Walletpop reports that a senior citizen recently bought one of those mini dorm-size refrigerators from Sears, and was having a problem. Her food was spoiling after only a day or two, as the interior temperature of the refrigerator reportedly hovered between 50 and 65 degrees, and higher on hot days.

When she contacted Sears, the consumer recounts, “a technician who handles warranty service for Sears told me it is quiet because there is no compressor in it and it cannot keep food cold enough to eat safely if there is no compressor.” Please visit Walletpop for the rest of her tale, and learn whether Sears gave her any money back.

Here is how Sears promotes this refrigerator on its website:

It is described in part as:

This Thermoelectric refrigerator chills your food without noise and vibration. You’ll never notice it’s there until you need a snack! With no harmful refrigerants, this quiet, compact, thermoelectric refrigerator will be enjoyed and appreciated by everyone.

It is nice to know that this appliance has no harmful refrigerants, but it does have something worse.

*MOUSE PRINT: The disclosure that is missing in that product description is that it is not safe to store perishable food in this “refrigerator.” According to the Food and Drug Administration, refrigerators should be kept at 40 degrees or below, which this appliance is apparently unable to do.

The FDA goes on to say:

“The goal is to keep yourself and others from being sickened by microorganisms such as Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, and C. botulinum, which causes botulism. Keeping foods chilled at proper temperatures is one of the best ways to prevent or slow the growth of these bacteria.” –FDA

Given the limitations of this unit and the potential illness it could cause, it seems to us that Sears should pull these units off the market or clearly label them as “coolers” along with appropriate warnings that perishable food should not be stored inside for more than a few hours. It would also seem appropriate that Sears either warns existing purchasers of the potential danger of these units or recalls them.

The buzz on many websites seems to be about acai berry supplements that purportedly can help you lose weight. Here is one such site (click to enlarge):

This looks like a local TV news station’s report on acai berries, reporter and all, who tested the stuff herself.  The station, News 8, WKRV-TV is in Florida, according to the masthead.

*MOUSE PRINT:  WKRV-TV in Florida is non-existent.  WKRV is a small FM radio station in Illinois, and may once have been a TV station in some other cities.

But what about our intrepid investigative reporter, Rachel Frank, pictured above?  Well, it seems she has a twin sister named Julia who wears the exact same clothing and works at some other health news website:

The “sisters” wrote about their experience using the product in a diary-format for a four week period, including saying “My energy level seemed to steady climb each day during this first week.”  Funny how the sisters made the exact same typo in each of their reports.

*MOUSE PRINT: Even more coincidental, women named “Jackie”, “Christine”, and “Kate”, and one unidentified man who looks strangely like NBC’s white house correspondent Chuck Todd, all said the same thing in those exact words on their websites.

In the first ad above, there are two disclaimers at the top.

*MOUSE PRINT: One says “advertorial” and the other says “this website is not affiliated with any news outlet.”

Hmmm.  So those few words are somehow supposed to overcome the net impression created by the website that this is a television station doing an investigation of a diet pill?

We saved the best for last:

*MOUSE PRINT: At the very bottom of the website in tiny type on a grey background is this disclosure:

“This website, and any page on the website, is based loosely off a true story, but has been modified in multiple ways including, but not limited to: the story, the photos, and the comments. Thus, this blog, and any page on this website, are not to be taken literally or as a non-fiction story.” –Ad 1

“THE STORY DEPICTED ON THIS SITE AND THE PERSON DEPICTED IN THE STORY ARE NOT REAL. ” — Ad 2

Finally, there have been some real news reports of consumers who took advantage of “free trial offers” and wound up being billed for hundreds of dollars of unordered products.  (See also our story on tooth whitener offers.)

Buyer beware.

Lock manufacturer Schlage has just begun an advertising campaign on TV promoting a new front door lock that can be unlocked remotedly.  Their commercial depicts a homeowner in Seattle unlocking a door far away for a friend just by pressing a few button on his cell phone.

*MOUSE PRINT: In case you didn’t catch that fine print disclosure on the bottom of the screen, it said:

“Monthly fee is required for the remote featured benefits. Product is simulated and requires additional third party equipment and service for proper functioning.”

A monthly fee to unlock your front door in an emergency? What will they think of next? And the cost here is key — $12.99 a month. That’s not insignificant. What’s wrong with the old-fashioned way — keeping a spare key in the flower pot — and that’s free?

As to what else you need to make this work:

– a compatible cell phone with Internet access (or remote computer);
– a Schlage Link bridge — a device that sends wireless signals to the lock
– an Internet router — you plug the bridge into the router
– a live broadband Internet connection

The lock pictured in their commercial, incidentally, is just a latch type lock. If you want a deadbolt, which provides more security for your home, it does not lock/unlock remotely as depicted in the commercial.

*MOUSE PRINT: From Schlage’s FAQ:

“For the Schlage Wireless Deadbolt, however, you can remotely activate the lock which makes it possible for the door to be unlocked by someone turning the outside thumbturn. Since door frames aren’t always aligned and a deadbolt can require more leverage to engage or disengage, the deadbolt requires manual operation.”

The starter kit that Schlage sells is $299.

If you have been seeing pink ribbons everywhere in the past two weeks it because October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It is designed to raise the public consciousness about breast cancer, the importance of early detection, and to encourage women to do self examinations and get mammograms. No doubt, this is an important and worthy undertaking.

Companies have joined in to help raise money for various breast cancer organizations typically by promising to donate X cents or X dollars for every product sold bearing a pink ribbon. A maximum donation is often stated in the advertising. So many companies have joined in doing these promotions dubbed “cause marketing”, that store shelves and ads are filled with pink ribbon items.

Some women with breast cancer are now speaking out about the commercialization of their disease. They don’t like the fact that some companies appear to be profiting from their pain.

“Many breast cancer survivors like Zielinski find themselves conflicted over this little powerful ribbon. Some survivors feel companies are exploiting breast cancer, marketing themselves as philanthropic outfits that care about women when what they mostly care about is the pink ribbon’s enormous ability to boost profits. Some just feel overwhelmed by the constant pink reminder, especially in October, Breast Cancer Awareness Month, of a disease that has forever altered their lives.” — Sick of Pink, Boston Globe Magazine, October 4, 2009

Poking around the Internet, Mouse Print* discovered that Buy.com was promoting its own very pink “Breast Cancer Awareness Store.”

Among the items being sold there are pink luggage and even pink flash drives from PNY.  In many cases, there is no specific disclosure of how much money of your purchase will be donated to breast cancer causes.

*MOUSE PRINT: Some items just say, “Portions of the proceeds of the sale of this flash drive go the Susan G. Koman for the cure foundation.”

The site also did not appear to say whether it was actually Buy.com or the products’ manufacturers who were making the contributions.

*MOUSE PRINT: A public relations representative for Buy.com when asked by Mouse Print* replied:

“As part of Buy.com’s National Breast Cancer Month Promotion, the participating manufacturers are making the donation when each item is sold.”

While manufacturers need retailers to promote pink products in order to donate the sums they have promised, some consumers might erroneously have believed that this retailer was also making a contribution derived from the profit on the sale of these pink items.

Since June 26, retailers and computer manufacturers have urged shoppers to buy computers already on store shelves loaded with the much-maligned Windows Vista operating system because they would qualify for a free upgrade to Windows 7 when it was released in October. As it turns out, Mouse Print* has learned that some computer purchasers will be asked to pay shipping, handling and other junk fees that total between $11 and $17 to receive their “free” upgrade disks.

Here is a part of a typical advertisement promising a free upgrade to Windows 7:

However, when visiting various computer manufacturers’ websites specifically set up for processing Windows 7 upgrade requests, some consumers will learn for the first time about the possible fees (that are often buried in a FAQ section or under Terms and Conditions):

*MOUSE PRINT:

The Details: “The Windows 7 Upgrade license is free for qualifying PCs. Only materials, shipping, handling, and fulfillment fees may be included in the cost of the upgrade program. If any fees apply, the amount will be presented to you prior to final submission of your order. At that time, you will have the opportunity to opt out before final order submission.” [from Lenovo terms] [Emphasis added]

“There is no charge for the Windows 7 Upgrade Option Program from HP; however, shipping, handling, and other fees (including taxes depending on local and state laws) might apply depending on the retailer or reseller where you purchased your eligible computer.” [from HP FAQ] [Emphasis added]

Dell ad 9/30/09. [Dell FAQ]

Dell told Mouse Print* that it is not going to charge any fees to US customers, despite disclosures to the contrary on their website and in recent newspaper ads (like the one above).

Both HP and Sony told Mouse Print* that they negotiated with big retail chains offering them the opportunity to allow their customers to receive completely free upgrades. Neither would provide a list of which retailers signed up, nor what retailers had to pay or agree to. Retailers say the manufacturers decided on pricing. So they are each pointing fingers at the other claiming the other is responsible for setting the shipping charges if any. Who’s caught in the middle? The consumer, who may not know until after purchase, whether they will have to pay high shipping and handling fees.

No manufacturers’ site linked from the official Microsoft Windows 7 upgrade page lists upfront the specific total charges that consumers will incur for shipping/handling/fulfillment, nor which retailers have agreed to “eat” the shipping charges and which have not. You often have to begin filling out the upgrade request form, sometimes with personal information including the serial number or part number of the computer you have purchased before the shipping costs are revealed. Lenovo is one of the few manufacturers that discloses their fee in the first step of the upgrade process.

Despite the near complete lack of price disclosure, Mouse Print* has learned some of the charges that some consumers will face:

Now to the retailers. There generally is little or no disclosure by retailers and etailers in their advertisements that some purchasers may have to pay substantial delivery charges to obtain their “free” upgrades, let alone the actual price that will be charged. Of course, some stores’ customers won’t have to pay any charges, but the consumer cannot tell the difference between sellers that fail to disclose the charges and ones that legitimately are not making their customers pay. Staples appears to be the only major retailer that clearly states separately for each computer in its circulars when customers will have to pay for shipping.  Spokespeople for Amazon.com, Costco, Best Buy, and Office Depot told Mouse Print* that their customers will not be charged shipping and handling fees.

So what’s a consumer to do?  If you have already purchased your computer, you can go on the manufacturer’s website to register for the “free” upgrade.  During the registration process, manufacturers will eventually disclose the actual shipping cost, if any. If you have not yet purchased your computer, there is no real way to know whether purchasing it at retailer “A” versus at retailer “B” will result in a truly free upgrade (except those noted above).

And one last bit of bad news.  Some customers who purchased computers since June 26, the start of the free upgrade qualification period, will not qualify for a free upgrade to Windows 7 no matter what, and different procedures and costs apply to purchasers of boxed Windows Vista:

*MOUSE PRINT:

• Computers with Windows Vista Basic are excluded from the program;
• Computers with Windows XP (except for the Professional Vista version downgraded to XP) are also excluded.  That means virtually all purchasers of netbooks will not get Windows 7 free.
• Purchasers of boxed Windows Vista software versions higher than Basic since June 26 must process their upgrade requests through Microsoft at a cost of $9.99 for shipping and handling.

No doubt, the charges that some computer purchasers will be asked to pay for their “free” upgrades will come as a big surprise.