Slashdot Mirror

And that's just what the law requires. In practice, I think every Visa or Mastercard debit or credit card has stronger protections than that - I've had unauthorized charges show up on a few cards, both personal and corporate, and never been held liable for anything beyond a $5 card replacement fee.

In Silverstein v. Liquid Minds et al. BC340643 and BC351414, I not only obtained two judgments, but I collected on them. In Silverstein v. Liquid Minds, BC375173, I was able to seize their domain names, before that judgment was vacated. The judgment was vacated as a result of the perjury of their attorney, John DuWors. He, in their motion to vacate default, stated under oath that he had personal knowledge of, and the defendants corporations were unrelated, and that Defendants never received service of that or any of the prior lawsuits. These six Defendant corporations, Dev8 Entertainment, AXS Charge, Liquid Minds, East Group, Techie group, and Datatime Ideas Limited, were in fact run solely by David Szpak and Emmanuel Gurtler. The lies put forth by John DuWors were contradicted by the testimony of Emmanuel Gurtler at deposition -- that they received prior lawsuits, but decided not to defend them, that it was just Gurtler and Szpak running the companies, that they created East group and Techie Group to avoid the Visa fraud detection/chargeback mechanisms.

Actually, the California AG did take on one spammer, Optin Global. But it was in conjunction with the FTC. http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0423172/0423172.shtm

There's a lot going on here.

First, the "comma" thing strongly affects Google Suggest, which drives Google Instant. It also affects Google Web Search, but not as strongly. Google Suggest, which comes up with those alternatives for Instant, isn't driven by Google PageRank; it's driven by Google Trends. Or rather, it used to be; it's not as strongly trend-driven as it was a few months ago. That's really a side issue.

Then there are the special-purpose subengines - stocks, health, celebrities, weather, sports, travel, etc. That was actually a Yahoo innovation. Yahoo introduced that in early 2008, with about fifty subengines, and for six months, their search was more on topic than Google's. Few noticed. (I found out about it at a talk by a Yahoo VP.) Then Google copied that idea, and now every major search engine has it. Some of the subengines won't fire with a trailing comma present. The subengines are what the article author is talking about as "hard-coded bias".

Subengines have been around since 2008. What's changing is that some of them now actually sell something. The "weather" and "stocks" subengines don't try to sell anything. The "travel" subengine is different. Try "flight from london to new york". Google has partners ready to sell you tickets. There's a "products" subengine. "dvd player" gets Google results for brands, stores, and types, directing you to Google partners. For neither travel nor products are these entries identified as advertisements.

This is where Google is pushing the line between search results and paid ads. This previously got them into trouble with the Federal Trade Commission back in 2002. Now it's more subtle, but it's back.

You didn't prove anyone wrong and you are the one who started with the vulgarity. If you can't keep up, shut up. Now, stop with your lying, you sack of diarrhea.

You're the one who is baselessly accusing me of lying and you took a simple vulgarity to launch into a diatribe of vulgar putridity. It's the verbal equivalent of shooting someone in the head in response to a simple slap.

Not only have I not lied about my own experiences with debt collectors, but my sort of experience occurred to lots of other people. The fact that you are too stupid and willfully ignorant to see otherwise is irrelevant.

A simple question: Do you really believe that every time a debt collector harasses someone, they are correct? Do you think they never make mistakes and never act maliciously? If so, you truly are a deluded sheep.

One easily found example of what I am talking about is here. And a simple Google search will easily bring up more examples. But, please, put your fingers in your ears and shout "LA! LA! LA! I can't hear you!" I'm sure it will make you feel better.

That law also applies to original creditors now. I'm no expert, but I did recently take Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University class and he had a lesson on how to deal with debt collectors. They can contact relatives, but they can't mention that they are debt collectors, only that they wish to get in touch with you. I'm pretty sure she would have a legal basis for suing them.

No, the FDCPA does not apply to original creditors. Here is the link to the FTC's page where you can read the whole act: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpajump.shtm I don't know who Dave is, and if he's taught you about collectors then he's correct but he's mistaken if he told you the FDCPA applies to creditors. Maybe he is thinking of some other piece of legislation or you misheard.

If this has happened to you, file a complaint with the FTC and get legal council and sue.

If Intel doesn't want a GPU on their platforms, it is trivial to abide by the letter of the law and still screw Nvidia

During the public comment period, I submitted a comment about this and the FTC actually responded:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/101102intelletterbao.pdf

The FTC sued Intel alleging Intel had violated Section 5 of the FTC Act.

A little more digging brings us

The FTC filed its complaints against Intel on Dec. 16, 2009. It charged the chip maker with illegally using its dominant position to stifle competition for decades. The complaint was filed just a month after Intel had settled antitrust and patent disputes with Advanced Micro Devices for US$1.25 billion.

The FTC site adds that

").(1) Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits "unfair methods of competition," and was amended in 1938 also to prohibit "unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Seems to have been part of a broader move against Intel at the time, I admit I don't remember it very clearly, but Reuters adds

A wide range of antitrust enforcers have gone up against Intel for its controversial pricing incentives. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo accused Intel in November of threatening computer makers and paying billions of dollars of kickbacks to maintain market supremacy. The European Commission has fined Intel 1.06 billion euros ($1.44 billion) for illegally shutting out AMD. In June 2008, South Korea fined Intel some $26 million, finding it offered rebates to PC makers in return for not buying microprocessors made by AMD. Japan's trade commission concluded in 2005 that Intel had violated the country's anti-monopoly act. The case before the FTC is "In the Matter of Intel Corporation," docket number 9341.

Oh and that case can be found here

The FTC sued Intel alleging Intel had violated Section 5 of the FTC Act.

A little more digging brings us

The FTC filed its complaints against Intel on Dec. 16, 2009. It charged the chip maker with illegally using its dominant position to stifle competition for decades. The complaint was filed just a month after Intel had settled antitrust and patent disputes with Advanced Micro Devices for US$1.25 billion.

The FTC site adds that

").(1) Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits "unfair methods of competition," and was amended in 1938 also to prohibit "unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Seems to have been part of a broader move against Intel at the time, I admit I don't remember it very clearly, but Reuters adds

A wide range of antitrust enforcers have gone up against Intel for its controversial pricing incentives. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo accused Intel in November of threatening computer makers and paying billions of dollars of kickbacks to maintain market supremacy. The European Commission has fined Intel 1.06 billion euros ($1.44 billion) for illegally shutting out AMD. In June 2008, South Korea fined Intel some $26 million, finding it offered rebates to PC makers in return for not buying microprocessors made by AMD. Japan's trade commission concluded in 2005 that Intel had violated the country's anti-monopoly act. The case before the FTC is "In the Matter of Intel Corporation," docket number 9341.

Oh and that case can be found here

I make good use of the Distance Selling Regulations and send it back if I don't like it

According to this page, the closest United States counterpart to the United Kingdom's Distance Selling Regulations is the Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Trade Regulation Rule. This rule appears to apply only to meeting a seller's advertised ship date. It does not prohibit online retailers from applying a 15 percent restocking fee to goods returned other than for what the seller deems to be defective materials and workmanship.

You might want to read this for next time you get in bed with advertisers, and make sure your pimps pay you enough to cover the fines.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

The Federal Trade Commission just a couple of weeks ago reiterated that the practice of undisclosed paid reviews qualifies as false advertising: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/08/reverb.shtm

I've said it before and I'll say it again - while I don't have a problem with restricting access, I have a fundamental problem with this law unfairly targeting video games and not all media. In mass killings, the top influences were movies and music, not video games (movies were something like 2x more influential than video games, as well). In secret shopper surveys, kids were more than twice as likely to be able to buy R and UR movies and explicit lyric CDs.

The movie ratings system is voluntary just like the video game industry. One of the reasons for the push for the law was because "the movie industry polices itself," but that is fundamentally flawed - that is theaters only - retail is still voluntary, just like for retail video games. If arcades were still around and popular, this would be more akin to stopping kids from access to certain arcade games but still letting them buy the game at the store (if the store allowed).

In the US, the video game rating system is actually stricter on sex/nudity than the movie industry - in fact, it is one of the most restrictive systems in the world, where frontal nudity is always an M and more than ~2 seconds of it is an AO. Violence is typically split into Teen vs M or AO by gore content.

most stores self police already (see secret shopper link above) - in 2008, 80% of kids trying to buy M and AO video games were stopped - in 2000, that number was 17%. In a study, only 8% of kids try to buy games without parental consent, so of the 8% trying to get away with it, only 20% do.

Retail stores sell unrated movies that have added sexual or violent content, but AFAIK, no video games are sold unrated from any major retailer.

Video games have 1" ratings labels that must be on the lower left hand corner of the box. Movies have inconsistent size, location, and box requirements. CDs I believe also require explicit lyrics to be on the front of the disk (all of mine are, but I only have a few).

So in conclusion, I don't have a problem with restricting sales to minors, but I have a huge problem with video games being the scapegoat. The problem is media in general and the continued perception of video games being like animation and for kids only, which the US seems to hang on to even though it is incorrect. I wonder how many of the same people with that perception went to see Avatar, which was basically one big cartoon marketed to adults...

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/05/secretshop.shtm This is the latest secret shop that the FTC has made available. Minors trying to purchase M- Rated games had the smallest success in doing so versus explicit CDs, R Rated Movies, Unrated DVDs, and R-Rated DVDs. So, if the SCOTUS is going to back a law that restricts the sale of M-Rated games to minors I want to see the same action taken on all similar forms of media. Government intervention isn't needed in the game industry as their self-policing has improved dramatically over the last few years.

"No, no it's not. Advertisers and marketers get paid to lie, to push a specific point of view without regard to facts. Developers get paid to write code. These are not the same thing at all. One is being deceptive and unethical for pay. The other is writing code for pay. You say that you do your own design and development. Well then, please, please, please, stop doing marketing and switch to that full time. We'll all be better off."

Let me be clear. You do not know me. You do not know the details of my job or even my industry as clearly illustrated by your ignorant posts. I do not lie and and I am a marketer. Putting up an add for a vet saying "Get veterinary help 24/7" is not lying and I really find it troubling that you are unable to see that. Additionally, you say "without regard to facts" which shows you have zero knowledge of truth in advertising laws which apply to all marketers and advertisers who promote within the US

To your second point...if I designed and developed full time and did not market what I made, nobody would find out about it, and I would not be able to afford to continue doing it. You are very naive if you believe the "build it and they will come" mantra. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you are an under-appreciated developer for a company that has a marketing and sales department that may look down on you, but without whom you would be out of a job because your company would go out of business. I am NOT saying marketing folks are better than developers or anything like that. I believe in respecting people for their skills, and treating them as I would like to be treated. But on the flip side, I certainly don't think developers deserve to be put up on a pedestal like you are doing.

If it's truly deceptive, then it is illegal. I don't claim to have a deep understanding of it, but as an example, a lawsuit was recently brought against the makers of Vitamin Water for being deceptive, because even the name implies it is healthy, when in fact it's mainly just sugar and water. Here's a great page describing better than I can, and it explains what cases the FTC chooses to pursue. Note that other people besides the FTC can also file lawsuits if they so choose.

It may be no one ever realized the broadband speeds were overestimated by so much, assuming the article here is true.

Only if the company formally declares bankruptcy can they get out of their "lifetime warranty". See the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act for general information about warranties. "Lifetime Warranty" has specific legal meaning in the US.

Second, where is "BFG Technologies, Inc."? That information isn't on the web site. (This is why anonymous web sites are bad, and why our SiteTruth system gives them a low rating.) But it can be found. Dun and Bradstreet gives us the information that they are in Illinois, and Illinois corporate records gives us this:

BFG TECHNOLOGIES, INC. File Number 62377402
Status ACTIVE
Entity Type CORPORATION
Type of Corp DOMESTIC BCA
Incorporation Date (Domestic) 08/27/2002 State ILLINOIS

• Agent Name: PHILLIP A HEWES, 550 WEST VAN BUREN ST STE 1450, CHICAGO IL 60607 (That's Fitzgerald & Hewes LLP, their lawyers.)
• President Name & Address: JOHN VOSICKY, 2530 S CHESAPEAKE, WESTCHESTER IL 60154
• Secretary Name & Address: PHILIP HEWES, 441 S ASHLAND AVENUE, LAGRANGE 60525

Forbes has background info on John J. Vosicky. He was the chief financial officer before he was CEO. He was also previously CFO of Comdisco, which went into bankruptcy in 2001.

The problem with debtor's prison is that people can fall into debt for all sorts of reasons ranging from maliciousness to recklessness to just plain bad luck. Do you really think that someone who can't pay their bills because a hurricane destroyed their house and their place of employment should be put in prison?

What you are looking for is thieves' prison and last time I checked we already have those. However, AFAIK, the FTC doesn't have the authority to prosecute criminal cases, just levy civil fines. Instead they pass on information to the appropriate authorities (the FBI or state governments may have jurisdiction depending on the offense). In this case, either the FBI would need to extradite them to face charges here, or the Canadian government would need to press criminal charges.

You should inform the FTC, it seems they aren't aware of that fact. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre04.shtm If you are slow to report it you are responsible with a debit card more than you are with a credit card.

Not quite... It was more like the council had a non-disclosure agreement, and Rambus showed them what they were working on, after which a couple of the other manufacturers turned around and blatantly copied the inventions. Unfortunately for them, the patents in question had been filed long before.

Which is why Rambus has been awarded compensation in several judgments.

Holy rewriting of history. Lemme quote the original FTC Commission report on the case (pdf):

JEDEC operated on a cooperative basis and required that its members participate in good faith. According to JEDEC policy and practice, members were expected to reveal the existence of patents and patent applications that later might be enforced against those practicing the JEDEC standards. In addition, JEDEC members were obligated to offer assurances to license patented technologies on RAND terms, before members voted to adopt a standard that would incorporate those technologies. The intent of JEDEC policy and practice was to prevent anticompetitive hold-up.

Rambus, however, chose to disregard JEDEC's policy and practice, as well as the duty to act in good faith. Instead, Rambus deceived the other JEDEC members. Rambus capitalized on JEDEC's policy and practice - and also on the expectations of the JEDEC members - in several ways. Rambus refused to disclose the existence of its patents and applications, which deprived JEDEC members of critical information as they worked to evaluate potential standards. Rambus took additional actions that misled members to believe that Rambus was not seeking patents that would cover implementations of the standards under consideration by JEDEC. Rambus also went a step further: through its participation in JEDEC, Rambus gained information about the pending standard, and then amended its patent applications to ensure that subsequently-issued patents would cover the ultimate standard. Through its successful strategy, Rambus was able to conceal its patents and patent applications until after the standards were adopted and the market was locked in. Only then did Rambus reveal its patents - through patent infringement lawsuits against JEDEC members who practiced the standard.

The Commission finds that Rambus violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by engaging in exclusionary conduct that contributed significantly to the acquisition of monopoly power in four relevant and related markets. We further find a sufficient causal link between Rambus's exclusionary conduct and JEDEC's adoption of the SDRAM and DDR-SDRAM standards (but not the subsequent DDR2-SDRAM standard). Questions remain, however, regarding how the Commission can best determine the appropriate remedy. Accordingly, the Commission orders additional briefing for further consideration of remedial issues.

Yes Rambus had some patents pending before they approached JEDEC. But the whole point of being a member of JEDEC was to disclose those patents and negotiate licenses for the patents before the technologies were codified as a standard. That way the other members could decide, with all information in hand, which memory technology they would make the standard. Rambus deliberately failed to do this and did not disclose what they were patenting, essentially tricking the others into creating a memory standard which incorporated their patented technology so they could later threaten them with patent infringement lawsuits. They event went so far as to take ideas other JEDEC members revealed with the understanding that it wouldn't be patented so everyone would be free to use it, and incorporated them into their own patents.

The reason Rambus "won" was because even though the FTC found that they violated JEDEC's policies, the courts still found that the patents were valid. Normally when you write a contract, you're supposed to include

The magazine, published from 1996 to 2007, collected the names and street addresses of about 100,000 subscribers and photographs and articles submitted by about 3,000 former readers, the FTC letter says. In addition, XY.com, which closed in 2009, collected the names, street addresses, e-mail addresses, personal photos and online personal profiles of between 500,000 and 1 million users, the letter said.

. The original FTC letter also makes for an interesting read. They seem to rely both upon the original privacy statements and a broader sense of "fair play" in making their judgement.

In this situation, however, the continued use of the XY PI, even by the existing owner, would not necessarily be consistent with the original purpose for which the data was provided. Indeed, due to the nature of the information, the passage of time, and the closure of the magazine and website in 2007 and 2009, respectively, the continued use of the data may pose privacy risks not reasonably contemplated by subscribers when they provided the data, and not consistent with their course of dealing with the company.

There are in fact Federal laws about that - look here: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/alerts/alt007.shtm - but even if there weren't, there are many state laws, and there are network rules about it too, which you clearly know.

A merchant cannot show more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date on the receipt.

If you encounter a merchant in violation you can complain to the FTC.

I made a bunch of changes to a POS system 7 to 8 years ago to start accepting credit cards. Our data structure only even has room for the last 4 characters of the card. (It also has room for the expiration date, which it does retain, but it was later changed to not ever print it on the customer copy. I think we may print it on the (rare) merchant copy to be in compliance with one of the network's requirements.)

The FTC issues reports
In the FY2008 report they tout:

One of the Commission’s notable challenges was against the consummated merger of Polypore International and Microporous Products in which the Commission asserted that the February 2008 acquisition reduced competition and raised prices in the markets for multiple types of battery separator film used in the power supplies of various vehicles and in battery backup generators. The Commission also challenged and effectively blocked the proposed merger of Inova Health System Foundation and Prince William Health System, which would have substantially harmed competition in the Northern Virginia market for general acute care inpatient hospital services.

I'm not sure if those are "mega mergers" but they're doing more than zero...

Here is a link to the text of the proposal: http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf [ftc.gov]

Don't like what you read. Here is the link to the public comment form listed in the above document:
http://public.commentworks.com/ftc/newsmediaworkshop/

Here is a link to the text of the proposal: http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf

why not? do they not have important data that could be used in an identity theft?

Call the FTC out on their decision, ask them which congressmen urged the delay, and perhaps we can find out:

a. Who (if anyone) is on the take
b. Why (if any reason) are they on the take

People are less concerned now about CC fraud not because in the USA they simply are not liable beyond the first $50 of fraud. They seldom think about it because there is little reason to.

How about buying a 3rd party radio, or 3rd party tires, or taking it to an independent repair shop? I expect to be able to do all of that, without voiding the warranty. In fact, I believe I am guaranteed that right under the Magnuson Moss Act. Limiting apps seems like the kind of "tie in sale" that the Act prohibits. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus01.shtm#Magnuson-Moss

ANSI used to have a policy that they would not accept standards which contained patented components. That changed in the 1980s, I think. (The link to ANSI's patent policy is currently returning the message "Cannot connect to the configuration database. For tips on troubleshooting this error, search for article 823287 in the Microsoft Knowledge Base at http://support.microsoft.com./")

The legal way to address this is to require that standards bodies, from IEEE to ANSI to MPEG-LA, lose their exemption to antitrust law if they promulgate standards which contain patented components. Without that exemption, when companies get together to agree on a standard, it's conspiracy in restraint of trade.

In general, most of the more annoying patent problems are really antitrust problems. Anyone can get a very narrow patent on a very specific way of doing something. Such a patent is not useful unless the very specific way is a de-facto standard enforced by market dominance. That's an antitrust issue.

The reason MPEG-LA gets away with this is that the Justice Department signed off on it in 1997. That's consistent with the FTC-DOJ 1995 guidelines in this area. Anyone can buy an MPEG-LA license under stated terms. So they meet the guidelines. The guidelines don't address the issue of the interaction of de-facto standards and market power. They should. That's what needs to be revised.

For background, here's a speech by an FTC commissioner of the Clinton era on this issue. He makes the point that antitrust lawyers and patent lawyers don't talk to each other much and don't understand each other's fields. Also see this Justice Department Antitrust Division talk from 2007. If you want to talk intelligently about this issue, you need to read these materials.

Things have changed very rapidly.

Buying an M-rated video game when underaged is, at this point, much much harder than buying an unrated or R-rated DVD.

The 'moral guardians' are paranoid neophobes who are irrationally targeting the best behaved industry WRT not selling to kids. They think video games are for 'kids', so, logically, all 'adult' video games are actually being sold to kids, and they're too stupid to realize that this demonstratively not true.

It's the same reason that South Park gets attacked more than it should, or why comic books used to. Animation and comics are 'for kids', so anything in that format that isn't 'for kids' will still magically end up in their hands.

It was much easier for kids to walk up and buy a ticket to see Resident Evil: Extinction, or to buy a DVD of it, then it was for them to buy or rent Resident Evil 5. Don't expect that to register on any of this pinheaded 'moral guardians'.

I think this is the most relevant link there.

35% of underaged teenagers who walk up to a movie theater and try to buy a ticket for a R-rated movie got one. 56% who tried to buy a PAL-rated CD got one. 47% who tried to buy an R-rated DVD got it. 50% who tried to buy an unrated DVD got it.

Only 20% who tried to buy an M-rated video game got one.

Anyone who thinks there's any sort of problem in the game retail industry is an idiot. The game industry is, by a vast majority, currently the most responsible entertainment industry when it comes to not selling products to children that have been marked as 'not for children'.

It is more than twice as easy for a 15 year old to buy Apocalypse Now than Fallout 3.

And note how fast the game industry has improved, and note the last poll was in 2008. It's probably even better now. Also note the more generic the retailer got, the more likely it was to fail the test...Game Stop was best at 6%, then Best Buy at 18%, and then other stores that aren't used to selling games near 30%. (Which the exception Circuit City, which was operated by morons, being higher, and Walmart, operated by prudes, being lower.)

I.e., the 'game industry' is fine, but electronic stores sometimes overlook checking, and giant chain stores that sell everything overlook even more. But even they overlook it a hell of a lot less than movie theaters do restricting movies! (And movie theater clerks, obviously, should actually know the rating of the ten movies they're currently selling, whereas some clerk in a Target can be forgiven for missing an M-rated video game they've never heard of in a store with a bajillion items in it.)

While you may see that 'regularly', the fact is that the game industry by far is the best behaved in this regard. See the FTC's stats.

It's almost twice as easy for an underaged person to purchase an R-rated movie ticket than M-rated game. (That's actually purchase the ticket, not sneak in via a ticket to another movie.) And it's almost three times as easy for underaged people to buy a PAL labeled CD.

And note how rapidly the game industry is improving, and that the last test was in 2008. I'm sure it's even harder now.

Hilariously, note the three worse checkers for video games: Hollywood Video, Circuit City, Kmart.

You have to wonder how much of that was due to, you know, the companies imploding. :)

Also note that only 6% of underaged people who attempt to purchase at Gamestop are able to get away with it, so it's hard to see how you see that 'regularly'.

Last year I wrote a paper on video games and violence for a course in my Master's program. To make a long story short, parents needs to start parenting once again. It is not up to the government to "protect" your children from video game violence. It is up to you as a parent to be involved enough in your child's life to understand what forms of entertainment they are participating in. All video game systems come with parental controls these days. If you really don't trust your child, set the control and apply a password they don't know. The other thing that irks me is that the ESRB has done a great job in reducing the % of minors that are able to purchase M-rated games. As found by this FTC report back in 2008, the video game industry had the best improvement and lowest rate of underage shoppers purchasing or viewing "explicit" content. I really hope the lawyers in this case are able to use the government's own statistics to show how wrong and one-sided this argument is. If you want to do this to video games, do it to all forms of entertainment. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/05/secretshop.shtm

Actually, I don't think the part about the lack of debit card consumer protections is factually accurate. Here's the blurb from The FTC's Facts for Consumers:

ATM or Debit Card Loss or Fraudulent Transfers (EFTA). Your liability under federal law for unauthorized use of your ATM or debit card depends on how quickly you report the loss. If you report an ATM or debit card missing before it's used without your permission, the EFTA says the card issuer cannot hold you responsible for any unauthorized transfers. If unauthorized use occurs before you report it, your liability under federal law depends on how quickly you report the loss.

For example, if you report the loss within two business days after you realize your card is missing, you will not be responsible for more than $50 for unauthorized use. However, if you don't report the loss within two business days after you discover the loss, you could lose up to $500 because of an unauthorized transfer. You also risk unlimited loss if you fail to report an unauthorized transfer within 60 days after your bank statement containing unauthorized use is mailed to you. That means you could lose all the money in your bank account and the unused portion of your line of credit established for overdrafts. However, for unauthorized transfers involving only your debit card number (not the loss of the card), you are liable only for transfers that occur after 60 days following the mailing of your bank statement containing the unauthorized use and before you report the loss.

If unauthorized transfers show up on your bank statement, report them to the card issuer as quickly as possible. Once you've reported the loss of your ATM or debit card, you cannot be held liable for additional unauthorized transfers that occur after that time.

The problem is that "not being responsible for the charges" and "having your money while things get sorted out" are two separate things. While you might get every penny back in the end, you might not have access to your money for quite a while during the investigation.

Unfortunately, the best solution is to get a credit card. The liability is about the same, but if something happens, you're out credit which you can't be forced to repay during the investigation, rather than losing the cash you actually had in your bank account for two months while they figure it out. It requires some self-control to put everything on a credit card instead of a debit card and pay it all off every month, but if something does happen you lose (access to) imaginary money rather than real money. Depending on the card you get, you may even make some money from their rewards program. I recently had Discover deposit $200 into my checking account from my Cashback. Since I always pay it off fully, there were no charges of any type on the purchases that earned me the $200.

Credit cards are limited by U.S. law to a maximum of $50 liability to the cardholder. Debit cards losses are usually covered by the bank, but they are under no legal obligation to do so.

(Emphasis mine).

Actually, I don't think the part about the lack of debit card consumer protections is factually accurate. Here's the blurb from The FTC's Facts for Consumers:

ATM or Debit Card Loss or Fraudulent Transfers (EFTA). Your liability under federal law for unauthorized use of your ATM or debit card depends on how quickly you report the loss. If you report an ATM or debit card missing before it's used without your permission, the EFTA says the card issuer cannot hold you responsible for any unauthorized transfers. If unauthorized use occurs before you report it, your liability under federal law depends on how quickly you report the loss.

For example, if you report the loss within two business days after you realize your card is missing, you will not be responsible for more than $50 for unauthorized use. However, if you don't report the loss within two business days after you discover the loss, you could lose up to $500 because of an unauthorized transfer. You also risk unlimited loss if you fail to report an unauthorized transfer within 60 days after your bank statement containing unauthorized use is mailed to you. That means you could lose all the money in your bank account and the unused portion of your line of credit established for overdrafts. However, for unauthorized transfers involving only your debit card number (not the loss of the card), you are liable only for transfers that occur after 60 days following the mailing of your bank statement containing the unauthorized use and before you report the loss.

If unauthorized transfers show up on your bank statement, report them to the card issuer as quickly as possible. Once you've reported the loss of your ATM or debit card, you cannot be held liable for additional unauthorized transfers that occur after that time.

Go read the laws on the books.

Note this is the Fair Credit Billing Act. It doesn't not apply to other transfers. You could have looked this up yourself instead of being such a jerk.

Trudo is a blowhard fraud AND a spammer. That's probably why the judge got pissed. See:
http://www.skepdic.com/trudeau.html

"The New York state Consumer Protection Board warns those who follow Kevin Trudeau's advice to call a toll-free number for information that Trudeau is selling their name and contact information to telemarketers and junk mailers."

and...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau#2010:_Arrest_and_imprisonment_for_criminal_contempt_of_court
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0323064.shtm
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/01/trudeau.shtm

Sounds like he deserves whatever he gets...

Trudo is a blowhard fraud AND a spammer. That's probably why the judge got pissed. See:
http://www.skepdic.com/trudeau.html

"The New York state Consumer Protection Board warns those who follow Kevin Trudeau's advice to call a toll-free number for information that Trudeau is selling their name and contact information to telemarketers and junk mailers."

and...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau#2010:_Arrest_and_imprisonment_for_criminal_contempt_of_court
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0323064.shtm
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/01/trudeau.shtm

Sounds like he deserves whatever he gets...

Won't this just make people buy new cars less often?

No. Why do you think it would?

"OMG! New cars are more fuel efficient! I don't want to risk having one of those! ..."

No. I can't imagine very many consumers avoiding a purchase for such a reason.

Is it the cost increase of $434-926 that you are afraid of?

That is a fraction of the total cost of a new car. Even cheap cars are over 20k these days. The average price of a new car sold in the United States is $28,400

So do I trust you and "others" real-life testing, or do I trust laboratory test results published by API http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/gasoline/gasoline-octane.cfm, the FTC http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/autos/aut12.shtm, and many independent 3rd party consumer action groups?

The chemical equations are nice and all for octane, hexane, and whatever other chemical reactions you can come up with. And I might believe you if you could tell me the exact chemical ratios between different hydrocarbon chains in both regular and premium gasoline. I'd bet you can't, because there is more variation in fuels between different regions (yes we have regional blends), different climates (different RVP for different temps), and the transportation process (many times premium is downgraded and sold as regular) than there is between regular and premium. In addition, refineries don't just produce "regular" and "premium", they produce many products ranging from RBOB (commonly referred to as blendgrade) to 94 octane fuels. These are all blended between fuels or downgraded to be sold at the dispenser.

From the linked API article (since you obviously didn't check the linked posts on the previous):

Gasoline with a higher heating value (energy content) provides better fuel economy. Traditionally, premium gasoline has had a slightly higher heating value than regular, and, thus, provides slightly better fuel economy, but it is difficult to detect in normal driving. There can be even larger differences in heating value between batches of gasoline from the same refinery, between summer and winter volatility classes, or between brands of gasoline from different refineries because of compositional differences. The differences are small and there is no practical way for the consumer to identify gasoline with a higher-than-average heating value.

In other words, premium MAY give you better fuel economy, but it is just as likely that the fuel just came from a different refinery, or a different seasonal blend... Neither of which you have any control over or can determine at the pump.

Refinery cracking is not a theory, nor is distillation. What is a theory is your idea that you've done some sort of controlled tests on one vehicle that proves premium has more energy content than regular. And I'm telling you that the science (chemical and experimental testing) doesn't support that.

Texas
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-there-a-3-day-cooling-off-period-after-a-car-ha-5545.html
THERE IS NO 3 DAY CHANCE TO GET OUT OF A CAR PURCHASE IN TEXAS

http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/ca/law/c05.html
California
Finally, consumers should be aware that the three-day "cooling off" period that allows a buyer to cancel a contract within three days does not apply to the purchase of new or used cars. Because the contract cannot be canceled under this consumer protection provision, a buyer should exercise caution before signing any contract for the purchase of a used car.

However... if it is not a car... and at your home... and worth over $25...

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/products/pro03.shtm
If you buy something at a store and later change your mind, you may not be able to return the merchandise. But if you buy an item in your home or at a location that is not the seller's permanent place of business, you may have the option. The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) Cooling-Off Rule gives you three days to cancel purchases of $25 or more. Under the Cooling-Off Rule, your right to cancel for a full refund extends until midnight of the third business day after the sale.

The Cooling-Off Rule applies to sales at the buyer's home, workplace or dormitory, or at facilities rented by the seller on a temporary or short-term basis, such as hotel or motel rooms, convention centers, fairgrounds and restaurants. The Cooling-Off Rule applies even when you invite the salesperson to make a presentation in your home.

Under the Cooling-Off Rule, the salesperson must tell you about your cancellation rights at the time of sale. The salesperson also must give you two copies of a cancellation form (one to keep and one to send) and a copy of your contract or receipt. The contract or receipt should be dated, show the name and address of the seller, and explain your right to cancel. The contract or receipt must be in the same language that's used in the sales presentation.

(lists of various exceptions).

That's interesting. I just finished a semester on consumer protection law, with a heavy focus on Equal Credit Opportunity Act and similar measures that are designed to eliminate, among other things, gender discrimination in lending.

A statistically significant disparity in loan approval ratings probably indicates that there are significant violations of the ECOA. This is curious, because the ECOA provides for considerable punitive damages for discriminatory lending practices. ($10k for individual actions and up to $500k for class actions.) http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre15.shtm

While venture capital is another story, these kinds of bank loans should be covered under the ECOA. (At least, I am not aware of a statutory exception that would eliminate entrepreneurial loans.) It sounds like the bankers' actions were very clear violations of the ECOA. The Blake article you mentioned is behind a pay wall and I can't afford the $30 to get to it at the moment. Did it have any account of subsequent legal actions on the part of the women entrepreneurs who were subjected to gender discrimination? I certainly hope so.

I'm not sure about Microsoft giving you your money back if you reject their EULA. If it's the case, I can understand it. They probably figure the number of people who would do this is quite small, so the money they'd loose would be insignificant. Meanwhile these types of people would try this tend to be quite vocal, and a source of bad PR. Many other companies probably don't have this same policy, though.

As for putting the contract outside the box, I can't speak to other locations besides the United States, but there does seem to be a quite similar law that's been on the books since the 1970s that is just as "impractical" (paraphrasing your words) as providing EULAs prior to sale.

The Magnuson-Moss Act of 1975 defines certain protections that manufacturers and retailers must provide to consumers for most products.

Among the provisions of the act, there is a clause that states (for retailers) "If you sell directly to consumers who come to your place of business to buy, you must make written warranties available at the point of sale. You must do this with all written warranties on the products you sell warranties from manufacturers, as well as any written warranties you extend."

For a bit more detail (it provides many other consumer protections as well):
The FTC's summary of the Magnuson-Moss Act.

While warranties are not EULAs, they are often lengthy contracts. So this is something of a prior precedent. There is ZERO reason a retailer couldn't provide EULAs in a file for each SKU it carries. They already do this with physical products. You'll note that under the act, the method of providing the warranty is not specified. Showing the customer the warranty on the manufacturer's web site is even acceptable. As long as it's made available upon request.

Best Buy (whom I once worked for) kept warranty info for most of it's products on it's internal intranet. For the few products that slipped through the cracks and weren't on the intranet, it was policy to first check the manufacturer's web site, then failing that, simply open one of the products off the shelf, and let the customer inspect the printed warranty provided by the manufacturer. Again, there is nothing that would make a law or regulation providing similar protection to EULAs any less practical than this existing law. I suspect it might even be possible simply to amend this act to include this rule.

The FTC press release says:

"To remedy the anticompetitive damage alleged in the complaint, the FTC is seeking an order which includes provisions that would prevent Intel from using threats, bundled prices, or other offers to encourage exclusive deals, hamper competition, or unfairly manipulate the prices of its CPU or GPU chips

That sounds like a pretty direct strike against Intel's moves in the graphics market lately. Selling an Atom alone for more than the price of the same Atom bundled with a chipset, trying to prevent Nvidia from making chipsets for their Nehalem CPUs, bundling their own GPU on the package of all of their low to mid range next generation CPUs, etc...

It should be interesting to see how Intel responds to this. It's probably too late to make any major changes to Clarkdale/Arrandale before they ship, so on-package GPUs are definitely coming. But imagine if Intel were required to sell bare dice at fair prices (surprisingly enough, packaging a die is one of the most expensive steps of chipmaking), so that others could do the same thing. Imagine an intel chip with an on-package Nvidia or AMD GPU...

Sometimes I wonder if computers will always be built around motherboards as we know them. As motherboards shrink, and we start seeing multiple dice on a single package even in low end consumer gear, could the motherboard eventually be replaced with one big multi-die package? It would certainly reduce size and bring part counts down, and I expect it would allow for lower power consumption and higher speeds as well (although, of course, it would make building your own as an enthusiast impractical).

If you receive a more preferable product for a good or service based on your social network status (or on your blog), you have to disclose that, according to the FTC.

You aren't allowed to get a better price based on your influence/following and fail to disclose it.

This type of pricing scheme is dangerous, and might land company executivies in jail, for the attempt to defraud less-influential people with higher pricing.

However, I expect this could backfire... some of the more influential people will certainly say what price they got.

You can't control this type of information. There will be a backlash / disillusionment when other people learn that they are getting a different price.

In fact, the "more influential person" may lose influence, when people discover that.

E.g. Getting the better price can have long-term social costs in how other people in your social network view you.

Good Advise vs. "Sell-out"

regarding endorsements: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

The choice of implementation for computer functions is a pure economic choice which mainly has to do with cost, speed, and flexibility.

That's absolutely correct. And the reason that people choose software when they can get away with it, is because it generally much cheaper, faster to implement and more flexible. Which in turn results in completely economic effects of patent claims that include software implementations compared to claims that only cover hardware implementations.

The whole argument about software companies also performing state-of-the-art R&D should be irrelevant from a patents-point-of-view. Patents are not a natural right (they're not awarded because someone deserves them for whatever reason), but they are purely economic tools. And blunt and wide-reaching ones at that. Applying blunt and wide-reaching tools without discrimination just because some things are alike in terms of intellectual achievement does not necessarily have the same economic effects. Again: patents are not rewards, they're tools, to be applied with care where it makes macro-economic sense, not to protect certain business models at the cost of a huge overhead for an entire sector of industry.

And according to various economic studies (also includes citations from some political documents, feel free to ignore those), patents indeed don't have overall positive effects on in the software field. In fact, the 2003 report on innovation from the FTC came to the conclusion that patents are not very important to innovation in the semiconductor industry either (although slightly more so than in case of software, and their downsides are slightly less detrimental in that case). So the whole comparison with hardware and software does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the author of the article envisions...

Yes they are a scam and you are not making that much liar! I've seen the videos and they don't teach you anything you couldn't figure out yourself. I suggest anybody that was scammed by them to report them to the ftc. http://www.ftc.gov/

... governing endorsements and testimonials: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

FTC has site on Phishing that may help. We have been getting the Outlook update link in an fake email here for a while, have had to send many reminders that we will not send links to people for updates on their computer since we manage patches and updates automatically. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/menus/consumer/tech/privacy.shtm