Menu

Friday, October 24, 2014

Your Electric Company Will Not Call And Demand Payment By Prepaid Card

http://ift.tt/1rgEdPy

While your local utility could call you up and demand immediate instant payment using a prepaid debit card before shutting off your natural gas and power, they will never actually do that. The owner of the Squeeze Inn, a fantastically-named restaurant in California, learned that the hard way when he panicked and sent $1,000 to scammers claiming to represent Pacific Gas & Electric.

The caller ID claimed to be PG&E, and the person on the other end claimed that there was a crew on their way over right then. Panic overrode the owner’s better judgement and even his knowledge that the bill had already been paid. He obtained the prepaid card and stopped the imaginary crew from turning off his utilities.


Green Dot itself even offers anti-fraud advice on their website, including these crucial tips:



  • Never give your MoneyPak number to someone you don’t know.

  • Refuse any offer that asks you to buy a MoneyPak and share the number or receipt information by email or phone.

  • Don’t use the MoneyPak to pay taxes or fees to claim “winnings” on a foreign lottery or prize promotion. Unless it’s an approved MoneyPak partner, don’t use MoneyPak for any offer that requires you to pay before you get the item.


Those are all solid pieces of advice. The problem, of course, is that many targets of these scams aren’t Internet-savvy, and will never see this page. Same goes for the very useful list of approved partner companies that accept MoneyPak payments.


It would be useful to put these tips on the package for the MoneyPak cards, but people still probably wouldn’t pay attention to them.


If you do receive a collections call from your utility, hang up and call the number on your bill: if it’s a legitimate call, they should not have a problem with this.


Squeeze Inn Owner Falls Victim To Scammer Claiming He Was From PG&E [CBS Sacramento]




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

More Info From Yelper Who Says He Was Threatened Over Negative Review

http://ift.tt/1yuIR1q
One of the messages allegedly sent via Facebook from the chef to a customer who left a one-star review on Yelp.

One of the messages allegedly sent via Facebook from the chef to a customer who left a one-star review on Yelp.



Earlier today, we told you about the apparent dispute between a Cleveland consumer and the chef/owner of a local restaurant who allegedly reacted to the customer’s negative Yelp review with a series of nasty, threatening messages on Facebook. Now that diner has reached out to Consumerist to share more of his side of the story.

First off, Ruchu, the customer who posted the one-star review said he wanted to clear up some rumors that others may have read about this situation.


He tells Consumerist that he doesn’t have any affiliation with any businesses that compete with the restaurant or its owner.


Additionally, though both the customer and the chef attended the same college, they did not know each other.


“He was years ahead and I only came to find out that he was an alum after this ordeal,” writes Ruchu. “Before this, I wouldn’t even recognize him.”


He believes there has also been some confusion about the platform for the messages that he’s screengrabbed and posted online. Some have apparently believed that these are text messages because of the narrow layout, but as anyone who has used Facebook Messenger can tell you, this is how Facebook messages appear on an iPhone.


“We did not contact each other over phone or text,” clarifies Ruchu, “only through Facebook and a few e-mails.”


Ruchu and his friends dined at the restaurant on a Sunday evening. The original Yelp review was posted the next afternoon.


That’s when things started to get strange.


Ruchu says that the chef found him on Facebook, copying a mutual friend on the original message, though neither Ruchu nor that friend know why this person was brought into the dispute. Then, according to Ruchu, the chef began “liking” every one of Ruchu’s public posts; he even apparently friend-requested the very person he was simultaneously sending these unpleasant messages to.


What wasn’t included in the earlier story — because we’re just seeing it now — are the messages and e-mails that were sent after that initial batch we told you about.


Ruchu later responded to the chef, suggesting that an apology was called for.


“Not only did you take my opinions on your business too personally, you attacked my girlfriend and friend,” he wrote, pointing to the racially charged comments and threats in the earlier messages. “You showed that you are [incapable] of receiving criticism.”


Surprisingly, given the vitriol on display in the initial messages, the chef’s response to this request was not filled with the same unhinged anger.


“I do apologize for my harsh words, particularly getting personal,” writes the chef, who does say he interpreted the review as an attempt to sabotage his business.


While Ruchu was skeptical of the apology, he says the chef ultimately did provide a video message to demonstrate his sincerity. (We have not seen this video and Ruchu says he is not showing it to anyone.)


Ruchu updated his Yelp review to mention both the Facebook messages and the apology, but apparently the owner was not thrilled with this update.


According to e-mails shown by Ruchu to Consumerist, the chef asked Ruchu to remove this update but leave the original 1-star review.


“I’m fine with the bad reviews that we have and don’t wish to edit any of them,” reads one e-mail about the possibility of removing the update.


But Ruchu says that the restaurant then began using his full name as a hashtag on its Instagram photos, which he believed was an attempt to publicly mock him.


So after a few weeks of this, that’s how the boycott page on Facebook, which has screengrabbed some of these mentions for posterity, came to be.


We’re still hoping to hear back from the restaurant, and will update this story if we get any additional info.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Amazon Takes $170 Million Loss On Fire Phone Flop

http://ift.tt/1siYNhJ

firephoneDespite Amazon advertising the device on every doorstep and dropping the price under a buck, the company’s Fire Phone, companion smartphone to its line of tablets and TV streaming devices, failed to catch on with the public. Maybe it was the AT&T exclusivity, or the fact that it runs a customized version of Google’s Android operating system, without access to Google’s app marketplace.


Heck, over in the United Kingdom, you don’t have to pay a nominal 99 pence to get the Fire phone: it’s free with a new contract on Amazon’s exclusive partner in that country, carrier O2. The phone accounted for $170 million of Amazon’s $437 million loss last quarter.


“There are a lot of reasons it failed, but they key is that Amazon provided no good reason for consumers to buy it,” one analyst explained to CNET. It did have some pretty nice headphones, but you can buy those separately. No phone needed. With no clear advantages or compelling reason to buy the device, consumers just aren’t interested. Maybe the Amazon pop-up stores will pique their interest…but probably not.


Amazon takes $170M charge on Fire Phone [CNET]




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Apple Pay Lets Man Scan, Use Wife’s Citi Credit Card Without Additional Verification

https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/applepay.png?w=680&h=417
Apple Pay allows you to easily scan cards into the Passbook app, but Citi is allowing some cards to be added without additional verification if they meet certain conditions.

Apple Pay allows you to easily scan cards into the Passbook app, but Citi is allowing some cards to be added without additional verification if they meet certain conditions.



One of the neat features of the new Apple Pay system is that it lets iPhone 6 users quickly scan and verify credit cards into their Passbook so they can use those accounts without ever providing participating businesses with their card numbers. But how easy is it to just scan in someone else’s card and start using it without that person’s permission?

That was the question posed by our Consumer Reports colleague Glenn Derene, who put Apple Pay’s easy scanning ability to the test, with surprising results.




After familiarizing himself with the scanning and verification process by uploading a couple of cards that actually belonged to him, Derene then attempted to add two of his CR co-workers’ cards (presumably with their knowledge).


“[A]t first it looked as if those cards were going to be approved,” he writes, but the attempt to scan other people’s cards hit a roadblock when the issuing banks requested additional verification via text message, e-mail, or over the phone.


This is the typical sort of two-factor authentication that most financial institutions employ for people logging onto their websites or mobile apps for the first time. Without being able to provide the requested security info, Derene was unable to add his colleagues’ cards to his Apple Pay.


But when he scanned in his wife’s Citibank MasterCard (with her knowledge but without any verification info that would give him access to her account), Derene says there were no additional steps required to authorize the card.


“That was unexpected, since it is my wife’s private card, and she has never authorized me as a user,” he explains. “Also, that card isn’t associated with our family iTunes account. In fact, I have no current financial relationship with Citibank at all.”


But that didn’t stop Derene from going on a wild spending spree with his wife’s card at McDonald’s, where he used Apple Pay to purchase five (5) cheeseburgers and fries; none of which he shared with his wife (or with any Consumerist staffers).


The spree continued at Walgreens, where he purchased cleaning supplies using Apple Pay.


“All the transactions were quick and seamless with the Apple Pay system,” writes Derene.


Just in case this was some sort of glitch, Derene convinced one of his married co-workers to see if he could use Apple Pay to get the same unfettered access to his wife’s Citi MasterCard.


“He was able to add her card to his account with no additional verification, and he bought several items using Apple Pay with her card,” writes Derene, adding that the co-worker’s wife did receive an e-mail from Citi welcoming her to Apple Pay and letting her know that she could remove the card from the system if she had concerns.


When contacted for comment on the ease of scanning and using their spouses’ cards, Apple pointed to the card-issuing banks, saying it is up to these institutions to decide how to authorize their customers’ cards for use on Apple Pay.


A rep for Citi shed a little light on the issue, saying that since Derene was able to provide all the relevant info from the card — number, expiration date, CVV code — and since the address on the family’s iTunes account is the same as the address for his wife’s card, the account was verified.


The rep also pointed out that, as part of the authorization process, Derene had agreed to the terms and conditions, certifying that the card was his.


Derene points out that easy access to a spouse’s credit card is nothing new, and that he could have just as easily added her card info to his Amazon account before going on a spending spree, all without an iPhone of Apple Pay.


But that doesn’t change the fact that the Apple Pay system of adding cards could be improved to prevent this sort of unauthorized access.


“Since the system already has the ability to do two-step verification, why didn’t the banks and Apple make it the only way to authorize a card for use?” asks Derene, who says it only takes a few seconds to legitimately verify a card.


“Sure, it’s not as convenient as simply pointing a iPhone camera at your credit card and instantly authorizing it for use,” he concludes, “but I know that my wife would have appreciated the extra verification step—and she also wishes I had brought her home at least one of those cheeseburgers she paid for.”




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Costco Takes Unusual Stance That Retail Employees Should Have Thanksgiving Day Off

http://ift.tt/1twGRFr

As the beginning of Black Friday and thus the holiday shopping season has crept backwards into the early hours of Thanksgiving, we at Consumerist have taken a cantankerous stance against these early openings. Even we can take heart, though: a few businesses have confirmed that they will not be opening on Thanksgiving Day, because they’d like employees to spend the holiday with their loved ones or something.

ThinkProgress, a progressive political site, also has an anti-Brown Thursday stance, and they’ve already started compiling a list of chain retailers that will be closing their doors during the holiday. It includes Dillard’s, Burlington [Coat Factory], REI, and American Girl. The latest addition is Costco, which also made a point of staying closed on Thanksgiving Day of last year, along with warehouse club competitor BJ’s.


Last year, retailers waited to announce their plans, even to their own employees, which threw many workers’ holiday plans into disarray. While experts have made predictions, most malls and stores haven’t announced their Thanksgiving plans yet.


Costco Will Be Closed On Thanksgiving Because Employees ‘Deserve The Opportunity’ To Be With Family [ThinkProgress]







by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Windows Update Breaking Counterfeit Computer Chips That Users Don’t Even Know They Own

http://ift.tt/1xkTpPB



Most of us have, at least once, had a Windows Update that made something work less well than it used to, instead of better. But it’s rare for a system software update to break part of your computer’s hardware entirely. And it’s even more rare for the update to break your computer on purpose. And yet with one particular kind of adapter chip, that’s exactly what’s happening.

As Ars Technica reports, the chips in question are in adapters that allow newer, USB-based hardware to connect with older machines that have serial ports. (Serial ports are the ones that use little pins that you have to line up on both ends, and they have gone rapidly out of use as other technology, like USB, has become widely adopted.)


Most of the chips are made by a Scottish company called FTDI. The FTDI chips are a widespread standard. But just like anything else on earth that gets to be a popular choice, knockoffs abound and can be hard to spot.


The company that makes an adapter may or may not know whether they put real or fake FTDI chips into it, but the customer on the end who buys and uses the adapter will have absolutely no way to tell. It would be like trying to inspect every hose inside of a washing machine before you buy it to be sure they came from the right factory before Whirlpool put them together. Realistically, end users can’t really do it.


The chips in these adapters need software system drivers to work in the same way that your printer needs the right system driver to work. The driver comes from FTDI but, as with most modern devices, Windows can grab and update the driver for you when you do a Windows Update.


In August, Ars Technica explains, FTDI — apparently sick and tired of all the counterfeit chips — changed their driver and the end-user license agreement for it. So the new driver deliberately scrambles knockoff chips, making them unusable.


The new EULA even says: “Use of the Software as a driver for, or installation of the Software onto, a component that is not a Genuine FTDI Component, including without limitation counterfeit components, MAY IRRETRIEVABLY DAMAGE THAT COMPONENT.”


In other words, updating the software on your adapter will completely brick your adapter if the chip inside it is fake. The chip that you have no way of tracing the provenance of. And because of the way that Windows Update can pull drivers down for you, you don’t have to go looking to update the driver on purpose. Your computer will helpfully do it for you.


End result? Run Windows Update, and suddenly discover some of your hardware is broken. And from the looks of it, very intentionally so.


As Public Knowledge points out, “The fact that disabling countless devices without warning can harm millions of innocent users and manufacturers should be a screaming sign that this is the wrong thing to do.” And not just “bad service” or “ethically questionable” wrong, either, but, if intentional, straight up illegal-wrong.


IP infringement does not give the infringed rights to destroy others’ property. Public Knowledge writes:


So whether or not FTDI has any trademark rights, copyrights, or other rights in whatever the knockoff chips are copying, the actual physical chips themselves are the property of their users, and FTDI doesn’t have the right to break them. A French vintner can’t stroll down the aisles of an American wine store with a hammer, shattering bottles of “California Champagne.” Roving gangs of Nike enforcers can’t rip fake Jordans off the feet of passing kids. And we don’t have Givenchy shock troops marching down Canal Street taking flamethrowers to fake handbags.

“If your IP rights are being infringed,” Public Knowledge concludes, “the proper course of action is to go to court, not take the law into your own hands.”


A Microsoft representative told Ars Technica that since the issue became widely reported, those two drivers have been removed from Windows Update. They added, “Our engineering team is engaging with FTDI to prevent these problems with their future driver updates via Windows Update.”


Windows Update drivers bricking USB serial chips beloved of hardware hackers [Ars Technica]

IP Rights Aren’t a License to Kill Devices (And No, Fine Print Doesn’t Make It OK) [Public Knowledge]




by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Kids Tasked With Dumping Alaska Village’s “Honey Buckets” Likely Psyched To Finally Get Indoor Plumbing

http://ift.tt/1xkR4nI
Line'em up, boys. (catastrophegirl)

Line’em up, boys. (catastrophegirl)



Aren’t chores the worst, kids? Yes, sure, taking out the trash and emptying the dishwasher are both bummer gigs, but let’s all just thank our lucky stars that we were never in charge of dumping buckets of human waste at the town receptacle. To that end, kids in one Alaska village where many homes don’t have indoor plumbing are probably pretty pumped to hear that “honey bucket” duty is almost at an end.

Those dark and stinky days are almost over for children in a western Alaskan village, reports the Associated Press, as the more than 100 homes in the area will soon be getting indoor plumbing after an influx of cash from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.


The $12.5 million in funding for Alaska is part of $325 million in grants and loans going to rural communities nationwide, as part of an effort to bring the whole country up to date with the modern world.


“It’s really designed to make sure people live in communities and in areas that provide the basic protections and the guarantee of basic protections that we all, as Americans, ought to have,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told the AP. “It’s an adequate supply of quality water. It’s the ability to treat sewage properly so that it doesn’t do harm or damage to the environment.”


The remote village of Akiachak will get $5 million in grant money for constructing sewer mains and other essential systems that will then be hooked up to the 100 houses in the community that still use something called the “Honey Bucket” system for waste. That’s not to mention having to go outside to chip away at ice in the winter and bringing it home to melt.


The system right now works as un-sweetly as its name: It’s usually up to the family’s children to haul away large buckets used as toilets and bring it to village receptacles for dumping. Those buckets can leak when overfull, said the chairman of the village tribal council, who lives in one of the homes without indoor plumbing.


He’s excited for the future, that’s for darn sure.


“It’s going to be real different,” he said. “The whole community will be really happy.”


Here’s where we cut to a shot of all the kids doing jumping high fives all over town.


Alaska village to get indoor plumbing as USDA gives $352M for rural water systems nationwide [Associated Press]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Evenflo Agrees To Recall 202,000 Rear-Facing Infant Car Seats Over Tricky Buckle

http://ift.tt/1tRz3jQ

evenfloembrace35 Earlier this year, both Graco and Evenflo recalled almost six million car seats, all told, due to a safety buckle that regulators said could be tricky to open in the case of an emergency, and hamper attempts to get kids out of the car safely. And now, despite pushing back against a recall for additional rear-facing infant seats that use the same buckle, but that the companies argued don’t pose the same risk, Evenflo says it’s agreed to recall 202,000 more car seats.


The latest spate of recalls is for the Embrace 35, which was “manufactured at various times from December 2011 through May 2014,” Evenflo says in a report (PDF) posted on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website.


The same buckle made by AmSafe Commercial Products was at the heart of this year’s earlier recalls for other models of Graco and Evenflo seats, after complaints that the daily wear and tear of mess kids gumming up the works made it difficult or impossible to get a child out in an emergency.


But both companies had resisted issuing recalls for rear-facing seats, reports the New York Times, saying that the part of the seat that holds the child could be detached from the base and taken out of the car that way, thus there was no “unreasonable risk” to children’s safety, reports the New York Times.


It seems Evenflo has changed its tune after the NHTSA continued to demand a recall of the rear-facing seats, saying it “acquiesced” to regulators on Oct. 14.


“Child seats serve one purpose: to keep our children safe from harm during a crash and its aftermath,” said Anthony Foxx, secretary of the Department of Transportation. “If the seat is defective, we will force a recall as we have done today.”


Affected model numbers include: 30711365, 31511040,31511323, 31511400, 3151198, 3151953, 31521138, 46811205, 46811237, 48111200, 48111215, 48111215A,48111218, 48111234, 48111235, 48111235A, 48111462, 48411391, 48411391D, 48411392, 48411504, 48411504D, 52911307A,52921040, 55311138, 55311238 and 55311292.


Evenflo will notify registered owners and provide a remedy kit, including a replacement buckle and instructions for easy consumer removal of the AmSafe buckle and installation of the newly-designed replacement buckle. Owners may contact Evenflo’s toll-free number at 1-800-490-7591.


Evenflo Recalls 202,000 Child Safety Seats [New York Times]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

$10K Or $250K — How Much Should Walmart Pay For Wrongly Accusing Man Of Attacking Worker?

http://ift.tt/1zppcnD

In Sept. 2007, a man described as being 5’7″ and around 50 years old in California allegedly attacked a Walmart employee who had caught him shoplifting. Two months later, a man in his early 40s and five inches taller than that suspect walked into the Walmart, where he claims he was detained by a manager and publicly accused of being the attacker from the earlier incident. Seven years later, the legal debate is ongoing as to how much, if anything, Walmart should pay this man.

The shopper is asking for upwards of $250,000, but according to the Fresno Bee, he may end up with nothing depending on how a judge rules next week.


See, the customer filed suit in 2008, but Walmart claims that the suit should be dismissed because the case didn’t go to trial within five years. The plaintiff contends that the delay is Walmart’s fault, that the retailer misled the court into believing that a settlement was in the offing.


He also claims that court documents show that Walmart had previously agreed to a March 2015 trial date before requesting the dismissal.


The man says there was a previous offer of $10,000, but that this more about teaching Walmart a lesson than about the money.


“I’m doing this as a public service so no one else has to go through what I have gone through,” he explains to the Bee.


Walmart maintains that not only is the case too old to go trial, but that the manager didn’t do anything wrong. The retailer says that the man was not, as he alleges, detained or touched by Walmart workers but “asked to leave the store because he previously assaulted an employee.”


The manager stated in a deposition that all he told the shopper was, “You can’t be here. I need you to leave the store.”


But the plaintiff claims that he was detained and publicly accused of being the man in the earlier attack, and that he had to break free and contact the police to clear his name.


The police put his photo in a line-up and showed it to the employee who’d been attacked in the September incident. That worker picked someone else out as the likely culprit.


Interestingly enough, Walmart has no video surveillance footage from either the original attack on the employee or of the day on which the shopper was accused of being that attacker.


One lawyer — who is not connected to the case — the Bee spoke to says he believes the plaintiff is probably due some sort of damages, but thinks that $10,000 is generous because it’s hard to quantify damages when there aren’t things like medical bills or loss of income that you can point to.


“He wasn’t knocked down and put in the hospital. He was inconvenienced,” says the lawyer.


But the plaintiff contends that this offer was “insulting.”


“I was taught never to lie, never to steal and to respect women, but I have been falsely accused of all three,” he explains.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Man Scores $25K A Year For Life, Realizes He Happens To Have Another Winning Lottery Ticket

https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/lotterymoolah.jpg?w=680&h=454

Sometimes it pays to be predictable, literally: After a Massachusetts man learned from state lottery officials that he held the winning numbers, he remembered that he happened to have another ticket with the exact same set of lucky digits.

The man got a call from the Massachusetts State Lottery this week to tell him he’d won $25,000 a year for life, reports the Boston Globe, as part of the Lucky for Life season ticket he had.


After he hung up, his brain clicked and he realized that he had a duplicate ticket that his family had bought for him, which used the same numbers based on several family birthdays. Bingo. Or rather, Lottery-o.


In case you’er wondering, a state lottery rep says it’s unusual to have someone win twice this way.


“For a game like this, where there’s so many possible winning combinations … people rarely buy the same ticket with the same numbers,” she said. “They have to be really confident that those numbers will come in.”


He picked the cash reward option, and is taking home two checks written out for $390,000 each, she added.


He’s planning on taking his family on vacation — as he should, they’re half the reason he’s so rich now — and pay for his son’s college tuition and his daughter’s car payments.


The man was “excited as most people are when they win a prize of this magnitude,” the rep said, which I will take to mean that he shouted as loud as he could at the top of his lungs and went running through the streets, screaming, “TAKE THAT, UNIVERSE! I AM A WINNERRRRRRRRRRR!” which is what I would definitely do in the same situation.


Norwood man hits it big — twice — in state lottery game [Boston Globe]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Sponsored Data Is The New Free Shipping

http://ift.tt/1wm52Jg

It’s hard to persuade people to download, watch, or listen to your digital content. One thing that might help persuade them, at least if they’re AT&T customers, is to offer to sponsor their data. Will it work? More importantly, will customers stick with it once the subsidy goes away?

It might help to compare sponsored data with free shipping. The latter was originally supposed to coax customers to shop online in the first place, then to choose one retailer over another. Customers got used to it, though, and now we’re more likely to spend more if that will help us achieve free shipping. Will sponsored data steer us to make different choices in podcasts, apps, and movie trailers if they can have the data they gobble while consuming these things subsidized, or (for prepaid customers) earn more data credit for doing so?


It’s too early to know. AT&T introduced the concept at the beginning of 2014, and it’s just now that companies to administer the subsidies, and advertisers and content providers are willing to try it out. Companies that have tried the idea on a small, experimental scale include Hershey’s as an advertiser, and Slate as a content provider. Slate offered to cover the cost of data to download their podcasts for two weeks, but it’s too early to know how this might affect listenership in the long-term.


It will be easy to determine whether the ads directly lead to increased data usage, and this idea won’t get off the ground if content providers don’t get what they want from users. “If it doesn’t increase the amount of time they spend on it, then we’re just spending money we didn’t need to,” the head of comedy video site Break.com explained to the Wall Street Journal. If the amount of time spent engaging with their content doesn’t increase in users who get free chunks of data to do so, why bother?


Will Free Data Become the Next Free Shipping? [Wall Street Journal]




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Florida SodaStream Users May Soon Be Able To Create DIY Pepsi At Home

http://ift.tt/1wqfHAd

People who own SodaStream machines may soon be able to see whether or not the in-home beverage-maker can truly replicate a big-name household brand. PepsiCo announced today that it will be doing a limited test of making its pop brands available for the SodaStream.

Before Pepsi and Mountain Dew fanatics go rushing out to buy a SodaStream, be cautioned that this is only going to be a “small-scale, limited-time test” when it launches in the coming weeks.


“There are currently no discussions between SodaStream and PepsiCo concerning any other form of broader business collaboration,” SodaStream said in a statement about the test.


While Pepsi says that SodaStream is only “one of several companies we’re talking to about potential ideas for the future.”


The test will reportedly occur in the Orlando and Tampa areas and will begin in the coming months. Which means it’s time for me to send out Facebook messages to all my fellow Winter Park High alumni asking them to be on the lookout for this stuff so they can tell me whether it’s any good.


[via WSJ.com]




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Man Sleeping In His Car At McDonald’s Drive-Thru Charged With DUI After Trying To Pay Cops For Burgers

https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/mcddrivedrunk.png?w=680&h=458

On the one hand, it’s only right and proper for a fast food customer to pay for his four cheeseburgers. But when one man tried to pay the police attempting to wake him up from his slumber in the McDonald’s drive-thru lane, even that honorable effort was overshadowed by the fact that he allegedly drove drunk to get there.

Police in Connecticut say they were called to a McDonald’s at about 1:30 a.m. because a man had fallen asleep in his vehicle in the drive-thru lane, reports WTAE.com.


When cops showed up to see what was going on, they reported seeing the 41-year-old man sitting up in the driver’s seat of his truck, fast asleep like a fairy princess waiting for just the right kiss to awaken him.


But in this case, it was no prince — just some McDonald’s employees who told cops they’d been unable to stir him from his slumber after he’d ordered four cheeseburgers and conked out.


He’d been snoozing for about 15 minutes by the time officers woke him up, at which point they report that the disoriented man tried to hand over the money to pay for his grub.


After determining that he was under the influence of alcohol, police arrested him and charged him with driving under the influence.


It’s unclear whether he managed to eat the cheeseburgers before he fell asleep.


Man charged with DUI after falling asleep at drive-thru [WTAE.com]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Yelper Claims Chef Responded To Negative Review With Threats, Racially Charged Messages

http://ift.tt/1yuIR1q
One of the messages allegedly sent via Facebook from the chef to a customer who left a one-star review on Yelp.

One of the messages allegedly sent via Facebook from the chef to a customer who left a one-star review on Yelp.



Some folks in the Cleveland area are calling for a boycott on a recently opened restaurant after the owner of the eatery allegedly responded to a negative Yelp review by sending a series of hateful, threatening, and racially charged messages to the diner.

The situation began back in September, when a customer posted this one-star Yelp review (it’s since been updated, but the original review is still intact below the update), expressing his disappointment about the food and service.


What happened next is still a matter we haven’t quite been able to sort out. According to the Yelper, the restaurant’s chef contacted him on Facebook and let loose with a vitriolic response to the negative review.


The customer screengrabbed the alleged back-and-forth for posterity and subsequently posted it to the Facebook page created to urge a boycott of the restaurant.


“Great to hear feedback from food experts,” begins the first message allegedly sent by the chef via Facebook (the two apparently have mutual acquaintances). “Especially when they’re here with girls who are not their girlfriend… Do not come back to either of my restaurants ever again.”


The screengrabbed message then likens the customer to a small pieces of feces, and suggests the customer have fun copulating with an “ugly Indian bitch behind your ugly Asian bitch’s back.”


After a sentence or two of actually debating the merits of the review, the first message comes to a conclusion with the statement that “If I ever see you near my restaurants again you will be in trouble.”


A one-sentence “You are something man” reply from the customer results in a second string of insults that he claims came from the chef.


This time, the message insults the diner for “living off mommy and daddy” and being “ugly and physically weak” with a girlfriend who he believes is an unattractive piece of feces.


The customer responds to this barrage by pointing out that the chef could probably learn how to better deal with criticism.


“You are not only putting yourself on the line but also your business,” he writes before referencing Amy’s Baking Company, the Arizona eatery made famous by Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares for the over-the-top reactions its owners had to unhappy customers.


The person believed to be the chef responds by saying that he doesn’t watch TV before restating his threats against the customer.


“Bottom line is that your ass is in trouble if I ever see you in person.”


We’ve attempted to reach out to both the customer and the restaurant to confirm their sides of the story, but have yet to hear back. If we hear anything further from either party, we’ll update.


[via CleveScene.com]




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Antitrust Experts To FCC: Comcast/TWC Merger Is A Terrible Idea

http://ift.tt/1wlFDPY
(Consumerist)

(Consumerist)



A group of antitrust experts spanning the country, from Harvard to Stanford and plenty of places in between, has asked the FCC to block the Comcast and Time Warner Cable union. In a letter, the experts urge the FCC to act to to “protect competition and consumers” by preventing the merger before it happens.

DSL Reports points to the letter (PDF). In it, the experts focus on four major buckets of issues, but they all boil down to one core idea about broadband competition.


Namely: there is already isn’t really any, and the merger will make it worse.


The letter cites FCC chairman Tom Wheeler’s own data about broadband competition, pointing out that at actual speeds of 25 Mbps or higher — which, Wheeler has argued, should be the new “table stakes” minimum for high-speed broadband — most folks have only one provider to choose from, if that.


And not only is competition already dire, the letter continues, but “new entry” is basically impossible. Google Fiber has only a tiny presence so far, despite Comcast claiming them as a competitor, and Comcast is actively trying to block publicly-owned entrants from starting up.


The antitrust experts also point out that although Comcast waves away claims about their potential national dominance by saying that local markets are what matter, the national market share has in fact been a significant issue before. Back in 2000, broadband providers AT&T and MediaOne tried to merge. The DoJ blocked that merger, arguing that the resulting company would be anticompetitive.


But here’s the real kicker: the companies and assets involved in that transaction almost 15 years ago haven’t gone away, they’ve just changed hands. Specifically, as the letter points out (emphasis added):


“[T]he Road Runner broadband assets in question in 2000 remain Time Warner Cable’s to this day, while AT&T’s broadband assets were subsequently transferred to Comcast. Thus, the proposed Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger would combine the very broadband assets that DOJ blocked from combining in 2000.”

The courts, including the Justice Department, are all about looking at previous case law for guidance. If the same merger was too big for competition in 2000, it’s probably still too big today.


The experts also call shenanigans on Comcast and TWC’s constant drumbeat that they don’t compete in any of the same geographic areas now. It’s true, as far as that goes, but it also doesn’t matter. The lack of geographic competition “cannot serve as a basis for foregoing further antitrust analysis,” the letter continues, because “if it were otherwise, the antitrust laws would allow the formation of a single cable company serving virtually the entire United States, a result that would be completely at odds with sound antitrust enforcement.”


In the end, Comcast is using arguments that have worked for previous cable mergers. But this one, the experts in the law are saying here, really is different. The present we live in used to just be an imagined future on the far horizon of “someday when the internet works better.” But here and now, our realities are genuinely apart from what they were five, fifteen, or fifty years ago.


Traditional pay TV (cable and satellite) are now in a direct stand-off against online, over-the-top TV. These are genuinely competing forces, but because of the vertical and horizontal integration of existing companies, Comcast — which is a pay TV company and a broadband company and a content company — has the ability and the incentive to try to block new or expanding players in any direction.


Any benefits from the merger, the letter concludes, aren’t limited to the merger. Comcast and Time Warner Cable could keep doing things like expanding internet access for low-income families or improving their customer service without becoming one monolith. And the potential for consumer harm, as we’ve seen time and time and time again, is just too big to ignore.


More Than 30 Antitrust Experts Slam Comcast Merger [DSL Reports]




by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Family Of Girl Burned By Hot Coffee At Denny’s Lands Reported $500,000 Settlement

http://ift.tt/1oC62Xf

Usually when you hear about a lawsuit involving hot coffee, the normal reaction is, “Well, yeah, coffee is hot, you should be careful when drinking it, silly consumer.” But in the case of a 14-month-old girl who was scalded at a Denny’s, her family said it was the server’s fault for putting the hot beverage close enough for the toddler to grab it. As such, they’ve settled with a New York Denny’s to the tune of $500,000.

The girl, now five, was with her family at the rest stop restaurant about 20 miles outside of Buffalo in June 2010, when she grabbed a hot cup of coffee and spilled it on herself, reports The Buffalo News.


She suffered first- and second-degree burns on her neck, chest and abdomen, prompting her parents to sue the restaurant’s owners. They claimed that the waitress was negligent in putting the coffee close enough for her to grab for it.


“Sometime after the family is seated, a cup of coffee is placed on the table, which the infant was able to grab and dump on herself,” the family said in court papers.


The case finally went to trial last month, but then an insurance carrier for the company that owned the now-closed Denny’s offered $500,000 to the family.


The final settlement approved by a magistrate judge is sealed, though it’s believed that it’s close to the previously disclosed $500,000 amount. The money should be welcome — the family says it will cost about $340,000 to take care of the girl’s medical costs for the rest of her life.


Family of girl scalded by Denny’s coffee wins $500,000 settlement [The Buffalo News]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Detergent Companies Are Unhappy With Our Efficient Washing Machines

http://ift.tt/1woNVUA

High-efficiency washing machines, which use less water to clean your clothes, are an advance that most customers seem to like. Do you know who doesn’t like them, though? Detergent manufacturers. With traditional machines, consumers can dump any old amount of detergent in with our clothes, and it doesn’t matter. With a high efficiency machine, using too much detergent causes problems, so consumers are finally using the correct amount of detergent.

In a standard machine, excess detergent just rinses off, and you could use too much soap for decades without even realizing it. Apparently, many of us were.


We can’t have been over-pouring by that much, right? Apparently, we have. A market researcher tells Bloomberg Businessweek that detergent sales are down by 6.4% since 2009. That period also coincides with sales of machines with larger capacities than in the past, which means fewer loads overall and less soap used per load. High-efficiency machines started to catch on about a decade ago, and it took a little while for consumers to figure out how much soap to use.


What is Big Detergent’s solution to the problem? Better prices. All of the major brands, from Tide to Purex, are offering coupons, deals, and price cuts to coax customers back to their brands.


Laundry Detergent Makers Want More Suds [Bloomberg Businessweek]




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

FTC: Tech Support Representatives Pretended To Be From Microsoft, Facebook, Scammed $2.5M From Consumers

http://ift.tt/1shGsBD

It makes sense that consumers with a lack of computer knowledge would seek services and assistance from well-known tech companies like Microsoft and Facebook. So it should come as little surprise that a shady company would use this information to dupe consumers out of millions by pretending to be from the popular tech firms selling support services and software.

The Federal Trade Commission announced today that at the agency’s request a federal court shut down a New York-based tech support scam business that allegedly tricked older consumers into paying nearly $2.5 million for technical support services they didn’t need and for software that was actually available for free.


According to the FTC complaint, Pairsys, Inc. often cold-called consumers selling services and support while pretending to be representatives for Microsoft or Facebook.


Additionally, the company purchased deceptive ads online that led consumers to believe they were calling the technical support line for legitimate companies.


Once consumers were on the line, they were presented with a high-pressure sales pitch that typically involved scammers asking for remote access to the individual’s computer in order to assess a supposed issue.


Once the representative had access to the consumer’s computer they would allegedly lead the consumer to believe that the computer’s operating system had been affected by viruses or malware. In many instances, it was implied that the computer was severely compromised and had to be “repaired” immediately.


Consumers were then allegedly pressured into paying $149 to $600 for bogus warranty programs and software that was freely available elsewhere.


According to the preliminary injunction approved by the court, Pairsys and its operators are prohibited from making misrepresentations to consumers about the company and whether or not viruses are present on their computers.


The FTC will continue to seek the permanent closure of the company and refunds for consumers.


At FTC’s Request, Court Shuts Down New York-Based Tech Support Scam Business [FTC]




by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Bakery That Never Used The Word “Cronut” Told To Stop Using The Word “Cronut”

http://ift.tt/12qGTol
From the cease-and-desist letter sent by Ansel's lawyer to the Reno bakery. (via Facebook)

From the cease-and-desist letter sent by Ansel’s lawyer to the Reno bakery. (via Facebook)



While NYC pastry chef Dominique Ansel may have trademarked the word “cronut” to describe the cross-breeding of a croissant and a donut, he’s certainly not the only person to have made or sold them. Now his lawyers are sending cease-and-desist notices to bakers to get them to stop calling their creations “cronuts,” even if they’ve never used the word on their menus.

Rounds Bakery of Reno, NV, says that it recently received a C&D notice from Ansel’s lawyers, telling it to stop selling its donut/croissant product as a “cronut.” Problem is, the folks at Rounds say they have never employed that trademarked term.


The owner of Rounds explains to the Reno Gazette-Journal that his bakery was aware of the trademark and that it “has been very diligent about not using the term Cronut. We refer to our product as a croissant donut in all our communications.”


He tells KOLO-TV that he can’t control how customers or others describe the pastries he sells.


“[T]he problem is everybody refers to them as cronuts and we can’t be responsible for what customers choose to call it,” says the owner.


The letter insists that Rounds “cease and desist with the use of the term ‘Cronut’ and any similar and substantially confusing derivation thereof in describing your food items.”


One could make the argument that calling his version a “croissant donut” is similar to the term “cronut,” but I’d contend that it’s not Rounds’ fault that Ansel’s trademarked term is so close to the actual words any layperson would use to describe the item. If I trademark “RubHose” as a brand of rubber hose, I don’t see how I could tell someone to stop selling a generic “rubber hose.”


Rounds has taken the offensive in this battle, mocking the C&D notice on Twitter with the hashtag #notacronut


















[via Eater]




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Toddler Gets Stuck In Toy Claw Machine, Now Has Interesting Story To Tell At Every Party He Ever Goes To

http://ift.tt/ZLOfRk

If you think about it, as long as a child is successfully rescued from inside one of those claw toy machines, it’s kind of a win-win: You get to spend time in a box stuffed full of toys, and you’ll be set for life as an adult with a great icebreaker story to tell at parties about the one time you somehow climbed into a claw machine as a kid. That’s the tale a boy in Tennessee will have to tell for years to come, joining the club of every child’s dreams.

He also gets to add “saved by a bunch of firefighters” to the story, reports WBIR.com (warning: link has video that autoplays), after he managed to wiggle his way inside the toy machine at a coin laundromat this week.


His grandmother says she looked away from the 18-month-old for just a second to check a text message, and by the time she was done, the tot was on his way into the belly of the toy beast.


“All I could see was his feet. He had already crawled in,” she said. “I grabbed his feet and he kicked my hand and got in. Climbed up over the glass partition and sat down in the toys.”


She adds that he loves crawling into and onto everything he can, so she wasn’t that worried once he was ensconced among the plush toys. But she was concerned that he’d hurt himself if he tried to climb back out, as he’d have to climb over a cracked, broken plastic partition.


Firefighters managed to free him in just a few minutes, with the rescuers’ presence causing quite a bit of excitement for the little guy. They even let him pick a toy from the machine to keep.


Welcome to your future, kid. You’ll be telling the story of How I Climbed Inside A Toy Claw Machine When I Was A Kid at parties for years to come, and it’ll never get old. Because all of us secretly would’ve loved to be in there, too. Heck, it’s not even a secret, we’re all jealous.


Toddler climbs into toy machine, gets stuck [WBIR.com]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Brewery Battling Lucasfilm After Attempt To Trademark “Empire Strikes Bock” Beer

http://ift.tt/1tjlzfR

On the one hand, it was all a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. On the other hand, Lucasfilm owns the trademark on the Star Wars franchise and you better believe anyone creeping around those star systems is going to get a response. So when an upstate New York brewery started peddling “Empire’s Strike Bock” beer, Disney-owned Lucasfilm fired up the legal engines and is sueing the brewery right into hyperspace (too many Star Wars references? No such thing).

Because the second movie in the trilogy is called The Empire Strikes Back, Lucasfilm is none too pleased with the brewery, Empire, shilling its “Strikes Bock” beer, reports the New York Post, because of the difference of a few letters.


In addition, marketing materials for the beer feature a poster styled after the opening crawl of letters in the Star Wars movies, declaring “May the hops be with you,” so make no mistake, this beer wants you to think of Luke, Leia, Han and the rest of the gang.


empirestrikesbockposter


Lucasfilm filed a notice of opposition with the US Patent and Trademark Office earlier this month, noting the similarity in the beer’s name and the title of the 1980 film, as well as the fact that the brand sells its own beverages now and again.


It reads:



“Applicant’s EMPIRE STRIKES BOCK mark is virtually identical in sound, appearance and connotation to Lucasfilm’s THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK mark, differing by only one letter in the respective last words ‘BOCK’ and ‘BACK’ and the initial word ‘THE.’”


Lucasfilm has a long history of using such marks for food and beverages, including wine. The fact that consumers have been exposed to and accustomed to seeing Lucasfilm’s Star Wars film franchise marks in connection with food and beverages, including wine, increases the already existing likelihood of confusion.”



But a manager at the brewery says it’s all a misunderstanding, because the beer is really just “Strikes Bock,” and it happens to made by Empire, so it’s Empire’s “Strike Bock” beer. Oh.


“I don’t see why they would have any objection. It’s not like we’re using images of Star Wars on the bottle or on our Web site,” he told the NYP. “As a Star Wars fan boy, I’m a big dork. I’d love nothing more than to be the trilogy’s official beer, but I don’t think there’s any chance of people actually interpreting it that way.”


The brewery has been making the beer for seven years, so why is this fight just brewing now? It turns out Empire had reportedly filed for a trademark recently, stirring up some serious cosmic space dust in the process.


Lucasfilm sues brewery over Star Wars-inspired beer [New York Post]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

The Average Middle-Class American Only Has $20,000 Saved For Retirement

http://ift.tt/1tjkCnN

Consumers’ lack of savings for the future isn’t a new phenomena: Just two months ago we reported that one-in-three Americans have no retirement savings. Today we know a little more about just how much those other two have saved; and it isn’t nearly enough.

A new survey conducted by Harris Poll for Wells Fargo found that middle-class residents of the United States have a median of $20,000 put away for retirement, USA Today reports.


That figure falls well below the $250,000 most consumers estimate they’ll need to live on after retirement. In fact, 31% of the survey respondents don’t believe they’ll have enough savings to survive on in retirement.


About 50% of middle-class adults currently in their 50s say they plan to work until they are at least 80 years old because they won’t have enough saved for retirement.


Like previous studies, the Wells Fargo report – which surveyed 1,001 adults ages 25 to 75 – found that a third (34%) of working middle-class adults aren’t contributing anything to a 401(k), IRA or other retirement plan.


Of those consumers who are putting money away, the current savings is a median of just $125 per month.


The overall lack of savings likely stems from consumers’ decisions early in life to hold-off on saving for retirement. For years consumers have been saying there’s always next year, but that notion appears to be changing.


According to the report, more and more consumers are beginning to realize the importance of saving early on.


Of the survey respondents, nearly 72% say they should have start saving earlier, a significant increase for 65% who believed the same thing just a year ago.


To make up for lost savings, consumers said they would make sacrifices in the future such as cutting out indulgences like spa trips, eating out and putting off big purchases.


Middle-class adults have $20K saved for retirement [USA TOday]




by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds

http://ift.tt/12q1Akk

Here are eight of the best photos that readers added to the Consumerist Flickr Pool in the last week, picked for usability in a Consumerist post or for just plain neatness.










Our Flickr Pool is the place where Consumerist readers upload photos for possible use in future Consumerist posts. Want to see your pictures on our site? Just be a registered Flickr user, go here, and click “Join Group?” up on the top right. Choose your best photos, then click “send to group” on the individual images you want to add to the pool.




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist