Dish Network has reached a deal with the attorneys generals of 46 states over allegations that it cheated customers during a 5-year period. The states of California, North Carolina, Illinois and Ohio are still holding out for a better settlement with the satellite TV provider.

Among the allegations, Dish Network is said to have passed off used equipment as new; charged penalties when you canceled the service; required a minimum term of service in order for you to get advertised deals; and made their promised rebates virtually impossible to get.

Dish Network has not admitted any wrongdoing, but it has agreed to pay restitution to customers. The company has also agreed to provide clearer disclosures in the future.

When Dish Network launched in 1994, the market was wide open for them because people hated their cable monopolies. All that Dish Network needed to do was provide a good customer experience. Clark will never quite understand how they blew it.

Today the consumer champ puts out a renewed call to the company to rethink how it builds relationships with customers. Dish Network honcho Charlie Ergen is welcome to come on the show and explain his side of the story.

If you filed a complaint against Dish Network between Jan. 1, 2004 and July 9, 2009, you may be eligible for compensation. Call Dish Network customer service at (888) 825-2557 or contact the office of your state's attorney general for more details.

Editors's note: This segment originally aired July 2009

Minnesota's Attorney General Lori Swanson has scored a major victory for consumers by banning one company that provided kangaroo court arbitration in credit card disputes from operating in that arena.

As part of your card-holder agreement, the banks that control most of the credit cards in the United States require any disputes to be settled in a forum where they pick the arbitrator and set the rules. This type of forum finds in favor of the banks 99.9996% of the time, according to a prior report. There's no way that could be a fair and impartial process.

Swanson's action was targeted against the National Arbitration Forum -- the country's largest administrator of credit card and consumer collections arbitrations.

"To consumers, the company said it was impartial," the attorney general said in a statement, "but behind the scenes, it worked alongside credit card companies to get them to put unfair arbitration clauses in the fine print of their contracts and to appoint the Forum as the arbitrator. Now the company is out of this business."

Throughout our nation's history, brave men and women have fought for our freedom and our branches of government. For the banksters to spit on their graves by not allowing you your day in court is an outrage.

There are, of course, other options that are more equitable than mandatory arbitration via a kangaroo court. Arizona is a leader in what's called alternative dispute resolution. This voluntary solution allows people to try to work out their problems with companies first -- with the understanding that going to court is possible if necessary.

Editors's note: This segment originally aired July 2009

Customers are using technology to bring uncooperative companies to heel in a way that marks a new chapter in consumer empowerment.

The most cited example of the past year has been Dave Carroll's United Breaks Guitars campaign. This musician couldn't get any satisfaction after United broke his guitar during a flight and refused to take responsibility for their actions. So Carroll wrote a song about it and filmed a low-budget YouTube video that made United change its mind.

In a similar way, USA Today recently spotlighted a couple whose honeymoon was botched after Expedia told them they didn't need visas to enter Russia. Expedia even denied that one of its representatives gave out such advice at first. Their prescription for a remedy? The offer of a mere $100 hotel credit.

That's when the couple started blogging while stranded in Frankfurt, Germany, because of the visa issue. The couple's friends made their compelling story viral via Twitter and Facebook. Pretty soon, everybody around the world knew all about the honeymooners.

And that's when the outrage grew so loud that Expedia couldn't ignore it any longer. The company suddenly produced a record of the conversation and fessed up to its wrongdoing.

Of course, not everyone who Tweets or blogs with a gripe will get results. But it can be a great strategy if you do it with humor or have a compelling story like the honeymooners.

As Clark has always said, go guerrilla if you must to get results with giant uncaring companies!

Debt collectors, car dealers and home repairs top a new tally of consumer gripes collected from state attorney generals. Incidentally, these are the same top three "usual suspects" from last year!

Clark actually paid his way through grad school working as a bill collector. He did commercial collections and really enjoyed his work. The consumer champ used own style of really getting to know the people at organizations that owed his employer money. In essence, he used his pleasant personality to get debtors to pay up.

Too often, however, collectors play dirty pool -- threatening jail or even telling children that their parents are going to the slammer because they can't honor their debts. Remember, we don't have debtor's prison in the United States.

Later when he owned his own business, Clark would dedicate Thursday mornings for showing up in person at the doors of people who owed him money. He was always respectful, but many others in the collections business are not.

Don't let them intimidate you or behave in a threatening manner toward you. Record the line whenever a collector calls. And send them our drop dead letter. Know that once you send, it is illegal for a collector to contact you again. You still owe the money, however.

When it comes to car dealers, remember that you buy a used vehicle "as is." Salespeople are generally allowed to lie to you about the condition of a vehicle. So be certain to have the car vetted by an independent mechanic before your purchase.

Finally, when it comes to home repairs, references do matter. You also want to see a contract that specifies what work is being done, what materials will be used and how long it will take, with possible financial penalties for breaching the agreed work period. And don't pay too much upfront or front-load payments.

Rounding out the Top Ten, we have complaints about credit cards, online purchases, mortgage problems, telemarketers, auto repairs, auto warranties and slamming/cramming on bills.

Remember, our Consumer Action Center is here to help with your consumer issues.

Minnesota's Attorney General Lori Swanson has scored a major victory for consumers by banning one company that provided kangaroo court arbitration in credit card disputes from operating in that arena.

As part of your card-holder agreement, the banks that control most of the credit cards in the United States require any disputes to be settled in a forum where they pick the arbitrator and set the rules. This type of forum finds in favor of the banks 99.9996% of the time, according to a prior report. There's no way that could be a fair and impartial process.

Swanson's action was targeted against the National Arbitration Forum -- the country's largest administrator of credit card and consumer collections arbitrations.

"To consumers, the company said it was impartial," the attorney general said in a statement, "but behind the scenes, it worked alongside credit card companies to get them to put unfair arbitration clauses in the fine print of their contracts and to appoint the Forum as the arbitrator. Now the company is out of this business."

Throughout our nation's history, brave men and women have fought for our freedom and our branches of government. For the banksters to spit on their graves by not allowing you your day in court is an outrage.

There are, of course, other options that are more equitable than mandatory arbitration via a kangaroo court. Arizona is a leader in what's called alternative dispute resolution. This voluntary solution allows people to try to work out their problems with companies first -- with the understanding that going to court is possible if necessary.

An enterprising musician who had his guitar broken by United Airlines has created a protest song that's become a runaway web sensation.

Dave Carroll's $3,500 Taylor guitar was broken by United baggage handlers at Chicago's O'Hare Airport in the spring of 2008. During the ensuing 9-month period, Carroll attempted to get some compensation for the guitar. But he was repeatedly given the runaround by customer no service representatives.

His response? To film a video for an original song called "United Breaks Guitars" that has now gotten nearly 3 million views on YouTube. See the video here:



After the surprising success of Carroll's clip, United came back with its tail between its legs and offered to make him whole. But the disgruntled musician refused and told United to donate the money to a charity of his choice.

The lesson here is that the web gives consumers a new level of power against businesses that have wronged them. There's a similar kind of power in sites like Yelp or TripAdvisor. Both sites cull the collective wisdom of users' experiences with a variety of companies so you know who is safe and who to avoid.

In an example of the collective wisdom sites at work, Clark's brother called him one night in need of last-minute accommodations in Bryce City, Utah. Clark used TripAdvisor to locate hotels in the area and read the online reviews to help his brother make an informed decision.

Meanwhile, The Financial Times of London reports that 92% of people say they trust word of mouth from friends, associates and colleagues when it comes to making a consumer decision. 75% say they trust collective wisdom sites like Yelp and TripAdvisor. And only 60% of people report trusting traditional image-based advertising.

United would do well to remember it's no longer about the image you try to portray in commercials. What really matters is the trust you establish with customers based on how you treat them everyday.

A new Supreme Court ruling allows a state's attorney general to protect consumers against giant monster mega-banks, according to an Associated Press report.

This case went to the Supreme Court because Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan believed that big banks should be above state law. The irony here is that Dugan is supposed to be defending consumers as part of his job. But he's obviously more interested in protecting his friends in the banking industry.

It's rare that Clark calls out an individual on the show, but Dugan is deserving in the consumer champ's mind. As always, the Comptroller is welcome to come on the show to defend his position.

This whole debate goes back to earlier in the decade when North Carolina wanted to protect its citizens against subprime mortgages. At that time, banks were making 2/28 ARM loans by the millions, where the payment was affordable for 2 years and then ballooned to exceed monthly income for the remaining 28 years. Talk about a sure recipe for disaster.

On top of that, banks fought true, clear disclosure of what you were agreeing to when you sign a mortgage!

The American Enterprise Institute, a Libertarian think tank, has published a one-page mortgage cheat sheet and a separate definition of terms to help clear up confusion. (Editor's note: You must be able to open up pdf files to access these.)

Banks benefit from the confusion surrounding mortgages because they can put you into a stinky deal. But you don't have to let them.

It is time for us to have 50 states as cops on the beat, through their attorneys general. Congrats to the Supreme Court on this decision.

RIP-OFF ALERT: Here's a case of the shoe now being on the other foot! Some unsavory consumers have come up with a new way to rip off businesses who sell their wares by phone, internet or mail order.

What being called "friendly" fraud by The Wall Street Journal has spiked by 50% in the last 6 months, according to some retailers.

Here's how it works: A consumer will order an item, receive it through the mail and then dispute the charge with their credit card company. They'll say they never received the merchandise, or it was misrepresented, or whatever other lie they can devise.

Businesses are fighting back any way they can. One retailer documents the entire packaging and shipping process with digital photos so they can dispute a charge-back if one arises.

Others have found that signature confirmation or other tracking methods are equally effective insurance policies.

The monetary toll of friendly fraud can be staggering. One photo equipment supplier averages $130,000/week in fraud orders. About a third of those are of the friendly fraud nature. The rest are people using phony credit cards to make off with expensive equipment.

There's actually nothing "friendly" about friendly fraud at all.

If you're like most Americans, you've probably received a robo-call about buying an extended auto warranty.

The Wall Street Journal reports that a group of web vigilantes decided to take on at least one of the operations bugging people. Before we go any further, please know that Clark is not recommending this vigilante action.

Word of the guerrilla campaign spread through a website called ReddIt.com. One specific target of the effort was Auto One Warranty Specialists Inc., located in Irvine, California.

The vigilantes essentially filled up the company's phones with junk calls so they couldn't place anymore outgoing calls. As one vigilante told The Wall Street Journal, "If you get a bunch of people together, you could blow up their voice mailboxes."

The owner of Auto One says 90% of the people who went vigilante were never contacted by his company. Ah yes, but he hires third-party companies to make the calls!

This owner is a known criminal who was convicted in 2000 of mail fraud and tax evasion. He declined to discuss his criminal history with The Wall Street Journal.

Meanwhile, the FTC recently filed a lawsuit against 3 similar operations -- 2 in Florida and 1 in Illinois.

The FTC's suit alleges the 3 companies made over a billion calls since 2007, generating over $10 million from people who didn't even have expired warranties. They're also accused of illegally blocking caller ID; calling people on the federal Do Not Call list; and blanket-calling area codes in metro areas where people don't even own cars.

Let's take a moment and review about warranties. Clark is not a fan of extended warranties in general, and he's only neutral when it comes to car warranties specifically.

If you can afford the potential cost of a car repair, you should never buy an extended warranty. But if you're unable to budget and save for repairs, then you should only consider buying the manufacturer's own warranty. Do not buy a third party warranty.

And if you stick to Consumer Reports' annual recommended list of vehicles, you shouldn't have to buy an extended warranty at all -- even if you have budgeting difficulties. The odds are such that their recommended vehicles won't have severe problems over time.

United Airlines plans to eliminate all human contact customer service by the end of April.

They had "customer no service" anyway -- a foreign call center staffed by people with no authority to solve problems -- but what a statement this makes. United doesn't even want to consider pretending that they offer customer service!

They're now suggesting that anyone with a complaint write a letter or send an e-mail.

The airline industry has repeatedly shown a complete lack of focus on the customer. A powerful lobby in Washington has shot down every effort to make this a customer-focused industry. Hmm…isn't it ironic that they can't seem to figure out how to make money?

The key to running a business is to treat your employees well and communicate a sense of mission to them so they can go out and help the customer. Clark refers to it as romancing your employees so they'll romance your customer.

But the airlines have made it their mission to continually cheapen their product to the point that no one wants to buy. Even as they park aircraft, they can't do it fast enough to accommodate the decline in demand brought on by years of poor customer experiences.

To paraphrase Gordon Bethune -- the man who saved Continental -- it is possible to make a pizza so cheap that no one will ever want to eat it.

Perhaps the congressman and senators who fly commercial aren't really aware of the shoddy customer service. After all, they get preferential treatment and their own private waiting rooms. But currying favor in D.C. is not a way to make money. You make money by treating your customers right.

Shame on you, United.

Just days ago, Clark told you about a chiropractor who filed a libel suit against someone who posted a negative review on Yelp.com. Now The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the case was quietly settled out of court.

Hot on the heels of that news, a dentist has now filed suit against 2 people who posted negative reviews about her practice.

Does anyone see a trend emerging here??

Online review sites can really shape the way we conduct business with vendors, hotels, etc. But here's the bottom-line for you: Be smart about what you post.

It's like Clark often tells people who want to protest outside of a business they say treated them unfairly: Stick to the facts in your speech and actions. It's one thing to assert your rights, but it's another to open yourself to litigation with overheated rhetoric.

The summer is a big time for people moving. Many opt to rent a truck instead of hiring professionals to do the job. There's one company that Clark suggests you avoid if you intend to rent a truck. U-Haul has long had problems with putting allegedly unsafe vehicles on the road. Clark recently saw a Bloomberg report about a man who won an $84 million judgment when his U-Haul ran him over! The jury assessed $21 million in damages and $63 million in punitive damages. U-Haul, of course, feels the damages are excessive and plans to appeal.

Clark thinks this was a case of a jury being furious about company that seems doesn't seem to learn from past mistakes. Go to Google and type in "U-Haul problems" to see for yourself. U-Haul vehicles tend to be old and not properly maintained. The reality is that the company needs to look in the mirror and make some changes, not point fingers at a jury verdict as unfair. Clark invites any U-Haul representative to come on the air and tell him why his view is flawed.

Callers often ask Clark if they should settle out of court or wait for a trial judgment in the case of a dispute. Though he isn't a lawyer, Clark believes it's often better to try to make a deal out of court.

Now the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies confirms that belief. About two-thirds of time, you'll get less money going to court than you would by taking a settlement offer.

Going to court involves too many variables. If you're ruled against, you might even be required to pay your legal fees plus the other side's legal fees. So be careful not to let emotions get the best of you.

And what if you're the defendant who's being sued? Should you take it all the way to court? Well, only 15% of the time does that make sense, according to JELS. Rarely does it make sense to go to war -- even as a defendant.

For his part, Clark believes states that require mandatory alternative dispute resolution before trial are on the right track.

People love their cell phones, but hate their cell phone providers. The Better Business Bureau now reports that the cell phone business has received more complaints than any other industry for 3 consecutive years. There are now 22 states with bills in various stages of consideration or adoption all seeking to establish a cell phone users' bill of rights. The response of the cell carriers has been to spend millions to fund lobbyists who are trying to get rules bent in the industry's favor. Why not just fix the bad business model instead? We're not talking about dropped calls here; we're talking about those rotten 2-year contracts. Clark is hard-pressed to find another country in the world that does these contracts.

For the longest time, the cell carriers argued that contracts were necessary because they helped subsidize the cost of cell phones. But this explanation turned out to be bogus; iPhone customers had to pay full market price for their phones, and then they were still forced into a contract! Clark has long thought consumers should be offered the choice to either buy a phone at market value with no carrier strings attached, or sign the 2-year contract with one carrier and get a free phone.

Meanwhile, all of the carriers are in cahoots with crooks. If you're not on an unlimited text messaging plan, they get paid every time you receive an unwanted spam text message. They're also ripping off teens (and their parents) by billing on behalf of third party carriers that offer ring tones and other premium services.

Why is there no movement in Washington, D.C., on the issue of a cell phone users' bill of rights? Simply put, the members of the U.S. House and Senate are in their Capitol Hill bubble. The cell industry is trying to get a preemption law that will make it illegal for any state to pass a rule governing the industry. Sounds like they're taking a cue from the airlines who managed to get New York's air passenger bill of rights overturned!

Much of corporate America forces mandatory arbitration on its customers in what amounts to a stacked-deck proposition against consumers. For example, this practice allows Bank of America to win 99.9% of the time with the arbitrators they choose. So it's almost statistically impossible for a consumer filing a complaint to get a fair hearing.

There are, of course, other more equitable options. Arizona is a leader in alternative dispute resolution. Such voluntary solutions allow people to try to work out their problems with companies first -- with the understanding that going to court is a possibility if necessary.

Dell Computers recently lost a court battle in New Mexico because they were disallowing class-action status under their mandatory arbitration rules. Other states have also struck down so-called "kangaroo court" clauses that ban class-action suits.

Clark has no bias in favor of litigation. He himself is open to being sued every time he steps up to the microphone. He does have an umbrella liability insurance policy to protect his assets, but the insurer refuses to cover his work as a media personality.

The bottom line is this: Mandatory arbitration has been not been adopted by corporate America to avoid the risk of court. Rather, the aim is to prevent consumers from having a fair shake in the event of wrongdoing.

The Clark Stinks forum -- where you can vent if you take issue with something the penny-pinching guru says -- is one of the most popular parts of our website. Clark was motivated to launch this message board when he noticed people registered domain names with "colorful" words attached to his moniker.

He quickly realized that people shouldn't have to leave his website to tell him he's lousy.

The start of Clark Stinks was not without controversy in the world of radio. Why would a host want to invite negative views of what he does? Clark has always believed talk-radio hosts have inordinate power because they're able to silence critics at the push of a button. But there's really no reason why they should have the last word.

Now a variety of companies are catching on to Clark's idea. The Boston Globe reports that Bank of America has its own online review section. Other companies doing the same thing include Starbucks, Dell and Ford.

The culture of American business almost dictates that we should have a difficult time responding to criticism. Not so in Japan. Executives over there have been known to apologize to the Japanese people in very public and ceremonial ways when they make blunders.

So now that corporate America is going the Clark Stinks route, Christa thinks we may have to post Clark's cell phone number on the website to stay one step ahead of the pack. That'll be the day!

Clark has long objected to companies putting mandatory arbitration clauses into contracts. Many car dealerships, home builders, cable providers, cell carriers and others do this. Why? They want to be able to cheat you and not worry about consequences.

The city of San Francisco now is suing Bank of America over its mandatory arbitration process. Stacked-deck kangaroo courts allow BoA to win 99.9% of the time with the arbitrators they choose. Sounds like the results of a Third World election.

One supposedly impartial arbitrator in Minneapolis has heard more than 18,000 cases. The arbitrator found for businesses 18,045 times and for the consumer 30 times. How can that be unbiased?

Clark loves alternative dispute resolution, which offers a mediation process where both parties agree not to go to court and instead arbitrate in a mutually decided upon forum. But that's not what BoA is offering; their arbitration is just a joke and they have no intention of fairness. The irony is that it will be up to courts again to decide if BoA's use of the mandatory arbitration process is fair. Boy, that bank is lucky that Clark's not sitting as the judge!

When you're presented with a contract, do you know what you're reading? Most of us don't. In fact, Business Week reports that only 1 in 8 Americans can read a long, dense text and comprehend it. There's obviously a problem with our educational system when 88% of us are clueless when looking at a contract. This news was significant to Clark because he's always asking callers, "Well, did you read the contract?" If we expect consumers to sign agreements, we should also expect that contracts be written in simple English. The nation's newspapers usually write at a 6th grade level. If they can tackle world issues at that level, why is it that we don't require our contracts to be written in plain English? Clark's guess is that if you knew what you were agreeing to in a contract, no one would ever sign one! But we can only have a truly free market when there's complete transparency.

How should you deal with a builder who doesn't honor the terms of your warranty after you close on your home? For the past 15 years, Clark has been advising people to picket the builder at their developments. You used to have to call your jurisdiction to find out how to go about picketing, and make sure that you never said slanderous things about the builder's character. But today instead of physically picketing, people take their ire online. Business Week did a report on homeowners who have set up gripe websites. Some builders have even fought back by trying to put clauses in their contracts that aim to silence you if you do business with them. That's an infringement of free speech. A builder who is afraid of the truth is not someone you want as a business partner.

Clark knows that building a house is difficult and involves a lot of micro-management with all the day laborers and subcontractors. He advises people not to close on their home until all the contractual items are complete. If you're getting pressure to close anyway, consider hiring a lawyer to withhold money in escrow to cover any outstanding issues. This practice, known as retainage, is a standard set at 10 percent in the commercial market. Just remember that once a builder completes your house, you're yesterday's news. The only reason they have to care about you is their reputation. So consider taking your battle online if need be.

There are “moisture” strips inside cell phones that show whether your phone has gotten wet or been submerged. Cell phone companies use these like law to void your warranty and deny you repair service. The cell companies claim they are “foolproof,” but in fact, according to the New York Post, they are faulty lots of times. It’s been proven that just by putting a damp cloth next to the phone, you can change the color of the strip! So if you have a problem with your cell phone, and you were told your warranty is void because you got it wet (when you know you really didn’t), here’s what Clark recommends. Find an old cell phone you’re not using anymore, take it back to the store, put a damp cloth near the strip on the battery, and prove to them right there that the strip is not accurate!

One of the most unfair institutions of our capitalist system is arbitration. Cable, phone, insurance, travel and insurance companies are all establishing arbitration panels as a way to limit the rights of customers. In arbitration, customers are not allowed to take a company to court for any reason. Instead, an arbitration company comes in and there is another kind of “hearing” that determines whether the company did anything wrong. The problem is that the company picks the arbitration company. And if that arbitration outfit doesn’t find for the company, the outfit is fired. So, of course the arbitrators will find for the company. Arbitration procedures are always one-sided, and it’s wrong of the U.S. Congress not to pass a new law preventing them. California and Arizona have their own laws regarding arbitration. Arizona uses something called “alternative dispute resolution,” which is voluntary. It allows people to try to work out problems with companies first, and then they can go to court if necessary. California has banned arbitration all together. Clark would like the federal government to catch on and pass a law nationwide.

Criminals have had great success stealing money from about 2 million people through “phishing scams.” People have gotten taken through phony e-mails that appear to come from their bank, brokerage firm or other company. Well, the banks and financial houses have put some effort into stopping these scams, so the criminals have moved on to a new target – community credit unions. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, there have been 21 attacks on these financial institutions in the past few weeks. So, if you get an e-mail from your credit union, it’s possible that it’s bogus. Another scam out there is using the logo of the credit card industry trade association, CUNA. Hundreds of millions of these e-mails have been sent around the country, and the organization has had to hire six extra workers to handle the load. If you get an e-mail, don’t respond. If you’ve already responded and you suspect it’s a scam, you must contact your bank or credit union immediately. You’ll have to go in and fill out dispute forms. In other news, you may have heard about the security breech at Citigroup. About 4 million people had their information stolen in what is being called the largest self-inflicted breech so far. Citigroup transmitted the records of 4 million people without encrypting it, and the company took it’s time doing something about it. So, your information could be in the hands of criminals. Citi Financial is sending you a letter and so far, all they are offering is a meager 90 days of credit monitoring. That’s an insult. Clark thinks Citigroup should take responsibility and pay for any lost money. In 2005, it’s hard to believe that a financial institution is not encrypting information. There should be a law!