Friday, March 31, 2017
जनता का आदमी
Every time I get an email from a Nigerian official bearing the news that deceased royalty has inexplicably left me a huge sum of money, I can’t help but wish it really were true. So when a man in South Carolina got a phone call informing him he was due $763,000 in unclaimed cash, it’s not surprising he thought the whole thing was a scam. Except this time, it wasn’t.
It all started when the recipient’s son got a phone call from state treasurer Curtis Loftis, who had been trying to reach his father to let him know there was a quarter of a million dollars in unclaimed funds that had been waiting for him for more than a decade. Loftis is also the president of the National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators, and as such, makes it his mission to return unclaimed money to its rightful owners.
It wasn’t easy in this case: The money was from the man’s father, who had passed away more than 15 years ago. Loftis had to use Facebook to track down the heir, ultimately finding the son, who convinced his dad to call the treasurer back, despite his suspicions that the whole thing was a scam.
The treasurer tells The New York Times he even offered to drive to a Starbucks to meet the heir in public to prove the offer was valid. Finally, the man was convinced he was really about to be a lot richer.
“I’m so happy that we are able to return the money to the rightful heir,” Loftis said in a statement.
The recipient doesn’t know what he’ll do with the money, but he sure is grateful it’s his.
“We had no idea we had this much money waiting for us,” he said, praising Loftis for tracking him down.
If you’re wondering whether there’s a pile of money somewhere out there for you, it’s always a good idea to check with your state’s online unclaimed money division.
“No one on the planet believes that they have money waiting for them,” he told the Times, adding that there’s about a one in four chance of having unclaimed property.
Not everyone will get such a large sum, of course, as Loftis says this $763,000 award is the largest the state has ever paid out.
“You have about a one in four chance of having unclaimed property,” Loftis said.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
Panera announced plans today to extend its “clean” food philosophy to its self-serve beverages… sort of. The chain will post calorie and added sugars information on all of its drinks, including soda fountains, perhaps encouraging customers to try a new line of iced teas and lemonades that will launch next week instead.
This announcement comes after the chain’s war of words over whose food is the “cleanest” of them all with quick-serve rival Chipotle. Both chains emphasize the absence of artificial food additives and genetically modified ingredients in their food, but have standard soda fountains that dispense fizzy beverages loaded with artificial colors and flavors and high fructose corn syrup made from conventionally grown corn. Both chains also offer iced tea and water as an alternative to HFCS-sweetened soft drinks.
Today, though, Panera announced that its new line of “clean” beverages will start to launch next week, reaching all stores nationwide by September. It features beverages with no added sugars, like the existing plain iced tea, and beverages that are “lightly sweetened” or that have alternative sweeteners like agave syrup. All have 35 grams or less of added sugar, though drinks that get all or some of their sweetness from fruit juices don’t count as having “added” sweeteners.
The new lineup announced today includes:
• Iced Black Tea
• Plum Ginger Hibiscus Tea
• Prickly Pear Hibiscus Fresca
• Passion Papaya Green Tea
• Blood Orange Lemonade
• Agave Lemonade
“With up to 75 grams of sugar — just one 20 oz. soft drink contains more than the recommended daily amount of added sugar,” Panera CEO Shaich said in a statement. “While we won’t tell people what they should drink, we want to provide real options and real transparency — and we’re challenging the industry to join us.”
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
Nearly a decade has passed since travelers sued Delta Air Lines and AirTran, alleging that the carriers colluded in creating their fees for checked bags. In that time, the AirTran has vanished and Delta had to pay millions of dollars in sanctions for being a stubborn defendant. Now, less than a year after the court finally granted class-action status in the case, it has been dismissed.
Back in 2008, American Airlines became the first major U.S. carrier to charge baggage fees for checked luggage. At the time, the CEO of Atlanta-based AirTran publicly stated that his airline could follow suit, but that it would wait to see what Atlanta’s other big airline, Delta, did first.
Delta was the last of the major national airlines to jump on the baggage-fee bandwagon, but when it did, AirTran followed. In fact, both carriers began charging these fees on the same day: Dec. 5, 2008.
A slew of class actions ensued from all over the country. They were eventually consolidated into one multi-district litigation before a federal judge in Atlanta.
Then began the long slog of trying to get information from Delta. Overwritten email servers, lost (and then miraculously found) backup tapes, 60,000 pages of documents that were delayed for years… a series of what a court-appointed special master referred to as “colossal blunders” on Delta’s part, resulting in multiple sanctions against the airline totaling around $7.5 million.
This is where we put the sanctions in perspective by pointing out that Delta made $659 million from baggage fees in just the first eight months of 2016 (and $5.9 billion since 2008).
Getting back to the lawsuit, the judge in this case says it comes down to whether Delta and AirTran’s effectively simultaneous decisions to collect baggage fees is a matter of illegal collusion or is it lawful “conscious parallelism”?
In other words, is there evidence that the airlines conspired together to start charging these fees, or could these actions be the product of a “rational, independent calculus” by two airlines vying for market share in an industry with limited competition?
To survive a dismissal, the plaintiff would need to “simply present some evidence that tends to exclude the possibility of conscious parallelism or that tends to establish a price-fixing conspiracy,” explains the judge.
That said, the court found that the plaintiffs had not presented sufficient proof to allow the case to continue.
“Even when viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the evidence in this case simply does not permit a reasonable factfinder to infer the existence of a conspiracy,” concludes the court, “as it does not tend to exclude the possibility that the alleged conspirators acted independently.”
Lest you think this lawsuit — which is getting near old enough to have “the talk” with its parents — is over, a lawyer for the plaintiffs tells the Atlanta Journal Constitution that his clients will appeal.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
A number of companies have turned to facial recognition as a way to offer customers another level of security: from MasterCard’s “selfie” verification to British Airways’ face-scanning boarding process. Now, Samsung is using the technology as a way to unlock its new Galaxy S8 smartphone, but it turns out the process may not be as secure as one would hope.
Just days after Samsung debuted the new smartphone, and its facial recognition software, a researcher says he was able to trick the face-scanning program with a photo.
The flaw was uncovered in a live Periscope video by bloggers at Marcianophone and posted by iDeviceHelp on YouTube.
In the demo, the researcher registered his face to the phone to lock it. He then took a photo of himself on another device, placed it above the Galaxy S8 and unlocked the device.
While the video from iDeviceHelp notes that it is unclear if the Galaxy S8 used was a demo version or the final product, The Verge reports that Samsung has previously said facial scanning isn’t the most secure form of authentication for the devices.
Instead, users can use a PIN, fingerprint, or the also new iris scanner to secure their devices.
We’ve reached out to Samsung for comment on the alleged flaw and will update this post when we hear back.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
Amazon can now deliver many things in one or two days, so Walmart has to have lower prices for the many customers who can wait. Similarly, Amazon has to undercut Walmart’s grocery prices if it’s going to stake out any significant portion of that $800 billion market. For shoppers at either of these two retail giants, this can mean lower prices, but it’s also forcing manufacturers and suppliers to rethink how they do business.
Consumer brands have been increasingly dedicated to figuring out ways to deal with this pricing war, one executive told Re/code, noting that “it’s dominating the conversation every week.”
Though Amazon made headlines this week for gathering some of the biggest packaged food brands together to pitch them on the idea of frustration-free packaging, as part of a push to attract more customers to online shopping instead of buying in physical stores, Walmart has also been meeting with its suppliers in an effort to ramp up the battle for shoppers.
Last week, Walmart brought together major household brands at its headquarters for a pricing powwow. According to a presentation Re/code viewed, Walmart wants to have the lowest price on 80% of its sales, which means brands that sell through the retailer would have to cut costs elsewhere.
Some vendors say doing this will mean they’ll lose money on every sale — but if they don’t cooperate, they could find their distribution limited in comparison to those who do play along. Walmart could also develop new in-house brands and sell those products to consumers instead of using outside suppliers.
“Once every three or four years, Walmart tells you to take the money you’re spending on [marketing] initiatives and invest it in lower prices,” Jason Goldberg, head of SapientRazorfish, a digital agency that works with large brands and retailers, told Re/code. “They sweep all the chips off the table and drill you down on price.”
Amazon may not yet be the grocery powerhouse that Walmart is, but it still has significant leverage to push suppliers to keep their prices low. The online retailer is not only willing to lose money on certain products just to beat the competition on price, notes Re/code, but isn’t afraid of dumping brands or products when vendors don’t play along.
Re/code gives the example of Pampers diapers disappearing from Amazon last week, prompting speculation in the industry that the e-commerce giant booted Pampers in an effort to negotiate better prices.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
One way to erase federal student loan debt is to work for the government or at a non-profit for 10 years. However, thousands of people who received notices from the Department of Education that their federal student loans were going to be forgiven through this program may still be on the hook for this debt, as the Department now says these notices are not binding.
The revelation was made in a filing [PDF] by the Dept. of Education last week in response to a lawsuit that accused the agency of failing to keep its promise to forgive the education debts of public servants after 10 years.
For those unfamiliar, in 2007 the government began offering a public service loan-forgiveness program that will forgive certain federal student loans for borrowers who work for government organizations and non-profit groups for 10 years and make 120 on-time monthly payments on their loans.
While it’s fairly simple to determine what a government agency is, finding a qualified non-profit is more difficult. For that reason, the Dept. allowed prospective program participants to fill out an Employment Certification for Public Service Loan Forgiveness form.
The forms, which the Department encourages participants to fill out each year, are reviewed by FedLoan Servicing.
But at some point in the last several years, FedLoan began telling people who had previously been qualified for the forgiveness program that they were no longer eligible to have their loans forgiven. What’s more, the decision was retroactive, meaning none of the time they’d spent working toward the forgiveness goal would be counted.
After receiving such letters, four previously qualified participants and the American Bar Association sued the Department of Education to find out why the changes were being made.
The lawsuit [PDF] alleges that the Department acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” when it changed its interpretation eligibility requirements without explanation.
“When an agency changes its position on its interpretation of a rule, it must – at a minimum – acknowledge that it is changing its position and provide an explanation for the new policy,” the lawsuit states.
The plaintiffs say this didn’t happen with regard to the Dept. of Education’s decisions. Instead, they received notices from FedLoan that they no longer qualified for forgiveness, and those notices didn’t provide an actual explanation.
“This new interpretation seriously harms borrowers who have made career, financial, and life choices – many of them irrevocable – in reliance on the availability of loan forgiveness and the Department’s prior certifications of eligibility,” the lawsuit states.
The Dept. of Education replied to the lawsuit last week, noting in a filing that the FedLoan approval letter was never a reflection of a “final agency action on the borrower’s qualifications” for the program.
The agency may be trying to distance itself from these letters, but the Department of Education name and logo are used on the notices:
In the filing, the Dept. denies that its acts were arbitrary or that the plaintiffs are required to any relief as a result of being deemed ineligible for the forgiveness program.
The New York Times reports that if this is indeed the case, that notification of qualification by FedLoan Servicing isn’t accurate or that it can change, thousands of borrowers could find out in October that their 10 years of public service were for naught when it comes to their federal student loans.
October marks the official tenth anniversary of the program’s creation and the first batch of borrowers who should receive forgiveness.
In all, the Times reports, more than 550,000 borrowers have signed up for the program, but, as the lawsuit claims, their eligibility isn’t a foregone conclusion.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
It’s been two years since Verizon launched its Go90 streaming video service, and it often feels like the only people who talk about it are tech journalists who occasionally mention that it’s not doing well. Yet Verizon apparently believes that the work it put into Go90 can soon be used to build the latest entry into the streaming TV market.
The ever popular “people familiar with the matter” tell Bloomberg that Verizon is planning to launch a proper competitor in the online TV space sometime this summer.
The as-yet-unnamed streaming live-TV service would be independent of any other service Verizon currently offers, in the vein of Dish’s Sling, AT&T’s DirecTV Now, and Sony’s PlayStation Vue. The package will reportedly include “dozens of channels,” and work on computers and mobile devices as well aso on TV-connected platforms like Roku. Sources tell Bloomberg that it will probably be similarly priced to the competition as well, with offering tiers in the $20 to $65 range.
As you probably recall (from just a few paragraphs ago), Verizon does already have one streaming service: the poorly-named Go90. That launched in 2015 to basically zero fanfare as a free, ad-supported mobile app trying to entice the ever-popular millennial audience.
The coveted 18-34 demographic, however, has largely expressed very little interest in what Verizon has to offer. In Sept. 2016, several launch partners said outright that it was “an absolute dud,” performing “far, far worse than [Verizon’s] projections.”
A month later, Verizon even tried using free streaming NBA games to get folks to sign up for Go90, but that effort, too, appears to have fizzled out.
So Verizon’s trying again, with one last “3.0” reboot, Business Insider reports.
So far, former Go90 employees tell BI, the company has mostly just overpaid badly for long runs of content that then failed to ever find viewers.
“They went in guns blazing and spent all the money,” one former employee told BI, but without a strong strategy, instead just buying everything. That left the company spread too thin, trying to be something to everyone instead of focusing on an audience niche and then growing from there.
Leadership started to get a better handle on how to manage Go90 over time, the sources told Business Insider, and now executives are focusing on a few successful areas: live sports, especially soccer; original sports-related programming; and dramas that particularly appeal to young women and teenage girls. The company is also pulling back on its “mobile only” stance, becoming less “maniacally focused on the smartphone,” BI writes.
With its big 3.0 push, Go90 is trying hard to fix the ills that still plague it, especially including discoverability. In short, when it’s hard to find good content on a platform, viewers just… won’t. They’ll go elsewhere. So Verizon bought up a recommendation and discovery tool called Vessel, shut Vessel down, and had all its people entirely rebuild Go90.
And that brings us back to Verizon’s rumored new non-cable competitor. The new, improved Go90 platform isn’t just for Go90 anymore: A Verizon executive told Business Insider that the plan is to use it to help launch a new set of video apps, too, calling it “a platform we can build upon.”
Verizon insiders describe the fight to save go90, its video service that has burned more than $200 million trying to catch the eye of millennials [Business Insider]
Verizon Said to Plan Online TV Package for Summer Launch [Bloomberg]
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
Digital music has come a long way: Once feared as the poison arrow that would take down the recording industry, streaming music is now making more money for recording companies than any other format.
Subscription music services generated the majority of revenue for recording companies last year, in a first for the industry: They accounted for more than 51% of the industry’s revenue, in comparison to 34% in 2015, according to a report [PDF] from the Recording Industry Association of America.
Overall music revenues went up by more than 11% in the U.S. in 2106 RIAA says, after growing by barely 1% in 2015.
Though $7.7 billion in total sales sounds like a hefty number, it’s only about half what the industry pulled in during its pre-Napster heyday in 1999, points out The Wall Street Journal.
Of course, subscription services are a lot different than simply swiping an mp3 off the Internet — we call that piracy — because they have more than 22 million subscribers in the U.S. who are paying for the right to stream music.
It’s not all streaming puppies and rainbows, however, as RIAA chairman and chief executive Cary Sherman warned in a blog post that despite the boost in sales in 2016, things could still take a downward turn.
“As excited as we are about our growth in 2016, our recovery is fragile and fraught with risk,” he wrote. “The marketplace is still evolving, and we’ve experienced unexpected turns too many times before. Moreover, two of the three pillars of the business — CDs and downloads — are declining rapidly. It remains to be seen whether growth of the remaining pillar will be sufficient to offset the losses from the other two. ”
To that end, CD sales declined 21%, and digital downloads also took a steep dive, dipping 22%. Streaming sales first beat out digital downloads back in 2015, the same year that Warner Music said it was making more money from streaming than any other source. Streaming sales have been beating CD revenue since 2015 as well.
But Sherman goes on to say that the “unfortunate reality” is that the industry has achieved success “in spite” of current music licensing and copyright laws, not because of them. He takes aim specifically at YouTube, noting that “it takes a thousand on-demand streams of a song for creators to earn $1 on YouTube, while services like Apple and Spotify pay creators $7 or more for those same streams.”
He accuses YouTube of “wrongly” exploiting loopholes to pay creators at rates “well below the true value of music” while other digital services can’t do that.
We’ve reached out to YouTube for comment on Sherman’s remarks, and will update this post if we hear back.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
You might think think of frequent flier miles as a giveaway for airlines; carriers rewarding loyal customers with free or discounted travel. However, these programs are now a bigger money-maker than airfare for U.S. airlines.
A good chunk of loyalty revenue comes from airlines selling miles to the banks that run co-branded credit cards. According to Bloomberg, these deals now account for nearly 50% of revenue for many airlines.
For every mile an airline sells to a credit card partner — like Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, and others — it’s making $0.015 to $0.025.
While a fraction of a cent might not seem like a lot, Bloomberg notes that the big banks buy miles by the billions each month, and that translates to big bucks.
For example, Bloomberg reports that Delta Air Lines’ American Express partnership is expected to bring in $4 billion in revenue per year by 2021. Alaska Air Group says its partnership with Bank of America will bring in $900 million annually.
While having a slew of unused miles outstanding may be an accounting liability, analysts note that airlines aren’t too worried since they sold to these miles to credit card companies for “much more than they will cost the airline when those miles are redeemed.”
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
Despite increased consumer awareness of safety and a growing number of cars on the road with crash-avoidance technology, pedestrian deaths in the U.S. are at their highest level in 20 years. One reason for the increase: Smartphones.
According to data [PDF] compiled by the Governors Highway Safety Association, a nonprofit that represents the highway safety offices of the states and territories, the total number of traffic fatalities in the U.S. increased 6% between 2010 and 2015, but pedestrian deaths increased by 25% during that same time period.
Preliminary figures for 2016 put the number of pedestrian deaths at 5,997 — an 11% increase over just the year before and the highest number of pedestrian fatalities in two decades.
So what has happened in recent years that could explain this tragic increase?
There are several factors that contribute to the number of cars and people on the road, like the economy, and fuel prices. The healthier the economy, the more people drive — both for work and pleasure. And the report acknowledges that Federal Highway Administration numbers show recent increases in motor vehicle travel on all roads and streets.
Then there are those things that aren’t part of the ups and downs of economic cycles.
“A more recent contributing factor may be the rapidly growing use of smart phones to access wireless data while walking and driving,” explains the report, saying these devices can be a “significant source of distraction for both pedestrians and motorists.”
The author of the report found the increases in pedestrian deaths over the last few years “shocking.” He has been in the field for decades, and year after year of increases in fatalities is unprecedented — especially since our cars and roads have, in general, been getting safer.
“The why is elusive. We don’t know all the reasons,” Richard Retting told CNN (warning: auto-play video at that link) “Clearly lots of things are contributing. But not one of these other factors have changed dramatically.”
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
With the average recent college graduate leaving campus with a diploma and $30,000 in debt, it’s no surprise that would-be-students are looking for ways to get an education without taking on such a financial burden. While they could opt to live in certain cities or states, or go to work for any of a number of the companies offering free schooling, many are moving… to Europe.
CNN Money reports that the lure of free or deeply discounted tuition is enough for thousands of students to cross the pond each year to make their dreams of a higher education a reality.
While tuition in the U.S. can range from $9,000 to $32,000 each, the price tag in Europe is much less, with many programs charging under $2,500 or no more than $9,000 each year, according to college advising service Beyond the States.
But that cost might even be on the high side, CNN reports, as there are at least 44 schools in Europe that don’t charge anything for students to obtain a bachelor’s degree.
In fact, all of the public colleges in Germany, Iceland, Norway, and Finland are free for residents and international students. There are also some private schools in Europe that do not charge tuition.
Of course, going to college overseas is different than in the U.S.; for example, students tend to live off campus instead of on.
Students who choose to attend college overseas tell CNN they based their decisions on cost, length of time it would take to receive a diploma, and the amount of experience they can gain from studying abroad.
Chelsea, a student at the University of Deggendorf, paid just $220 a semester for school when she first began, but since then the country has made college tuition free. As a result, she only pays a $50 administrative fee each semester and about $420/month for insurance and rent.
While the cost is an improvement from what she might have paid at a U.S.-based school, she says the studying is different.
“You need to be prepared to study 10 hours a day, and there’s probably not time for a job in addition to your studies,” she warns.
Another student, Hunter, pays about $3,300 in tuition at Tallinn University of Technology in Estonia.
“Last semester I only had to have a single book and I checked it out of the school library,” he tells CNN. “For some professors, a lot or all of the material is online, and for others you have to be in class to receive the knowledge.”
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
As the old saying goes, crime doesn’t pay. But in some cases, being honest — and patient — can certainly reap financial rewards, as one man now gets to keep $15,200 he turned in after finding it on the street.
More than a year ago, the Pennsylvania man was on his way home from work close to midnight on a state road when he spotted a package in the middle of the street, reports the Delaware County Daily Times.
He turned around to check it out and found what appeared to be a banker’s bag filled with stacks of cash, along with some drug paraphernalia.
He called the police and handed the cash over to the officer who arrived on the scene, and the cops have had the money ever since.
He filed a civil suit in September to retain ownership of the cash, claiming in his petition that a few days after he turned in the money, he was told it’d be turned over to him in 90 days if the owner didn’t claim it.
“As such, because plaintiff found the money, he can claim superior title to the money over the police department,” the petition read.
Although a common please court judge ordered the money returned to him in December when the owner didn’t materialize, that order was vacated a week later. His persistence paid off this week when another judge for the court ordered the Upper Darby Police Department to return the money to him.
The department’s superintendent said it took too long to reunite the man with his monetary find.
“He should have had that money a month afterward,” he told the Times. “He was an honest man, he could have driven off with it … I don’t have a problem with him having the money. No one claimed the money, or it has not been requested.”
Along with that hefty chunk of change, this honest fella has now earned the status of, “You’re Not A Horrible Person,” along with the following subjects of previous Consumerist stories:
• A Wells Fargo customer in Pennsylvania who turned in $400 that unexpectedly shot out at her from a drive-thru ATM.
• The Domino’s customer who got free pizza for a year for returning $5,000 she found in her chicken wings box.
• The woman who found $1,000 at a bank drive-thru and didn’t give into temptation.
• The person who turned in a lost diamond ring at Newark Airport
• The homeless guy who turned in a backpack containing $42K.
• The California man who found $6,900 at the DMV and returned it to the rightful owner.
• And one of the two men who found $1,000 outside a Schnucks store in Missouri.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
New FCC Chair Ajit Pai has made no effort to hide his intention to roll back many of the rules and policies put in place by his predecessor, Tom Wheeler. Now that Congress has effectively undone Wheeler’s internet privacy rules, Pai has set his sights on low-cost internet access.
The Lifeline program dates to the Reagan administration and provides low-income Americans with a small monthly subsidy to use for phone service. Some years back, the program expanded to include not only landlines but also mobile phones. Then in 2016, the FCC expanded it so that low-income families can buy broadband service with it if they want.
Chairman Pai announced this week that the FCC will no longer be directly authorizing Lifeline providers to sell subsidized broadband services to consumers, instead deferring the program to the states to manage.
“As we implement the Lifeline program – as with any program we administer – we must follow the law,” Pai said in a statement. “And the law here is clear: Congress gave state governments, not the FCC, the primary responsibility for approving which companies can participate in the Lifeline program.”
That sounds like an arcane procedural thing, and to an extent it is, but it’s one with a big impact.
When the FCC decided last year to expand Lifeline, it also gave itself the ability to review and approve partners to sell the service. That significantly sped up the process: The FCC is one entity, which even at its most bureaucratic is still going to be easier to navigate than 50 different states, a District, and a handful of territories.
Both new entrants to Lifeline, as well as existing voice service providers that want to expand to broadband (including mobile broadband) now have to go through every state’s approval process separately.
The Commission approved nine companies’ participation in Lifeline last year, but chairman Pai rescinded those authorizations barely a week after he took the helm. Now, he adds, all the other pending applications to the FCC are pretty much toast.
“I do not believe that the Bureau should approve these applications,” Pai said in his statement, explaining why he prefers to defer to the states over an “unlawful federal authorization process that will soon be withdrawn.
Pai also added that the FCC won’t defend itself in court when it comes to the lawsuits against Lifeline — not surprising, considering Pai has ordered the FCC to stop defending rules he doesn’t like in the past, but still a disappointment.
Pai’s actions don’t exactly reverse the FCC’s ruling on Lifeline, but they do make the broadband subsidy harder for low-income Americans to access.
Even while praising the program, the chair is still clearly holding on to some kind of feeling from last year’s dramatic and contentious vote to expand Lifeline to allow the subsidy to be used on broadband services.
“I support including broadband in the Lifeline program to help provide affordable, high-speed Internet access for our nation’s poorest families,” Pai said. “Indeed, I worked hard to get a bipartisan agreement in place last year that would have expanded Lifeline to include broadband, but the agreement was undone by those who preferred a party-line vote.”
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
Cable TV operators like Comcast and Charter have rarely, if ever, had to compete directly with each other. But that truce — kept in place thanks to local franchise agreements that limit competition — may soon end if the pay-TV companies decide to start offering service outside of their footprint.
Bloomberg reports that in order to stay relevant with consumers, companies like Comcast and Charter might just have to start encroaching on each other’s turf with their own streaming services.
At least that’s the belief for Discovery Communications chief executive David Zaslav, who told reporters this week that increased competition from streaming services will eventually take a toll on cable providers.
For as long as we can remember, cable providers like Comcast and Charter have stayed away from each other’s largest service areas — an issue that was constantly discussed during the merger approval process in recent years.
Zaslav contends that the companies will eventually have to disrupt the system, starting a “street fight” of sorts between traditional cable companies and streaming service providers such as AT&T (DirecTV Now), Dish (Sling), and Sony (PlayStation Vue).
These live TV streaming services are offered by companies that have never been hemmed in by franchise agreements. DirecTV and Dish compete against each other, and against traditional cable companies, for viewers nationwide. The cable providers offer ample streaming content, but currently only for their existing pay-TV customers.
“Every cable operator is probably lying and waiting, and they need to have their own over-the-top solution,” Zaslav said, as reported by Bloomberg.
Still, he cautions that providers should be careful about their next steps.
While Zaslav didn’t provide any inside knowledge on when providers might launch their own streaming services, rumors surfaced this week that Comcast is going to join the competition and launch a $15 streaming service later this year.
While that service is expected to only be available to existing Comcast customers, the cable giant has also reportedly been working “most favored nation” clauses into its contracts with broadcasters. These agreements could let Comcast offer streaming access to these channels outside of its current service footprint.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries are ubiquitous in our gadget-filled lives. You probably have multiple devices containing one within reach right now. It’s easy to forget how dangerous they can be, as a New Jersey family did when a speaker sitting on a bed began to give off smoke.
According to NBC New York, the mother and daughter panicked, grabbing the smoking speaker with an oven mitt and placing it in a paper bag. They recounted that the bag burst into flames after they got it out of the apartment. This is why you shouldn’t put a smoldering gadget in a paper bag.
The fire was put out with water and the fire department summoned, and the mother took to Twitter to warn others.
When something like this happens to you, after calling 911 and (optionally) posting about it on social media, gather all of the information that you have about the product and the incident and report it to Saferproducts.gov, the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s site.
Gizmodo speculates based on the speaker’s markings that it could potentially be a counterfeit version of the JBL Pulse.
We contacted JBL’s parent company, Harman, about these reports and will update this post if we hear anything back. Harman International was just acquired by Samsung, a deal that closed a few weeks ago on March 10. Samsung has presumably learned a lot about how to deal with overheating batteries.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
Although Crayola was originally set to announce which shade it would be dropping from its crayon collection on Friday, the company decided to speed up the news and let the world know today that it is yanking Dandelion yellow from the box.
In an announcement on Twitter, the company anthropomorphizes the hue, calling it an “adventurous spirit” who had a case of wanderlust and decided to announce his retirement early.
You’ll still have to wait to find out which shade will be replacing Dandelion — as a box of 24 crayons should contain 24 different colors, after all — as the company says it’s announcing the “color family” of the new crayon tomorrow at an event in Times Square.
This moves means Dandelion will never be available again — in any box — so if you’re in love with it, you’ll have to buy crayons that are on shelves now. Or you could just buy a crapload of them in bulk online.
While Crayola retired eight colors from its overall roster in 1990 (RIP Green Blue, Orange Red, Orange Yellow, Violet Blue, Maize, Lemon Yellow, Blue Gray, and Raw Umber) and another four (Blizzard Blue, Magic Mint, Teal Blue, and Mulberry) as part of its 2003 Save the Shade contest (Burnt Sienna was given a reprieve) this is the first the first time the company is retiring a color it included in its 24-count box.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
Thursday, March 30, 2017
जनता का आदमी
Imagine you’re selling your own line of clothing, and a major retailer asks to buy a few thousand of your designs and sell them in stores. You might be tempted to sign on the dotted line for your shot at the big time with the help of an established chain, but for the social media savvy among us, that’s just not a priority.
To the contrary, some young designers have found a more direct path to success by harnessing the power of Instagram to gain social influence and create an air of exclusivity around their products, Bloomberg noted recently, driving customers to their online stores instead of to chains like Urban Outfitters. Going for direct sales is a pretty sophisticated strategy given the supply chain issues and speed necessary to compete these days.
Take the example of a teen hat designer living in Paris who goes by the nickname Millinsky: He hired a contractor when he was 17 to help him with the manufacturing side of his business, while he focused on working his connections under the company name Nasaseasons.
“I didn’t really know how fashion worked but I knew social media,” he told Bloomberg. “And as a teenage fashion designer, that’s all I needed.”
It turns out he was right: He was catapulted to fashion fame and success after he was tagged in an Instagram photo of Rihanna wearing a hat bearing his slogan, “I Came To Break Hearts.”
He sold more than 500 hats within days, selling so many so quickly that he had to shut down his web store, he says. Other celebrities soon followed in the inevitable rush to be relevant and cool.
Since then, Millinsky’s brand has been carried by more than a dozen retailers around the world, including some luxury stores that charge anywhere from $50 to $70 per hat.
Instead of relying on those bricks-and-mortar stores to bring in the money, however, he’s instead bending them to his purpose in order to create an air of exclusivity.
To wit: Soon after Rihanna was spotted in his hat, Urban Outfitters asked him for 10,000 hats, 10 times the volume Millinsky had at the time. He gave the deal a hard pass, telling Bloomberg that it would have pushed the “underground aspect” of the brand straight out the window.
“We make sure that our products are sold out quickly through retailers,” he says. “We create rarity, and then— boom! — we have waves of clientele coming to our website directly, no middleman necessary.”
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
Twitter’s long-standing 140-character limit for messages isn’t going anywhere, but the social media giant is once again revamping the way it counts the characters: Usernames will no longer count toward that limit, but only for reply messages.
Twitter announced the change today, rolling out its third update to the way in which it allows user to express their inner-most thoughts for the entire world to see.
Under the revamp, Twitter won’t delete the “@username” handle, but it will rearrange it. Now, users are replying to will appear above the Tweet text rather than within the Tweet text itself.
When viewing a conversation, Twitter says users will actually see what people are saying, rather than seeing lots of @usernames at the start of a Tweet. Additionally, users can tap on the “replying to…” button to easily see and control who is part of a conversation.
The change, Twitter says, will make communication and following conversations easier to read. That was an issue many users who got their hands on the updates early encountered, as the @username had simply vanished.
Users expressed confusion and frustration over the way Tweets appeared with respect to conversations. Many said the change made it difficult to pick and choose who they speak with and seemed to be an indication that the networking site didn’t care about their input.
Sam Sharma, a producer for Playstation, Tweeted at the time of the first update that users helped to invent the @(username) reply to show their acknowledgement of others and to keep some conversations less visible.
“The updates we’re making today are based on feedback from all of you as well as research and experimentation,” Twitter said Thursday, adding that its “work isn’t finished.”
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
If Facebook wants anything, it’s to keep you on the Facebook site for as long as possible. That’s why perhaps it’s not surprising that given the popularity of personal online fundraisers, Facebook is now entering that business, letting people raise money for medical expenses, funerals, education, or any other cause.
In its announcement of the new feature, Facebook explains that there will be six broad categories of personal fundraisers that users can hold. Those are education, medical, pet medical, crisis relief, personal emergencies, and funeral and loss (including living expenses after a loved one’s death.)
Hoping to avoid the fraud accusations that have popped up against other crowdfunding sites designed for personal fundraisers, Facebook will limit fundraisers to those categories for now, and each will be reviewed within 24 hours by a staff member. “As we learn more, we hope to expand our categories and automate more of the review process,” the social network’s vice president for social good explains in the announcement.
Personal fundraisers are not to be confused with the existing program that lets Facebook users hold their own fundraisers on behalf of verified nonprofits. Those still exist, and in a new feature, Facebook will let verified nonprofit groups put donation buttons on Facebook Live, allowing the groups to solicit donations during any broadcast, or even hold online telethons.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
While the Trump Administration has hinted at a coming crackdown on non-medical use of marijuana, federal legislators continue to introduce new bills — some with bipartisan support — intended to further legitimize the cannabis industry.
This morning, members of both the House and Senate introduced legislation that — if passed — would extend federal tax benefits to locally legalized marijuana businesses, take away the threat of criminal prosecution and property loss for those businesses, and make sure the industry is contributing to the country’s bottom line by imposing a tax on marijuana sales.
While a number of states legalized marijuana, the companies that produce and sell cannabis products are not currently able to claim deductions or tax credits in the way that most businesses can. The Small Business Tax Equity Act [PDF] would tweak the Internal Revenue Code to make sure that marijuana businesses would be able to enjoy these benefits — so long as they are operating legally according to their relevant state laws.
This bill is being introduced in the Senate by Oregon’s Ron Wyden, with Sen. Rand Paul (KY) as co-sponsor. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, also of Oregon, is introducing the legislation in the House, with Florida’s Carlos Curbelo co-sponsoring.
Despite state laws legalizing medical and recreational marijuana use and sales, the federal government still categorizes cannabis as a Schedule 1 controlled substance — the same designation given to heroin. Federal law currently prohibits the Justice Department from prosecuting medical marijuana operations in states where they are legal, but recreational pot stores and producers face a continuous threat of arrest, prosecution, and asset forfeiture.
A second bill, the Responsibly Addressing the Marijuana Policy Gap Act [PDF], addresses this issue by removing the possibility of federal criminal penalties and civil asset forfeiture for people and companies that comply with state law.
This bill also attempts to a number of other financial issues that marijuana businesses face because the drug is outlawed on a federal level. It would be legal for pot sellers to advertise in states where their businesses are allowed, though there would be restrictions on TV ads that encourage people to travel from places where pot is not legal to where it has been legalized.
Banks holding accounts of legal marijuana businesses would no longer be at risk of federal prosecution or of losing their FDIC insurance. Similarly, federal banking regulators would not be allowed to discourage financial institutions from doing business with legalized cannabis operations.
On a personal level, previous marijuana-related violations can prevent people from getting public housing or a federal student loan. This bill would provide an expungement process for these individuals, making sure that minor marijuana offenses are not the only barrier for entry to federal programs. Similarly, legal use of marijuana would not be sufficient grounds to deport or deny entry to the U.S. for an individual.
The bill also aims to lift restrictions that prevent veterans from having legal access to medical marijuana in states that have allowed it.
Finally, there’s the Marijuana Revenue and Regulation Act [PDF], which would not only take away marijuana’s Schedule 1 classification, but remove it altogether from the federal schedule of controlled substances. The goal would be for pot to be regulated much like alcohol is now regulated. States would still be able to decide that marijuana is illegal, but in states where it is allowed, marijuana producers, importers, and wholesalers would need to obtain permits from the U.S. Treasury Department. Much like the government currently imposes excise taxes on beer, wine, booze, and tobacco, there would be an excise tax on legalized marijuana, gradually increasing to a maximum of 25% of the sales price.
Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, says today’s barrage of bills is more evidence of the changing federal attitude toward marijuana.
“State-legal cannabis businesses have added tens of thousands of jobs, supplanted criminal markets, and generated tens of millions in new tax revenue,” says Smith. “States are clearly realizing the benefits of regulating marijuana and we are glad to see a growing number of federal policy makers are taking notice.”
Sen. Wyden and Rep. Blumenauer are both from Oregon, where in 2014 voters approved a ballot measure legalizing marijuana.
“The federal government must respect the decision Oregonians made at the polls and allow law-abiding marijuana businesses to go to the bank just like any other legal business.” Sen. Wyden said in a statement. “This three-step approach will spur job growth and boost our economy all while ensuring the industry is being held to a fair standard.”
“As more states follow Oregon’s leadership in legalizing and regulating marijuana, too many people are trapped between federal and state laws,” Rep. Blumenauer said. “It’s not right, and it’s not fair. We need change now – and this bill is the way to do it.”
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
Volkswagen is inching closer to putting its “Dieselgate” scandal in the rearview mirror. The automaker has agreed to a $157 million settlement that will end lawsuits in 10 states, and it has been cleared to start selling diesels in the U.S. again.
Volkswagen announced Thursday that it had reached an agreement [PDF] with the attorneys general of 10 states to resolve additional environmental and consumer claims over its use of so-called “defeat devices” to skirt federal emissions standards.
The $157 million settlement will be split between Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maine, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington and used to offset the environmental impact of the excess emissions.
Each of the states in the settlement are what is referred to as “Section 177 States.” This means they have all incorporated into their state law more stringent auto emissions standards established by California under the Clean Air Act.
By reaching the agreement, VW says it “avoids further prolonged and costly litigation as Volkswagen continues to work to earn back the trust of its customers, regulators and the public.”
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who accused VW of committing fraud in a July 2106 lawsuit, says his state will receive $32.5 million as a result of the settlement.
“Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche tried to pull off an extraordinarily cynical corporate fraud – deceiving hundreds of thousands of consumers, pumping thousands of tons of harmful pollution into our air, and flouting New York and federal environmental laws designed to protect public health,” Attorney General Schneiderman said in a statement. “Now, this state environmental penalty makes clear that no company – however large or powerful – is above the law in New York.”
The agreement is in addition to VW’s previous 44-state settlement reached last year to resolve state consumer protection claims. However, the company notes that settlement did not include claims for injunctive relief or restitution related to 3.0L TDI V6 vehicles, which are included in the settlement announced today.
In other VW “Dieselgate” news, Bloomberg reports that the car maker announced that nearly two years after it stopped selling diesel-engine vehicles in the U.S. it has received approval from the Environmental Protection Agency to allow dealers to offer for sale model year 2015 vehicles with approved emission modifications.
A spokesperson for VW tells Bloomberg the company is still finalizing the details of the program.
For now, the sales will apply only to the approximately 12,000 vehicles in dealer stock. The spokesperson tells Bloomberg that eventually sales will include used 2015 diesels that have been bought back by the carmaker as part of its settlement with U.S. regulators.
VW issued a stop sale on the vehicles in Sept. 2015, just days after the company’s use of so-called “defeat devices” to skirt federal emissions standards came to light.
The emissions software update was actually approved in January when the EPA and the California Air Resources Board said VW had provided an adequate fix for 70,000 2-liter Volkswagen vehicles that release up to 40-times the allowable rate of nitrogen oxide.
The remedy, which is to take place in two phases over the next year, applied to model year 2015 Volkswagen Beetle, Beetle Convertible, Golf, Golf SportWagen, Jetta, and Passat, and the model year 2015 diesel Audi A3.
The first phase, available now, will remove the defeat device software and replace it with software that directs the emission controls to function effectively in all typical vehicle operation, the EPA says.
The second phase, which will take place next year, involves VW installing additional software updates and hardware, including a diesel particulate filter, diesel oxidation catalyst, and NOx catalyst — all of which are needed to maintain vehicle reliability and emissions performance over time.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
As we’ve been reporting for some time now, it’s hard out there for retailers trying to compete for customers. H&M has had a particularly tough time competing in “fast fashion,” what with its late entry into e-commerce and stiff competition from brands like Zara. But what’s bad for H&M could be good for shoppers looking for hefty discounts.
The problem for H&M is that it has a lot of inventory it’s trying to offload, partly due to its relatively slow supply chain: In January, the company said its net income sank by 11%, largely due to increased markdowns.
To that end, one analyst notes a 30% increase in inventory in March compared to a year earlier, warning that the company is at risk for increased markdowns that could hurt the company’s bottom line if it can’t sell off that extra product, reports Reuters
For example, right now H&M is hosting a “mid-season sale” with discounts of up to 80% off, while rival Zara’s seasonal sale is only discounting items up to 50%. That would seem to indicate that H&M is trying pretty hard to clear out stock.
Now, the company is hoping to keep up with its rival Zara by making investments in improving its supply chain so it won’t have to go to such markdown extremes.
Because while H&M is a veteran in the fast-fashion business and has been around longer than Zara, it’s been lagging behind recently — as in it’s literally slower when it comes to getting new styles into stores, and that’s hurting its sales.
In comparison, brands like Zara — along with Japanese casual designer Uniqlo and online-only retailer ASOS — have faster supply chains in place, and as such, they can more quickly supply their stores with popular items.
In contrast, H&M’s supply chain lead times are about double those of Zara’s parent company, notes Reuters, citing a report from Goldman Sachs this month recommending investors sell their shares of H&M.
“To meet the rapid change that is going on in fashion retail we need to be even faster and more flexible in our work processes, for example as regards buying and allocation of our assortment,” the company said in an investor report today, noting that it’s “investing significantly in our supply chain” with new logistical solutions and more automation.
If H&M can’t fix its supply chain issues, there will only be more discounts to come — which is good for shoppers, but again, not so great for H&M.
There could be other changes afoot for shoppers at H&M as the chain tries to compete: In an investor report today, the company mentioned “optimizing” its portfolio of stores, which likely means closing some, though it’s unclear where on the globe that will happen. This is in line with the company’s news in January that it would slow down on opening new retail locations and shift its focus online. To that end, the company says online sales have been improving.
H&M is also trying to refresh the look of the stores it does have to attract customers with a “a new and upgraded version of our H&M stores with a new visual look.”
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
Packaged food companies spend gobs of cash designing boxes and bags to catch supermarket shoppers’ eyes, but what’s the point of that flashy design when you’re shopping online? Amazon is hoping that companies like Mondelez and General Mills will agree to optimize packaging for shipping instead of shelf appeal.
Amazon has been offering “frustration-free” packaging for a wide array of electronics since 2008 — doing away with many of the packaging features that are primarily intended to prevent shoplifting and tampering. Those often-annoying safeguards are pointless for most things purchased online.
Amazon, which is so anxious to expand its grocery sales that it’s even opening brick-and-mortar stores, has invited big companies that sell consumer packaged goods to rethink their packaging in similar ways.
Instead of investing in packaging that makes products stand out on a shelf, companies could instead invest in making their packaging sturdier and better able to survive shipment. The three-day meeting even includes a visit to an Amazon fulfillment center.
Bloomberg News has a copy of the invitation, which explains that the event is meant to make companies rethink their supply chains. “Amazon strongly believes that supply chains designed to serve the direct-to-consumer business have the power to bring improved customer experiences and global efficiency.”
There’s an implied threat here, too. People love shopping on Amazon, especially getting their orders delivered in just a few hours or a few days. The company keeps expanding its private-label products for everything from electric cords to food products and diapers. If packaged goods suppliers don’t want to play along, Amazon can push its own brands on the shoppers that are already on its site.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
The Department of Education recently advised companies that collect debt on billions of dollars in outstanding federal student loans that they can once again charge a large penalty fee to defaulted borrowers. However, the collectors — even one that is currently suing the government for the right to charge this fee — now say they will not automatically add thousands of dollars in additional debt to loans in default.
Bloomberg reports that all 26 loan companies that collect for the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program have said they will not automatically charge borrowers a higher default fee, even though they totally could.
Last week, the Department of Education advised [PDF] federal student loan debt collectors that they were now allowed to automatically charge borrowers a default fee that is equivalent to 16% of the loan balance.
The guarantors were told to ignore a July 2015 Obama administration guidance [PDF] that restricted fees on the public-private FFEL Program loans. That 2015 directive barred guarantors from charging default penalty fees on borrowers who met the following conditions: They responded to the notice of default within 60 days, entered into a repayment and rehabilitation program, and then abided by that program.
With about 7 million borrowers still owing $162 billion in debt for outstanding FFEL loans, the guarantors would likely see a nice windfall from the higher fees.
However, Bloomberg reports that might not be the case, as all of the guaranty agencies have announced in the last week that they won’t be charging higher fees.
“Many student loan borrowers already have a difficult time managing their loan obligations,” James Patterson, chief executive officer of the Texas guaranty agency, tells Bloomberg. “Adding more fees does not help their situation.”
The decision not to charge higher fees comes as a bit of a surprise, as one guaranty agency — USA Funds — waged a rather public battle against the 2015 directive capping the fees.
In fact, USA Funds sued the Department [PDF], alleging that the guidance was inconsistent with the law, and that then Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sidestepped the required rulemaking process by issuing this rule without seeking public comment.
As we reported last week, that lawsuit is still pending in federal court, but recent filings indicate that the government is actively looking to walk away from the dispute.
USA Funds also faced additional scrutiny because of a family connection to the Department of Education. Taylor Hansen, son of USA Funds CEO Bill Hansen, was a high-ranking adviser to Ed. Secy. Betsy DeVos at the time this new guidance was issued. However, amid concerns about improper influence, Hansen quietly stepped down from government gig after only a few weeks on the job.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
In pockets of stores throughout Texas and Oklahoma, McDonald’s has been replacing its frozen beef patties with fresh meat for about a year. Now the fast food goliath says a majority of its stores nationwide will be serving up the non-frozen patties by mid-2018.
McDonald’s has faced increasing competition not just from its fellow national burger chains, but from smaller regional operators like Five Guys, Whataburger, and others, who offer fresher ingredients.
Despite McDonald’s being arguably the most famous name in burgers, its reputation with consumers is also sagging. The chain has repeatedly come in last on the American Customer Satisfaction Index of limited service restaurants, and its burgers have previously been named the least tasty of all fast food chains.
McDonald’s began testing the fresh beef patties last spring at 75 stores in the Dallas area, before expanding a few months later to some markets in Oklahoma. The company recently added more than 300 locations in North Texas to that test.
“We received overwhelmingly positive feedback from customers and employees and we’re proud to have been part of a test that is creating a watershed moment for McDonald’s,” said one Dallas-area McDonald’s franchisee in a statement released by the company. “This test was driven by the Franchisees, our region and insights from what our customers are asking for when they visit McDonald’s.”
The change to fresh beef will involve the patty used for the Quarter Pounder and its related burgers, like the Quarter Pounder with Cheese, Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese, the Quarter Pounder with Cheese Deluxe and Signature Crafted Recipe burgers. We’ve asked McDonald’s to clarify what, if any, effect this change will have on the Big Mac; we’ll update if we receive a response.
Moving away from frozen patties can result in better burgers, but it can also increase food storage/waste costs for some franchisees if those fresh beef burgers aren’t going out the window at a rapid rate. The chain’s promise to cook burgers when ordered may also slow down service, potentially aggravating customers who choose McDonald’s for expedience over taste.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
For Carl’s Jr., selling food has long meant selling sex, with ads featuring women in skimpy bikinis and cutoff shorts chowing down on juicy burgers. The chain has decided to go with a more direct approach, and will now focus on using actual burgers to sell burgers. What a novel idea.
In a new tongue-in-cheek commercial, the fictional Carl Hardee Sr. is sick of his son Carl Jr. running the place like a millennial frat boy on eternal spring break and using sex appeal to get customers interested in their food.
Carl the elder promptly gets down to business at company headquarters, literally tearing down his son’s legacy by pulling pictures of busty women holding burgers off the wall — actual real-life advertising the chain used in the past — and replacing them with framed beauty shots of burgers.
He goes on to wax poetic about the ways the company pioneered the “great American burger” while his son insists that his focus has always been “on food not boobs.”
AdWeek reports that Carl Sr. will be the new face of both of his eponymous chains — Carl’s Jr. and sibling Hardee’s — for at least the rest of the year, spouting the tagline: “Pioneers of the great American burger.”
In case you need a refresher course in previous Carl’s ads, see below (though maybe not if you’re at work):
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
The co-pilot of an America Airlines flight from Dallas-Fort Worth to Albuquerque experienced a medical issue during landing and died shortly after reaching the gate.
CNN reports that the co-pilot of American flight 1353 became incapacitated just miles before the plane was to begin its final descent to Albuquerque’s Sunport Airport around 3:30 p.m.
A spokesperson for the Federal Aviation Administration said the captain of the plane declared an emergency and completed landing safely.
Once the plane landed, it taxied to the gate and was met by paramedics, who performed CPR for 35 to 40 minutes, sources close to the matter tell CNN, adding that the co-pilot was pronounced dead a short time later.
American said in a statement that it was “deeply saddened” by the co-pilot’s death, and asked for “thoughts and prayers” for his family and colleagues.
The FAA spokesperson notes that the agency will work with the airline to learn more about the incident.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
The Federal Communication Commission’s internet privacy regulations would have prevented your internet provider from using and selling some potentially sensitive information about you, but the Senate and the House of Representatives voted to roll back the regulations. As the bill awaits the President’s signature, we’ve learned that some of the community groups that contacted the FCC to oppose privacy regulations are recipients of donations from Comcast.
The Intercept put this information together, and it goes back to last year, when the FCC was still working on the privacy rules.
In a letter put together by the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council and co-signed by the League of United Latin American Citizens and OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates, the groups contend that considering all browsing data private by default means that poor people might miss out on some coupons or other discounts they might learn about through targeted advertising.
“Many consumers, especially those households with limited incomes, appreciate receiving relevant advertising that is keyed to their interests and provides them with discounts on the products and services they use,” the groups explained in their letter to the FCC.
That’s true, and is precisely why the privacy regulations allowed consumers to opt out if they wanted to. Any information that you leave in the control of your ISP to use and sell can be used for purposes that you didn’t intend.
Note that all three groups have been recipients of money and “advice,” “assistance,” or “corporate guidance” from telecoms. While detailed donation information isn’t public, the Intercept was able to discover that OCA, for example, has received substantial donations from Comcast and Verizon.
Comcast donated $240,000 to LULAC in an eight-year span from 2004 to 2012. AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Charter, and Verizon are also part of the group’s network of corporate benefactors.
The Intercept asked OCA and LULAC if ISP industry money influenced their decision to engage on the privacy rule and did not receive an immediate response. We also reached out to OCA and LULAC for comment on The Intercept’s story and will update this post if we hear back.
When The Intercept took the letter and information about telecoms’ donations to these groups to activists for digital culture and for civil rights, they disagreed with the arguments made, to put it lightly.
“The data that big corporations collect from black and brown families leads to predatory marketing that starts from a young age and lasts for a lifetime — everything from payday loans to junk food advertising,” Brandi Collins of Color of Change told the Intercept. “Even the most innocuous information can be used for online price gouging, data discrimination, and digital redlining.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
Bank of America must pay $46 million for improperly foreclosing on a California couple’s home in 2010.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Christopher Klein levied [PDF] the judgement against the bank this week, calling Bank of America’s actions in foreclosing on the couple’s home “heartless” and “brazen.”
In all, Klein ordered the bank to pay $46 million, most of which will be divvied up by law schools and consumer advocate agencies, with the couple receiving about $1 million.
Klein noted in the 107-page ruling that the fine should be enough to spur change with the bank’s mortgage practices, and not be seen as “petty cash or chump change.”
“It is apparent that the engine of Bank of America’s problem in this case is one of corporate culture… not rogue employees betraying an upstanding employer,” Klein added.
The California couple’s problems began in 2008 when they bought a less expensive house in Sacramento than they currently owned.
The couple’s mortgage — $590,000 — was borrowed from a bank that was eventually taken over by Bank of America.
Loan officials had promised the couple they would be able to request lower monthly payments. However, in 2009, Bank of America officials told the couple they could only receive a loan modification if they had missed payments.
“Their sole reason for defaulting, which they did with considerable reluctance was acquiesce in Bank of America’s demand that they default as a precondition for loan modification,” the option states.
After that, “Bank of America started a multi-year ‘dual-tracking’ game of cat-and-mouse,” the ruling states. “With one paw, Bank of America batted the debtors between about 20 loan modification requests or supplements that routinely were either ‘lost’ or declared insufficient, or incomplete.”
By 2010, the couple had filed for bankruptcy, a process that halts foreclosure sales. However, Bank of America improperly took possession of the home, giving the couple a three-day notice.
While the bank later reversed the decision and the couple moved back in, when the couple re-entered the premises, they discovered that major appliances, window coverings, and carpet had been removed.
Additionally, the homeowner’s association had fined the pair $20,000 for dead shrubbery and landscaping.
While the couple was acting in good faith throughout the ordeal — despite medical issues and other expense — Klein found that Bank of America had no intention of acting in good faith.
In a statement to the Wall Street Journal, a rep for Bank of America said the findings were “unprecedented and unsupported,” adding the foreclosure processes have changed since 2010.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
Don’t think fast food companies are taking consumers’ preference for “clean” food seriously? Just look at the war of words that has erupted this week between Chipotle and Panera Bread.
While discussing Chipotle’s recent announcement that its entire menu now is now preservative-free, CEO Steve Ells told Business Insider that chains like McDonald’s and Panera are misleading customers with that “clean” buzzword, which the industry uses to indicate that a food is free of preservatives or artificial ingredients.
Ells takes issue with competitors using the word when they still include “natural flavors” in their food, pointing out that you can’t buy those “natural flavors” at the farmer’s market.
Chipotle’s chief marketing officer Mark Crumpacker weighed in as well, saying that the biggest difference between Chipotle’s and Panera’s claims of a clean menu was that Chipotle didn’t “have any of these industrial additives of any kind.”
He went on to say that other companies have removed artificial flavors or colors, but that their menus are still “littered with colors, flavors, preservatives, dough conditioners, gums, emulsifiers, [and] humectants.”
At first, Panera responded by telling BI that it was working toward using only ingredients someone would find in a home pantry. Today, the company’s CEO joined the fray, calling Ells’ remarks “personally offensive.”
“I think that Steve Ells and the folks at Chipotle have had more than their fair share of problems,” Panera CEO Ron Shaich told Business Insider. “With the type of problems they have had, maybe they shouldn’t be throwing bombs.”
And by “problems,” he likely means Chipotle’s highly-publicized food borne illness nightmare.
Shaich says Panera has been working toward a “clean” menu for decades, and has always been straightforward with customers about what that word means.
“For us, this hasn’t been something that we woke up yesterday to try to do,” he told BI. “It’s something we have been trying to do for 20 years.”
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
There’s just something about shiny little things that makes children – and some adults – put the objects in their mouths. But that’s dangerous and even more hazardous when the object happens to be a magnet. To that end: Target is recalling thousands of magnetic tic-tac-toe boards.
Target announced the recall Wednesday of 19,000 magnetic tic-tac-toe games that contain pieces with magnets on the back that could fall off, posing a choking hazard.
According to a recall notice posted with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, choking on one magnet is bad, but if two or more magnets are swallowed they could pose a serious health issue.
That’s because two magnets can link together inside the intestines and clamp onto body tissues, causing intestinal obstructions, perforations, sepsis, and death, the CPSC warns.
We learned that these magnets can do an awful lot of damage if swallowed shortly after tiny high-powered magnetic spheres, such as Buckyballs, became popular. Since 2009, the CPSC has been recalling these products and filing lawsuits against the companies that continue to make these potentially dangerous items.
In this case, Target says it is aware of one report in which a magnet fell off the game piece, but no injuries were reported.
The 10×10 inch plywood board games were sold at Target stores nationally from Dec. 2016 to Feb. 2017 for $5.
The affected games can be identified by the model number 234-25-1089 printed on the bottom right corner and come with nine “X” and heart-shaped pieces.
Consumers are urged to immediately stop using the games and return it to Target for a full refund.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
Seven years ago, Amazon acquired Quidsi, what was then a five-year-old competitor that ran the sites Diapers.com and Soap.com. Since then, the company has been running independently and expanded its offerings. Now Amazon is shuttering Quidsi’s brands, saying that it’s been unable to make a profit in the last seven years.
Amazon acquired Quidsi in 2011, after a price war that the newer startup couldn’t afford to win. Under Amazon, Quidsi created new stores meant to be helpful to families, which included clothing, kids’ sports supplies, home goods, pet supplies, and natural products.
“We have worked extremely hard for the past seven years to get Quidsi to be profitable, and unfortunately we have not been able to do so,” an Amazon spokesperson told Consumerist.
Quidsi founder Marc Lore left a few years after the acquisition. He founded Jet.com in 2015, another innovative but chronically unprofitable e-commerce startup. We called it “either the future of retail or a doomed wacky scheme,” and were sort of right on both counts. Jet wasn’t profitable, but Walmart acquired Jet last year for more than $3 billion, making Lore its head of e-commerce.
We asked Amazon for clarification on when the Quidsi family of sites will close, since we know that there are many fans in our audience. All that a spokesperson has told us so far is that the company “will continue to offer selection on Amazon.com,” and that its software development staff will shift to working on the growing AmazonFresh grocery brand.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
जनता का आदमी
More than two years after we first heard about a veggie burger designed to “bleed” juice made from plants, the company behind it is ramping up to put its meatless offering in front of more consumers.
Impossible Foods is preparing to scale up production with a new facility that will allow it to produce 250 times more faux meat — designed to look, cook, and taste just like the real thing to entice even the pickiest meat eaters — than it does currently, reports Fast Company.
“It will enable us to go from something that is scarce–and we’re constantly getting complaints from customers about the fact that they can’t buy them at their local restaurant–and start to make it ubiquitous,” Impossible Foods CEO Patrick Brown said at an event launching the new factory.
Right now you can order the plant-based burger at 11 restaurants, but the company has plans to expand to 1,000 restaurants by the end of the year. That includes a deal it just signed to supply the San Francisco Giant’s baseball stadium.
Eventually, Impossible wants to sell its burgers in grocery stores and other retailers, as well as products yet to come like poultry and steak.
The company isn’t alone in its quest for vegetable-based food that mimics meat: Beyond Meat debuted a meatless burger that “bleeds” pulverized juice at a Colorado Whole Foods last year.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
जनता का आदमी
One of the nation’s largest providers of automobile financing, Santander Bank, has agreed to pay $26 million to end a two-state investigation into the financial institution’s alleged violation of state consumer protection laws related to its auto loan underwriting practices.
The Attorneys General from Massachusetts and Delaware [PDF] announced the settlements on Wednesday resolving accusations that from 2009 to 2014 Santander backed “unfair, high-rate auto loans” for thousand of car buyers in the states who could never repay the debts.
The settlements, which the states claims are the first in the U.S. involving subprime auto loans, are the culmination of a joint investigation by the offices of Massachusetts AG Maura Healey and Delaware AG Matt Denn into the financing and securitization of subprime auto loans.
These loans, known as subprime auto loans, are often made to consumers with poor credit through contracts at a car dealership. However, the loans are actually funded by a non-dealer financial institution, like Santander.
Related: John Oliver, Keegan-Michael Key Explain Why Subprime Car Loans Are So Awful
According to the AG offices, Santander allegedly funded auto loans without having a reasonable basis to believe that the borrowers could afford them.
In fact, the investigation found that Santander predicted that a large portion of the loans would default. Additionally, the bank allegedly knew that the reported incomes listed to support the loan applications submitted to the company by car dealers were incorrect and often inflated, the AG’s investigation claimed.
Santander, according to the AG’s settlement, even identified a group of dealers that had high default rates due in part, to the regular submission of inaccurate data on loan applications – most often involving inflated income.
Despite this, the bank continued to purchase loans from those dealers anyway and, in some cases, sold them to third parties.
Once the loans were approved, Santander would package the auto loans into large asset pools and then sell the bonds or notes backed by the pools. The money that was generated by the sold bonds or note was then used to fund more subprime loans. This was a process used, most recently, in the lead-up to the housing crisis.
Under Wednesday’s settlement, Santander will provide $22 million to the state of Massachusetts, with about $16 million going toward refunding harmed consumers. The bank will also pay $4 million to Delaware, of which $2.89 million will be used to refund consumers and the remainder will be paid to the Delaware Consumer Protection Fund.
Additionally, the settlement requires Santander to revise its business practices, including updating procedures to screen loans originated by car dealers and not selling any loans purchased from high risk dealers to third-parties.
A Santander spokesperson tells Consumerist in a statement the bank is pleased to put the matter to rest, but that it is neither admitting or denying any wrongdoing.
“We are pleased to put this matter behind us so we can move forward and continue to focus on serving our customers,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “Today’s voluntary agreement with the Attorneys General of Delaware and Massachusetts, which resolves an investigation dating back several years, is another important step forward in that process.”
The company also notes that over the past 18-months it has improved policies and procedures to identify and prevent dealer misconduct, put in place stronger management oversight teams, created a dealer council to focus and formalize dealer oversight issues, and enhance the efficiency of dealer monitoring and management processes.
While the settlement resolves Santander’s subprime auto loan issues in Massachusetts and Delaware, the bank is still under investigation by federal regulators.
Back in Oct. 2014, Santander received a DOJ subpoena requesting the production of documents and communications related to the underwriting and securitization of nonprime auto loans since 2007. The company was also told to preserve and produce documents and communications related to its auto loan business since the beginning of 2011.
In 2015, the bank revealed it was party to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigation into alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act that had been referred to the DOJ.
The CFPB had been looking into whether the lender overcharged customers, or treated them differently during the underwriting process, based on factors that are not to be taken into account when issuing a loan — things like race, religion, and gender.
In January, a group of lawmakers urged federal banking regulators to review the financial institution’s practices after a Committee for Better Banks report that found widespread discriminatory lending practices by Santander Bank.
In an related settlement last year, the bank agreed to pay a $10 million fine to settle allegations that it illegally charged overdraft fees to customers who didn’t affirmatively opt in to the bank’s overdraft policies.
by prakash chandra via Consumerist