Paper towels often are downsized, and Bounty is no exception:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Bounty Select-a-Size went from 121 sheets on a roll down to 111. But, the new package seems to say that you are getting 33% more sheets. How in the world is that possible?

*MOUSE PRINT:

The fine print says the comparison is not with the prior version of this product as you would expect, but rather with a “regular” roll, whatever that size really is. If you think about, it is outrageous that P&G would put a 33% more sheets claim on a package that was actually just downsized in the number of sheets.

Last fall, peanut butter prices went through the roof. What got less publicity was the fact that nuts themselves went up in price too. In the case of Planters nuts, consumers experienced both a direct price increase as well as a downsizing.

*MOUSE PRINT:

As always, manufacturers never call your attention to the fact that they have downsized the product, so you have to become net-weight-conscious in order to catch them playing this sneaky game.

Well, it seems that at least one consumer actually read the ingredients statement and was surprised by what she found.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Annie Lam was shocked to find that the strawberry snack she bought not only had no strawberries in it, it was actually made with pears, and a bunch of other additives and chemicals. And unlike most consumers who would shrug off this afront, she filed a class action lawsuit against the company.

General Mills asked that the suit be dismissed, but the judge ruled last week that it could go forward because:

“Reasonable consumers might be misled by packaging that claimed the snacks are ‘made with real fruit,’ and would not read the fine print.” — U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti

One company that advertised unlimited calling is Vonage — the leading voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) company. Part of a commercial they ran in the past said:

The fine print is inconsequential for purposes of this story, but refers in part to the fact the only certain countries were included, and maybe not to cell phones in all countries.

Vonage’s website confirms that calling is unlimited to 60 countries:

Lo and behold, the company sent this letter to one customer claiming that he used too many minutes on his unlimited plan.

Dear XXXXX XXXXXXXX,,

We appreciate your business and thank you for using Vonage for your phone service.

In order to provide the best value to all our customers, we track usage of Vonage residential calling plans. At the time of signup, you agreed to the Vonage Terms of Service (TOS), which includes usage guidelines for normal residential use. If you would like to review the usage guidelines, please see sections 5 and 10 of the TOS.

We have observed usage on your account, 1234567890 , which is not consistent with normal residential use. Specifically, your account shows irregular patterns of use and/or international-minute usage that is more than twice that of our heaviest users.

At this time, you can remain on your current plan, but your usage will need to be changed to fall within normal residential use guidelines; this usage would generally not exceed 3,000 international minutes per month. [emphasis added] As another option, you can switch to a different calling plan, or you can disconnect your service without penalty.

For additional information about your options please respond to this email and one of our associates will be glad to assist you.

Regards,
Vonage Customer Service
101

When at Vonage’s terms of service, one learns

*MOUSE PRINT*

5.4 Inconsistent with Normal Use.
If you use the service, any feature or the device in a way that is inconsistent with the normal use for your service, feature or plan, you will be required, at Vonage’s sole discretion, to pay the rates for the service, feature or plan that would apply to the way you used the service, feature or device, or terminate the plan. For example, if you subscribe to one of our residential service plans, and your usage is inconsistent with normal residential use, you may thereafter be required to pay our applicable, higher rates for commercial service for all periods in which your use of our service or the device was inconsistent with normal residential use. Unlimited voice services are provided primarily for continuous live dialog between two individuals. Lack of continuous dialog activity, unusual call patterns, excessive conferencing or call forwarding, excessive numbers and/or consistent excessive usage (which may also apply to features such as Directory Assistance) will be considered indicators that use may be inconsistent with normal use, or that impermissible use may be occurring and may trigger an account review or further action by us. We may determine inconsistent use based on material deviations from the usage patterns and levels of most of our customers using the same and/or similar service plans, features or devices

In summary, they say if your use is inconsistent with normal residential use, they can charge you commercial rates, put you in a higher priced plan, or terminate your service. Nowhere do they establish a specific cap of 3000 international minutes.

If you think about it, 3000 minutes a month is only 100 minutes a day — just over an hour and a half of calling. I could easily imagine someone with loved ones overseas talking that amount of time.

This is yet another example of companies that like to advertise “unlimited” services of one kind or another, but in fact they do have limits that are not clearly stated upfront.

Here’s the webpage promoting the offer:

What you can’t see clearly in this miniaturized version of the webpage above is a potentially expensive catch on the left side:

*MOUSE PRINT:

The above fine print is shown actual size, and indicates that your subscription will renew every year unless you stop it, and you will be charged the then current regular subscription price, probably in the $26-$29 range.

Although another disclosure is made on the final checkout page in similarly small type, it would have been nice of this pro-consumer organization to more clearly and boldly disclose the continuing nature of the subscription at a much higher price.

Back in 2004, Tony stored nearly 40 years of household goods in a five-foot by 10-foot storage room in New York. He paid about $125 a month to the storage company, now known as Storage Deluxe, LLC. To make sure he didn’t forget a payment, and risk having his goods auctioned off as they do on these TV shows, he had his credit card automatically charged every month.

In August 2009, Tony went to the storage facility and tried to get into his locker. To his horror, he discovered that all his stuff had been removed, and either sold or discarded. When he confronted the company, they said “someone” had come in during December 2008, and had signed a form closing down the unit. The signature was not Tony’s. And it appears that this mystery person never unloaded the locker, but rather the company did, without any notification to Tony. All his stuff was gone.

Tony went to court, suing the storage company for some $80,000 in losses, $21,000 of which he could document with receipts, claiming breach of contract, gross negligence, and violation of New York’s storage law. The judge issued his decision just a couple of weeks ago, ruling mostly against Tony, and relying on fine print in the original contract:

*MOUSE PRINT:

The judge took this clause to mean that the storage facility was only liable for up to $5000 since the renter was not allowed to store anything of greater value in the locker without permission. And since the minimum amount his court had jurisdiction over was $15,000, the judge kicked the case back to a lower district court.

With all due respect to this judge, this clause said nothing about the storage company being liable or not liable for losses of only a certain amount. (And another New York court apparently previously had struck down this clause as an impermissible limitation on liability.)

So Tony is left without his stuff, but has lawyer bills that will eat up most of the $5000 if he decides to settle with the storage company. He has just decided not to appeal the decision, upon the advice of several lawyers.