If you are having trouble sleeping one night but don’t mind a possible nightmare of being crushed by a multi-billion dollar corporation, you can read Experian’s Terms of Use Agreement here:
 https://www.experian.com/help/terms-and-conditions.html

So to reiterate – if you have a problem with Experian, you would have to air your grievances in arbitration, not any court. If you are not familiar with arbitration, you can think of it as a fake court that has been found to be very unfair in favor of businesses (who pay them). If you’re interested, you can learn more about how unfair forced arbitration is here https://www.consumeradvocates.org/for-consumers/arbitration/ or here
https://www.citizen.org/article/mandatory-arbitration-clauses-are-discriminatory-and-unfair/

This should beg the questions: Why is Experian so worried about you suing them in court? Why are they so worried about class actions? And wait… are they luring you to click through this “agreement” with the promise of a higher credit score? Yes, they are. In exchange for a higher credit score, you have to promise to never sue them in court.

And if you’re wondering whether Experian ever goes so far as to enforce their forced arbitration clauses; yes, they do . . .

Agency Order Requires Grill Maker to Fix Warranty and Come Clean with Customers
July 7, 2022

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against grill maker Weber-Stephen Products, LLC, for illegally restricting customers’ right to repair their purchased products. The FTC’s complaint charges that Weber’s warranty included terms that conveyed that the warranty is void if customers use or install third-party parts on their grill products. Weber is being ordered to fix its warranty by removing illegal terms and recognizing the right to repair and come clean with customers about their ability to use third-party parts.

“This is the FTC’s third right-to-repair lawsuit in as many weeks,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Companies that use their warranties to illegally restrict consumers’ right to repair should fix them now.”

Illinois-based Weber manufactures and sells grills and related products worldwide and offers limited warranties to consumers who buy its products that provide for no-cost repair or replacement, should the products have defects or other issues.

The FTC has made it a priority to protect consumers’ right to repair their products. The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act is one of the FTC’s tools to address repair restrictions. It prohibits a company from conditioning a consumer product warranty on the consumer’s using any article or service which is identified by brand name unless it is provided for free.

Following the FTC’s right to repair report Nixing the Fix, the Commission issued a Policy Statement on Repair Restrictions Imposed by Manufacturers pledging to ramp up investigations into illegal repair restrictions.

The FTC recently announced complaints and orders against Harley-Davidson and the maker of Westinghouse outdoor generators for similar issues.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Weber imposed illegal warranty terms that voided customers’ warranties if they used or installed any third-party parts on their grill products. The FTC alleges that these terms harm consumers and competition in multiple ways, including:

•      Restricting consumers’ choices: Consumers who buy a product covered by a warranty do so to protect their own interests, not the manufacturer’s. Weber’s warranty improperly implied that as a condition of maintaining warranty coverage, consumers had to use the company’s parts.
  

•      Costing consumers more money: By telling consumers their warranty will be voided if they choose third-party parts, Weber forced consumers to use potentially more expensive options provided by Weber itself. This violates the Warranty Act, which prohibits these clauses unless a manufacturer provides the required parts for free under the warranty or is granted an exception from the FTC.
  
•      Undercutting independent businesses: The Warranty Act’s tying prohibition protects not just consumers, but also independent repairers and the manufacturers of aftermarket parts. By conditioning its warranty on the use of Weber-branded parts, Weber infringed the right of independent repairers and manufacturers to compete on a level playing field. 
  
•      Reducing resiliency: Robust competition from aftermarket part manufacturers is critical to ensuring that consumers get the replacement parts they need when they need them and are not at the mercy of branded part supply chains. More resilient and repairable products also lead to less waste in the form of products that could otherwise be fixed. 
  

Enforcement Actions
Under the FTC Act and the Warranty Act, the FTC has the authority to take action against companies violating consumer protection laws, including those engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The FTC’s order in this case:

• 
  
•      Prohibits further violations: Weber will be prohibited from further violations of the Warranty Act. They will also be prohibited from telling consumers that their warranties will be void if they use third-party parts, or that they should only use Weber-brand parts. If the company violates these terms, the FTC will be able to seek civil penalties of up to $46,517 per violation in federal court.
  

•      Recognizes consumers’ right to repair: Weber will be required to add specific language to its warranty saying, “Using third-party parts will not void this warranty.”
  

•      Comes clean with consumers: Weber must send and post notices informing customers that their warranties will remain in effect even if they use or install third-party parts on their Weber grill products.
  

The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint and to accept the consent agreement was 5-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $46,517.

Used-Car Certifications Often Not Meaningful
by Anthony Giorgianni
Last updated May 2022

Dealers promise rigorously inspected rides and peace-of-mind warranties, but we found some consumers get rebuilt wrecks and even a former crash-test vehicle.

Most used-car shoppers find the process a stressful ordeal filled with possible perils. They worry they’ll end up with an unreliable vehicle, and they don’t feel comfortable dealing with car salespeople: A 2022 Gallup poll found them to be the second-most-hated profession in the U.S.; only lobbyists fared worse. Worst of all, supply-chain problems for new-car factories have created a surge in demand for used ones—during the first quarter of 2022, average prices for secondhand rides were up 35 percent compared to the previous 12 months. Competition is so stiff that many used cars are purchased sight unseen by desperate buyers.

To reassure used-car buyers worried about getting stuck with a lemon, manufacturers in the 1990s began offering “certified” used cars. They’re marketed as the crème de la crème of the secondhand auto world and even come with manufacturer-backed warranties.


But our research uncovered that certified labels don’t guarantee vehicles won’t have serious hidden mechanical or structural problems. We were astonished by some of the flaws we discovered, many that should have been noticed during promised inspections. We also found certified cars that were totaled wrecks that were rebuilt and resold, and even an SUV previously owned by the government and used in crash tests.


Because manufacturers count on their dealers to conduct the promised inspections needed to certify vehicles, certification labels are only as reliable as the diligence of the dealerships and their mechanics in doing the screening tasks and fixing any problems they find. And our research indicates they’re not always diligent. . . .

(Read the whole thing at https://www.checkbook.org/puget-sound-area/used-car-certifications-often-not-meaningful/)

Today, the New York State legislature passed an electronics Right to Repair bill: As of mid 2023, manufacturers who sell “digital electronic products” in New York will have to make parts, tools, information, and software available to consumers and independent repair shops. We still await a final signing by the governor, but advocates don’t expect a challenge. . . .

For independent repair shops, this news is huge: Independent shops will finally be able to compete with manufacturers, resisting the repair market consolidation manufacturers have created by restricting access to parts and tools. In a recent California survey, 59% of independent repair shops said they might have to close their doors without the passage of Right to Repair. 

For the rest of us, the passage of this bill means that repairs should become less expensive and more comprehensive: People who want to fix their own stuff can. And your repair experience should improve even if you’re intimidated by the thought of cracking open your laptop or phone (Don’t be! You’ve got this! We can help!). Where before, manufacturers could push consumers to use manufacturer-authorized shops, now they’ll have to compete. Independent repair shops are often able to do repairs the manufacturer told a customer were impossible. Every day, microsolderers like Jessa Jones’s crack team of former stay-at-home moms breathe life back into devices authorized repair shops had written off as dead.   
Gay Gordon-Byrne, Executive Director of the Repair Association, said, “Every consumer in New York is going to benefit from this landmark legislation. We’ll all be able to fix the stuff we like,  stop being forced to buy new things we don’t want, and make it possible for the secondary market to provide high quality options for reuse.”
This bill covers most products containing electronics, but has some notable carve outs. It does not include motor vehicles (these are already handled by a national Right to Repair agreement between the automakers and the aftermarket), home appliances, medical devices, public safety communications equipment like police radios, agricultural equipment, and off-road equipment. We expect to see future legislation address these sectors.

New Analysis Finds Consumers Reported Losing More than
$1 Billion in Cryptocurrency to Scams since 2021

Most of the Losses Consumers Reported were to Bogus Cryptocurrency Investment Scams

Consumers reported losing over $1 billion to fraud involving cryptocurrencies from January 2021 through March 2022, according to a new analysis from the Federal Trade Commission. Fraud reports suggest cryptocurrency is quickly becoming the payment of choice for many scammers, with about one out of every four dollars reported lost to fraud paid in cryptocurrency.

The FTC’s latest Consumer Protection Data Spotlight finds that most of the cryptocurrency losses consumers reported involved bogus cryptocurrency investment opportunities, which totaled $575 million in reported losses since January 2021. These scams often falsely promise potential investors that they can earn huge returns by investing in their cryptocurrency schemes, but people report losing all the money they “invest.”
After cryptocurrency investment schemes, the next largest losses reported by consumers were on:

• Romance Scams: These often involve a love interest who tries to entice someone into investing in what turns out to be a cryptocurrency scam.
• Business and Government Impersonation Scams: Reports show these scammers often target consumers by claiming their money is at risk because of fraud or a government investigation and the only way to protect their cash is by converting it to cryptocurrency.

Reports suggest that cryptocurrency-related scams often begin on social media. Nearly half of consumers who reported a cryptocurrency related scam since 2021 said it started with an ad, post or message on a social media platform.
People ages 20 to 49 were more than three times as likely as older age groups to have reported losing money to a cryptocurrency scam. Older age groups, however, reported losing more money when they did report a cryptocurrency-related scam.

Some of the red flags consumers should watch out for include:

• * anyone who claims they can guarantee profits or big returns by investing in cryptocurrency;
  
• * people who require you to buy or pay in cryptocurrency;
  
• * and a love interest who wants to show you how to invest in cryptocurrency or to send them cryptocurrency.
  

The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.

Anyone who has EVER thought of "investing" in cryptocurrency or "non-fungible tokens" (NFTs) should watch this priceless expose.