Go to Homepage

Subscribe to free weekly newsletter

Mouse Print*
is a service of
Consumer World

Support us by using:

Deal Alerter
Visit our sister site:

Consumer Reporters & Advocates in Media

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

March 4, 2013

PC World: Thanks for Subscribing?

Filed under: Business,Computers — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:51 am

Recently, MrConsumer’s PC World subscription was running out, and he had no intention of resubscribing. Then comes this surprising letter:

PC World envelope

What? Thank you for what? This says you are confirming my order. What order? I didn’t place an order? Did you charge my credit card without my permission?

Inside is a “new order confirmation” which says…


PC World confirmation

“Thank you for your previous subscription….”

What a bunch of crap.

Mouse Print* wrote to the publisher, IDG, asking why they would stoop to using this type of deception, and whether they would now discontinue such a misleading practice.

Their response: they sent none.

• • •

December 17, 2012

Yuuup, Storage Wars Auctions May be Rigged

Filed under: Business — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:49 am

Storage Wars MrConsumer admits it — he is a fan of Storage Wars, the A&E cable series. In the show, the contents of abandoned storage lockers are auctioned off each week to the highest bidder. There are four recurring and quirky cast members, who, along with members of the public, bid blindly on these storage lockers in the hopes of finding some treasure amongst the junk. The cast members almost always win a storage locker in each auction, and many times they find an antique or other unexpected treasure worth thousands of dollars.

Now, one of the four regulars, Dave Hester (famous for placing bids by exclaiming “yuuup”), alleges in a lawsuit that the show is rigged. He claims, among other things, that the producers “salt” lockers with high-value items to heighten excitement when a successful cast member “finds” it, and that they assist the less well-financed cast member bidders who would not otherwise have enough money to pay for the storage lockers on which they are bidding.

Hester spoke out about these problems to A&E executives, suggesting that these practices were in essence rigging a game show, which is against federal law. Hester says he was then fired after the producers had already exercised an option to renew his $25,000 per episode contract. He filed a lawsuit against them last week.

*MOUSE PRINT: Excerpt from lawsuit:

Storage Wars suit

As a regular viewer, MrConsumer always wondered about several things in this “reality” show:

1. With dozens of bidders present at most auctions, how is it that the cast members almost always seem to be the winners?

2. Why would cast members bid often thousands of dollars for abandoned junk, that on its face, is worth no more than a few hundred dollars?

3. If such valuable items were stored in these lockers, why wouldn’t the true owner have paid the minimal storage bill or removed the valuable items before failing to make monthly payments?

4. With cast members seemingly only bidding against each other as the prices rose beyond what an average citizen would bid for a pile of used household goods, were the producers subsidizing those above fair market value bids?

Now we may know the answer.


As we have asserted before, some of the worst mouse print is the mouse print that is missing. There is no disclaimer in the television program credits stating that the producers of the show offer financial assistance to some bidders and that some items are “found” for dramatic effect.

A&E has had no comment on the lawsuit yet, but earlier this year said in a statment, “there is no staging involved. The items uncovered in the storage units are the actual items featured on the show.”

• • •

November 12, 2012

Choice Hotels: That Room Safe Could Cost You

Filed under: Business,Travel — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 6:06 am

A regular Mouse Print* reader, Bob, recently returned from a cross-country car trip and wrote to complain about what he calls the “hotel safe scam.” Here’s his story:

You check into a hotel, and you are asked to initial a registration form in several places and then sign it. You initial to accept the hotel’s rate. You initial to acknowledge the non-smoking policy. And again for the no-pets policy. Some hotels also ask you to initial the “optional” safe fee. Then you sign at the bottom.

People are tired, distracted, in a hurry, or perhaps their English isn’t so good. If you stay in enough hotels, it all becomes routine. Many consumers just do as they are asked without reading.

The safe fee is usually $1.50 per day, but sometimes a different amount. Supposedly, it’s for the use of the safe. In some cases, I found the safe locked and unusable, but that made no difference to the charge.

An “optional” fee is rather extraordinary. The hotel form often says that you can ask for the fee to be removed. Some say they will remove the fee up to 60 days later. If you ask up front that the fee be removed, some tell you to ask again at checkout. In every case, when I insisted that the fee be removed, it was, although I had to ask twice sometimes.

The safe fee is a hidden-in-plain-sight scam. The hotels expressly tell you about the fee and rely on inertia to get your money. The hotels know that most people won’t notice or won’t object. Checkout at most hotels doesn’t require any action by a consumer. The hotel often slips a bill under your door, and you can leave without stopping at the front desk.

Sure enough, some Choice hotels tack on a “safe with limited warranted” charge of $1.50 a day onto your bill:


Choice safe charge

Mouse Print* contacted the PR folks at Choice Hotels to ask for an explanation of this charge and why they chose a sneaky way to raise the cost of a hotel room. The company did not respond.

The lesson here is clear: don’t blindly initial all the Xs on that card when you first register at a hotel, and scrutinize your bill for “optional” charges that the hotel might tack onto it.

• • •

October 29, 2012

Carbon Monoxide Detectors: Guaranteed to Fail in 7 Years

Filed under: Business,Health,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 6:17 am

Kidde alarmTo help prevent illness and death, some states require carbon monoxide alarms to be installed in various parts of your home.

Kidde is one of the large, recognized brands of smoke alarms and other fire prevention products. Certain of their carbon monoxide detectors, however, come with conflicting promises and warnings.

In the manual’s introduction for one of their basic carbon monoxide detectors, it reassures customers they have made a good choice:

“Thank you for making Kidde a part of your complete home safety program. With proper installation and use, your new Kidde CO alarm will provide you with years of dependable service.”

Buried on page 8, however, is some starting news:


Kidde 7 years

A similar disclosure appears in fine print on the box itself. On one hand, the company seems to take safety seriously and doesn’t want to give customers a false sense of reassurance that their detectors are working when they have really lost the ability to sense carbon monoxide. On the other hand, one would not normally expect to have to throw out a $25 to $70 product after only seven years.

What’s going on here? The answer is that carbon monoxide detectors do indeed have a limited life. Inside many detectors is an electro-chemical cell that reacts in the presence of carbon monoxide. It tends to be very accurate. But, over time, the chemical can degrade and its performance is diminished. Accordingly, a national safety standard for carbon monoxide detectors published by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) requires that manufacturers build in a warning system to alert consumers that the unit is no longer functioning properly.


8.1 The unit (including the sensor) shall have a specified lifetime of at least 3 years from the date of manufacture, or from the date the unit is placed into service.

38.1.6 The unit shall indicate end-of-life, based on the manufacturer’s specified lifetime, with an end-of-life signal (see 3.11). This signal shall be triggered either by an internal timer or by a self-diagnostic test(s).

3.11 END-OF-LIFE SIGNAL – An audible signal, differing from the alarm signal, intended to indicate that the device has reached the end of its useful life and should be replaced. … The end-of-life signal shall repeat once every 30 – 60 seconds ±10 percent. – UL 2034, Standard for Single and Multiple Station Carbon Monoxide Alarms.

So, no matter what brand of carbon monoxide detector you buy, the unit will automatically commit suicide at the end of its useful life.

Note: MrConsumer is a member of UL’s Consumer Advisory Council.

• • •

August 20, 2012

The Straight Poop About Online Product Reviews

Filed under: Business,Internet — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:54 am

A friend is constantly annoyed by seeing help wanted postings on Craigslist where business people are looking for common folks to write and post favorable reviews about their products and services in return for compensation.

Since so many shoppers read and rely on product reviews written by actual purchasers when deciding whether to buy a particular product, no wonder sellers are eager to display positive reviews. The problem, of course, is that the reader cannot tell whether the review is genuine, fake, or possibly tainted because the reviewer has been paid for his or her comments.

Enter the Federal Trade Commission.

Under their revised testimonial guidelines, even bloggers are required to disclose in their reviews if they have been compensated for their review or received the product free that they are reviewing:

“When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed.” — 16 CFR 255.5

Now how often have you seen a blogger make such a disclosure?

Enter MrConsumer.

bidetLast week, I received an email from the company that sells the bidet that I recently purchased from Amazon. (This bidet is an attachment you install on an existing toilet to rinse your heinie with a narrow jet of water.) They asked if I would write an “honest review” of the product and post it on Amazon. (Seriously, I was NOT asked to write a positive review, but rather an honest one.) In return, they would send me a second bidet free.

Since I was intending to write a review anyway (I love the product), this was the prompt I needed to actually do it. And of course, who wouldn’t want another bidet for nothing?

I wrote the review “So Long Toilet Paper”, and included the following disclosure that I dare to say no other poster has ever included in their review:


“NOTE: As required by Federal Trade Commission guidelines, I am disclosing that I was promised compensation for posting an honest review. And the review is just that — my honest opinion — something I would have written exactly as you see it irrespective of any future compensation that I might receive.”

Upon hitting the submit button, Amazon flashed up a notice that it may be up to 48 hours before the review is posted because they have to examine it first. Well, I said to myself, they will never approve this. Funny thing, later that night, they did.

I then notified the bidet company of its posting. Well, I said to myself, they will never send me the free bidet. Funny thing, almost immediately, they thanked me for my “wonderful review.”

I guess no one reads anything thoroughly anymore. In any event, at least shoppers who read the review will be put on notice, as required, that I was promised compensation in return for the review.

• • •
« Previous PageNext Page »
Powered by: WordPressPrivacy Policy
Copyright © 2006-2014. All rights reserved. Advertisements are copyrighted by their respective owners.