On my other older Gateway laptop, the new Synaptics driver works everywhere, including both OE frames. On the Gateway NX570, I made sure the preview frame was active when I tried to scroll — that was the first thing I did. I also tried to left-click; that doesn’t work either; however, if I right-click, it will work, but then I have a drop-down menu hanging about.

Any other ideas?

It could also be that it’s not going to work with OE. It is a striped down and stupid version Outlook. You’re not supposed to be content with OE, you’re supposed to get frustrated that it doesn’t do everything right and you then upgrade MS Office with Outlook.

This worked for me, too; thanks a bunh.

I do have one problem though . . . On my Gateway NX570 (Media Center), the virtual scroll won’t work on the bottom portion of Outlook Express (preview pane). My OS is XP, and I did download the correct driver.

The virtual scroll works everywhere else it’s supposed to — weird, eh? Anyone have any ideas on how to fix it?

BlueHippo Defendants Will Pay up to $5 Million to Settle FTC Charges
Two companies that offer to finance the sale of personal computers to consumers with poor credit ratings have agreed to pay up to $5 million for consumer redress to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they violated federal laws.

According to the FTC’s complaint, BlueHippo Funding, LLC and BlueHippo Capital, LLC offered to extend credit to consumers to finance purchases of personal computers and other consumer electronics with down payments of $99 to $124 and a year of weekly or bi-weekly payments ranging from $36 to $88. In nationwide television and radio commercials, and on their Web site, the defendants touted the ability of consumers with “less than perfect credit, bad credit, no credit” to finance the purchase of a computer. Many consumers who ordered products paid hundreds of dollars and received nothing in return, the complaint alleges.

According to the complaint, the defendants required consumers to agree to a series of automatic, periodic debits from their bank accounts to purchase their products, promising that they would deliver the product once the consumer made 13 weekly, or seven bi-weekly, payments. In many instances, the defendants debited consumers’ accounts without first disclosing that consumers could not get a refund even if they cancelled before delivery of the product, and regardless of the reason for cancellation.

Consumers who ordered products by calling a toll-free number were told that they would receive a “shipping verification form” with sale terms and shipping information, and that they had to sign and return the form to ensure product delivery, the complaint alleges. The form contained terms that were not disclosed previously, including disclosures regarding finance terms. The defendants often failed to provide the forms and revolving account agreements before they debited accounts, so the finance terms and refund policy were not disclosed before consumers started making non-refundable payments.

According to the complaint, many consumers did not receive the merchandise they ordered or refunds. The FTC alleges that the defendants failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose their policy of not providing refunds before debiting accounts, in violation of the FTC Act, and consumers had no opportunity to make a timely and informed decision about whether or not to risk the potential loss of advance payments. The defendants also allegedly failed to deliver the products after consumers made 13 weeks of payments, as promised during the sales call, also in violation of the FTC Act.

The defendants also are charged with violating the FTC’s Mail Order Rule by failing to ship merchandise in a timely manner or give consumers the right to cancel and receive a refund. They allegedly violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z by failing to make certain written disclosures before a transaction is made under an open-end consumer credit plan, and they allegedly violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E by conditioning the extension of credit to consumers on repayment by preauthorized electronic debits.

Under the proposed stipulated final order, the defendants are barred from misrepresentations in the marketing of consumer electronics or any product requiring four or more periodic payments before shipment. They also are barred from misrepresenting refunds, cancellations, exchanges, or repurchases of products without disclosing clearly and conspicuously, before receiving payment, the terms and conditions, and any policy of not refunding all payments when a consumer cancels the contract before product delivery. In addition, they are permanently prohibited from violating the Mail Order Rule, the TILA and Regulation Z, and from conditioning the extension of credit on mandatory preauthorized transfers in violation of the EFTA and Regulation E.

The settlement includes a monetary judgment of at least $3.5 million and up to $5 million. This money will be used to provide redress to consumers who entered into contracts with the defendants before March 2006, made payments, and did not receive the ordered products, refunds, or other restitution. If valid consumer claims exceed $3.5 million, the defendants will be required to pay up to an additional $1.5 million to pay those claims. The settlement also requires the defendants to stop collecting money from purchasers who are entitled to redress, to stop furnishing derogatory information about such purchasers to credit reporting agencies, and to notify any agency to which they have provided such information that the person’s account is in good standing. The settlement contains monitoring and record keeping provisions to ensure their compliance.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order for permanent injunction was 5-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been
or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. The stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge.

Copies of the complaint and stipulated final order are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,600 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Frank Dorman,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2674

BlueHippo Funding Settles $1 Million Case
Company Will Refund Consumers’ Money, Pay Penalties

By Joseph S. Enoch
ConsumerAffairs.com

May 11, 2007

BlueHippo CEO Joseph Rensin (left) begs off questioning by WJLA-TV’s Ross McLaughlin.

As the result of a settlement with the Maryland attorney general, BlueHippo Funding, a layaway computer sales company, will have to forfeit all of its profits to Maryland consumers who received overpriced products and make full refunds to those who received nothing for their money.

The office of the Maryland attorney general will also resolve BlueHippo complaints for consumers outside the state of Maryland. Those consumers should call the Consumer Protection Division at (410) 528-8662.

Maryland attorney general Douglas Gansler and BlueHippo settled after a two-year investigation stemming from 1,320 complaints filed with the Maryland Better Business Bureau.

“This company has misled customers nationwide and as of today, they have agreed to halt their deceptive business practices,” Gansler said.

Gansler estimated the settlement will cost BlueHippo $1 million on top of $300,000 the company must pay in restitution to the attorney general’s consumer protection division.