Facebook Will Maybe Start Doing Something About Ads For Shady Clothing Sites

http://ift.tt/1o3T05b

You may have seen ads on Facebook or elsewhere online for what look like decent quality and trendy clothes at rock-bottom prices. They have some satisfied customers, but many of these sites offer ill-fitting clothes that barely resemble their photos. When shady overseas fashion purveyors advertise on Facebook to find new customers, does Facebook have any responsibility for what happens next?

While the names of the sites change often, one constant in the industry over the last few years has been Facebook ads targeted to women. After a fantastic piece uncovering the industry of fast, inconsistent fashion from China last week, Buzzfeed finally got a statement out of Facebook that maybe they’ll consider looking into advertisers that rack up consumer complaints.

The problem, a company representative explained, is that there’s a mind-boggling number of businesses that advertise on Facebook. (I’ve bought Facebook ads, so I guess I’m one of those “businesses.”)

“We’re looking at ways to incorporate new signals that will help us identify which of the over 50 million active businesses on our platform are delivering products and services that are overwhelmingly unsatisfactory to people,” Facebook’s VP of ads and pages, Andrew Bosworth, explained in an e-mail to Buzzfeed.

If you click on a Facebook ad that doesn’t take you where the ad promised, you can let Facebook know right away. When your safety-yellow polyester sheath reeking of formaldehyde arrives five weeks late, you probably won’t go back and report it to the site where you saw the ad.

Facebook can’t pretend that they haven’t heard of the problem. Knockoff Nightmares and Don’t Do it, Girl, two popular communities that exist specifically to warn people away from China-based fashion sites, are based on Facebook.

Still, Bosworth gets the problem, and the company wants to fix it. “We understand the gravity of this issue and we’re taking it very seriously,” he said in an e-mail.

Facebook Taking Shady Dress Retailers “Very Seriously” [Buzzfeed]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

USPS Will Cut Postage Rates This Weekend, Isn’t Happy About It

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

If you’ve been stocking up on Forever stamps since the last price hike at the beginning of 2014, we have some bad news: those the price of first-class stamps will fall by 2¢ down to 47¢ this weekend. That might perhaps causing slight annoyance for consumers, but will hurt the U.S. Postal Service financially. The price cut, you see, wasn’t their idea.

The price cut came from the government entity that regulates the postal service, the logically named Postal Regulatory Commission. The original price hike for letters back in 2014 was actually a surcharge enacted to help the postal service’s cash flow, and the PRC ordered that the postal service roll back that surcharge.

The Postmaster General estimates that the price cuts for domestic and international letters will cost the USPS $2 billion per year.

Here are the changes that people who buy stamps can expect:

Stamps for letters weighing one ounce or less now cost 49¢, and will cost 47¢ as of Sunday.
Additional ounces for letters now cost 22¢, and will cost 21¢.
International letters now cost $1.20, and will cost $1.15.
Postcards now cost 35¢, and will cost 34¢.

Commercial rates will also decrease, but your postage meter or online service should calculate that for you if you’re shipping in bulk.

​Why the USPS Forever stamps aren’t living up to their name [CBS News] (Warning: auto-play video at that link)

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Sen. Al Franken Has A Few Questions About Oculus Rift’s Privacy Policy

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

While we’ve been talking about virtual reality for decades, the current slate of VR headsets marks the first time we’ve seen anything close to widespread adoption of the technology. And when one of the leading companies in the field also happens to be owned by a company that makes billions of dollars tracking your online behavior, you can’t fault people for being concerned about privacy.

Yesterday, Sen. Al Franken (MN) sent a letter [PDF] to Facebook-owned Oculus, raising a number of concerns about the privacy policy for the Oculus Rift VR headset.

While Franken notes that he appreciates that Oculus’ privacy policy provides detailed information about “what data are collected, when they are collected, and with which companies they are being shared,” he expresses concerns about certain types of information Oculus collects from users, and the nature of its relationship with third parties.

“Oculus has stated that it automatically collects users’ physical movements and dimensions. Is this collection necessary for Oculus to provide services?” Franken asks in one of six questions. “Are there any other purposes for which Oculus collects this information? Does Oculus share this information with third parties, including its ‘related companies’, for any other purpose than the provision of services??

He goes on to ask if location information Oculus collects is necessary for Oculus to provide services, or if it collects it for any other purposes, and queries whether the company shares that information with third parties.

Franken also wants to know if Oculus really needs to store communications among users and information related to those communications to provide services. If so, how long it will retain the data?

If Oculus is going to be sharing data with “related companies,” who’s responsible for providing information about that relationship to consumers, if anyone? Franken asks, adding, “Which company is responsible for providing security information to consumers?”

Franken ends by asking Oculus about the section of its privacy policy that notes that no data transmissions or storage can be “guaranteed to be 100% secure,” and that there may be leaks, thefts, or otherwise inadvertent disclosures of user data.

“What precaution does Oculus currently have in place to ensure the security of consumers’ data?” Franken asks, before thanking Iribe for his “prompt attention to this important matter.”

The letter asks that Oculus CEO Brendan Iribe respond to Franken’s office by May 13.

It’s worth noting that Franken isn’t the first to approach the privacy policy with a critical eye: UploadVR co-founder and editor-in-chief Will Mason highlighted some issues he had with the privacy policy’s possibly far-reaching implications last week. Oculus Oculus responded a few days later, telling UploadVR that it’s thinking aout privacy “every step of the way,” but in its effort to “create the absolute best VR experience for people,” it needs “to understand how our products are being used.”

“The Oculus privacy policy was drafted so we could be very clear with the people who use our services about the ways we receive or collect information, and how we may use it,” the company said. “For example, one thing we may do is use information to improve our services and to make sure everything is working properly — such as checking device stability and addressing technical issues to improve the overall experience.”

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Unnecessarily Deployed Emergency Slide Could Cost United Airlines As Much As $30,000

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Earlier this week, a United Airlines flight attendant quit her job in dramatic fashion when she deployed the emergency slide and exited the plane without explanation. It might seem like a laughing matter, but not to the airline that has to repay to replace the slide.

Business Insider reports that the stunt could come with a tab as high as $30,000.

That cost will cover the repacking of the slide — which can cost $6,000 to $12,000 alone — and any repairs that may need to be done.

United, which did not say how much it has actually spent on the incident, confirmed on Friday that the crew member responsible for deploying the slide is no longer employed by the airline.

The airline didn’t specify if the flight attendant was fired, noting that it was a private matter between the employer and former employee.

Business Insider reports that while there was a medical emergency in the back of the plane, it was not related to the flight attendant’s actions.

The FAA is also investigating the incident, telling BI that it doesn’t discuss ongoing investigations, but that “these slides are supposed to be activated only during emergencies.”

The $30,000 estimate is in line with the $25,000 figure cited by JetBlue following a similar incident in 2010, when flight attendant Steven Slater made an unexpected exit via emergency slide after a spat with a customer.

United Airlines flight attendant who mysteriously broke a huge rule has left the company [Business Insider]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

After Supreme Court Split, Challengers To Public Union Fees Want Case Re-Heard

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

In March, an evenly divided U.S. Supreme Court issued a one-sentence non-decision in a controversial case involving compulsory fees for public unions. The challengers in that case have petitioned the court to re-hear arguments — after a ninth justice is eventually appointed.

The case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, involves public school teachers in California who believe their First Amendment rights are being violated by being compelled to pay union fees, regardless of whether or not they actively participate in the union.

Under this so-called “agency shop” model, California state law requires that the non-union teachers pay fees to cover expenditures germane to collective bargaining. Opponents claim this is problematic because not every teacher may believe that a union’s bargaining agreements are ultimately to their benefit.

Another issue is the collection of union fees that go toward things other than collective bargaining. In California, the teachers can opt out of subsidizing these additional expenditures, but they must raise their objection in writing and renew it every year.

Some 20 other states have similar laws regarding compulsory public unions, so a SCOTUS ruling would have far-reaching implications for millions of Americans.

When the case was heard by the nine justices in early 2016, it seemed destined for a narrow 5-4 decision, with Justice Antonin Scalia clearly leaning toward shooting down the compulsory fee laws.

But then Scalia passed away in February, and the resulting evenly split order left open the door for the petitioners to seek a re-hearing, which they did today.

“The Questions Presented in this case are too important to leave unsettled with an affirmance by an equally divided Court,” reads the petition [PDF] for a re-hearing, “and they are guaranteed to recur in the absence of a definitive ruling from this Court.”

Importantly, the petition doesn’t just ask for SCOTUS to re-hear the case, but to re-hear it “after it obtains a full complement of Justices capable of reaching resolution by a five-Justice majority.”

While it’s indeed rare for SCOTUS to grant a re-hearing, the petition cites a number of cases that have been granted a second chance because of an even split among the justices — including a handful of cases that were not heard until the following term.

“The current vacancy will inevitably be filled, and once it is, the tie will be broken,” reads the petition, which argues that it would more expeditious to re-hear this case — given that the eight sitting justices are already familiar with it — than wait for the next similar dispute to work its way through the legal system.

President Obama has nominated Circuit Court judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat left empty by Scalia’s passing, but Senate Republicans have vowed to not hold confirmation hearings for any nominee put forth by the current administration. However, some reports have indicated that the Senate may consider Garland if they believe the next President will nominate a less-appealing candidate.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Yahoo Extends Auction For Its Core Internet Business Another Week

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Companies looking to get a piece of Yahoo’s core internet business — including search, mail, and news sites — have another week to place their bids, as the company extended the deadline for the auction to April 18. Pushing back the deadline means that Yahoo could have a deal in place by June or July. The auction was initiated in February when Yahoo ditched plans to spin off its stake in Alibaba. [Re/Code]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

DOJ Still Pushing Apple To Unlock Drug Suspect’s iPhone, In Spite Of Judge’s Ruling

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

In February, while a federal court in California was pondering whether or not to compel Apple’s assistance in unlocking a terrorist’s iPhone, a federal magistrate judge in New York ruled — in a drug-related case — that the government couldn’t force Apple to defeat its own encryption. In spite of that ruling, the Justice Department now tells the court that it is going ahead with its effort to require Apple’s help.

In the New York case, federal prosecutors originally asked a magistrate judge to order Apple to help bypass the encryption on an iPhone 5S seized as part of a drug investigation.

As in the California case — and dozens of others filed in recent years — the government sought a court order under the All Writs Act, a 227-year-old law that allows a judge to compel a person or group to assist in the enforcement of a court order — but only if that assistance is both necessary and “agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”

In a 50-page ruling [PDF] on Feb. 29, the court denied the government’s request. While there is a need to balance the interests of government, commerce, and citizen, the judge ruled that it was up to legislators to have that debate.

“It would betray our constitutional heritage and our people’s claim to democratic governance for a judge to pretend that our Founders already had that debate, and ended it, in 1789,” wrote the judge. “Ultimately, the question to be answered in this matter, and in others like it across the country,
is not whether the government should be able to force Apple to help it unlock a specific device; it is instead whether the All Writs Act resolves that issue and many others like it yet to come… I conclude that it does not.”

In spite of this ruling, the government has notified federal court Judge Margo Brodie that it intends to soldier on in an effort to get Apple to unlock the iPhone in this case.

“The government’s application is not moot,” reads the letter [PDF] filed today in court, “and the government continues to require Apple’s assistance in accessing the data that it is authorized to search by warrant.”

The California dispute seemed destined to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court until the FBI figured out a way to unlock that device. However, the phone in that case is an iPhone 5C — a different model than the one in the New York case. That would seem to indicate that FBI’s workaround in the terrorism case does not apply in this instance.

This all comes amid the announcement of a bipartisan bill [PDF] in the Senate — the “Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016” — which states that “all persons receiving an authorized judicial order for information or data must provide, in a timely manner, responsive, intelligible information or data, or appropriate technical assistance to obtain such information or data.”

If passed, that legislation would make it clear that companies must comply with court orders to weaken data or leave backdoors in their encryption so that data can be decrypted upon receipt of a court order.

It’s likely that such a bill would face a First Amendment challenge. One of the most salient arguments against applying the All Writs Act to iPhone encryption came from a group of tech experts and privacy advocates, who argued “Apple’s code and digital signature… affirm a commitment and belief regarding the authenticity of the code and the value of their customer’s privacy and security, and that such an order would mean compelling these engineers to “undermine the very security they designed.”

“In other contexts, compelled speech and affirmations of belief that substantially hinder the speaker’s ability to communicate its desired message are clearly unconstitutional,” wrote the experts in their brief supporting Apple’s position.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Pepsodent Shrinks Toothpaste Tubes Slightly To Keep $1 Price Point

http://ift.tt/1MkKsCG

The Grocery Shrink Ray is what happens when a company wants to cut their expenses, but not raise their prices. Pepsodent is a bargain-brand toothpaste that you can pick up in most stores for $1, but reader Tony noticed something when he bought his last tube: it was half an ounce smaller than the previous one, which he still had handy.

We tracked down who owns the Pepsodent brand in the U.S., and it turns out to be Church & Dwight, also known as the corporate parent of Arm & Hammer. We asked whether the changes to Pepsodent are permanent or something special for the dollar and dollar-ish store market. They didn’t get back to us.

Incidentally, Arm & Hammer was the manufacturer of the last toothpaste brand that we featured as a Grocery Shrink Ray perpetrator, back when they added more peroxide but shaved a third of an ounce off the total size of the tube.

Strangely, you can find both versions of Pepsodent on the market: Drugstore.com,, has both the 5.5 and 6-ounce versions available, at different prices. If you really have your heart set on that larger tube, you can pay a few cents more per ounce.

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Netflix Price Hike Coming Next Month For Estimated 17 Million U.S. Customers

https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/netflixprices.png?w=680&h=403

If you’ve got a grandfathered Netflix standard streaming plan that has you paying just $7.99 per month HD streaming, here’s your reminder that you’ll either be paying $9.99 come May for the same quality and the ability to watch content on two screens at a time, or will be stuck in standard definition on only one secreen. You’re not alone — an estimated 17 million customers in the U.S. will be affected by the change, and many of them aren’t aware of it.

Netflix first raised the price of its standard streaming plan — the middle tier between Basic and Premium — for new members by $1 in May 2014.

At that time, Netflix told customers that they’d be releasing members from price grandfathering for the Standard plan in two years, and reminded investors of the coming change in January of 2016.

Netflix confirmed to Consumerist that later this month, UK members will be the first to be “ungrandfathered,” followed by members in other areas next month.

“Beginning in May, the price update is rolling out elsewhere based on member billing periods,” Netflix said in an emailed statement to Consumerist. “Impacted members will be clearly notified by email and within the service, so that they have time to decide which plan/price point works best for them.”

It’s a good thing those customers will be reminded: Business Insider, citing analysts at UBS that estimate the change will affect about 37% of US subscribers, or 17 million people, notes a recent JPMorgan survey that says around 80% of those that will be affected by the plan didn’t know the price hike was coming.

If you are a newer member affected by the price increase last October, however, you’ll be able to hold onto the price for your plan until October of this year, Netflix says, following a one-year price holding period.

Here’s how the prices will break down for everyone, eventually:

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Carrier Must Pay $51M For Allegedly Defrauding Lifeline Program

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

The Federal Communications Commission plans to fine Total Call Mobile $51.1 million after alleging the carrier fraudulently collected payments from a program that subsidizes wireless service for low-income consumers. 

The Commission announced its intention to fine Total Call Mobile on Friday accusing the company of using “widespread enrollment fraud” to collect nearly $10 million in payments from the Lifeline program.

The Lifeline program, part of the Universal Service Fund, is paid for through surcharges on phone bills and aims to provide discounted phone service to people with low incomes so that they have access to the communications tools necessary to connect with jobs, family, and emergency services.

According to FCC documents [PDF], since 2014 Total Call Mobile requested and received more than $9.7 million in payments by signing up tens of thousands of duplicate or ineligible consumers “despite repeated and explicit warnings from its own employees, in some cases compliance specialists, that company sales agents were engaged in widespread enrollment fraud.”

Under the current Lifeline program rules, eligible telecommunications carriers — like Total Call Mobile — receive $9.25 per month for each qualifying low-income consumer receiving phone service. These providers can seek reimbursement for providing services to a consumer after confirming their eligibility and that the consumer is not already receiving Lifeline service.

Total Call Mobile provides Lifeline service in at least 19 states and territories. The Commission says the proposed fine is the largest ever filed against a Lifeline provider.

The action against Total Call Mobile was initiated after the FCC’s Universal Service Fund Strike Force conducted the investigation of the California-based company.

Investigators found, among other things, that Total Call Mobile’s sales agents enrolled tens of thousands of duplicate consumers by making slight changes to a consumer’s identifying information.

Agents also enrolled ineligible customers by using documents, such as temporary Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cards, which contained no identifying information. These cards were allegedly used to enroll multiple ineligible consumers and collect government subsidies.

In one case, the investigators allege a sale agent used identification from a stolen wallet to register 10 Lifeline cell phones in the name of the wallet’s owner without his/her permission. When that agent was arrested and charged with identity theft, they possessed not only the wallet, but 12 additional Total Call issued Lifeline cell phones.

While Lifeline providers are required to ensure their employees do not commit fraud within the program, the investigation alleges Total Call Mobile did not follow that mandate.

The FCC claims that Total Call Mobile was aware of systematic problems related to duplicate enrollments since at least Nov. 2013, but failed to address the issue.

Additionally, the FCC says that in May 2014 employees told Total Call management that they were aware of increasing instances of eligibility fraud, such as the repeated use of single SNAP cards with no name or other identifying information to enroll ineligible or duplicate consumers.

“We reserve the strongest sanctions for those who defraud or abuse federal programs,” Enforcement Bureau Chief Travis LeBlanc, said in a statement. “Any waste, fraud, or abuse in the Lifeline program diverts scarce funds from the consumers they are meant to serve and undermines the public’s trust in the program and its stewardship.”

In addition to fining Total Call Mobile, the FCC says it will consider banning the carrier from participating in the Lifeline program.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

That Overpriced Telecom Market You Never Heard Of? The FCC’s Taking It On This Month.

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

You know how literally just yesterday we shared a report about the mostly-hidden, crazy-monopolistic, vastly important special access market, and all the money it costs everyone? Well, the FCC is really truly on it, the commission announced today.

A blog post from FCC chairman Tom Wheeler sets out plainly what studies and anecdotal reports — and the FCC’s own ten-year-long investigation — have shown: it is seriously time to update the way this business market is handled.

To that end, Wheeler’s office has circulated an NPRM among the other commissioners and their staffs this week aiming to tackle those special access services, with a plan to actually bring them into the 21st century.

MORE: No, Seriously, What The Heck Is ‘Special Access’?

For starters, “special access” itself is gone. The term in use is now “business data services,” which is a lot more accurate to what the issue at play actually is. And perhaps most importantly, the term — like the plan the FCC will introduce around it — is technology-neutral. That means that both the limitations and also the protections built into what comes next will be designed to apply equally to copper wires, fiber networks, cable networks, wireless services, and whatever the next new! improved! technology to come down the road may be.

“If we want to maximize the benefits of business data services for U.S. consumers and businesses, we need a fresh start,” Wheeler writes. “The marketplace is changing. Cable companies are entering the market, and Internet Protocol (IP)-based technologies can now deliver services traditionally satisfied by legacy, circuit-based products. Yet, competition remains uneven, with competitive carriers reaching less than 45 percent of locations where there is demand.”

And when telecom competition is busted, well, the FCC is there. Or at least tries to be.

The general goals Wheeler says his proposal asks for input on are:

• Competition: how can the FCC figure out which markets are competitive already, and then do something about the ones that aren’t?
• Tech neutrality: rules can’t be different for copper and for cable when they serve the same purpose to subscribers.
• The future: seriously, copper wire is so last century. Incentivize upgrades.

This particular document is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NPRM. That’s the one that says, “hey! We want to make a rule about [X], so here are the questions we are going to consider and the data we are going to use in so doing, so please submit public comments on these questions.” In the FCC’s process, that comes months (or years) before a Rule or Order, which is the final step that actually creates and adopts a regulation or law.

That said, Wheeler does write that he hopes “the Commission move forward to adopt a final Order in 2016,” which puts a pretty tight timeline — conveniently, before any looming change in presidential administration — on the proceeding.

The commission will variously stake their claims, announce their support, and/or air their grievances about the proposal at the April open meeting, at the end of the month.

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

BMW Launching A New Car-Sharing Service In Seattle

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

In an effort to dip into the car-booking field in the United States, BMW is planning to launch a new “premium car sharing service” stateside, taking its cues from the company’s existing model in Europe.

The automaker is calling the new effort ReachNow and is planning to offer it first in Seattle, followed by three additional cities in 2016. The goal is to expand the service to 10 North American cities, eventually.

ReachNow “is designed to provide drivers with an experience that is as convenient as owning a car,” BMW said in its announcement on Friday, promising fast registration and an “almost instant approval process.” The initial fleet of 370 vehicles — including the BMW i3, the BMW 3 Series and the MINI Cooper — will soon be parked on the streets of Seattle, with a planned expansion to the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in the next quarter.

After they’re registered — for a onetime fee of $39 — members can use the app to locate and book the closest available car. When they’re done, members can return the car to any legal parking space on the street, including for free at meters and within residential permit zones.

ReachNow vehicles are charged at a rate of $0.49 for each minute the vehicle is used, and $0.30 per minute while parked. ReachNow automatically caps pricing at three different tiers: $50 for up to 3 hours, $80 for up to 12 hours, and $110 for up to 24 hours.

The idea is to “make life on the road easier for people in big cities,” Peter Schwarzenbauer, BMBW’s executive in charge of overseeing car sharing, said in the statement.

“With this service, we are building up on Drive Now, our extremely successful European business model, and bringing it up to a new level in the U.S,” he said.

Down the road, ReachNow will offer additional features: a chauffeur service for those who don’t want to get behind the wheel; a delivery service for car sharing vehicles (for customers who might have a lot of luggage or need a specific vehicle); and the option of renting out your own MINI vehicles.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

AT&T Raises Phone Upgrade And Activation Fee To $20, Matches Verizon

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

You may remember just over a week ago when we learned about Verizon’s plans to raise activation fees for new lines or new phones for old lines for a wider variety of their customers. Someone over at AT&T Wireless apparently thought that sounded like a good idea, since the carrier will also raise its upgrade fee to $20. Worse: Verizon won’t impose the fee if you purchase your own phone elsewhere, but AT&T will.

Verizon’s policy can be confusing, but works out so that if you buy a phone from Verizon, you have to pay the fee on the spot. If you get your phone from a third-party retailer (like an Apple Store) that activates it for you, the $20 fee gets added to your bill. If you buy your phone elsewhere and take it to a Verizon store to be activated, you don’t have to pay the fee.

AT&T decided to dispense with all of this nonsense, and just charge everyone the fee, no matter where they got their phones. If you buy a device that has two-year contracts available, the activation fee for that contract is $45. Otherwise, whether you buy a pricey phone using AT&T’s installment plans or you find an ancient feature phone lying on the sidewalk, you have to pay $20 to activate it.

About wireless activation and upgrade fees [AT&T]
AT&T charging $20 upgrade fee even when you bring your own phone [Ars Technica]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Nursing Students Sue ITT Tech Over Misleading Enrollment Practices, Substandard Program

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

The lawsuits continue to pile up for embattled for-profit college company ITT Education Services. Just days after the Massachusetts Attorney General filed a suit alleging the operator of the ITT Technical Institute brand engaged in a slew of abusive and misleading practices, a group of 11 Tennessee nurses have filed their own complaint accusing the company of deceiving students during the recruitment process about the school’s accreditation prospects. 

The 11 nursing students claim in the complaint, filed Wednesday in Davidson County Circuit Court, that ITT Technical Institutes and Breckinridge School of Nursing in Nashville deceived students into enrolling in the nursing program despite knowing they would get a subpar education, The Tennessean reports.

According to the complaint, since at least 2014, the school has misled countless students into enrolling at the campus by promising that the program would be fully licensed by the state and accredited in the near future.

Recruiters also allegedly claimed during enrollment that class credits earned in the program would transfer to other academic institutions.

However, the 11 students suing the company say the accreditation never materialized and their credits were essentially worthless.

Credits earned by the students were not transferable to other institutions and the degrees obtained by some students could not serve as a basis for a Bachelor of Science in Nursing or other advanced degrees at other academic institutions, the suit claims.

To date, the nursing school has not received program-based accreditation and the Tennessee Board of Nursing has repeatedly refused to approve the school, The Tennessean reports.

The students claim that ITT enrolled them even though the school was unable to provide an adequate education to prepare them to graduate and pass a state-mandated, post-graduation examination.

In fact, according to the complaint, the school’s program provided such substandard teachings that it led to “abysmal (state-sponsored National Council Licensure Examination) passage rates and abysmal job prospects.”

In addition to the misleading enrollment process, the students claim the school pushed them into expensive loans.

One student says she took out $13,000 in student loans in order to participate in the two-year program. After she filed grievances with the school, The Tennessean reports, the woman decided to enroll at a different school where her credits did not transfer.

“They were willing to take out big loans to further their education based on false statements and misrepresentations by ITT officials who preyed on these students’ hopes and dreams,” a lawyer for the students tell The Tennessean. ”Now these students have been left holding the bag while ITT walks away with their tuition money.”

With the lawsuit, the students are seeking a refund of all costs associated with enrollment and tuition.

ITT Education Services tells The Tennessean in a statement that the company will “vigorously” defend itself.

“As students continue to be recruited around the country by political activists and others targeting this higher education sector, ITT Technical Institute finds itself being increasingly attacked with pile-on allegations of misrepresentation,” the company said. “All students, at enrollment, must sign multiple and regular disclosures about their programs of study — including accreditation and the transferability of credits. ITT Tech will vigorously defend itself against any such complaints and provide the necessary documentation to set the record straight. We’re hopeful that our day in court will shine light on the claims made and provide an accurate and complete picture to the public.”

The complaint is just the latest in a string of lawsuits filed against ITT Education Services and its ITT Technical Institute brand.

Earlier this week, the Massachusetts Attorney General sued the company for allegedly harassing and misleading thousands of students in the state.

In May 2015, the SEC filed fraud charges against current and former executives with the company for their part in concealing problems with company-run student loan programs.

According to the SEC complaint [PDF], the loans performed so poorly by 2012 that the company’s guarantee obligations were triggered. However, instead of disclosing the issue to investors, the SEC alleges that ITT and the executives engaged in a fraudulent scheme and made a number of false and misleading statements to hide the magnitude of ITT’s guaranteed obligations to the loan programs.

Before that, in February 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued ITT for allegedly pressuring students into predatory loans and misleading students on future job prospects and salaries.

In January, an unsealed whistleblower lawsuit against for-profit college chain ITT Technical Institute accused the school of operating a “systematic scheme” to defraud the government by using a litany of abusive, deceptive practices to enroll students.

Middle Tennessee nursing students sue ITT Technical Institute [The Tennessean]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Judge Tells Minnesota Vikings & Wells Fargo To Settle Stadium “Photo Bombing” Spat

http://ift.tt/1TQffpB

It’s the first week of baseball season, and pro hockey and basketball teams are making their final pushes for the playoffs, so the last thing on many sports fans’ minds is football. Perhaps that’s why the judge in the “photo bombing” spat between the Minnesota Vikings and Wells Fargo is telling the two parties to stop wasting everyone’s time and just work something out.

A quick recap of earlier action: The Vikings sued Wells Fargo right before Christmas, alleging that the bank is attempting to squeeze free on-air visibility with signs placed on a pair of Wells buildings in Minneapolis, adjacent to the site of the team’s new stadium — which just happens to be sponsored by U.S. Bank.

Figuring that the new venue will get significant screen time in the coming seasons — especially when it hosts the Super Bowl in 2018 — the Vikings made deals with real estate owners surrounding to site to limit their signage so that it wouldn’t compete with the branding that U.S. Bank paid millions for.

That includes the two recently constructed Wells Fargo buildings. The Vikings say that signs placed on the roofs of these buildings violate their agreement with the team, and that they are a deliberate attempt score free on-air marketing in aerial shots of the site.

The signs in question can not be seen from the ground, but are illuminated 56′ x 56′ Wells Fargo logos that can only be seen from above. Even though football season is months away, the Vikings asked the court to order Wells to immediately cover the signs with tarps.

Wells Fargo lawyers responded by mocking the Vikings’ urgent tone and questioning the validity of the team’s claims that these rooftop signs would do anything to undermine the value of the branding on U.S. Bank Stadium.

It’s made for good off-season headlines — poking fun at both the Vikings’ self-serious claims of damage and Wells Fargo’s unquenchable desire to slap its logo on every surface it can — but the judge in the case seems to have had enough.

On Wednesday, the court ordered [PDF] both sides to have serious settlement talks… presumably so we can all move past this matter an onto more important things, like fretting over the NFL draft.

And just in case either side wants to drag things out, the judge makes it clear that “Counsel who will actually try the case and each party, armed with full settlement authority, shall be present” at the April 26 settlement conference, meaning “Don’t send a paralegal and Jimmy from the mailroom.”

Additionally, any other parties that might be involved by the settlement — insurance providers, other companies — they must have a representative on hand who is empowered to make decisions on that party’s behalf.

The team and bank can avoid the settlement conference — for which they “should plan on spending the entire day and evening” — by reaching a deal on their own before then. If they don’t do that, they will have to provide detailed explanations in writing to the judge as to why they can’t hash out a settlement over a couple of signs.

This is the second NFL photo bombing dispute in recent months. Just before Super Bowl 50, Verizon and Visa got in trouble with the city of San Francisco over building-height ads put in place with the apparent intention of being seen on camera during all the coverage of the big game (even though the Super Bowl was many miles away in Santa Clara.

[via StarTribune.com]

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Passengers Suing Spirit Airlines Over In-Flight Brawl Sparked By Boombox

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Three passengers who were aboard a Spirit Airlines flight when a brawl broke out over an overly loud boombox are now suing the carrier, claiming that Spirit “failed to protect” them from harm.

Some of the women who were involved in the kerfuffle last month sued Spirit on Thursday, claiming flight attendants added fuel to the drunken fire by providing rowdy passengers with excessive amounts of alcohol, and failing to protect them from injury, reports the New York Daily News.

“I am upset that Spirit Airlines failed to protect us, disregarded our safety, and instead continued to serve the women in front of us alcoholic beverages even though they were clearly intoxicated and behaving aggressively,” one passenger and plaintiff said in statement on Thursday.

She and her friends and fellow plaintiffs say they were on the flight from Baltimore to Los Angeles for a vacation, when three other female passengers near them got drunk during the flight. The other women were blasting music from a portable speaker for hours, singing along loudly and dancing in the cabin, the plaintiffs’ lawyer Gloria Allred said at a press conference.

When they were asked several hours into the flight to turn down the music, the rowdy passengers complied, but then blasted the music even louder, the plaintiffs claim.

A flight attendant who had allegedly danced to the women’s music earlier in the flight provided them with additional rounds of boozy beverages before landing, despite their behavior, the plaintiffs say.

The plaintiffs claim that the drunk women allegedly shouted offensive and racist remarks, and initiated the brawl.

They’re suing for unspecified damages. Spirit Airlines has denied the allegations, CBS Los Angeles reports.

Spirit Airlines passengers battered in fight sue the carrier for continuing to serve alcohol to assailants, failure to protect them [New York Daily News]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

IRS Now Accepting Cash Tax Payments At Your Local 7-Eleven

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Jonesing for a Slurpee and still need to pay your taxes? You can kill two birds with one stone with the Internal Revenue Service’s new payment option: taxpayers can fork over what they owe in cash at one of the participating 7,000 7-Eleven locations in the country.

Though the partnership with 7-Eleven might seem odd at first, for those who don’t have a bank account or credit card, this provides an option for them to pay their taxes with cash.

“We continue to look for new ways to provide services for our taxpayers. Taxpayers have many options to pay their tax bills by direct debit, a check or a credit card, but this provides a new way for people who can only pay their taxes in cash without having to travel to an IRS Taxpayer Assistance Center,” said IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.

If you’re interested in paying at 7-Eleven, you should make sure you get started on the process well before the filing deadline of April 18, as it’s a three-step process that can take some time.

Here’s how it works:

• Visit the IRS.gov payments page, and select the cash option under “other ways you can pay,” and follow the instructions.
• Taxpayers will then receive an email from OfficialPayments.com, an IRS partner, confirming their information.
• Once the IRS verifies that information, another IRS partner company called PayNearMe sends the taxpayer an email with a link to the payment code and instructions.
• You can then either print the payment code provided or send it to your smart phone, along with a list of the closet 7-Eleven stores.
• 7-Eleven will provide a receipt after accepting the cash, with the payment usually posting to the taxpayer’s account within two business days.

There is a $1,000 payment limit per day and a $3.99 fee per payment.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Senate Votes Against Minimum Legroom, Spacing Standards For Airline Seats

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Earlier this year, Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY) said he would try to get federal regulators to come up with limits for airline seat size and spacing. But yesterday, his fellow senators shot down that effort.

Schumer’s legislation — introduced as an amendment to the bill reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration — would have required the FAA to set a minimum standard seat size for commercial airlines. The goal, said the senator, was to establish a hard line that the airlines could not cross in their effort to squeeze more passengers on to planes.

Existing seat sizes and spacing would remain in place, but any future changes would have to remain above whatever minimum the FAA set.

Airlines would have also been required to post information about their seat sizes so that travelers could use this information to help make their choice of carrier.

“Over the last few decades, between the size of the seat and the distance between the seats, the flying public has lost half a foot of their space,” said Schumer before yesterday’s vote. “You would think that by cramming in more and more passengers on each flight, the airlines could lower their prices. Instead, several major airlines went in the other direction: They started charging for the
extra inches and legroom that were once considered standard. So it practically costs you an arm and a leg just to have space for your arms and legs.”

In the end, the Senate voted 54-42 against adopting this amendment to the FAA reauthorization. Voting was primarily along party lines, with one Republican (Susan Collins of Maine) voting in favor of the amendment, and three Democrats (Tom Carper of Delaware, Missouri’s Claire McCaskill, and Jon Tester of Montana) voting against.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

More Colorado Communities Vote To Toss Restrictive State Law, Explore Municipal Broadband

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Colorado is one of the 20 states with some kind of industry-friendly, public-network-blocking law on the books. But in this state, there’s a catch: instead of being blocked altogether, state law prevents communities from running service unless local voters specifically authorize it first.

And authorizing it seems to be something Colorado voters are more than happy to do.

Last November, Colorado voters in 44 cities, towns, or counties absolutely overwhelmingly voted to approve measures supporting local authority of telecom services, in some cases winning over 90% of votes.

During local elections this week, another nine communities had muni broadband measures on their ballots — and once again, those measures were met with overwhelming popularity.

The Denver Business Journal reports that as of today, results are in for eight of those nine areas, and in every single one voters approved, by large margins, proposals permitting local authorities to start exploring the possibility of providing broadband services.

That doesn’t mean these communities are necessarily getting new networks, of course. They are largely small and/or rural communities, and wiring those up is complicated and costly — two big reasons that incumbent private providers leave would-be consumers hanging. But at least they can come up with a plan if they want to, now, which is more than they could do before the election.

Meanwhile, the futures of the state laws themselves are a bit up in the air right now. Last year the FCC voted to pre-empt state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina that prevented cities from expanding existing, successful local networks. The states appealed, as you might expect, and oral arguments for that case only just took place last month, so any final ruling is still months away.

Colorado towns vote overwhelmingly for municipal broadband internet [Denver Business Journal via DSL Reports]

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Judge Rejects Proposed Settlement In Lyft Class Action

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

To settle a class action filed by their drivers in California, ride-hailing service Lyft and the drivers’ attorney agreed to a settlement back in January. One flaw with the settlement was that it had been negotiated based on the company’s roster of drivers in June 2015, right before Lyft expanded significantly, including in California. The judge now won’t approve that figure, declaring it to be too low.

The idea of the settlement is to compensate drivers for at least a teeny portion of their vehicle expenses, and Judge Vince Chhabria ruled yesterday that the total settlement needs to be much higher to even approach doing that, estimating that the amount Lyft could really owe their drivers might be as high as $126 million.

“Shouldn’t you have estimated what the value would be through the entire class period?” the judge asked back in March, which may have been an early sign that he wasn’t going to approve the settlement.

The drivers’ attorney had originally set the compensation figure at $64 million, and the parties negotiated from there. The suit was originally filed with the goal of gaining employee status for drivers, which would bring with it minimum wage protections, overtime pay, and mileage reimbursement for their driving or compensation for their vehicle expenses.

The one non-financial benefit that drivers will gain from the suit is that Lyft has promised to no longer arbitrarily remove their access to the app (effectively firing them) without telling them why.

Judge Denies Lyft’s $12 Million Settlement With Drivers [Wall Street Journal]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Man Accused Of Giving Dunkin’ Donuts Drive-Thru Staff A Peep Show They Never Asked For

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

There are many things fast food staff working in the drive-thru have probably had to see that they didn’t want to, we have no doubt. Workers at a New Hampshire Dunkin’ Donuts just added one more to their list, after a man allegedly cruised through the drive-thru while exposing his genitals.

According to the Dover Police Department, a 30-year-old man exposed his nether regions to employees as he went through the store’s drive-thru on March 27, reports WGME.com.

Employees called the police after the man left, and gave a description of him and his vehicle. He returned the next day in a different vehicle, but that time he apparently kept everything in his pants. Witnesses were able to recognize him despite the change in cars, and took down his registration number.

Detectives traced the man through that registration number, and further investigation resulted in an arrest warrant for the suspect. He turned himself into police on Thursday morning and has been charged with one count of indecent exposure.

Man accused of exposing his genitals in Dunkin’ Donuts drive-thru [WGME.com]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Hyundai Recalls 173K Sedans Because Power Steering Shouldn’t Just Stop Working

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Power steering helps drivers maneuver their vehicles by taking away some of the steering effort. When the system unexpectedly fails it can take drivers by surprise and increase the risk of a crash. For that reason Hyundai is recalling thousands of sedans. 

The recall covers 173,000 model year 2011 Hyundai Sonatas that contain Electronic Power Steering (EPS) circuit boards that may be damaged.

According to a notice [PDF] filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, damage to the circuit board can occur resulting in illumination of the EPS warning lamp in the instrument cluster accompanied by a loss of steering assist.

If the malfunction occurs, the vehicle will unexpectedly revert to a manual steering mode. While Hyundai says that steering control can be maintained, greater driver effort is required.

Hyundai began investigating the issue in March 2015 after receiving warranty claims from vehicle owners. Investigators eventually found that the circuit boards could fail over time when exposed to the environmental effects.

The company says it is unaware of any crashes or injuries related to the issue. Hyundai will notify Sonata owners of the recall and dealer will begin fixing the affected vehicles in May.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Comcast Tells Florida Customers They’ll Be Losing Channels; Won’t Say Which Ones

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Comcast giveth (by accident) and Comcast taketh away (via form letter with no pertinent information). The cable giant is telling some Florida customers that they will soon be losing channels they weren’t supposed to get, but isn’t telling them which ones.

The company explains to TCpalm.com that a routine review of subscribers in the Treasure Coast region of the state, Comcast noticed that customers were getting channels that weren’t supposed to be included in their subscriptions.

And so Comcast recently began blasting out letters to affected subscribers to let them know that they won’t be enjoying as many programming options going forward.

Problem is, the letters make no mention of which channels customers will soon be saying goodbye to.

A rep for Comcast tells TCpalm.com that this is because the removed channels are specific to each subscriber, but the company decided to just send out an infuriatingly vague form letter instead of figuring out how to mail out customer-specific notices.

And so, affected Comcasters in the area — specifically in the counties of Indian River, Martin, and St. Lucie — will find out on April 11 which channels they will now have to pay extra to get.

In all its beneficence, Comcast says it will not charge subscribers for the channels they were not supposed to get.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Maryland Passes Bill That Would Keep Pesticides Harmful To Bees Off Retail Shelves

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Although some retailers have stopped selling pesticides that are thought to be harmful to bees, amid concerns over the declining population of honeymakers, Maryland will become the first state to have a legal measure barring the products.

The Pollinator Protection Act gained final approval in the state’s General Assembly on Thursday, reports the Baltimore Sun, after the House and Senate had previously approved versions of the bill. It’s now with Governor Larry Hogan, and will become law if he signs it.

Consumers won’t be allowed to buy any pesticides that contain neonicotinoids — also known as neonic pesticides — starting in 2018, if the bill becomes law. However, farmers, veterinarians, and certified pesticide applicators will still be allowed to use those pesticides.

Environmental groups have been pushing the bill, with the help of beekeepers, who often showing up at the State House wearing all-white beekeeping attire. Advocates of these kinds of measures say that there’s evidence that neonicotinoids are helping kill off bees, which are very important because of their job pollinating plants.

Maryland would become the first state to have such a law on the books. Portland, OR has banned pesticides containing neonicotinoids, while home improvement chain Lowe’s promised to stop selling those products to consumers in 2015, and other retailers including BJ’s Wholesale Club and Home Depot stopped sale on the pesticides in 2014. Ace and TruValue Hardware are now considering taking similar action.

“We hope it also motivates other states — and the federal government — to reduce the use of toxic neonic pesticides,” Ruth Berlin, executive director of the Maryland Pesticide Education Network said in a statement. “Our future food supply is at stake.”

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Uber To Pay $25M To Settle Allegations It Misled Passengers On Drivers’ Safety, Fees

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Less than two months after Uber agreed to pay $28.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit accusing the company of misleading consumers about its “industry leading” safety procedures, the ride-hailing company is ready to put another case behind it. The company will pay $25 million to settle a civil lawsuit with the district attorneys in Los Angeles and San Francisco over nearly identical allegations. 

The two prosecutors announced the settlement on Thursday, putting an end to a lawsuit that accused Uber of giving customers a “false sense of security” by overstating the safety measures it uses to screen drivers.

The suit, filed in Dec. 2014, contended that Uber, which uses an outside private firm to screen prospective nonprofessional drivers, was in violation of California law for its alleged mischaracterization of the extent to which it vets its drivers.

The district attorneys argued that Uber’s background checking practices, which rely heavily on the use of information supplied electronically by prospective drivers, can easily be compromised if applicants use stolen or false identifications.

“Uber continues to misrepresent and exaggerate background checks on drivers,” Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey said at the time the lawsuit was filed. “It’s not our goal to shut them down. What we’re saying is their advertising is false.”

In addition to accusations about mischaracterized background checks, the lawsuit claims that Uber charged passengers an additional $4 for trips to and from San Francisco International Airport even though the company lacks a permit to do business at the airport and the company doesn’t pay the airport fee.

The company was also accused of failing to obtain approval from state regulators on how to calculate fares.

Under the settlement, which was filed on Thursday in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California, Uber is required to pay $10 million to be split between Los Angeles and San Francisco counties within 60 days. The remaining $15 million civil penalty will be waived in two years if the company complies with all of the settlement’s terms.

Additionally, the company, which admits no wrongdoing in the settlement, must revise the safety-related language around the fees that the company charges for each ride, and ensure that its fare calculations meet accuracy standards set by the California Department of Agriculture’s Division of Measurement Standards.

The company must also receive approval from airports in California to have its drivers drop off and pick up passengers and can no longer charge an airport “toll” unless it or its drivers pay the entire fee to the airport, according to the agreement.

“We’re glad to put this case behind us and excited to redouble our efforts serving riders and drivers across the state of California,” Uber said in a statement.

The company outlined how it has changed or will change its practices as a result of the settlement.

For example, Uber says it has agreed to allow ridesharing only at airports in California where it has explicit permission and has already changed the way it describes airport fees.

Uber says it has agreed to no longer use terms like “safest ride on the road” or describe its background checks as “the gold standard.”

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds

http://ift.tt/1RIoutl

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

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

Federal Judge: Government Didn’t Prove MetLife Is ‘Too Big To Fail’

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

How can a financial company become a threat to the entire economy? If its failure would be catastrophic for the economy and the financial system, it’s considered “too big to fail.” That concept was formalized as part of the Dodd-Frank financial legislation of 2010, and the government has special requirements for institutions considered too big to fail. Today, a federal court ruling was unsealed where a judge ruled that the government didn’t sufficiently prove that one such company, MetLife, really fit the requirements.

The official term for these institutions is a systemically important financial institution, or a SIFI, not to be confused with the cable channel SyFy. MetLife was found to be such an institution, even though it isn’t a bank. After insurer AIG came close to failure back in 2008 and received a $182 billion bailout (which AIG did pay back early) insurance companies joined the ranks of companies that the government could declare too big to fail.

According to the Washington Post, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled that MetLife doesn’t have to meet the requirements of a financial institution that’s too big to fail, which include tighter pro-consumer regulations and being required to keep more money on hand than a less important financial institution might.

Judge Collyer noted that the panel which decides which institutions are designated too big to fail, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, did not consider how the government’s stricter requirements for an insurance company that’s considered a SIFI would affect MetLife’s operations and finances. The panel declared that MetLife’s failure would be disastrous for the economy, she wrote, but they didn’t explain specifically how.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is deeply concerned about the ruling. “This decision leaves one of the largest and most highly interconnected financial companies in the world subject to even less oversight than before the financial crisis,” he said in a statement. While the Department of Justice plans to appeal this ruling, other companies could sue to be un-designated, and the process of designating a bank as too big to fail would become longer and more onerous, if not impossible.

Secretary Lew shared his opinion over Twitter. In other news, the Treasury Department has a Twitter account.

In overturning the conclusions of financial regulators, the court contradicted key lessons from the fin. crisis. http://pic.twitter.com/KyCGcKdd5w

— Treasury Department (@USTreasury) April 7, 2016

U.S. failed to show how MetLife is “too big to fail,” judge says [Washington Post]
Government’s too-big-to-fail authority slammed by judge [USA Today] (Warning: auto-play video)
MetLife CEO Steven Kandarian: The Man Who Beat Uncle Sam [Wall Street Journal]
MetLife Unsealed [Wall Street Journal] (A TL;DR version of the judge’s ruling)

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Boss Scam Toll Reaches $2.3 Billion In Less Than 3 Years

http://ift.tt/1GChucz

In law enforcement, they call this scam the “Business Email Compromise.” We refer to it as the “Boss Scam” or “CEO Scam.” What happens is that someone contacts a person inside a business, pretending to be the chief executive officer or other boss-like person. They ask for one of two things: a wire transfer, or personal information about the employees under the real boss’s charge. Both scams are still going strong, and a new FBI report says that the scammers have taken at least $2.3 billion since 2013.

So far, the scam has been reported in 79 countries and all 50 U.S. states. Since tracking began in October 2013, from this scam alone, 17,642 victims report losses of $2.3 billion, for an average of $130,370 per incident. This is all relative, of course: some individual companies have lost millions.

Compromising employee income tax data doesn’t immediately cost anything, unless the employer offers identity theft protection as an apology.

While good spam filters are useful in keeping this kind of scam out of your company’s mailboxes, remember that a successful e-mail scam uses social engineering to get into your pockets. The e-mail address itself could look authentic: perhaps the message comes from bossmeg@c0nsumerist.com or bossmeg@consumer1st.com, a fake domain name that the scammer has registered.

FBI: $2.3 Billion Lost to CEO Email Scams [Krebs on Security]
FBI Warns of Dramatic Increase in Business E-Mail Scams [FBI]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Air France Offering Younger Customers A 30% Discount With New Rewards Program

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Here’s something we haven’t seen in the U.S. yet: Air France is intent on wooing the younger crowd of fliers, and is willing to bestow perks on them for being loyal passengers with a new rewards card.

The young-people-only card is only for customers ages 12 to 24, and will cost €49 ($56) and last for a year, Air France President Frederic Gagey said Friday, as reported by Bloomberg.

The discounted fares will be available with Air France and its regional carrier Hop!, but not with discount subsidiary Transavia.

The rewards program is an effort to attract younger customers who might otherwise use long-distance buses or rail tickets to get where they’re going. While France’s rail operator offers youth discounts, most airlines don’t.

“There’s a huge opportunity for us in targeting consumers who don’t currently fly, both in terms of filling our planes and building loyalty at an early age,” Lionel Guerin, who heads Hop!, told Bloomberg.

Air France Courts Young Travelers With 30% Loyalty Discount [Bloomberg]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Pennsylvania Man Charged With Racketeering For $688M Payday Loan Operation

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

A Pennsylvania man, known for helping to usher in the payday loan movement, has been charged with racketeering for his alleged part in a scheme that bilked more than $688 million from consumers and defrauded 1,400 others from a million-dollar settlement. 

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Thursday announced that Charles Hallinan had been charged with two counts of conspiracy to violate the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) relating to his payday lending operation.

According to the recently unsealed indictment [PDF], Hallinan, Delaware lawyer Wheeler Neff, and Randall Ginger, a Canadian citizen who was a hereditary chief of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation in British Columbia, took part in a scheme that generated more than $688 million from consumers from 2008 to 2013.

Hallinan owned, operated, financed, and/or worked for more than a dozen businesses, including Easy Cash, My Payday Advance, and Instant Cash USA, between 1997 and 2013 that issued and collected debt from small, short-term payday loans.

The companies allegedly charged customers about $30 for every $100 they borrowed. These charges put the annual interest rates on the loans at more than 700%.

The indictment alleges that Hallinan and Neff conspired to evade laws that deem such loans as usurious by, among other things, paying thousands of dollars each month to three Native American tribes to pretend that they were the actual payday lenders and claim that “tribal sovereign immunity” shielded their conduct from state laws and regulations.

The two men are also accused of assisting another payday lender, Adrian Rubin — who has been charged elsewhere — to evade state anti-usury laws by entering into sham contracts designed to give the false impression that a Native American tribe was the true lender.

Hallinan also allegedly worked with Ginger to defraud nearly 1,400 people into abandoning a lawsuit against one of Hallinan’s operations valued at more than $10 million.

In 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Indiana against Apex 1 Processing, a payday lending company that Hallinan ran out of offices in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.

According to the indictment, Hallinan offered to pay Ginger $10,000 every month to pretend that he owned Apex 1 and that Apex 1 had no assets, so the plaintiffs would settle their lawsuit for pennies on the dollar. Neff allegedly facilitated that scheme.

The case against Hallinan, Neff, and Ginger is part of a larger crackdown by the FBI and regulators on abusive lending practices.

If convicted of all charges, Hallinan faces a possible 12 years in prison, while Neff and Ginger both face at least eight years in prison.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Remember: Your Eye Doctor Should Give You Your Prescriptions After Your Exam

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Generally, you don’t visit your doctor and then buy the medicine that she prescribes right from her office. Contact lenses are different: you generally order those directly from your doctor’s office, and you often order glasses from the same place too. Yet you don’t actually have to: you have the right to actually buy your glasses or contacts anywhere that you want, whether it’s for a better price or because you really like Warby Parker frames.

The Federal Trade Commission dictates that your doctor has to give you a copy of your prescription to take home, even if you’ve ordered your lenses or glasses already, and even if you don’t ask for one. Having a copy of your own prescription is handy even if you have no plans to go elsewhere for glasses or contacts.

This is called, naturally, the “Contact Lens Rule,” and comes from the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act, a 2003 law.

Contact lens retailer 1-800 Contacts is in a unique position to know about violations: yes, they have a vested interest in making sure that consumers get copies of our prescriptions so we can order directly, but they also have the task of confirming prescriptions sent to them from across the country.

1-800 Contacts recently announced that they submitted 28,000 reports of violations to the Federal Trade Commission, which included optometrists refusing to verify their patients’ prescriptions to prevent them from going elsewhere for their contact lenses. If retail eye clinics and doctors’ offices offer competitive pricing, that doesn’t hurt consumers, but it’s an issue if they don’t.

Prescription Glasses and Contact Lenses [FTC]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Would You Still Eat That If You Knew How Much Exercise It’ll Take To Burn It Off?

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

There are times when we feel like throwing caloric caution to the wind and just chowing down on whatever we darn please. But if the evidence is staring you right in the face, with cold hard facts about how much exercise it will take to burn off that food or beverage, would you change your eating habits?

According to a survey by the Royal Society for Public Health, a UK charity dedicated to health and wellness education, 53% of respondents said that seeing the amount of physical activity they’d have to do to make up for eating or drinking something would encourage them to “positively change their behavior” by eating smaller portions, picking healthier foods and exercising more, an article in BMJ, a British medical journal, says.

The article is trying to make the case that cluing consumers in to the “activity equivalent” involved in consuming their favorite things is the ideal way to promote healthy choices, and thus, address the growing obesity problem, notes MarketWatch.

As they are, labels are too confusing, the article’s author’s say.

“The public is used to being told to avoid particular drinks and to cut down on specific foods,” the article says. “By contrast, activity labeling encourages people to start something, rather than calling for them to stop.”

Putting activity equivalent info on labels wouldn’t just be about maintaining a healthy weight, the article adds.

“The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has described regular physical activity as a ‘miracle cure’ because it boosts self esteem, mood, sleep quality, and energy levels and reduces the risk of stress, depression, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease,” the authors note.

Would you change what you eat if you knew how much work it’d take to burn it off later? Weigh in with our poll below.

Food should be labelled with the exercise needed to expend its calories [BMJ]
Would you eat better if calorie labels made you feel guilty? [MarketWatch]
by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Victoria’s Secret Parent Company Restructuring, Plans To Rely Less On Catalog

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Before the era of online commerce, catalogs were the holy grail of shopping without leaving your house. Top on the list for many consumers were the thick books full of Victoria’s Secret merchandise. While the retailer continues to send out those catalogs, the company’s parents has plans to step away from the iconic mailers in the future.

L Brands, the company behind Victoria’s Secret and several other retail brands, announced Thursday that it will restructure the retailer’s business in an attempt to streamline operations and focus more on its core merchandise offerings, Bloomberg reports.

The company plans to refocus how it reaches customers, and that apparently doesn’t include the use of as many catalogs.

The company says that the restructuring will include changes in how it connects with customers “through more focus on loyalty programs and brand-building engagement rather than traditional catalogues and offers.”

Additionally, L Brands says the reorganization will cut about 200 corporate jobs and transition Victoria’s Secret’s business into three units focused on lingerie, the PINK brand, and Victoria’s Secret Beauty.

“These changes are necessary for our industry-leading brands to reach their significant potential,” L Brands CEO Les Wexner said. “Nonetheless, decisions about people are the most difficult ones to make.”

Victoria’s Secret Cuts Jobs as Lingerie Giant Shifts Away From Iconic Catalog [Bloomberg]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Tesla Says It Has Received More Than 325,000 Preorders For The Model 3 In First Week

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

What a difference a few days makes: after exceeding the record for preorders of a vehicle by bringing in 276,000 reservations in just three days, requests for Tesla’s $35,000 Model 3 electric car don’t appear to be slowing down. The carmaker says it’s now sold more than 325,000 vehicles in the week since it began taking orders for the less expensive model. That works out to be about $14 billion worth of electric cars that won’t actually be ready until sometime next year. [The Associated Press]

 

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Report: New Bill Would Let Judges Order Tech Companies To Break Encryption; White House Not Thrilled

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

The public fight Apple and the FBI recently had over one particular phone may have resolved itself, but the national discussion over encryption is just warming up. Now there’s a bipartisan effort to make a decision wandering through Congress… but the politics of it say that this particular bill is going to go nowhere fast.

Reuters reports today that there’s a draft bill in the Senate seeking to make tech companies more answerable to law enforcement, but adds that the White House — approval from which is needed step in making bills into law — is not exactly all in on the effort.

Senators Richard Burr (NC) and Dianne Feinstein (CA) are expected to introduce a bill regarding phone encryption as soon as this week, according to Reuters. The draft text will give judges authority to order tech companies to help law enforcement when asked to — basically, it would be a newer piece of law to fall back on than the All Writs Act of 1789, which is the one that usually sees use for this sort of thing.

However, sources tell Reuters that the bill “does not spell out what companies might have to do or the circumstances under which they could be ordered to help,” and therefore really doesn’t necessarily change the underlying discussions at play, both in the tech world and in government. Nor does the bill specify penalties for failing to comply.

Encryption and device security have become a bit of an unexpected rallying call this year. With the election looming seven months away, lawmakers from both parties have been eager to carve out stances claiming they want to protect both national security and also individual privacy. Senator Ron Wyden delivered a rousing speech last week extolling the virtues of encryption and vowing to shut down any bill that proposed to screw with it.

Although President Obama implied last month that he felt law enforcement agencies need a way to access potentially encrypted information, the current administration, now in its last year, appears poised to kick the issue to whoever starts sitting in the big chair next January. Reuters, when asking for comment on the current bill, received only a reiteration of last month’s press statement from the White House that the administration is “skeptical” of Congress’s ability to resolve the encryption debate.

Exclusive: White House declines to support encryption legislation – sources [Reuters]

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Some Jerk Stole 19 Cases Of Provolone From A Colorado Restaurant

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

While we take all forms of food theft very seriously, when someone commits a cheese-related crime, we get very annoyed. We’re none too pleased right now with the jerk who pilfered almost $2,000 worth of provolone from a Colorado eatery, a jerk whose crime is depriving potential customers of the enjoyment of eating cheese.

Police are looking for the provolone poacher who swiped the cheese — which the restaurant uses to make pizza — the overnight Tuesday, reports The Pueblo Chieftain.

According to police, the cheese thievery went down sometime on Tuesday night when the suspect broke into the restaurant, damaging doors in the process. A manager said the thief also broke through padlocks on a restaurant freezer to get to the cheese. Again, I can’t condone such actions, but that is some serious dedication to dairy.

All told, the thief boosted 19 cases of provolone cheese worth about $1,900. Cheese was the only item taken.

This isn’t the first time the restaurant’s provolone has been targeted recently, the manager says — it’s the third or fourth time in the last month and a half.

So far, 30 cases of cheese worth around $3,000 has been stolen. The manager believes one thief is responsible for all the recent thefts, and that he or she is trying to sell off the stolen products.

The manager says he and other restaurant folks think it’s the actions of a single suspect. But this time, the suspect was caught on security cameras the inn recently installed. Officials are now hoping the video images will help police track down the person responsible.

“It’s strange to us. This has never happened to us,” the manager says. “We’ve had some things in the past but never food items, you know? We’ve never had to worry about that and we’ve never had that problem. This guy has started looking at us and monitoring us.”

Provolone poacher hits Pueblo eatery [The Pueblo Chieftain]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Best Buy Moving Forward With Same-Day Delivery, Adds 11 Cities To Pilot

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Six months after Best Buy jumped on the same-day delivery bandwagon by launching a pilot program in San Francisco, the electronics retailer plans to expand those tests to additional cities around the country. 

Best Buy unveiled plans this week to expand same-day delivery of everything from phone chargers to laptops to additional cities served by delivery partner Deliv.

In addition to San Francisco and New York, which was added to the tests earlier this year, customers in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Philadelphia, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. can place orders through BestBuy.com and have them delivered in a matter of hours.

Best Buys says that customers can choose the quick-shipping option by selecting “expedited shipping” when checking out. Fees for same-day delivery vary between $10 to $20 per order. Best Buy already offers customers the choice of in-store pickup.

Orders must be placed on BestBuy.com by 3 p.m. local time and will be delivered by 9 p.m. that day. Same-day shipping is not available on Sunday or for items that weigh more than 50 pounds.

“The same-day delivery initiative is part of Best Buy’s ongoing commitment to improving the in-store and online shopping experience,” the company says. “We want our shoppers to be able to get what they want, when and where they want it.”

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist