Illinois Attorney General Says DraftKings, FanDuel Are Illegal Gambling Sites

http://ift.tt/1Z71pDz

While daily fantasy sports (DFS) sites DraftKings and FanDuel are hanging on to their hundreds of thousands of paying New York state customers by a legal thread, the high-profile operations are coming under scrutiny in the Central time zone, with the Illinois attorney general opining that DFS sites constitute illegal gambling under state law.

Illinois AG Lisa Madigan provided this opinion today [PDF] in response to a query from two state legislators.

The relevant state law says that a person is gambling when, among other things, he or she “knowingly plays a game of chance or skill for money or other thing of value… knowingly makes a wager upon the result of any game… knowingly sells pools upon the result of any game or contest of skill or chance… or knowingly establishes, maintains, or operates an Internet site that permits a person to play a game of chance or skill for money or other thing of value by means of the Internet or to make a wager upon the result of any game, contest, political nomination, appointment, or election by means of the Internet.”

Madigan contends that the language and intent of this law is “straightforward and unequivocal. It clearly declares that all games of chance or skill, when played for money, are illegal gambling in Illinois.”

While the federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act includes a carve-out specifically for fantasy sports because it holds them up as a game of skill, Madigan notes that the UIGEA also allows for states to have more restrictive definitions of gambling, which is why DFS sites are currently not operating in a number of states, like Washington, Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Nevada, and Montana.

Furthermore, Madigan says it is “immaterial” to the state of Illinois whether DraftKings and FanDuel are games of skill or chance because the state law “expressly encompasses both.”

The state law does include a number of exceptions to this rule — including one that exempts a contest from being considered gambling if it “Offers of prizes, award or compensation to the actual contestants in any bona fide contest for the determination of skill, speed, strength or endurance or to the owners of animals or vehicles entered in such contest.”

But Madigan argues that DFS sites do not qualify for this exception because it requires “compensation to the actual contestants” or to the “owners of animals or vehicles” in such contests. And the actual contestants, according to the AG, would be the athletes upon whom DFS players are building their teams.

Per the AG’s reading of this exception, it applies to “only those who actually engage in a bona fide contest for the determination of skill, speed, strength, or endurance, and not a daily fantasy sports contest participant who pays a fee to build a ‘team’ and who may win a prize based on the statistical performance of particular athletes.”

She contends that paying an entry fee to enter a contest based on the performance of other people is no different than “persons who wager on the outcome of any sporting event in which they are not participants.”

It’s worth noting that Madigan’s opinion, while important, is not the same as the cease-and-desist declaration issued earlier this year by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, which was an active attempt to stop the sites from operating in that state.

Madigan could move to block DFS sites in Illinois, though she notes that there is legislation pending in the statehouse that would specifically exempt these sites from the state’s anti-gambling laws.

Coming into the current NFL season, DraftKings and FanDuel each made incredibly lucrative deals with broadcasters, investors, and professional sports leagues. Both sites inundated the TV airwaves with commercials and in-show segment sponsorships. The final season of FXX show The League included an entire running subplot about one of the main characters playing (and winning money) from DraftKings.

Several states are reportedly looking into the legality of DFS. Nevada was first out of the gate this fall, concluding that DraftKings and FanDuel are effectively unregulated sports gambling operations. Then came the New York showdown.

In November, Massachusetts (home state of DraftKings) Attorney General Maura Healey proposed a new set of regulations that would keep the sites operating there, but with additional restrictions on age of users, and requirements for transparency about the expertise level of the small number of pro DFS players who win the overwhelming majority of the large prize payouts.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Williams-Sonoma Wasn’t Really Running A ‘Buy One Knife, Get 99 Free’ Sale

http://ift.tt/1Tintqf

Some of our readers experience a modern moral dilemma: they order an item online, and multiple duplicates of that item appear on their doorstep. The retailer makes no attempt to collect the extra items, and sometimes doesn’t want to bother with getting them back. Two of our readers have experienced this recently: one changed a TV order and received an extra by mistake, and the other ordered knife and received 99 extra. That is not a typo.

We aren’t talking about flimsy dollar-store knives here, either. The one knife that reader Chris ordered was a really nice Wusthof paring knife from Williams-Sonoma, which retails for about $40. Paring knives are small, though, which is why he was surprised to receive a large and heavy box. The company had shipped him a case containing 100 knives instead of a box with only one.

You are allowed to just not tell the company when they’ve made a shipping mistake and keep the merchandise, the Federal Trade Commission tells us, but you need to turn to your own moral compass. Sometimes the company tells you to keep the merchandise anyway, as our readers who received cases of iPads learned. Sometimes they send you a shipping label, and you have an opportunity to be honest.

“I don’t want someone at the retailer get in trouble and I don’t think I need 100 knives,” Chris wrote, “but if they are mine they could make nice gifts to friends and family.” Depending on the size of your circle of friends and family, that could be more knives than any household could ever need.

We interceded, talking to customer service and Williams-Sonoma and referring them to Chris. They do want the knives back, so bad luck for his loved ones who were expecting knife bouquets.

Cam’s problem is less hilarious, but was a moral dilemma all the same. He ordered a 48″ TV from Best Buy during Black Friday Weekend, then changed the order to a different 50″ model. He sent the 48″ one back, and went on to live in large-TV bliss. Then another 48″ TV appeared on his doorstep. He wasn’t charged for it. This was another moral dilemma.

Having read our previous coverage, he knew that he could keep it. We contacted Best Buy without revealing his identity, and they said that it was one of multiple accidental shipments to customers over Black Friday weekend, and they’d be sending a label over to send it back. Our readers don’t get free stuff, but their moral dilemmas are solved.

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

TSA Updates Screening Procedure, Will Mandate Some Passengers Use Full-Body Scanners

http://ift.tt/1V9J4T3

Going through airport security is about to get a bit different for some passengers: the Transportation Security Administration can now require some travelers to go through body scanners even if the person asks to get a full-body pat-down instead.

The TSA announced the mandated screening change [PDF] Wednesday morning, noting that the new system would be “warranted by security considerations in order to safeguard transportation security.”

Currently, passengers undergoing screening can decline using the body scanners, known as Advanced Imaging Technologies, or AIT, in favor of full-body pat-downs by TSA agents. Under the new mandate, not everyone can opt for the pat-down procedure.

According to the TSA’s update, the new policy was created to safeguard airline security during heightened terrorism concerns.

“Given the implementation of Automatic Target Recognition (ATR, the process of identifying the location of an object) and the mitigation of privacy issues associated with the individual image generated by previous versions of the AIT not using ATR, and the need to respond to potential security treats, TSA will nonetheless mandate AIT screening for some passengers as warranted by security considerations.”

The TSA reiterated on Twitter that the use of body-scanning technology “improves threat detection capabilities for both metallic and nonmetallic threat objects.”

The TSA reminded passengers on Wednesday that AIT scanners don’t store images or any personally identifiable information, CNN reports.

Generally, passengers undergoing screening will have the option to decline AIT screening in favor of a pat-down. Some passengers… 1/2

— TSA (@TSA) December 22, 2015

…will still be required to undergo AIT screening as warranted by security considerations in order to safeguard transportation security. 2/2

— TSA (@TSA) December 22, 2015

[via CNN]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Kmart Loses Two Customers’ Layaway Orders, Shrugs

http://ift.tt/1KbBhMT

You might remember Kmart’s layaway fiasco of last year, when the company canceled layaway contracts out from under customers the week before Christmas, giving an outrageously long timeline for when those customers could expect refunds. A repeat of that disaster would be disastrous for Kmart’s layaway business, but it looks like something similar only happened on a micro-scale this year, affecting a few customers in North Carolina.

Two customers described how they did their Christmas shopping early, putting everything on layaway so they could pay the balance over time and keep the gifts hidden from their kids. “Here it is the week of Christmas and I basically have to start all over,” one of the customers told TV station WNCN.

She stopped by Kmart before leaving town and learned that the company had somehow lost most of her layaway order. How do you lose things that are specifically put aside for one customer? Eight of the twelve gifts she had purchased for her daughter were missing.

Another customer paid off her layaway account, then received an e-mail from Kmart saying that the whole transaction had been canceled. One item wasn’t in stock, she said, which led to the cancellation of the entire layaway order. Her local store couldn’t find the rest of her order, but the “missing” item wasn’t even out of stock in that store.

“Bath Time Elmo was out of stock so they canceled the entire layaway,” she told WNCN. “I go to the store, and find six Elmos on the shelf.” They gave her a refund, and a $15 gift card as an apology.

Kmart said in a statement that they offered both customers small gift cards to make up for the inconvenience, and refunded both of their orders. After the TV station became involved, the retailer offered the first customer a $60 gift card for the inconvenience.

We haven’t heard of this happening in any other stores this year, but if it happens to you or you hear about it on your local news, let us know.

2 Raleigh moms left scrambling after KMart cancels their layaway [WNCN]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Good News: Malls Where Rich People Shop Aren’t Dead

http://ift.tt/1CTCG9Y

We’ve shared a lot of stories about dead and dying malls, and we wouldn’t blame you if you thought that the American mall is an endangered creature. Only it isn’t: high-end malls are doing just great. It’s malls in middle-class communities geared to middle-income customers that are suffering from high vacancy rates and failing tenants.

You’ve probably seen this in action in the area where you live: there are probably multiple sad malls on life support in less affluent areas. (One in my city became self-aware and still has a Facebook page, years after being demolished.)

Then there’s that one mall in the wealthy part of town. You know, the one with the Nordstrom, the designer purse stores in the middle, and the Tesla store. Keep your own city in mind when looking at these numbers: Bloomberg Businessweek shared research from Green Street Advisors showing that there are around 270 malls with “A” ratings––that’s the fancy mall in your city. There are about 700 malls with lesser grades, which range from malls past their prime to malls on life support with only a few stores remaining.

Why is that? Shouldn’t malls for average Americans be booming, while the rich can tap their Apple Watch a few times to order a pair of artfully distressed jeans for $300. Middle-class malls may be disappearing with the middle class itself.

Two malls in Atlanta serve as an example: the Lenox Square has a Cheesecake Factory, a Neiman Marcus, and a Bloomingdale’s, with Microsoft, Apple, and Tesla stores inside. Stores that sell electronics and cars boosts a mall’s average sales per square foot, which in turn makes the mall more appealing to retailers.

Only eight miles away is a C-grade mall, Northlake, which offers a Macy’s, a JCPenney, and a Sears, along with other lesser-name anchors. There aren’t any destination restaurants or stores selling MacBooks or cars. Its anchors are all chains that have been closing stores as people shop less at department stores in general.

These Malls Didn't Get the Memo They're Dying [Bloomberg Gadfly]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Eighth U.S. Death Linked To Takata Airbag Defect; Additional Vehicles Added To Recall List

http://ift.tt/1uvXC2S

Yet another death has been linked to Takata airbags that can explode and spew potentially lethal shrapnel at passengers, federal regulators said on Wednesday, increasing the number of fatalities in the U.S. to eight, and nine worldwide. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced Wednesday that the death was the result of a driver side airbag rupture in a vehicle located in an area of high humidity.

A spokesperson for NHTSA tells Reuters that the fatality took place in July when a 2001 Honda Accord was involved in an accident near Pittsburgh.

The teenaged driver was hospitalized after the rupture, but died several days later.

Honda, whose vehicles have been linked to all seven prior Takta-related deaths, tells Reuters the company is working to determine the teen’s cause of death.

The car manufacturer say the previous owner of the vehicle first got a recall notice in 2010, and that the company had mailed a new notice on July 21 – one day before the crash.

In addition to confirming the eighth U.S. death related to the exploding airbags, NHTSA announced Wednesday that the recall process for affected vehicles has been “accelerating rapidly.”

According to the agency, in the two-week period ending Dec. 4, just over 950,000 vehicles have been repaired. To ensure the pace of recall completion continues, NHTSA has appointed John Buretta, a former official in the Justice Department’s criminal division, to serve as independent monitor overseeing the recall.

Buretta will be responsible for assisting the agency in providing important oversight of both the coordinated remedy program and of Takata’s compliance with consent orders.

While more cars than ever are being fixed for the Takata default, automakers have also added new models to the list of affected vehicles.

Honda, Subaru, and Mazda each added hundreds of thousands of vehicles to the massive recall.

The expansions include the model year 2005 to 2008 Mazda6, 2002 to 2004 Honda CR-V and 2005 to 2008 Subaru Legacy and Outback.

[via Reuters]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

FDA Recalls Several Weight Loss Supplements Containing Unsafe Ingredients

http://ift.tt/1JvAwz0

Earlier this year, the owner of a dietary supplement company was sentenced to 30 months in prison for selling “all natural” products that secretly contained harmful active ingredients that shouldn’t even be available to U.S. consumers. Today, the FDA announced recalls for more than a dozen additional products containing these same, unsafe ingredients.

The products — listed below — were all found to contain undeclared levels of sibutramine and/or phenolphtalein, two chemicals that had been previously used in weight loss drugs and laxatives, but which have long been deemed unsafe for general use by consumers.

Sibutramine, an appetite suppressant, was once sold under the Meridian brand as a weight-loss prescription drug. It has been off the market in the U.S. since 2010 when its maker pulled the product following studies that showed increased risk for heart attack and stroke in certain populations, including those with a history of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, arrhythmias or stroke.

The tongue-twisting (metaphorically, at least) phenolphthalein was previously used in over-the-counter laxatives. In 1999, the FDA reclassified the ingredient as “not generally recognized as safe and effective” after studies indicated that phenolphthalein presented a potential carcinogenic risk. According to the FDA, phenolphthalein has also been found to be genotoxic, meaning it can damage or cause mutations to DNA.

FDA testing of the products below turned up evidence of at least one of these ingredients in the following:

• Asset Bold 500 mg capsules
• Asset Extreme Plus 500 mg capsules
• Evolve 250 mg capsules
• Infinity 500 mg capsules
• Jenesis (all lots)
• La Trim Plus (all lots)
• Oasis capsules (all lots)
• Prime 500 mg capsules
• SlimeX-15 capsules
• Slim Trim U 250 mg capsules
• Ultimate Formula 250 mg capsules
• Xcel capsules
• Xcel Advanced 350 mg capsules
• Zi Xiu Tang 250 mg capsules

If you have any of these products, you should cease using them. If you’re a reseller or distributor of these products, you should stop selling them. Both consumers and retailers should discard any unused capsules.

Bee Extremely Amazed LLC Issues Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Various Products Distributed For Weight Loss Due to Undeclared Drug Ingredients [FDA Notice]

Urgent: Drug Recall – Weight Loss Dietary Supplements with Undeclared Sibutramine and Phenolphthalein [FDA Notice]

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

A Whole Bunch Of Christmas Movies You Can Stream Instead Of Talking To Your Family

https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/christmasmovies.png?w=680&h=452

The presents have all been unwrapped, the egg nog has done its job and you’re ready to stop talking to everyone who’s been getting on your nerves all day. Here’s to hoping you’ve got access to a streaming subscription service, and your father-in-law finally figured out where he put the piece of paper with the WiFi password on it.

Whether you’ve got Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime, you’ve got plenty of opportunities to avoid your Great-Aunt Glady’s incessant questioning and watch fictional people enjoy (or not enjoy) the holiday season.

Note(s): I make no claims on seeing all of these movies, so read the summaries with a shaker of salt handy and watch at your own risk. And again, you’ll need a subscription for the below options.

Netflix

A Christmas Carol (1938): The classic tale of a miserly old man who gets to hang out with a few ghosts so he (spoiler alert) can fully understand what a gift love can be.
Starring: Reginald Owen, Gene Lockhart, Kathleen Lockhart, Terry Kilburn, Barry MacKay

Happy Christmas (2014): A classic tale of a recently-single 20-something who tries to start over for the holidays but (surprise!) finds that’s easier said than done. Ah, indie comedies.
Starring: Anna Kendrick, Melanie Lynskey, Joe Swanberg, Mark Webber, Lena Dunham

One Magic Christmas (1985): A mother dealing with a bunch of family issues that’ve turned her Grinchy has trouble summoning the Christmas spirit, until her daughter takes a trip to deliver a letter to Santa. Because Santa fixes everyone’s parents at Christmas.
Starring: Mary Steenburgen, Harry Dean Stanton

The Fitzgerald Family Christmas (2012): The classic tale of the prodigal father/husband, returning at Christmas so that hijinks and heartfelt moments can ensue and everyone can learn a valuable lesson about family.
Starring: Edward Burns, Kerry Bishé, Connie Britton

White Christmas (1954): According to my mother, because I always fall asleep trying to watch this movie, “I think that’s the one where Bing Crosby and Gene Kelly (editor’s note: not Gene Kelly) go to an inn in Vermont where they’re struggling financially and they fall in love with Rosemary Clooney and do a lot of singing and dancing and sing ‘White Christmas’ and put on a show to save the inn.”
Starring: Bing Crosby, Danny Kaye (not Gene Kelly), Rosemary Clooney, Vera-Ellen

Love Actually (2003): Every British person ever plus an American or two figure out love and remake a Mariah Carey song while the Prime Minister makes out with his employee at a children’s Christmas pageant and everyone is basically fine with it.
Starring: Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson, Colin Firth, Liam Neeson, Laura Linney, Alan Rickman, Keira Knightley, Rowan Atkinson, Bill Nighy

12 Dates of Christmas (2011): Like Groundhog Day, except it’s Christmas and Zach Morris is romantically involved with someone other than Kelly Kapowski. I’m probably going to watch this right now.
Starring: Mark-Paul Gosselaar, Amy Smart

All American Christmas Carol (2013): In this iteration of the Charles Dickens classic, Scrooge is a self-absorbed mother who drinks too much and ends up hanging out with three Christmas ghosts.
Starring: Taryn Manning, Beverly D’Angelo, Wendi McLendon-Covey

While You Were Sleeping (1995): Sandy Bullock uses the tried-and-true dating method of pretending to be the girlfriend of an unconscious guy to win over his family, while refusing to deal with the reality of the situation (spoiler alert: she’s got a crush on a comatose dude with the best eyebrows ever).
Starring: Sandra Bullock, Bill Pullman, Peter Gallagher

Serendipity (2001): A romantic comedy about what happens when two good-looking people both want to buy the same pair of gloves.
Starring: John Cusack, Kate Beckinsale, a pair of gloves

A Christmas Kiss (2011): It’s Christmas, there’s kissing in elevators, mistaken identities and other shenanigans one might expect out of a movie with the words “Christmas” and “kiss” in the title.
Starring: Elisabeth Rohm, Lauren Breckenridge, Brendan Fahr

The Legend of Frosty the Snowman (2005): This is a cartoon about a snowman and it’s narrated by Burt Reynolds. That’s all you need to know.
Starring: Burt Reynolds’ voice, a snowman named Frosty

Beethoven’s Christmas Adventure (2011): If the holidays need saving from a bad guy (and they always do) you better believe a giant St. Bernard is going to show up.
Starring: A huge dog

Santa Buddies (2009): There are a lot of Christmas movies about dogs doing stuff. Where are all the Christmas cat movies? This one also features dogs saving Christmas.
Starring: Lots of golden retrievers, Santa Claus

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993): Jack Skellington is sick of being pigeon-holed as only a Halloween guy, so he kidnaps Santa Claus in order to take his place. Hey, sometimes we all want something different in a career, right?
Starring: Danny Elfman, Catherine O’Hara, Chris Sarandon, creepy awesome animation

Christmas With the Cranks (2004): WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU WANT TO SKIP CHRISTMAS JUST BECAUSE YOUR KID MOVED OUT OF THE HOUSE? A cautionary tale for all grumpy parents.
Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis, Tim Allen, Dan Aykroyd

Radio City Christmas Spectacular (2007): Can’t make it to New York City? No problem, the Rockettes are kickin’ it on Netflix.
Starring: Badass ladies doing their thing. Also, Santa.

I’ll Be Home For Christmas (1998): OH BUT WILL YOU, JTT? WILL YOU?!? You’ll have to watch to find out.
Starring: Jonathan Taylor Thomas AKA JTT, Jessica Biel

Ernest Saves Christmas (1988): It’s the ’80s, Christmas needs saving yet again, and this time Ernest is on the job.
Starring: Ernest, duh. I mean, Jim Varney.

The Ref (1994): If you’re going to get burgled on Christmas Eve, it might as well be by Denis Leary, right?
Starring: Denis Leary, Judy Davis, Kevin Spacey

Trading Places (1983): Oh, so you think this isn’t a Christmas movie? It all starts with an office holiday party, so think again.
Starring: Dan Aykroyd, Eddie Murphy, Ralph Bellamy, Don Ameche, Denholm Elliott, Jamie Lee Curtis

Bad Santa (2003): Mall Santas gone wrong. If you couldn’t tell that from the title, that is.
Starring: Billy Bob Thornton, Tony Cox, Lauren Graham, Bernie Mac, John Ritter

A Very Murray Christmas (2015): Not really a movie, but it is Bill Murray and it is about Christmas so give it a chance.
Starring: Bill Murray, obviously, as well as celebrity buddies: Chris Rock, Jenny Lewis, Maya Rudolph, Amy Poehler, Miley Cyrus, and George Clooney

Get Santa (2014): Don’t be fooled by the title — this movie is NOT about trying to figure out what to get Santa Claus for Christmas, but instead about an apparently very irresponsible St. Nick crashing his sleigh and then it’s up to others to — guess what? — save the bearded one, and therefore, Christmas.
Starring: Jim Broadbent, Rafe Spall, Warwick Davis, Kit Connor

I Am Santa Claus (2014): A documentary that follows five mall Santas through the season, not to be confused with I Am Robot. Though a robotic mall Santa might be kind of cool…
Starring: Five guys who dress up as Santa.

Hulu

A Very Brady Christmas (1988): Here’s the story of a lovely lady and a man named Brady who had a popular TV show in the ’70s that kept making specials and sequels into eternity. This one is about Christmas.
Starring: Florence Henderson, Robert Reed, Ann B. Davis, Maureen McCormick, Eve Plumb, Jennifer Runyon, Barry Williams, Christopher Knight

The Little Rascals Christmas (1994): Spanky’s mom needs a new winter coat, and the gang needs to learn the true meaning of Christmas.
Starring: Travis Tedford, Bug Hall, Brittany Ashton Holmes

The 12 Dogs of Christmas (2005): These dogs don’t appear to be intent on saving Christmas, but instead are just a bunch of dogs that show people the true meaning of Christmas during the Depression. The true meaning of Christmas HAS to have something to do with canines, based on the fact that there are so many Christmas dog movies.
Starring: I am just going to assume, 12 dogs.

Truman Capote’s One Christmas (1994): I have never seen this movie but it’s based on an autobiographical story by Truman Capote and stars The Fonz and Katharine Hepburn. That is the only time you will ever see that grouping of people together, I guarantee it. Also, Christmas is involved.
Starring: Katharine Hepburn, Henry Winkler, Swoosie Kurtz

The Man Who Saved Christmas (2002): Seriously, how many times do we need to save Christmas? This is about a man who did so in 1918, according to IMDB, despite the effort of all those dogs already on the case.
Starring: Jason Alexander, Kelly Rowan, Ari Cohen

Switchmas (2012): What happens when a Jewish guy obsessed with Christmas figures out how to get the Christmas of his dreams by trading airline tickets and places with another boy on his way to snowy Christmastown, WA? I honestly don’t know, but this movie will apparently have the answers.
Starring: Elliott Gould, David DeLuise, Elijah Nelson

A Christmas Wish (2011): The original Buffy the Vampire Slayer (aka Kristy Swanson) is abandoned by her husband right before Christmas and goes on a cross-country trip with her kids to find work. IMDB tells me there are warm-hearted people involved which is good because there are no dogs around to save this Christmas.
Starring: Kristy Swanson, Edward Herrmann, K.C. Clyde

Dear Santa (2011): You know when you’re lonely and drifting through life and you find a letter from a little girl asking for a new wife for her dad for Christmas, and you decide to go find them just in case you fall in love? Yeah, that. AND it’s directed by Jason Priestly of 90210 fame.
Starring: Amy Acker, David Haydn-Jones, Emma Duke

Holiday Engagement (2011): A recently-dumped woman employs the tried-and-true method of hiring a boyfriend to bring home for the holidays. What could go wrong? My guess? Everything.
Starring: Bonnie Somerville, Shelley Long, Jordan Bridges

A Christmas Wedding (2013): If you want to really test your relationship and familial bonds, why not plan your wedding for Christmas in a rural town with your fighting in-laws? At least you know things will end happily, because life is just like a TV movie.
Starring: Vivica A. Fox, Miguel A. Núñez Jr., Hawthorne James

Who needs a plot? Just put something on: Christmas Fireplace, Holiday Lights, Christmas Village, Magical Christmas, Winter Splendor, and Christmas Traditions

Amazon Prime

Under the Mistletoe (2009): Just your average feel-good, family movie involving a tragic car accident, Christmas, and, ostensibly, kissing under the mistletoe.
Starring: Jaime Ray Newman, Michael Shanks

Tyler Perry’s A Madea Christmas (2013): Madea finally gets a Christmas flick, eight movies into Perry’s neverending franchise. Likelihood that hijinks will ensue when she heads to the country for the holidays: inevitable.
Starring: Tyler Perry, Chad Michael Murray, Tika Sumpter

A Norman Rockwell Christmas Story (1996): Having a painting come to life might be slightly terrifying, depending on the artist, but in this case it’s Americana favorite Norman Rockwell, so we’re hoping this is actually the “heartwarming Christmas tale” the synopsis says it is, and not some nightmarish scenario.
Starring: Kippy Kroh, Chris Liberto, Emily Newman

Christmas Classics Vol. 1 (2005): This animated set is an 8-for-the-price-of-one-except-it’s-free-with-your-Amazon-Prime-membership set, including Somewhere In Dreamland, Santa’s Surprise, Hector’s Hectic Life, Snow Foolin, Jack Frost, Christmas Comes But Once A Year, The Night Before Christmas, and The Shanty Where Santy Lives
Starring: Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, other cartoon creatures associated with Christmas

Rudolph and Frosty’s Christmas in July (1979): What happens when Rudolph and Frosty combine forces to protect the North Pole? My guess is they save Christmas five months before it happens.
Starring: Red Buttons, Ethel Merman

Frosty’s Winter Wonderland (1976): This one has all the makings of a Christmas movie, combined with a classic rom-com, so I’m just going to go with the Amazon summary: “Frosty has lots of young friends, but he’s still lonely. The children build him a wife named Crystal, but jealous, cold-hearted Jack Frost plots to keep Frosty and Crystal apart.” I AM ON THE EDGE OF MY SEAT.
Starring: Andy Griffith, Shelley Winters, Dennis Day

Christmas Lodge (2011): What’s a girl to do when the site of treasured family memories has fallen into disrepair? You better believe she’s going to save not only the lodge of her youth, but Christmas itself.
Starring: Erin Karpluk, Michael Shanks

An American Christmas Carol (1979): You can probably get the gist of this one without me telling you, but it’s got all that Scrooge and Tiny Timness we all know from the classic tale except, PLOT TWIST! It’s set in America.
Starring: Henry Winkler, Dorian Harewood, David Wayne

Jack Frost (1998): Though the titular character may look terrifying, and the plot may sound super creepy, it’s just because he’s a snowman with Michael Keaton’s eyebrows with the soul of a young boy’s dead father. I actually was terrified by this movie when I saw it.
Starring: Michael Keaton, Michael Keaton’s eyebrows, Kelly Preston, Joseph Cross

The Christmas Wife (1988): Lonely widower, Christmas, personal ad for “social introductions.” Nuff said.
Starring: Jason Robards, Julie Harris

Christmas, Again (2014): Who’s gonna rescue a heartbroken Christmas tree salesman living in a trailer and working the night shift? A mysterious woman and some colorful customers, natch.
Starring: Kentucker Audley, Hannah Gross

Lost Christmas (2014): Kid, tragic events, Christmas and a happy ending. Done.
Starring: Eddie Izzard, Larry Mills

Yule Log: Video of a burning log in a fireplace.
Starring: A burning log/the chemical process of combustion

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

College Financial Service Provider Higher One To Pay $28M In Fines, Refunds For Misleading Students

http://ift.tt/1V8QupD

Higher One, Inc. promises to help students reach their goal of achieving a degree by providing money management and refund services. But federal regulators say the company misled these students into paying improper fees, opening unneeded accounts through deceptive marketing tactics, and now it must pay $28.5 million in fines and restitution to harmed consumers. 

The Federal Reserve Board announced Wednesday that Connecticut-based Higher One must provide $24 million in refunds to students, and pay a penalty of $2.23 million. Higher One must pay an additional $2.23 million to the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) as a penalty for a number of deceptive, harmful practices.

Higher One provides colleges and universities with financial aid disbursement services for students. Specifically, after payment of tuition and other expenses owed directly to the school, the remaining financial aid — money for books, supplies, and living expenses — can be disbursed to students through Higher One’s “OneAccount.”

The company allegedly failed to tell students they could obtain their financial aid disbursements without opening a OneAccount with Higher One. The company also failed to disclose fees, features, and limitations of the accounts prior to requiring students to make a selection regarding the method of disbursement.

Additionally, the company failed to provide information about the locations of ATMs where students could access their disbursements without cost, and used the prominent display of a school logo, giving the impression the institution endorsed the OneAccount product.

“Deceptive marketing practices with respect to student loans will not be tolerated,” Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard said in a statement. “This action ensures that students who were misled into paying fees to access their financial aid funds will receive restitution for those fees.”

Under the Federal Reserve’s restitution plan, nearly 570,000 students who opened a OneAccount with Higher One through Cole Taylor Bank of Chicago, or Customers Bank of Phoenixville, PA, between May 4, 2012 and Dec. 19, 2013 will be reimbursed for fees related to the company’s deceptive practices.

The company must also pay a civil penalty of $2.23 million to the Federal Reserve and a fine of $2.23 million to the FDIC.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

YouTube Calls Out T-Mobile For Throttling Video Traffic

http://ift.tt/1WjSm3g

Net neutrality says that internet providers can’t throttle some services and speed others up. That much is clear. But if they’re throttling literally everyone, even those who didn’t sign up for it, is it still a violation? Google says yes, and has a definite complaint about the way T-Mobile is starting to handle video.

YouTube is calling out T-Mobile for interfering with its content, the Wall Street Journal reports, and the world’s biggest streaming video provider is not happy about it.

This challenge sits at the nexus of two different issues within net neutrality.

The core of net neutrality, as it currently sits, is the FCC’s bright-line rule that broadband carriers — which includes the wireless companies — explicitly may not either give some services faster virtual lanes, nor throttle services into slower ones. There is no weaseling around that one; it is the lead-off of the entire zillion-page rule.

However, there is a big fat way to play with data and stay within the boundaries of net neutrality, and that’s zero-rating. That’s the catch-all name for the plans that have data caps, but exempt certain sites or services from them, usually in exchange for some cash changing hands. The head of the FCC has called such zero-rating programs, en masse, innovative and competitive, but the commission as a whole is still exploring how these plans square with net neutrality.

T-Mobile’s recently-launched Binge On plan is almost, but not quite, the same as other zero-rating efforts. Instead, it makes its peace with data in another way: any video service can opt-in to the plan, for no fee. Likewise, any T-Mobile consumer can opt-in or opt-out. For those who do opt in, video fidelity is somewhat scuttled in the name of data preservation: all those feeds, like Netflix, HBO, and Hulu, come through at a reduced quality. You see your content at 480p, instead of 720p or the standard HD resolution of 1080p.

The service launched with more than two dozen participating video companies, which is fairly impressive. But Google’s (Alphabet’s) YouTube was not on that list. So T-Mobile customers, even those who subscribe to Binge On, should be able to see YouTube videos in all their high-def glory… right?

Well, YouTube certainly thinks so. “Reducing data charges can be good for users, but it doesn’t justify throttling all video services, especially without explicit user consent,” a YouTube spokesman told the WSJ.

T-Mobile says that YouTube was not included in Binge On from the start because of “technical difficulties,” and told the WSJ that the two companies are trying to work things out.

YouTube Says T-Mobile Is Throttling Its Video Traffic [Wall Street Journal]

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Minnesota Vikings Sue Wells Fargo For Attempting To “Photo Bomb” New Stadium

http://ift.tt/1QMb9k5

When you build a new multibillion-dollar stadium for an NFL franchise, you probably want to make sure that advertisers are paying for their name on or in the building, not just near it. And you probably want to ensure that those advertisers who do pay for their name on the building aren’t being overshadowed by the neighbors. Which is why the Minnesota Vikings are suing Wells Fargo.

The team is currently in-construction on a new stadium set to debut at the beginning of the 2016 NFL season. U.S. Bank has already agreed to fork out hundreds of millions of dollars to have its name on the venue for the next decade.

Now the team — more precisely Minnesota Vikings Football Stadium LLC — is accusing Wells Fargo of trying to leach off the notoriety of the new venue by erecting large, illuminated Wells Fargo signs on the roofs of two nearby towers.

In the complaint [PDF] filed yesterday in a Hennepin County, MN, court, the team explains that in order to preserve the value of the naming rights for the new stadium, it made arrangements with owners of neighboring buildings — including Wells Fargo — “concerning the image, location, scale, size, and utility of any exterior signage, including roof top signs.”

The suit alleges the the team made specific deals with Wells regarding a pair of two 17-story towers the bank is constructing immediately adjacent to the stadium.

According to the complaint, the parties agreed that the bank could put roof top signs on those buildings but only if they were “non-mounted” and were not illuminated.

“Agreeing to any roof top signs at all was a major concession” by the team, claims the lawsuit, which says the Vikings “had the ability to prohibit and all roof top and other exterior signage on the Wells Fargo towers.”

Originally, the two Wells towers would have flat logos painted flat on their roofs. These could be seen in aerial shots of the stadium, but would not be visible in most ground-level exterior images.

Then, according to the lawsuit, those flat-painted logos became raised and illuminated lettering. Still primarily only visible in aerial images of the stadium, but an alleged violation of the signage agreement.

Here is a photo from Dec. 21 that the Vikings included in their complaint:

The purpose of these signs is to “photo bomb” the stadium, which will be the subject of any number of aerial exterior shots during upcoming Vikings game — not to mention Super Bowl LII in Feb. 2018.

If those Wells Fargo signs are visible, the team contends that it will “adversely affect U.S. Bank Stadium’s iconic image.”

The lawsuit claims breach of contract, and seeks an injunction against the team installing or maintaining the signs in question. Additionally, the team is asking the court to rescind Wells Fargo’s rights to place any roof top signs on the two towers.

A rep for Wells Fargo tells Minnesota Public Radio that the bank is “satisfied with the signage package that was approved for our $300 million community investment initiative for our new campus.”

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Final Decision In Uber Driver Class Action Won’t Come Until Appeals Court Decides On Arbitration

http://ift.tt/1eFNgd6

The trial in the case of California Uber drivers against the ride-hailing app is still going forward, scheduled for June 20, 2016. However, a few weeks ago, the judge allowed all of the drivers taking part to sue for mileage and phone bill reimbursement. Uber is appealing that ruling, and the appeal may not be resolved before the trial. This week, the judge ruled that he won’t make a final ruling until that case is resolved.

If this sounds like a lot of legal nitpicking, it certainly isn’t that way for Uber. The question of whether all of the plaintiffs in the class action can sue for vehicle and phone expenses instead of just the right to collect tips from passengers could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Uber if the class of drivers wins. Drivers could receive up to 57.5¢ for every mile that they’ve driven passengers while using the app.

Judge Edward Chen decided to add all drivers in California to the class action instead of only drivers who had signed up before the company included a mandatory arbitration section in its contract. Now an appeals court will look into the question of whether it’s legal for a company to require its independent contractors to waive arbitration at all, and the judge’s final decision won’t come out until that question is resolved.

Uber Judge Puts Brakes on California Drivers’ Suit Outcome [Bloomberg]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Chipotle Changing Cooking Methods In Wake Of E. Coli, Norovirus Outbreaks

http://ift.tt/1NSzX5g

Weeks after Chipotle CEO Steve Ells proclaimed that the fast casual restaurant would be the “safest place to eat,” the company appears to be getting the ball rolling with a slew of new cooking methods aimed at preventing future E. coli and norovirus outbreaks that have recently sickened more than 200 customers in the U.S. 

The Associated Press reports that Chipotle will tweak several of its current cooking methods while it continue to search for the cause of recent E. coli and norovirus contaminations.

Under the new methods, which will be implemented in coming weeks, Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold says the company doesn’t expect the taste of its food to change.

Among the changes Chipotle plans to make are:

• onions will be dipped in boiling water to kill germs before they’re chopped.
• raw chicken will be marinated in re-sealable plastic bags, rather than the current method of marinating in bowls.
• cilantro will be added to freshly cooked rice so the heat can rid it of microbes.
• cheese will be shipped to restaurants pre-shredded.
• ingredients like onions will be splashed with lemon or lime juice to kill germs.
• 60 samples of every 2,000 pounds of steak will be tested before being sent to stores. A similar test for chicken will be performed.
• Tomatoes, cilantro and other ingredients – with the exception of onions – will be chopped in a centralized location rather than in stores. This allows the company to test the products.

The new cooking methods come after CEO Ells promised new safety standards during his string of public apologies.

“It’s a really tough time,” Ells said during an interview on the Today show in early December. “I have to say I’m sorry for the people that got sick. They’re having a tough time. I feel terrible about that, and we’re doing a lot to rectify this and make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

He went on to say that the company was implementing procedures that were “so above industry norms that we are going to be the safest place to eat.”

Chipotle has been busy in recent months with its latest food-related illness issues, after more than 150 Boston College students fell ill with norovirus after eating at a campus location.

This, on the heels of the nine-state E. Coli outbreak linked to Chipotle that’s sickened more than 50 people in California, New York, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Minnesota.

And earlier this week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced it was investigating five additional illnesses linked to a rare, specific strain of E. coli. The five people who became sick reported eating at Chipotle restaurants in Oklahoma and Kansas.

Chipotle tweaks cooking after E. coli scare [The Associated Press]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Study Shows Women Pay Significantly More Than Men For Virtually The Same Products

http://ift.tt/1JvczrA

It’s expensive being a woman, literally. At least according to a new study that found women will spend thousands of dollars more than men over the course of their lives on products that are effectively the same.

The study [PDF], conducted by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, examined gender pricing in New York City, comparing nearly 800 products with clear male and female versions from more than 90 brands sold in stores and online.

The products, which were virtually identical except for gender-specific packaging, came in five categories: toys and accessories; children’s clothing; adult clothing; personal care products; and senior/home health care products.

In all, the study found that on average across the five industries, women’s products cost 7% more than similar products for men.

When it came to toys and accessories, women paid an average of 7% more than men. Specifically, toys labeled as “for girls” cost more than boy-targeted versions 55% of the time.

The study examined six product categories consisting of 106 items: bikes and scooters, general toys, backpacks, preschool toys, helmets and pads, and arts and crafts.

In one example, the study found that bikes and scooters marketed toward girls cost an average of $86.72, while the boy-focused toy cost $81.90.

Specifically, a red Radio Flyer scooter for sale at Target was found to cost just $24.99, while the designated pink girl scooter retailed for $49.99.

Results were similar for children’s clothing, with girl-specific items costing on average 4% more than boy-designated clothing.

DCA analyzed nine types of children’s clothing – children’s shirts, children’s jeans, baby pants, onesies, baby sweaters, baby shirts, baby shoes, children’s underwear, and toddler shoes – for a total of 168 articles of apparel.

In one example for children’s jeans, a pair of Carter’s-branded skinny jeans cost $12 for boy, while the embellished pair designated for girls cost $14.

Overall, the price discrepancy for children’s clothing was the lowest of all categories included in the study.

Pricing becomes a bit more segregated when it comes to adult clothing with women’s clothing costing on average 8% more than men’s.

In all, DCA analyzed 292 articles of clothing including dress pants, dress shirts, sweaters, jeans, shirts, socks, and underwear.

Similar dress shirts from Levi’s cost $48 for men, but $78 for women.

The widest pricing discrepancy was found in personal care products, where women paid on average 13% more than men.

Of the 122 individual products analyzed, including shampoo and conditioner, razor cartridges, razors, lotion, deodorant, body wash, and shaving cream, the average item cost women $57.18, and cost men $50.75, a difference of $6.43.

Similar packages of razors for sale at CVS cost women $2 more than men, $6.99 versus $4.99 for men. The discrepancy widened for razor cartridges, with women paying $18.49 and men paying $14.99 for Schick-branded refills.

Senior home health care products also favored men in pricing, with women’s paying on average 8% more than their counterparts.

The 106 items analyzed by DCA included supports and braces; canes; compression socks; adult incontinence products; personal urinals; and digestive health products, consisting of laxatives and probiotic supplements.

In total, one of each average item cost women $140.46, and cost men $130.08, a difference of $10.38.

On average, the largest price discrepancy was found in personal urinals; women were charged 21% more, with an average difference of $2.00 more per urinal.

Perhaps the most confusing pricing difference came in the average price for supports and braces, which the study found came in nearly identical packaging. Women paid nearly 15% more than men in this category, with the average difference for these often-identical products being $4.74.

While some of the pricing differences for gender-specific products were rather minuscule, DCA found that over the course of a woman’s life the disparities were significant. However, the agency did not provide a specific figure representing the costs over a lifetime.

“Though there may be legitimate drivers behind some portion of the price discrepancies unearthed in this study, these higher prices are mostly unavoidable for women,” the study’s authors say. “Individual consumers do not have control over the textiles or ingredients used in the products marketed to them and must make purchasing choices based only on what is available in the marketplace. As such, choices made by manufacturers and retailers result in a greater financial burden for female consumers than for male consumers.”

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

27 Photos Of Kids Who Are Totally Ticked Their Parents Made Them Hang Out With This Weird Santa Guy

http://ift.tt/1JvcvYX

It’s a pact as old as Old St. Nick himself: in exchange for years and years of presents “magically” appearing on Christmas morning, to the youngsters’ delight — without being able to take credit for it — parents offer up their offspring to Santa Claus. In turn, they get the reward of gleefully sharing photos of the momentous event for years to come. This might be the only time it’s considered appropriate to find humor in a child’s fear, and that’s why we like to share your photos of kids being totally freaked out by Santa every year.

And it’s a gift that keeps on giving — these screaming, caterwauling tiny humans will one day grow up to be fully-functioning adults who can not only share their past encounters with the bearded one, but set the wheels in motion with their spawn as well.

Without further ado, we present this year’s crop of kiddos temporarily driven teary by their encounter with Kris Kringle.

1.

“Here is a picture of our daughter Abigail who, after waiting in line three hours to see her second Santa of the season, she was still not a fan.” — Dad T.M., who clearly believes in the maxim, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again (and take photos).”

2.

“Moses, 19 months. He was all about Santa from a safe distance, but once that curiosity became reality, he did not scream with delight.” — Caleb

3.

“This is Julia at 16 months. This is just what we hoped would happen. Payback for toddlerdom.” — Jenna

4.

“We visited our local mall Santa for a family photo and quickly found out our son Gavin didn’t want anything to do with him. We left without a photo. Later that week, unknown to us… His daycare arranged a Santa visit — this is the photo he came home with… I’m sure he has a Santa stalking complex at this point.” — James (you did your best, don’t blame yourself!)

5.

“My son, Timothy, one day short of 18 months old at this year’s ‘Breakfast with Santa’ at our church. Mommy was hoping to get a picture of them together with her phone, just visible on the left side of the picture, but that wasn’t to be.” — Rob

6.

“Calvin was not too amused when Mom wanted a picture of him with Santa. One year earlier at 6 months he had no problem sitting on the big guy’s lap. What a difference a year makes!” — Amanda

7.

“Our 18-month-old twin sons, Owen and Ben, during their first encounter with Santa.” — Angie

8.

“We waited in a very, very, VERY long and slow line [in 2013] to wait for THE premier Santa in all of Portland. With a (barely) 2-year-old. We should have predicted the outcome. Our son Oscar is 4 now, and whenever he sees this photo, he talks about how scared he was.” — Aimee

9.

“This is my son, Anders, age 2, taken November 2015. He was super happy until we plopped him in Santa’s lap, then he started bawling. This was the happiest pic we got and it is what is going on the Christmas card.” — Kelani

10.

“My twins Lance and Lana are 7 now — sorry I cannot provide any funny anecdotes. I was more traumatized than they were!” — Cherie, who had no luck with this… twice (see photos above, below)

11.

12.

“My grandson Angel would not sit on Santa’s lap for a picture. Santa said, ‘I’ll bring you a choo-choo train.’ My grandson said, ‘No thanks.’ ” — Evelyn, who has a very polite grandson

13.

“It took little Maddie 2.3 seconds to go from skeptical to full on upset at being handed to a Santa. Later she would consent to a high five but otherwise. ‘No, no’ when asked if she’d like to tell him what she’d like for Christmas.” — Harold

14.

“Elliott, 13 months.” — C., a parent who lets photos speak for themselves.

15.

“I just had to submit this picture of my son’s first Santa Experience. Calex was 10 months old when this picture was taken in 2011, and it is still my favorite picture of him to date.” — SueAnna

16.

“Parker, age 3 (the happy one) and Connor, age 1.5 (crying). Connor wasn’t too thrilled with this year’s trip to see Santa.” — Tim

17.

“Gabriel and Taylor.” — Cassandra, another succinct parent.

18.

“This picture was taken in 2014. It shows my 1-year-old Devny meeting Santa for the first time with her 5-year-old sister, Presley. My wife is trying to get both to smile but only managed to distract them from looking at the camera. Santa just stared blankly at the camera waiting for me to take away this screaming mess of a child. It’s one of my favorite pictures EVER.” — Hunter

19.

“My son Jackson, age 8 months, Christmas, 2014. He did okay for a few seconds, but quickly lost tolerance.” — Rob

20.

“That’s me, Courtney, circa age two-and-ahalf, 1982… That’s my dad as Santa. I still feel a little terrible about this photo.” — Courtney, who should not feel terrible about this photo.

21.

“This photo was taken last year. My daughter was about 7 months old at the time and my wife and I thought it would be great to get a picture with Santa. The local haberdasher that I use (or more correctly, pay too much money to) brings in Santa once a year for photos with the kids as a way to get people in around Christmas. We made the trek down and put her in the new outfit my wife had picked out. Things were going well, they took a couple of nice photos, then they had to wait a minute to change camera batteries. That’s when it all went south in a hurry. They got the camera battery changed and took a quick picture of my daughter losing her mind while Santa held her.” — John, who is the second person I know who frequents a haberdasher.

22.

“Harley, 15 months old. Santa sure looks like he’s having a good time, Harley on the other hand… Both mom and dad think it’s as funny as Santa does.” — Adri

23.

“Logan was three years old when this was taken. We’re probably pretty bad parents, because we thought this was hilarious. We put it on all of our Christmas cards that year!” — Allison, who is not a bad parent just because this is hilarious.

24.

“On the right, wondering exactly when this massive hulk of a man will consume his little body: Matthew, 15 months old. The wife wanted ‘cute photos of both boys smiling’ so we trekked over to the local mall. Dressing them in matching outfits, we were ready for the cuteness to begin! Unfortunately, while Andrew was perfectly happy sitting on Santa’s lap and smiling at the camera, and Matthew was okay waving ‘hi’ to Santa from afar, bringing Matthew any closer than about five feet quickly led to a breakdown of epic proportions.” — Fernando

25.

“Here are my two kids together. Juliet, 3, and Jackson, seven months. Scary Santa on the Disney Cruise!” — Mom Michelle, who knows kids can’t escape Santa on a boat.

26.

“This is my child, Gumpo (age 4 at the time). This was his first visit to Santa at the mall. We take him every year — but this was the best photo. Those eyes…” — Wes, who we do not judge for submitting a photo of his cat — nay, we salute you, Wes.

27.

“Here is a picture of my daughter, Liz, when she was just four. I wouldn’t doubt that her older brother had talked her into this little trick.” — Denise, with one of the best photos ever that isn’t actually of a kid freaking out, but being totally awesome. This is also the first photo we received this year

Thank you all for sharing! You make Consumerist a better place every year at the holidays (and every other day).

For more fun with Santa, check out our archives for 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Did you enjoy this? We’re a non-profit! You can get more stories like this in our twice weekly ad-free newsletter! Click here to sign up.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist