Last August, she bought a Frigidaire side-by-side refrigerator at Best Buy in Massachusetts for almost $1,000. Last month it stopped cooling properly. Apparently, the seal around the door was faulty so the refrigerator was running constantly, failing to keep food at a safe temperature while wearing out the compressor. The refrigerator got so warm inside that black mold started growing.

Contacting Best Buy was a dead end according to our consumer because they told her the return period was long over. When calling the manufacturer for repair, they provided her with contact information for a service company. But Amanda told us:

The company has cancelled the appointment multiple times, asked to reschedule, etc. after I had to rearrange my work schedule and life to accommodate the scheduling. After the 5th or 6th cancellation, I called Fridgidaire and filed a complaint.

The consumer contacted us asking for some guidance. We provided some executive level contacts at Electrolux (the maker of Frigidaire) and urged her to create a written record of the issue before the warranty expired. We suggested she follow some of the complaint resolution suggestions and contacts at Elliott.org .

She sent emails to key people at both Electrolux and Best Buy. Miracle of miracles, an Electrolux supervisor agreed to give her a replacement. But less than 12 hours later they told her they can’t replace it because that model has been discontinued.

Hope seemed to be lost at that moment. But then an executive resolution specialist at Best Buy reached out to our consumer and said they would pick up the old fridge and deliver a new one. Yeah!

*MOUSE PRINT:

Amanda was put through the wringer despite the law being on her side. In Massachusetts, a seller is just as responsible as the manufacturer in the case of defective goods. And here, when goods are defective, it is also the consumer’s choice of one of the three “R’s” — repair, replacement, or refund. Unfortunately, too many retailers simply point the finger at the manufacturer and brush the customer off.

We applaud Best Buy for finally stepping up.

Should you face a similar issue, our suggestion is to document the problem and climb the corporate ladder when a retailer or manufacturer tries to weasel out of its obligations. Find corporate contacts at Elliott.org . Should that fail, file a complaint with your state consumer office or attorney general, consider small claims court, and if the issue is newsworthy, contact a consumer reporter.

In fact, the federal law called Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”) has been on the books since 2010. It says for negative option plans, like subscriptions that continue from month to month until canceled provides:

*MOUSE PRINT:

…simple mechanisms for a consumer to stop recurring charges from being placed on the consumer’s credit card, debit card, bank account, or other financial account.

The New York Attorney General decided to go after SiriusXM for making it difficult for customers to cancel. They alleged that subscribers had to speak to a live agent, who, working from a prepared script, presented ever-more-enticing retention offers to discourage the member from cancelling. Basically, they were instructed not to take no as an answer.

The New York Supreme Court took up the matter and ruled. While finding in favor of SiriusXM on various of the state’s legal theories of state law violations, they found that Sirius’ actions violated ROSCA. Specifically, the court pointed to a 2021 interpretive statement from the FTC that said in part that cancellation methods have to be as easy as their sign-up method, and that the companies should not subject consumers to new offers or similar attempts that unreasonably delay the consumer’s cancellation efforts.

Given those requirements, the court found in favor of New York and ordered that (monetary) damages be assessed.

(This story comes from the Mouse Print* archive of unpublished stories of consumer interest.)

I always (foolishly) assumed that the burger-like patties in these dinners were made from beef. But nay, nay.

*MOUSE PRINT:

In fact, Lean Cuisine’s patty is made from beef and pork.

Worse news came when checking the ingredients statements of some other Salisbury steak dinners.

*MOUSE PRINT:

In these products, beef was no longer the first ingredient in the patties — in fact, it was the last ingredient among the main contents. There was more chicken, pork and water in each patty than beef!

All is not bad news for Salisbury steak lovers. Stouffer’s boldly promotes that its patties are made with 100% beef.

The cereal in question, 19.5-ounce “family size” boxes of Post Fruity Pebbles, is supposed to have enough cereal for 15 one-cup bowls of cereal.

*MOUSE PRINT:

The consumer’s lawyers contend, however, that it has far less.

*MOUSE PRINT:

They hired an independent testing lab which determined that the cereal is denser than the label indicates, so you actually only get 11.3 one-cup serving per box, and thus the claimed amount of calories, sugar, and sodium is far higher per serving than represented.

So, the company is being sued for false and misleading statements and unjust enrichment under New York law. They are asking the judge for refunds and corrective advertising.

*MOUSE PRINT:

On his bill was the expected sales/meals tax, but then a second line was labeled “Tax 2.” According to the lawsuit:

Moreover, once the “Tax 2” amount appeared on the receipt, the representation of the Junk Fee as a “tax” lead Mr. Murphy to believe that “Tax 2” was a mandatory charge imposed by the government that was required to be paid on the transaction by him. The representation of the
Junk Fee as a “Tax” was also material to Mr. Murphy.

When Mr. Murphy paid for the two pizzas and the breadsticks in cash at checkout, he was charged two “tax” amounts. In addition to sales tax, Mr. Murphy was charged a “Tax 2” amount that, although deceptively and misleadingly labeled as “Tax,” was in reality a Junk Fee charged by Defendants to offset their own business expenses.

Under California’s “Honest Pricing Act” additional junk fees are illegal because businesses are prohibited from “[a]dvertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(29)(A).

Domino’s is being sued for unfair business practices, violation of the new complete pricing law, and the state false advertising law. The consumer’s lawyers are seeking refunds and damages, and an order stopping Domino’s from continuing to charge any illegal extra fees.