Has anyone else had an issue with delayed shipping associated with their Blockbuster Total Access membership?

Both Netflix and Blockbuster have adopted a practice they call "smoothing," and movie renters call "throttling."

Here's the wiki link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix

"Throttling"

Netflix's allocation policy — referred to by many as "throttling" — gives priority shipping and selection to customers who rent fewer discs per month. Higher volume renters may see some of their selections delayed, routed elsewhere or sent out of order. Netflix currently claims that "the large majority of our subscribers are able to receive their movies in about one business day following our shipment of the requested movie from their local distribution center." However, not all shipments come from the subscriber's local distribution center, and shipments from distant centers are often delayed, as well.

Chavez v. Netflix Inc.

In September 2004, a consumer class action lawsuit, Frank Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., was brought against Netflix in San Francisco Superior Court. The suit alleged false advertising in relation to claims of "unlimited rentals" with "one-day delivery." In January 2005, Netflix changed its "Terms of Use" to acknowledge what has commonly become known as "throttling." (Mike Kaltschnee, owner of the Hacking Netflix blog, says Netflix calls this practice "smoothing" internally.

In October 2005, Netflix proposed a settlement for those who had enrolled as a paid Netflix member prior to January 15, 2005. These earlier members would be able to renew their subscriptions with a one-month free membership, and those early members with current subscriptions would receive a one-month free upgrade to the next-highest membership level. Netflix's settlement denied allegations of any wrongdoing, and the case did not reach a legal judgment. Netflix estimated the settlement cost at approximately US$4 million, which included up to US$2.53 million to cover plaintiff lawyer fees. A controversial aspect of the settlement offer was that the customer's account would continue at the renewed or upgraded membership level after the free month provided by the settlement, with customers being charged accordingly unless they opted out after the month-long free period ended. After Trial Lawyers for Public Justice filed a challenge and to the proposed settlement[48] and the Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief urging the rejection or modification of the settlement, Netflix offered to alter the settlement terms requiring customers to actively approve any continuation after the free month. The final settlement hearing took place on March 22, 2006. but, implementation of the settlement was delayed pending appeal the California Appellate Courts.

The settlement was affirmed on 2008-04-21, with the court saying, "the trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving the amended class action settlement agreement, approving the notice given to class members, or determining the amount of fees."Interestingly, the court approved email notice and an online claims submission process. The court said:

The summary notice and long-form notice together provided all of the detail required by statute or court rule, in a highly accessible form. The fact that not all of the information was contained in a single e-mail or mailing is immaterial… Using a summary notice that directed the class member wanting more information to a Web site containing a more detailed notice, and provided hyperlinks to that Web site, was a perfectly acceptable manner of giving notice in this case… The class members conducted business with defendant over the Internet, and can be assumed to know how to navigate between the summary notice and the Web site. Using the capability of the Internet in that fashion was a sensible and efficient way of providing notice, especially compared to the alternative Vogel apparently preferred—mailing out a lengthy legalistic document that few class members would have been able to plow through.

The settlement was criticized because it paid out $2.5 million to attorneys for fees and costs, while offering only coupons to the class members.

Sucks, doesn't it?