Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Congratulations, You’ve Won… Nothing

While visiting a news site recently, a pop-up appeared notifying MrConsumer that he had a chance to win one of four or five valuable prizes, including an Ipad 2, a Dell laptop, an iPhone, etc.

Scrolling down further on the page were three testimonials from previous winners, including one who lives in my home town — Somerville, Massachusetts. What a coincidence!

MrConsumer googled the local winner, Jason Meeks, and discovered a person in Boston by that name was jailed in 2008 for manslaughter and sentenced to 17 years. I don’t think he’s been busy entering too many contests.

Doing a bit of further research using part of Jason’s quote, turned up a host of other websites where the apparently very lucky Jason was also winning iPads. But, apparently he must have transferred prisons.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Now Jason Meeks appears to be from California. Looks like he and Jennifer Layton, the person pictured first above, swapped homes because she is now in Somerville instead of Los Angeles. And the guy in the middle, Mr. Wong, maybe is also wanted by the law, because he changed his name from Jason to Jesse. Well at least he won’t have to throw out his monogrammed towels.

As it turns out this trio was indeed very lucky, because on yet another site, they were also big winners.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Now it appears that Jennifer Layton has settled down in the Boston area, but her name is now Jennifer Louie. Maybe she got married. And our friend, Mr. Wong, has once again taken on a different first name — this time, it’s Jeff. He really seems to like the “J” names. Lastly, our jailbird Jason Meeks seems to have transferred prisons once again, this time to New York. And now he is known by a different name as well. Maybe he doesn’t want the other prisoners to catch on to all the iPads he’s won.

Under FTC guidelines, testimonials presented as being made by real people must be real and represent their honest opinions. Clearly, what the research uncovered suggests otherwise.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Staples Raises Free Delivery Threshold to $75

NOTE: This is a special edition of Mouse Print* in addition to this week’s regular feature.

All the office superstores have always offered free shipping on orders over $50. Now Staples is breaking ranks and quietly raising that minimum to orders over $75.

*MOUSE PRINT

A spokesperson for the company explained why this happened:

Our primary focus is to serve our small business customers. In the interests of serving our customers with fast delivery and running our business cost effectively, Staples.com changed the minimum order amount for free delivery from $50 to $75 on April 30. We believe this change will have little impact to customers’ overall experience given that the vast majority of our small business customers generally place orders for at least $75.

For what it’s worth, the other two office supply superstores, Office Max and Office Depot, still offer free delivery on orders of $50 or more. The question is, for how long?

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Norton Disables Itself After One Year

A few years ago, Mouse Print* pointed out the tactic that the maker of Quicken (Intuit) uses to get customers to buy an upgraded version of their software: Every three years, they deliberately disable online functionality so you can no longer make electronic payments or download account statements. That nasty policy is unfortunately still in place.

Now comes Symantec, the maker of Norton Anti-Virus, Norton Internet Security, and similar protection products, with an even nastier ploy.

Here is how Norton Internet Security (or Anti-Virus) used to work. You buy and install the software, and you get one year of updates free. (Packages have clearly disclosed that you are buying one year of service.) The updates included new “virus signatures” that would protect your computer from the latest malware threats. These typically might be pushed to your computer at least once day. After your year was up, you would no longer get updates, but the software would still function fully, giving you virus protection, etc., at least for the known threats and the known patterns up until your new updates stopped. Fine, that gave you time to get new software, wait for a sale, change brands, whatever, but still have significant, though not complete protection.

That was then, and this is now. Starting on the day your one year service expires, all protection is stopped (note greyed out areas):

The software completely disables itself along with the protection you previously had, including the anti-virus, anti-spyware, and firewall. Even Windows 7 announces that you no longer have protection, nor a firewall installed (via Norton Internet Security).

When looking at the End User Licensing Agreement (EULA), the fine print that nobody reads when you install a new software program, one discovers the following:

*MOUSE PRINT:

“The Software may automatically deactivate and become non-operational at the end of the Service Period, and You will not be entitled to receive any feature or content updates to the Software unless the Service Period is renewed.”

This language about the product automatically becoming non-functional actually goes all the way back to licensing agreements starting in 2007, but it is unclear if this had been fully implemented until the past couple of years.

Interestingly, on the box top of the software package itself, in what is virtually unreadable two or three-point type, the company is not quite as explicit about the product’s limitations:

*MOUSE PRINT:

“1 Year Protection: With this service you receive the right to use this product on one PC or on the specified number of PCs during the service period, which begins on initial installation and activation. This renewable service includes protection updates and new product features as available throughout the service period, subject to acceptance of the Symantec License Agreement included with this product and available for review at Symantec.com. Product features may be added, modified, or removed during the service period.”

Mouse Print* asked Symantec why they decided to completely disable the product, when they first starting doing that, and whether they would more clearly disclose the new limitation right on the box:

“We do not want to convey the impression to users that simply having an old Norton install with an expired service period will provide them with effective security since they are not receiving protection updates. This could create a false sense of security and lead to risky behavior. ”
…
“The retail packaging for both Norton Internet Security and Norton 360 includes a clear disclosure of the length of the service period together with an explanation that users receive the right to use the product during the service period and to receive protection and product updates released during the service period.”

The company confirmed that since the 2007 edition the product disables itself upon expiration of the year.

A related issue was raised by a reader who noted that if one renews updates when time is still left in the current year’s subscription, such as weeks in advance when you begin to get renewal reminders, one loses the balance of days or weeks left on the original subscription. We posed that issue to Symantec. They responded that if at the time of renewal the customer downloads the latest version of the software, then they do indeed lose the remaining time on their current subscription. If however, they just extend their subscription for another year, but delay downloading the new version (which is free to subscribers), then the extra year will be added to their balance of time. Notice to this effect, they say, appears on the website.

It seems to us that both these practices are anything but consumer-friendly. They may come as a surprise to the customer because of inadequate notice and deny that person the use of the product that they might have expected. The company did not agree, apparently, that the disclosure on the box could be improved.