Target Expands Its Test Of Curbside Pickup To New York And New Jersey

http://ift.tt/1EtdnKY

(Curbside)

Do you enjoy shopping at Target, but dislike getting out of your car? What if you could visit Target without the temptation to pick up random items and end up with a cart full of merchandise when you were only there to pick up one thing? Your salvation may be at hand: Target is expanding curbside pickup.

Paired with the news that the retailer also is about to try grocery delivery, it looks like maybe they don’t want us in their stores anymore at all. The appeal is obvious, though: it combines online shopping with not having to wait around for two days for your stuff to show up. At the same time, you don’t have to actually go into the store, which is the problem that

Target started this service with some stores near San Francisco, where they’ve been working with a startup called Curbside that provides the special app that lets stores know when you’re nearby, so they can get your package ready. Curbside has been working on a special outdoor pod for stores and malls that use its pickup service: whether these will be a San Francisco oddity or as familiar a sight outside stores as Redboxes have become, we’ll find out in the coming years.

So far, the expansion outside of San Francisco will be to ten Target stores in New York City and northern New Jersey, but prepare to have this become an even more common way to shop in coming years.

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Chick-Fil-A Franchise Owner Pays Employees During 5-Month Renovation

http://ift.tt/1J95obx

The owner of a Chick-Fil-A franchise in Austin, Texas needed to expand his restaurant, which required closing it for a few months. Instead of letting his workers go and wishing them luck finding work elsewhere, he decided to just keep paying them for the four months that the restaurant was under renovation. Wait, really?

Apparently not seeing his employees as disposable cogs in his fried chicken machine, the owner decided that he didn’t want to put his workers’ families through the hardship of being out of work or needing a new job in the interim. Some employees did go work at other local stores during the remodel, and the ones who stayed home had to take some online tests during their paid furlough.

“I thought to myself, ‘I don’t want my group to have to forgo their salaries’,” the franchisee told TV station WMAZ. He also gave employees, whose pay starts at $11 per hour, a $1 per hour raise for sticking with the company.

Now the new, larger store is open: it’s twice as big as the original restaurant, which has been open for 15 years. The store’s grand re-opening required helpers to come over from other stores to handle the crowds.

Texas Chick-fil-A owner paid employees’ salaries during remodeling [WMAZ]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

San Diego Woman Must Pay $15K Fine Over Airbnb Rentals

http://ift.tt/1KmheM0

(Ashi Fachler)

Cities across the country have been cracking down on Airbnb and homeowners who rent through the service but may be playing fast and loose with the rules: from enacting city laws and creating offices to enforce said regulations, to ordering the company to pay millions of dollars in hotel taxes and levying fines against those who provide accommodations through the site. The latest such case comes out of San Diego where a woman was recently ordered to pay $15,000 for renting rooms in her home in violation of city laws.

NBC San Diego reports that a 70-year-old woman must pay $15,000 of a $22,400 fine after she failed to abide by a city order to cease renting her home through Airbnb.

The woman, who has rented two rooms in her home for $80/night since 2012, allegedly violated a city law against operating a bed and breakfast without a permit.

A hearing officer with the city determined that the woman’s rentals fell within the bed and breakfast code because she used her primary residence to provide lodging for less than 30 days to paying customers.

Her status as a possible B&B operator came to the city’s attention in September 2013 after neighbors began filing complaints about what they called a “revolving door” of strangers taking up parking and loitering in their area.

Investigators visited the woman’s home in October 2013 and again in May 2014, eventually mailing a civil penalty notice in August 2014 ordering her to cease operating what they deemed to be a bed and breakfast.

While the woman says at one point she contemplated opening a bed and breakfast, she denied that her Airbnb rentals constitute such a venture and continued to rent rooms.

“She did not feel she should have to cease renting through Airbnb unless and until a judge told her she could not,” the hearing officer said in the decision. “She believed the city was wrong in its application of the Bed and Breakfast law to the Airbnb rentals and did not have the authority to stop her.”

The woman eventually stopped renting her room in November 2014 under the advice of her lawyer, while they tried to determine how city laws applied to her rental.

According to the San Diego Reader, the city does not currently have a specific code addressing short-term rentals, despite the fact it imposes a transient occupancy and other taxes on Airbnb rentals.

The $22,400 fine – of which the woman must only pay $15,000 as long as she ceases rentals and has no similar offense for two years – was calculated by charging $200 per day she failed to comply with the city’s order to cease and desist.

The woman’s attorney tells NBC San Diego they are evaluating their options.

“The issue in my client’s case is not whether you believe people should be allowed to rent their primary home (or rooms in their home) on a short-term basis in residential zones. That is a policy issue,” the lawyer says. “The issue in my case is whether the law the city used to go after my client actually makes her use illegal. The city collected transient occupancy tax from my client while at the same time hitting her with penalties for the very use the tax was for.”

Airbnb sent a letter [PDF] to the city on the woman’s behalf, noting that city leaders have in the past acknowledged code regarding home sharing are confusing and in need of clarification.

“Accordingly, we are calling for the City to stay the full amount of [the woman’s] fine and suspend enforcement efforts against other home sharers until the City Council completes its consideration of these code changes,” the letter states. “This is not an uncommon practice for the many cities who are currently navigating short-term rental reform.”

Woman Ordered to Pay $15K for Airbnb Rentals Without Permit [NBC San Diego]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Here’s Why You Don’t Buy Cars From Some Guy On Craigslist Who’s In A Huge Hurry

http://ift.tt/1HM32Ki

Car shopping is something that you don’t want to do in a hurry. Especially when shopping for a used car. Especially when buying a used car from a stranger on Craigslist. A couple in Texas learned this important life lesson when they bought what they thought was a nice, cheap, low-mileage van. Well… it was cheap, and it’s a van.

The family says that they didn’t pay attention to what normally would have been red flags telling them to run away, because the deal was so good. The seller flashed his license at them, instead of providing a copy of his information. He claimed to be in a hurry to get back to work, yet made an appointment to show them the car anyway. They told their local CBS station that they ignored these warning signs in pursuit of an awesome deal.

That didn’t work out so well for them. They handed over the cash for the van, and lights on the dashboard began lighting up after just ten minutes of driving. The brakes didn’t work, there was a problem with the alternator, and the fuel gauge didn’t move.

As you were probably anticipating, the car was not what it seemed. The car has a forged title, but at least the title was only forged to conceal information from the buyers, not because the vehicle was stolen. What the seller was concealing was that it had about twice as many miles on it than he claimed (odometers can be re-programmed, which may be what happened here) and that number had been adjusted on the title.

Now the van that seemed like a great deal is waiting for a large number of repairs. An honest seller won’t be mad at you for performing due diligence or trying to rush you, and watch out for deals that are too good to be true.

N. Texas Couple Learns Hard Lesson Used Car Shopping On Craigslist [CBS DFW]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Company Loses $197K In Cyberheist, Has To Bribe Chinese Police With Cigarettes & Cash To Get Some Of It Back

http://ift.tt/1Pqc5H9

(Misfit Photographer)

If someone steals nearly $200,000 from your business and you were able to track down the location of the thief, you’d hope the local police would be willing to arrest that criminal and help you get your stolen money back. But for one American business owner whose money had been illegally siphoned off by a Chinese company, it took payments of cigarettes and cash for the authorities to care.

KrebsOnSecurity.com has the wild story of an unnamed import/export company — we’ll refer to it as Vandelay Industries — that lost $197,000 after the Vandelay accountant’s computer was hijacked during an online session with their bank.

Though they could tell that the funds had been electronically transferred to a company in the Chinese city of Harbin, Vandelay couldn’t get their bank to care, since the company — and not the bank — had been victimized. Unlike consumers, who are protected by federal regulations that limit liability for fraudulent transactions, businesses don’t have the same safeguards.

Luckily, Mr. Vandelay knew a lawyer based in China who was willing to lend a hand. At first, the police demanded an FBI incident report on the crime before they would do anything, but the lawyer was ultimately able to convince them to accept just a local police report.

How? With the help of a gift-wrapped carton of cigarettes and a pledge to pay the officers a portion of the money if they could recover it.

That incentive got things moving, and after only two days, the police have located the company that had received the wire transfer. But in order to actually get to the bottom of things and get that money back, it would require paying for the two officers to fly to Beijing. Vandelay agreed, wiring $1,500 for the tickets while the police froze the account of the company that got the stolen money.

Vandelay then sent a colleague who knows the lawyer in China to meet with the attorney and the officers in Harbin. She opened a new account at a bank in Harbin, then paid the officers the agreed-to percentage for recovering the money.

In the end, Vandelay got back $166,000 of its stolen money, but there was one final roadblock. Since Vandelay didn’t have a business in the region, it couldn’t wire so much money directly back to its account back in the U.S.

But being in the import/export business, Vandelay made a deal with a company they know that does have a business presence in China. That company agreed to receive the recovered funds then pass it on back into the rightful hands of Vandelay Industries, and without taking a piece.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Appeals Panel Hands Second Loss To DirecTV Over Rob Lowe Ads

http://ift.tt/1IoVumu

Comcast’s complaint to NAD took exception to several DirecTV commercials featuring Rob Lowe and his alter-ego including “scrawny arms Rob Lowe.” A review panel upheld recommendations that the company stop airing the spots.

Four months after an ad review board, acting on a complaint from Comcast, recommended DirecTV pull its quirky promotions featuring Rob Lowe and a parade of peculiar alter-egos, a review panel upheld the original findings that some of the spots contain unsubstantiated claims — despite the fact the ads are “very funny.”

A five member review panel for the National Advertising Division (NAD), which is part of the national Council of Better Business Bureaus and a self-regulation body for the advertising industry, reviewed the original recommendations as part of an appeal bid by DirecTV, upholding several of the findings.

Recommendations from NAD aren’t legally binding, but most companies generally follow them. DirecTV announced soon after the original finding that it would appeal the decision.

Now, the appeal process has confirmed the April decision determining that DirecTV’s claims with respect to signal reliability, service wait times, picture/sound quality, and sports programming featured in the “Creepy,” “Painfully Awkward,” “Far Less Attractive,” “Meathead,” and “Scrawny Arms” are not substantiated.

“Because DirecTV did not submit any substantiation for these implied superiority claims, the panel recommended that they be discontinued,” the decision states.

NAD’s original findings came after it investigated Comcast’s complaints regarding the truthfulness of DirecTV’s signal reliability, picture quality, Dolby sound quality, customer satisfaction ranking, ranking in sports broadcasting and even a line uttered by one of Rob Lowe’s alter-egos: “Don’t be like this me. Get rid of cable and upgrade to DirecTV.”

The panel announced on Friday that it agreed with several of NAD’s recommendations, including that the company modify the picture quality claim to clearly disclose the limited programming on which resolutions of 1080p is currently available and that DirecTV discontinue the use of the tagline “Get rid of cable and upgrade to DirecTV.”

While the review resulted in the backing many of the NAD’s findings, the appeal panel did not agree that “Scrawny Arms Rob Lowe” commercial reasonably implied all sports programming was available in the service’s $19.99/month introductory bundle.

As for DirecTV’s ranking claims, the panel upheld NAD’s finding that the company’s assertion that it “rated #1” were appropriately substantiated. However, the group did recommend that it company more prominently disclose the source information.

Although the outcome of the review continues to call for the discontinuation of the Rob Lowe commercials, the panel admits the ads were funny.

“The challenged Rob Lowe commercials are very funny,” the panel says in its decision. “However, depending on context, even humorous advertisements can convey messages that require substantiation by the advertiser.”

In a statement to NAD, DirecTV says that while it appreciates the “thoughtful consideration” of the ads, it “continues to believe that consumers do not perceive comparative superiority claims in the Rob Lowe advertisements. Whether from news accounts or social media, it is clear that consumers appreciate and understand the central role that humor and exaggeration play in the Rob Lowe advertisements.”

“DirecTV is a strong believer in the self-regulatory process and will take the NARB’s recommendations into consideration when making these claims in the future,” the company says.

Still, it doesn’t appear DirecTV – which stopped airing the Rob Lowe ads in the spring – is willing to ditch the alter-ego concept all together.

Just last month the company began releasing a new round of similar ads featuring New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning and Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo and his troupe of alter-egos.

Manning is accompanied in his spot with “Bad Comedian Eli Manning,” while Romo showcases “Arts & Craftsy Tony Romo.”

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Comcast To Reportedly Take On YouTube, Facebook With “Watchable” Online Video Platform

http://ift.tt/1BCJwSm

(Kevin Burkett)

Comcast didn’t just sink $200 million into Vox Media (and a reportedly similar amount into BuzzFeed) just because it wants to support some websites it likes. The cable/broadcast giant is reportedly looking to launch an online video platform that would include new original content from these sites and other popular sources.

This is according to Business Insider, which reports that the platform is currently dubbed “Watchable,” which is not exactly a rousing endorsement of quality.

“Hey Jim, what’s that video you’re looking at?”

“It’s Watchable.”

“Oh.” (awkward silence)

BI’s sources say that Comcast is teaming up with new partner Vox (and purported partner BuzzFeed), along with other sites like Mic, Vice, The Onion (which recently launched “Edge,” a hilarious takedown of Vice’s macho-hipster you-are-there video reports), AwesomenessTV, and Refinery29.

Comcast also has an established staple of online news, sports, and entertainment content from its various NBCUniversal properties.

The partners would sign multi-year deals that would have them uploading all of their video content to Watchable, which would launch on Comcast’s X1 platform, then become available to a wider audience on mobile devices. BI reports that these deals are nonexclusive, so content publishers aren’t limited as to where they can post their videos.

And again, this isn’t just about putting together content you might enjoy. There’s money to be made from advertising. Comcast can help put these videos before a larger audience, resulting in more ad revenue for it and the content partners.

“Comcast is currently the largest seller of video ads in the United States,” one source explains to BI. “As platforms shift to digital, Comcast doesn’t want to lose market share, but they’re losing it to YouTube and Facebook.”

We’ve reached out to Comcast for comment on the BI report and will update if we get a comment from the company.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

People Mad About Dinner Roll Lawsuit Keep Calling Wrong Attorney

http://ift.tt/1IR3qsI

When you’re the lawyer behind an infamous lawsuit against a beloved institution, members of the public will call you. For example, there’s the one where a woman is suing a restaurant after she was injured by a hurtling dinner roll at a restaurant famous for its “throwed rolls.” Fans of the restaurant are looking up the lawyer behind it and calling or e-mailing to complain. The problem: they’re calling the wrong attorney.

“We got a lot of crazy phone calls and crazy emails from people who loved the throwed rolls and they are pretty upset about the lawsuit,” says attorney John Meehan of St. Louis, who is not Bill Meehan, also of St. Louis, who is representing the 67-year-old pastor. John Meehan works for his father. J. Justin Meehan, and they call themselves “Meehan Law LLC.” Adding to the confusion, the father-and-son Meehans do handle personal injury cases, so it’s easy to see where an annoyed roll fan could go wrong here.

“However,” they say in an announcement on their website, “we are actually huge supporters of that restaurant, and have stopped there regularly on the way to visit relatives down south.”

Lambert’s Cafe, a micro-chain with restaurants in Missouri and Alabama, is famous for the roll-throwing. Heck, they’ve registered the domain name throwedrolls.com, and sell t-shirts with cartoons of rolls on them that say, “Catch this!”

While the restaurants are famous for this, the pastor’s attorney says that it isn’t the first time the company has been sued for a roll-related injury, and he believe’s that’s an argument in his client’s favor.

She claims that a roll hit her in the eye and caused a scratched cornea and loosened retina, and that she has continuing pain and blurriness in her eye.

Videos of the roll-throwing in action show how this could have gone wrong: they aren’t a 100 MPH fastball, but those rolls are going pretty fast when thrown overhand.

‘Throwed Roll’ attorney says this isn’t the first lawsuit against Lambert’s [Fox 2]
NEWS FLASH!! We are NOT the Law Firm Suing Lambert’s Cafe! [Meehan Law]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Retailer That Overcharged, Then Sued Military Personnel Is Going Out Of Business

http://ift.tt/1UIi4dn

A year ago, Virginia-based USA Discounters was in the spotlight after the supposedly discount retailer — which had several locations adjoining military bases and directly marketed its financing to servicemembers — was criticized for charging ridiculously high prices on its products and then suing soldiers in such a way that they could rarely defend themselves in court. The retailer then changed its name to USA Living and promised to not be so evil, even though the lawsuits continued. Now comes news that the retailer is going to close up shop for good.

ProPublica’s Paul Kiel, who has been driving the reporting on USA Discounters, writes that the chain is now holding “going out of business” sales at the seven locations that currently remain open. Most of the retailer’s stores were located near military bases.

For those new to this story, USA Discounters marketed itself as a low-cost financing option for military personnel and their families, but like many other rent-to-own and installment-payment retailers, USA Discounters was actually marking up products much higher than other stores.

A $329 iPad was listed at $699; a laptop that would cost you (at most) $650 elsewhere was listed at $1,799 by the store. With interest on the monthly installments, customers ended up paying even more. We found a TV ($960 on Amazon) that would have ultimately cost a USA Discounter customer $2,256 — and that doesn’t include things like the “warranty fee,” “credit life insurance,” “credit property insurance,” plus taxes and “specialist fees” charged to servicemembers. Last August, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reached a $400,000 settlement, including $350,000 in refunds to customers, over this illegal specialist fee.

That $650 laptop mentioned above? The ultimate price tag was $2,993. When he couldn’t keep up with the $130/month payments, he was sued by the retailer… in Virginia, more than 1,500 miles away from where he lived. Since he couldn’t make the trip to appear in court, USA Discounters was awarded a default judgment of $8,626.

Since 2006, USA Discounters has filed more than 13,470 of these lawsuits, winning almost all of them.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), gives active duty servicemembers the right to defend themselves in court, but does not specify where lawsuits must be filed. Thus, USA Discounters filed many of its complaints in the same two courts in Virginia.

Why Virginia?

The SCRA also says there must be a court-appointed attorney to represent servicemembers who aren’t there to represent themselves, but Virginia courts allow the creditor to suggest which attorney should be appointed. Not surprisingly, USA Discounters often selected the same attorney to represent absent servicemembers.

And that lawyer’s only obligation, as he would advise defendants who likely had little idea what was going on, “is to review your response and request an additional stay or continuance if I feel it is appropriate given your answers.”

USA Discounters and similar lawsuit-happy installment retailers target servicemembers for a few reasons. First, many younger soldiers come from lower-income backgrounds and/or have little knowledge of or experience with the risks of financing a purchase. Second, military personnel could use allotments to direct some of their pay directly to the retailer. A new rule now prohibits retailers from accepting allotments, a fact that the CFPB is actively reminding stores of.

Finally, it’s easy for a creditor to garnish the wages of a federal employee. USA Discounters had seized more soldiers’ pay than any other company in the country.

In addition to no longer being able to accept allotments, USA Discounters is facing legal challenges, in the form of a class-action lawsuit alleging “unconscionable sales practices and usury,” and a lawsuit filed by Colorado’s attorney general. North Carolina’s AG is also investigating the retailer.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Southwest Airlines, TSA Blame Each Other For Unusually Long Security Lines At Midway Airport

http://ift.tt/1Pd01Iu

(@JudithHearn5)

People traveling out of Chicago’s Midway International Airport on Friday aren’t getting very far, as travelers are said to be waiting an hour or more to get through unusually long security checkpoint lines.

CBS Chicago reports that hundreds, if not thousands, of people are currently waiting in lines that the regular airport checkpoints apparently can’t contain.

One man who was able to bypass the queue through the TSA Pre-Check lane, which provides expedited screening for pre-vetted travelers, says the queue now extends to the airport’s exterior.

“It’s outside,” he said. “One of the TSA guys said you can’t see the end, because it’s outside.”

Unlike the last long-line fiasco at the airport, today’s issue can’t exactly be blamed on post-holiday travel overload.

Instead, travelers trying to make their flights say that Transportation Security Administration and Southwest Airlines employees at the airport are placing the blame on each other.

Some at the airport tell CBS Chicago that TSA workers said they were short-staffed on Friday, while others were told that the issues were the result of a Southwest fare sale that led to all flights being full.

A spokesperson for the TSA says security checkpoints at Midway are currently fully staffed, noting that the delays are just a result of an unusually busy day at the airport.

The agency also denied that wait times had exceeded an hour, saying that the average time was closer to 35 minutes.

Consumerist reached out to Southwest for comment on the delays at the airport, where it serves as the largest carrier. We’ll update this post if we get a response from the airline.

Irritated passengers turned to Twitter early Friday to voice their displeasure for the long wait.

Closing security lanes on a Friday morning At #midwayairport ?!?!?really?!? #epic#fail#midway#airport#travelohareinstead

— Nicole (@nduddles) August 14, 2015

Big thanks to both Midway Airport and the TSA for being completely useless this morning 👏👏👏

— Connor Tomko (@ConnorTomko401) August 14, 2015

Ridiculous lines at Midway airport. C'mon TSA!! http://pic.twitter.com/iYYx6WNPDR

— Judith Hearn (@JudithHearn5) August 14, 2015

That's quite the line. (@ Chicago Midway International Airport (MDW) in Chicago, IL) https://t.co/vP1eFVgXOt http://pic.twitter.com/SOQGWt48Do

— Avi Schwab (@ajschwab) August 14, 2015

Busy Morning At Midway Has Security Lines Jammed [CBS Chicago]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

FCC Proposes Rules To Reduce TV Blackouts, Potentially (But Probably Not) Lower Prices

http://ift.tt/1CLLkGE

(Al Ibrahim)

The FCC has proposed a kind of arcane-sounding rule change that on the surface might not seem to affect consumers very much. But if all goes well, the rule will prove to be the kind of upstream change that prevents all the you-know-what from flowing on downhill to everyone else, and makes one of the most annoying things about cable TV into ancient history.

The new proposal is going to tackle two of consumers’ least-favorite things, the FCC announced this week: hikes in cable prices, and the blackouts that happen when content companies and distribution companies can’t agree on terms.

Just in the last year, subscribers to various cable and satellite pay-TV services have faced blackouts of Cartoon Network, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and The Weather Channel, among others. At this point the disagreements are routine enough and frequent enough that basically anyone could recite the PR script for both sides without looking.

It’s bad enough that consumers lose access to content they pay for when companies fight, but what’s even worse is that consumers get used as pawns in that fight. Every time there is a channel blacking, each multimillion-dollar business spends time and money crafting marketing campaigns trying to make annoyed would-be viewers blame and harangue the other guy. The idea is that if a horde of angry subscribers descends upon and blames Party A for the problem, Party B can win the more advantageous contract terms. And consumers continue to lose.

The new proposals won’t solve every contract dispute out there, but they will address the problems that arise specifically between broadcast networks — the CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox stations of the world — and cable and satellite companies, like the month-long CBS/Time Warner Cable dispute in 2013.

Cable companies obviously want to spend as little money as possible on getting broadcasters’ content. Broadcasters, on the other hand, want to make as much money as possible. It’s a recipe ripe for an impasse.

To address some of those challenges, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler is circulating a proposal that would review the “totality of the circumstances test” for retransmission negotiations. Basically, that test is the tool the FCC uses to determine if negotiations are actually happening in good faith. If negotiations are not in good faith, the FCC can intervene.

Another separate, but related, proposal from Wheeler would eliminate “exclusivity rules.” Those are the rules that prohibit your cable company from swapping in a different city’s network affiliate if contract negotiations have resulted in yours being blacked out or dropped. So for example if CBS had another dispute with a provider and pulled their owned and operated stations from the lineup, the cable or satellite company in question could swap in an independently-owned affiliate instead.

Wheeler described that change as “the Commission tak[ing] its thumb off the scales” and letting businesses come to their own agreements instead. And changing that policy would indeed give cable companies more leverage in their disputes with content providers, since they would be able to say, “We don’t need you; we’ll swap someone cheaper in instead.”

If you’re wondering, “Okay, but why is the FCC doing this now? What took so long?” the answer is, Congress. The FCC (and every other regulatory agency, for that matter) acts within a mandate that comes from laws enacted by Congress. At the tail end of last year Congress passed the STELAR (Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization) Act of 2014, which basically told the FCC to come up with a way to modernize a bunch of rules regarding satellite, cable, and broadcast TV. And so the FCC is doing just that.

Will it actually work out to consumers’ benefit in the long run? That’s anybody’s guess. Cable companies cite high retransmission fees as a major driver behind the skyrocketing prices that consumers pay, but it is also true that cable companies are monopolies that enjoy making money. So only time will tell.

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Volkswagen Recalls 420,000 Vehicles Over Non-Deployment Of Airbags

http://ift.tt/18pRgMa

(Eric Arnold)

Automakers have recalled more vehicles for airbag issues in the last year than many of us can keep track of. Today, Volkswagen joined the long list, calling back some 420,000 sedans equipped with airbags that may not deploy.

The car manufacturer announced today that it would recall thousands of model year 2010 to 2014 Volkswagen CC, Passat, and Tiguan, model year 2010 to 2013 Eos and Jetta, model year 2011 to 2014 Golf and GTI, and model year 2011 to 2013 Jetta Sportwagen vehicles.

According to a notice [PDF] filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, debris has been found to contaminate the airbag clock spring – a cable that keeps the airbag powered while the steering wheel is being turned.

If debris is present, the cable could tear, leading to a loss of electrical connection to the driver’s frontal airbag, preventing the safety device from deploying in the event of a crash.

The recall comes five months after NHTSA first opened an investigation into airbag issues in Volkswagen Passat and CC models.

NHTSA’s Office of Defect Investigation opened the probe [PDF] into the vehicles after receiving nine consumer complaints alleging airbag failures.

The consumer reports indicated that failures occurred during normal driving conditions and were sometimes accompanied by an audible noise from the steering column. In some cases, the airbag error light on the dash was activated.

“Upon pulling out of my driveway and turning the steering wheel there was a cracking noise and then the airbag light went off with an airbag warning,” one complaint from January 2015 reads. “At which point all mechanisms within the steering wheel stopped working.”

According to a chronology [PDF] filed with NHTSA, Volkswagen knew about the issue several years before NHTSA initiated its investigation.

The company received its first report of issues with the airbags back in December 2011. An initial evaluation in May 2012 found a low failure rate and no impact on vehicle safety.

Almost three years later, in March 2015, NHTSA opened its investigation. Just months later in July, the manufacturer met with regulators, where NHTSA explained its risk assessment of the vehicles and demanded notification of defects in the safety devices.

Volkswagen says it has yet to identify a fix for the problem, but say that since 2012 there have been improvements to the clock spring.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

AT&T Revises Data Plans: Lower Prices But Fewer Options

https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/attnewrates.png?w=680&h=323

From AT&T’s announcement of its new data plans. Note, the monthly device charge shown is for smartphones. There are different monthly charges for other items like tablets and hotspots.

Why is the wireless industry so antsy? Not so long ago, it was all about giving customers a vast array of options so they could very precisely buy just the amount of data they want. Now, following Verizon’s recent simplification of its plans, AT&T is culling a number of its data tiers, which could result in savings — if you make sure to do some math before switching.

AT&T’s newest slate of data plan offerings do away with a number of existing options. No more 1GB, 3GB, 6GB, or 10GB monthly plans. Instead, AT&T has resurrected the 2GB and 5GB plans, and started giving away 15GB for the same price as it had been charging for 10GB.

Note that these changes don’t affect AT&T customers’ current plans. So if you have a 3GB plan, you’re not being automatically switched to 2GB or 5GB. But if you’re an AT&T Next user — meaning you pay for your phone through the company’s installment plan — or you are already own your phone outright, then you can switch if you want.

But whether you switch depends on your current plan and how much data you’re actually using.

For example, AT&T’s current 1GB/month offering is $25/month. The 2GB/month plan will be $30/month. Yes, it’s five dollars more per month, but the per-gigabyte price is cheaper ($15/GB vs. $25/GB). So if you’re a 1GB customer who has to be ultra-conscious of your data each month because you keep nearing your limit, it might be worth considering. But if you’re a bare-bones data user who just occasionally checks e-mail or resolves a bar bet with Wikipedia, then maybe you’re better off just saving the $5.

Customers who currently have 3GB plans ($40/month) have two directions they can go: down to 2GB or up to 5GB.

Downshifting to 2GB will actually drive up the per-gigabyte rate ($15/GB vs. $13.33/GB), but could save conservative data users $10/month if they haven’t been getting anywhere near their 3GB limit.

Jumping up to 5GB at $50/month brings that per-gigabyte cost down ($10/GB vs. $13.33/GB), but at the expense of adding $10/month to your bill. Again, if you’ve been getting near your limit or have reined in your data use to make sure you avoid overage charges, this might be worth considering.

Current 6GB ($70) customers really only have one option if they want to change and stay close to their current data limit, and that’s to downsize to 5GB. Shaving off the one gigabyte will save them a little in per-gigabyte terms ($10/GB vs. $11.66), but they should really only consider this if they are not coming near their current monthly data limit.

A 6GB customer thinking of upsizing has to jump all the way up to 15GB, which is now available at the same price ($100) that AT&T had been charging for 10GB. The math here is slightly more complicated.

Yes, there’s a significant $40/month jump in data costs. But at the same time, you’re also cutting the per-gigabyte rate in half ($6.66/GB vs. $11.66/GB). Additionally, the monthly per-device charge (if you’re on AT&T Next) drops by $10 from $25/month to $15/month. We don’t see any obvious situation in which a single person would really benefit from making this jump to the 15GB plan, but for couples or families looking for a manageable shared data plans, it might be worth comparing to your current service.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds

http://ift.tt/1UHQPQ5

Here are seven 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.

(photographynatalia)

(Jason Cook)

(army.arch *Adam*)

(Adam Fagen)

(Jason Cook)

(Nicholas Eckhart)

(Mike Matney)

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

Verizon Stops Throttling Data For Unlimited Wireless Data Plans, Doesn’t Tell Anyone

http://ift.tt/1PcLc92

(dooley)

For four years, Verizon has been throttling 3G data speeds for its few remaining “unlimited” data plan holders who dared try to take advantage of having access to supposedly unlimited data on their wireless devices. But earlier this summer, the nation’s largest wireless carrier quietly put an end to this supposed “network management,” but only because it has done such a good job of driving customers away from their unlimited plans.

RCRwireless.com made note of a page on the Verizon Wireless website titled “Explanation of Video Optimization Deployment.” The text on that page ends with a brief explanation of how, in 2011, Verizon started throttling the data speeds for its top 5% of data devourers with unlimited data plans.

That final paragraph concludes with the note: “We discontinued this practice in June, 2015.”

This appears to indicate that Verizon is no longer throttling data speeds for customers still on unlimited data plans. In 2014, the company had intended to start throttling LTE access for these heaviest users, but backed down amid public backlash and a note from FCC Chair Tom Wheeler that he was “deeply concerned” about the practice.

Companies like Verizon and AT&T used unlimited plans to lure customers to ditch traditional cellphones for smartphones and data plans, but have long since gotten rid of this option. Subscribers who had those plans were allowed to keep them, but often under conditions that took away things like subsidized phone upgrades. Throttling by both AT&T and Verizon also took away the incentive of keeping a plan that didn’t actually provide “unlimited” data.

As a result, the number of people remaining on unlimited plans has dwindled. In a statement to the Washington Post, a rep for Verizon says the company gave up on throttling unlimited subscribers, “Because it was such a small subset of customers who were affected.”

AT&T is currently fighting a possible $100 million penalty from the FCC for its alleged failure to adequately disclose the conditions under which throttling would occur or the extent to which speeds would be throttled.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Judge Dismisses Suit Accusing Uber Of Misrepresenting Services, Racketeering

http://ift.tt/1eFNgd6

(afagen)

Uber scored a victory in one of the many legal battles it’s party to on Thursday, when a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by 15 Connecticut taxi and limousine companies that aimed to stop the ride-sharing service from operating in the state. 

The companies, which filed the lawsuit back in May 2014, accused San Francisco-based Uber of misrepresenting its services, engaging in deceptive trade practices, and racketeering. These allegations echo claims made in other lawsuits which argue that Uber operates no differently than a taxi service but without having to comply with all the state and local regulations on such services.

Uber filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that it was not operating unfairly or illegally in Connecticut.

On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Thompson granted [PDF] Uber’s request, saying the taxi and limousine services failed to show that Uber competed unfairly, tried to lure away drivers or misrepresented its service, fares and insurance coverage.

“The plaintiffs assert that Uber’s alleged misrepresentations concerning the legality of its services and that they otherwise have adequately pleaded other misrepresentations concerning ‘ridesharing,’ ‘driver partners,’ ‘operating legally,’ ‘insurance coverage,’ ‘safety,’ and ‘pricing’,” Thompson writes in his ruling. “However, the court concludes that the plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded that these alleged representations are false or misleading.”

The taxi companies also argued in their suit that Uber’s billing system violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the dismissal, the plaintiffs based their accusations on wire fraud, asserting that Uber’s customers accessed the defendant’s fraudulent communications via its smartphone app.

“The plaintiffs have merely alleged that in making an electronic hail, the defendant’s app ‘displays the available vehicles’ that the customer ‘chooses the type of car they want,’ and the app ‘displays the driver’s name and photograph on the user’s smart phone’,” the dismissal says. “These allegations do not support an inference that any misrepresentation claimed by the plaintiffs was communicated to customers via Uber’s smart phone app.”

Despite dismissing the lawsuit, Thompson granted the taxi and limousine services’ request to amend the lawsuit. The groups have 30 days to do so.

This isn’t the first time Uber has battled the Connecticut taxi and limousine industry. The Hartford Courant reports that the state legislature considered regulating the ride-sharing service.

While Uber reportedly backed the bill, it hired lobbyists to represent its interest against traditional taxi services. The regulations were not approved before the end of the state’s legislative session in June.

[via Hartford Courant]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Here’s How Much Your Local Sports Bar Is Paying For NFL Sunday Ticket

https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/sundayticketprices.png?w=680&h=554

From a lawsuit filed against the NFL and DirecTV by a Manhattan bar. “3-Pay,” and “5-Pay” refer to options for paying for the package in installments.

If you think $252-$354/year is a lot to pay for DirecTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket, well… you’re right. But it’s also just a fraction of what even the smallest sports bar will pay to carry the exclusive add-on package.

Last month, a San Francisco bar filed suit against the NFL and DirecTV, alleging that the exclusivity deal between the country’s most popular sports league and its largest pay-TV provider has resulted in a monopoly that can charge exorbitant prices because of consumers’ inability to get the service through other means.

Now a New York bar has filed a similar complaint [PDF] in federal court, seeking class-action status to represent other commercial DirecTV customers who purchased Sunday Ticket.

In making its case, the New York plaintiff points out that the NFL is the only one of the four major U.S. sports leagues who sells its out-of-market pay-TV package on an exclusive basis. Others, like NHL Center Ice, MLB Extra Innings, and NBA League Pass, are made available through multiple cable and satellite providers. Thus, the other three packages don’t cost consumers anywhere near as much money as Sunday Ticket.

To drive home that point, the complaint includes the above chart showing the rates for Sunday Ticket compared to MLB Extra Innings.

The least expensive commercial package, for bars with an occupancy of up to 50 people, costs nearly $1,500/year, nearly three times the cost of the MLB package. At larger occupancies, that ratio is even larger. For example, a bar that can fit up to 150 people will pay $4,630/year for Sunday Ticket, more than four times the cost of Extra Innings for the same size venue. And for mega-size venues with upwards of 5,000 guests, the annual cost for Sunday Ticket ($57,864) is more than 12 times the cost of the baseball package.

The biggest fee, for venues with occupancies larger than 10,000, is $122,895/year for Sunday Ticket. Compare that to the maximum of $8,800/year for Extra Innings, which is about 1/14 the amount of the football package.

There is the argument that Football, with its weekly ritual status, brings in significantly more patrons than baseball games that air every day, and therefore should cost more. But because bar owners have no other legal option for getting these NFL games, they are going to continue to make the claim that they would be paying at least slightly less if they weren’t locked into DirecTV.

AT&T recently acquired DirecTV for $49 billion. Sunday Ticket was so crucial to the deal that AT&T would have been able to walk away from the deal if DirecTV had not been able to secure a new exclusive contract with the NFL.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Toilet Paper Clearance At Target Means You Pay 86¢ More

http://ift.tt/1INFpVM

Justin was shopping at his local Target store when he spotted a big pack of toilet paper marked “Clearance.” Hey, great! It’s always really useful when you can find a markdown, even one of 15% like an initial Target clearance markdown, on an important household staple. Then he looked closer.

Hmm. So that’s how it’s going to be.

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Britax Recalls 213,000 Car Seats Because They Might Not Secure The Child

http://ift.tt/1N7kqkM

Britax recalled 213,000 car seats because they might not actually secure a child.

Britax Child Safety Inc. initiated a recall this week of more than 213,000 car seats after finding buttons on the safety devices could fail, leaving a child essentially unsecured.

The recall covers thousands of Britax ClickTight, Boulevard ChickTight and Marathon ClickTight car seats that have a red harness adjuster button that may stick in the release position.

If the button fails, the shoulder harness can loosen from a child’s movements while secured in the seat. As a result, the harness may not adequately protect the child in the event of a crash.

Britax says that an inventory of the seats found a small percentage of the harness adjuster buttons were manufactured out of tolerance. Under certain conditions, the button could remain in the open position after being used to adjust the harness.

According to a notice [PDF] filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Britax became aware of the issue through a consumer’s Facebook post in late July. The company subsequently found four complaints on the NHTSA database related to loose harnesses and the ClickTight models.

“Today while driving, my child was able to loosen his harness after I had installed it tightly,” one complainant writes. “After pulling over, I pulled it tight again and was able to pull it loose without pushing the button usually needed to loosen it. I was able to do this several times.”

“I recently bought a Britax Advocate ClickTight, we used it once before we started to have issues with the harness getting tight enough to pass the pinch test,” another complaint states. I would pull on the harness, and it would “click” but it was not tight enough, if she wanted to, she should have climbed out of the seat.”

Britax says that in all, it has received approximately 18 consumer complaints since production began in August 2014 related to loose harnesses on ClickTight convertibles. However, the company did not receive return products for inspection –to determine if food or other debris caused the condition– nor was Britax able to replicate the complaints with existing inventory.

The company says that in order to fix the issue, it will provide all registered users a free remedy kit that includes a non-toxic food grade lubricant to apply directly to the harness adjuster button.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Don’t Expect Apple’s Live-TV Streaming Service Until 2016

http://ift.tt/1PpenX2

(Keirsten Marie)

Sony and Dish have already shown, through their PlayStation Vue and Sling TV services, that it’s possible to sell a cable-TV-ish live-TV streaming service. Apple is expected to launch a service of its own in the coming months, but a new report says the company is having trouble licensing content and has had to delay its live-TV offering until 2016.

This is according to Bloomberg, which reports that Apple has hit some speed bumps in its negotiations with CBS and Fox.

While Dish’s Sling TV doesn’t currently offer any network TV programming, Sony’s PS Vue has deals in its markets to carry at least some local network feeds, in addition to some Fox Sports channels. Additionally, Sony is selling access to CBS-owned Showtime’s recently launched streaming service.

According to Bloomberg, Apple wanted to offer its upcoming service starting at $40/month, which is $10 less than the cheapest Vue plan and about half the price of a comparable cable package. In order to make any money at that price point, Apple needs broadcasters to give them a really good deal on licensing fees. However, the trend for the last decade is for content providers to raise their prices, not offer discounts.

Apple had reportedly been hoping to unveil the TV-streaming service at an early September press event, and Bloomberg says the company will still show off an improved version of its Apple TV device. But since it won’t be able to tout the content available for live-TV streaming, Apple has decided to push this service off until the next calendar year.

There is also the issue of computing power. Bloomberg reports that Apple’s back-end isn’t yet ready to stream live TV to millions of users. Sony has been slowly rolling out its Vue service in select markets and still is not available in much of the country, but Apple reportedly wants to go nationwide from the start, which requires a more robust network and more data centers around the country to serve local demand.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Watch An Amazon Fulfillment Center In Action

http://ift.tt/1J744Gb

Amazon recently announced that it will open a new fulfillment center in Dallas, which will employ 1,000 more people. To give the public an idea of what these jobs will be like, the Dallas Morning News sent a reporter, a photographer, and a videographer over to an existing center in the area to watch humans and robots work together in perfect harmony to get a pack of socks to you in 2 days.

The facility they visited, which is in Coppell, a Dallas suburb, has the same design as the planned new facility in South Dallas. You can see a giant robot arm (called a Robo-Stow) moving pallets around, and an army of Kiva robots that move shelves around the facility. Humans are still necessary to pack up orders, but the even the machine that slaps labels on the boxes is also weighing each package to ensure that the right combination of items is inside before it’s dispatched to your doorstep.

Just want to watch the delicate dance of the Kiva robots? Here you go.

Separating man and machine at Amazon’s Dallas fulfillment centers [Dallas Morning News]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

FCC Approves iRobot Automatic Lawnmower

http://ift.tt/1DR0a3R

(Misfit Photographer)

iRobot, maker of robots that vacuum your carpets and scrub your toilets, wants to bring this same technology to your lawn. The lawn? Yes, humanity might hand over yet another of our annoying chores to our robot pals. While automatic lawn mowers are nothing new, iRobot’s version is. Maybe they can popularize the devices, which haven’t really caught on in this country.

The products already on the market aren’t cheap: the list price of the wonderfully-named Robomow is $1,200, for example.

The Federal Communications Commission was involved because the mower uses radio beacons to figure out the boundaries of your lawn, which the FCC had to ensure wouldn’t interfere with any other wireless equipment.

The main entity that objected was the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, which had concerns about the mower beacons interfering with its equipment. The FCC concluded that the beacons are tiny and small enough that they won’t interfere with the observatory’s giant radio telescopes.

iRobot hasn’t announced yet when the mowers will hit the market or how much they might cost. However, if they use radio beacons at the corners of your lawn, they’ll be easier to set up, and iRobot can use its existing robot-marketing network to sell them.

iRobot’s robotic lawn mower gets U.S. regulatory approval [Reuters]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist