2012 – Page 2 – Mouse Print*

Updated every Monday! Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Apple iPad Version Changes Confuse Buyers

December 10, 2012 by Edgar (aka MrConsumer)

Last week, one retail chain was offering the iPad “3” for only $399.99 — $100 off the regular price. [Hint: if you run to Micro Center, you might get one. Ends 12/12.] MrConsumer’s friend who had just purchased an iPad 2 for the same price was not too happy, but he wondered how in the world this chain could be selling the iPad “3” for $100 less than the full list price knowing that Apple closely controlled advertised retail prices.

As it turns out, Apple had recently discontinued the iPad “3” and had quietly introduced an iPad “4”, which might explain the discount. Much of the confusion, however, has to do with Apple’s decision not to explicitly name each new iPad by number. There was the original iPad, then iPad 2, then iPad (no number, but referred to by retailers as “third generation”), and now iPad with Retina Display (again no number, but referred to by retailers as “fourth generation”).

So if you are looking for the latest “iPad”, you might wind up with either the “iPad 3” or the “iPad 4” because they are both just called iPad (sans number). What is the difference between the two? You have to look at the fine print.

*MOUSE PRINT:

They both have the same gorgeous Retina display. The primary differences are three for the iPad 4: the Facetime camera is better, the processor they say goes twice as fast, and iPad 4 has that new obnoxious connector that makes all your old i-accessories obsolete.

So, if you are shopping for an iPad, and you pick up a box, how do you know if it is an iPad 3 or 4? You have to look at the tiny label to find the model number.

*MOUSE PRINT:

One 16-gig white iPad 3 has a model number of MD336LL/A for example, while a similar iPad 4 has a model number of MD513LL/A.

In our view, Apple made a big mistake to not clearly identify iPads after the iPad 2 by number to avoid consumer confusion.

Updated every Monday! Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

AMEX Allows You to Opt-Out of Mandatory Arbitration

December 3, 2012 by Edgar (aka MrConsumer)

In a rather unusual move, American Express is letting cardholders opt-out of the mandatory arbitration provision in their credit card agreements.

*MOUSE PRINT:

The rejection notice (a sample is here) must be mailed by February 15, 2013 or 45 days after you make your first purchase with the card, whichever is later.

They are also instituting a mediation program to resolve disputes. But, the new agreement requires if you are not able to resolve the problem with customer service, that you file a notice with them before resorting to mediation, arbitration or court.

Why did AMEX decide to let you opt-out of required arbitration?

One consumer lawyer put it this way: “Just another attempt to make the arbitration provision bulletproof. What could be fairer than giving consumers the choice to opt-out?”

Everyone knows that opt-out rates are very low, and since there is a relatively short deadline, few people are likely to do it. The result: virtually all cardholders will be left without the legal remedy of going to court over a major problem (or be part of a class action for smaller but widespread issues).

Updated every Monday! Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Can’t Companies Learn from Their Mistakes?

November 26, 2012 by Edgar (aka MrConsumer)

Just about a year ago, we wrote about Save-a-Lot, a limited assortment grocery chain, that was promoting their Facebook page. They promised to give shoppers a $5 coupon to use at their supermarket if you “liked” them. See our story, “Save-a-Lot’s Deceptive Facebook Promotion.”

Only after you “liked” them, did they disclose that the coupon was really buy $25 worth of groceries, and get $5 off.

So, we pointed out this omission to them, and after a little pestering, they quickly updated the promotion to clearly disclose that this was a $5 off a $25 purchase coupon.

Fast forward to November 2012. On the homepage of Save-a-Lot, they were giving thanks to their shoppers saying “To give thanks and help you enjoy this season with your family, we are giving you a $5 coupon.”

When you click on that ad, you are taken to the company’s Facebook page, where the promotion is shown again:

And when you “like” their Facebook page, you discover this:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Yep, same old thing… you have to buy $25 worth of groceries in order to save the $5.

How could a company that was called on the carpet just a year ago for the very same deceptive practice not learn how to tell their customers the truth upfront about their $5 off coupons? We immediately notified the company of the recurring problem, but heard nothing. About a week later, we contacted them again, and were informed that they changed their ad right after receiving the first email:

When we replied to the company with the hope that they do it correctly and legally next year, their PR person replied:

“Legally the information is posted on the offer once the click through is made and the offer itself is not misleading. However, we understand your concern for it on the banner, as our desire is never to intentionally confuse our customers.” — Save-a-Lot Spokesperson

It is amazing to me that companies believe because they disclose a key fact or limitation SOMEWHERE that that is sufficient and legal notice to the consumer.