Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Surprise FedEx Fee Jacks Up Tariff Charges

A friend recently ordered a pillow from Turkey. Unexpectedly, after the pillow arrived he got a bill with an extra charge. It was for the tariff. He was surprised but probably shouldn’t have been because under the law, it is normally the importer who is responsible for paying any tariffs on such goods. In this case, he was the importer.

Adding insult to injury, however, also on the bill was a service fee from FedEx. While the tariff itself was only $2.19, FedEx charged him a total of $17.19.

*MOUSE PRINT:

FedEx tariff bill

*MOUSE PRINT:

The tariff bill was so much higher than the actual tax because they added their own junk fee — a “disbursement fee”.

FedEx disbursement fee

Thanks for nothing, FedEx.

The temporary 10% tariff that was imposed after the Supreme Court struck down the president’s wide-ranging tariffs expired on July 24 but was quickly replaced with new tariffs.

So beware, purchasing goods directly from overseas may come with a costly surprise … or two.

Share this story:

 


ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

One Consumer’s Frigidaire Refrigerator Nightmare

Frigidaire side-by-sideAmanda C. wrote to us in July about a major appliance nightmare she was living through but now had hit a brick wall.

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.

Share this story:

 


ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

When Canceling Subscriptions Is Not Easy…

SiriusXMThere has been a movement lately by federal and state consumer authorities to make cancellation of subscriptions much easier. It is often said that cancellations need to be as easy as initial sign-ups.

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.

Don't take "no" for 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.)

Share this story:

 


ADV