Menu

Friday, June 12, 2015

Michael Kors Settles Class Action Over Imaginary Outlet Prices

http://ift.tt/1GzsWVV
This is a regular Michael Kors store, where outlet items would never have been sold. (Mike Mozart)

This is a regular Michael Kors store, where outlet items would never have been sold. (Mike Mozart)

Outlet shoppers know the drill: items are marked with a “Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price,” and then an outlet price. What does that mean when you’re shopping at the Michael Kors outlet, and the merchandise is all made for the outlet? That makes the suggested price meaningless, and is exactly what a recent class action suit against the fashion company alleged. The suit has been settled, and the fashion company has agreed to pay consumers a total of $4.88 million to make up for years of imaginary price tags.

If you shopped at a Michael Kors outlet between July 25, 2010 and July 25, 2014, you’ll be eligible for this class action settlement. What the suit alleges is what most outlet shoppers know on some level: the “original” prices on tags in Michael Kors outlets were just made-up numbers, and those items were never sold for the original price in department stores or elsewhere.

The company has agreed to replace the “MSRP” on their tags with “Value,” suggesting that the same item could sell for the higher price somewhere else, even if it never actually would be.

Michael Kors settles U.S. lawsuit alleging deceptive price tags [Reuters]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Suspect In Mall Pretzel Stand Robbery Hides Out In Same Mall’s Chili’s

http://ift.tt/1FdC50M Last night, something scary happened at the Macomb mall in Michigan: a man passed a pretzel stand employee a note demanding cash and stating that he had a gun. The employee handed over cash, and the robber left on foot. Police and mall security didn’t have to look very far, it turns out…they spotted the suspect at a standalone Chili’s restaurant that shares a parking lot with the mall.

This was no clever escape: witnesses actually saw a man fitting the suspect’s description running toward the Chili’s. The suspect had been described as wearing a gray hoodie, gray shorts, an a baseball cap. Mall security found the suspect inside the restaurant. There happened to be a gray hoodie outside of the restaurant, and the hat and shorts were in one of the rest rooms at Chili’s. Hmm.

Police are still investigating the incident, and haven’t charged the man, who claimed that he was just trying to make a reservation at Chili’s, with anything.

Meanwhile, let’s take the opportunity to dedicate this song–arguably the greatest pop song ever recorded about a mall pretzel stand–to the employee who was there for the robbery, which was surely a scary experience. (Warning: song contains some PG language.)

Unfortunately, we couldn’t find any uplifting songs about pretzel stands.

Police: Suspect Tried Hiding In Chili’s After Robbing Pretzel Peddler At Macomb Mall [CBS Detroit]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Iowa Supreme Court: You Have The Right To Be Drunk On Your Own Front Steps

http://ift.tt/1I9xwH0 Where do you draw the line between public and private spaces? Is being drunk on your personal front steps less of a public nuisance than if you were drunk on the stoop of an apartment building where you live with others? For the highest court in Iowa, the answer is yes.

This morning, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a woman arrested in 2013 for public intoxication outside of her own home, ruling [PDF] that she “cannot be guilty of public intoxication because she was not intoxicated in a public place.”

Before she was arrested, it was the woman who called 9-1-1 claiming she was the victim of domestic violence.

When police arrived, she was inside the house and stepped outside to speak with the officer on her front steps because she didn’t want to upset her kids.

Meanwhile, the alleged aggressor told the other officer that the dispute had been over his car keys. He claimed he was trying to prevent her from driving because she was drunk and didn’t have a driver’s license. The woman then punched him in the eye, he said, admitting that he did grab her arm in an effort to prevent her from hitting him again.

Police then gave the woman a breathalyzer test and found that her blood alcohol concentration was .267, far above any standard for being drunk. As a result, she was arrested for public intoxication. Because this was a repeat offense, the level of the charge was bumped up to a serious misdemeanor.

During the trial, prosecutors pointed out that the woman’s steps don’t in anyway constitute a front porch — no roof, no awning, no enclosures of any kind — and the front yard was not separated from the public sidewalk by a fence or any similar physical divider; not even a “keep off yard” sign.

The woman countered that the lack of a fence or roof didn’t make her steps a public space. Besides, she was drunk in the privacy of her own house until the police came and she stepped outside to talk to them.

But the trial court sided with the prosecutors, saying her steps were plainly accessible and visible to any passersby. Thus, according to the lower court, any member of the public had an implied invitation to use the front stairs to communicate with the woman.

In reviewing the appeal, the Iowa Supremes noted that they made a decision 12 years ago stating that apartment hallways and front steps were “public spaces” but that they had explicitly left unresolved this matter with regard to single-family dwellings.

In that earlier ruling, the court had stated that apartment building tenants are “entitled to be free from nuisance and annoyance and to be protected from the actions of a fellow tenant.” So, even though the public at large might not have access to an apartment building, co-tenants in an apartment complex constitute “the public” when they use common stairways and hallways.

But, noted the court, “the front steps of a single-family home are an access point, whereas the front steps of an apartment house are a thoroughfare,” and “a single individual or family may bar access to the front steps of a single-family home, [but] no single tenant holds the right to bar access to the apartment house.”

And even though friends, neighbors, postal carriers, delivery people, and certain others might have an implied license to access the front steps of a single-family dwelling, the court says “there is a significant difference between the implied invitation extended to a prospective customer of a business and the implied invitation allowing people to approach the front stairs of a single-family residence. The difference is the expectation of the person or enterprise deemed to have extended the invitation. A business generally wants as many people as possible to accept the invitation; we doubt the same is true for most inhabitants of single-family homes.”

The court did acknowledge that there are situations in which the line between private front yards and public spaces is blurred.

“For example, residents of a single-family home could decide to hold a yard sale and post signs around the neighborhood advertising the day and time it will take place,” writes the court. “Similarly, homeowners aiming to sell their property could host and advertise an open house, inviting any person to visit for a tour.”

But since none of those examples apply to the case involved in this appeal, the court concluded that her front steps were a private space.

“[I]f the front stairs of a single-family residence are always a public place, it would be a crime to sit there calmly on a breezy summer day and sip a mojito, celebrate a professional achievement with a mixed drink of choice, or even baste meat on the grill with a bourbon-infused barbeque sauce—unless one first obtained a liquor license,” concludes the court. “Additionally… any intoxicated person who responsibly secures a ride home from a sober designated driver could be arrested for and convicted of public intoxication because they traversed the stairs of their single-family house while intoxicated.”

The court reversed the conviction and remanded the case to the lower court for dismissal.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Is Your ISP Not Following Net Neutrality? The FCC’s Got A Complaint Form For That.

http://ift.tt/1QtMJwt
(Pam)

(Pam)


Hooray! Net neutrality is finally, well and truly, the law. The courts did not uphold industry groups’ requests to press pause on the implementation, and so as of right now, ISPs are common carriers under Title II and are not allowed to mess around with your connections.

Does that mean they’ll all behave perfectly well in perpetuity and we can live happily ever after? Well, no. Probably not. That’s not the way the world works, sadly. But it does mean that when someone breaks the rule, you can — and should — file a complaint.

The FCC has updated their new consumer help center — specifically, the internet service complaint form. Among the issues concerned consumers can complain about, the form now contains “open internet/net neutrality,” right there alphabetically between “interference” and “privacy.”

So what, specifically, qualifies as a net neutrality violation you can complain about? The FCC has guidance for that, too. In general, paraphrased, if’s a problem if there’s…

  • Blocking: ISPs may not block access to any lawful content, apps, services, or devices.
  • Throttling: ISPs may not slow down or degrade lawful internet traffic from any content, apps, sites, services, or devices.
  • Paid prioritization: ISPs may not enter into agreements to prioritize and benefit some lawful internet traffic over the rest of it on their networks.

If your internet service provider is standing between you and the internet in any of those ways, therefore, go forth and complain.

[via Ars Technica]


by Kate Cox via Consumerist

IRS Working With State Agencies & Tax Preparation Companies To Combat Refund Fraud

http://ift.tt/1ThixU5 It’s been a rough year for the Internal Revenue Service, what with thieves stealing information for roughly 100,000 taxpayers and a slew of fraudulent refunds filed with TurboTax that had the FBI and various states scrambling to investigate. Now the IRS says it’s working with state agencies and tax-preparation firms to combat stolen-identity refund fraud.

In an effort to strengthen the security of the tax-filing system, the IRS says it’s seeking closer cooperation with tax-preparers and that it wants to work more closely with the industry to fight criminals, reports the Wall Street Journal.

“We’re asking every company that helps taxpayers file returns to provide us information that will add layers of security and step up their pre-refund authentication,” IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said Thursday. “We’re also making clear that companies need to let the IRS know if they detect any suspicious activity or refund fraud patterns.”

One big issue: Finding ways for taxpayers to more securely authenticate their identities when filing returns. The IRS said industry and government groups have already identified new kinds of data that be shared at filing time that will help with this, as well as detect potential refund fraud.

For example, things like the Internet address and computer associated with the return and other characteristics of the transaction could be used to validate a taxpayer’s identity. In the recent hack of 100,000 taxpayers, thieves were able to steal data by gaining access to the IRS’ transcript system, which uses some pretty basic questions to identify taxpayers — questions like “Which of these is a past address of yours?” Those kinds of answers can be easily looked up if you’ve got the know-how.

Two lawmakers working on better antifraud legislation say they’re pleased with the action.

“The steps announced by the IRS today are a move in the right direction,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch and Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon. “The devil’s in the details, and we will be carefully monitoring how the new agreements are carried out.”

Koskinen says it’s stopped three million fraudulent filings this year, in a 30% increase from last year. The IRS can use any good news in that realm, as it lost more than $5.8 billion in 2013, according to a study by the Government Accountability Office.

IRS, Tax-Preparation Firms Join Forces to Combat Return Fraud [Wall Street Journal]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Tuxedo Rentals Are Down Because Of Fewer, Less Formal Weddings

http://ift.tt/1I9qB0v The number of weddings relative to the U.S. population is the lowest it’s been since World War I, and tuxedo-rental shops like Men’s Wearhouse are seeing a decrease in their business. They blame demographic patterns, changes in wedding fashion, and changes in the formalwear rental business as a whole for the decrease, and see the trend continuing for now.

The first problem is that the wedding rate is falling: fewer people (as a proportion of the population) are getting married every year. That’s bad enough news for the wedding industry, but add in a different trend: less formal weddings are now in style. The current Men’s Wearhouse CEO noted in a recent conference call that they’re selling more suits for weddings: grooms want less formal outfits that they might wear again instead of paying for a tux that won’t quite fit and that they have to give back.

There’s another trend that has traditional tux rental shops nervous: the Internet. Online tux shops offer lower prices, free two-way shipping, and can ship out a suit based on the wearer’s actual measurements. They rent accessories, too. If you’d rather invest in buying a tux, that’s more accessible than ever, too: you can order a tux from a reputable source for a lower price than ever.

Men’s Wearhouse is trying something new to make rentals more accessible: they’re putting mini tux-rental shops in 300 Macy’s stores as an experiment. Will making fittings and pickups more accessible increase business? If you see more mini-shops expanding out to other stores, you’ll know that it did.

The Rental Tux Is In Trouble [Bloomberg]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Deep-Fried Starbucks Coffee Joins List Of Ridiculous Food You Can Find At The Fair

http://ift.tt/1BbHhav
(Courtesy of San Diego County Fair)

(Courtesy of San Diego County Fair)

If you thought the world couldn’t possibly cough up yet another deep-fried food oddity, you were wrong and you’ll probably be wrong again if you think people will ever stop chucking things into hot oil. The deep-fried trend is especially prevalent at fairs and festivals, with this year’s nominee for freakish fare showing up at the San Diego County Fair to much ado: Deep-fried Starbucks coffee.

No, not just any coffee, apparently it must be Starbucks, as seen in the sign at the Bacon-A-Fair booth and on the cups the food comes in, reports FoodBeast.

And if you’re imagining a piping hot crust filled with molten coffee, which sounds like something you’d inflict on your enemy so as to render him incapable of using his tongue ever again — it’s deep fried balls of ground coffee, dusted with sugar and topped with whipped cream. It comes on a stick, as fair food tends to do.

No word from FoodBeast about how the thing actually tastes, (a doughnut filled with coffee grounds?), but here’s a video of what it’s like to tear into the thing:

Instagram Photo

Deep-Fried STARBUCKS COFFEE Is A Real Thing You Can Get At The Fair This Summer [FoodBeast]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Police Chief Totally Messes With Phone Scammer Telling Him He’s Won $7K From The Government

http://ift.tt/1cQlBFd A scammer peddling magical $7,000 rewards from the government chose the wrong person to try to dupe: A police chief in Indiana filmed his phone on speaker while a stranger explained to him that yes, the government does just give people “free grant money” for no reason, and that he could get his money at Western Union.

The Danville Metropolitan Police Department posted the video to its Facebook page as well as on YouTube, where the police chief is sitting in the passenger seat of a car while his companion drives. He starts the recording out by asking the caller why he’s calling.

“You have been selected by the federal government to receive a grant amount of $7,000,” the voice tells him. At which point you might want to have your volume down as he lets out an ear-splitting WOOOOOOOO!!! As one would do if they were actually going to receive $7,000 for no reason.

The scammer goes on to explain why and how he’s been selected, saying the government had checked all his accounts “and you have been a low taxpayer so this is like a tax refund which you never, ever have to pay back in your whole life.”

The WOOOOOOOOO!!!s continue, even as the scammer even tries to give his pitch an air of credibility, informing the chief that all calls are recorded, “for your safety and security reasons.”

He adds that they won’t be putting the money directly into his regular account, but he can get it by going to — wait for it! — Western Union, where a supervisor will help him.

“Western Union — that’s the one with the horses right?” the chief replies.

The scammer instructs him to call them back and at that point someone will be on the line with him until he receives the grant money.

He seems to realize he’s not fooling anyway when he relays a “grant confirmation code” and the chief purposely recites back the wrong number, substituting “666” in the middle repeatedly.

“You can stick that money up your ass, okay?” the scammer says, to which the woman driver replies.

Just a reminder: The government will never call you on the phone and tell you you’ve just won a bunch of money. Never give out personal information over the phone to a stranger.

“I immediately recognized it as being a scam,” the chief told Fox 59, adding that the department decided to post the video as much to let people know what’s going on as much as well as for the fun factor.

“They absolutely picked the wrong person,” he said.”


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams Shuts Down Again Over Listeria Contamination

http://ift.tt/1HkS9iU

stack_of_pints__05446-1427209886-1280-1280That didn’t last long. About a month ago, Ohio-based Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams was reopening its scoop shops following an April recall of all of its products for listeria contamination. But this morning, the company’s CEO announced some bad news.

“We have found Listeria in our production facility again,” writes John Lowe in a statement posted to the company website. “We discovered the Listeria through routine swabbing as part of our monitoring program.”

Lowe says that Jeni’s halted production earlier in the week and has been looking into how they could be getting contaminated by the nasty bacteria again.

“We have a theory and are testing that theory,” he explains. “We don’t yet have a timeline for the resumption of production.”

The company resumed production in mid-May following a full-scale recall of its products. Jeni’s stores reopened on May 22.

An FDA probe of the original listeria problem found that Jeni’s was not fully compliant with cleaning and testing procedures. Lowe claims that Jeni’s has been testing every batch of ice cream it’s been putting out since resuming production and maintains that “all of the ice cream that has been served in our shops since reopening on May 22 has been safe and is 100% Listeria-free.”

The company has retail locations in eight cities in seven different states across the country. Without enough safe ice cream to keep the stores stocked, the scoop shops are closing again until the problem is resolved and production can begin again.

[via Eater]


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Steam Summer Sale Has Deep Video Game Discounts… And Pricing Shenanigans That Confuse Consumers

http://ift.tt/1Sbamaw

steamsale2015For 125 million gamers who prefer to play on their computers, Steam is the online retailer of choice, especially when it runs one of its huge seasonal sales. But while these promotions, like the current “Monster Summer Sale,” offer what appear to be deep discounts, Steam is also repeatedly accused of artificially inflating prices to make these savings look better than they are.

This leaves the savvy gaming consumer (and forums full of confused ones) wondering two things: are these accusations true and, if so, is that legal?

The answers are “kinda sorta” and “probably yes.” Let’s dig into it a bit, shall we?

Where Do Prices Come From?
In many retail environments, the person who runs the store gets to determine at what price they will sell an item to consumers. Every supermarket buys its bananas at a wholesale price, and then decides for itself how much of a markup to put on those bananas. The same banana — or box of Cheerios, or gallon of milk, or potato — can cost two wildly different prices at two grocery stores across town, and customers will decide where to shop and what to buy based on their own list of priorities.

Now imagine that the banana wholesaler always controls the prices, instead. The store no longer gets to say, “this banana cost us $0.03 so let’s sell it for $0.20.” Instead, the grocery store says, “No matter what your bananas are priced at, we are going to take a 30% cut. Also, during the second week in June, last week in November, and last week in December we have sales,” and hands over the shelf labels to the banana wholesaler to do with as they will.

That last one is a lot closer to how video game digital storefronts work. In the world of games, minimum resale prices are basically always set by the game’s publisher. That’s also true on Steam. A game’s publisher sets the everyday price and any sale prices they’re willing to sell at. Steam dictates the event timing.

The Shenanigans
There are literally thousands of games for sale on Steam and while some sites helpfully aggregate sale and pricing data, it would be very difficult to comb through them all. But activity around some titles in particular has caught shoppers’ attention.

There are two different kinds of things going on with pricing.

Here’s the first: Summer sale day arrives! A game is listed at $30, being called “50% off.” Its launch price in 2014 was indeed $60, like almost every other blockbuster-style game… but since March, it’s been priced at $40. Isn’t it, then, really only 25% off? That’s the question users have about games like Wolfenstein: The New Order, which did that exact thing. The game is being offered at a definite discount off its every-day price, but not as high a discount as the advertising would have you believe.

Here’s the other: Summer sale day arrives! You’re hoping for a deal on a major new game that has so far only ever retailed at $60. You go and hit the storefront and the game you planned to buy is no longer there. Instead, you see a banner advertising a great sale on a bundle of that game with an in-game currency cash card. And that “great sale” is… $60.

That, alone, wouldn’t be so bad. Annoying, but not really misleading. But then, a few hours later, the original game makes a reappearance on Steam, without the bundle. It has a “25% off!” banner on it! Hooray! Except then you click through to find that the list price of the game suddenly shows up as $80, and that supposed great deal price is… $60.

That’s exactly what developer Rockstar Games is accused of doing with Grand Theft Auto V.

The pricing history for Grand Theft Auto V, via SteamDB.info.

The pricing history for Grand Theft Auto V, via SteamDB.info.

At the start of the sale, the option to buy GTAV vanished, and was replaced only with bundle choices. The “Great White Shark Cash Card” is an add-on that does indeed retail for $20 on its own, so selling the two as a bundle for $60 does technically constitute a 25% discount over the $80 it would usually cost to buy both.

So is it true? Yes. Is it misleading? Also kind of yes.

The good news is, negative attention seems to work. As of this morning, the game is back on the service, not in any bundles, without a sale banner, listed at its original $60 price point.

The bad news is, it took a lot of complaints from a lot of players and gaming sites to make that happen.

gtaisback

The Law
Advertising is heavily regulated speech. You’re not allowed to mislead customers or say things that aren’t true. And an internet full of inquiring minds wants to know: is all of this actually legal?

Steam is global, and so are its sales. The laws, base pricing, and converted currency pricing vary around the world. But as yours truly is based in Washington, DC, and Valve is based in Washington state, we’re just going to look at American regulations.

This sort of thing falls under the auspices of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC’s Guides Against Deceptive Pricing have a whole section explaining what businesses may and may not do when it comes to listing or advertising discounts on their goods. The applicable section, when looking at discounts advertised in the Steam sale, is on “former price comparisons.”

In the Wolfenstein example, the percentage of discount is being calculated against the game’s launch price, not its most recent price. However, its launch price was indeed its actual retail price for a period of many months. That means the 50% claim is pretty much legit:

If the former price is the actual, bona fide price at which the article was offered to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time, it provides a legitimate basis for the advertising of a price comparison. Where the former price is genuine, the bargain being advertised is a true one.

But what about that supposed $80 price point on GTA? Nobody ever actually paid $80 for that game — but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t actually a real price. “A former price is not necessarily fictitious merely because no sales at the advertised price were made,” the guide explains.

But the guide then cautions: “The advertiser should be especially careful, however, in such a case, that the price is one at which the product was openly and actively offered for sale, for a reasonably substantial period of time, in the recent, regular course of his business, honestly and in good faith — and, of course, not for the purpose of establishing a fictitious higher price on which a deceptive comparison might be based.”

Users noticed, screencaptured, analyzed, and complained about the supposed $80 price point for GTAV because this is the internet and that’s how things work. Realistically, however, that price listing was arguably an oversight, error, or mistake — it only lasted a few hours, and no longer appears on Steam.

The Takeaway
Sometimes the deals in seasonal video game sales really are killer. Backlogs fill and wallets empty during these events for a reason.

But consumers need to read listings carefully, and pay attention to the bottom line. Whether it’s 50% off or 25% off, $30 for a game is still 30 of your dollars.


by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Amazon Adds Marketplace Merchants To Prime Shipping

http://ift.tt/1HWcj4A Back in January, Amazon expanded eligibility for its $35 Super Saver Shipping to items shipped by merchants in its Marketplace who already offer free shipping. Merchandise that doesn’t ship from an Amazon warehouse now counts toward the $35 free shipping threshold. Now they’re expanding the fold further, adding even more sellers to the virtual Amazon warehouse: selected large shippers will now be part of the Prime unlimited 2-day shipping program.

The Amazon Markettplace has been a great way for Amazon to vastly expand its inventory without having to purchase more merchandise for its colossal warehouses. The “Fulfilled by Amazon” program means that sellers can have their items shipped directly from Amazon and participate in the Prime program that way, but sellers are charged fees to store their items in Amazon’s warehouses, as well as for packing and picking orders.

Shipping for Prime has restrictions, of course. Items need 2-day shipping, just like the packages that ship from Amazon’s warehouses. This is a cost that sellers have to take care of themselves, meaning that it’s really only worthwhile to make larger, more expensive items prime-eligible. One seller that the WSJ spoke to only offers Prime as an option on items that cost over $50, for example.

They have to ship out quickly, and Amazon keeps track of their performance, and also limits geographically which items can be “Prime” for a given buyer: an item in New Jersey might be Prime-eligible for a customer in New York, but not an item in Texas.

The seller who the WSJ spoke to believes that there are maybe ten larger retailers that have been invited to become part of the program: it could expand to other sellers who are willing to pay for expedited shipping out of pocket, and who already offer free shipping on their merchandise.

Amazon Expands Prime With Goods Shipped Directly From Merchants [Wall Street Journal]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Twitter Lifting The 140-Character Limit For Direct Messages

http://ift.tt/1KKXdTp Although many companies have branched into social media as a customer service tool, it can be frustrating for all parties involved when customers have to explain their issues in 140-character chunks of text. To make things a bit easier for everyone, Twitter has decided to lift the character limit in direct messages. So it’s like, email…?

Twitter announced the upcoming change on its developer forums last night, saying that the change will be coming in July, giving developers some recommendations on making sure their applications and services can handle the longer messages. You know, these not-email direct messages.

This will be useful for anyone who prefers to communicate seamlessly, without weird breaks between thoughts that just don’t fit within the limits.

Lest this news has you getting your hopes up for longer public missives, settle down.

“You may be wondering what this means for the public side of Twitter,” the company writes in the post. “Nothing! Tweets will continue to be the 140 characters they are today.”


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

People Who Bought Pontiac Silverdome For $583K Now Asking $30M For Run-Down Arena

http://ift.tt/1e8N8Do
Anything of real value has been stripped from the Silverdome, but the owners believe it's worth $30 million, 51 times what they paid for the arena in 2009.

Anything of real value has been stripped from the Silverdome, but the owners believe it’s worth $30 million, 51 times what they paid for the arena in 2009.

The Pontiac Silverdome hasn’t played home to the Detroit Lions since 2002; the Pistons fled 27 years ago. Aside from a handful of one-off events, it’s basically gone unused for most of the last decade, with much of its few remaining assets recently auctioned off. And yet the company that paid only $583,000 for the arena at a 2009 auction are now asking for a whopping $30 million.

This isn’t sitting well with some Oakland County, MI, officials who unloaded the massive venue in 2009 as the economy cratered. The hope had been that the buyers, a Canadian company called Triple Investment Group, would take what was effectively a free stadium and do something positive with it, but nothing has come of the arena that used to hold more than 80,000 fans.

“The fire sale of the Silverdome for $583,000 without a development agreement to make sure the purchaser made the proper investments in the project and returned it to productive use is a worst-case scenario for Oakland County property values and one of the most strategic parcels in the region,” the Oakland County Treasurer tells Detroit News.

He calls the $30 million price tag “real estate speculation at its worst” and says the owner’s actions prove they never had any intention of actually developing the site.

The sad thing is that even though the $30 million figure is more than 50 times the auction sale price, it’s not even close to the $55.7 million that was spent to construct the stadium — and that’s in 1975 dollars! That’ more than $200 million these days.

Over the years, a number of brave souls have ventured into the corpse of the Silverdome, which is a misnomer since the fabric dome has long since vanished. Most recently, BMX rider Tyler Fernengel filmed this video of him pulling off some pretty breathtaking stunts among the incredibly depressing ruins of the arena:


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Is The iPod’s Disappearance From The Top Of Apple Website A Sign Of Its Impending Doom?

http://ift.tt/1SaUncg

nopodWell, that was quick: Only a few days after Apple announced its new subscription music service, Apple Music has replaced the iPod at the top of the company’s site. Here’s where everyone starts checking the deathwatch clock.

The iPod used to sit on the top of the site with the categories Store, Mac, iPad, iPhone, Watch and Support, but alas, Music has taken its place, notes AppleInsider, in what appears to be yet another sign of the device’s slide into obscurity.

This doesn’t mean that you can’t still buy an iPod, you just have to find them in the online Apple Store or at the bottom of the Apple Music page.

The first usurper to the iPod throne was the first iPhone in 2007, as it allowed people to carry their music and make phone calls/text/use the Internet on one device. Why carry two devices when one will do?

While the iPhone and other smartphones surged in popularity, the iPod has slowly been fading away, with sales declining every quarter for the past few years, notes AppleInsider. In the future, the company won’t even be revealing its quarterly sales.

The last major update for the iPod came in 2012, followed by the demise of the iPod Classic in September 2014. Though there are rumors of a product refresh potentially happening this year, it seems it’s only a matter of time before the iPod finally bites the dust, to live on only in boxes of dusty, unused hardware and in my memories as the only person to live in New York City without an iPod in 2004-2005. Commuting was hell, I tell you.

iPod’s disappearance from top of Apple website signals further slide into obscurity [AppleInsider]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Sen. Elizabeth Warren Has Some Choice Words For Chase CEO Jamie Dimon

http://ift.tt/1cQ49AS

warrengrabEarlier this week, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie “It sounds like Diamond” Dimon, was quoted as saying that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, an outspoken advocate of financial reform who helped create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau before becoming a lawmaker, was clueless about how banks actually work. The Massachusetts senator says that Mr. Dimon doth protest too much.

“The problem is not that I don’t understand the global banking system,” Warren said on today’s “So, That Happened” podcast for Huffington Post. “The problem for these guys is that I fully understand the system and I understand how they make their money. And that’s what they don’t like about me.”

Warren has been a leading figure in the effort to reduce risk in the financial sector in order to prevent more “too big to fail” banks that need to bailed out when they do collapse. Her critics have accused her of being too reactionary and of pushing policies that unduly hurt banks.

The senator contends that she’s not against the notion of banks taking risks in the hope of financial gain. Her problem is when they do it with money that’s insured by taxpayer money.

“You want to get out there and take on risk? Okay, go do it,” she explains, “but don’t do it within the structure of a bank that gets backed up by the federal government.”

She points out what she sees as hypocrisy on the part of the federally guaranteed banks who cook up incredibly complicated banking structures and then “they come in and complain that ‘Whoa, regulations are tough’ and “Regulations are too complicated.'”

“There’s a way to fix that,” says Warren. “If banking is boring, the regulatory part can be boring too.”

The senator acknowledges that financial regulators are often two steps behind banks because they are waiting to react to questionable practices rather than pushes for structural changes that keep federally guaranteed banking “simpler and easier to follow for everyone.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Police Searching For Man Seen On Security Video Urinating Into Store’s Mail Slot

http://ift.tt/1TgsNfl
(AZCentral.com)

(AZCentral.com)

Contrary to what you might believe, the world is not, in fact, your toilet. Which is why police in Scottsdale, AZ are looking for an unidentified man who was caught on camera peeing through the mail slot of a furniture store.

Public urination is not a victimless crime, as the furniture store ended up with a soiled rug and a bunch of ruined mail that had gone through the slot before the man decided to unzip on the street, reports AZCentral.com.

The store’s surveillance footage shows a man walking a dog past the building late one night, before he disappears from view for a few seconds. He returns, with unleashed dog following behind him, and seems to hesitate. Could he be wondering, “Can I hold it?” We will never know.

Perhaps in an attempt to show his dog how to do it, he then approaches the front door of the store, unzips his pants and answers the call of nature.

Police want anyone with information to call them. And I want anyone who can’t hold it to at least go find a dark, empty corner where such things won’t bother anyone.

Police: Man used mail slot as urinal in Scottsdale [AZCentral.com]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Judge Says USA FREEDOM Act May Scuttle Twitter’s Transparency Lawsuit

http://ift.tt/1C8WPKL Last October, Twitter sued the Justice Department, the U.S. Attorney General, the FBI, and FBI Director James Comey, because the social media platform believed it has a First Amendment right to be fully transparent with its users about the number and nature of national security requests it receives from the government. But with the recent passing of the USA FREEDOM Act, the judge in the case says there may be no need for the lawsuit to move forward.

Twitter’s complaint involves a Jan. 2014 letter from then-Attorney General Eric Holder to a number of tech and online companies (but not Twitter) detailing when and in which formats they could publicly reveal data about national security requests for user account information.

Companies are basically given two options. The first allows the company to give more detailed information about the kind of data requested, but any numerical info would have to be banded in groups of 1,000. So a company could break down the requests into categories like the general number of accounts affected, content-related requests, and non-content requests, but each of those categories can only be published in ranges of 1,000 (i.e. 0-999; 1,000-1,999; etc).

The second option allows the company to provide more precise information about the number of national security requests, by reducing the banding size to groups of 250 (i.e. 0-249; 250-499; etc). The catch is that the company is forbidden from providing additional information about these requests.

Under either of these options, Twitter doesn’t have the freedom to tell its users that it didn’t receive any national security requests, as 0-999 or 0-250 would be the lowest values it could share publicly.

In its complaint, Twitter called out what it believes is hypocrisy on the part of law enforcement.

“The U.S. government engages in extensive but incomplete speech about the scope of its national security surveillance activities as they pertain to U.S. communications providers, while at the same time prohibiting service providers such as Twitter from providing their own informed perspective as potential recipients of various national security-related requests,” wrote Twitter at the time.

On June 3, the day after President Obama signed the FREEDOM Act, which is intended to add more transparency to the national security request process, recently appointed Attorney General Loretta Lynch filed a notice [PDF] with the court to point out that the new legislation includes some new banding options for disclosure reports that allow companies to report data in bands as small as 100 requests.

Lynch also noted that the FREEDOM Act allows recipients of these requests to obtain judicial review, something Twitter had taken issue with in its original complaint.

Twitter responded [PDF] on June 9, saying that the issues raised by Lynch don’t actually relate to the government’s pending motion to have much of Twitter’s complaint dismissed.

Twitter said it will meet and confer with the government “at an appropriate time regarding the potential impact of the [FREEDOM Act] on other aspects of this case.”

But yesterday, the judge in the case disagreed.

In an order [PDF], the judge writes that, “Contrary to Twitter’s position, it does appear to the Court that the USA Freedom Act has provisions pertinent to those at issue in the motion to dismiss and at the heart of Twitter’s Complaint, including permissible disclosure of aggregate data regarding legal process obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) and the constitutionality of the statutory standards of review applicable to NSLs. Indeed, the Court is concerned that the new legislation moots the claims for relief in Twitter’s Complaint.”

Because the judge wasn’t sure if the two parties had even gotten together to confer in the wake of the FREEDOM Act’s passing, he ordered them to confer before the June 26 deadline for filing supplemental briefs.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Dish Talking To Banks About Potential T-Mobile Merger

http://ift.tt/1eRaJIO

tmodishThe romance is heating up between potential merger mates T-Mobile and Dish, with the satellite company reportedly talking to banks about putting together a bid for the magenta-hued “uncarrier.”

This is according to the Wall Street Journal, which reports that Dish is looking to borrow between $10-15 billion for the cash portion of its potential offer to T-Mobile.

Most of the deal would be a stock-based transaction, with T-Mobile currently valued at around $31 billion, just short of the $34 billion valuation for Dish.

As always, there’s the caution that nothing is set in stone and there’s the possibility that Dish may never make an offer for T-Mobile.

The combination of the two companies is similar to the currently pending merger of AT&T and DirecTV. It may even garner less scrutiny because while AT&T does compete with DirecTV to some degree in the pay-TV market, T-Mobile has not yet ventured beyond the wireless communications business.

Dish recently acquired a stockpile of wireless spectrum through federal auctions, but it doesn’t sell its own wireless services yet. A merger with T-Mobile would give it a purpose for this spectrum.

AT&T attempted to acquire T-Mobile in 2011, but that deal fell apart when regulators at the FCC and the Dept. of Justice raised concerns about the impact it would have on competition and rates.

In the wake of that merger collapse, AT&T had to pay T-Mobile billions in cash and spectrum which the company used to roll out an LTE network that now competes with the much larger market leaders. The company has also led the push toward consumers paying full price for their wireless devices in exchange for lower monthly data plan rates.

While T-Mobile has grown under the guidance of CEO John Legere, it still continues to battle with Sprint for the #3 spot in the U.S. wireless market, and both are far behind AT&T and Verizon.

Legere would reportedly remain as CEO of the merged companies, while Dish co-founder Charlie Ergen would be chairman of the board.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Wedding Gown Store Closes, Owner Disappears

http://ift.tt/1SaytGl Where is the owner of a bridal salon in Endicott, New York? That’s a good question, and the brides who haven’t yet received the gowns that they paid for would like to know the answer. The store abruptly closed earlier this week, and the owner hasn’t been heard from.

Customers tell TV station WBNG that it turns out the current owner hasn’t been paying vendors for gowns even accepting payment for them, so they will have to dispute the charges through their credit card companies.

The store’s owner had taken it over recently, and the previous owner of the business still owns the building. She has taken charge of this disaster, and is helping make sure that brides get the dresses they ordered…even if they end up shipped to another retailer.

“She’s doing the best that she can to make sure that everybody stays focused on the brides instead of trying to attack the business, or the boss, or anything like that,” one customer told WBNG about the store’s previous owner.

Customers have been told to check their credit card statements to make sure they were charged in the first place, dispute the charges if so, and find a different source for their gowns.

Bridal salon owner abandons store, brides [WBNG] (Thanks, Sarah!)

A SIMILAR CASE:
Bridal Gown Consignment Store Closes With No Warning, Gowns Inside


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds

http://ift.tt/1e8eh9z

Here are eleven 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.

(George)

(George)

Want to see your pictures on our site? Our Flickr pool is the place where Consumerist readers upload photos for possible use in future Consumerist posts. 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