Please Help Support Mouse Print*
 
MrConsumerFor 26 years, Consumer World, the creator of Mouse Print*, has served readers with the latest consumer news, money-saving tips, and independent investigations. It is your generosity (and not advertising alone nor corporate support) that keeps Mouse Print* and Consumer World available as free consumer resources. So MrConsumer turns to you and humbly asks for your support again this year. Your gift will be most appreciated.
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Apple’s New OS Predicts Your Impending Death

The new Mac operating system dubbed “Monterey” debuts this week, but apparently not all its new features will be ready for release until later this fall. And that delay has led to the unfortunate placement of an asterisk in their promotional material.

One improvement being made is an enhancement to Apple ID which will help a family member or loved one access your account in case you suddenly pass away without having left your password behind.

Apple death

That little asterisk at the end, however, has sent a chill through Mac owners’ bones and created a sense of sudden urgency. Down the page, it leads to this surprising disclosure.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Apple death coming soon

What does Apple know that even your doctor doesn’t?

Share this story:

 


ADV

Do Toner Cartridges Really Deliver the Promised Number of Copies?

HMC, a regular reader, recently described a problem he had buying generic toner cartridges for his HP printer. For years he spent over $200 for a single Hewlett Packard 26X toner refill worried that using an off-brand would damage his device. Over time and after spending thousands of dollars on HP-branded cartridges, HMC finally came to his senses and decided to cut his toner costs by 90% by buying a generic brand instead.

toner cartridge

Just like the name brand, the Aztech cartridges he now purchases promise 9,000 copies at 5% density. But to double-check, HMC always uses a feature of his HP printer that calculates how much toner is left in a cartridge and how much was already used. So, after a recent batch of toner was delivered from Amazon, he put each of the two brand new Aztech cartridges in his printer to test and got a surprising result.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Print counter

It showed that the cartridges only had enough toner to yield approximately 7,200 prints, not the 9,000 the package and the Amazon listing promised. Whenever he previously tested new, genuine HP cartridges, as well as prior orders of Aztech toner, his printer always reported the full 9,000.

HMC called Amazon, and after some negotiation, he got a full refund for the cartridges and he didn’t even have to return them. He’ll probably try a different generic brand next time around.

The lesson here, dear reader, is if your printer has a counting function to calculate toner capacity, use it every time you install a new cartridge to see if you are at least theoretically getting what you paid for.

Share this story:

 


ADV

Judge Dismisses the “No Tuna” in Subway Tuna Case

Last week, a federal court judge in California dismissed the case against Subway restaurants that originally alleged that there was no tuna in Subway tuna sandwiches. (See our original story.) The case drew worldwide attention.

No Tuna Quotes

The consumers who sued said they had laboratory test results to back up their claims that “the Products are made from a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna,” but they never revealed what it really was.

In our original story, we showed pictures of the label on the bulk packages from which Subway makes their tuna sandwiches, and it clearly showed that flaked tuna was the primary ingredient. Other media outlets ran their own tests of Subway tuna, and at least one confirmed it was real tuna. (See our second story.)

Then in June, lawyers for the consumers quietly amended their complaint dropping all their original “no tuna” claims, and substituting a new claim that Subway’s tuna is “not 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna” as advertised. We pointed out in our third story that the only place we could find that claim by Subway was buried in the social responsibility section of the company’s website. And no customer standing at a Subway counter first goes to check that page before ordering.

So if consumers never saw the claimed misrepresentation, how could they claim they relied on it, were misled by it, or harmed by it? And that was exactly how the judge ruled last week:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Although Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Subway sandwiches “[i]n reliance on Defendants’ misleading marketing and deceptive advertising practices,” they do not say that they actually read or heard any such advertising or packaging.

Plaintiffs are the only ones who can identify which statements they saw and relied upon and where they saw them. Subway cannot properly defend itself against a complaint that does not identify the misstatements it allegedly made. [See ruling.]

So the judge dismissed the case but is allowing the plaintiffs to refile another amended complaint.

In a statement issued by the company, Subway said, “We commend the court for dismissing the reckless and improper lawsuit surrounding Subway’s tuna.”

Share this story:

 


ADV