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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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