OUR Walmart Says That More Workers Are Interested After Store Closings, Union Split

http://ift.tt/1MkPTOX

The closure of hundreds of Walmart stores earlier this year wasn’t good news for anyone, except for perhaps some small-town storeowners and well organized resellers. One group that’s really benefiting, even though they’d probably rather not, is OUR Walmart, a group that is not a union, but works to share information between employees and organizes protests and strikes. As store closings continued, OUR Walmart noticed their Internet traffic is up.

It’s one thing to have a lot of Online visitors, but one leader explained to Buzzfeed that the increase in traffic also means that more people are reaching out and interested in talking. He also notes that increases in traffic tend to happen when there are stories in the news stories about the stores and their plight, and with key dates affecting employees’ status under the federal WARN law. That requires 60 days’ notice before a layoff, and some workers are still waiting to either find a job at a different store, or receive severance payments.

A spokesperson for Walmart points out that the group is claiming huge membership growth after breaking off from the United Food and Commercial Workers, the union that originally supported them as they started. Now the group runs on $5/month dues payments from members and grant money, and the company is skeptical that workers are clamoring to join now that the groups are no longer affiliated.

As Walmart Closes Stores, Facebook Group For Workers Gets Spike In Visits [Buzzfeed]

PREVIOUSLY:
Labor Board Orders Walmart To Rehire 16 Employees Fired For Striking
Walmart Raises Suspicions After Closing 5 Stores In Same Day For “Plumbing” Problems
Here’s A Look Inside The Last Days Of Some Closing Walmarts

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Town Officials Not Pleased With Man Who Patched Neighborhood Potholes Himself

http://ift.tt/1WP506b

The problem isn’t necessarily that a man in Massachusetts went out and patched some holes in his street himself, at his own expense. The town prefers to use hot asphalt instead of the patching material he used. The core problem is that he happens be the sales manager for the company that sells that patching material.

Other nearby towns do use the material, and town officials suspect that his ultimate goal isn’t to prevent pothole-related accidents and damage to cars. They think that he wants to his company’s product and demonstrate that it holds up better.

Making his own street––where he’s patched two potholes recently––safer was a nice bonus. One neighbor noted how deep the hole was on camera with TV station WGZ, but the town would still prefer if he hadn’t used the street as a sales demonstration.

“Instead of filling it, tell us where it is and we’ll do it,” the town manager told the TV crew.

The resident isn’t in trouble or anything, but the town is in the strange position where all they can do is ask residents to please not perform DIY road repairs.

Millbury Man Takes Heat From Town For Fixing Pothole [WGZ]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Man Who Resurrected Hydrox Can Now Bring Jordan Marsh, Bullock’s, May Company Brands Back To Life

http://ift.tt/1OBuBJF

Two years ago we profiled Ellia Kassoff, the mad genius who seems intent on bringing back every brand that you ever said “remember when…” about. He has already resurrected Hydrox, the original sandwich cookie, but he’s also been battling Macy’s for several years over a slew of trademarks for stores Macy’s acquired and shut down. Today, Kassoff says he’s reached a deal with the department store giant that will allow him to try to breathe new life into several long-dead retail brands.

Kassoff has a knack for researching defunct brands and taking a risk on claiming trademarks that he believes are up for grabs because the most recent owners of those marks have not used them.

Given the sheer number of stores that Macy’s has acquired directly or inherited through mergers with Federated Department Stores in 1994 and May Department Stores in 2005, there was a trove of once-popular store brands that had gone unexploited and whose trademark went undefended.

Among the many Macy’s-related brands that Strategic attempted to claim trademark on were Marshall Field’s, Burdines, Filene’s, Jordan Marsh, Strawbridges, and Abraham and Straus.

In response to Kassoff’s efforts to resurrect these trademarks independently of Macy’s, the retail giant filed two separate lawsuits against him, most recently in Feb. 2015.

Earlier this month, Macy’s scored a victory, with a court ruling that Kassoff could not use the Marshall Field’s brand, and a handful of others, on T-shirts.

A trial on the bigger issue of trademark ownership was slated to begin in early May, but Kassoff tells Consumerist that he’s reached a deal with Macy’s that gives him control over some, but not all, of the disputed marks.

According to Kassoff, Strategic Marks now owns all goodwill associated with the trademarks for historic Boston retail brand Jordan Marsh, defunct West Coast chain I. Magnin, New Jersey legend Bamberger’s, Houston-based Foley’s, longtime California retailer Robinson’s, Midwestern mainstay May Company, and one-time L.A. luxury brand Bullock’s.

The remaining marks that were part of the dispute will remain under Macy’s control. So don’t get your hopes up about seeing another Marshall Field’s or Filene’s anytime soon.

Kassoff says he was prepared to go to trial, but agreed to attend a settlement conference with Macy’s.

“After over five hours of negotiating with Macy’s, we finally hammered out a deal that we’re really happy with,” says Kassoff, who hopes to bring these stores back to the markets where they are remembered fondly.

“Consumers noted the current shopping experience is quite drab, as there is no localized marketing or buying for the regional stores anymore,” he says of his research into retail habits. “People want to go back to the days when shopping was a real experience at their local department store. They really miss that.”

Today’s settlement will give him the authority to meet in earnest with retail investor, but Kassoff also notes that there are ways to capitalize on these once-famous brands, giving the example of selling Jordan Marsh Blueberry Muffins online and in regions where people grew up with the brand.

Macy’s has not yet responded to our request for comment on this story.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

New Contact Lens Solution Warnings Mean Fewer Users Getting Peroxide In Their Eyes

http://ift.tt/1cZIyXA

If anyone ever tries to convince you that life isn’t constantly getting better, remember this: only an average of three people each year since 2012 have stuck contact lenses soaked in hydrogen peroxide in their eyes and caused injuries bad enough to report to the Food and Drug Administration. 61 people did from 2010 to 2011. The reason for this medical miracle? Red plastic.

Specifically, red plastic tips on bottles of contact lens solution that contains peroxide. Broadly speaking, there are two types of contact lens solution that disinfect your lenses: multi-purpose solution disinfects and dissolves protein and fat deposits on your lenses, and does not scorch your corneas. You do, however, have to rub the lenses to clean them.

Hydrogen peroxide disinfecting solution performs the same functions but doesn’t contain preservatives, and users do not need to rub the lenses to clean them, but if used to store lenses in a case not designed for use with peroxide solution, they can cause terrible pain and even serious injuries. .

Before 2012, manufacturers didn’t do much to differentiate the bottles, and this caused serious and painful problems. Back in 2010, we suggested putting a giant label on the bottles that says “DON’T PUT THIS IN YOUR EYES, DUMBASS,” but the eye care industry is smarter and added red warning labels and a red tip on all bottles that contain hydrogen peroxide solutions.

See? Progress. Thanks to some basic safety measures, contact lens wearers are significantly less likely to mix up bottles and cause injuries.

Contact Lens Solutions With Hydrogen Peroxide: To Avoid Injury, Follow All Instructions [FDA]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Major Airlines’ Regional Partner, Republic Airways, Files For Bankruptcy Over Pilot Shortage

http://ift.tt/1HKN1L7

Two years ago, regional airlines warned that new regulations, higher costs of school, and lower salaries had led to a shortage of pilots for the companies that typically handle the smaller, regional routes for larger airlines. Now, one short-haul carrier says that lack of pilots is the reason it’s filed for bankruptcy. 

Labor disputes and the loss of up to 40 pilots a month during contract negotiations led Republic Airways — which provides flights for American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Continental — to file for bankruptcy Thursday, Forbes reports.

The Indianapolis-based airline, which operates a fleet of 240 small planes, was able to negotiate a new labor contract with employees in October, but that simply wasn’t enough.

“Our filing today is a result of our loss of revenue during the past several quarters associated with grounding aircraft due to a lack of pilot resources, combined with the reality that our negotiating effort with key stakeholders shows no apparent prospect of a near term resolution,” Bryan Bamford, CEO for Republic, said in a statement.

Bloomberg reports that the airline flew just 41 of its 45-seat jets at the end of 2015, parking as many as 80 of its other planes.

In 2015, Republic accounted for 16% of the 3,400 daily regional flights for American Airlines, while its Shuttle America service few about 15% of all Delta Connections.

“We filed with a strong core business and the liquidity resources necessary to carry out our restructuring plan,” Bedford said. “We believe this action will allow us to restore our airline and take it to new heights,” Bamford said in the statement.

Republic says it will continue flight operations during its bankruptcy and restricting plan.

The airline hopes to become “a single fleet, a single operating certificate carrier and one airline with a bright future,” Bamford says.

Republic Airways CEO Says Bankruptcy Filing Will Take Airline To New Heights [Forbes]
Republic Airways Files for Bankruptcy After Pilot Shortage [Bloomberg]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Amazon Makes New Streaming Show Available Without Prime, With Ads

http://ift.tt/210gViL

Amazon’s streaming video programming is just another way for the company to entice customers to sign up for Prime memberships, right? Who can resist free 2-day shipping and Alpha House? Yet the company’s new reality show, a fashion design competition called The Fashion Fund, is available to stream for free with ads as long as you have an Amazon account. Oh, and by the way, you can buy the finalists’ collections on Amazon.

The Fashion Fund already gave out awards to fresh and talented new designers before it had a reality show, and the show started out on the cable network Ovation. What’s new is that they can potentially reach everyone with an Amazon account, and the intense cross-promotion happening.

Amazon gets to attract people who are at least a bit interested in fashion to visit their site––where they have coincidentally just started to carry their own in-house fashion brands.

The Fashion Fund and the CFDA/Vogue Fashion Fund, meanwhile, get to put the contestants’ products on display on a special site on Amazon––what they refer to as a “a content-rich, dedicated retail experience” on the Amazon Fashion site. As far as we can tell, that means it has some big pictures. They are very nice pictures. You can click over to the clothes from the page where you stream the show, if you want to.

New episodes of the show will drop on Thursdays.

(via GeekWire)

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Audit Finds NHTSA Investigators May Lack Training To Spot Defective Cars

http://ift.tt/1bUi5Ks

Eight months after a Department of Transportation audit criticized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for failing to hold automakers responsible for defects, a second audit is raising additional concerns about NHTSA’s ability to sniff out problem automobiles. 
The latest audit [PDF] from the DOT’s Office of Inspector General acknowledges that NHTSA has made strides over the last five years, but also points out that some necessary programs have not yet been implemented.

This includes a training program for investigators that would help them better spot safety risks in automobiles.

NHTSA investigators “may not be sufficiently trained to identify and investigate potential vehicle defects, or ensure that vehicle manufacturers take prompt and effective action to remediate issues,” the report found.

ODI also hasn’t conducted any post-training audits, despite committing to these audits in response to the recommendation, including evaluations of employee knowledge of course objectives, evaluations of training materials, and annual reviews of ODI’s training.

Additionally, the inspector general established that ODI investigators fail to properly document evidence such as consumer complaints and meetings with automakers that could better protect consumers for defects.

“Although ODI implemented the new procedure, it has not enforced the procedure or established mechanisms to promote compliance,” the report found. “For example, ODI has not required supervisors to review the case management system to verify that pre-investigative work is documented as required.”

As a result of these failures, the inspector general found roughly 42% issue evaluations filed in 2013 contained no document ion of pre-investigative work.

“ODI’s inconsistent application of this new procedure could result in relevant data being omitted from NHTSA’s preliminary evaluations of potential vehicle safety issues,” the report states.

A spokesperson for NHTSA tells the Wall Street Journal that the agency is working to implement the inspector general’s recommendations from 2011 and last year’s audit by June 30.

Those initiatives include a training program and better assessing compliance with internal policies

The agency has come under fire several times in recent years for inadequate policies and process when it comes to identifying defects.

In fact, both the 2011 audit and the June 2014 audit were instigated following major safety issues; unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles and General Motors’ ignition switch defect, respectively.

[via The Wall Street Journal]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Yes, There Really Is A Dentist’s Office In A Kmart In Miami

http://ift.tt/1LiVKXa

We learned about Kmart Dental in Florida from reader Jason, who sent us a link and noted that it “has got to be the oddest thing inside of a Kmart anywhere.” We don’t know whether it holds any strangeness records, but a dentist’s office inside a discount store is pretty unusual. We wondered how they ended up there, and whether Kmart dental offices were a common thing that we had just never heard of, so we called them up and asked.

The office is quite large, now employing six dentists, and the practice actually predates the Kmart itself. The founder and owner, Dr. Steven Aaron, opened the practice inside a Jefferson Ward store in 1982. Jefferson Ward was a discount chain owned by Montgomery Ward and based in Miami, and its stores were all either closed or were purchased by Bradlees in 1985.

Jefferson Ward was gone, but the dental office stayed. Kmart took over the building, and the dental office stayed where it was. “They built the Kmart around us,” the practice’s longtime receptionist explained to Consumerist.

After Kmart opened, the practice rebranded as Kmart Dental. It has never been owned by Kmart, but has permission to use the brand name and logo. The two businesses operate in symbiosis, though. Early on, Kmart’s customers wandered in to the dental practice. Today, Kmart, um, isn’t as popular as it was in 1985, and new patients come from elsewhere.

“Now more patients come from friends and family of our existing patients,” Dr. Aaron explained to Consumerist. Yet the Kmart store serves as a giant built-in waiting room for the practice, and patients can be paged in the store when it’s their turn or when their child’s appointment is over.

Having a dental practice in a store is rather convenient, as it turns out, which is why it’s surprising that there aren’t more of them. (It also helps that Kmart Dental keeps later hours than most dentists, staying open until 7:30 PM and opening on weekends.) Today, consumers may connect the idea of a dental practice in a discount store with the dental chains that sometimes have questionable patient care practices and that do business in strip malls.

That isn’t the case, though: Kmart Dental is a standard dental and orthodontic practice, and families who might have first visited a generation ago for the first time because they were regular Kmart shoppers have stayed with them, referring new patients.

The first impression that some potential patients get is amusing, though. Last year, a Kmart shopper captured the entrance on Instagram, showing its location next to the toy department and tagging the photo, “#igiveup #onlyinmiami #hoodthings #soflo #dental #wtf #reallife #smile #bluelightspecial.”

If you know of a medical or dental practice inside a store or a different retail oddity in your area, let us know! We’d love to hear about it. We’re sure there must be something out there stranger than a dentist in a Kmart.

Kmart Dental [Official Site]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Florida Man Barred From Selling Unapproved “Natural Herpes Medicine”

http://ift.tt/1Tc6qK2

Five years ago, the Food and Drug Administration first warned a Florida man to stop peddling a supposed cure for herpes until he proved it worked and was safe. He subsequently tweaked the marketing to make it less cure-like, but federal prosecutors say he still went too far in promising his supplement could treat the sexually transmitted disease.

Back in 2011, the maker of a product called Viruxo was selling it as a “New Herpes Treatment! Cure for Herpes Outbreaks,” telling people that they could “Never Have A Herpes Outbreak Again” if they took “America’s #1 Herpes Outbreak Eliminator!”

Statements like these didn’t go over to well with the FDA, which sent out a warning letter, saying that any product making claims to cure or treat a disease must be considered a “drug” under the letter of the law.

More precisely, because Viruxo is not just a variation on an existing product that is generally recognized as safe, it’s considered a “new drug,” meaning its safety and efficacy must be demonstrated to the FDA before it can be sold for treating anything.

And so Viruxo backed off on the more obvious “cure” claims, and even added some fine print disclaimers to its website about how there is no known cure for herpes.

However, last fall the U.S. Department of Justice sued Viruxo in federal court, alleging that the product was still using drug-like claims to sell what was now labeled an “immune support” supplement instead of an “anti-viral.”

In the complaint [PDF], prosecutors took issue with Viruxo’s continued pronouncements that it could be used to “stop outbreaks” or references to the product as an “Over the Counter Herpes Medicine.”

There was also the statement that appears to start as a disclaimer before transitioning into an unsubstantiated claim that Viruxo could force the herpes virus to remain in a dormant state:

In his response [PDF], the defendant denied maintained he was only selling a supplement made from “all natural ingredients all which available over the counter an in no way controlled.” [Typos in original.]

Regarding the non-disclaimer statement cited by the prosecutors, Viruxo contends that “It is…widely published through university and clinically proven research, that a strong healthy immune system, can keep the herpes virus in a dormant inactive state. Most all of the ingredients are widely recognizes to help boost the immune system.” [Again, typos in original.]

But today, the DOJ announced that it has entered into a consent decree [PDF] permanently barring Viruxo or its owner from selling any food, drug, or supplement without permission from the FDA.

“Unfortunately, many dietary supplements cannot do what their sellers claim they can do,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “In some instances, consumers might be choosing supplements over other proven therapies for serious conditions under the mistaken belief that these products can help.”

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Herbalife Working On Settlement To Resolve FTC Investigation Into Business Practices

http://ift.tt/1x15yOv

Nearly two years ago nutritional company Herbalife revealed that it was under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission for its often controversial business practices, or what some people claim is a pyramid scheme. Now, it looks like the company is ready to put the federal probe behind it.

Herbalife revealed in its recently filed annual report [PDF] that it was in talks with regulators to resolve the nearly two-year long investigation.

“The company is currently in discussions with the FTC regarding a potential resolution of these matters,” Michael Johnson, chairman and CEO of Herbalife, said during an earnings call Thursday. “A possible range of outcomes include the filing by the FTC of a contested civil complaint or further discussions leading to a settlement, which could include monetary penalties and other relief or the closure of these matters without action.”

The FTC’s investigation centered on the company’s multi-level marketing sales strategy that worked by exclusively selling weight-loss shakes and nutritional products through a network of independent distributors, or “members,” who earn through commissions on sales to other recruited members.

The probe was initiated after the FTC received more than 100 complaints about the company in 2013, and came on the heels of a years-long legal battle with investor Bill Ackman, who accused the company of operating a pyramid scheme.

Johnson said Thursday that the company has been cooperating with regulators for the past two years, but could not predict when or if a resolution would come.

“Moreover, no assurances can be given that the outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse impact on a company’s business operations, its financial condition or its results of operations,” he said during the call. “At the present time, the Company is unable to estimate a range of potential loss, if any, relating to these matters. We cannot comment on the scope, duration or the outcome of the investigation at this time. We will provide updates when appropriate to do so.”

[via The Chicago Tribune]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

What’s Huge, Floats & Has 32,000 Bottles Of Beer, 6,100 Bottles Of Wine & 5,400 Bananas On Board?

http://ift.tt/1LK5QLD

I’ve never been on a cruise, but if I were to find myself stuck on a massive ship with thousands of other people and no exit other than leaping into the sea, I’d hope there would be enough food and drink to keep everyone entertained, lest it devolve into apocalyptic anarchy-at-sea. Thankfully, the cruise operators make sure to pack a lot of booze and snacks along for the trip. 

More precisely — according to an Associated Press look at the behind-the-scenes operations at Royal Caribbean — that cruise ship will have 5,400 lobster tails, 21,000 ice cream cones, 14,800 pounds of potatoes, and 31,900 bottles of beer. And all of that is stowed on the ship in a matter of hours.

While cleaning state rooms and emptying the trash are all major parts of the cruise ship turnaround, making sure there’s enough food, booze, and just-in-case items is one of the most important aspects of the cruise ship business.

The AP reports that each week while the soon-to-deboard passengers on the Oasis of the Seas are still asleep, the crew members of the ship are busy at work unloading 25 trucks full of goods in preparation their next week at sea.

Because many of the islands that the ship will eventually visit don’t have products that meet the cruise line’s standards, it must take everything with it when it leaves port in Florida, Raimund Gschaider, associated vice president for hotel operations at Royal Caribbean, tells the AP.

“In a hotel, you get your supplies on a daily basis. You’re never tied into a limited timeframe,” he said. “For us, we only have one go at it.”

And so while the passengers sleep, the ship’s employees bring aboard 10,272 new rolls of toilet paper, 1,000 new light bulbs, 30 replacement TVs, and 23 gallons of hand sanitizer.

As well as, 820 bottles of vodka, 293 bottles of scotch, 765 bottles of Rum, 16,900 cans of soda, 3,360 bottles of white wine, 2,776 bottles of red wine, and 2,622 gallons of milk.

To ensure that guests don’t go hungry at the Oasis’ 25 restaurants, workers stock 46,800 eggs, 19,723 pounds of chicken, 7,070 pounds of fish, and 5,400 bananas.

Just what goes on the ship, and how much of it, is determined by past trends and tweaked to account for the age and nationalities of those setting sail, the AP reports.

So if, for example, a college basketball tournament is taking place during the voyage, the ship would increase the typical 31,900 bottles of beer stocked, along with snacks like hot dogs (10,680), beef (18,314 pounds) for burgers, and other game day fare.

“I’m amazed every single time you do it,” Gschaider says. “It’s an orchestration of all different operations. Everything needs to be fine-tuned down to the last minute.”

32,000 bottles of beer, 10,680 hot dogs, 5,400 lobster tails: Stocking a cruise ship [The Associated Press]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Net Neutrality Is A Year Old Today. What’s Changed, What Hasn’t, And Where Does It Stand?

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Happy birthday, net neutrality! A year ago today, after a long and contentious process, the FCC formally adopted the Open Internet Rule, reclassifying broadband internet as a Title II communications service and creating bright-line rules to protect consumers’ and businesses’ access to the internet.

But the end of the rulemaking process was only the beginning of another long series of fights. So a year in, what’s worked, what do we still not know, and where do we sit overall?

The Regulation

The actual rule created three bright-line obligations for both fixed (wired/wifi) and wireless (mobile) broadband:

1. Broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
2. They may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of content, application, services, or any classes thereof.
3. They may not favor some internet traffic over other internet traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind — no paid prioritization or fast lanes.

The FCC exerted that authority by reclassifying internet services as Title II telecommunications services instead of information services, reversing a 20-year-old decision made when “internet” still meant, “I have AOL and my neighbor has CompuServe.”

Passing the rule was contentious, both inside the FCC and in the world of business. But it did pass, and officially became law on June 12, 2015.

However, there were (and are) still plenty of unresolved, open questions lingering after the rule was passed, including questions around zero-rating, data caps, peering agreements, and other tricky issues now in the broadband landscape.

The Results

ISPs swore up and down that the Title II ruling would damage their businesses and cause them to stop investing in their companies and networks, but so far that hasn’t borne out. Overall, their 2015 financials show continued growth and investment.

And when it comes to upgrading networks, building out business, and growing consumer services, those seem to be on track, too. Comcast — the nation’s biggest single provider — is continuing to work on upgrading networks to a newer, faster standard. AT&T is still expanding their GigaPower network. And Charter is still trying to match Comcast for size by buying Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.

Meanwhile, net neutrality opponents were right about one thing: there aren’t that many real-world examples, at this specific time, of providers flagrantly breaking the rule — and that’s a good thing! Consumers are generally able to access the services they want without undue interference from their ISPs… although the first complaint was filed the very week the rule went into effect.

The Politics

It’s no secret that regulation is a contentious topic among both politicians and regulators, and the FCC has found itself mired in an even deeper political swamp than usual thanks to the net neutrality ruling.

In the first month after the FCC passed the rule, commission chairman Tom Wheeler was hauled into fiveseparate Congressional committee hearings, asked each time to justify not only net neutrality but, in some cases, the FCC’s entire mandate to regulate broadband at all.

Congress also tried floating their own version of net neutrality, trying to forestall the FCC’s process, but the bill didn’t get past the shouting stage before the commission passed their own rule.

Several of the same members of Congress, in both the House and Senate, tried using riders attached to spending bills and the appropriations process to prohibit the FCC from taking certain actions, or even to take funding away from the agency. Those motions, however, were unsuccessful.

A different set of Senators and Representatives, meanwhile, filed a brief in court on behalf of the FCC, to bolster their court case. And about that case…

The Legal Fight

Lawsuits, filed by the ISPs and their trade groups, started pouring in from he first moment that they were legally permitted, back in April, 2015.

The cases were heard at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit back in December, when a three-judge panel heard arguments from both the ISPs and the FCC.

The legal case hinges on some narrow points of law but the court will, from a high level, determine one, if the FCC had the right to reclassify broadband services and two, if the procedures under which they did so were correct. If the answer to both points is “yes,” the rule as we have it stands. If the answer to one or both is “no,” we’re back to the drawing table and the colossal fight begins again.

The court’s ruling still isn’t in, but is expected in March or April of this year.

The Boundary-Pushing

Meanwhile, the most activity is happening in exactly those grey areas the FCC left unresolved with the big rule.

Interconnection (peering) agreements are still a major issue, as traffic from streaming video binges now accounts for 70% of all prime-time internet use. The places where networks meet each other and the last mile are only going to get more contentious as time goes on, and the FCC’s plan is still to handle those on a case-by-case basis.

But the next big fight undoubtedly has to do with data caps, and manipulating consumer behavior through exempting some content from them (zero-rating). T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon all have some kind of sponsored data plan in place allowing businesses to exempt their content from wireless customers’ data caps.

(Even without exemptions, data caps on their own, as used by Comcast and other ISPs, may draw FCC attention if they continue to spread.)

Zero-rating remains entirely contentious. Some experts have said that it violates net neutrality. The ISPs and wireless companies, of course, disagree. But even the FCC doesn’t seem sure where it fits.

On the one hand, Wheeler has explicitly called the practice “innovative” and “highly competitive.” And on the other hand, the FCC has called the companies that do it into their office to explain themselves.

Where the matter goes from here is anyone’s guess, but one thing is for certain: any change will come with a whole lot of yelling all around.

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Evenflo Recalls 56,000 Carseats Because Kids Shouldn’t Be Able To Unhook Themselves

http://ift.tt/1WO4Goj

The safety harness in a child’s carseat is meant to prevent injury in the event of a crash. Those safety devices don’t do much good if the tiny occupant has already undone the restraints. Which is why Evenflo has recalled more than 56,000 carseats.

Evenflo announced this week that it would recall certain Transition 3-in-1 Combination Booster Seat models after determining that the central front adjuster button may be within a child’s reach.

The button is used to loosen the seat’s internal harness. If a child were able to reach the button they could loosen the internal harness, increasing the risk of injury to the child in the event of a crash.

In a notice [PDF] posted with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Evenflo says model numbers 34411686, 34411695, and 34411029 are affected by the issue. The carseats were produced between Dec 18, 2014 through Jan. 29, 2016.

Evenflo will notify owners and provide a remedy kit that includes a newly designed seat pad and central front adjuster button.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

You Will No Longer Need To Go To Seattle To Resolve A Starbucks Card Dispute

http://ift.tt/1Rt0lW0

As things stand now, if you have a legal dispute with Starbucks about your Starbucks Card, the coffee company could force you to travel to Seattle to resolve the matter — not in court, but through the shadowy, unfair process of binding arbitration. However, Starbucks is about to adopt new policies to be more flexible about the location, and give you 30 days to opt out of signing your rights away.

The arbitration clause in the terms and conditions for using a Starbucks Card had previously stated that, “Unless you and we agree otherwise, any arbitration will take place in Seattle, Washington and will be conducted in the English language.”

Note that this condition requires both parties to agree to a non-Seattle location for the arbitration process. So whether you lived in Portland, Oregon or Portland, Maine, Starbucks could have said “tough teabags” and made you travel hundreds, possibly thousands, of miles just to have your matter heard by an arbitrator who has likely handled numerous Starbucks claims.

The Public Citizen Consumer Law & Policy Blog points out that the new terms and conditions, which don’t kick in until April 16, remove the requirement for arbitrating a case in Seattle.

Given that some cities have blocks with more than one Starbucks on them, it only seems fair that customers should be able to resolve their legal disputes more locally.

Additionally, Starbucks has added the ability to opt out of its arbitration requirement. Existing users will only have 30 days from when the new rules kick in on April 16, and the opt-out must be done in writing to:
Starbucks Card Team
Starbucks Corporation,
2401 Utah Avenue S.
MS: S-MK3
Seattle, WA 98134.

“Any opt-out received after the Opt Out Deadline (allowing three (3) additional days for mailing) will not be valid and you must pursue your claim in arbitration or small claims court,” read the new terms.

Most surprising are the arbitration-related notes in the new terms which use language that is normally reserved for critics of the process, and not multinational, multibillion-dollar companies that want to use arbitration against their customers.

In the notes at the top of the new terms, Starbucks explicitly states that failing to opt out of the arbitration clause will “Eliminate your right to a trial by jury,” and “Substantially affect your rights, including preventing you from bringing, joining or participating in class or consolidated proceedings.”

That sort of transparency runs counter to the typical corporate explanation for arbitration, which is that it “benefits” the consumer by providing an expedited process.

Except that may be the only benefit for consumers. Arbitration also limits the damages, limits the customer’s ability to join their complaint together with other similarly wronged customers, does not require the arbitrator to explain their decision, and results in no legal precedent being set.

As we’ve explained before, arbitration was intended as a way to unclog the legal system by shunting off contractual disputes to a resolution process that didn’t involve the courtroom. But the nearly century-old law that established the legality of arbitration was created at a time when most contracts were between businesses who negotiated the terms before signing; not forced upon customers who are presented with lengthy “terms of use” contracts — agreements they have no ability to amend — for anything from playing a video game to buying a cup of coffee.

We’ve asked Starbucks to explain why it changed the arbitration terms in its agreement, but have yet to hear back. If the company does reply, we will update this story.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Mercedes-Benz Says “So Long” To Some Assembly Line Robots, “Hello” To Actual Humans

http://ift.tt/15gg4nv

We’ve likely all seen the photos, videos, and stories of robots preparing for their inevitable uprising by taking on jobs in factories and plants — from fulfilling orders at Amazon to building furniture at IKEA. But there’s now one place you won’t see as many of the high-tech employees: the Mercedes-Benz production line. 

The carmaker announced that it would, perhaps going against trend, replace some robots on its production line with actual human beings, Bloomberg reports. 

The decision to shift back to a human-based assembly line is a response to consumers’ demand for more customized vehicles, which is overwhelming the company’s assembly robots.

“Robots can’t deal with the degree of individualization and the many variants that we have today,” Mercedes’ head of production Markus Schaefer told Bloomberg. “We’re saving money and safeguarding our future by employing more people.”

The change will specifically affect the company’s new S-Class models, which offer customizations such as heated and cooled cupholders and four different types of tire valve stem caps, built at its Sindelfingen, Germany plant.

“The variety is too much to take on for the machines,” Schaefer said. “They can’t work with all the different options and keep pace with changes. We’re moving away from trying to maximize automation with people taking a bigger part in industrial processes again. We need to be flexible.”

In addition to allowing more customization, the change will also allow the plant to shift production from one model to another within a weekend, rather than the weeks previously needed to reprogram the robots, Schaefer said.

Of course, Mercedes isn’t getting rid of robots all together. Rather, the company will continue to operate small, more flexible artificial intelligence in conjunction with the human employees.

Mercedes Boots Robots From the Production Line [Bloomberg]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Macy’s Will Have Fewer Promotions With Coupons, Lower Clearance Prices

http://ift.tt/1DQnTu5

There’s a subset of department store customers who love playing coupon games, clipping bonus coupons from flyers and newspapers to get an extra percentage off items that are already on sale. Macy’s, long a great place to shop if you love to stack coupons on top of clearance sales, will stop that practice in favor of simply marking their clearance items down more in the first place.

For example, instead of marking down an item 50% and then distributing coupons for 20% off the clearance price, Macy’s would simply mark the clearance items down 60%. They won’t eliminate coupons entirely, just simplify deal-hunting, and experimenting with the idea that bargain-hunting is still super-fun even if you don’t remember to bring in your coupons.

The Washington Post reports that in test stores, ditching coupons for clearance items has worked really well, helping the company sell clearance items faster and make room for the next season’s merchandise.

There’s a risk here, and that risk is the ever-present spectre of Ron Johnson, the CEO who tried to bring simple low prices to JCPenney instead of artificially high prices and convoluted discounting games. It turned out that JCPenney’s customers enjoy the pricing games, and especially enjoyed coupons, which feel like getting a special deal that isn’t offered to everyone.

If you see the clearance coupons return, that will mean that this nationwide experiment didn’t work out.

Why you won’t have to lug so many coupons to Macy’s anymore [Washington Post]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

AT&T Sues Louisville To Make City Less Attractive To Google Fiber

http://ift.tt/1QkDWYB

Google hasn’t even decided whether or not it will bring its high-speed Fiber broadband and TV service to Louisville. The Kentucky city is currently listed as merely a “potential” Fiber market. But that hasn’t stopped AT&T from suing Louisville administrators in an effort to make sure that Google will have a tougher time if it chooses to launch there.

Yesterday, AT&T filed a lawsuit [PDF] against the Louisville government over a recently passed ordinance that amends existing city rules about the use of utility poles and rights-of-way to give a new “Attacher” — like, say Google Fiber — the right to rearrange or relocate the existing physical facilities and pole attachments of other communications providers, which basically means AT&T.

If AT&T doesn’t own a pole in question and readjusting the existing AT&T hardware wouldn’t interfere with service, Google wouldn’t need to provide any notice before moving things around.

But if shuffling AT&T hardware around will impact service, Google would need to give 30 days written notice to the telecom giant.

“The Ordinance thus purports to permit a third party… to temporarily seize AT&T’s property, and to alter or relocate AT&T’s property, without AT&T’s consent and, in most circumstances, without prior notice to AT&T,” reads the lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Louisville.

AT&T argues that not having prior notice of these pole adjustments would deprive the company of “the opportunity to assess the potential for network disruption.” The company further contends that if a hardware move does indeed impact AT&T service, it “may be hampered in locating and correcting that trouble” because it did not have any notice about which poles were being worked on.

The lawsuit also points to existing FCC regulations stating that when a utility is prepping to do its new pole attachments, it “shall notify immediately and in writing all known entities with existing attachments that may be affected by the make-ready.” AT&T argues that the FCC rules would also require that it have 60 days after receiving that notice to make its own adjustments before anyone else can touch the AT&T hardware.

There is a catch in the law that does allow states to have different standards regarding pole attachments, but AT&T maintains that only state law — and not a city or county ordinance — has the authority to override the FCC rules.

AT&T is seeking an injunction to prevent Louisville from enforcing the new pole attachment rules, and for the court to declare the ordinance invalid and unenforceable.

“We have filed an action to challenge the ordinance as unlawful. Google can attach to AT&T’s poles once it enters into AT&T’s standard Commercial Licensing Agreement, as it has in other cities,” a rep for AT&T tells Louisville Business First. “This lawsuit is not about Google. It’s about the Louisville Metro Council exceeding its authority.”

Of course, there isn’t exactly a horde of bandit broadband and telecom providers looking to string their cables on Louisville utility poles; just Google, and even then that’s only a possibility. So AT&T’s claim that this is “not about Google” rings slightly disingenuous.

[via DSLreports]

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Tesla Can Continue Selling Cars Straight To Consumers In Indiana For At Least A Year

http://ift.tt/1zJcURe

Electric car-seeking Indiana residents can still buy their new Tesla without having to go out of state, at least for the time being. State senators have tabled a bill that would have banned the carmaker from selling vehicles under its current, often controversial, straight-to-consumer business model. 

The Indianapolis Star reports that the Indiana State Senate Commerce and Technology Committee decided to put the bill before a study committee.

Under the bill, Tesla’s dealer license would have expired in 2018 and the company would have to either adopt a franchise dealership model or stop selling cars in the state.

Thursday’s action essentially means the measure won’t be considered until at least next year and that Tesla can continue operating its two-year-old showroom in the state.

“We are trying to make what we are doing here fair to all,” said Sen. Jim Buck, chairman of the committee, who had supported the ban, noting that he had been on the receiving end of “incivility” from Tesla supporters recently.

Buck, and the bill’s author Sen. Todd Maron, say the bill has broad support from automakers and dealerships, including General Motors, which operates four plants in the state.

Still, the lawmakers say the bill wasn’t about shutting down Tesla, but creating rules for all manufacturers.

“No one in this state wants to stop innovation,” Buck said. “But we do want and always have tried to make a level playing field.”

Tesla’s general counsel told The Star in a statement that the company looks forward to the next time the bill is considered.

The electric car company’s direct-to-consumer sales approach has come under fire in several states. Earlier this month, the company applied for a dealer license in Michigan, a state that previously enacted a law that included an amendment explicitly banning Tesla from selling vehicles in the state unless it was through a franchised dealership.

The measure effectively shut the door on Tesla’s direct-sales approach in the state, meaning residents had to go out of state to buy one of the cars. That, or Tesla would need to make arrangements with franchised dealerships to sell their cars — a move that appears to be taking shape now.

Several months later, in May 2015, the Federal Trade Commission sent a letter to lawmakers in the state, urging them to consider repealing the ban.

The FTC staff contended that consumers would more fully benefit from a “complete repeal of the prohibition on direct sales,” noting that “consumers are the ones best situated to choose for themselves both the vehicles they want to buy and how they want to buy them.”

Proposal to ban Tesla’s direct sales model gets tabled [Indianapolis Star]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Fairly Used: Why Schools Need To Teach Kids The Whole Truth About Copyright

Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds

http://ift.tt/1oMwEX0

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

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

A Federal Judge Must Decide What ‘Report To Work’ Means In Victoria’s Secret Lawsuit

http://ift.tt/1oL1fnE

Last year, numerous national retail chains changed their practices around on-call scheduling, a practice where retailers adjust their staffing levels at the last minute according to how busy an establishment expects to be. Many companies discontinued the practice around the time that New York’s Attorney General began asking questions about the scheduling practices of national retail chains. However, a lawsuit over the practice of on-call scheduling continues in California, and hinges on what it means to “report to work.”

Buzzfeed looked over the arguments from both side in this appeal. How on-call shifts worked at Victoria’s Secret was that employees were to call in two hours before the scheduled start time of their shift to find out whether they needed to come in. When employees called in two hours ahead, the company noted in a brief they submitted to the appeals court this week, “they could be in their pajamas, far away from the workplace, actively engaged in some other pursuit, or attending to some other commitment” while physically making the phone call.

However, the employees’ argument, and one of the main arguments against on-call shifts in general, is that not knowing whether they would be needed makes it difficult to do some fairly basic things, like arranging child care, choosing a college schedule, or even scheduling shifts at another job.

This is important not only because of the ambiguity in workers’ schedules, but because California law requires employers to pay anyone who “reports to work” for at least two hours. If the judge concludes that calling in counts as “reporting,” then Victoria’s Secret alone would owe current and former employees more than $25 million for call-in shifts scheduled between 2010 and 2014 just in California.

A Federal Court Is Taking A Closer Look At On-Call Shifts At Victoria’s Secret [Buzzfeed]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist