Keep up with UCAN.org by following us on Twitter!
Thanks for visiting UCAN.org! Please remember our services are available because of grassroots donations from people like you. Please help us continue our work with a donation of any amount. Click here to visit our secure donation page.
Consumer beware. LTD Financial Services, LP is a debt collection company that appears to harass consumers whether they owe a debt or not. One of our UCAN senior members was a victim of this practice. LTD Financial has a D+ rating with the Houston BBB where as of 3/4/10, 171 complaints were processed over a 36-month period of time. 135 of the complaints were regarding "Billing or Collection Issues". Our Chinese senior said the company called her incessantly and used abusive tactics to collect a debt she didn't owe. The company called her neighbors and family members to try to humiliate her into paying the debt. The customer alleged a racial slur was directed at her too. The customer's experiences match a Federal Trade Commission initiated civil penalty settlement against the company in the amount of $1.375 million. Threats to consumers included garnishing consumer wages, seizing their property, and initiating lawsuits or criminal actions against them if they refused to pay. The owners and top managers were permanently prohibited from these practices.
Even though the FTC settlement clearly mapped out what tactics could be used so as not to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, UCAN assumes based on its member's experiences, that the company's profits throughout the country far outweigh the settlement fine and a D+ BBB rating. Furthermore, there's a question as to what good settlements do as opposed to putting the "bad actors" out of business and filing charges against owners, directors and top management when a company continues "business as usual".
UCAN's advice is to know your rights, exert them if you're the target of such illegal practices, and post comments on our web site.
Recently, UCAN stood its ground against Anthem/Blue Cross and United Healthcare when each company, allegedly based on Medicare (Section 111) reporting requirements, demanded the social security numbers (SSNs) of all applicants in order to offer UCAN employees group health insurance (GHI) coverage.
UCAN contacted Anthem's customer service and several different CSRs said the SSN is not required, and to write "assign ID" in the space requesting SSN for employees not wanting to disclose SSNs.
UCAN submitted the GHI applications, but Anthem refused to underwrite coverage without the SSN based on information directed to its agents.
Since the SSN requirement appeared to apply only to those getting Medicare, UCAN contacted the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for clarification.
CMS replied with a document refuting the SSN requirement:
Since the new Section 111 law went into place, some insurers are insisting that they get the SSNs of everyone they may be covering, and sometimes they say they must do so because of the Section 111 reporting requirements.
...
Any message to you stating or implying that you must provide your SSN because of the new Section 111 reporting requirements is not accurate.
[emphasis added]
and provided the following
We posted Anthem's reasons and UHC's reasons for requiring the SSNs.
In response to UCAN's inquiry, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) replied, "some insurers are insisting that they get the SSNs of everyone they may be covering, and sometimes they say they must do so because of the Section 111 reporting requirements.
...
Any message to you stating or implying that you must provide your SSN because of the new Section 111 reporting requirements is not accurate."
Both companies backed down and provided coverage without the employee's SSN after seeing the message from CMS.
There has been a lot of discussion about the Credit CARD Act signed into law in 2009 and largely taking effect in 2010. The discussion revolves mostly around the consumer protections put into place by the legislation. Some of the most notable and reported changes include:
21-day grace period - credit card companies must send their bill to you at least 21 before the billing date. No more getting the bill the day before it’s due. The old rule said providers had to give customers a “reasonable time” to pay the bill, but no one knew what a reasonable time was.
Handling of Holiday Payments - The companies must credit you with on-time payments received the day after a weekend or holiday. Let’s say your due date falls on a Sunday, and the CC provider doesn’t get your payment until Monday. Previously, you’d get hit with late charges. No more.
On-time payments if received by 5pm - They must credit you with on-time payments received by 5:00 p.m. on the due date. This was hit or miss before. Providers pretty much could decide on a whim whether to hit you with a late charge for payments received at the end of the business day. You normally won’t want to wait until the last minute, but if you have to, consider using registered delivery to verify when the provider received the payment.
Notice about any changes - Credit card issuers must now give you 45 days’ notice on rate and penalty increases. Previously, the rules said the provider had to give you only 15 days’ notice. The new rules give you more time to switch cards if you don’t like the new rates.
Rate increases only on new balances - Issuers can't raise rates on existing balances. They must limit rate increases only to new balances. So, if the provider does increase rates, the increase will apply only to new charges and not to existing balances.
Some of the provisions being discussed include: the notification requirements established, the restrictions on credit to those under 21 years old, whether a cap should have been placed on interest limits, and how the credit card companies may strike back against the new regulations by restricting credit or limiting who is approved for credit, imposing new annual fees, and shortening or eliminating the grace period before interest accrues on a purchase.
Whether or not the credit card companies will take such actions remains to be seen, but missing from the discussion are the miscellaneous provisions which include: studies and reports, procedures to timely settle estates of card holders who pass away, a review of small business credit plans, a review of current financial and economic literacy, and FTC rulemaking on Mortgage Lending. These provisions will not have an immediate (if you can call next February immediate) impact like the other provisions, but as long as Congress continues to feel protecting consumers is important good regulations could result.
Studies and Reports
Studies will be conducted with the results reported to Congress in the next few years. One study with report on the relationship between fluency in the English language and financial literacy and to what extent, if any, those whose primary language is not English are impeded in conducting their financial affairs. Another study will report on the marketing of consumer products with credit offers focusing on who is targeted and the predatory nature of the offers. A third study will report on the cost effectiveness of making available emergency PIN technology at some ATMs to allow users when under duress to alert and summon local law enforcement to the ATM. Lastly, a study will report on interchange fees charged by credit card companies and their impact on the use of credit and its effect on consumers and merchants.
Review of Consumer Credit Plans and Regulations
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ("Board") must in two years review the effectiveness of this and other consumer credit regulations and the impact that the regulations have had on the companies, consumers, and the relationships between the two. The Board must report its determinations and any changes to regulation to Congress.
Report to Congress on Reduction of Consumer Credit Card Limits
The Board in consultation with the other federal regulators of the financial industry must report on the extent to which creditors have reduced credit limits or raised interest rates on consumer credit cards based on the geographical location of the transaction or identity of the merchant, the type of transactions a consumer makes, and the identity of the mortgage creditor who holds a mortgage loan on the residence of the consumer. The report should determine the number of creditors engaging in the practices, the extent to which the practices impact minorities or low-income consumers, and other relevant information. The report should also include recommendations on any regulatory or statutory changes that are needed to restrict or prevent the practices.
Small Business Credit Plans and Recommendations
The Board is also required to conduct a review on the use of credit cards by small business and the credit card market for small businesses including the terms of the agreements, practices of the credit card issues, and the adequacy of protection against unfair or deceptive practices. A small business information security task force will also be formed to identify the information technology security needs of small businesses and the government and nongovernment organizations that serve those needs.
Financial and Economic Literacy
The Secretary of Education and the Director of the Office of Financial Education of the Department of the Treasury in coordination with the President's Advisory Council of Financial Literature shall evaluate and compile all existing federal financial and economic literacy education programs and develop a strategic plan to improve and expand financial and economic literacy education.
Though these provisions are more research and fact gathering and less direct action, the results and recommendations could have a much greater impact on the credit regulatory landscape then the other sections of the Act. If nothing else, they may generate a lot of important information about credit card companies practices that you the consumer should be aware of.
The Silence of the Hams
Why the deafening silence of the University of Chicago's Economics Dept.?
This article explains how "gougeonomics" not "economics" offers a better explanation of economic turmoil than neoclassical economics. Gougeonomic theory explains why bankers are getting huge bonus payouts for destroying the economy, driving us out of work, doubling our credit card rates, repossessing our homes, and refusing to do what they are supposed to be in business to do ... i.e. make loans.
Gougeonomic Theory is also used extensively by UCAN's Big Oil Hog to explain irrational price movements in gasoline and oil markets.
Five years
For five long years the Big Oil Hog has made its annual economic predictions with a dazzling record of 100% accuracy. It even predicted the massive slide in gas prices prior to the 2006 elections, and it did it using a novel new theory of economics called "gougeonomics."
Every February 2, (Ground Hog Day), the infamous Big Oil Hog has appeared to seek out his shadow at Hogger's Knob, San Diego. Once the "Oracle of Pork's" prediction is translated from its native Pig Latin, it means either six months of higher oil and gas prices, or a welcome respite from the tyranny of the oil companies.
Listen up, CNBC, because the Big Oil Hog's predictions are news. Big news. Yet given the Big Oil Hog's astonishing track record, one can't help but wonder about the silence of the University of Chicago. Obviously as a tool of the mainstream media, Good Morning America's annual boycotting of event is utterly predictable. But with a record of accuracy that defies all odds, you would think the Pink Porker of Petroleum's price predictions would garner the attention of the Chicago School.
So again: Why the silence?
Could it be that a wisp of the smoke of academic jealousy has entered the hallowed halls at U of C ?
It's possible. After all, when UCAN makes a prediction on future prices, we do not use classical economics. This is because the "rules of economics" have failed. This is especially true of the neoclassical economics taught at the Chicago School.
After years of study, UCAN has created a new school of economic thinking called "gougeonomics." It is this fundamental understanding of the principles of gougeonomics that allows the Oil Hog to enjoy its record of 100% accuracy in its predictions regarding commodity prices for oil and gasoline. Gougeonomic Theory explains irrational price movements in markets where the prices are rigged or manipulated, such as the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Gougeonomics explained
The biggest difference between a market economy and a gougeonomy are that in a market economy, you have competitors and competition that eventually has an effect on retail prices.
In a gougeonomy, however, the market consists of a naturally evolved oligarchical pricing structure where the price of a commodity or service is determined not by supply and demand, but rather, by "demand and supply" where the oligarchy (or oiligarchy if you prefer), supplies less product and demands more money for it.
The theory of gougeonomics first came into being as a hypothesis during the California Electricity Crisis of 1999-2000 when former monopoly energy suppliers were required to compete under electric deregulation. The fatal flaw of electric deregulation was the idea among regulators that energy companies "Like to compete." This faulty assumption created a marketplace where the suppliers of natural gas and electricity routinely restricted supplies in order to drive up the price.
These energy suppliers learned that by limiting the supply of energy, they could quickly make from ten to twenty times as much profit per unit of energy sold. California was plunged into rolling blackouts because the energy companies were intentionally shutting off power in order to drive up the price. Essentially, the rolling blackouts were in reality "rolling blackmail," caused by an overly consolidated energy industry.
The fatal flaw of free market economists
In retrospect, the theory of gougeonomics, not the neoclassical economics of the Chicago School prevailed. The free marketeers could not accept the idea that energy companies would cooperate instead of compete. Despite mountains of evidence of price-fixing, price manipulation, gouging, and collusion, many still believe, wrongly, that the reason behind the electric crisis was a fundamental shortage of electricity. They believe, wrongly, that the wisdom of the "hidden hand of the marketplace" as espoused by Adam Smith would stabilize dysfunctional markets. It didn't. The shortages and rolling blackouts were created by a dysfunctional market that had a perverse incentive to not compete.
The genesis of the Gougeonomic Theory
Gougeonomic Theory was first developed by UCAN's Oil and Gasoline Analyst, Charles Langley, after watching the manipulation of gasoline prices in Southern California. The theory asserts that in a gougeonomy (i.e. a dysfunctional market) the corporation that supplies the least amount of product at the highest price with the worst customer service will be victorious.
It isn't fair, it isn't pretty, and it isn't just. Nor is it eloquent, but in a gougeonomy, as UCAN's Executive Director Michael Shames explains, "The hidden hand is in the cookie jar." And ultimately, instead of embracing reality, the mainstream economists cling to their dogmatic beliefs that "supply and demand" actually sets oil and gas prices, and that our financial markets will self-regulate through competition. They do not. But saying this out loud is to scream that God is Dead in the Church of Economics, or to declare that the earth is not the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus.
Gougeonomic Theory offers the best explanation for the complete collapse of our banking system
With the recent collapse of the nation's banks and investment houses, and the unprecedented public subsidies of the nation's largest banks, the Theory of Gougeonomics is more relevant than ever.
You may have asked your self these questions:
"Why are banking executives who are proven failures getting paid so well?"
Or, "Why are bankrupt firms, the same companies that deprived me of my life savings, my job, and my home, being rewarded with multi-billion dollar welfare payments from the government?"
Viewed through the myopic lens of the Chicago School, these ugly realities don't make sense. That's because the Chicago School embraces a theory of finance and banking called the "Efficient Market Hypothesis," which, in a nutshell, asserts that financial markets can not be gamed because the market is inherently wise.
Yet if anything proves the failure of the Chicago School, it is the complete meltdown of the global economy.
If the Chicago School's idea of "supply and demand" really did work, then AIG, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan would all be out of business. These firms are morally, ethically, and financially bankrupt. What's more, these four institutiions are complete financial and business failures. This is an undisputed fact. Yet in the first quarter of 2010, the top executives at these instutions got record salaries and huge bonus payouts. According to Bloomberg News, the money these executives have made has increased by 60%.
Ordinary economics doesn't explain why these failed losers are being rewarded ... but gougeonomics does.
Gougeonomics explains this phenomona of rewarding failure elegantly. Remember, in a previous paragraph we explain that in a gougeonomy, the market rewards the vendors who supply the least amount of product at the highest price with the worst possible service.
Now look again at who is prospering in this economy. Is it efficient corporations?
No. It is the same bankers who ruined it.
Why? because these bankers are supplying less product at higher prices with horrible service. And because we have a gougeonomy instead of a free market, these failed bankers are prospering.
No wonder the University of Chicago is silent. It could be a victim of gougeonomics, too, where the worst students, with the lowest performance are commanding the highest pay as faculty members.
Enough said.
In case you missed it, Tuesday, January 26, 2010 was the inaugural launch of San Diego's most important civic holiday, "UCAN DAY."
Be advised that as of today, there are only 362 shopping days until UCAN EVE, (the night before UCAN Day) on January 25, 2011, so mark your calendar.
"UCAN DAY" was created by San Diego Supervisor Dianne Jacobs and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, with the support of Supervisors Greg Cox, Pam Slater-Price, Ron Roberts, and Bill Horn. (You can learn more about the elaborate ceremony and see the County's handsomely inscribed and hand-signed vellum certificate here).
So what does this mean to you as a concerned consumer?
Allow me to speculate.
First, it seems to me that the next step is to make this a national holiday.
What we really need is to make UCAN DAY a Federal holiday in accordance with (5 U.S.C. 6103). Utility Consumers' Action Network Day is the ONLY holiday on record that is specifically dedicated to the important issue of consumer advocacy. In a sense, this makes UCAN DAY everyone's holiday because we are all consumers.
This is YOUR holiday and it shouldn't be limited to small niche groups like veterans, mothers and fathers, or presidents. And unlike Valentine's Day, you don't need to be lovable to participate. UCAN day doesn't require religious or political affiliation. UCAN DAY is the only holiday on record that is all-inclusive. Everybody can celebrate.
Let's keep it that way.
Second, banks should not be allowed to close.
Obviously for a holiday as important as this, the banks will want to close, but I say make them work.
Banks have too many holidays anyway. UCAN DAY must be a day for people who actually have real jobs that contribute to the economy. On UCAN DAY, all retail establishments selling non-perishable goods, (except for banks) should be required to close and give their employees the day off. Unlike other holidays, UCAN DAY should not be associated with commerce, other than perhaps generous donations to credible charities.
Third, there must be wholesome and inexpensive recreational activities that happen on UCAN DAY.
And this is where you, Dear Reader, can play a critical role. We need to develop a body of UCAN DAY traditions, foods, and rituals that are passed down through the generations, so that the joy of UCAN DAY can be shared with consumers everwhere.
Our hope is that together, we can create a holiday that is not dependent on money or vulgar consumerism. So to get the ball rolling, I'd like to run these ideas up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes. My hope is that you will comment below with suggestions, improvements, and hopefully better ideas.
UCAN DAY MYTHS AND STORIES
The First UCAN DAY: How about a story about how on the first UCAN DAY, a very long time ago, corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, and public utilities officials were exposed by earnest citizen investigators and forced to repay their ill-gotten gains?
The tale of the Many and the Moneyed few: The heartwarming story of a magical land where 37 million of us didn't live in poverty, and where the top 10% of the population doesn't control nearly 50% of the wealth. It is a special place where the government is run by freely elected representatives, not Goldman Sachs or the big energy companies. In this fairy tale, there are actually laws against usery, and the free market rewards companies that contribute to the common wealth!
UCAN DAY TRADITIONS
The Big Oil Hog. Forget about "yule logs," lets roast an Oil Hog instead. Good eats!
The UCAN DAY TREE. The UCAN tree would be decorated on UCAN Eve, the night of January 25. Just thinking out loud here, but what could be more joyful than dancing around a tree decorated with the shrunken heads of corporate criminals, swindlers and corrupt regulators? It warms the heart.
Well, those are my best ideas. Now its your turn. Please add your public comments in the form below (you can even do it anonymously if you like).
And remember, there are only 363 shopping days until UCAN DAY!
*5 U.S.C. 6103 states that for Federal employees who work on a Monday through Friday schedule, when a holiday falls on a non workday -- Saturday or Sunday -- the holiday usually is observed on Monday (if the holiday falls on Sunday), or Friday (if the holiday falls on Saturday).
In a letter to Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, UCAN raised concerns about the policies and practices of a life insurance company and the Insurance department’s handling of UCAN’s complaint about the policies. To date UCAN has not received response to the letter. We know the Commissioner is busy running for Governor, but we would appreciate a response as to why our request to the Department was met with the response “there is nothing we can do.”
UCAN sought out keyman life insurance for our Executive Director Michael Shames. In seeking out that insurance, UCAN received annual premium rate quotes from various Insurance companies. Based on those quotes, UCAN choose ING to provide the life insurance. Like most insurance companies ING made receiving that quoted premium contingent upon the results of a physical exam.
However, when Michael’s test results were submitted ING decided his cholesterol level wasn’t up to par and offered an annual premium at a rate double the initial quote. The problem with this determination is that Michael’s doctor said his health was excellent and that it was good “HDL” cholesterol that was raising his total cholesterol to a level unsatisfactory to ING. The medical field recommends high HDL Cholesterol for individuals to reduce the chance of heart disease and other ailments. Michael’s doctor also pointed out that had Michael fasted before his cholesterol test, as is typically recommended, his overall cholesterol level likely would be lower. The insurance company forgot to mention that important testing tidbit when requesting results however.
UCAN disturbed by this perceived punishment for Michael’s good health, fought this determination and following the submission of a new cholesterol test, ING agreed to offer the quoted insurance rate. UCAN, however, is still concerned about this practice because it is essentially convincing healthy individuals to negatively affect their health in order to obtain more affordable coverage.
Thus we need to hear from consumers. Has your insurance company tried to double or triple your premium rate based on slight variances in your cholesterol level? Have you sought assistance from the California Department of Insurance in dealing with insurance companies only to be told that the Department will not be able to help you? Post your comments below and together we can try and hold both the Department and insurance companies accountable for illogical practices and policies.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Signed UCAN letter to Commissioner Poizner.pdf | 1.16 MB |
The U.S. Senate has cobbled together the necessary 60 votes to pass historic health care reform legislation for the nation. Most Republicans are saying "BAH, HUMBUG" and promise to continue the fight to derail it.
President Obama says passage of the measure would be a "big victory for the American people" and said critics of the legislation are wrong to claim that the legislation will increase the nation's deficit.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports the legislation would extend health insurance coverage to more than 30 million Americans while reducing the federal deficit by $132 billion over the next decade.
If the Senate legislation clears its final hurdles, the Senate and House versions of the legislation will go to a conference committee where the final details of the legislation will be merged before it goes to the President for signature.
To find out more information and apply for the California Low Cost Automobile Insurance Program visit the Department of Insurance's website
Some basic facts/requirements about the program are:
You must be at least 19 years old and have been continuously licensed for the last 3 years.
You must qualify as a "good driver".
You must have a vehicle valued at $20,000 or less.
You must meet Income requirements.
You cannot choose which insurance company provides the insurance.
You cannot be charged extra fees.
Costs can be as low as $265 per year in the San Diego area and payment plans are available.
You must visit the Low Cost Automobile Program Website to apply.
The Credit CARD Act, signed into law in May 2009 has been a source of contention since approval. The prevailing opinion is that the financial institutions that issue credit cards have been raising rates, slashing credit limits, adding fees, removing benefits, and canceling cards outright all ahead of the February implementation date of the Act.
Is every credit card company engaging in this conduct? Having any of them started to comply with the requirements of the Credit CARD Act? Is every card available being impacted?
Two recent studies, one performed by the billshrink.com, and the other by Pew Charitable Trusts both conclude that the major companies are not compliant with the Credit CARD Act despite months to prepare and change their systems. The reports detail that throughout 2009 banks have increased the purchase APR, balance transfer rates, and the penalty APR.
The October 2009 Pew Report, which surveyed over 400 credit cards, specifically details that 100% of banks issuing credit cards used practices deemed unfair or deceptive under Federal Reserve Guidelines, 99.7% of banks allow the issuer to raise the interest rates on outstanding balances, 90% of banks had penalty interests rates that could be triggered by late payments or overlimit transactions, and 95% of banks allowed issuers to apply payments in a manner likely to cause monetary injury to consumers.
The banks surveyed in the Pew Study include American Express, Bank of America, Barclays, Capital One, Chase, Citi, Discover, HSBC, Target, U.S. Bank, USAA, and Well Fargo.
The billshrink.com report, which does not appear to be publically available, surveyed 150 credit cards and found that though banks are generally increasing rates and fees that the amount of the increases have varied. At the time of the survey (January to July 2009) American Express and Bank of America had changed their rates the least, while Capital One, US Bank, Discover, and Citi had changed their rates the most. The other credit card issuers evaluated in the survey were Chase, First National Bank of Omaha, First Premier Bank, HSBC, Orchard Bank, and Wells Fargo.
The Pew Report surveyed 12 Credit Union that issue credit cards in addition to the 12 banks. The report found that Credit Unions offered significantly lower APR rates than bank credit card, lower penalty fees, and were generally more compliant with the provisions of the Credit CARD Act. The Credit Unions surveyed were America First CU, Boeing Employees CU, Digital FCU, Golden 1 CU, Navy FCU, Patelco CU, PA State Employees CU, Pentagon FCU, Schools First FCU, Suncoast Schools FCU, Vystar CU, and Wescom CU. It should be noted that the not all of the Credit Unions surveyed are available to all consumers.
In addition to its survey, billshrink.com maintains a list of the consumer protections approved by the Credit CARD Act and notes which major credit card issuers are complying with the various sections. You can also check to see if your specific credit card complies.
As you awaken to a lazy Saturday of family time, running errands, and watching college football you may want to put that all on hold as it is possible the House of Representatives -- YOUR representatives in Congress-- may be voting on a 1900-page health care reform bill that will affect your family's health and pocketbook for years to come. The bill -- HR 3962 -- picked up major endorsements from AARP and the American Medical Association (AMA) this week.
The legislation -- in its present form -- runs more than 1900 pages so if you don't have any other plans for the weekend, you might want to read through it and send your thoughts and comments to your Member of Congress. It's easy to do by e-mail. Even if the bill passes, there will be more much more to be done on the matter in Congress before passage of reform is accomplished, but it appears that some kind of national health care reform is likely to be approved before the end of the year. If you have an opinion about it, now is the time to express to those who will be voting on it.
USE THIS LINK TO EMAIL YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS:
Utility Consumers' Action Network
Terms & Conditions
UCAN.org is made available by the Utility Consumers' Action Network to assist you in becoming what you always knew you could be, a consumer ROCK STAR! We take no corporate money, and are beholden only to you, the consumer. As such, the site is here for educational, advocacy, and empowerment purposes, as well to to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. Just remember this site is NOT here to provide specific legal advice. By using this web site you of course understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Web Site publisher, UCAN. The Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
That said, get to digging on the site, inform yourself, speak your mind, and earn Watchdog Bones! This is YOUR site, and we mean it. So comment on any of the content, discuss the latest issues in the forums, file a complaint on a company with the fraud squad, and generally cut loose.
See our Terms of Use, Privacy, and Copyright complaint policies as well as our Content Reuse Policy, Some Rights Reserved.
UCAN's affiliate New Media Rights has created a series of investigative reporting videos based on your consumer stories. Check out the new and easily searchable Guides page!
How to protect your own blog or website from liability for user generated content
Is Youtube putting advertisements on user videos without permission?
Essential free and open software toolkit for consumers
How to find free music, images, and video you can use or remix in your own creative works
How to Listen to Music on the Internet for Free...Legally
How to make a Podcast... for free
Visit NewMediaRights.org
We are currently looking for blog posts from both attorneys and consumers. If you would like your work published on a site with thousands of daily visits, send a submission to tips@ucan.org.
Get personal assistance with your consumer complaint about a company by using our Online Complaint Forms. Or, call the Fraud Squad Hotline at (619) 696-6966!
Don't buy a cell phone without our Mobile Phone Plan Checker!
Register to get it FREE right now!
What are you packin? Is it anything like UCAN's new and improved Consumer Complaint Directory? If not, you should really pick up a copy. This thing is chock-full of hard-hitting consumer punch.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Icerocket
Post to Twitter
