Current Events in March 2012

Amway, the controversial multi-level marketing company, is facing the prospect of a class action lawsuit over its Nutrilite line of liquid dietary supplements.

Labels for Nutrilite’s “fruits & vegetables 2GO Twist Tubes” claim in big print that the product represents two servings of fruits and vegetables. The fine print clarifies that a dose “contains the antioxidant equivalent of 2 servings.”

Either way, the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest says that the company’s 10-milliliter tubes do not come close to conveying the same health benefits as real fruit or vegetables.

Similarly, Amway claims that Nutrilite’s Immunity Twist Tubes are an “immune system booster” that will “protect your cells.” (The Strawberry Kiwi flavor has neither strawberry nor kiwi, despite the attractive pictures of those fruits on the box, CSPI said.) The immunity claim is unlawful, according to CSPI, because it implies the product will prevent disease. It won’t, says the group.

The watchdog group warns it will sue the Ada, Michigan-based company unless it stops advertising unsubstantiated nutrition and health benefits in connection with “fruits and vegetables 2GO” and “Immunity” Twist Tubes.

Also, it said both product lines contain the artificial sweetener sucralose, despite a print advertisement for “fruits & vegetables 2GO” that claims the product has no artificial ingredients. Twist Tubes are meant to be diluted in 16 ounces of water before consuming.

"Horrible message"

“Amway is sending a horrible health message to American consumers when it holds out its Twist Tubes as a short cut to getting the health benefits of real food,” said CSPI staff litigator Seema Rattan. “People who want the health benefits of two servings of fruits and vegetables are far better off eating two servings of fruits and vegetables. And no one should be deceived into thinking that these pricey little tubes will prevent them from getting sick.”

A 20-dose pack of Nutrilite “fruits & vegetables 2GO Twist Tubes” costs $19.99 plus $7.95 shipping and handling if purchased at amway.com; Immunity Twist Tubes cost $12.35 plus $7.95 shipping and handling. Otherwise, the products are not available in stores but are sold by Amway distributors.

“Fruits & vegetables 2GO” has “the antioxidant equivalent of two of the 9–13 daily servings of fruits and vegetables your body needs,” according to Amway. But there’s far more to fruits and vegetables than just antioxidants, according to CSPI. Neither “fruits & vegetables 2GO” nor Immunity Twist Tubes has any fiber, for instance.

Real fruits and vegetables have up to 8,000 phytochemicals that may provide health benefits—something that supplements simply cannot mimic, according to CSPI. Vitamins, like the A, B, and C vitamins in Twist Tubes, account for only a small fraction of the antioxidant activity in whole fruits and vegetables. While the Immunity Twist Tube contains 1,000 mg of vitamin C, human tissues are generally saturated with vitamin C at 400 mg per day, and any excess is typically excreted.

In a letter to Amway Chairman Steve Van Andel, CSPI says that Amway’s labeling and advertising for Nutrilite products violates federal regulations and consumer protection laws in the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Texas, New Jersey, and California.

CSPI’s litigation unit has successfully prompted several major food companies, including Quaker, Frito-Lay, Procter & Gamble, Tropicana, and Pinnacle Foods, to halt a variety of misleading labeling or marketing practices. In 2008, CSPI joined litigation that returned approximately $12 million in refunds to consumers who purchased the dietary supplement Airborne; labels and ads falsely claimed the product would cure and prevent colds. 

Complaints about payday lenders more than doubled in 2011, while complaints about banks actually went down, according to a report by the Better Business Bureau.

The study found bank complaints fell 30 percent from 2010, in all probability because more consumers began moving their accounts in response to growing fees, well before November's “national bank transfer day.”

On the other hand, many consumers of modest means found themselves caught between hard times and declining credit availability, perhaps increasing the number of consumers who turned to payday lenders.

Costs pile up

“I took a small payday loan back in December 2011 for $450,” Lorraine, of Philadelphia, Pa., wrote in a post on ConsumerAffairs. “I have no problem paying this back but so far this company (Cashjar.com) has taken $135 out of my bank account bi-weekly since I thought I was almost done paying this money back. “I got an e-mail stating they are going to take $185.00 dollars this time and who knows how much next. So far they have taken $655.00.”

If Lorraine's experience ends up being typical, she will pay a lot more than that. Robert, of El Paso, Tex., reports taking a $400 payday loan with Ameriloan. He said the company emailed documents that he said showed a payoff total of $520.

“They even listed the next four payment dates on the emails that were sent,” Robert told ConsumerAffairs. Then, after making four payments for a total of $480 dollars, with what I am thinking is a $40 balance, I get a reminder for a $170 payment! When I call I find out that the $480 paid for the last 4 paydays has been a finance charge and from here forward I now owe eight more payments of $170 dollars, which is a $50 principal payment and another $120 finance charge. This is a total of $1840 dollars paid over six months for a simple $400 payday loan! Over $1400 in finance charges for a staggering 995 percent APR. How can they get away with this?”

Banks getting into the act

In a few states, they can't. A handful of states have capped interest rate charges at 36 percent, which payday loan companies consider far to low to operate. At any rate, consumer advocates say payday loans should be avoided at all costs, because they begin a spiral of increasing debt.

Now, it appears payday lenders are getting some competition from large national banks.Last month the Center for Responsible Lending sent a letter to federal financial regulators “to take immediate action to stop banks from making unaffordable, high-cost payday loans.”

“Non-bank payday borrowers routinely find themselves unable to repay the loan in full plus meet their expenses for the next month without taking out another payday loan,” the letter said. “A recent analysis of actual checking account activity by the Center for Responsible Lending finds the same is true with bank payday loans.”

For drivers who are searching for the right set of new tires for their vehicle, a new release from Consumer Reports magazine shows how the company rates over 150 tires now on the market. Consumer Reports scores tire models on the following criteria:

• Wet and dry performance
• Performance on the ice
• Handling
• Hydroplaning
• Performance in snow
• Noise
• Rolling resistance
• Longevity of tire tread

The report also tests tires according to their ability to provide a comfortable ride. Consumer Reports tested tires for all sorts of vehicles, including cars, trucks and SUVs, as well as different seasonal and high-performance tire types.

In a preview of the full report, which gets published in Consumer Reports magazine and accessed by subscription online, the company provided some helpful tips for consumers, as well as some additional caveats related to auto shopping.

One recommendation from top staffers is that consumers should look for tires that can last a long time while still providing good traction on the road. CR also advised customers to think about the higher cost of  run-flat tires, which lessen the inconvenience of a flat, but generally end up costing drivers more in total costs of ownership for a vehicle.

Right type

Consumer Reports also suggests that drivers choose the right type of tire from the following:

• All-season tires that have overall good tread and allow for a comfortable ride, but less performance in inclement weather
• All-terrain tires for off-roading
• High-performance tires that help with handling but don’t last as long
• Winter tires that provide better traction on snow and ice

Tire shoppers should also review the laws on winter tires, including tire studs and chains, in their state of residence.

Consumer warnings

One additional point that CR is making is that some car companies are now skimping on the basic equipment needed to actually change a flat.

The report names Hyundai and its top-selling Accent model as a  model that comes factory-equipped with only an air compressor and sealant kit, rather than the traditional spare tire and jack.

Another car buying issue that drivers may want to look out for is “locking lugs.” This is another fancy feature on new cars that can actually be a frustrating barrier to changing a spare. Locking lug nuts are specialty bolts for tires that can only be removed with a special manufacturer’s tool.

Although these features are promoted as a theft deterrent, many consumers feel that unless their vehicle is parked in an extremely high-crime area, these specialty lugs are unnecessary. As for the disadvantages of locking lug nuts, ConsumerAffairs has received various complaints from consumers that feature some of the problems with these items, including:

• Inability to change or rotate tires when the original tool is lost
• Damage to locking lugs or specialty tool at a place of service
• Problems securing a spare tire with locking lug nuts

Drivers can ask questions at the dealership about whether locking lug nuts will really help them to secure their vehicle, or whether these specialty bolts will make it necessary to return to the dealership for even minor service in the future.

Whether you’re headed to the dealer’s lot or to the tire store, keep these helpful tips in mind to get the purchases that are right for you.

An AARP survey finds that while many Americans approaching retirement have a basic understanding about the benefits they can expect to receive from Social Security, they remain unaware of different claiming strategies that could have a significant impact on their income throughout retirement.

Although the survey found widespread awareness that waiting to claim several years after age 62 can result in higher monthly benefits, very few respondents had an accurate sense of how much higher their benefits could be. There was considerably more confusion about spousal benefits and the ramifications of claiming while working.

“When and how to claim Social Security retirement benefits can be a complex decision, and is different for everyone,” said Jean Setzfand, AARP Vice President for Financial Security. “This survey shows us that people who are approaching retirement may be facing this decision without enough information to make the right choices for themselves and their families.”

Among the survey’s findings:

• Just 29 percent of respondents realized that waiting until at least age 70 to claim would mean receiving the highest possible monthly retirement benefit. About one in five respondents (19%) incorrectly believed they could receive the maximum monthly benefits even before reaching their full retirement age.
  
• When asked at what age they expect to start collecting their Social Security retirement benefits, a majority (57%) reported an age that is lower than their full retirement age. Only one in ten (10%) expect to claim at age 70 or older, which would maximize their monthly benefits.
  
• Approximately nine in ten (89%) respondents were aware that their monthly benefits will be higher if they claim benefits at their full retirement age rather than at age 62. But of those, half (51%) underestimated by more than 10 percentage points how much their benefits would increase.
  
• Fifty-seven percent of the people who identified themselves as the least knowledgeable about Social Security are nonetheless expecting Social Security to be a major source of their retirement income. This gap in knowledge may mean they forego potential benefits.
  
• Familiarity with Social Security benefits for widows and widowers is high, but fewer than half (48%) of respondents who are or have ever been married were aware that spousal benefits are available while the worker is alive.

“People are worried about retirement. Many know they haven’t saved enough, and they’re counting on Social Security,” Setzfand continued. “By getting more information about claiming strategies that might result in a bigger base of monthly retirement income from Social Security, they can achieve some financial peace of mind.”

For many of the issues examined in AARP’s survey, knowledge increased with education, household income, and savings, and as people approached their expected claiming age. Knowledge also tended to be higher among men than women and higher among non-Hispanic whites than among African Americans and Hispanics. 

To find out if your plans are still on track to retire when – and how – you want, go to www.aarp.org/retirementcalculator.

A wide range of medications—some relatively new and others long available—can cause serious side effects and other adverse events in people 65 and older if not prescribed with care.

A new edition of the Beers Criteria published by the  American Geriatrics Society helps identify the most dangerous ones.

More than 40% of people aged 65 and older take five or more medications according to a 2008 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association(JAMA) and each year more than a third of them will suffer a drug side effect or other adverse drug event (ADE). 

“Older adults run a particularly high risk of ADEs, in part because age-related physiological changes and multiple health problems can make them more vulnerable to such reactions,” says Jennie Chin Hansen, CEO of the American Geriatrics Society (AGS). 

For example, a commonly used category of pain relievers known as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may worsen heart failure in those with this condition. Older adults are also at increased risk of ADEs because many take multiple medications, which can interact, causing potentially dangerous “drug-drug interactions.”  

The late Mark H. Beers, MD, a geriatrician and editor of The Merck Manuals and The Merck Manual of Geriatrics, first published the Beers Criteria in 1991. In 2011, the AGS convened a panel of experts in geriatrics and pharmacotherapy to revise and expand the criteria, based on the latest research. The society plans to update the AGS Beers Criteria every three years. 

53 medications

Fifty-three medications and classes of medications are among those listed as potentially problematic in the 2012 AGS Beers Criteria, which group medications that may be harmful to older adults into three categories.

The first category includes 34 medications that are potentially inappropriate because they either pose high risks of side effects or may have limited effectiveness in older adults, and because alternative treatments are available. New entries include “sliding scale insulin.” 

The second category includes 14 medications that are potentially inappropriate for older people with certain diseases, risk factors, or disorders because they may exacerbate these conditions. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which may increase risks of falling in some older adults, are among the new entries in this category. 

A third, new category added to the Beers Criteria includes 14 medications to be used with caution in older adults. These medications may be associated with more risks than benefits in older people in general, but nonetheless may be the best choice for a particular individual if administered with caution. Vasodilators are listed as they may increase episodes of syncope -- or fainting -- in older adults with a history of this condition, and contribute to greater risks of falling. 

“These are drugs that studies suggest are potentially inappropriate for older people or should be used with caution in older adults with specific health problems. But responses to drugs vary significantly among older people. And, for some individuals, medications on these lists may be the best and only choice. The Beers Criteria alone should never dictate prescribing, nor should they be used punitively. They are intended to inform thoughtful prescribing decisions,” says Todd Semla, PharmD, MS, co-chair of the panel that the AGS convened to update and expand the criteria.

In a tough economy, Diana, of Sunnyvale, Calif., was looking for expenses to cut. Last October, she decided she could get along without her ADT security system and called to cancel the service.

“The person on the phone said they would give me two months free to get through the holidays,” Diana wrote to ConsumerAffairs. “I said that I would only agree if I didn't have to call back and cancel again. The gentleman assured me that yes, indeed the account would be cancelled if I didn't call back to let them know. I agreed to the free two months.”

Diana said she received bills for the two “free” months but ignored them, something she says she now realizes was a mistake.

“I called today to straighten out the situation and was told that if I didn't pay for the two months my account would go into collection,” Diana said. “I never would have agreed to the free two months had I known that I had to call back!”

Cancelling the cancellation

It is not uncommon for businesses that sell subscriptions to offer an extra free month of service when customers call to cancel. Consumers, however, should always firmly and unequivocally decline the offer. Here's why:

Once you agree to accept an additional month of service, even if you aren't being charged for it, it negates your cancellation. To really cancel the service, you would need to call back during the free month and cancel again. Almost no one does that.

By the time the consumer figures out what has happened, they've been charged for additional months beyond their “free month.” If they don't pay, it gets turned over to collections.

Diana made a mistake in believing the customer service rep when he told her she didn't have to call back. Verbal declarations by company employees are pretty meaningless, compared to a company's written policy.

The nation's unemployment rate has trended down in recent months as confidence builds that the economy is on the road to recovery. But in both the U.S. and elsewhere, younger people appear to be lagging behind.

In the U.S., jobseekers between the ages of 16 and 24 are struggling against a jobless rate that's twice as high as the 8.3 percent rate for the nation as a whole.

The situation is even worse in Europe. New research from a study of more than 40,000 UK household has examined what is driving this uneven employment pattern and finds that young people suffer from a 'double-penalty' in their attempts to find and keep a job.

Last in, first out

The data show that young people are more likely than older workers to be laid off and less successful than older workers in finding new employment.

The rise in youth unemployment figures is due to young people being more likely than older workers to be laid off, thus swelling the unemployment figures. But they are also less likely than older people to successfully find a new job, and so the average time they spend in unemployment has increased.

Double penalty

"Young people are particularly suffering in this recession, with unemployment currently even higher than when this survey was conducted,” said Dr. Mark Taylor, a labor analyst at the University of Essex. “The double-penalty faced by young people is due to them falling victim to the 'last-in, first-out' policies that are used in practice by many employers. Then, on the other hand, young people tend to have accumulated fewer job-specific skills. Employers may feel that they lose less by letting young workers go and may also choose not to hire them because of the costs associated with training them.”

While there are a number of efforts to assist young people in dealing with their short-term situation, the Economic Policy Institute warns there are also long-term implications.

“Evidence from past recessions of the effect on young workers who entered the labor market during a downturn shows that the impact is severe and long-lasting,” the group said on its website. “In particular, entering the labor market in a severe downturn can lead to reduced earnings for up to 10 to 15 years. Young workers at all levels of educational attainment who enter the labor market during a downturn face higher rates of unemployment.”

With fewer job openings, it's harder to find a food entry level job that will lead to advancement. As a result, young people who have the misfortune to be young during a period of high unemployment could have future instability in employment and earnings as they get older.

Millions of homeowners will be affected by the recent foreclosure settlement with major lenders. Scammers know that and will try to use that to trick unsuspecting consumers.

“Unfortunately, scammers are trying to use this landmark settlement to line their own pockets,” said North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper.

Cooper says fraud artists are using the recently announced national foreclosure settlement to try to get people to divulge their bank account information. The objective is to trick consumers into revealing personal information that can be used to steal their identities.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says his office has received a number of reports from consumers who have received these calls.It is unclear if these scammers are posing as bank associates or as a third party company claiming to be working with the settlement.

"I cannot stress this enough: never give out your bank account information--or any personal information for that matter--to someone who calls you,” Cuccinelli said. “Instead, call a known number for your financial institution, so you are sure you are reaching a legitimate contact."

Consumers who are eligible for direct relief from the foreclosure settlement will be contacted by their mortgage servicer or the settlement administrator in coming months. Consumers can also contact their mortgage servicers directly for more information:

Bank of America: 1-877-488-7814
Citi: 1-866-272-4749
Chase: 1-866-372-6901
Ally (formerly GMAC): 1-800-766-4622
Wells Fargo: 1-800-288-3212

Bank of America learned a bitter lesson last year when it tried to impose a $5 monthly fee on its debit card users. 

Or did it?

Maybe the lesson the bank learned isn't the one all those outraged consumers thought it learned.  Maybe the real lesson was that banks need to find a way to blame the fees on the consumer.

AT&T has always been pretty good at this.  It blames consumers for using too much of their "unlimited" smartphone data plans and then imposes limits.  

Bad consumer.

Bank of America thinks this might work in the banking realm as well.  For example, what if consumers were told their checking account was "free" as long as they maintained a certain balance or agreed to take out a car loan or credit card account?  

That's good, right?  Free is good. So the customer opens the checking account, then lets the balance drop and is told she doesn't qualify for the car loan or credit card.  Whose fault is that?  Certainly not the bank's.

Bad consumer.

Not their fault

Well, you know, you can't blame them though.  Banks just aren't making as much as they're used to, not since they made all those bad loans and had to eat all those rotten mortgages and especially since the feds came along and put limits on overdraft fees and other splendidly profitable plunder.

Take Bank of America.  Its 2011 revenue dropped by $26 billion, or 22%, from its 2009 level. Think the Board of Directors likes that? Not likely.

Of course, there are banks that still offer free checking with no strings attached.  The list is long and most, but not all, of them are smaller. TD Bank, for example, is a big bank but it didn't write all those bad mortgages, didn't take any bail-out money and it offers several types of free personal and business checking accounts. Heck, they're even open weekends.

But the big guys -- you know, the ones too big to fail, like BA, Chase and Wells Fargo -- they're having a hard time getting by so they're all nosing around looking for fees and charges that can either raise more revenue or encourage (i.e., intimidate) customers into doing more business with them.

Bank of America has been trying various plots -- uh, pilot -- programs in Arizona, Georgia and Massachusetts, where it's charging customers anywhere from $6 to $9 for stripped-down checking account. Basically, they're trying to find the pain point, the point at which consumers stand up and say no.

For obvious reasons, BA and the other banks aren't saying much about these plans.  But when they do, you can be sure they'll leave no doubt about whose fault it is.

Bad consumer.

OK, it's great that AT&T, Verizon and their competitors have been pushing everyone into upgrading to smarter, faster, snazzier 3G and 4G smartphones with all kinds of data-hungry features.

So, now the logical next step is -- you guessed it -- data caps.

AT&T broke the news today, saying it will no longer let its customers use more than a predetermined amount of data and will begin throttling heavy users' download speeds. 

For 3G users with unlimited data plans, the new limit is 3 gigabytes per month and for 4G LTE users, it's 5 gigabytes.

So how can an "unlimited" data plan have limits?  It's comparable to an all-you-can-eat buffet that forces you to eat with one hand after you've consumed so many drumsticks.  No one says you can't keep eating, but it will take you a lot longer.  

AT&T says -- what else? -- the measures are necessary because customers are using too much data, which is exactly what AT&T, Apple and Samsung have been urging them to do with all the glitzy ads showing happy smartphoners talking with Siri, watching videos and studying maps.

Apple's iPhones are notorious for hogging bandwidth but other smartphones are close behind.

AT&T and other carriers bemoan the billions they are spending to upgrade their networks so they can handle more traffic.  The logical question consumers might ask is: when all that extra capacity comes on line, will the data limits go away?

Actually, the data limits aren't new.  AT&T has been throttling the heaviest 5% or so of users for quite somet time but it has never specified exactly what constituted "heavy."

So now we know what's heavy.  The next question is, what's slow? How slow will those "throttled" speeds be?  

No word on that from AT&T.  Maybe the answer is working its way through a throttled circuit somewhere. 

The car you might choose for yourself as a single person might not be the same car you would choose for your family. Families demand certain things in a vehicle, so which 2012 models are best-equipped to provide them?

Kelly Blue Book is out with its list for 2012, with Honda making a strong showing. This year, fuel economy was a strong influence in the editors' choices.

Kelly Blue Book's top 10 family cars for 2012 are:

1. Volkswagen Passat
2. Honda Odyssey
3. Ford Flex
4. Suburu Outback
5. Honda CR-V
6. Kia Sorento
7. Chevrolet Suburban
8. Honda Civic
9. Chrysler 300
10. Toyota Prius V

Transportation cost during the ownership period is important for families trying to get by on tight budgets, so a vital part of the selection process is identifying vehicles that have low cost of ownership in the initial five-year ownership period, the editors explained. Total Cost of Ownership information examines depreciation, expected fuel costs,finance and insurance fees, maintenance and repair costs, and state fees for new models.

“Kbb.com’s 10 Best Family Cars of 2012 helps busy parents navigate a hectic, confusing automotive market, offering suggestions for all types of families,” said Jack R. Nerad, executive editorial director and executive market analyst for Kelley Blue Book’s kbb.com. “After driving and evaluating nearly all of the new cars available on the market today, we identified the vehicles that offer the greatest combination of features and value for everyday families.”

The top choice, the VW Passat, is both larger and cheaper than the model it replaces, according to the editors. But the European driving dynamics and interior feel remain, making the new Passat a uniquely well-rounded, high-value family sedan.

The Toyota Prius V is the only hybrid making the list. Kelly Blue Book points out it's a bigger, roomier and more family-friendly version of the Prius. It's MPG rating is 42 highway, about the same as many non-hybrid sub-compacts.

For weeks now Google has displayed a link on its pages to its new privacy policy, urging people to read it, adding “this stuff matters.”

Whether you've read it or not, the new policy goes into effect today and some privacy advocates are not at all happy about it. In a nutshell, the new policy means Google will track your activity across all of its services – Gmail, YouTube, Picasa, and Google Search.

“The goal for the new Google privacy policy is to have one policy to cover all of Google’s products and services, rather than separate policies for varying services,” said Lee Humphreys, Cornell assistant professor of communication. “Google’s intention is to create a more integrated user experience and to simplify their privacy policy for their products. Under the new system, Google will be combining user data across their various services, whereas before certain data was kept separate."

Skeptical?

It all sound harmless enough. But should consumers feel skeptical about the new rules?

“Maybe,” Humphreys said. “The biggest concern about the privacy changes is that it will not be clear to users exactly what kinds of data are collected and integrated, and what their options are for opting-out of having their information collected and tracked."

Humphreys has her own reservations about the new policy. She said she understands that Google's objective is to refine the data about individual users so that ads can be more directly targeted. But she would like consumers to be able to control the personal data that any company collects about them.

She says Google may give a consumer the means to opt out, but they have to secretly be hoping that most people don't use it – otherwise Google won't be able to deliver the targeted ads it has promised advertisers.

How to protect yourself

Fortunately there are ways consumers can protect themselves online.

“Users should sign out of services and websites when they’re done, particularly if they’re using a public computer,” Humphreys said. “Another thing users can do is to clear their history and cookies, a technology that websites use to track where we go on the web, on their Internet browsers like Internet Explorer, Chrome and Firefox. Users should also be aware that what they do on the web is tracked.”

Humphreys concedes that tracking often makes the web more useable and navigable. We find what we're looking for faster. The trade off, of course, is that your information is collected.

“If we don’t want our information collected, we need to educate ourselves about how to opt-out of these systems,"Humphreys said. 

Netflix was the company that could seemingly do no wrong, until last July. Then, a series of business missteps alienated customers who were especially unhappy when the company began charging separately for its DVD and streaming services.

These days we hear complaints about the content.

“I can no longer find any of the movies I would like to view using the Netflix search command,” Doug, of San Diego, Calif., wrote in a ConsumerAffairs post.

"It stared a few months ago when there was an update to the 360 home page. I realized afterwards that the Netflix had been significantly downgraded, being most noticeable in the search feature."

More of the same?

Gillian, a Netflix subscriber from Northumberland, UK, is unhappy with the selection, calling it “the same old rubbish.”

“It was the same, nothing I want or not what was advertised,” Gillian wrote. 

Jay, of New Canaan, Conn., said he recently cancelled his DVD account and went to streaming. He says he's disappointed.

“I now notice that more and more of my choices are only available on DVD,” Jay wrote. “This is driving me to purchase from Amazon, and recently Hulu Plus more often than using Netflix.

Shooting Starz

The content on Netflix may, in fact, be changing a bit. Netflix's key content contract with Starz Entertainment expired this week, meaning Starz content is no longer available. But consumers shouldn't blame Netflix for that. Starz announced last year it was refusing to renew the contract because it did not believe Netflix was charging consumers enough money to view the content.

Netflix has indeed changed its emphasis and is becoming primarily a provider of TV shows rather than feature films. Many of the new additions are highly acclaimed series, including Mad Men, Arrested Development and Breaking Bad.