of committing some other crime that is itself a felony (such as unlawful detainment). Odds are, the only mention of "judo, aikido, tae kwan do and tai chi" I'll make will be as commentary on the criminal's lack of wisdom and judgment, while filling out the police report after the criminal is led away in handcuffs (gurney optional).

If you let me go, as legally required, physical altercations would not occur. How exactly, in your mind, does the statement "I will physically defend myself if physically attacked" equate to "I will open a can of whoop-ass and hospitalize anyone who asks to see my receipt"?

but you also aren't setting foot in my store again. Refusing service to anyone most certainly is legal, as long as it is not done for legally prohibited reasons, such as racial discrimination.

Quite true. But if you have a corporate level, rest assured they'll be hearing my side. They'll also likely be hearing from my lawyer, since store policy does not trump state law.

[Andara Bledin]

I like how you totally sidestepped the issue of the fact that if you're that paranoid, you shouldn't be using a trackable and relatively easy remote-theft device (a credit card) in the first place.

And, again, the number is all that is needed. They've already got your name from that, and it's a cheap fee to get your address and phone number from some amateur private investigator.

Anyone who really wanted to steal your identity can get your social security number off the internet for $25. And most people who do ID theft just go through numbers semi-randomly until one works, anyway, and there's nothing you can do to protect against that.

^-.-^