You know how everybody loved that Bank of America monthly debit card fee thing? Or that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you pay Ticketmaster to let you print something out on your computer? Well, Verizon is apparently looking to get in on some of that feel-good action. According to Droid Life's sources, it appears that Verizon Wireless is looking to add a $2.00 "convenience fee" to bills paid online or over its automatic phone payment system. There are a number of still-free workarounds, including mailing an old fashioned check, or Verizon's obvious favorite: AutoPayment, but this seems a bit like a bait and switch after all the work everybody did to get away from paper billing in the first place. Also, it doesn't help that this is coming on the heels of a major LTE outage.
Of course, Verizon is right, paying a bill online or through a phone robot is convenient — for all parties involved. Verizon claims that the fee covers its ability to "continue to support these bill payment options" (you know, because all your regular bill dollars are being used entirely to improve your wireless service) but there's no way it's more costly for Verizon than processing the old fashioned, handwritten paper checks we used to pluck out of furrowed fields and send to Big Red on the Pony Express. Another free option is to pay in a Verizon store, which sounds much more expensive in terms of man hours than letting a slice of HTML take down your credit card details. Hopefully Verizon changes its mind before the change goes into effect, purportedly on January 15th.

There are 74 Comments. Add yours.
Seems a little ridiculous to me that it’s as high as $2. I make my car payment via ACH every month at $.50. My AT&T bill doesn’t charge, but if Verizon is able to get away with it I’ll see it spread from my Verizon mifi to my regular AT&T cell service.
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 11:57 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
And you’re getting ripped off.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 10:06 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes, this is the copy cat nature of the cell providers. AT&T and verizon constantly ape each other, if people pay the $2, then AT&T will do it as well.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 11:33 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yuckkuuu… What’s wrong with Verizon off late :’(
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
#occupyverizon
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:12 AM EST reply Recommend (17) Flag actions
I’m not one to get all up in arms, but this is some straight bullocks right here.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:13 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
That’s what they’re counting on. Keep it up and maybe they’ll find more ways to f*ck you and the rest of the VZW customers. Starting sending letters.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 11:02 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
*start
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 11:09 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Hey, we are Verizon and we’re going to charge you another fee, for our convenience
just to fuck with customers. :\
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:13 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Sprint did this back a few years ago where they charged people $2.50 just to talk to a representative for ANY reason, even if it was a technical issue Sprint caused. It lasted a year, and they stopped. Lets see how long Verizon does this for, before AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint follow. I give it 3 months MAX.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Its about time we let Verizon know we are tired of their crap. I am hoping some lawyer gets a class action suit for false advertising their LTE network as reliable. Tweet to @verizonwireless and use #BoycottVZW I am sure if we can make it trend nationally they may give it a second thought.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You know you have to go through arbitration now…
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 3:16 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not really. Just because you blindly agree to that when you sign up for service doesn’t mean it’s enforceable. Customers still have power if they work together.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 10:08 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Hang on, hang on. You gotta earn that extra two bucks, Verizon. Spotty LTE is not the way to do it.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:17 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Wow. For every company that still engages in this silliness, I just take the two minutes to mail a check and let them pay someone to process it. I’m willing to pay out of a bank account for more expensive things, but I’m not going to pay $xx in order to give someone the convenience of not having to deal with my checks.
I especially like a rent payment service I’ve seen some places start pushing. They only take credit cards, and then expect people to pay the $30+ fee that goes along with such a large payment. Sorry, no.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:18 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Hey look a reason to break your contract without fees.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:20 AM EST reply Recommend (10) Flag actions
Yes what is the terminology this causes undue hardship? Good thinking.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Materially Adverse Charge/Change is what it is called.
Verizon is raising a fee based on how you pay, something that was NOT charged when you started your contract. If you can show you pay the same way monthly, which is NOT AutoPay or Pay By Mail Check, then you may have some wiggle room if you claim this fee is a Materially Adverse Change to the contract you signed that had free bill payments prior. Its a long shot, but it can be done in a court of law if they say “no” to letting you out of the contract.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:31 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Don’t they have a “we can change the contract at any time” clause in the the contract you sign though? My guess is that they (cell carriers) would do something like that. But alas, I know nothing about cell contracts.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They CAN change your contract, but usually are required to give notice. With that notice, they must let you know what your options are if any. However, many states will see any change to a contract that results in increased fees, surcharges, or policies that have a materially adverse impact on the customer as a violation of the agreement. Legally if one party does not agree to the change in terms of the contract, it cant be upheld..Meaning if you say “I do not agree because it is a materially adverse change to my contract, and results in a fee that I can not pay” that new contract is null and void and they must give you the option to continue under the original contract (legally they can enforce that) or give you the option out of the original contract (sometimes they will) or give you the option out of all contract continue month to month but subject to any and all fees previously charged and any and all fees charged in the future (its rare you get this to happen).
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:53 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Interesting … I didn’t know you had so many options, even if they are difficult to take advantage of.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 1:14 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I agree. Looks like a get out of contract for free opportunity to me. Doubt that many will try it but perhaps a call to their retention department might be in order.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 1:34 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It’s probably a state-by-state thing. I know in NY, they would consider this materially adverse.
All you would have to do is call their retention department (which, by the way, is the only department they’ll immediately get you a live person to talk to, no waiting 10 minutes), and then ask for a manager. Explain you’re a citizen of a state that considers this change in contract materially adverse and demand your contract broken for no early termination fee.
You’ll then have the opportunity, to get a new contract with a new phone for the 2-year price, if you wished to stay with Verizon.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 9:17 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Annoyingly, I’m still grandfathered into the Unlimited Data plan and am stuck on their service for the foreseeable future. Luckily, VZW is rather nice in my area, I wouldn’t mind paying a fee like this, just lower my bill by the same amount! :P
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 9:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Breaking your contract won’t remove your grandfathered unlimited data. You would just go month-to-month, but still with Verizon. Breaking your contract gives you the freedom to leave when ever you want (or worse, if you need to), or the ability to sign a NEW contract immediately to get a new device for 2-year pricing.
The way Verizon’s system works is that once a feature (ie. Unlimited Data) is added to your account, it’s there permanently, unless removed (and then can’t be re-added). This is how people in 2011 still have 2006-ended features such as Friends-and-Family for 450 minute plans.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 9:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is true, I had forgotten about that. I had numerous customers with ANCIENT plans, mostly elderly folk, but they were for nicely cheap rates compared to the stuff now. Not sure about my specific scenario with a Family Plan, its been a while since I’ve seen VZW’s EROES system
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 9:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is just a slap-on-the-ass for those customers who are already getting raped by high costs
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:21 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I can see paying for talking to a human on the phone, as you have to pay a human to take the call. all the other means are actually saving Verizon money. Methinks they just want you to take AutoPay so they can charge you first, then you can contest it later – and good luck with that once they have your money.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Really, I consider that doing any business transaction with a human at the other end is the cost of doing business. So should we be required to pay their electricity and local taxes as well?
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 4:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Umm, that is the cost of doing business… we pay them, they pay their bills, and get a little bit of money as profit, and by little bit i mean a crap load. But it’s not like their services are 100% free for them, they have bills to pay. Thus the gross income vs net profit at the end of the year. Technically speaking if someone was on the other end of the line, that is an expense, and it costs more for Verizon than having computers do all the work anyways without speaking to me. So this is a convenience for them in many ways. They get extra money from people who pay by card, all the while without having to pay for as many phone jockeys.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And over in sunny Malaysia I have no real quota (slowed down to still ok-low-end-DSL speeds after 3GB’s) and get $2 off our funny money for unsubscribing to mailed bills.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Now, I maintain a degree of rage at the mobile carriers for their manipulative business practices, but this one is not a big deal to me. Basically, if you pay your Verizon bill with a credit card while not enrolled in Auto-Pay, they charge you $2 – or if by phone. Most companies charge by phone now-adays, and most don’t even allow paying your bills with credit cards at all. There are so many other things to be mad at these companies for that is seems insignificant. Basically they are encouraging auto-pay and paying on-time with this.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
From my understanding, charging people to pay by credit card a fee higher than the processing for that individual transaction costs, is illegal. Declaring a minimum purchase dollar amount on a credit card/debit card is also illegal. By illegal I mean, against the merchant agreement with Visa, Mastercard, Novus, AmEx. They can only charge what the processing fee is. In Verizon case, maybe it is $2 per transaction, seeing as they are a major company with multiple banks, they likely pay somewhere close to $0.02 per transaction based on prepurchasing a few million transactions per month.
Personally, if a company wants to charge me to pay my bill, then I simply wont pay the bill anymore. I should charge them a fee to send me a bill thats not hand delivered by a representative of the company.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:36 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Visa/MC doesn’t allow merchants to implicitly pass-along the credit card processing fee to consumers. Merchants are supposed to figure those charges into the overall cost of whatever good/service they are selling you.
Merchants can give you a discount for paying with cash, but they cannot say “We’re charging you another $2 for using a Visa”.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 9:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Now im not saying you are wrong, I simply refuse to believe anything till I the sources. (yet I LOVE Wiki…) But very few customers are knowledgeable about how payment systems operate , hell, the employees that process them are idiots too…, but this would never be enforced for the majority of cases since people just are unaware of the contracts merchants agree to.
I know in Florida, sales tax does not have to be charged on a dishwasher since the item is actually installed and attached to the dwelling, unlike a fridge or washer which just slide into place. But merchants still always charge sales tax, I know my store always did and when a customer was knowledgeable, they took off the tax, but kept it for the next unaware customer…
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 9:40 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Reminds me of the time they took away 1-year contracts to “avoid customer confusion.” They were touting it as a feature and that they were doing it to benefit customers, what a loud of BS.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
*load.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I always thought companies should offer 1 year contacts at an increased non-prorated ETF ($300-$350) and add $50 to the 1 year phone price. To discourage people breaking contracts within 12 months. Then offer a 2-year contract with a lowered prorated ETF ($200 lowered per month active service) and scratch the $50 phone markup price over the 1 year. This will encourage people to sign longer contracts as they will see the penalty for being in a longer contract is less over time, and they are paying less up front.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Verizon used to offer 1 year contracts – I did it with my Droid X. But they got rid of it around the end of last year.
Verizon is such a shit company I am glad I got away from them.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 1:17 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The problem with that is that people will complain that “They sold me a 3 year contract and no one can keep a phone working for 3 years!”
People think that phones actually cost only $199.99 and when they break, are surpised to find out that the phone actually costs $650.
The takeaway: Even if you paid $.99 for a device that retails for $599.00, treat it like you paid $599.00 for it.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 7:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Precisely. I remember selling service plans for electronics when I worked in an electronics store. Sure the prices were rather high… but our company was all about having the lowest prices and so customers were always reluctant to purchase plans for items that were nearly 30%+ of the cost of the item,. Them not understanding that the TV they purchasing for $2k with that $500 has an MSRP of $3500. Sadly, those same TVs are worth >$2000…. a reason why service plans are pushed on customers at every moment… they have INSANE profit levels…
I feel like what I just wrote is slightly convoluted… none-the-less, I agree with you.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 9:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Reminds me of when T-mobile started charging $1.50 for their paper bills. Then a few months ago, they started charging for data even if you didn’t have a data plan.
Sounds like the battle of nickel and diming.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They have since reversed the automatic pay as you go data plan on existing customers, however I think new contracts and renewals/upgrades are notified that it is Pay As You Go Data standard, and you can OPT to have NO DATA at all, or get a 200MB/Overage, or Unlimited plan.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Because if they don’t charge it, they won’t be able to afford to take my money any more. Right?
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 1:00 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The absurdity of this is massive! Charging a customer for the luxury of paying a bill. Shame on you Verizon.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 1:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is why I left Verizon. They’re charging for everything now and it’s ridiculous. Pretty soon there gonna start charging us to wipe our ass
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 1:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Magically, Verizon will soon bring out their new ISIS Payment system and waive that $2 fee.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 1:38 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well then, they must be begging to get that payment by mail as a paper check then, right? Cause they’re not charging for that. Goodie-goodie, paper it is. Enjoy your mailbag handlind, paper check stamping and bank processing fees that you’ll have to pay.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 1:48 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m trying to express my disgust for this kind of nickel-and-diming without cussing. It’s difficult.
Big companies in many industries levy these charges only because they know they can get away with it at small amounts. There is absolutely ZERO logical reason for these charges other than to take more of your money. Seriously, companies that do that ought to just die in a fire.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 1:48 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’ll this stupid fee if they waive the ETF!
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 1:51 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I hate when companies charge you a fee just to pay your bill. the damn electric companies do this too
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 1:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
its fricken 2 bucks… build a bridge and get over it… who really cares that now you can’t buy your fricken monthly chocolate bar!
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 2:00 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Welk after paying them 190 a month for 2 phones no one really wants to pay anymore……and thats a great idea lets just let conpanies take our money /s… .192 is a lot of money for 2 phones for the worjing man. Its like when is enough money enough? Our phone bills shoukd be getting cheaper but there is a monopoly in the carrier business and tge govt needs to step up
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 6:09 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
We gotta pay them in order to pay them – http://memedump.com/d/1225-8/yo-dawg-xzibit-48.jpg
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 2:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So freaking twisted. Convenience fee should be implemented in old fashioned ways of bill payment to steer consumers towards more efficient ways of bill payment. Our cellphone companies in Finland will usually add an extra fee for paper bills sent in mail and the cheapest way to pay bills is to pay them using bank transfers online since other options are more expensive for all parties.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 3:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They spent the whole frickin’ year trying to convince me to go paperless. Now they want to charge me to pay online? Seems pretty backwards to me. So rather than them getting my moeny a few days before the due date (and gain a little interest on that amount), they will now have to wait for a paper check to arrive a day before the due date.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 4:22 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Comcast already has a convenience fee and I believe it is $2.50 in Chicago. They both suck.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 4:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Anything that makes the consumer think twice about giving an entity money is a bad thing, especially when paying online says Verizon money. This is either a ploy to get customers to pay their bill earlier or to drive them into Verizon stores to try to sell them accessories, phone and/or plan upgrades.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 4:58 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t use wireless from VZN, just dry-loop DSL, so I’m not effected, but I don’t think this fee would apply to people who use their bank’s bill payment system to pay their bills. While the money is electronically transferred by the bank (and not a paper check), VZN wouldn’t have your bank information in that case or authority to withdraw funds directly from your bank account.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 5:17 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s better to push the payments to them via your bank’s bill payment system.
You can do this even with prepaid credit cards in some cases.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 7:27 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Uncle Sam’s carriers really suck ass! Thank all of the Gods for giffgaff in the UK!!
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 7:22 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Waved for electronic check you say? Problem solved.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 7:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’ll arrange to have my bank pay Verizon via paper check each month, 50 cents per check. That way, they can process 500 manual checks per month from me alone.
The purpose of convenience options is so that the customer pays the vendor on time on a regular basis using the method that the customer prefers. That way, both sides are convenienced and the add-on fees are minimized.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 8:34 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
This is a convenience fee in that it’s more convenient for them. The more important thing to remember is that this isn’t the first time they’ve tried this. I want to say last year, or maybe the year before, they floated this exact same idea.
Public outcry got them to back down, but I guess they figure we’re more distracted this time around…?
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 8:41 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
VERIZON SUCKS
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 9:34 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
“Can you pay me now?”
“Good… that’ll be an extra two bucks.”
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 10:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Someone should seek comment from Visa/Mastercard. Merchants are explicitly forbidden charging extra to use a card. Minimum purchase amounts are also forbidden. I carry a copy of the merchant agreement in my pocket so that I can school merchants every time they hit me with the minimum purchase bs. The fee they pay is a cost of doing business just like the electricity bill.
Merchant agreement (.pdf)
Handy wallet-sized card
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 10:45 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
hmm, interesting. As of August 2011, “Merchants may require minimum purchase amounts on credit card transactions. The minimum purchase amount must not exceed $10” source: http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/card-acceptance-in-us-and-territories.pdf
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So let me get this straight. They want us to pay them so that we can pay them! Not only is this bullshit, but it insults our intelligence!!!
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:00 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
In regard to merchants charging fees or making a minimum transaction amount and unsigned cards:
Visa:
“U.S. merchants may establish a minimum purchase amount
on credit card transactions. The minimum purchase amount must not exceed
$10, must not differentiate between card issuers or card brand, and does not
apply to transactions made with a debit card.”
“While checking card security features, you should also make sure that the card
is signed. An unsigned card is considered invalid and should not be accepted. If
a customer gives you an unsigned card, the following steps must be taken:
• Check the cardholder’s ID. Ask the cardholder for some form of official
government identification, such as a driver’s license or passport. Where
permissible by law, the ID serial number and expiration date should be
written on the sales receipt before you complete the transaction.
• Ask the customer to sign the card. The card should be signed within your full
view, and the signature checked against the customer’s signature on the ID.
A refusal to sign means the card is still invalid and cannot be accepted. Ask
the customer for another signed Visa card.
• Compare the signature on the card to the signature on the ID.”
Mastercard:
“Rule 5.11.3 of Chapter 5, "Merchants" is modified to include the following:
A Merchant may set a minimum Transaction amount to accept a Card that
provides access to a credit account, under the following conditions:
1. the minimum Transaction amount does not differentiate between Issuers;
and
2. the minimum Transaction amount does not differentiate between
MasterCard and another acceptance brand; and
3. the minimum Transaction amount does not exceed USD 10 (or any higher
amount established by the Federal Reserve by regulation).”
" 8.3.2.1 Unsigned Cards
If a Card is presented to a Merchant and the Card is not signed, the Merchant
must:
1. Obtain an authorization from the Issuer;
2. Ask the Cardholder to provide identification (but not record the Cardholder
identification information); and
3. Require the Cardholder to sign the Card.
The Merchant must not complete the Transaction if the Cardholder refuses to
sign the Card."
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Electronic Pages 11 and 33: http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/card-acceptance-guidelines-for-visa-merchants.pdf
Electronic Pages: 126, 176, and 312 :http://www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/BM-Entire_Manual_public.pdf#page=91
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 12:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
wow is all i can say
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 1:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Verizon’s $2 convenience fee has all the potential of backfiring on the scale of BofA’s ill-conceived $5 debit card fee.
“Convenience fee” happens to be a technical term used in our industry (see http://blog.unibulmerchantservices.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-credit-card-convenience-fees), which designates a surcharge that merchants offering an “alternate” payment channel (e.g. mail, telephone and e-commerce) are allowed to add to the transaction amount to offset the payment processing cost. This is why Verizon will not be charging the fee for bank card payments made in person.
So, even though payment card industry rules define it rather fuzzily, Verizon’s $2 charge is technically legal. But that doesn’t mean that the carrier’s decision is smart. On the contrary, it is a real dumb move. Processing fees are a cost of doing business and should not be passed on to consumers. If you don’t want to accept credit and debit cards, you don’t have to, but if you decide to be doing it, you should be willing to pay for it. It is really that simple.
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 6:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Okay well I am going to mail them a check every month that is $2 short gonna call it a UnConvenience Free and send it COD……
And then when they get it check going to look like this
Posted on Dec 29, 2011 | 10:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.