Their “unlimited” plans range in price from $39.99 to $69.99. So do they really give you “unlimited” service?

*MOUSE PRINT:

From their FAQ:

Q: Is there a cap on the unlimited program. A: Yes, the unlimited Local & LD Plans are capped at 10,000 minutes per month.

Q: How many text messages can I send per month? A: Unlimited Text Messaging is capped at 30,000 per month.

Q: How much data can I use on the unlimited program? A: Unlimited MMS, Internet & Data is capped at 5 Gig

Ten thousand minutes of talk time sounds like a lot, but it really is only about 5.5 hours a day.  Some business people may in fact be on their phone longer than that.  At least they disclose the actual limits of their “unlimited” service, unlike most of the big brand name cell companies that make you hunt through their terms and conditions to find out that their unlimited service is subject to (sometimes unstated) limits. 

Realistically, while most users won’t go over these limits, that should not give a company the right to call a service unlimited when it is not.  From a consumer protection standpoint, no company should advertise “unlimited” service unless it actually is that.

When shopping for a cordless phone recently, MrConsumer was attracted to the net price, after an Easy Rebate was factored in. Upon leaving the store, and scanning the provided rebate form (for those who prefer to mail in their rebates), it became clear the rebate was a not a cash rebate (by check), but rather would be paid via a prepaid Visa card. I questioned myself about how I could have missed that in their weekly advertisement.

Upon closer scrutiny, there was no such disclosure associated with the cordless telephone:

Even looking online, the item is promoted with a $10 “rebate” on the page where you add it to your basket, and no mention that the rebate is via a prepaid Visa card is made right there.

Back in the circular, an unasterisked fine print footnote where details of financing terms and copyright information is usually disclosed noted this:

*MOUSE PRINT:

“Easy rebates are now even easler. Most easy rebates will be delivered in the form of a Visa prepaid card, which can be used everywhere Visa debit cards are accepted. Visa prepaid cards will be mailed within 4-6 weeks after receipt of validated claim. The Visa prepaid card is not redeemable for cash and may not be used for cash withdrawal at any cash-dispensing location. … Subject to applicable law, a monthly maintenance fee of $3 (USD) applies, but is waived for the first six months after the card is issued.”

Besides the obnoxious monthly fee, Visa debit cards are difficult to use up in their entirety. You can’t swipe them at self-service gas station pumps yourself. Elsewhere, you have to press “credit” instead of “debit”, even though “debit” is clearly marked on the face of the card.

Worse, when you are trying to use up the remaining money on the card, you have to do an oddly structured split tender, if the item you are buying costs more than the remaining balance on the card. (A “split tender” is where you use two forms of payment in one transaction.) Visa debit cards need to be tendered first in a split tender transaction, and the cashier must deduct only the exact amount remaining on the card, which may not even be known. One penny more, and the card is rejected. Split tenders using a Visa debit card cannot be done at some self-service checkouts (which can otherwise handle split tenders very easily). Even when a real live human cashier is present, he or she may have difficulty because not all cash register systems can handle them properly.

In addition, there are other inconveniences: you have to forego rewards and other benefits that you would otherwise be entitled to when using your regular credit card, you cannot track the purchases put on the card for tax purposes using programs like Quicken, you wind up with a wallet filled with plastic rebate cards with unknown balances on them, and you cannot get cash for the balance on the card through an ATM or any other method.

Some people simply refuse to do rebates when a prepaid card is involved for these very reasons, so to have a Visa card rebate sprung on the customer without disclosure at the point the item is advertised, is dirty pool.

When asked to comment on why Staples is using Visa cards for rebates, whether they were aware of the problems they can cause customers, and whether they would change their advertising to clearly disclose the fact that the rebate was in the form of a Visa card, the company responded [portions edited]:

[We] conducted a thorough pilot to gauge customer satisfaction – always our number one concern. The results of the pilot were very favorable. In a post-pilot survey, customers noted convenience, ability to immediately spend the rebate,and elimination of check cashing fees as the main reasons they were satisfied with the switch. In addition, by offering a prepaid card, we were able to extend the rebate redemption period to six months from three months with checks. Based on customers’ positive feedback from the pilot, we began using Visa prepaid cards in June 2008. Since that time, the program has been well received by customers.

In the survey, a vast majority of customers indicated that they had no concern about being able to use their rebate funds. We provide a number of ways that customers can easily access their card balances to help make split tenders easier, including a toll-free phone number on the back of the card and via text message whenthis option is selected online.

Since the pre-paid card program launched in June 2008, we have communicated the use of Visa cards in our rebate program in multiple marketing vehicles to our customers, including in circulars, online and in-store signage. We believe we have done so in an effective way. Nonetheless, we are constantly reviewing the effectiveness of our marketing/advertising materials to make sure that our customers remain informed of all important program terms.

For one, this Staples shopper and consumer advocate is not swayed in the least by Staples’ PR spin, and is dismayed that the company refused to more clearly disclose that its rebates were now being made via prepaid Visa cards. In essence, you are getting a merchandise credit instead of the advertised cash back.

Typical of most credit card issuers, they give you the new language, but generally don’t explain how the terms are different from before. So, unless you have the cardholder agreement that you received when your card was first issued, you may have no idea how exactly you are being screwed affected.

Besides presumably cutting back on their luggage and travel insurance benefits and raising finance charges for some cardholders, the notice contained an interesting section about telephone communications which is replacing the old one. To see just how it changed, I tried to find my original cardmember agreement, but was unable to. I checked AMEX’s website, and it was not there either. I called an AMEX representative and asked for a copy to be emailed, but alas, they can only do snail mail which will take seven to 10 business days. I also asked him to read a certain portion of it to me. He could not. They don’t even give their own representatives access to the contract that governs the card.

The change I was trying to find out about concerned a deletion of the old “Telephone Communications” section of the agreement, which presumably only said that you agree that they can record telephone conversations you have with them. Here is the substitute language:

*MOUSE PRINT:

“You agree that from time to time we may monitor and/or record telephone calls between you (or Additional Cardmembers on your Account) and us to assure the quality of our customer service or as required by applicable law. You authorize us to call or send a text message to you at any number you give us or from which you call us, including mobile phones. You authorize us to make such calls using automatic telephone dialing systems for any lawful purpose, including but not limited to: suspected fraud or identity theft; account transactions or servicing; offers of American Express products and services; and collecting on your account. You authorize us to place prerecorded calls in connection with the status of your account, or security and identity theft matters. You agree to pay any fees or charges you incur for incoming calls or text messages from us without reimbursement.”

Translation: If you ever gave AMEX your cellphone number or called them from it, you are permitting them to call you or text you on your cellphone, with among other things, advertising messages.  And you have to pay the cellphone charges that those calls and texts may incur.

By notifying you of the changed language and coupling that with your pre-agreement to allow AMEX to change their contract with you at anytime, AMEX could easily assert that any laws that may require you to give permission (”express consent”) to receive unsolicited promotional calls on your cellphone have been complied with. One would hope that a court would never let your silence constitute consent in the situation described. [ See basic rules about calling and texting to cellphones. ]

Now back to that conversation with AMEX’s customer service representative.  At the end of the call (in which I had never mentioned the specific subject matter in the agreement that I was interested in), he asked if he could update my account with … my cell number!  “Like hell,” I said.  “I just read the new rules that by giving you that number you can spam me and run up my cell bill.”

Update: American Express has responded to this issue:

We want to point out that Cardmembers do have some choices about receiving communication from American Express:

If a Cardmember doesn’t want to receive marketing offers, including offers via land or cell phones, they can select not to receive them by logging onto americanexpress.com/communications and we won’t contact them with any offers. Of course, we will contact Cardmembers for service related issues, for example if we detect fraud.

We don’t send marketing or promotional offers via text message unless a Cardmember enrolls to receive offers. While we may text a Cardmember for servicing related issues, within the text message Cardmembers are given the option to unsubscribe. — Vice President, Public Affairs

What they hope you don’t notice is the fine print in their Black Friday ads.

Circuit City has this advisory:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Minimum one?  I guess when you are in bankruptcy you can’t count on suppliers to fulfill orders for advertised items when the retailer already owes them a ton of money. While it is typical that quantities are limited on Black Friday items, a minimum of one is a rarity.

The lesson here for shoppers: you better be there before the doors open if you want one of Circuit City’s doorbusters (or for that matter, anyone’s doorbusters).

Not to be outdone, Best Buy has their own little bit of bad news tucked away in a footnote.

*MOUSE PRINT:

So, if you thought you were smart and bought a Black Friday sale item in advance at a higher price thinking you could go back on Friday to get the difference under their price guarantee, forget it.  Nor can you sleep late, and think you can just prance into Best Buy with a competitor’s ad and get them to match the price.

Lastly, Wal-mart has a pseudo-apology in their fine print:

*MOUSE PRINT:

“We apologize for, but will not be bound by, any errors in our advertisements.”

If Wal-mart is not responsible for their errors, who is?  The customer?

For all Black Friday shopping, avoid disappointment, maybe, by checking the websites of various etailers on Thanksgiving Day and early morning on Friday, to see if the deal you want is orderable online.  That way, you may be able to get the item you want and avoid the crowds.

As a result, tucked away on its website, they address the issue:

How to reimburse the manufacturer for the rebate?  Yep. When have you ever seen instructions for doing that before? 

If you “click here“, they tell you how to do it:

*MOUSE PRINT:

If you received a Mail-in Rebate check and since have returned the item and would like to reimburse the vendor,  you may either:

• Forward your rebate check (DO NOT void rebate check) to Costco Wholesale
• Forward a check made payable to Costco Wholesale for the rebate amount

Of course, Costco is absolutely right suggesting that such a rebate is unearned and should be returned to the party who paid it. How many consumers, though honest in most respects, would actually do this is the real question?