I see Subby is another one of those free market capitalists that truly believes that free markets are the most powerful engines in the world, except when the government forces companies to fully inform potential customers.

GaryPDX: People should do their own homework instead of expecting the government to hold their hand. I've been doing my own credit reporting agency monitoring for years. Equifax has the best service. Experian is moderately second best and Trans Union is a joke but they are out there.

If you're not proactive with your own credit history, you need to have your head examined.

Gary how complex can a credit report be when your only assets are dehydrated food, bottled water and ammununition?

freecreditreport.com is not free.

It's a pay service. It is now illegal to call yourself "free" if you are in fact not free. This is not some sort of "big government" law that can be misused it's a "Don't lie to people, asshole" law.


GaryPDX: People should do their own homework instead of expecting the government to hold their hand. I've been doing my own credit reporting agency monitoring for years. Equifax has the best service. Experian is moderately second best and Trans Union is a joke but they are out there.

Well that's good, but you need to pay attention to Trans Union, because creditors do.

When I'm queen of everything, basic financial literacy will be taught in middle school. I work with medical students, many of whom have spent 20 years learning, but have never been taught what a FICO score is.

Go lick your bootstraps subby.

GaryPDX: I think parents should more proactive too with this.

My parents have paid cash for every single thing since I was 10 and they paid of the mortgage. The own one credit card (from Sears) and haven't the foggiest idea about credit. THEY USE CHECKS IN THE $#@$ GROCERY STORE!!

All they taught me was "don't spend money you don't have". That only goes so far.

GaryPDX: It really isn't rocket surgery, just a matter of education.

Exactly. It's pretty easy to figure out if you understand some simple concepts like compound interest.

"If you're too stupid
To ditch your credit cards
Thinking ain't your forte,
Yea, it's much too hard."

"You're a mouth-breathing asshat
and a debtor a-hole, yet
The feds must still protect you
When you're on the Innnernet."

Racht: Gary sounds like the type of person that would spend $15 a month on FreeCreditReport.com's Triple Advantage credit monitoring.

Racht sounds like the kind of dick that doesn't read comments but has really stupid things to say about people contributing to the thread.

what_now: freecreditreport.com is not free.

It's a pay service. It is now illegal to call yourself "free" if you are in fact not free. This is not some sort of "big government" law that can be misused it's a "Don't lie to people, asshole" law.

This. It's like the "FREE^* IPOD!!1!111!" ads. Free means free, not "with subscription to our services" or "with completion of 7 offers".

AntiNorm: what_now: freecreditreport.com is not free.

It's a pay service. It is now illegal to call yourself "free" if you are in fact not free. This is not some sort of "big government" law that can be misused it's a "Don't lie to people, asshole" law.

This. It's like the "FREE* IPOD!!1!111!" ads. Free means free, not "with subscription to our services" or "with completion of 7 offers".

Yep. It's not nanny-statism, it's laws against false advertising. If your credit report service is "free", then wtf are you asking for my credit card number?

As a side note, wtf would they ask for your credit card number when they can get it as part of your "free" credit report? That's like a psychic asking you for your credit card number. What, don't you know it?

GaryPDX: That's pretty sad. I think parents should more proactive too with this. Both my teenagers know this stuff because I have taught them. Maybe I should have little seminars. It really isn't rocket surgery, just a matter of education. Maybe make it an elective in High School.

Firstly the fees for my state don't specify if it's monthly. Looks like $5 to lock, another $5 to unlock. I'm assuming it's a one time each fee but it's not very detailed on the schedule. Second my sons are too young to be using credit and when I go through the locking process up to providing the info there is nothing about minors. So my question is: what do I do about that? Seems prudent to lock a four year old's SSN. You got me thinking and obviously I'll go over it with the reporting agency, just asking for your experience.

Free with enrollment in triple advantage. That message has been at the end of every one of their ads.

/subby

RobertBruce: Free with enrollment in triple advantage. That message has been at the end of every one of their ads.

/subby

Yeah, it's more like, _{Freewithenrollmentintripleadvantage.}

And not enough people know about www.annualcreditreport.com which is indeed, your free credit report.

Cog: Getting your credit report for free is not that difficult. If you can't figure it out you are stupid.

Yep

what_now: freecreditreport.com is not free

You can get a free credit report from them.

But using the site you agree to try their service and if you don't find value you must cancel in a week or something like that.


The problem is people don't read the contracts into which they enter or are too lazy to cancel. People deserve what they get.

I had never been to the site before, but in less than 3 seconds I saw the regular sized type on the front page that says

When you order your free report here, you will begin your free trial membership in Triple Advantage® Credit Monitoring. If you don't cancel your membership within the 7-day trial period**, you will be billed $14.95 for each month that you continue your membership.

How freaking hard can it be. Truly they actually give you 9 days "You may cancel your trial membership any time within 9 days of enrollment without charge."

You might want financial education to start in the elementary grades, but what will force people to either read what they are agreeing to, or not be stupid and lazy?

RobertBruce: Free with enrollment in triple advantage. That message has been at the end of every one of their ads.

/subby

But they don't want to hear that part, they just want the free credit report and they don't want to deal with the details.

feckingmorons:

You might want financial education to start in the elementary grades, but what will force people to either read what they are agreeing to, or not be stupid and lazy?

Well, people who are given financial literacy their whole lives are more likely to read contracts, now aren't they???

feckingmorons: The problem is people don't read the contracts into which they enter or are too lazy to cancel.

By reading this post, you consent to sponsor me for Totalfark for the next month. You may opt out at any time within the next 30 seconds by sending a self-addressed stamped envelope to 123 Main St., Anytown, CA, 91102 to be received within said 30 seconds.

See, you're just too lazy.

So all you FCR defenders are basically saying "They didn't read the small to medium sized print, so they get what they deserve."

I understand that argument.

But, I also understand that only morally bankrupt people and/or businesses would think "this is technically legal because we put it in small print. Screw 'em if we know damn well they are signing up for a service they don't want because we fooled their stupid asses."

Legal until now, yes. Sleazy until now, yes. Illegal now, not gonna cry for FCR.

what_now: feckingmorons:

You might want financial education to start in the elementary grades, but what will force people to either read what they are agreeing to, or not be stupid and lazy?

Well, people who are given financial literacy their whole lives are more likely to read contracts, now aren't they???


People who take initiative and learn financial literacy rather than waiting for a class in a government run school - which mandates all sorts of other education that parents should be providing but fail to do so are much more likely to read contracts before they sign I would venture as well.

You want government to hand hold people and it is not the role of government to tell people how to lead their lives. Some people just want to be ignorant and lazy, they deserve what they get.

Three Crooked Squirrels: So all you FCR defenders are basically saying "They didn't read the small to medium sized print, so they get what they deserve."

I understand that argument.

But, I also understand that only morally bankrupt people and/or businesses would think "this is technically legal because we put it in small print. Screw 'em if we know damn well they are signing up for a service they don't want because we fooled their stupid asses."

Legal until now, yes. Sleazy until now, yes. Illegal now, not gonna cry for FCR.

See? This is why I'm not going into litigation. I still have a soul.

feckingmorons: You want government to hand hold people and it is not the role of government to tell people how to lead their lives.

It is the role of government to protect people from predators, hence the numerous smackdowns for fraudulent or unconscionable contracts.

GaryPDX: You're kid won't have a credit record until the first time a credit inquiry is run by anyone.

Yah. I'll have to dig deeper. They both have mutual funds set up in their name/SSN. I know about the contract liability but I've heard some stories about stolen IDs of kids albeit rare.

But thanks, really, I hadn't thought about putting a lock on it.

feckingmorons: You want government to hand hold people and it is not the role of government to tell people how to lead their lives. Some people just want to be ignorant and lazy, they deserve what they get.

And some corporations are purposefully exploiting innocent, albeit ignorant, people. But if their purposeful deceipt is brought to light, tou think their botom line should be protected.

Their are certain schemes that are outlawed. The Ponzi scheme comes to mind. When government realizes that there is no value to a service/scheme, and the only value is to the bottom line of a company exploiting the confused (ignorant), they can pass a law that basically says "Too many have been confused, you offer no legitimate service. Stop."

I simply don't see anything wrong with that.

Moreover, all this seems to do is take small print and make it large. Why do you have a problem with putting terms and conditions in the forefront?

Theaetetus: feckingmorons: The problem is people don't read the contracts into which they enter or are too lazy to cancel.

By reading this post, you consent to sponsor me for Totalfark for the next month. You may opt out at any time within the next 30 seconds by sending a self-addressed stamped envelope to 123 Main St., Anytown, CA, 91102 to be received within said 30 seconds.

See, you're just too lazy.

Contracts require an offer (something of value to induce the obligor [offeree] to enter into the contract) and an acceptance. Since there is nothing of value in this purported contract I cannot possibly accept even if I wanted to.

In the matter instant, the value is the free credit report. The offeror- FCR.com - offers something of value, a credit report, to the offeree to induce them to try and continue their service.

The offeror has made the terms of the contract clear and the offeree has accepted.

The offeree has the right to discontinue the service in a certain period of time and have no further obligation to the offeror -fcr.com. Often the oferee is too stupid or lazy to do so and thus incurs an obligation to pay for the service for which they contracted.

This is the basis of our system of commerce. Offer and acceptance - when you buy a pack of gum or a house or sign up for a gym membership. It is incumbent upon both parties to any contract to understand all the terms of a contract before entering into the agreement. No one can be forced to enter a contract.

As above, you have nothing to offer you are simply attempting to force me into a contract. You don't control access to the text posted in TF and thus you cannot 'offer' it to me. Your contract is invalid on its face.

Offer, acceptance, payment. Simple and everyday transactions are easy to understand and I belive FCR.com makes it clear on the front page, yet simpletons complain because they are required to adhere to the contracts into which they entered.

Theaetetus: feckingmorons: You want government to hand hold people and it is not the role of government to tell people how to lead their lives.

It is the role of government to protect people from predators, hence the numerous smackdowns for fraudulent or unconscionable contracts.


What is unconscionable about this contract?

Simply that people fail to read it does not make it unconscionable.

feckingmorons: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: The problem is people don't read the contracts into which they enter or are too lazy to cancel.

By reading this post, you consent to sponsor me for Totalfark for the next month. You may opt out at any time within the next 30 seconds by sending a self-addressed stamped envelope to 123 Main St., Anytown, CA, 91102 to be received within said 30 seconds.

See, you're just too lazy.

Contracts require an offer (something of value to induce the obligor [offeree] to enter into the contract) and an acceptance. Since there is nothing of value in this purported contract I cannot possibly accept even if I wanted to.

Pff, thanks to the freedom of contract, courts aren't going to look at the value of consideration. As long as there's a peppercorn of consideration, we're copacetic. And you get a free* picture of my WIE, so there ya go.

The offeree has the right to discontinue the service in a certain period of time and have no further obligation to the offeror -fcr.com. Often the oferee is too stupid or lazy to do so and thus incurs an obligation to pay for the service for which they contracted.

Opt out? We're dealing with an adhesionary contract here, and the procedural issues involved are so outrageous that the contract is clearly unconscionable. Opt out? Ha!

feckingmorons:
What is unconscionable about this contract?

Simply that people fail to read it does not make it unconscionable.

To be unconscionable, you need both procedural and substantive issues. They're balanced - major issues in one will offset minor issues in the other and show the contract to be unconscionable.
We have an adhesionary boilerplate contract written by one party, with no opportunity for negotiation by the other party. This isn't fatal, but when you add in the opt-out provisions, the recurring fees, and the fact that the alleged "service" is available free elsewhere, you have enough substantive issues that the contract is unconscionable.

GaryPDX: Why is all of this such a surprise to people? Hasn't anyone seen Billy Bobs Used Car Get-Me-Done TV ads before? It's only been going on for decades.

Its not a surprise to me.

Is it a surprise to you that the feds decided to make something free to all Americans, a profit based company saw an opening and dove in, and the gov't said, "No, if you're going to do that, put the disclaimer in big letters on top"?

Why do you hate big letters?

Three Crooked Squirrels: Why do you have a problem with putting terms and conditions in the forefront?

I don't. I just don't think what they are doing is deceptive.

I am certain it could be much clearer that they are not the government sponsored site where consumers can obtain one free credit report from the 3 main bureaus annually.

That said, a consumer may wish to use fcr.com six months after their last annualcreditreport.com inquiry. An observant consumer would cancel a few days later if they didn't want to continue the trial credit monitoring service.

Many consumers may indeed want the service. Some people like to have things done for them and credit monitoring may be something people don't want to do manually. While I've never paid for it I have had it given to me when my SSN was compromised and I found it easy to use and helpful. I don't see a need for it now because I can do it myself, and frankly I am cheap so I do it myself.

It is not wrong, it is not unethical, nor illegal to do what FCR was doing. Heck my maid service offered a free trial cleaning, but I had to start paying the next week when they showed up.

Would I have done it the same way if I ran equifax, probably not. But then again I would have to consider that it is a business and I have a responsibility to shareholders to make money. If I owned equifax, no it would be too much of a hassle dealing with the lazy and stupid people who can't or won't read the website.

Theaetetus:

It is the role of government to protect people from predators, hence the numerous smackdowns for fraudulent or unconscionable contracts.

The hell you say. It's the endless government intervention that creates these atrocities. These smackdowns make you feel better. Cool. You're the next victim. Complicated legislation makes that racket possible. Lawmakers create so much opportunity for predators and their solution is more lawmaking which generally results in stronger, more resilient predators. Read some Darwin. I long for a legislative session in which they say, "huh, nothing to do here, I'm going home." It just astonishes me you assume FCR gets spanked for their catchy commercial you'll somehow be a safer consumer.

Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: The problem is people don't read the contracts into which they enter or are too lazy to cancel.

By reading this post, you consent to sponsor me for Totalfark for the next month. You may opt out at any time within the next 30 seconds by sending a self-addressed stamped envelope to 123 Main St., Anytown, CA, 91102 to be received within said 30 seconds.

See, you're just too lazy.

Contracts require an offer (something of value to induce the obligor [offeree] to enter into the contract) and an acceptance. Since there is nothing of value in this purported contract I cannot possibly accept even if I wanted to.

Pff, thanks to the freedom of contract, courts aren't going to look at the value of consideration. As long as there's a peppercorn of consideration, we're copacetic. And you get a free* picture of my WIE, so there ya go.

The offeree has the right to discontinue the service in a certain period of time and have no further obligation to the offeror -fcr.com. Often the oferee is too stupid or lazy to do so and thus incurs an obligation to pay for the service for which they contracted.

Opt out? We're dealing with an adhesionary contract here, and the procedural issues involved are so outrageous that the contract is clearly unconscionable. Opt out? Ha!


Great another GED in Law.

feckingmorons: Great another GED in Law.

You could just say, "geez, I guess you're right. I'll go back to drinking."
We all know that's what you meant.

/returns to drinking

Theaetetus: feckingmorons:
What is unconscionable about this contract?

Simply that people fail to read it does not make it unconscionable.

To be unconscionable, you need both procedural and substantive issues. They're balanced - major issues in one will offset minor issues in the other and show the contract to be unconscionable.
We have an adhesionary boilerplate contract written by one party, with no opportunity for negotiation by the other party. This isn't fatal, but when you add in the opt-out provisions, the recurring fees, and the fact that the alleged "service" is available free elsewhere, you have enough substantive issues that the contract is unconscionable.

You're a simpleton. Nobody is forced to go to FCR for a credit report. They offer a service some people want, and a trial offer to allow consumers to judge the value of the service for themselves. If you consider that a contract of adhesion you are clueless.

The ticket at the airport parking garage that says they are not responsible if a plane crashes into your car, now that is a contract of adhesion because the parker can't go to a different garage, and they can't modify or negotiate the terms. That is markedly different from FCR.com. They can go any number of places and get the same service. It is not take it or leave it, it is take it under these terms, or go to annualcreditreport.com or experien or TRU or another consolidator/vendor - heck AMEX offers it for six bucks a month.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Great another GED in Law.

You could just say, "geez, I guess you're right. I'll go back to drinking."
We all know that's what you meant.

/returns to drinking


I meant you have no idea what you are talking about and it appears that you are randomly inserting words you learned in business law in junior college.

feckingmorons: I don't. I just don't think what they are doing is deceptive.

If what they are doing isn't deceptive, they shouldn't have a problem with putting the terms and conditions on top.

I am certain it could be much clearer that they are not the government sponsored site where consumers can obtain one free credit report from the 3 main bureaus annually.

That's what the legislation aims for.

That said, a consumer may wish to use fcr.com six months after their last annualcreditreport.com inquiry. An observant consumer would cancel a few days later if they didn't want to continue the trial credit monitoring service.

This legislation doesn't change that consumer's desire at all.

Many consumers may indeed want the service. Some people like to have things done for them and credit monitoring may be something people don't want to do manually.

And tis doesn't change that at all.

The bottom line is that more than a few people were confused. Maybe you weren't but many people were. Congree simply said "Hey, there's been a lot of confusion out there. We've asked you many times to reconsider your advertising. You haven't done it voluntarily, so now you have to make your terms and conditions more visable."

That is all the legislation does. If you want their shiatty service, you can still have it. So, if some people might want it, as you argue, they can still have it.

GaryPDX: Well, maybe because I've known for 50 years nothing is ever free. But if people want to bite off on that and scream foul when they find out it isn't because they didn't read the smaller print, fine, increase the font for the stupid people

That really is all that this legislation does. It basically says "A lot of people were stupid. They got confused. Make the terms of your service more plain."

I have no problem with that. And if FCR is proud of what they offer, they shouldn't have any problem with this either.

feckingmorons: Great another GED in Law.
feckingmorons: You're a simpleton.
feckingmorons: I meant you have no idea what you are talking about and it appears that you are randomly inserting words you learned in business law in junior college.

Does this really pass for persuasive arguing in your neck of the woods? I may just be a simple city lawyer, but 'round heah, we actually address the substance of arguments rather than calling people names. But I defer to your evident wisdom and experience, suh.

feckingmorons: But they don't want to hear that part, they just want the free credit report

...that they were told they would get. Yes, they put it in tiny print that you have to sign up for their service, but when they're running around hollering "FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE", a reasonable person would conclude that they are in fact free. Having to sign up for something makes them not-free.

Three Crooked Squirrels: That is all the legislation does. If you want their shiatty service, you can still have it. So, if some people might want it, as you argue, they can still have it.

No it makes people more stupid. I knew from the first earworm I got from these commercials that wasn't a service for me. I'll still grudgingly hum along when the tune comes on every fifteen minutes, but not once have I considered the offer. Sure- some dumbasses signed up and didn't like it. Guess what- they yelled for government help. "Poor me," they say. So what is the lesson here? Did the consumer learn anything about taking care of their affairs? No. The result is the consumer learned zero, except to cry foul. The legislator learned how to pet his constituent all the while implementing a policy that allows the more devious corporates to succeed. Wipe hands on pants, repeat.

feckingmorons: Nobody is forced to go to FCR for a credit report... If you consider that a contract of adhesion you are clueless.

Lemme guess - you haven't studied contract law since 1965, right? I'd Walk'er over to some sources, but they'd probably leave you Jonesing for some humble pie.

"Helping other people is wrong!"

Jesus spelunking Christ. Where did these assholes go to school?

culebra: "Helping other people is wrong!"

Jesus spelunking Christ. Where did these assholes go to school?

Florida, apparently.