whats my credit score
![]()
Have you purchased sportswear at Lululemon Athletica? If you have, you're not alone, the store is doing quite well selling "organic" sportswear made of odd materials with dubious heath benefits.
For example, they claim that their seaweed fabric is "made with vitasea technology consisting of seaweed which releases marine amino acids minerals and vitamins into the skin upon contact with moisture," and that the "fabric provides anti-inflammatory, anti-bacterial, stress reducing, hydrating and detoxifying features." If that sounds like BS, it's because it is.
The New York Times commissioned tests of Lululemon's special seaweed clothing and found, you guessed it, no seaweed.
The New York Times commissioned a laboratory test of a Lululemon shirt made of VitaSea, and reviewed a similar test performed at another lab, and both came to the same conclusion: there was no significant difference in mineral levels between the VitaSea fabric and cotton T-shirts.
In other words, the labs found no evidence of seaweed in the Lululemon clothing.
"Seaweeds have known vitamins and minerals, and we searched specifically for those vitamins, and we didn't see them," said Carolyn J. Otten, director for specialized services at Chemir Analytical Services, a lab in Maryland Heights, Mo. that tested a sample of VitaSea.
When told about the findings, Lululemon's founder said he could not dispute them.
"If you actually put it on and wear it, it is different from cotton," said Dennis Wilson, Lululemon's founder, chief product designer and board chairman. "That's my only test of it," said Mr. Wilson, known as Chip.
The shirt tested by The Times was labeled as being made of 70 percent cotton, 6 percent spandex and 24 percent of the seaweed fiber.
The Times commissioned its test after an investor who is shorting Lululemon's stock -- betting that its price will fall -- provided Chemir's test results to The Times.
The Times used a second lab, the McCrone Group, to test a blue racer-back tank top made with Lululemon's VitaSea against a gray J. Crew T-shirt. McCrone, which is based in Westmont, Ill., likewise could not detect any seaweed-specific components. Though the labs could not absolutely rule out a trace of seaweed, they could not, using sensitive testing methods, substantiate Lululemon's claims. The story goes on to suggest that the store is being had by the fabric's manufacturer, a German company called Smartfiber. Of course, all of this doesn't mean that it's not a nice shirt, but should serve as a wakeup call to everyone who thought that their shirt was keeping them hydrated and giving them vitamins and amino acids.
The moral of this story is that you shouldn't believe everything you read. Often people think to themselves, "Well, they couldn't say it unless it was true." There's just one problem with that theory. They can say it until someone with enough money to do independent laboratory tests proves it isn't true.
T-Mobile sent reader Ivan's account to collections after he twice cancelled his service. He first cancelled in August, but T-Mobile mysteriously lost the cancellation letter. Ivan faxed over a second cancellation letter while a CSR waited on the phone to confirm receipt. Having switched to Verizon, Ivan didn't care when in September, someone stepped on the T-Mobile phone lying in his car, breaking the screen. T-Mobile is now demanding that Ivan pay a bill that lists only a reinstatement fee. Ivan writes:
After I while I started getting calls from t-mobile telling me I had to pay my bill, so I called them again and the guy told me that my account was still not canceled and that I was being charged for some reinstatement fee for September and some unpaid dues from before, and some fees for October, even tho I have the bills from t-mobile stating that I paid my bills in full for all the months and the bill for July and August, and that I have no minutes used for September and October, actually my phone wasn't even working during September and October because someone stepped on it in my car and broke the screen, and I had already gotten a new service with verizon. The guy told me that it wasn't right and that he will take care of it. So I thought that he will, but after couple days I again got a call from t-mobile saying that I have to pay my bills or it will be passed on to collection agencie. So I called again on Wednesday October 31st, and told the guy everything, and he told me that he can see that I called on August 17th to cancel the account, that he doesn't have the letter, and that he will review my account and call me back Sunday November 4th to tell me whats going on before he does anything. I didn't get any call from anyone on Sunday, So I called Monday. again the representative said she could not do anything about it, and this time said that it was already passed on to collection agencies, so I told her to let me talk to someone else, she let me talk to some guy from support something. The guy from support Michael told me he couldn't do anything that it was passed on already to collection agencie. When I told him everything that happened he was like yea I do see all that but I cant do anything about it, and that I would have to deal with collection agencie now, when I asked him to give me the number to collection aggencie, he told me to wait that he came back and told me that they filled it on Nov 4th and that it takes 3 days for the collection agencies information to come back and that he couldn't give me their phone number. So I asked his name he told me it was Michael, I told him Michael I was recording this call is that ok with you, right away he was like actually sir you can't do that, I told him thanks and bye.
I wasn't actually recording him, but he did seem scared after I told him.
Is there anything I can do to find some answers????There is little you can do once an account has been sent to collections other than prepare for the coming onslaught of debt collectors. Read through our tips on
We get many tales of consumer disputes and a common situation we hear of us is where customers are dissatisfied with a product or service, refuse to pay until its fixed, and the business, usually a small business, threatens to "ruin" the customer's credit score over the item. (For some reason, the word "ruin" is always used).
Now, FICO is notoriously cagey about what goes into the credit score black box but they have revealed the different factors that go into a score and their proportional influence. Payment history only accounts for 35% of your credit score. The "burn" from the dispute represents a then smaller part of that 35%. How big a threat are they making really? "I'm sorry, sir, we're going to have to deny your mortgage. I can see here that yo