var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
pattiesmart
September 1, 2009 6:21 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Jeff Aronson looks like every pawn shop owner ever. It's kind of freaky.

Reply
19 replies
\"user-pic\"
LeChiffre
September 2, 2009 12:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pattiesmart: he looks like every gas station owner in the metro detroit area; chaldean or arab.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
consciousj
September 2, 2009 10:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pattiesmart: Anyone who would pose for a photo with MC HAMMER and not be able to muster a smile should never be trusted.

Is he so consumed by his own guilt that he can't help but look troubled and withdrawn ALL THE TIME?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Quake 'n' Shake
September 1, 2009 10:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pattiesmart: I'd have said that he looks like an extra on The Sopranos, but you have a point too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
September 2, 2009 1:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

That guy looks like Boss Nass from Star Wars: Episode 1.

\"Meesah no paying top dollah for yousa gold!\"

And now I'm going to bury my head in the sand.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
September 1, 2009 9:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pattiesmart: Fat, greasy and a bit guido-ish? He looks like the guy who runs the local auto auction. He's a pretty slimy guy too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pattiesmart
September 1, 2009 9:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: You hit the nail on the head, except I wouldn't say \"a bit guido-ish\", I'd say \"100% guido\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
legwork
September 1, 2009 8:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pattiesmart: It's one big circle-jerk. From the description of CEO/press/legal interactions I'm betting the real crimes are being committed by his self-serving \"legal\" experts. Aronson, kick them to the curb.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 8:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@legwork: No, let him keep them. Aronson and his shady-ass need to be sent up the river.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 1, 2009 7:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pattiesmart: Rick from Pawn Stars (History Channel) looks a little like Bruce Willis.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pattiesmart
September 1, 2009 7:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I just googled him, and he so does -- a softer version, anyway.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 7:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pattiesmart: What can you really expect from a CEO with a community college degree?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zacox
September 1, 2009 7:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What's interesting is that Cash4Gold's new commercials now offer 20% more cash! Twenty percent more than what? Twenty percent more than the dupes who have sent gold in already? Especially strange considering gold is still $900-1000 and hasn't gone up to $1200. Hrmm...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Snowblind
September 1, 2009 8:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zacox: 20% more than beating the crap out of you and taking it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 8:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Snowblind: He really does look like he's from Jersey or Strong Island.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 7:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zacox: 20 percent more cash than the last time they gave you cash. And last time they gave you no cash. So 20 percent of 0 cash!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
G.O.B.: Come on!
September 1, 2009 7:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pattiesmart: It looks like he might be eating some of that gold, too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 7:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@G.O.B.: Come on!: Well...I gave him (or his rep) a suggestion of what to eat in their response to this article.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 8:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@segfault: He eats salads. He just substitutes the lettuce with donuts, porn and sleaze.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
YamiNoSenshi
September 1, 2009 7:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pattiesmart:

I had to adblock his picture. Knowing how shady his business is and how he cheats people, combined with how much he looks like somebody who would, made me a bit sick.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pattiesmart
September 1, 2009 7:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YamiNoSenshi: It really does skeeve me out to look at his picture. *shudder* Too bad I'm stuck with IE at work and can't adblock.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bastion72
September 1, 2009 6:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow...i stopped reading about 1/3 of the way down, but good n you for not being bullied!

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
coan_net
September 1, 2009 8:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bastion72: I was about to stop about 1/2 way through, but then I read that The Consumerist talked to \"the Pompano Beach fire department\" - and that baffled me as to why in the heck would they talk to the Pompano Beach fire department...

.... so I had to finish reading and found the answer later on in the story.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
September 1, 2009 8:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bastion72: i think this is the longest consumerist post i've ever read

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shadowkahn
September 1, 2009 7:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bastion72: This is a very good step Consumerist is taking. It should also be a fairly easy case to win. After all, as you pointed out, the first amendment says that you are in fact allowed to say what you want. And since you have no reason to believe that what you have published is untrue, if they try to bring a libel suit against you, you have an absolute defense there as well.

Cash4Gold is just digging themselves a deeper hole. Their actions show all the signs of a company that has done wrong, that knows it has done wrong, and is trying to shut people up about it rather than play by the rules. Good on Consumerist for not lying down for their bully tactics.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 7:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shadowkahn: Note that this is not what the first amendment says. However, they are fully supported by what it actually says.


Truth is an absolute defense to a libel suit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shadowkahn
September 2, 2009 7:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press (etc)\"

If it was, in fact, illegal to publish articles which say that a ripoff company is a ripoff company, then that law would be in violation of the first amendment. However, there are no such laws, the 1st specifically says there can be no such laws, and therefore, yes, the First does say that you can say what you want.

I further clarified by noting that, since Consumerist's allegations against Cash4Gold are either true, or Consumerist has every reason to believe that they are true, it won't fall under libel laws either.

By the way, truth isn't the only absolute defense in a libel suit. The plaintiff must prove that a) it's not true, b) the publisher knew or should reasonably have known that it's not true and c) since cash4gold has made itself public by splattering its name all over the late night airwaves, that Consumerist maliciously published the false information in order to harm Cash4Gold.

So, under this, even if Cash4Gold is a legit operation (yeah, right) which would therefore make what Consumerist published untrue, the fact that Consumerist does not know that it is untrue is also a defense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
September 1, 2009 8:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home:

Truth is an absolute defense to a libel suit.

This. Keep up the fight, Consumerist!
Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
GC
September 1, 2009 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow. You guys are amazing.

I hope those dirtbags get shut down soon.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
September 2, 2009 10:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GC: 200,000 views and close to 4,500 Diggs. Yow. The Internet has spoken.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Slust
September 2, 2009 5:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GC: Amen. I hope you guys destroy C4G's operation by exposing their fraud to the world.

I always wondered how a shady infomercial could build its way up to the point where they could afford a Super Bowl ad.

Then it hit me. Theives rob people's houses and need a way to get rid of hot items, such as unique jewelry that might have pictures or very specific descriptions... you see where I'm going with this?

Shadiest of all shady business I've ever seen. And it's mainstream... How sad is that?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nerdtalker
September 2, 2009 1:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GC: Go Consumerist!

These guys are shysters through and through. Their CEO looks like a hack, too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
September 1, 2009 10:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GC:

Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel.

- Mark Twain

Bravo.
When they settle, or better still, lose, make them give a PHAT check to a kitten adaption charity (and of course the non-profit Consumer's Union).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
heltoupee
September 1, 2009 6:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GC: Judging by all the fire code violations, they're all going to die in a fire very soon.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nybiker
September 1, 2009 8:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@heltoupee: Yeah, but didn't they move and now have no fire code violations?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 7:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@heltoupee: Not if they just hide behind Jeff Aronson.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dohtem
September 1, 2009 10:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home: Who would want to hide behind that guy? He looks like he smells.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
henrygates
September 1, 2009 6:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"She [the friend] knew something was odd but it just sounded so good … When I sat down and told her everything that we did, you know, it was like, 'Wow.' Like, she would have never thought, you know. So I was like, \"Well, if she would have never thought, who else? Who else would have never thought?\"

What?.....um, what?

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
September 2, 2009 12:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henrygates: like, OMG! i totally was like on the phone with my g/f when the police-guy gave me those court-thingys & i was like, OMG! i'm totally getting sued! & she was like, no way! & i was all, uh-huh! & she was like, for real? & i was like, totally for really real.

it like totally was teh suxor.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LeChiffre
September 2, 2009 12:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: (frank zappa) Valley girl, she is a Valley girl.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wee0x1B
September 2, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LeChiffre: No, she is a borderline retard. I'm sorry... she is, like, a borderline retard.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
veg-o-matic
September 1, 2009 8:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henrygates: That sounds alot more like a voice conversation than a text-based one to me. When I read it like that it makes sense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
arras
September 1, 2009 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henrygates:
I think that what Nephew was trying to say was that she believed it was too good to be true, but the offer sounded so good she had to go for it anyways.

When Nephew found out what a bad deal C4G, she didn't realize just how bad it was, which lead Liberis to the thought that if it didn't occur to her friend, then there are probably other people that didn't know, which prompted her to tell her side of the story.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 1, 2009 6:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henrygates: She was asking herself \"i wonder how many people get pulled into this without knowing any better?\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
September 1, 2009 6:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Go, Consumerist, go.

Reply
3 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
September 1, 2009 6:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I tried to find a more business like way to say I wholeheartedly support you guys for fighting back against Cash4Gold, but I couldn't come up with one, so here was my first reaction:

\"Fuck yeah!\"

Thank you consumerist for stand up for consumers rights and not bowing down to legal pressure from Cash4Gold and other companies that deserve to burn in hell.

I love this site and it makes me proud that you guys are standing your ground and fighting for the consumers.

You guys simply reek of awesomeness.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H.
September 14, 2009 7:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@spindle: These guys disagree.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
September 2, 2009 1:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@spindle: Actually that was an old wrestling quote from around the turn of the decade :P

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Christovir
September 2, 2009 2:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Keep up the good fight, Consumerist. We'll support you all the way. Now that the story is widespread, it should be a short time before C4G is laughed out of court and the whole of the Internet.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mackinstyle
September 1, 2009 10:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: I cackled maniacally the entire time I was reading this post.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_StarCommandSeasonOneIsLive!
September 1, 2009 10:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81:

\"Consumerist!
FUCK YEAH!
Comin' again to save the motherfuckin' day, yeah!

Consumerist!
FUCK YEAH!
Cash 4 Gold your game is through
'Cause now you have to answer to

Consumerist!
FUCK YEAH!\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
virtigo311
September 1, 2009 8:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: You took the words right out of my mouth!


\"Fuck Yeah!\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Darrone
September 1, 2009 6:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I clicked the Donations tab for the first time because of this post.

Reply
13 replies
\"user-pic\"
spindle
September 2, 2009 5:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Darrone: I will too, once I get my check from cash4gold.com

Reply
\"user-pic\"
El_Guapo
September 2, 2009 1:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Dropped a few bones Consumerists way. First time too, keep it up you guys.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MalcoveMagnesia
September 2, 2009 12:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

me 3 (or 4, or 10.... -- just donated for the first time)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
IssaGoodDay
September 1, 2009 10:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Darrone:

While I did not find myself clicking the donation tab - I just signed up for Consumer Reports, as I hope my funding to them will also provide you with additional monies.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AdvocatesDevil
September 1, 2009 8:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Darrone: Yep, doing work like THIS will get more tips and donations than those dumb \"begging\" posts they did every day for a while there!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SabyneWired
September 1, 2009 8:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Darrone: I'll be tossing them a few bucks myself when my next paycheck comes in.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
staque
September 1, 2009 7:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Darrone: and I might need to hit it again.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pattiesmart
September 1, 2009 7:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Darrone: if I didn't have $40 to my name until the 11th, i'd totally be there with you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Overheal
September 1, 2009 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Dig your mighty heels, Aim your mighty cannons, and prepare to fire.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 1, 2009 6:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Balls, Consumerist, balls.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
coan_net
September 1, 2009 8:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Gold Plated Balls.... which you could get about $5.67 for through this Cash4Gold place I heard about last night while trying to find the cool \"girls gone wild\" infomercial.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 1, 2009 7:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The internets are behind you, Consumerist.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GitEmSteveDave_WonAForeignLottery!
September 1, 2009 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: BTW, if those balls are gold, I know where to get a good price on them. If they are bowling balls, then they should try Cash4BowlingBalls.com :P

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 1, 2009 6:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TinkishDelight: That said, I must say, I never quite got how testicles = guts.

Unless its a very sexist terminology designed to make other guys less virile.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Greasy Thumb Guzik
September 1, 2009 9:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless:
I believe it stems from the fact that the Romans required a man at trial to hold his testicles while speaking.
Therefore - testimony from the Latin, testis.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ExtraCelestial
September 1, 2009 7:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: It's not a means to seperate men because simply having balls automatically puts you in the courageous group while those of us with internal reproductive systems get the pussy=wimp stigma. Yet which one of us is more likely to be using our organs to push out 13lb babies??

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 1, 2009 7:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TinkishDelight: Speaking of balls and guts... Jessica Hagy from thisisindexed.com recently put it quite bluntly...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ExtraCelestial
September 1, 2009 7:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Haha yes I think you responded to another post of mine with that pic.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GitEmSteveDave_WonAForeignLottery!
September 1, 2009 7:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: If women make so much less, why aren't more companies hiring them to save money?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
GitEmSteveDave_WonAForeignLottery!
September 1, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I commented, does that mean I'm part of the suit?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
IceMax
September 2, 2009 11:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_GlassMeatClocks:

Does that mean that if someone posts \"FIRST!!!11!\" on the article, they are technically a part of the suit?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bloggerX
September 2, 2009 12:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_WonAForeignLottery!: Yes, we all are. I suggest we call our UBS account reps and tell them to send our money to us STAT!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 7:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_WonAForeignLottery!: Well, as evidenced by the fact that they are commenting here, they are watching the comments.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Verucalise (Est.February2008)
September 1, 2009 9:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_WonAForeignLottery!: Hello, I'd like to offer my legal services. I see you plan on being sued in the near future for complete honesty, and I offer top dollar lawyering and a quick turnaround on court time. Here's my card. Don't be 'fraid to call me now. (looking at card... cash4lawyers.com)


@Smashville_makes his own comments at home: Quick! Duck and hide, the jig is up! They're onto us... (closing curtains and becoming paranoid)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
G00MAN
September 2, 2009 12:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Verucalise(wantsherfigureback): cash4lawyers.com?

What a great idea. Too bad you can't melt down what was originally forged in the fires of hell.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
YouDidWhatNow?
September 1, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It just kills me that any company like this, or Monster Cable, or whoever, thinks that such action EVER is going to do them any good. The only outcome of this is that an even BIGGER disclosure of their douchebaggery is going to be made, MORE people are going to be made aware of it, and their business is going to SUFFER more than it already was going to.


There is not ever an upside for this kind of tactic by a company. You always lose. Always.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
tekiebelu
September 1, 2009 8:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YouDidWhatNow?:
There s/b a Consumerist category called 'Douchebaggery'! I love it!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
September 1, 2009 7:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YouDidWhatNow?: If only we could revoke the corporation's charter, all would be well :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 7:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YouDidWhatNow?: At least Monster's makes sense in theory. Indeed, the other company is using their name. Of course, no one in their right mind is going to confuse minigolf and cables.


Calling something something false and defamatory when it is very clearly true...well...that's just stupid. The company is unethical and is going to get bad press regardless...when they start trying to shut up the bad press...well, then they get royally screwed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
a5un
September 1, 2009 7:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YouDidWhatNow?: That's not exactly true. The reason you feel the threat of lawsuit only explodes the issue is that you don't hear about the ones that get shut down. There is definitely nothing more effective than the threat of a law suit by a multi-million dollar company when you've got not even 1/10th of that saved up.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
September 1, 2009 6:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wait..so a phone operator handling returns with Cash 4 gold makes $800+$900 in a 2 week period? Forget the gold, working for them is where the real money is.

Reply
10 replies
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
September 1, 2009 8:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Plus all the gold you can sneak out of the mail room!

/knows a great place to get $.20 on the dollar for gold.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
September 1, 2009 7:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Could you handle selling your soul to scam oldsters and the poor out of a far price for their gold?


I couldn't.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
September 1, 2009 7:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@econobiker: \"fair price\" not \"far\"...


still waiting for the edit button...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
courtarro
September 1, 2009 7:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Yeah, but if the exposed electrical wiring starts a fire that can't be put out because the sprinkler doesn't work, good luck finding your way through that thick cloud of burning metal and escaping through the blocked fire exit!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
September 1, 2009 7:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: 900 in two weeks in $23,400 a year... or $11.25/hr., while not terrible, its not great pay either. McDs employee's can make 10+/hr here..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dizzie386
September 2, 2009 3:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The pay is better than one of the debt collection agencies that I applied at. The pay for that job was minimum wage plus \"commission.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
September 1, 2009 8:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter:

That's assuming she doesn't ever get any more bonuses. She could easily get 500 a week just in bonuses it looks like.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tbax929
September 1, 2009 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth:
I may have misunderstood it, but I thought she made $906 in regular pay and $815 in bonuses, which would equal $1,721 for two weeks. That's not bad for a customer service job.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tmlfan81
September 1, 2009 6:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: If a person could honestly pick up several hundred dollars, on average, every pay period for keeping customers \"happy\" with the amount they are originally quoted, you aren't making just $23,000. The amount would vary based upon performance, and possibly other metrics but the ones referenced were simply closing deals without having to increase the offer.


If the CSR / Operator continued at that pace, they would be pulling in over $40,000 a year. Which, for a customer service job, is nothing to sneeze at.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
specialista
September 1, 2009 6:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

great job!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jeffery2102
September 1, 2009 6:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh my god, i have never commented here nor have an account, but this article is making me do both. like some guy above me says in the comments, \"i'm trying to find a more proper way to say good job but all i can say is this:\"

FUCK YEAH CONSUMERIST!!!!!

that was awesome.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
scienceclub
September 1, 2009 6:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Thank you Consumerist (Ben Popken and Meg Marco). Very comprehensive and comprehendible.
This is an important story.


-Rob Cockerham

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
hhole
September 4, 2009 7:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@scienceclub:

Rob...you kick ass. And I'm still using my Safeway card though I have no clue where all those miles are going.

I hope to some good cause somewhere. Enjoy your free trip to Tahiti!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
katstermonster
September 1, 2009 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@scienceclub: Rooooob you're my hero!

This is some sort of break in the fourth wall, though...the websites I read aren't supposed to talk to each other. It's freaky enough when I read something in the NYTimes or Slate, then see it here later in the day...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SybilDisobedience
September 1, 2009 9:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@scienceclub: Rob, I've been reading Cockeyed for a while now (the civic-minded stuff, mostly). You do a great job. Nice to see your efforts mentioned in this article.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
September 1, 2009 7:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@scienceclub: Rob, thanks for chiming in among us bloggiots...


Loved your original take plus the spray painted gold stuff story...


I guess you never knew where measuring stuff would take you...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Murph1908
September 1, 2009 6:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Let's hope a nice, large Streisand Effect emerges to bite them in the ass.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
iambeaker
September 1, 2009 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Very well written article. Great job!!!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Johncc
September 1, 2009 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I work right dow the street from them would love to take an afternoon off to picket them and record what happens :)

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 7:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: And fat guys with bad hair and Hawaiian shirts.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jeffjohnvol
September 1, 2009 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Looks like the guy spends all his money on fatty food and bad hair products. Thanks for consumerist for taking the risks to report the truth!

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
MyPetFly
September 1, 2009 8:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jeffjohnvol:

Judging from the apparent copious amounts of grease the guy exudes, he doesn't need bad hair products.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
katstermonster
September 1, 2009 6:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

WOW, rock on, you guys!!! I've been reading cockeyed.com for about 6 years, and I was excited (and not a bit surprised) by the Cash4Gold story. Keep on keepin' on, all you consumer advocates!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
FHJay
September 1, 2009 6:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great work, keep it up! It takes guts to stand up to what looks like a loudmouth in tacky shirts that has enough ill-gotten money to buy some hefty lawyers. Glad you guys are doing so.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
jeffjohnvol
September 1, 2009 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Everyone should google cash4gold and select the \"10 confessions\" link to increase the placement of the article.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 2, 2009 2:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jeffjohnvol: Mission appears to be accomplished. It is now the top link when you google \"Cash4Gold\".


Oh did that ever backfire on them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dalsnsetters
April 13, 2010 8:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

As of 841 am Eastern on 4/13, the linked article is #3.......

Reply
\"user-pic\"
scouts honor
September 1, 2009 11:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jeffjohnvol: And if you have a gmail account, be sure to \"promote\" the link by clicking on the up arrow next to it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
feistydonut
September 1, 2009 8:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jeffjohnvol: Yup done and clicked links to this Consumerist article and Cockeyed's too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Crabby Cakes
September 1, 2009 7:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jeffjohnvol: Excellent idea! Let's get this out there!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Cash4GoldResponse
September 1, 2009 6:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

On the advice of legal counsel, Cash4Gold was unable to offer specific comments to the Consumerist for this article. It would have been highly inappropriate given the pending litigation concerning Consumerist's refusal to remove a false and defamatory posting about Cash4Gold from its website, even after the person who authored the comments requested that they be taken down.

Reply
15 replies
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
September 2, 2009 12:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cash4GoldResponse:

The best way to defend yourself in a battle is to swing the axe of truth. It's increasingly obvious that you have nothing to say besides repeating your statement that Consumerist and the others involved have wronged you. You provide no counterclaims. Way to go. You're really ingratiating yourselves with the public by hiding behind a wall of bullshit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shanoaravendare
September 2, 2009 5:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@trujunglist:

In my head this whole thing has turned into a fight on the school playground with the Consumerist and various others telling C4G that their shoelaces are untied and C4G responding with \"Nuh uh!\" and then tripping over their untied shoelaces as they try to stomp off in a huff.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dantsea
September 2, 2009 12:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cash4GoldResponse: Wherever there's a little dirt there's usually a huge bag of sleaze nearby; I hope your cartooneys have explained how discovery is a two-way street because you're about to get your clock cleaned in court.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
scouts honor
September 1, 2009 11:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cash4GoldResponse: Well you're going to have to respond at some point because the burden of proof is on you to show what, if any, statements are false.

In the meantime ... you're (badly) losing the PR war.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 1, 2009 10:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cash4GoldResponse: I rather doubt this commenter has anything to do with Cash4Gold. This sounds like somebody trying to sound legal and highfalutin. If it were their lawyers, they would not say they were posting \"on advice of counsel\", and if it were not their lawyers, they wouldn't throw in gratuitous legal terms.

So, yes, eat a bag and die, but not for the reasons one might think.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RedwoodFlyer
September 2, 2009 4:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Consumerist-Moderator-Roz:

I have a feeling that the disemvowelment rules will be relaxed in this thread.... for once, it's ok to blame the OP (C4G counts as the OP since they started the hissy fit)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
riverstyxxx
September 1, 2009 8:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cash4GoldResponse: Fuck you, Scam4Gold. It's parasites like you that are the reason this country is so fucked up. Crawl back into the sewer you came out of.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
veg-o-matic
September 1, 2009 8:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cash4GoldResponse: Wait what?

Which \"author\" requested which \"comments be taken down\" by Consumerist?

Somewhere in that non-response there's actually minus information.. like, it subtracts from the available information in the world and makes me stupider for having read it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Crabby Cakes
September 1, 2009 7:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cash4GoldResponse: Actually, I think it's highly appropriate that you DO respond to this, seeing as that was what you said you'd do. If it's false, why wouldn't you want to respond and set the record straight?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 7:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Crabby Cakes: Because they're too busy considering my suggestion. It amazes me when companies don't understand how the internet works.


Cash4Gold...I'd play taps for you...but...I'd rather just piss on your company's grave.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ScubaSteveKzoo
September 1, 2009 7:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cash4GoldResponse: Yeah I doubt this is really someone representing c4g....if so....then I must ask how do you sleep at night?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KhaiJB
September 1, 2009 7:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cash4GoldResponse: and you are? anyone can create a screen name here and enter comments. and we're to believe you are representing cash4gold?

talk to the Consumerist Team as you agreed to do.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 7:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KhaiJB: @ScubaSteveKzoo: Considering everything in the above story...would it surprise you?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 1, 2009 6:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TinkishDelight: I thought ovaries were kinda sorta balls as well...

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
September 1, 2009 7:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Apparently, both formats develop in different paths from the same starting cells... Same follows for the external representations.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Binaryslyder
September 1, 2009 6:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

omg, this is going to be all over fark/4chan/reedit/facebook.

Did they really think they could stop this by suing the internet?

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Red_Flag
September 1, 2009 6:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Amazing work, guys. Since \"The company appeared to relent last week\", are you still being sued? Will Consumer Reports pay for counsel?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 7:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ben Popken: Any thoughts on a countersuit...seems like saying that Consumerist knowingly publishes false information would be false and defamatory in and of itself...as anyone with a grain of common sense sees that everything here is posted in good faith towards the sources.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
September 1, 2009 9:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home: Sometimes with too much good faith...but that doesnt seem to be true here.


I have no problem believing that they pay as little as possible for their gold, but I dont see anything wrong with that. I do think things like sending out checks late etc are bad, and thus they should be punished.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
pegr
September 1, 2009 6:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Beginning to look like Groklaw around here...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 6:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wait...he granted an interview and then responded with a lawsuit instead of an interview?


Jeff Aronson is a grade a douche...and you can submit that as evidence.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pippenz
September 1, 2009 6:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Amazing article Consumerist, kudos to you.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Zanorfes
September 1, 2009 6:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Way to stand up to them!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
eltigreferoz
September 1, 2009 6:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Damn. Keep fighting the good fight, Consumerist.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
I_have_something_to_say
September 1, 2009 6:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Boy that M.C. Hammer sure makes good financial decisions and hangs out with the right people!

I wonder what other bankrupt celebrities CASH4GOLD will come up with next?

[bites nails]

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
riverstyxxx
September 1, 2009 8:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I_have_something_to_say: Reminds me of the times that Tom Bosley got a rimjob by SMC and Donald Trump got a blumpkin from ACN.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Greasy Thumb Guzik
September 1, 2009 9:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home:
That's perfect!
And I'll bet they use the same wacko formula to determine the value of the gold sent in that Dykstra used in his financial \"wizardry\"!
Try to find the HBO Real Sports episode where Bernard Goldberg interviewed Dykstra last December. He demonstrated his way of investing. At the time he was a millionaire. His way made no sense at all!
Now he's broke!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
I_have_something_to_say
September 1, 2009 8:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home:

I was secretly hoping for Bobby Brown :)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
September 1, 2009 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yo, Aronson. You been eatin' all that gold?

/gratuitous ad hominem

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Pibbs
September 1, 2009 7:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is why I started reading Consumerist. Real journalism, sticking up for everyone's rights. Good job, and keep up work like this.

Reply
1 replies
","","","
\"user-pic\"
emona
September 1, 2009 7:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It sure is a beautiful day here at Injunction Junction: shoveling the shit and branding the bull(y)s.

I hope these fools go out of business. Good on the ex-employees for lawyering up and not giving into Cash 4 Gold. I knew this place was a scam but DAMN Consumerist, nice work.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
The_IT_Crone
September 1, 2009 7:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is an INCREDIBLE story.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
theblackdog
September 1, 2009 7:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Go Consumerist! Knowing CU's history with being sued by disgruntled companies and CU winning those lawsuits, Cash4Gold just stirred up a hornets nest.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
September 1, 2009 7:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just wait until Consumerist does a little gold mining via discovery.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 1, 2009 7:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Fantastic job, Consumerist. Bravo.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
KStrike155
September 1, 2009 7:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I say we call up AIG and get that Golden Poo back. Award it to Cash4Gold!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 7:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Laura Northrup: Yeah...it kinda is the one company that could backfire. Maybe as a lifetime achievement award we could send them a real poo?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Persistence - Long viv revolisyon an konsomatè yo!
September 1, 2009 7:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Cash4Gold. You have been served.

Go Consumerist!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 7:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Persistence: Well. Technically, it was the Consumerist that got served.


What Cash4Gold got was pwned.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
September 1, 2009 7:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, The Consumerist's first attempt at proper journalism. Never thought I would see a thorough, responsible and well written article at The Consumerist, but I have now.


Job well done.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
CheritaChen
September 2, 2009 1:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@StanTheManDean: This obviously has escaped you, so I'm spelling it out for you:

Consumerist is a blog. Consumer Reports is the journalistic entity.

Blog ≠ journalism.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
September 2, 2009 9:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@CheritaChen:


IF there is no standard of conduct for a blog, then don't bother to hold companies accountable for their actions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
azntg
September 3, 2009 12:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@StanTheManDean: Welcome to the 21st Century! You missed a lot over the years, but I won't bore you with all the catch up details.

Most companies share your sentiment - they're absolutely mind boggled at how an entity with no apparant standard of conduct can yield so much PR power. But guess what? Ignore them at your own peril.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
September 3, 2009 11:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@azntg:


You think blogs are effective?


Got special treatment from corporate America because you whined on a blog?


Guess what.... corporate America calls throwing $ at a blog whiner a business expense. All customers pay for business expenses.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
azntg
September 2, 2009 12:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@StanTheManDean: The Consumerist was around for a while. Try looking at some of the older articles - real gems there too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
September 2, 2009 1:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@azntg:


Nope, most of the previous posts have been inflamatory trash. Troll Bait if you will.


This is the first article where the author didn't try to inflame the issue with personal remarks or comparisons to non-related companies. In fact, I will say the author seemed to make a real effort of appearing unbiased while ripping the company a new hole.


Ground breaking for The Consumerist. This is the kind of post that can cause The Consumerist to be nominated for a Peabody Award.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 2, 2009 2:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@StanTheManDean: Again. Read old articles. Sending people undercover into scam operations and such.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
September 2, 2009 3:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home:


I have.


The writer had an ax to grind.


I hate the utility resellers and their actions as much as anybody else, but when somebody is playing at \"investigative reporter\" the reporter should set aside their personal feelings and try to be objective. The undercover reporting you mention did not meet that criteria.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
azntg
September 2, 2009 5:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@StanTheManDean: Good luck finding a quality articles without any inflammatory trash.

No matter where you go, just about every \"investigative reporters\" are pursuing their craft because they have an \"ax to grind\" (or are desperate for money; but that tends to be reflected in the writing). Some are better than others at hiding it than others admittedly.

If they didn't, you won't be seeing a lot of investigative reports to begin with - What's the point of doing an investigative report if there's no motivation to do it?

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
techstar25
September 1, 2009 7:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think we've only scratched the surface of the significance of this legal case. The suit for defamation could have far reaching consequences for all bloggers if C4G actually wins.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
ExtraCelestial
September 1, 2009 7:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@techstar25: I have to say, I wouldn't be too surprised if some small town court in Florida rules in C4G's favor (with all the money they're getting from screwing their customers over I'm sure they can hire the very best magicians) , but I can't imagine anyone with a brain allowing it to stand when it's undoubtedly appealed to a higher level.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
hi
September 1, 2009 7:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Where's all the 'say no to free speech we love facism' posts. Oh they must be busy calling people tin hat wearing conspiracy theorists. Nothing to see here people, just another conspiracy theory.


Federal reserve steals Americans gold and americans dont even care, but dang if cash for gold does the same... at least CFG gives you something in return besides debt enslavement.


Dont reply to this message I'm an insane troll.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 7:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Now we know who was behind those DDOS attacks...

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mfischer1
September 1, 2009 7:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

hefty hefty hefty

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Snarkysnake
September 1, 2009 7:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Former journalist here. You have nothing to worry about. Publishing of facts is an absolute defense against libel. Asking for the other side of the story eliminates the \"reckless disregard\" angle of their claim. It's news. You reported it and tried to ascertain more facts.Tell them to piss up a tree.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
RenRen
September 1, 2009 7:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Fight the good fight, guys... We're here with you for justice, truth, and Meg Marco (She's a hottie).

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
pattiesmart
September 1, 2009 7:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I smell the end of Cash4Gold. And I also smell Jeff Aronson.

Reply
1 replies
","","
\"user-pic\"
admiral_stabbin
September 1, 2009 7:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

South Florida shenanigans strike again!

I feel so sorry for anyone currently (or previously) employed by them. Run people...run for your lives!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
starrytrekchic
September 1, 2009 7:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Very good and interesting article. It's restoring my faith in journalism after about ten years of steady decline in the area (overall, not consumerist.)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
September 1, 2009 7:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well-documented and researched work, Consumerist.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Crabby Cakes
September 1, 2009 7:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Consumerist, let me add my voice to the throngs. BRAVO! and I look forward to learning more as this develops.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
webster44
September 1, 2009 7:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow!!.

I've been an avid reader for a long time. This is the first time I was motivated to comment.

Consumerist: Whatever you need financially to defend this suit. Just let us know!!

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
The-Lone-Gunman
September 1, 2009 7:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Something that we may be missing here: did the C4G ex-employee/whistle-blower have to sign a non-disclosure agreement to work there?

If so, she may be screwed. No matter how true what she says is, she was under legal obligation NOT to disclose or discuss the business practices of her former employer.

I believe Fry's Electronics does something along this line, and goes after people under that agreement with regularity.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 7:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The-Lone-Gunman: Yeah. But Consumerist didn't. And if you read the lawsuit...they are claiming that Consumerist knowingly posted false information...so not only are they claiming it's false...they are claiming Consumerist knew it was false.


Yeah...good luck proving that.


Also...I'm wondering about how much money they have to actually mount this attack...if their drastically falling Alexa rank is any indication (dropped 56 percent in the last 3 months).


Alexa ranks:
Consumerist.com: 5,069
Cash4Gold.com: 36,983

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pattiesmart
September 1, 2009 7:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The-Lone-Gunman: Does this include illegal activity, though? (Not that I'm saying she was whistle-blowing illegal activity, just asking.) So, if Fry's gives me a non-disclosure agreement, I sign it, then find out something illegal is going on, am I still bound by that agreement? I'd hope not.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
SWBLOOPERS
September 1, 2009 7:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

By the way, has anyone told you lately just how much you guys rock?!?

Just saying...

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jasonhackwith
September 1, 2009 7:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Bravo! Go Consumerist!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Thassodar
September 1, 2009 7:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I...think you guys have a message waiting on Facebook. Just a heads up.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 8:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Crabby Cakes: Meg or Ben do. Sidebar...in Dark Tower, a \"popkin\" is a sandwich...so...Ben's like a misspelled sandwich...which is neither false nor defamatory.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Vandelay Import Export
September 1, 2009 7:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hopefully this will finally put these goniffs out of business.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sevenwhitehorses
September 1, 2009 7:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

it is a sad commentary on our legal establishment when companies such as cash4gold can win by saying someone has not done what they obviously have because they have lawyers who are willing to bend the truth. i use to have lots of faith in the judicial establishment but in the past year all of that has faded away for, dare i say it, just cause. thank you for standing up against this and other companies like this. you deserve a seat at King Aurthur's Table!

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
September 2, 2009 1:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pattiesmart: You should change your name to include a reference to how pedantic you are. And if you can squeeze in a reference to how abrasive you always seem to be with little or no provocation, that would be fantastic.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SabyneWired
September 1, 2009 8:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sevenwhitehorses: I agree with you here. The tactics C4G is using towards Ms. Liberis make me sick. And shame on the idiot judges who keep handing over rulings to this company without really looking at what's going on.


Go Consumerist! I have your back 150%!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
unimus
September 1, 2009 7:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This post is truly what Consumerist is all about!

ps. will I get sued for posting this?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
bigd7387
September 1, 2009 7:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I applaud you Consumerist. Thank you for taking on a corporation that does not deserve to exist. It's time these companies are put under. I hope more and more people see this and use some sense and don't support this type of behavior. Companies need to make money but not like this. Thank you again.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
NewsBunny
September 1, 2009 7:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As an alleged journalist, I'm giving you mad props.


Good work, guys. And good work for not backing down.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bloggerX
September 1, 2009 7:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

After this frivolous lawsuit has been dropped, I say we all gather at the Consumerist place and have a toast to celebrate exposing another fraud!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
veg-o-matic
September 1, 2009 8:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Asses..?

They do impart \"a tremendous sense of value.\"

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
riverstyxxx
September 1, 2009 8:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That jeff guy looks like the filth that hang out at the porn shops here..

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
YouMustBeHarveysSqueeze
September 1, 2009 8:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nice job getting a screenshot of the scumbag CEO's facebook page with his friend \"Green Buillon\" with the gold bars.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
veg-o-matic
September 1, 2009 8:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I kinda feel bad for Jeff.

His best friend is Green Bullion.

\"Oh, inanimate metal, you're the only one who listens to me and really gets me, bro.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
jimf421
September 1, 2009 8:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My local watch shop pays 85%, sometimes more, of the spot gold price on the date he purchases.


He is very transparent about what he pays.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
festivusfreeforallguy
September 1, 2009 8:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

And here is the best part. Go to their \"blog\". Only one response, which is clearly a planted response. And feel free to try to enter your own. They don't take. NICE.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
riverstyxxx
September 1, 2009 8:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

After reading the whole article: The only difference between nazi-germany and cash4gold is that cash4gold at least offers *something* most of the time.

Nice facebook, fat man. I have a feeling you scum are your way out the door soon.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
lalaland13
September 1, 2009 8:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Consumerist, you have my undying adoration. This is what the media should do. While I work in a way different capacity than this, you guys make me proud to say I work in journalism.

I can't donate right now, because of the journalist salary thing, but if I could, this would make me do it.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Skater009
September 1, 2009 8:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Look at those guys , how lame . I hope they your kick ass Cash 4 gold , you guys are losers !!!! Stand up -

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
malicious-a
September 1, 2009 8:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

clearly they need to be shut down if their building caught on fire..

thanks for fighting for the consumer and your right to say whatever you want.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
jimf421
September 1, 2009 8:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I strongly applaud your actions...as I said...I send people to my local watch shop (in which I hold no financial interest) to sell gold...since his 85% of spot is very fair. One woman had a larger amount to sell (5 ounces) and he paid close to 90%.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
masterasia
September 1, 2009 8:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder how much they paid MC Hammer to do the commercial? But anyways, Cash4Gold is going down....

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
soundreasoning
September 1, 2009 8:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ms. Liberis didn't actually answer many of the questions in the interrogatories correctly or sufficiently, but that's actually okay, interrogatories are BS anyway, and I presume she was not represented at the time. Cash4gold's attorney's not checking the record to find the interrogatories on file, now that's a sanction-able offense. However more importantly did Ms. Liberis sign the interrogatories? The copy filed is not signed and notarized and as such is non-compliant and non-responsive. She does not have to file the original, though, only send it to Cash4gold, (though you should always file a copy of the signed and notarized document).

Now defaulting her on charges not raised in the complaint, or any amended complaints is highly suspicious. The judge should be held accountable and again the issue of sanctioning Cash4gold's attorneys should be raised.

As for the assertion that defamation and libel are inconsistent with confidential and proprietary, while this may be true (sort of) Plaintiff are allowed to offer alternative grounds for their case even when they are inconsistent with one another. In fact if they don't, and the facts of both cases would be substantially the same, they won't be able to bring suit on any non-asserted grounds.

Anyway good story, I think there is a lawsuit here, and I hope you guys win.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Prince Delight
September 1, 2009 8:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Screw Cash4Gold, what a bunch a crooks. I hope they get kicked in the face

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
cmdrsass
September 1, 2009 8:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

All that gold must buy Aronson a LOT of bacon

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
eirrom
September 1, 2009 8:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great detail on this story. I too had to stop cuz there was just too much to read but this company just seems to be so sleezy. Turning an $170 necklace in to $10. What a great deal!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
The_Legend
September 1, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Props to you, Ben.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
riverstyxxx
September 1, 2009 8:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

[i28.tinypic.com]
[i29.tinypic.com]
[i32.tinypic.com]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
goober
September 1, 2009 8:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Keep it going, Consumerist! If I'd ever considered using this company before, I certainly wouldn't now.

Hope the lawsuits work out for you and for the former employee. Let us know if/how we can help. Wouldn't mind doing my part to show this company what's what.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
calchip
September 1, 2009 8:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ben and Meg,

I am soooooo glad to see that Consumers Union's longstanding policy of not backing down in the face of threats continues to be the case here at Consumerist, and that CU has your back (and consumerist, in turn, has the public's back.)

It is stories like this that are perhaps the most important role of sites like consumerist.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
100-mortgage.com
September 1, 2009 9:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great work!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 1, 2009 9:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Greasy Thumb Guzik: Hahaha I wish that were true. Though I am at work and cant look that up :P

Also, is gmail down for anyone else?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 1, 2009 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Yep, it's down. What's amazing is that I got text messages about it, like it was a disaster. Oh wait, it is.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MarketMaven
September 1, 2009 9:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So some guy starts a shady business and markets the hell out of it. Then he has to use all of his profits to retain lawyers that expose the shady business. Hopefully he found some shady lawyers that give him that same kind of return that he does with the gold.

I love you Consumerist! Keep up the fight and never be afraid to stand up for the TRUTH!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
NickelMD
September 1, 2009 9:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great work Consumerist!!!!! Keep it up!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Tank
September 1, 2009 9:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sorry, but filing answers to interrogatories does NOT equal filing an answer to a complaint. The default judgment against her is proper.

BTW - I don't agree with her losing, but as a matter of procedure... she loses.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
scouts honor
September 1, 2009 11:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tank: Unless the appellate court considers her responses to the interrogatories as an answer under the rule that says the procedural rules must be construed to do justice. That is oftentimes what happens when one party is pro se.

She didn't blow it off; she responded to the interrogatories which were apparently served with the complaint, so she probably thought she responded the way she was supposed to (how would she know she's not supposed to file responses to interrogatories). It's a reasonable assumption for a non-lawyer to make.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 1, 2009 9:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tank: As a matter of procedure do the charges change at the last minute?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tank
September 2, 2009 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home: They didn't, RTFA. C4G was granted injunctive relief \"...requiring her to refrain from publishing any false statements regarding CASH4GOLD...\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Darkjediben
September 1, 2009 9:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Keep fighting the good fight, Consumerist...This country, and this planet needs watchdogs like you guys to keep us all safe from overly litigious, underserving companies like Cash 4 Gold.

Uhoh, hope I don't get sued for that comment now...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
BigFoot_Pete
September 1, 2009 9:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You have my support, Consumerist!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
seattlemaninblue
September 1, 2009 9:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is the kind of work I'd like to see Consumerist do more of, rather than just posting questionable, unsubstantiated rants.

Real reporting -- a foreign concept on most blogs. Keep it up.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
CheritaChen
September 2, 2009 2:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@seattlemaninblue: And once again, I am compelled to explain that blogs are not, in the generally accepted definition of the term \"blog\" or \"weblog,\" designed to be received as sources of unbiased, uninflected reporting. They can use that format, but it isn't a wise choice to do so, given the overall perception (by the cluefull, at least) of the web as a place where any jerk can claim anything.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
chapoec
September 1, 2009 9:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow Cash4Gold is going to get spanked in court. They are obviously using scare tactics to censor people. I guess they forgot there is a little thing called the first amendment. I hope this company goes the way of the dodo.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
BrazDane
September 1, 2009 9:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great work guys and girls at Consumerist. Too many would just cave in to this legal bullying from Cash4Gold. They think just because they have money they can bend the courts their way.
You are fighting an important fight! Keep up the good work!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
TheGlamorousLife
September 1, 2009 9:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am so proud of you guys. DO NOT be bullied by these idiots. CLEARLY they have the worst PR firm in the country working for them. Anyone knows the easiest way to mitigate a complaint is to address the issue openly and freely. I can just see the law firm of Old Stuffy Man & Son saying 'its one of those new internet websites sir. I am sure we can just threaten to sue them and they will go away'....


Guess what Cash4Gold? You have just PUT YOURSELF OUT OF BUSINESS. Got nothin to hide? Then WHY YA HIDDING?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
MrEvil
September 1, 2009 10:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ben and Meg, give 'em hell. I think C4G is underestimating the resolve of you and your backers at consumers union.

And why does it seem that the shady companies always sue to suppress the truth? I mean you'd THINK it'd be cheaper to just clean up your act and refute the whistle blower's claims and it might actually save your reputation more than suing to get those bad things taken back.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
September 1, 2009 10:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MrEvil: Think of it this way.


YOu are an average person, and think you are getting ripped off. You talk about it, C$G sues you. It will cost ~1k to defend your self. You only gotripped off for 200 bucks, so you drop it, its not work it for you.


C4G spent the 1k, instead of paying the 200. So in 1 instance its a loss of 800 dollars. they do this 10 times, and lose 8000 dollars, but now people are affraid to complain and 1000 customers send in their gold, and C4G makes 200 dollars off each, thats 200k, and they only spent 8k to defend that profitability.


Being legit is rarely cheaper.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
September 1, 2009 10:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Am I the only one who saw this having \"scam!\" written all over it after the first commercial? Seems crazy that people are surprised this company was not on the up and up.

Perhaps I just naturally assume the worst of any company advertising where/when they usually did...like Enzyte, that slap chop guy, etc.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 2, 2009 1:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mexmexmex2000: Yes. You are the only one who could possibly think that sending your valuables to someone you don't know in an unmarked envelope could possibly be a scam.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Segador
September 1, 2009 10:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Stories like this are why the Consumerist exists. Fantastic work, all, and don't back down.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mythago
September 1, 2009 10:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, real journalism. I forgot how much I missed this!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
September 1, 2009 10:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Keep the faith. Good job. Aronson looks like he ate New Jersey as well as being from there. Is he intending to be the next spokesperson for Subway?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RStui
September 1, 2009 10:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great work. I'll repeat what's already been said: This is the kind of content that will get the money out of my pocket.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
aka Bitter
September 1, 2009 11:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Barring the questionable marketing and return policies... Offering a low-ball price for your old jewelry, is not cheating anyone.


This happens every day and is perfectly acceptable in fields like collectibles, cars, real estate and yes, jewelry. It's a sellers' responsiblity to understand the value of the item they are offering.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Raeth
September 1, 2009 11:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Now, if only all investigative journalism was this thorough and helpful. I know that the instant I saw their ads, I was certain it was a scam.


The company's activity since investigation began speaks clearly for itself once brought to light.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
September 1, 2009 11:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nothing like a lawsuit to make you look like real journalists.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
DrWebster
September 1, 2009 11:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RandomHookup:

Even without the lawsuit, THIS is real journalism. This is the kind of story anyone who's been to journalism school wants to write; something that can really make a difference and isn't just fluff. The lawsuit just means that C4G sees Consumerist as a threat -- which it certainly is. Great reporting (most blogs wouldn't think to do something like call the fire chief about the building code violations), and I think we all know who will win in the end.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Brazell
September 1, 2009 11:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Excellent post Consumerist, great work. RTing this story as much as possible.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dnparadice
September 1, 2009 11:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

look what this guy got!
[www.cockeyed.com]

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
MikeBrazell
September 1, 2009 11:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

i love the consumerist!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
BrianDaBrain
September 1, 2009 11:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't necessarily comment all that much any more, but I make a point of stopping by Consumerist every day. You guys are awesome when it comes to standing up for consumer rights and showing consumers how to do it for themselves. This is a perfect example of such awesomeness. We have a right to know what we are getting ourselves into when we are dealing with a company, and without folks such as yourselves cutting through the BS, it would be hard for the everyday consumer to have that knowledge.


It's sad, really, because all C4G would really have to do to get themselves a better rep is to start doing honest business. Really, idiotic lawsuits like this do NOTHING to make their rep look any better... quite the opposite in fact. Just look at what the almighty lawsuit has done to the public perception of the RIAA.


If C4G was looking for a sure fire way to put themselves out of business, I think they found it. It's one thing to have shady business practices. It's quite another to take actions - such as this lawsuit against Consumerist, et al - that bring your shady practices into the limelight. As this story grows in popularity, as it seems to be doing rather quickly, more and more people are going to realize that doing business with these people is not in their best interests.


All well. Good riddance.


And, for the record, FUCK YEAH, CONSUMERIST!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ZeGoggles
September 1, 2009 11:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ha. As soon as I went to Consumerist to check out any new articles, a C4G commercial came on. *Insert Twilight Zone music*

This commercial had \"actual customers\" that stated C4G gave them extra gas money, saved Christmas, gave them double compared to what other places offered, and is \"100% legit.\" Talk about a way to try to cover every base. Hope these guys get shut down.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
September 2, 2009 12:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I add my support to Consumerist. I could accept that they pay a tiny fraction of the value of gold trinkets in order to make a profit, but bullying a consumer knowledge organization such as Consumerist.com and Consumers Union for making their practices clear to consumers is where they lose credibility and where I draw the line.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
crazedhare
September 2, 2009 12:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm sure many have already said it, but kudos for not being intimidated and for sharing the details of the filings.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
September 2, 2009 12:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is one of the best and most important articles I've read on this site.. not just because you're protecting yourself in a very admirable and open fashion, and not just because you're doing what you always do by protecting us, but you're clearly going to bat for ex-employees that did nothing but state the truth. The fact that this company is knowingly filing default paperwork when they shouldn't just reeks of sleaze and bullying. They're a big corporation, so who will stop them if not the people? You guys are the Robin Hood of consumer protection. We have a voice because of you where we would have none. I decided to donate $15 because of this article alone (I was holding out for the EECB t-shirt to donate but this did it for sure).

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
evilmregg
September 2, 2009 12:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Kudos for the fine investigative reporting. Thank goodness there are still publications like The Consumerist around with the chutzpah to stand up to lawsuit-happy corporate attorneys.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
tripnman
September 2, 2009 1:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I just clicked on Cash4GoldResponse's profile to see if there had been any other posts after the first one and found it hilarious to see \"Cash4GoldResponse has no friends\" on the profile. They're about to find out exactly how true that is, go go internetz!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
AndroidHumanoid
September 2, 2009 1:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Man I love you guys! Thank you for doing this for all of us \"little\" people... you rock!!!!!!!!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
boricuachick
September 2, 2009 1:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm now a college educated professional and homeowner but a long time ago as a kid growing up in the Bronx, I remember going with my hardworking Mom (a single parent) to a local pawn shop to pawn that one piece of jewelry to get cash to complete the rent or pay for food. Sometimes with four kids, you just couldn't make ends meet some months back then. I truly detest and despise all dirt bags who screw decent people over for their own profit and greed. GO CONSUMERIST!!!!!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
September 2, 2009 2:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@boricuachick: The idea of a pawn shop or a company like cash for gold is not bad in itself. They buy things at a cost that will allow them to turn a profit once they sell it, thats perfectly ok.


The only problem with a company like C4G is that they are shady about how they determine the worth or what they are willing to pay for something, and dont tell the customer until after the product is gone. This wouldnt happen in a regular pawn shop.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
September 2, 2009 12:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter:


yeah, bad as pawnshops can be in some respects, C4G is not even matching pawnshop prices, and don't tell you that until it's out of your hands, to boot. It's hard to believe, but comparing C4G to a pawnshop is actually an insult to pawnshops!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
madog
September 2, 2009 1:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Took me three bathroom breaks and a final peek at my work computer to finish. I already had this place pegged as a complete scam, but it was a great read. Looking forward to more featured articles like this. Good job guys.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
BeFrugalNotCheap
September 2, 2009 1:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Good for Consumerist.com. Never back down no matter what.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MikeBrazell
September 2, 2009 1:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

cash4gold

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
rochec
September 2, 2009 1:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The owner of Cash4Gold has even stated they make most of their money off of people who send in precious gems with their gold. All they pay out on is the gold and they keep the gems at no cost to them.

But people ok this, so that's the problem.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
MikeBrazell
September 2, 2009 1:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

testing

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
September 2, 2009 1:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The photo has to be a fake. No gold chains on tropical shirt dude.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kenposan
September 2, 2009 2:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

this is why I have a local \"gold guy\". He comes to my house, tests everything in front of me, explains everything to me, and gives me a fair price. And he's nice to my kids and lets them play with his acid and scale. boy does that sound bad. lol

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
jamar0303
September 3, 2009 9:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kenposan: Uh, kids + acid (either kind) = problems. Unless the guy's watching them, in which case it's quite the teachable moment (I have a basic idea of why acid is needed to test gold, but how does it go again?)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 2, 2009 3:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kenposan: So you make your own Cash4Gold at home?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sil-chan
September 2, 2009 2:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm just curious if The Consumerist could sue then for slander if/when they lose the court case for the statement that you have reproduced at the bottom of the article.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
CalvinBird
September 2, 2009 2:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

He's a typical South Florida lowlife running a scummy business. And no surprise it's in Pompano. He and the millions of others like him down there are the reason we left. Every business has a schtick or an M.O., or a hand out for a bribe. It's disgusting. I got sick of being asked what my method of payment would be BEFORE anyone would quote prices - that's so the person you're talking to can change the price on the fly. South Florida and all it's scummy con men, well, you can have them.

CB

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
September 2, 2009 2:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

GO CONSUMERIST!!! Way to not let them intimidate you!!

I'm behind you 300%. You make me proud to be here! :D *fist pump*

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Gizmosmonster
September 2, 2009 2:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Thank you for doing this.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Mknzybsofh
September 2, 2009 2:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I LOVE IT! A++++ Work guys! Keep it up!

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
unsleepable
September 2, 2009 2:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

GOOOOOOOO CONSUMERIST!!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
KylieH
September 2, 2009 2:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great work, guys! We're behind you.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
givemebackmymoney
September 2, 2009 2:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Class action lawsuit against Cash4Gold for false advertising - where is it? Sounds like there's adequate evidence and Ms. Liberis could be an expert witness! I think getting the other 90% of the melt value is justified for Cash4Gold customers.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PlayerX
September 2, 2009 2:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I this this is fantastic, and an amazing testament to what this site is all about! Keep it up, Consumerist!

Also, \"he suggested that customers who want more money should take their business elsewhere. \"If all you care about is the net dollar, and you're willing to go to the seedy part of town, and you're willing to travel around ... I want you to go there,\"\"

In other words, \"if you want reasonable money for your stuff, I'm not your man! I will swindle you!\"

Geez.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dj-anakin
September 2, 2009 3:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is awesome! Well done guys! You have our support. I already thought these guys were scamming people, now we know it! Keep it up! Don't give in! They're in the wrong, and they have no right to intimidate you!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Niphil
September 2, 2009 3:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great post, hope you shut them (or at least help) down.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
thesupreme1
September 2, 2009 4:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Fucking awesome! Journalism at its best.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kazoni
September 2, 2009 4:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm with everyone else. Thanks for sticking to your guns and not backing down!!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
azntg
September 2, 2009 4:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Looks like the scumbags are getting all the attention they want. Now, the question is: Can they handle it? (I think not.)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
CapitalC
September 2, 2009 4:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Go Team Consumerist!

They should change their name to Peanuts4Gold.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
antirem
September 2, 2009 5:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why on earth would they sue the consumerist... which is owned by Consumer Reports!

Seems like an ant picking a fight with a forest fire.. their going to get stomped for this.

[hackerblog.net]

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ohwut
September 2, 2009 5:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I honestly fail to see why a company with these kind of business practices feels they are protected by law, I mean I'm sure they am. But now that it's exposed hopefully someone will go after them, they're simply bringing more attention to them selves than they would have gotten on a few medium seized blogs.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
micmuk
September 2, 2009 5:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Looks like Jeff Aronson is eating all the gold!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
September 2, 2009 6:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hehe...looks like the consumerist needs /b/lackup

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kramthegram
September 2, 2009 6:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

That sirs, was a 50$ donation worthy post.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 2, 2009 6:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

thoroughly enjoyed the article. excellent work and good luck

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bstaz
September 2, 2009 6:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Consumerist, you rock! Keep up the good fight.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
webfloss
September 2, 2009 6:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hmmmm... my site shows up on the first page of Google for \"Cash for Gold scam\".

Does that mean I will be next in the lawsuit LOL? I seriously doubt it, but these aren't rumors ya know...

I went through this already with a Bigsp0t whining and threatening bloggers and consumers. These people are flipping ridiculous.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
luxdesigns
September 2, 2009 6:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

How many times can two lawyers misspell the word \"injunctive\"?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LordDagoth
September 2, 2009 6:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You guys rock!

Keep up the good work, and good luck!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jtskier1200r
September 2, 2009 8:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Major Fail by Cash4Gold. Talk about doing exactly the opposite of good marketing. Whatever they spent on those stupid ads, they just threw it all away. I will be sure to tell everybody I how terrible they are. Nice work Consumerist! Rock on!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mmajeff
September 2, 2009 10:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have been reading Consumerist occasionally for many years. After I saw this, I decided I absolutely had to create an account to give a Kudos to the Consumerist. Excellent work!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
nightshade74
September 2, 2009 11:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Excellent work!
I have a feeling this is going to work
out about as well as Suzuki did when
they sued Consumers Union.

With an added touch of the
Streisand effect.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JonThomasDesigns
September 2, 2009 11:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I do not object so much to the low prices .. its up to you to take it or not and i understand that it may be tough to reject if the check comes late.. but the Douche legal actions are what really upsets me

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
johnfrombrooklyn
September 2, 2009 11:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Funny that people proudly post about hitting the donation tab. I fear the future without crack investigative journalism run by newspapers that don't have to put out the tip jar to pay for these exposes.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
savdavid
September 2, 2009 11:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

They have no case against you and they know it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
farmerjeanh
September 2, 2009 12:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I thought \"cash for gold\" existed so that people who stole jewelry could bypass the local pawn shops and thereby avoid police detection. Like a mail order fence?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Elhigh
September 2, 2009 12:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

See, I regard Consumerist as a journalistic outlet. You report events, trends, and consequences. As such, how much swing C4G has against you simply reporting on what's up is pretty limited. And that's good, because it looks like they're a bunch of crooks.

And Aronson looks like he might just as easily answer to \"Fat Tony.\" Hammer, on the other hand, looks like he really needed the money.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
cartagenero
September 2, 2009 12:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

F them bastards, they have nothing to go by, you should probably counter sue them!!

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
danio3834
September 2, 2009 1:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Buying low and selling high is fraud? If you don't like their prices, don't sell to them. Do your homework, plain and simple.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
pattiesmart
September 2, 2009 3:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@danio3834: LMAO. Ther is always some jack ass who doesn't read before he comments.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 2, 2009 1:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@danio3834: Read the damn article. That's not what this is about.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 2, 2009 1:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What's an even bigger scam is toys 4 tots...


Where's my damn toys?

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
coan_net
September 2, 2009 1:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

WHY is this article staying at the top of the list?

I thought the whole reason you took 1/3 of the top of the page was to list top stories... now you are going to STILL use the top 1/3 of the page to list 4 top stories, AND keep other articles pinned to the top??

If you are going to do that - PLEASE give us back the top 1/3 of the page so I don't have to keep scrolling down just to see the newest stories!!!!!

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
pattiesmart
September 2, 2009 3:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coan_net: OMG SCROLLING IS SO HARD!!!! MAYBE IF I !!!!! ENOUGH !!!!!! THEY'LL FIX IT !!!!!!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coan_net
September 2, 2009 7:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pattiesmart: To answer some of the questions above. I have no interest in a RSS feed. When I have time, I visit & read.

Scrolling is less of an issue (which is why I rarely complain about them taking 1/3 of the page for the top story list)

The MAIN issue is when I come & visit this site, I see the same article on the top - I leave. I usually visit a few times a day, and for a long time I was just assuming it was a slow news day.

Why did I think that? Because the same article was sitting staring at me each time I visit.

I can understand that they may need to pin an article on the top since it is a \"top story\", BUT ISN'T THAT WHAT THE TOP 4 \"top story\" icons & shortcuts are for???????

No one died and gave me editorial control (It is called a comment), and I can honestly say I'm unsure what a \"trolling comment\" is. I had already commented on the story when it first came out... it just took me longer to notice anything new since they were hiding all the new stories further down the page.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pattiesmart
September 2, 2009 8:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coan_net: Also maybe if you !!!! and ???? enough, someone will listen to you!!!!?????

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pattiesmart
September 2, 2009 8:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coan_net: Oh get over yourself. Jesus. What a long ass rant for nothing.


Also, you might want to read the comment code, because you just broke several rules. But good job on being obnoxious.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coan_net
September 2, 2009 8:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pattiesmart: I have read it. What rules have I broke? I have stated my thoughts. I did it without insulting anyone else.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pattiesmart
September 2, 2009 9:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coan_net: Junk comments. Seriously. Get with the picture!!!!????!!!!!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 2, 2009 9:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coan_net:
To be specific...
- \"No Junk Comments\"
- \"Make it Readable\" (which specifically references your overuse of exclamation points)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 2, 2009 2:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coan_net: However, I will say that I am surprised it took 8 pages to get to the first trolling comment.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 2, 2009 2:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coan_net: Who died and gave you editorial control?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CheritaChen
September 2, 2009 2:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coan_net: ...Because scrolling past a temporarily pinned featured article is such a hardship. If the site's layout pains you so, why not stick with the RSS?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Halloway
September 2, 2009 1:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"...you know, it was like, 'Wow.' Like, she would have never thought, you know. So I was like, \"Well, if she would have never thought, who else? Who else would have never thought?\"

Wow, that's like, it's like the worst sentence, you know, I've like ever read, ever.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
MosesKabob
September 2, 2009 2:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Donated. Thanks.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
profmonster
September 2, 2009 2:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Rock on, Consumerist! I really love what you're doing, and the simple and articulate way you report it. On my way to make a donation.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
jerry_101
September 2, 2009 2:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

wow, that's a heckuva story. As a reader, I'd like to see consumerist break down the bad behavior of businesses like this more often.


Good to see Consumerist is fighting back, I'm going to have to talk to the wife about subscribing to Consumer Reports to put a few extra bucks in your corporate master's clink.


Of course, these cash4gold people are clearly fools. Even if you do take down all your C4G posts, well, the internet never forgets. Its a nice way to draw attention to their bad actions.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
The_Lost_Art_of_Sears_Customer_Service
September 2, 2009 2:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You guys rule.


Aronson and Tony Siragusa...separated at birth?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
edesignway
September 2, 2009 2:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If I wasn't in the process of buying a house in a few days I would donate myself, damn bank thinks I need to give a sizeable down payment. Its nice to see a quality investigation on here.. Keep up the good work!

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
CheritaChen
September 2, 2009 2:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is the kind of stuff I love to see: someone standing up for the truth. I wish I could say that I am shocked or horrified by Cash4Gold's practices (or past practices, if that is the case), but I'm not. Buying gold at a greatly reduced price is not shady or illegal. Lying to customers and false advertising (\"top dollar\"?!) are shady and sometimes illegal. But filing a libel suit against someone who told the truth, then threatening additional parties for supporting the story and backing it up with evidence...that's just fucking stupid. I hope there is at least one decent judge in Broward County who will tell Aronson and his team what to do with their sniveling.

And now that I've seen the creep's picture, if I ever run into him in person, I can tell him what I think of him, too.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
trendk35
September 2, 2009 2:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great story. CNN should make a report on this article, hope they pick it up. Great work consumerist.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
johnyeros
September 3, 2009 12:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@trendk35:

i like cnn but i can never see cnn do anything like this. the best they got is anderson coooper and he doesn't do this kinda stuff :(.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
pattiesmart
September 2, 2009 3:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LeChiffre: ....I'm not quite certain what Chaldean is, but he certainly does NOT look Arab.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Wang_Chung_Tonight
September 2, 2009 3:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

just wait for the next business...\"cash for honeybuns\" to be ran from San Quentin Maximum Security Prison.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
qcgallus
September 2, 2009 3:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm going to keep my comment simple. After reading this article, and the documents submitted, I believe three words sum it up:
Game.
Set.
Match.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
mechimike
September 2, 2009 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While I in no way endorse what C4G is doing (ripping people off), anyone who mails in precious metals to a company expecting them to pay them \"top dollar\" deserves to be ripped off. The first time I saw a C4G commercial I thought to myself \"I bet they're paying pennies on the dollar for that gold\" and apparently I was right. Nevermind my other concerns about mailing something fairly valuable in a plastic pouch. How many do you think actually get \"lost\" or stolen? I'd bet quite a few.


C4G is obviously out to make a quick, easy buck. So are the morons who send in their valuables to them. They're both culpable.

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
magnes
September 2, 2009 4:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

With a 900 dollar bonus, forget trading in your gold... go work for them!
I don't understand how anyone can fall for these types of scams, especially after reading something like this. Thankyou for posting this! Very extensive research!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
masonsturtle
September 2, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"we felt that killing a post we deemed to be both credible and newsworthy would be a disservice to our readers and a betrayal of our responsibility as consumer journalists.\"

Thanks Consumerist!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
cete-of-badgers
September 2, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Go Consumerist!

This is the most hilarious part of that company's claims: \"Because we own our refinery, we can cut out the middleman...\" They ARE the fricking middleman! It's, dare I say, exploitative that they're pushing such BS on consumers during a recession/depression. Of course these guys are based in Florida...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ironchef
September 2, 2009 5:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great article and investigative reporting...by far.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
SWBLOOPERS
September 2, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

These guys have always look a little \"scummy\" to me.

Stand tall, Consumerist! We're all right behind you!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
mp1gsp
September 2, 2009 5:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'd like to add my pat-on-the-back to Consumerist for standing up to these legal threats. Well done!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
fashionista
September 2, 2009 6:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm still at a loss as to why people think it's a good idea to mail valuables to a relatively mysterious company, and, now that I've seen the \"CEO\", to say that I wouldn't send him my costume jewelry would be the understatement of they year.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
escrowrealtalk
September 2, 2009 7:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm sorry folks, but I kinda have to side with Cash4Gold on this one - they are a business and want to make money. If people want to go to a pawn shop in some not so great neighbourhood go there....if you want to get some money for your unwanted jewelry use a cash4gold or similar service. The keyword is unwanted..if you don't want the stuff get rid of it...I have never delt with cash4gold or any similar company, and don't plan on doing so as I feel that even pawn shops don't give fair value. If I want to sell something I will put an ad in the paper or talk to a professional..

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
xoxoxoxoxo
September 2, 2009 9:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great article, but what is the major problem here? This company is mainstreaming to the masses a way to sell them money. If the consumer does no research, it is not a companies fault for getting the better of the consumer. You all are correct in feeling like this company takes advantage of ignorance and may project a little fluff, but it's not illegal what they're doing.


I would compare these tactics with mortgage sales over the last 5 years. Anyone that doesn't do their their do diligence deserves no bail out and no help here. There are plenty of places to get a quote for your gold.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Eliamias
September 3, 2009 9:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xoxoxoxoxo: The issue here is that C4G is trying to suppress any negative (and seemingly wholly accurate) information rendering the results of any research fairly much moot. That is onerous no matter what their business is. How can any consumer research be in any way adequate when they are trying to suppress the truth?

And seriously, this: \"I would compare these tactics with mortgage sales over the last 5 years.\"? How many mortgage companies sued would be mortgage holders when they publically complained that the terms were unfavourable and anyone who repeated said complaint while claiming that they were as pure as the driven snow? In your analogy, how did Consumerist not do their 'due diligence' and therefore deserve no help here (since they're the ones being sued, along with the whistleblowers)?

Personally I think the 'major problem here' (which for some reason you don't see) is that they are suing any and everyone, including this blog, who claims that their shit does, in fact, stink. That and the dubious legal goings-on (a post-judgment amended complaint? I'm not a lawyer, but what?!)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
zxjinn
September 2, 2009 9:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

These are the kinds of stories I love and exactly why I keep reading the Consumerist.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
DaveDidNotPay
September 2, 2009 10:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

200k views in one day? Consumerist, does this qualify as the most-viewed entry on your blog?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
u1itn0w2day
September 2, 2009 11:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Kudos to the Consumerist for sticking to their guns !


They're are too many things to say about this so I'll just touch a few points .


One of the things I saw that Cash4Gold has to make so much to cover their marketing costs . But that's not an excuse . Just like those too big to fail finance institutions that were simply too big perhaps that's Cash4Gold's problem . They're the ones that wanted expand to the huge operation they are today .


And that same arrogance is showing in their attempts to silence everyone . You have to expect disgruntled customers and employees especially when your business gets that big . They're hurting themselves more by making a big stink over a lawsuit and some comments that would have been forgotten by most . Now it's news .


Personally I would take my gold or metal to a buyer IN PERSON . I have had old coins for years and was told the only way to get them appraised is by sending them away . No way , when I do decide to sell them it will be local stamp/coin shop or a pawn shop IN PERSON .

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
LithiumRain
September 3, 2009 3:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Figures that they're crooked. I was just thinking \"Y'know, maybe I should try sending them something, just for the heck of it...\". Sure glad I didn't now!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Zuska
September 3, 2009 4:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

There was a news article about groups like these ~ they are the best gift in the world for theives. There is no telling how many stolen items have been disposed of in this way.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
u1itn0w2day
September 3, 2009 5:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The only bad thing is that there is documentation including a location where the check was sent to .


But unlike the local pawn shops where you or the police can go into and look for the stolen goods there is little or no chance of this happening here . I think in some states a pawn shop needs your social and ID in order to take your stuff . Here you just need to send your stuff in . I'm all for privacy but there needs to some regulation with crime prevention in mind .


That's why I'm leary of pawn shops where I would always feel I'm buying somebody else's stolen stuff . Some say a pawn shop is like prostitution or food: recession proof .

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
100-mortgage.com
September 3, 2009 2:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I bet they want to keep you quiet.. first business next stop, politians! Go Consumerist we need more like you!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
razremytuxbuddy
September 3, 2009 3:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Go Consumerist. Your detailed work on this case, and your refusal to be bullied is providing a real service to consumers.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
luckyfinz
September 3, 2009 4:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Good for you for standing firm in this! Crazy that they think they could bully you into shutting up about this story. I imagine they would have a tough time in court standing up against your freedom of speech & press in this matter.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kickarse
September 3, 2009 6:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Never back down!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Winteridge2
September 3, 2009 10:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

We all know that good ol' Ed McMahon would sell anything, but anything, for anyone, for a price. Didn't even have to know what the product was or did.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Marshfield
September 4, 2009 3:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder if C4G is taking litigation advice from Monster Cables, who were quite happy to sue anyone or anything with Monster in their name.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
joosay
September 4, 2009 4:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hope Cash4Gold burns in hell.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
typhoon17
September 4, 2009 3:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great article! Its so unfortunate that people are stupid enough to use these businesses. I suspect its just out of laziness/desperation maybe, they send stuff to these guys and then hope for the best and thats how these guys win.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Squeezer99
September 4, 2009 6:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

how come i can't execute my right to free speech to leave a crappy comment on here?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Gruppa
September 5, 2009 5:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Squeezer99: Because right to free speech only applies to the government, not to private organizations. A privately run forum can edit or ban you or your comments for no other reason than because they can.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
brolay
September 6, 2009 12:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am not a regular reader of the consumerist, however, if this article is any indication of their routine work, sign me up! One can only describe this article as well researched, thoughtful, and determined to withstand pressure administered by the cash4gold people. Again, my congratulations to the staff for a great article and a willingness to stand up for what obviously appears as a terrible system. People need to hear and see how this company appears to be ripping them off by offering so little for their gold. The assertion that they are paying top dollar is laughable.
Let's hope they continue to pursue this story because the public needs to hear it!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
denaliguide
September 6, 2009 3:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well I just posted this link to a discussion board. I hope this story goes viral. Will post it to my blog at some point. Good luck, no point taking this crap from sleazebags like this.

Best,

DG

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TruthAboutPDL
September 6, 2009 7:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just so I'm clear about this story:
1) Cash4Gold lowballs the heck out of its customers.
2) If the customer pushes back, they raise their offer
3) There are incentives offered for employees who keep the purchase price low.

None of this is illegal. And while it certainly doesn't put Cash4Gold in a good light, it's just tough business practice. You don't like the price offered, don't sell.

4) An employee blabbed about internal business practices.

As the owner, I'd certainly be upset. But had I chosen to do business in a more consumer-friendly manner, I never would've had this problem, would I? And if there was no confidentiality clause in her contract, then I really have nothing to complain about.

5) They offered money to the blogger to remove her post.

Not unusual nor surprising. Who wants internal company information leaked, especially when it makes you look bad?

6) They fired the employee.

Bad move. Looks bad. And unnecessary. Illegal? Not to my knowledge.

7) They sued the employee.

See #6.

8) They sued the Consumerist for covering the story.

See #6.

9) They run a facility that is allegedly not up to code.

That's bad, and there's proof to back it up apparently.

10) They allegedly are violating the health code.

IF true, very bad. But it's just an allegation.

11) They may be in violation of several state and federal statutes, as well as FTC rules, regarding deceptive practices and false advertising.

If what was alleged is true, this is certainly possible, and very bad.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Winteridge2
September 6, 2009 2:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Let me understand this: I mail them my gold and jewelry. They decide if and how much they want to pay me, then maybe send me a check. Maybe I never hear from them? People really are stupid enough to do this? We are doomed!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
BUYEROFSTUFF
September 6, 2009 4:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hi my handle may be familiar to certain people because I am a \"Buyerofstuff \" on eBay but not just there too..

I buy lots of stuff but one thing that I have become even more aware of is the often neglected phrase \"let the buyer beware\" Of course there are people out there who will not tell you the complete truth about a product or a service... Why.. its not so much that they are greedy its that the consumer is often not as knowledgeable about the offer or may be too in a hurry to get his money or what ever he is anticpatating will happen when he does this transaction.. to do the necessary homework. L

Lt me give you an example from my personal life..

I buy coins from the NYMINT and when a friend of mine who is a coin dealer that I had over paid for the coins told me., So I had decided to finally use my common sense and do some more digging.. on eBay.

I found the exact same coins that I had been buying from the NYMINT FOR an average of less than 40% of the price that I had been paying @ the NY MINT..

(I had returned the last coin from them got my refund because it was within 30 days and bought a replacement or a duplicate coin which had been graded exactly as had the one that from the NY MINT and paid $1000.00 less on it.)

How stupid did I feel when I found all of the coins that the had sold to me on eBay for about the same mark down in price.?

Now why when I had access to eBay (I've been on eBay for about 11 years) did I not question there offer.. and buy them from EBAY?

It start with being first aware..

But that's not enough you must be ever diligent.

Because if you don't have the current knowledge of what you are doing..

It will lead you down a path where you may become complacent.

Until one day you find out that you could have gotten a better deal on a service or a product somewhere else

So then you end up here on this forum complaining about how greedy the seller was and took advantage of you…. (because @ the time you thought it was a good deal?)

SO I AM NOT JUST TALKING TO WHOM EVERY IS READINBG THIS BUT TO MYSELF.

USE YOUR BRAIN before you purchase any service or goods or go to any business opportunity.

And always read the fine print..

So that I know that I will get some good comments and some negative comments from this post..

But that I can take it..

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
swissmiss1
September 7, 2009 1:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I fully agree about the great work you guys are doing!As one of the embarassed victims in this particular story, I can't help wondering if a class action suit wouldn't be an option too? There got to be a way to not only punish Cash4Gold on behalf of all who got scammed, but to somehow get us all more money maybe? No matter what, I'm also always grateful for all your public messages and test results I hear from you on the radio.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Nick
September 7, 2009 3:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Aronson and Co. are the scum of the earth.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jaxjeff
September 7, 2009 3:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

So much for holding the lid on this. This article is now linked on the headline page of Google News, one of the web' top visited site. I'd say the genie is out of the bottle.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dnharris14
September 7, 2009 6:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm sorry, but maybe I'm just an uncompassionate dolt, but anybody that takes gold, puts it in and envelope and sends it to someone that says they will give them top dollar deserves the pennies they receive. I am tired of coddling idiots. When are people going to wake up? If you can't figure out that this is a scam after the first commercial you deserve what ever they give you. Stop being greedy idiots that think you're going to get something from nothing.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
nashville-seo
September 7, 2009 9:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"de-optimize\"?! Ohh, pleeeeease, let me help you re-optimize them right out of slimy business!!!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
SmartAlex
September 7, 2009 11:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

as a pawn shop owner, I resent this guy insinuating that I own a seedy business. I feel this is defamation.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
truthseeker3
September 7, 2009 6:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You guys are people with back bones. I salute you.
This is what makes me feel good living in America --- Freedom of Speech. Scare tactics can not bring you down, even in the name of law.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
September 8, 2009 12:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

OK, so it's a few days late ... but in light of this lawsuit against Consumerist, I made an extra donation. It won't pay the entire legal tab, but it's something anyway.

Take that, Cash4Gold.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
donrichardson
September 8, 2009 12:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

In just watching the T.V adds I could tell it was a scam by the actors they employed. \"They sent me all this money, now I can afford the good drugs\"

Pretty much the same time slot as as the lawyers who will sue for you. Marginally retarded people watching the mindless portions of T V shows in afternoons an late night. half hour comedy shows with laugh tracks.

And watch for the free wheel chairs, next scam coming, stay tuned.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dwcusc
September 8, 2009 12:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I read the entire article and I am proud of The Consumerist for standing by the side of consumers! Also proud of the former employee!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RufusVonDufus
September 9, 2009 7:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Apparently Aronson lives by the Golden Rule--he who has the gold rules!

I wonder about the ethnicity of the judge granting Cash4Gold all of the findings against Liberis.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Mercsenary
September 9, 2009 8:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

DEFAMATION!? ITS NOT DEFAMATION IF ITS TRUE ASSHOLES.

CASH4GOLD a legit business that seems to operate more like scam sites than an acutally gold dealer.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bookwench
September 9, 2009 9:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wanted to say thank you for the job you guys do. This sort of integrity is why I read and trust articles on your site.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Instigator
September 9, 2009 12:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why anyone would put their gold items in a bag, send it off and expect to get ANYTHING in return is more evidence of America's descent into Idiocracy. So why is anyone surprised at the sleaziness of this company?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Covertghost
September 9, 2009 3:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Glad to see there's still some journalists that aren't swayed by bullying overlitigous bastard companies.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
fuzzymuffins
September 10, 2009 4:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

such a shame because that superbowl ad is one of my favorite of all time....

selling your 'gold for cash' seems like a shady thing to begin with....

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
rlewis01
September 11, 2009 5:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Any company that asks you to sell them something by mail--especially jewelry--probably isn't legit. That's how I feel about it anyway.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
oyanobaka
September 14, 2009 4:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Now how is the US Government going to pay down the debt?
[www.theonion.com]

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
LostAtoll
September 19, 2009 7:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

what a standard florida scumbag. rock on consumerist. Cash 4 gold is the exact kind of company that needs to be destroyed.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
mouse
March 25, 2010 3:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

if i was anybody out there, i would not deal with these people.
i sent them a packet of gold, equaling about 2lb.
gold is now worth 1200 an oz, figure what i should
have gotten. come to find out, instead of paying me
in gold standard, they payed me in penny weight,
which is equal to only one tenth the price of gold.
so guess what i actually got, close to nothing in payment.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
actuatedpoodle
April 12, 2010 5:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Jeff Aronson - what a greasy whale! I bet there would be enough oil to light lamps across America for the entire 19th Century. But beyond that, he seems like almost a Hollywood caricature of what a sleazy schmuck would be like.Everything my gut told me about Cash4Gold when their ads first aired was proven right. I would never use such a slimy, fly-by-nightish company. I hope when it is all said and done that the defendants counter sue and that AGs file criminal charges and throw Aronson the fish-monger in jail where he belongs. I just pray that rotund fleabag doesn't have any children.

Reply
","");