Menu

Friday, May 6, 2016

House Fire Survivor Waits Over A Year For IKEA Contractor To Finish His Kitchen

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

When a big retailer like IKEA refers you to a specific contractor, that means they’re pre-screened and you shouldn’t have any problems, right? Not necessarily. In California, a man who just wants to move back into his house after a fire and a significant remodel has been waiting for more than a year for IKEA’s contractor to just finish his kitchen already.

Back in 2014, the fire was devastating, but at least he had the remodeling and moving back into his home to look forward to. He spent $10,000 on kitchen fixtures, including drawers and cabinets, at his local IKEA, and the retailer sent a company called Traemand to install the new kitchen.

The installation wasn’t finished, and he found himself stuck between Traemand and IKEA for more than a year. “I felt like I would have less headaches” going through a big retailer, he told NBC LA. (Warning: auto-play video at that link)

A representative of the Contractors State License Board in California explained to the TV station that a referral from a trusted big-box store doesn’t mean that a contractor is necessarily any good, and you should be sure to check them out before agreeing to start any work. (If you live in California, here’s the site where you would do that.) You also shouldn’t have to pay for work in full ahead of time.

Apparently, a phone call from a TV station was good motivation. While they don’t specify exactly what part of the kitchen was left unfinished, IKEA made up for the year of waiting with a $15,000 cash refund and $10,000 in store credit.

The homeowner should probably not use any of that credit for items that Traemand would install.

After House Fire, Man Waits 14 Months for New IKEA Kitchen [NBC LA]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Could You Get Sued For Texting Someone While They Are Driving?

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

However prevalent it may be, texting while driving is unsafe and, in most places, against the law. What those laws don’t address is the liability of the person on the other end of that text message. If you’re safe at home texting someone who then crashes their car, could you be held liable? It’s a possibility, according to some recent court rulings.

A Pennsylvania driver is currently being sued for wrongful death and negligence by the estate of a motorcycle rider who she killed with her vehicle when she was allegedly distracted by reading and responding to text messages on her phone.

The judge in this lawsuit was recently asked to determine if the two men who were texting the driver at the time of the incident could also be held accountable.

Both men — one of them the driver’s husband — raised preliminary objections, arguing that they should not have to face these allegations because Pennsylvania state law only prohibits drivers from texting while operating a vehicle and makes no mention of the responsibilities or liabilities of someone sending texts to the driver.

However, the judge ruled [PDF] in March that the lack of a specific law outlawing the sending of texts to a driver doesn’t automatically mean the sender of those texts is free of any liability.

The court’s rationale is that, if the texter knows — or has good reason to believe — that the person they are texting is operating a vehicle, they may ultimately share some responsibility if that other person crashes their car while reading or responding to the texts.

This ruling does not say that the two men are definitely liable or that they even did anything wrong; it only means that the lawsuit against the texters can continue.

In making this decision, the PA court relied heavily on a 2013 ruling by a New Jersey appeals court that also involved the culpability of someone who sent a text to a driver involved in a car crash.

“We hold that the sender of a text message can potentially be liable if an accident is caused by texting,” wrote the appeals court, “but only if the sender knew or had special reason to know that the recipient would view the text while driving and thus be distracted.”

At the same time, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the texter — a young teen who had messaged the driver immediately before he crashed into a couple on a motorcycle, resulting in each of the two victims losing their left leg.

The court said that had not presented sufficient evidence in their appeal to prove that the teen texter knew her friend was driving when she sent him the message.

Additionally, in order to hold a third party liable for the bad behavior of the driver, the court explained there would need to be a “special relationship” between the two, wherein the third party could have exerted some control over the driver’s conduct. The appeals court determined that no special relationship existed in this case, and that there was no evidence that the texts sent to the driver “actively encouraged him to text her while he was driving.”

“Even if a reasonable inference can be drawn that she sent messages requiring responses, the act of sending such messages, by itself, is not active encouragement that the recipient read the text and respond immediately, that is, while driving and in violation of the law,” reads the ruling.

The New Jersey court also rejected the umbrella argument that someone is liable simply because they know the person they are texting is driving. After all, one could send a text to a driver not expecting that person to see or respond to the message until later.

“[A]dditional proofs are necessary to establish the sender’s liability,” explained the court, “namely, that the sender also knew or had special reason to know that the driver would read the message while driving and would thus be distracted from attending to the road and the operation of the vehicle.”

Thus, while the court believes that remote text message senders can be liable if the person they are chatting with crashes their vehicle, it’s not a slam-dunk case for anyone who tries to bring a liability claim against the texter.

Though the Pennsylvania and New Jersey rulings don’t definitively settle the issue, University of South Carolina law professor Bryant Walker Smith tells Vocativ.com that these developments — along with the recent lawsuit against Snapchat for its speed-measuring feature, and New York’s “textalyzer” legislation — the legal system is starting to take distracted driving seriously.

“People often see distracted driving as a socially acceptable sin, a kind of inside joke writ large, an innocuous guilty pleasure in which everyone indulges,” says Smith. “The same used to be true of drunk driving, smoking and physical abuse [and other] actions with actual victims. These legal developments could signal that a similar change in thinking is underway regarding distracted driving. They could also help accelerate that change.”


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Warner Music Is Now Making More Money From Streaming Than Any Other Source

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Streaming music, that once-reviled technology that had big record companies shaking in their boots, is turning into quite the industry darling. Warner Music Group has certainly changed its tune, announcing today that streaming music is now bringing in more revenue for the company than any other single source of recorded music.

This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, as Warner Music has already seen streaming music sales overtake digital downloads, as of last year. This new milestone is a big one, the company said, claiming it as an industry first.

“We are now the first major music company to report that streaming is the largest source of revenue in our recorded music business, surpassing our revenue from physical formats,” Stephen Cooper, Warner Music Group’s CEO said in a press release reporting results for its second fiscal quarter.

Warner’s streaming music revenue rose $72 million in the quarter, with half that coming from sales outside the U.S. Downloads declined by $17 million, and physical revenue dropped by $6 million. Recorded music sales are up in general, rising by 10% overall.

Warner and other music companies would like an even larger chunk of that streaming revenue, of course, and have been pushing services like YouTube to close the “value gap,” Billboard notes, which means the disparity between how fast streaming music is growing and ad-supported streaming revenue. The music industry has argued that protections called “safe harbors” make it possible for user-generated videos to monetize videos that aren’t posted by the copyright holders of that music.

Cooper touched on that issue during the earnings call, while not calling out YouTube specifically.

“We fully support this unified movement to clarify copyright legislation around so-called ‘safe harbors’ in order to create the conditions necessary for the improved monetization of music,” he said. “It is imperative that we ensure a fairer correlation between the massive consumption of music via services built around user-uploaded content and the value generated for artists, songwriters and rights holders.”


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

FCC Officially Gives Green Light To Merger Of Time Warner Cable & Charter

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

A couple weeks back, both the FCC and the Justice Department made it clear that they were not going to challenge the massive merger of Time Warner Cable, Charter Communications (and the third wheel of the merger รก trois Bright House) after putting some conditions on the deal. Today, the FCC officially confirmed that it has given its blessing to this marriage of inconvenience.

While the Commission has yet to reveal the vote breakdown on the decision, it is known that at least one of the five commissioners, Ajit Pai, voted against approving the deal — not because he didn’t support the merger, but because he opposes the conditions placed on the merger by FCC Chair Tom Wheeler and others.

“The FCC’s merger review process is badly broken,” a Pai spokesperson told The Hill yesterday. “Chairman Wheeler’s order isn’t about competition, competition, competition; it’s about regulation, regulation, regulation… It’s about imposing conditions that have nothing to do with the merits of this transaction. It’s about the government micromanaging the internet economy.”

While Pai might be bemoaning the regulations put upon the merger, the 23 million customers of “New Charter” will enjoy at least one aspect of those conditions: no data caps.

MORE: 5 Things You Should Know About The Approved Merger Of Time Warner Cable & Charter

Under the deal accepted by the companies, New Charter will no enact any sort of data limits or usage-based pricing for at least seven years.

That means that while Comcast and other internet service providers rush to cap users’ monthly data allotments, New Charter customers won’t be burdened with such concerns — at least until after 2023.

What they will be burdened with is a merged company where both the old and new owners have, at best, subpar reputations for providing reliable customer service.

The merger still faces a not-small hurdle in the form of the California Public Utility Commission, which has yet to sign off on the merger. The CPUC must approve the deal in order to allow TWC to hand over its substantial franchises in the state (for example, much of Los Angeles) to Charter. If the state regulator has concerns about the merger, it could try to impose additional conditions on the deal or deny the swap of the California franchises, which would likely lead to a courtroom battle.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Cruise Ship Passengers Helping Themselves To Free Coffee & Donuts At Homeless Shelter

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

We get it: Cruises can be expensive, and often the food and drink at ports of call can be pricier than what you pay back home. But that doesn’t mean you have to bogart the free coffee and donuts at the homeless shelter near the dock.

For many cruise ships making the trip up the Pacific coastline to Alaska, the small city of Ketchikan is the first stop heading north, allowing travelers to get off the ship for a bit, walk around and do a bit of shopping before moving on to the next port.

Earlier this week, at a meeting of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Assembly, the operator of First City Homeless Services, a downtown day shelter in the city, revealed that not all of the people who visit the shelter are homeless, especially during the cruise season between May and September.

“The season opened this week, and one of the hidden items that happens as a result of the proximity of the day shelter to downtown and the cruise ships is we do often get the husband who doesn’t want to go shopping anymore to come to the shelter to sit — seriously — to drink our free our free coffee, use our free bathrooms, and eat our free donuts,” she explained to the Assembly. “So proximity to downtown for the day shelter even benefits the cruise agencies.”

While the shelter is seeking more money from the Borough, it’s not looking to bar the cruise ship freeloaders.

“We are for the homeless, but we’re also for the community, for anybody, who needs a safe place to stay,” the shelter’s services manager tells the Seattle Times. “This door is open for anybody who needs resources… I just can’t see myself turning somebody away for a cup of coffee even if they’re not from here or they’re using the bathroom or if they needed a break from walking around.”


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Judge Rules That Uber Drivers’ Contractor Status Doesn’t Mean Company Can’t Be Sued After Sexual Assaults

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Two passengers in different states who were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers are suing the company, and the judge in this case just made an important ruling: drivers’ status as independent contractors rather than employees doesn’t mean that the company can’t be sued for sexual assaults that drivers commit against their passengers.

Yes, this is an actual argument that the company’s attorneys made in the lawsuit. People who receive their employment assignments from an app are, in most cases, legally independent contractors, but that’s something that regulators will need to sort out in the next few years as these services grow.

Uber recently settled a massive California class action lawsuit filed on behalf of drivers, who remain independent contractors instead of employees, but will receive cash settlements from the company if the settlement is approved. Drivers’ status simply hasn’t been challenged yet up to the highest state or federal courts.

The judge didn’t say that Uber drivers are employees, but that if they were employees, these cases would be no different from situations where employees have assaulted people they come in contact with while performing their jobs.

“Assaults of this nature are exactly why customers would expect taxi companies to perform background checks of their drivers,” the judge wrote. “Holding Uber liable could also forward the underlying policy goals of respondeat superior, including prevention of future injuries and assurance of compensation to victims.”

The first plaintiff (called Jane Doe 1, in Massachusetts) had her claim for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of the driver who assaulted her dismissed. The other driver accused of assault had a 12-year-old domestic violence charge on his record that Uber missed because its background checks only go back 7 years. The driver accused of assaulting Doe 1 was a recent immigrant who had only been in the country for 3 years, and a more extensive background check wouldn’t have turned up any other relevant information.

That claim was dismissed, but the rest of the lawsuit will be allowed to go forward. “The Court applied existing California law to our facts and denied Uber’s attempt to dismiss based on the weak argument that drivers are not employees,” plaintiffs’ attorney Jeanne Christiansen said in a statement e-mailed to Consumerist.

Judge Says Uber Can’t Kill Sexual Harassment Lawsuit On Contract Employee Grounds [Buzzfeed]
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (PDF)


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Microsoft Will Finally Stop Nagging PC Users To Upgrade To Windows 10 In July

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

If you’re running any version of Windows on your PC that isn’t Windows 10, you’re undoubtedly familiar with Microsoft’s persistent efforts to push users to upgrade, by way of pop-ups and automatic installations. Those days will be over soon, as Microsoft is promising to stop nagging folks come July.

July 29 marks the last day that Windows 10 will be a free upgrade for existing Windows users (it’ll be $119 to upgrade after that point), and it’s also the last time anyone will see an annoying pop-up notification to “Get Windows 10.”

“Details are still being finalized, but on July 29th the Get Windows 10 app…will be disabled and eventually removed from PCs worldwide,” Microsoft told WinBeta in a written statement.

Which is certainly a relief for the many customers who were irked to find Windows 10 downloading on its own, or seeing it appear as a “recommended update”.

Microsoft says Windows 10 is now on 300 million active devices, with a goal of getting more than 1 billion devices running the operating system actively on a monthly basis, PCWorld notes.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Amazon Now Expanding Same-Day Delivery To All ZIP Codes In 27 Cities

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Two weeks after being called out for omitting ZIP codes with predominantly non-white residents from its same-day delivery service, Amazon is now pledging to cover those areas in all the markets where it offers the expedited delivery option.

Bloomberg reports that Amazon, which recently promised to expand same-day delivery coverage to areas of the New York City and Boston markets that had been ignored, has told the Congressional Black Caucus that it will expand Prime Same-Day to “every ZIP code of the 27 cities” where the service is currently available.

Amazon also says it won’t offer same-day service in any new markets unless it knows it will be able to deliver in every ZIP code of that market.

“We are still figuring out the details and procuring last mile delivery for each of these ZIPs,” says Amazon, “but we should have 100 percent coverage shortly.”

The issues with Amazon’s service came to light after a Bloomberg investigation found that non-white areas of six cities — Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, New York and Washington, D.C. — were not able to take advantage of the same-day delivery benefits seen in areas with more white residents.

The company has maintained that race was not a factor in deciding which areas to offer the same-day delivery option.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Carnival Cruise Line Hiking Automatic Gratuity Charge By Almost $1

http://ift.tt/1Tsnvdp

If you’re heading out on the high seas with a Carnival cruise starting next fall, expect to see a heftier automatic gratuity charge on your bill than in journeys past.

Starting Sept. 1, the auto-gratuity charge will be increasing by almost 8%, from $12 to $12.95 per person, per day for passengers staying in most cabins, Carnival says in an update to its FAQ page. If you’re staying in a suite, you can expect an even bigger hike, paying $13.95 per person, per day.
Screen Shot 2016-05-06 at 12.46.38 PM
The charges can add up — if you’re a family of four, as KHOU-11 points out, you’ll be paying $360 more in automatic gratuities on a seven-night cruise than you do now.

Customers with existing cruise reservations for later this year can still lock in the current gratuity rates by pre-paying them before Monday, May 9. And although the charge is automatically added, it’s just a suggested amount, the cruise company notes, so you can adjust how much daily gratuity is posted to your account while you’re on the ship by visiting Guest Services.

Looking to sail with another cruise line? Carnival’s hike will put it at the same level as Princess Cruises, and above the fees at Holland America ($12.50). Royal Caribbean and Norwegian Cruise Line are still pricier at a $13.50 per person, per day automatic gratuity charge.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Central Standard Timing Files For Insolvency In Illinois, Don’t Expect Watches Or Money

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Hey, remember the CST-01, the Kickstarter-funded ultra-thin watch cuff that failed as a business proposition and as a real-world invention? The watch was funded in February 2013, but assembled and working watches never materialized. After announcing plans to liquidate and then going silent for 11 months, the project posted one more update for its backers: insolvency documents that the company filed with the state of Illinois.

Backers put up $99 to $129 per piece to get one of the watches, and the project collected over $1 million. Specifically, $1,026,292, and now the company claims to have $30,000 in assets, which includes $10,000 each in patents, equipment, and “inventory.” That inventory doesn’t consist of finished or mostly-finished watches, though, or they could theoretically just ship those out to backers.

Some news outlets are reporting that the company filed for bankruptcy, but that’s not quite true: the document is an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors, an alternative to the federal bankruptcy courts that’s available in some states, including Illinois. We don’t have a copy of that filing yet, but Slashgear does, and they note that while backers can file claims if they want to, they have to hand over their Social Security number to do so.

If you’re a backer, you can find the filing and instructions for how to file your own claim against what used to be Central Standard Timing LLC. With so many debts and so few assets, it seems unlikely that Kickstarter backers will see any money at all, but that’s up to you.

Backers of canceled e-ink watch won’t get their money back [Engadget]
CST-01 Watch officially dead: company files for bankruptcy [Slashgear]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Court: Facebook Must Face Facial-Recognition Privacy Lawsuit

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Six years after Facebook launched a feature that scans uploaded photos to see if it can recognize faces and suggest people to tag, a lawsuit about the social media site’s facial-recognition tech has been given the go-ahead by a federal court.

The lawsuit [PDF], filed in 2015 by a group of three Facebook users from Illinois, alleges that Facebook violated an Illinois state law, the Biometric Information Privacy Act, by failing to properly alert users to the fact that Facebook was collecting and storing a massive database of potentially hundreds of millions of users’ faces. Facebook is also accused of failing to publicly reveal its retention policies for biometric data.

While Facebook users can opt out of the “Tag Suggestions” feature, the lawsuit claims that the company doesn’t make it easy.

“In fact, since the Tag Suggestions feature was rolled out, Facebook has kept its biometrics data collection practices out of its privacy policies and has instead placed ambiguous statements about the true nature of its Tag Suggestions program on remote sections of its website (such as in its “Help Center” or the now defunct “Notes” sections),” reads the complaint. “Uncovering these remote sections not only requires a user to know about Tag Suggestions in the first place, but also requires them to affirmatively seek out more information through multiple layers of additional pages.”

In response to the lawsuit, Facebook argued that the plaintiffs could not bring the case under Illinois law because they had, as part of the Facebook terms of use, agreed that California law governs any disputes with Facebook.

While the court found that the plaintiff users had indeed agreed to the Facebook terms of use, it ultimately determined that Facebook could not use this clause to negate the Illinois state law.

In a ruling [PDF] released yesterday, the District Court judge found that Facebook’s requirement that all disputes be governed by California law runs “contrary to a fundamental policy of Illinois” and that Illinois “has a greater interest in the determination of this case.”

“There can be no reasonable doubt that the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act embodies a fundamental policy of the state of Illinois,” explains the court, noting “if California law is applied, the Illinois policy of protecting its citizens’ privacy interests in their biometric data, especially in the context of dealing with ‘major national corporations’ like Facebook, would be written out of existence.”

It seems likely that Facebook will appeal the court’s ruling, as it could set a consumer-friendly precedent.

Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum, tells Bloomberg that the court in this case if effectively saying that “state law will be applicable in cases where a national company attempts to try cases in their own state without applying all states’ laws.”


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Would You Want To Hang Out With Your Airbnb Host/Guests?

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Usually, in-person interactions between Airbnb hosts and guests are limited to things like handing off keys, or running into each other in the hallway if the host is staying in the home. Because let’s face it, you normally wouldn’t hang out with the concierge at the front desk of a hotel. But for those people looking for a more personal connection, the home-sharing service is looking into the idea of pairing guests with hosts for leisure activities during their stay, like going on tours and playing sports together.

Company co-founder and chief technology officer Nathan Blecharczyk told the BBC that because people seem cool with staying in the home of a stranger, which is a more intimate experience than say, an impersonal hotel room, there could be a demand for personal connections while traveling.

“What we’ve demonstrated is there’s an immense appetite to travel more authentically and immerse yourself in culture… as opposed to having a commoditized experience,” Blecharczyk told the BBC.

He says Airbnb hosts want to get in on the guests’ experiences in their cities, even with simple things like going on a bike ride on their favorite route, playing a game of Frisbee, or just you know, hanging out, like you do with your friends.

“…Connecting with real people having a good time, that’s something not currently available in the professionalized world of hospitality,” explains, adding that the company is “thinking beyond accommodation.”

Is this something you’d be into, or does the thought of spending time with strangers make you want to run and hide?

Airbnb looks at expanding into leisure activities [BBC]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

3 DIY Teeth-Whitening Solutions You May Want To Avoid

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Have you ever smiled into the mirror and noticed your teeth were a little too reminiscent of that cup of coffee you enjoy each morning? Teeth-whitening solutions range from expensive high-tech treatments, to commercially available strips and gels, to a vast number of cheap DIY suggestions posted on social media sites like Facebook and Pinterest. While some of these low-cost whitening methods may work, others may be ineffective or actually do more harm than good.

The folks at Cosmopolitan took a look at several of these DIY suggestions for brightening your smile on the cheap and found some that work and others — like the ones listed below — that are better off avoiding:

1.) Baking Soda-Lemon Juice Mix — While the mixture uses ingredients that can easily be found in most kitchens, Dr. Kevin Sands, a Beverly Hills dentist, tells Cosmopolitan the solution can break down the outer layer of your teeth.

“This can be dangerous,” he says. “Baking soda is abrasive and lemon juice is highly acidic. The combo can be erosive to the enamel.”

2.) Baking Soda Paste — Mixing baking soda with a few drops of water to create a paste seems fairly simple. But keeping that concoction on your teeth for 10 minutes will probably feel like an eternity.

As with the previous DIY method, Dr. Sands warns that using baking soda can be too abrasive if brushed harshly against enamel, causing more damage than whitening.

3.) Homemade Cinnamon Mouthwash — Swigging a bit of cinnamon water — complete with honey and lemon — doesn’t sound too bad, but Dr. Sands says the combination is too acidic and high in sugar for a daily whitener.

As Cosmopolitan points out, the lure of DIY or home remedies can be strong, but its important to remember that each component of a mixture or treatment has a very different purpose and it might not be right for your needs.

Check out other DIY-whitening remedies to skip by checking out Cosmopolitan’s full list of teeth hacks.

What You Need to Know Before Trying a Pinterest Teeth Hack [Cosmopolitan]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Comcast Charges Family For Porn Rentals Made After They Canceled Service

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

You know those hacky crime novels and movies where a suspect is locked up because everyone is convinced he’s the killer — only to later be vindicated when the murders continue while the suspect is behind bars? This story is like that, but with porn instead of dead bodies.

The ABC affiliate in Tampa reports on a local couple who started receiving purchase-confirmation emails from Comcast thanking them for the many, many porn movies they had rented from Kabletown.

As usually happens, the couple’s protests — we didn’t order these; we’ve never ordered porn before, why would we start now? — fell on uncaring ears at Comcast, which continued, even after the involvement of the local news team, to insist that “The box that is sending the authorization signal to order on-demand movies is the box that is assigned to the account.”

Rather than continue to have Comcast treat them like they were starring in a porn movie, the couple canceled their service and shipped back the box that had allegedly been used to purchase all of these erotic videos.

That box went back on April 7, and yet porn purchases continued to rack up on the account on April 10-12.

Only then, after this obvious error was pointed out, did Comcast admit to a “data stream” error that they dub as “unique,” but which we’ve certainly heard before.

In the end, the couple’s account was credited for the porn and Comcast still a company that treats its customers very badly.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Massive Frozen Vegetable Recall Linked To 2 Deaths, 8 Illnesses

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Federal health and safety regulators have opened an investigation into a listeria outbreak related to the recent recall of more than 350 different varieties and brands of frozen vegetables after eight people from three states — two who later died — became infected with strains of the bacteria. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with the Food & Drug Administration, are collaborating with state health officials to investigate the outbreak that may have begun three years ago.

According to the CDC, eight people infected with the outbreak strains of listeria have been reported from Maryland, California, and Washington since September 13, 2013.

Two of the illnesses were reported in 2016. The remaining six illnesses were reported between 2013 and 2015, and were identified through a retrospective review of the PulseNet database.

The CDC reports that all eight people were hospitalized, including one from Maryland and one from Washington who died. However, officials say listeriosis was not considered to be a cause of death for either person.

Three of the eight ill people, or their caregivers, were interviewed by health officials using a questionnaire that asked about a variety of foods.

Two of these three people reported buying and eating frozen Organic by Nature brand frozen vegetables in the month before the illness began.

The CDC reports that listeria was first found in CRF products during a routine product-sampling program conducted by the Ohio Department of Agriculture.

Officials with the Department collected packages of frozen vegetables from a retail location and found listeria contamination in True Goodness by Meijer brand frozen organic white sweet cut corn and from True Goodness by Meijer brand frozen organic petite green peas.

“Epidemiologic and laboratory evidence available at this time indicates that frozen vegetables produced by CRF Frozen Foods of Pasco, WA and sold under various brand names are one likely source of illnesses in this outbreak,” the CDC says. “This is a complex, ongoing investigation, and updates will be provided when more information is available.”

Investigations are ongoing to determine if food sources used to manufacture CRF Frozen products could explain some of the illnesses.

“CDC and state and local public health partners are continuing laboratory surveillance through PulseNet to identify additional ill people and to interview them,” the CDC says.

The massive recall of CRF Frozen-produced vegetables began last week when the company announced that 15 frozen vegetable products sold at Costco and Meijer may contain listeria.

CRF suspended operations at its Pasco facility following the initial voluntary recall, so a thorough review could be conducted.

Since then, CRF revised the initiative, recalling all frozen fruits and vegetables processed at its plant in Pasco, WA since May of 2014. That includes 358 different varieties of frozen fruits and veggies sold under 42 brand names at major retailers, including Walmart, Safeway, BJ’s, Costco, Aldi, and Meijer, in all 50 states.

If you have any questions about a product that you’ve purchased or about the recall in general, call CRF Frozen Foods at 844-483-3866. You can also e-mail CRF8364@stericycle.com.

Here are the brands that you should look for in your freezer. If you identify any of them, check the item against the FDA’s recall list. Unfortunately, there isn’t really any way to simplify checking, with almost 350 different products involved.

  • Bybee’s
  • C.H. Belt’s
  • Chef Maxwell
  • Columbia River Organics
  • Correct Choice
  • Earth’s Pride
  • Emerald Farms
  • Endico
  • Farmer’s Bounty
  • Fiesta Mart
  • Great Value (Walmart)
  • The Inn
  • James Farm
  • Kirkland Signature (Costco)
  • Life Foods
  • Live Smart
  • Mity Fresh
  • Mountain Mist
  • Northwest Growers Select
  • Organic by Nature (Costco)
  • Parade
  • O Organics (Safeway)
  • Overhill Farms
  • Panda Express
  • Pantry Essentials (Safeway)
  • Price First (Walmart)
  • Quirch
  • Safeway Kitchens
  • Schwan’s
  • Season’s Choice (Aldi)
  • Simply Nature (Aldi)
  • Trader Joe’s
  • True Goodness (Meijer)
  • USDA Bulk Packs
  • VIP
  • Wellsley Farms (BJ’s)
  • Wild Oats
  • Veggie Maria

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Report: JCPenney Slashed Workers’ Hours, Took Other Drastic Measures To Cut Costs

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

According to a new report, JCPenney had to work fast to cut costs recently after sales were unexpectedly sluggish last month. Some of the drastic measures the department store took included telling managers to cut workers’ hours, freeze overtime, and ban store markdowns.

These emergency moves came as a surprise to JCPenney employees, the New York Post reports, citing an internal company memo addressing an “expense challenge” the company was facing at the end of its first fiscal quarter.

“We have an expense challenge for the month of April and are asking all stores to do their fair share by closely monitoring all expenses,” the memo said.

Both full- and part-time employees had their hours slashed. If an employee worked 25 hours a week before the cuts, their hours were reduced to 10 or 15 hours.

All told, the cuts saved JCPenney about 800 hours over two weeks, or about $8,000 per store.

“Employees expect reduced hours in the slow months of January and February but not in April,” one employee told the Post. “When the quarterly figures are released, they do not represent the financial struggles and low morale of the thousands of associates company-wide.”

The temporary cuts included tightening the use of corporate cards, as well as banning store markdowns. One employee said that anyone walking into a JCPenney store during those two weeks probably saw a messy wasteland of clothing, as the worker said there weren’t enough employees to keep things tidy.

JCPenney is still struggling to recover from the reign of Ron “The Sale Killer” Johnson. New CEO Marvin Ellison has been on the job since August and has seen some success: JCPenney did pretty well in the holiday season compared to its competition, with a 4.1% uptick in same-store sales.

Despite that, employees are feeling a bit unsettled after the recent cuts, with the employee who spoke to the Post wondering, “Are we going to have to worry at the end of each quarter?”

JCPenney takes emergency measures to protect bottom line [New York Post]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Sears Will Close Its Oldest Operating Store, Which Opened In Chicago In 1925

http://ift.tt/21E7qaH
(Richie Diesterheft)
Corporate cutbacks mean losing company history, and the next store on Sears Holdings’ closing list is historic: having opened in 1925, it’s the oldest still-operating store in the chain. The store, which is in Chicago’s Ravenswood neighborhood, will begin its liquidation sale in two weeks, on May 19, and will ultimately close in August.

The store wasn’t the first department store location that Sears opened, but it was the first standalone location: the first store was part of the company’s headquarters complex. The store, in the Ravenswood neighborhood, opened at the end of 1925, the first year that the company began opening its first downtown department stores in Chicago. Other stores in Chicago from the same era that closed in 2013 remain standing but empty, and a local politician expressed worry to DNAinfo that the same could happen to this neighborhood store.

“We can’t have that hulking building sitting empty,” Alderman Ameya Pawar said, but at the same time he said that the distinctive architecturally significant building should have landmark designation instead of being torn down.

Sears to close historic Ravenswood store [Crain’s]
Store History – Chicago: Lawrence and 79th Street Stores [Sears Archives]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Seven People Sent To Hospital After Allegiant Plane Hits “Severe Turbulence”

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

The end of a tropical trip turned into a nightmare of sorts for 137 passengers on an Allegiant Airline flight when the plane encountered turbulence strong enough to jostle people around the plane and sent seven to the hospital upon making an emergency landing. 

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that the flight from the Dominican Republic to Pittsburgh made an unexpected stop at the Fort-Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport on Thursday afternoon after “severe turbulence” injured passengers on board.

Passengers say the flight was experiencing normal turbulence when they felt a jolt pulsate through the aircraft, followed by a second, bigger jolt strong enough to toss some passengers from their seats.

“My first thought was, ‘This is it,’” one of the passengers, told Post-Gazette. “I never experienced this before, this type of turbulence before. It was really, really scary.”

“I thought, ‘the plane’s going down, and I’m going to die.’ It was like the plane’s falling out of the sky,” another passenger tells the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

“It was an experience, I tell you,” another passenger recalls. “I’m so happy to be alive. I’ve been on many flights. This was unreal.”

According to the airline, the plane was diverted to Florida at about 1:37 p.m. where emergency crews met it upon landing.

“Initial reports from our crew indicate that it was unreported moderate clear air turbulence that caused the injuries and subsequent diversion,” Allegiant Air said in a statement.

In all, the airline says three passengers and four flight attendants were transported to local hospitals for treatment.

Two of the passengers reportedly suffered head injuries, while the third may have experienced issues due to an unrelated medical condition. The airline was unable to provide an update on the passengers’ or flight attendants’ conditions.

The remaining passengers arrived in Pittsburgh hours after it was scheduled to originally land.

Allegiant flight arrives in Pittsburgh after 7 injured by ‘severe turbulence’ [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]
Passengers ‘happy to be alive’ after turbulence hits flight [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Thursday, May 5, 2016

The Limited Opened A Stealth Chain Of Off-Price Stores

http://ift.tt/1Wcz13o

The popular thing for department and clothing stores to do in recent years has been to open their own off-price stores, and women’s clothing retailer The Limited wants to join that party. They’re using the familiar model from Nordstrom Rack, Saks Off Fifth, and J. Crew Factory Stores–some deep-discounted merchandise that didn’t sell in regular Limited stores, but mostly cheaper items designed specifically for price-conscious customers.

In 2015, Macy’s, Kohl’s, Lord & Taylor, and J. Crew announced that they’d be opening downscale stores that are definitely not outlets.

backroom-04-18

Surprisingly, these stores were already open: the chain opened a few test stores quietly starting back in February to test the concept. They’re scattered across the country, and here’s where you’ll find them:

Mall Town State
Augusta Mall Augusta GA
Livingston Mall Livingston NJ
Cottonwood Mall Albuquerque NM
Staten Island Mall Staten Island NY
Great Northern Mall North Olmstead OH
Sunland Park El Paso TX

You could say that the company is after the teen market that have wandered over to fast-fashion brands like H&M and Forever 21, but the chain’s VP for stores and outlets insists that they are not getting into the fast-fashion sector. “It’s really not faster to market than our core offerings, so I would hesitate to call it fast fashion,” he told the Columbus Dispatch. The clothes will, however, be cheaper than typical Limited offerings.

Limited launches brand with lower-priced clothes in mall stores [Columbus Dispatch]
BACKROOM at THE LIMITED [Official Page] (via Chain Store Age)


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

U.S. Government Used Fake University To Catch Visa Brokers, Swept Up Students Too

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

To root out the education brokers who guide international students to fake colleges that are only visa mills, the Department of Homeland Security set up its own fake university. Yet should the institution’s students, most of whom came from China and India, have known that the school wasn’t legit when it had full government approval and accreditation?

This spring, the University of Northern New Jersey was finally exposed as a fraud, but a fraud perpetrated by the federal government, meant to catch the brokers. These go-betweens charge students thousands of dollars to place them in programs that might keep them in the country. Many students simply paid their broker, who in turn paid the fake university. Were they simply well-meaning visitors or immigrants who thought that was just how things work here?

22 alleged brokers were arrested as a result of the sting, and they helped a total of 1,076 UNNJ “students” obtain visas, many of them using their status as UNNJ “students” to work in the United States. People who enrolled had typically come over to attend real colleges as normal international students, graduated, and wanted to find a way to stay longer, yet didn’t qualify for other visa programs.

Some of the students now claim that they didn’t really understand that enrolling in a school and not attending classes for years on end wasn’t normal. There are plenty of internships, co-op work programs, and online programs in this country, after all. The school was also fully accredited and was on the Department of Homeland Security’s list of approved schools to issue student visas.

Yet the Department of Homeland Security doesn’t believe this excuse, and the fake university’s forner students will face immigration hearings. They could be deported, or banned from immigrating to or even visiting the United States.

Students at Fake University Say They Were Collateral Damage in Sting Operation [New York Times]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Apple Music’s Confusing Deletion Of Songs Is One Reason You Should Back Up Your Files

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Powering on your computer only to find that all of your downloaded music, including original content, is nowhere to be found is an understandably devastating situation. But it’s one that has apparently happened to several Apple Music users since the service launched last year. 

The ordeal, detailed in a blog post on Velluma Atlanta, has taken users by surprise and left many wondering why the music service would take it upon itself to delete files from users’ hard drives.

James Pinkstone says he was told by an Apple support rep that the company’s new Music subscription service deletes files from its users’ computers after evaluating and comparing the files with Apple’s own database.

According to the Velluma blog post, once files are compared to Apple’s database for matches, the original files are removed from the internal hard drive.

“If Apple Music saw a file it didn’t recognize—which came up often, since I’m a freelance composer and have many music files that I created myself—it would then download it to Apple’s database, delete it from my hard drive, and serve it back to me when I wanted to listen, just like it would with my other music files it had deleted,” Pinkstone wrote.

While Pinkstone outlines several issues with the system, including the fact that users would lose access to the song database if they aren’t connected to WiFi or instances in which Apple’s matches aren’t accurate or result in lower quality tracks, the biggest problem is that if a user hasn’t backed up their files lately, they could be gone forever — or at least until they have enough time to re-download them.

The issue certainly shows why it’s important to create backups of your files, a notion seconded by the blog iMore, which suggests the deletion of files from users’ hard drive is likely a result of Apple’s confusing system, not a nefarious plot to clear your music library.

“Apple Music should never automatically delete files off your primary Mac’s hard drive unless you specifically delete them first,” Serenity Caldwell writes.

The confusion starts with the way in which Apple Music operates. Once someone subscribes to the service it scans their music library and matches any tracks to its own streaming library.

This is done so that when you’re on a second device — like a smartphone or iPad — you can stream the tracks at their highest quality without taking up space on the machine, iMore points out.

The process results in two libraries; one stored on your original computer with all your original files, and an iCloud-stored library that can be used on other devices.

iMore suggests that users likely get tripped up after these matches are completed and they move on to use a secondary device.

“Any songs you play on those devices are sourced directly from your iCloud Music Library, and even if you download them locally, they can be removed from your device if your iPhone’s storage space dips too low,” iMore states.

If for some reason you have deleted the original copy from your computer, you can re-download the track from your iCloud Music Library, which could result in a lower quality track.

Users who press delete on a song in their iTunes Library when Apple Music or iTunes Match is enabled will be greeted with a confusing pop-up that states: “This will delete this song from your iCloud Music Library and from your other devices. To keep this song in your library and on your other devices, you can remove this download instead.”

By pressing the “remove download” option users are sending their local file from their hard drive to their trash. The content won’t officially be removed from your computer unless you dump your trash.

The song, however, is left in the iCloud Music Library.

While iMore says the system might be helpful for some users, it should only ever be used on a secondary computer or secondary iTunes Library — never for your master library.

“As such, I’ve advised from the beginning to always keep a master copy of your original library when using streaming services that match your library, and back up that library before signing up for anything cloud-related,” Caldwell writes.

Of course, understanding the confusing system doesn’t help bring back anyone’s deleted files, or fix issues with Apple Music’s matching service.

“iCloud Music Library is always going to be complicated, and people are going to make mistakes because of it. And if they don’t have backups, those mistakes might be costly,” Caldwell says.

Bloomberg News recently reported that Apple Music is looking to redesign its overly complicated user interface in an attempt to better compete with more established streaming services.

We’ve reached out to Apple for details on its system, and will update this post when we hear back.

Apple Stole My Music. No, Seriously. [Vellum Atlanta]
No, Apple Music is not deleting tracks off your hard drive — unless you tell it to [iMore]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Defunct Beauty School Settles Whistleblower Suit Accusing It Of Falsifying Records

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Two months after abruptly closing its doors as a result of losing access to federal student financial aid, the for-profit Marinello Schools of Beauty has settled a whistleblower case that accused the school of engaging in various schemes to defraud the government of federal financial aid dollars. 

The lawsuit, filed by a group of former financial aid officers, career counselors, instructors and others employees, accused Marinello and executives of employing a variety of tactics to maximize their federal financial funds, MarketWatch reports.

According to the complaint, the school regularly falsified attendance records for students by marking them as in school for one hour after 13 consecutive days of absence.

Under federal law, if students don’t show up for 14 days in a row, schools are required to return any federal financial aid funds they received on the student’s behalf.

Additionally, the suit claimed that school officials fabricated, didn’t verify, or didn’t require students to have high school diplomas in order to enroll in classes.

Employees said they were aware of ay least 23 student whose proof of education as fabricated before enrollment, MarketWatch reports.

The six former employees filed the suit under the False Claims Act, which allows employees of institutions receiving federal funds to bring claims on behalf of taxpayers.

Terms of the settlement between the school and employees are confidential until the Department of Justice approves the deal.

A lawyer for the employees tells MarketWatch that he and his clients are pleased with the outcome of the case.

Marinello began facing issues in February when the Department of Education denied the application for 23 of the school’s campuses for continued participate in the federal aid program.

The Department alleged that some campuses fabricated high school diplomas so that students would be eligible to receive financial aid.

Some schools also limited the amount of federal financial aid funding students could receive, even when they were eligible for more funding, forcing students to make high monthly payments out of pocket to cover the full cost of the school, according to the DOE notice [PDF].

Days after the DOE denied the applications, the school shut its doors.

B&H Education, which operated the beauty school chain, announced the closure of its campuses in California, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, and Connecticut, leaving about 4,300 student without a school and 800 employees without a job.

Marinello sent letters to students detailing its decisions to shutter its operations, and informing them that a series of meetings will be held next week to provide directions on how to receive transcripts, proof of training and information about their transfer options.

“We want you to know that we did everything in our power to avoid this unfortunate conclusion and keep your school open,” the school said in a letter to students. “Unfortunately, the Department of Education’s unprecedented and unfounded actions left us with no other option except to close our schools.”

Shuttered beauty school settles suit accusing it of faking diplomas, attendance [MarketWatch]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

FCC Trying To Minimize Annoyances From New Robocall Debt Collection Loophole

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Last fall, a rider to a must-pass federal budget bill kicked down the barricade that has prevented government debt collectors from annoying hundreds of millions of consumers with auto-dialed, pre-recorded robocalls. Lawmakers hate the bill, but they won’t consider any legislation to close the loophole. The White House’s own analysis of the loophole shows that it won’t really bring in any more money, and could actually be a revenue loser, but the administration isn’t doing anything to roll back the changes. Attorneys general hate it too, but they enforce laws instead of writing them. With an August deadline looming, the Federal Communications Commission has no choice but to move forward with making the loophole as palatable as possible.

Sources confirm to Consumerist that the FCC has voted to adopt a notice of proposed rulemaking, which should be made public today or tomorrow.

Though the proposed rules do allow for the government — and collectors working on the government’s behalf — to make robocalls for the purpose of collecting debts owed to the federal government, the FCC has tried to bake in a handful of restrictions to keep this from becoming a free-for-all.

First, consumers would retain the right to stop debt collectors from calling them. These robocalls would need to clearly disclose this right when the call is made.

Additionally, debt collectors would not be allowed to place robocalls to friends or family members of the alleged debtor.

Perhaps the most important rule — and one we predict will receive the most pushback from the collections industry — robocalls would be limited to three per month. Given that some debt collectors have been known to place more than three robocalls in a single day, the industry might find this too restricting.

Let’s pause for a moment out of respect for the poor debt collectors of the world.

Speaking of which, supporters of the loophole — including Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Apollo Education [parent company of University of Phoenix], and DeVry Education — continue to argue that these robocalls actually benefit consumers, calling them an “important consumer protection [that] will help those struggling with student loan debt.”

Translation: It will allow us to blast out cheap, automated phone calls so that we can annoy people into paying up.

We’ve not seen the final language of the proposal, so we can’t judge whether or not these restrictions will be effective. Additionally, the rules may change after the 30-day open commenting period, which will kick off after the text is made public on the FCC site.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

This Tobacco Store Doesn’t Want Your Sweaty Bra Or Sock Money

http://ift.tt/1T15ohB

We get it: in the summer, you want to be free and unencumbered, without a purse on your shoulder or a heavy wallet in your pocket. However, a tobacco store in Kentucky has an important seasonal rule that they want their customers to keep in mind: they do not want your crumpled, sweaty dollar bills that you’ve just pulled from your sock or your bra.

Here’s the actual sign on the door.

sock_money

Most customers find it funny, and those people have clearly never worked as a cashier at a mostly-cash retail establishment in the summer. I did, and 16 years later still periodically think about damp, crumpled “boob money,” as the sign puts it.

“[Customers] dig deep into their not ‘so-called pockets’ to bring me some nasty money that we don’t want to accept anymore,” the store manager explained to TV station WFIE.

One might think that bluntly saying that they don’t want some customers’ money would hurt business at the store, but it has done the opposite: the sign and the policy have attracted attention, and more people are stopping by to check it out.

Owensboro business no longer accepting sweaty money [WTIE]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

A Plastic Bag Could Soon Cost You Five Cents In New York

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

If you forget your reusable bags at home it could soon cost you in New York City, as local lawmakers are poised to vote on a measure that would add a five cent fee to consumers’ bills if they opt for a plastic or paper bag at checkout. 

The New York Times reports that the fee is meant to cut down on the city’s litter and the estimated 10 billion bags that end up in the trash each year.

If the measure passes, the fee — which is not classified as a tax, as merchants would get to keep the funds — would go into effect on Oct. 1.

The fee would only apply to purchases made at retail, grocery and convenience stores, and some street vendors.

Liquor stores, food carts selling prepared food, and restaurants packaging takeout orders would be exempt, as are customers paying with food stamps, the NY Times reports.

New York would join several other municipalities in charging a fee or outright banning single-use plastic and paper bags.

Earlier this month Minneapolis banned all plastic bags from store checkouts and impose a fee on customers who opt to get a paper bag instead of bringing their own carriers.

Prior to that Seattle, Portland, OR, Los Angeles, and Chicago, among other cities, have legalized such bans. Hawaii is so far the only state that has a ban on plastic bags.

New York Today: That Plastic Bag May Cost You [The New York Times]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Is The “Sharing Economy” Sharing Your Data With Law Enforcement?

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Airbnb and VRBO are shaking up the hospitality industry by letting anyone with a spare room become an innkeeper. Uber and Lyft are disrupting the for-hire car market by letting you turn your car into a taxi. While these new platforms might be opening up the so-called “sharing” economy, some of them may also be a bit too willing to share user data with law enforcement.

For its annual “Who Has Your Back?” report, the Electronic Frontier Foundation chose to focus on some of the big names in this growing field, looking at how each of them handles and reports on law enforcement requests for user data.

The report looked at 10 of the bigger players in the sharing arena: ridesharing platforms Uber, Lyft, Getaround, and Turo; delivery services Instacart and Postmates; homesharing sites Airbnb, Flipkey, and VRBO; and freelance gig platform TaskRabbit.

Each of these companies was then rated on the following six issues:

• Do they require a warrant to access user content?
• Do they require a warrant to disclose the user’s possible location?
• Do they publish a transparency report regarding requests from law enforcement?
• Do they publish guidelines regarding their law enforcement related policies?
• Do they alert users to demands from the government for user data?
• Do they push lawmakers in Congress for stronger privacy protections?

“These companies collect information on what you buy, where you sleep, and where you travel—whether you are offering services, or purchasing them,” explains Rainey Reitman of the EFF. “Often they go even further, collecting contents of communications and geolocation information from your cell phone. But are these companies respecting their users’ rights when the government comes knocking? For much of the gig economy, the answer is no.”

Only two companies — Uber and Lyft — were able to answer yes to all six questions, while five companies (Getaround, Postmates, TaskRabbit, Turo, and VRBO) came up short in every category.

FlipKey, which is owned by TripAdvisor, received four out six stars from the EFF. Its policies and practices seem to be in line with making sure that authorities go through the proper legal channels to obtain user data, but it doesn’t publish a transparency report, nor does it make its law enforcement guidelines public.

Airbnb and Instacart were the only two other services to merit any stars. They both require warrants for accessing user data, but not for location-based information. Unlike FlipKey, they do publish their law enforcement guidelines, but the don’t provide a transparency report to their users, nor do they share information about data demands made by the government.

“We see a clear trend in our report: while some sharing economy companies have prioritized standing up for user privacy in the face of government demands, many others have not,” says EFF Senior Staff Attorney Nate Cardozo. “This is a wake-up call to the gig economy companies and the people who use them. It’s time for these services to catch up with the rest of the industry and safeguard our data from government overreach — ensuring that law enforcement access to this trove of information is fair, just, and only in accordance with the rule of law.”


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Netflix Introduces Data Usage Controls For Mobile Users

http://ift.tt/1TpJDoL

A month after admitting that it was deliberately broadcasting lower-resolution video to AT&T and Verizon wireless users, Netflix has introduced a new tool that will let users around the world choose how much of their data plan they want to blow through binge-watching House of Cards.

Earlier today, Netflix announced an updated version of its iOS and Android apps that includes a new “Cellular Data Usage” setting that allows users to decide for themselves how much data they spend on movies and tv show viewing .

Under the new setting, Netflix customers can switch off the default setting — which allows users to stream about three hours of content per gigabyte of data — to a usage amount that better fits their preferences and available data.

Netflix says it came to the default setting after testing found that, on cellular networks, this level provides a balance of good video quality with lower data usage to help avoid exceeding data caps and incurring overage fees.

For customers who have a more robust data plan (or no data cap at all), Netflix will allow them to adjust the setting to stream higher bitrates. On the other side, those with a lower data cap can choose to stream at a lower rate.

“Our goal is to give you more control and greater choice in managing your data usage whether you’re on an unlimited mobile plan or one that’s more restrictive,” Eddy Wu, director of Product Innovation at Netflix, said in a statement.

To set your cellular data usage, got to “App Settings” on the Netflix app, pick “Cellular Data Usage,” and switch off the automatic default setting. Then choose between an unlimited, higher, or lower usage setting that best works with your data plan.

Screen-Shot-2016-05-03-at-12.44.33-PM

The new option comes a month after Netflix admitted that it throttled its own streams on AT&T and Verizon networks because of data caps.

For five years, Netflix says it capped its own mobile data streams at 600 Kbps on most wireless networks around the world.

According to the company, the throttling was justified: If you hit your data cap and get socked with overage fees you won’t be watching any more Netflix this month — and you might cut back in future months, too. Therefore, in the interest of keeping customers watching and subscribing, they throttled the streams.


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Burger King Testing Unholy Hybrid: Whopper Dog

http://ift.tt/1SPA6v2

whopper_dogBurger King’s new Grilled Dogs are on the permanent menu in both plain and chili dog form, but Burger King is testing something new: people in some markets have spotted a Whopper Dog on the menu. That’s a fast food mashup that sounds surprisingly edible. If you spot one in the wild or get a chance to try one out, let us know!

By the way, in case you’ve ever wondered what an assembly diagram for a Whopper or a hot dog looks like, here you go:

[GrubGrade] [Twitter]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

GM & Lyft Set To Test Self-Driving Taxis Within A Year

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

It hasn’t taken General Motors long to figure out how to spend its $500 million investment in Lyft. A month after the carmaker said it would use some of those funds to rent SUVs to prospective drivers, the partners unveiled plans to begin testing self-driving taxis on public roads in California. 

The Wall Street Journal reports that the two companies will begin testing a fleet of self-driving Chevrolet Bolt electric taxis within the next year.

The plan was set in motion not only because of Lyft and GM’s partnership, but with the carmaker’s pending acquisition of San Francisco-based Cruise Automation, which focuses on self-driving technology.

Cruise Automation, which launched in 2013, previously created an aftermarket semi-autonomous driving system called Cruise RP-1. While the $10,000 system has since been abandoned, it was able to turn an ordinary car into a piloted vehicle through an extensive install process.

While details of the testing program are sparse, Lyft says it will include real customers and a to-be-determined California city.

Under the program, customers will have the opportunity to opt in or out of the pilot when using Lyft’s app to hail a ride.

“We will want to vet the autonomous tech between Cruise, GM and ourselves and slowly introduce this into markets,” Taggart Matthiesen, Lyft’s product director, told the WSJ.

The companies are currently working on how to get the Chevy Bolt’s to drivers. This could entail an expansion of GM’s rental program with Lyft, which currently only being tested in Chicago with Chevy Equinox SUVs.

Even with an expansion of that program, the companies would face obstacles. Regulators in California were set to vote on the legality of the rental programs between carmakers and ride-hailing companies, before postponing the decision last week.

GM and Lyft’s plan to get self-driving vehicles on the road isn’t the first of its kind. Earlier this week, reports surfaced that Google and Fiat Chrysler were teaming up to develop an autonomous vehicle based on the carmaker’s Pacifica minivans. Before that, Uber announced its own self-driving aspirations, setting 2020 as its target date to have cars on the road.

GM, Lyft to Test Self-Driving Electric Taxis [The Wall Street Journal]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Petsitter Now Suing Couple For Up To $1 Million For Negative Yelp Review

http://ift.tt/21AypnI

A couple months back, we told you of the Texas couple that was being sued for a few thousand dollars by a petsitter over a negative Yelp review that allegedly violated a “non-disparagement” clause in the petsitter’s contract. That suit was quickly dropped, but a new complaint filed by the petsitting business has ramped up the allegations and the dollar amount, now seeking between $200,000 to $1 million in damages.

For those coming late to this story, in Oct. 2015 the Texas couple hired a local petsitting operation to watch after their dogs and a Betta fish while they were on vacation in California. In a subsequent Yelp review, the pet-owners expressed their dissatisfaction with the service, taking issue with the company’s fees and billing, an apparent lack of updates from the sitter, the fact that the sitter didn’t leave the house keys behind as requested. The couple also claim that their fish might have received sub-optimal care in their absence.

The original lawsuit was filed in a justice of the peace court, accusing the couple of violating a non-disparagement clause in their contract with the petsitters.

These non-disparagement — or “gag” — clauses, which generally penalize customers for making negative comments about a transaction (even when the comments are true and accurate), have been the topic of increased scrutiny in recent years.

California outlawed such clauses in consumer contracts two years ago, and the U.S. Senate has passed a bill that would do so on a nationwide basis. An identical measure, with bipartisan support, was recently introduced in the House.

Interestingly, the petsitters’ non-disparagement clause seems to be nearly identical to the one previously used by online retailer KlearGear, which failed gloriously in its efforts to collect thousands of dollars from a customer who dared to share her honest opinion of her experience with the company.

The petsitters dropped their initial complaint against the couple, but in late March filed a more extensive lawsuit in Dallas County district court.

This complaint not only continues to allege violations of the non-disparagement clause, but adds allegations of defamation and business disparagement.

In the lawsuit, the petsitters contend that when the couple returned home from their trip, they “admitted that their two dogs were well cared for,” but then proceeded to launch an “ongoing campaign to tell the world” that the petsitters “almost killed their fish or at least potentially harmed it.”

The plaintiffs claim that all the negative attention brought by news stories based on the customers’ statements has resulted in “numerous rape and death threats… in addition to other forms of harassment such as identity theft, impersonations, crank calls, etc.”

Facing upwards of $1 million in damages, the couple is currently being aided by Paul Levy, an attorney with Public Citizen. You may remember Levy from the recent saga of the former dentist/convicted felon who tried to unmask an anonymous YouTube user in an effort to scrub the internet of reports of his previous bad actions.

“The non-disparagement clause says that you shouldn’t do anything to damage the reputation of the company,” Levy recently told CBS Dallas/Fort Worth, which was first to report this story. “You’d think that what really damaged the reputation of the company was bringing the suit in the first place.”

The court will soon be asked to determine whether or not the petsitters’ lawsuit is a SLAPP — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Generally speaking, SLAPPs are frivolous lawsuits intended to strongarm the defendant into ceasing an activity that irritates the plaintiff.

Texas state law includes what is known as an “anti-SLAPP” statute, allowing for defendants in these cases to seek dismissal of the case.

Levy tells Consumerist that he’s in the process of drafting an anti-SLAPP motion in the petsitter lawsuit. That motion is due to be filed next week.

You might have noticed if you clicked the above link to the original Yelp review, you are greeted by a window explaining that “this business has issued legal threats and/or taken legal action against reviewers for exercising their free speech,” while reminding visitors that businesses do not have the right to remove honest reviews of firsthand experiences with these companies:


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

New York Times Will Now Deliver Ingredients For Its Recipes To Your Doorstep

http://ift.tt/1SRqzAs

nyt_cookingIf you’ve read a recipe in the newspaper and quietly wondered where you would find some of the ingredients, the New York Times has found a new way to solve that problem. They’ve partnered up with Chef’d, an ingredient-delivery service, to create a branded meal subscription that combines the convenience of having your dinner delivered with the cachet of the New York Times brand, yet the inconvenience of having to cook the food yourself.

Meal-delivery services, if you’re not familiar with the idea, remove the shopping and meal-planning components from home cooking. They deliver recipes along with the quantity of each ingredient that you’ll need to make them.

This business is an easy target for mockery, but is actually not a bad business idea for anyone involved in the newspaper-branded version. Like all news organizations, the New York Times needs to find ways to bring in money when online ads and subscriptions simply don’t bring in as much cash per reader as print advertising once did.

“Our audience spends a lot of time cooking at home,” the Times executive in charge of brand development, licensing, and syndication explained to Bloomberg Technology. “So for us it was a natural area to investigate.”

The meal subscription service gets a new partner with a built-in audience, and customers get meals curated by a brand that they trust. That subscription service, Chef’d, has other co-branded meal subscriptions, offering plans based on Weight Watchers and the fitness site Tone It Up.

New York Times to Start Delivering Meal Kits to Your Home [Bloomberg]
The New York Times Cooking [Signup]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

“Space Invaders,” “Oregon Trail,” & “Legend Of Zelda” Inducted Into Video Game Hall Of Fame

http://ift.tt/1NZHNPe

There are some video games you don’t have to explain to anyone, even if they were born way after those games first delighted fans. Among those are this year’s inductees into the Video Game Hall of Fame that were chosen from 15 finalists and make up the second group of games to join the list. If you’ve ever traveled digitally to Oregon or went on quests with Link, you’ll know which games we’re talking about.

Space Invaders, The Oregon Trail, Sonic the Hedgehog, The Legend of Zelda, The Sims, and Grand Theft Auto III were all chosen to make up the class of 2016 honored Thursday at the hall, which is inside The Strong museum in Rochester, NY.

videogamehalloffame
Other contenders included in the thousands of nominations but that missed the final cut: John Madden Football, Elite, Final Fantasy, Minecraft, Nurburgring, Pokemon Red and Green, Sid Meier’s Civilization, Street Fighter II, and Tomb Raider.

The Strong is also home to the National Toy Hall of Fame, and opened the doors of its World Video Game Hall of Fame last year to honor all kinds of electronic games, from arcade to console, computer to handheld and mobile. In order to be considered, games must have had sustained popularity and influenced the video game industry or society.

Last year’s inaugural class ushered in Doom, Pac-Man, Pong, Super Marios Bros., Tetris, and World of Warcraft.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Missouri Lawmakers Sneak Municipal Broadband Restrictions Into Traffic Ticket Bill

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

The legislative process, in theory, brings us laws that have been robustly debated, discussed, compromised on, and perfected. But in reality, legislatures have this thing where lawmakers can often add completely unrelated amendments or riders to bills to accomplish, well, basically any pet goal they want. That’s what’s happened in Missouri this week, and now municipal broadband in the state is under fire from a law about… traffic tickets.

Yes, traffic tickets.

A bill that would prohibit local cops from instituting traffic ticket quotas went through the Missouri state Senate earlier this year. The Senate approved it, and that kicked it over to the state House. So far, so good; this is basically as we learned on Schoolhouse Rock.

But when it got to the house, one representative tacked on an amendment, which was approved. That amendment (PDF) is a full four-page law that strongly limits municipal broadband in the state.

Although Missouri is already one of the twenty or so states with laws blocking muni broadband on the books, several clauses in this proposal would make those restrictions even more stringent.

The text says that, “On or after August 28, 2016, no local government may offer to provide a competitive [communications] service unless” one of a few conditions are met:

  • They already offered it before Aug. 28 (grandfathered in)
  • Other service added together, including wired or mobile, reach fewer than 50% of the addresses in the jurisdiction
  • A business or government is making a request for gigabit access that all existing providers are “unwilling or unable” to provide
  • The proposed network will cost less than $1 million over its first five years
  • A majority of voters in the jurisdiction approve a measure granting the local government permission to move forward with a plan

That last one, about the voters, may actually be the least restrictive clause — as voters in 50 Colorado cities, counties, and towns have voted in the past year to overrule their own state’s similar network restrictions. Combined with the other restrictions, however, it adds up to one very limiting package for residents of the Show-Me State.

The House passed the amended measure, which now means it gets kicked back to the state Senate (or, realistically, to committees) for re-approval.

Unsurprisingly, AT&T — which really hates muni broadband — is a significant donor to Missouri lawmakers who passed through the bill.

[via Ars Technica]


by Kate Cox via Consumerist

FDA Bans Sale Of E-Cigarettes To Minors; Requires Health Warnings

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

After a prolonged, seven-year process of drafting regulations for e-cigarettes, the Food and Drug Administration has finalized rules that treat e-cigs, hookah tobacco, pipe tobacco, and premium cigars the same as traditional cigarettes and cigars.

The FDA’s first step in regulating the popular alternative to traditional cigarettes includes banning sales to minors and requiring manufactures to put health warnings on the devices.

While the FDA released proposed rules in April 2014, prior to today’s announcement there was no federal law prohibiting retailers from selling e-cigarettes, hookah tobacco, or cigars to people under age 18.

Under the new rules, which will go into effect in 90 days, manufacturers and retailers will not be allowed to sell these products to people under 18 years of age; will be required to verify age by photo ID; will not be allowed to sell these products in vending machines; and can not distribute free samples.

The rules also require manufacturers of all newly-regulated products, to show that the products meet the applicable public health standard set forth under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) of 2009, and receive marketing authorization from the FDA, unless the product was on the market as of Feb. 15, 2007.

Through the review process, manufacturers would be required to submit separate applications for every e-cigarette, different flavor, and nicotine level.

This will take time, the FDA says, noting that it plans to allow manufacturers to continue selling their products for up to two years while they submit information, and up to one additional year while the FDA completes its review.

Under the reviews, the FDA will use science to weigh the potential benefits of e-cigarettes against any potential health risks, for both the individual users and the whole population.

Like all previously regulated products, to receive approval through the FDA review, manufactures must register and provide product listing to the agency; report ingredients and harmful and potentially harmful materials; undergo premarket review and authorization; place warnings on product packages and advertisements; and refrain from selling modified risk products — “light,” “low,” or “mild” — unless authorized by the FDA.

Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, says that the rule announced today lays the foundation for regulating non-traditional tobacco and nicotine-delivery products, and defends the FDA’s drawn-out process from critics who believe these rules could have been finalized more expeditiously.

“The agency considered a number of factors in developing the rule and believes our approach is reasonable and balanced,”Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said in a statement. “Ultimately our job is to assess what’s happening at the population level before figuring out how to use all of the regulatory tools Congress gave the FDA.”

In 2009, the FDA sought to impose restrictions on the devices, which it described at the time to be medical devices designed to deliver nicotine, but a federal court struck down that attempt. The following year, the agency declared it had the power to regulate the devices under its authority to regulate tobacco products.

E-cigarettes, and their potential health risks, have been at the center of heated debate between supports and opponents of the devices.

Companies who manufacture the devices believe they should be exempt from FDA regulations, contending it would stifle innovation, damage small businesses, and hurt consumers trying to quit smoking.

Still, there is no clear data on the health impact associated with the devices. Supporters contend that the devices help consumers stop smoking traditional cigarettes, while opponents argue the devices are attractive to teenagers and secondary risks, such as poisoning and a tendency for the devices to explode, could be more deadly than traditional cigarettes.


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Report: Makers Of OxyContin Knew For Decades That Pain Pills Could Wear Off Early

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

When OxyContin hit pharmacies 20 years ago, its primary selling point was that a single dose of the opioid pain medication lasted 12 hours, “providing smooth and sustained pain control all day and all night,” per the press release. But a knew report claims Purdue Pharma, the makers of OxyContin, have long known that the drug doesn’t always live up to this promise, resulting in an increased likelihood for abuse and addiction.

An in-depth review of internal and court documents by the L.A. Times turned up evidence that Purdue became aware during the clinical trial phase — long before OxyContin hit the market — that some patients were not getting the promised long-term pain relief from the medication.

In fact, seven years before the drug’s release, OxyContin was tested on 90 women — none of them regular users of painkillers — recovering from abdominal and gynecological surgery. According to the Times, more than one-third of these women complained about their pain returning within eight hours, and around half of them said their pain had come back before the full 12 hours.

A later trial on cancer patients had to be redesigned after a large number of test subjects dropped out because they found OxyContin to be ineffective in managing their pain. The rejiggered study allowed patients to take supplemental “rescue” medication in-between their doses of OxyContin. Yet another study using cancer patients found that 95% of those in the test group had resorted to taking a secondary painkiller at some point during the trial.

The FDA standard only required that Purdue could demonstrate that the drug was effective for 12 hours in at least half the patients, meaning that it was within tolerable limits for one-third of patients to not see that level of relief.

For what it’s worth, the FDA official who led the review — and subsequent approval — of OxyContin went to work for Purdue after leaving the agency not long after the drug’s 1996 release.

Purdue never tested the drug at intervals shorter than 12-hours and, in spite of the fact that a substantial portion of patients had not seen the full half-day of pain relief, the company chose to make this 12-hour feature the core of its marketing.

It continued to do so even after patients and doctors began reporting back that the drug did not always last as long as it needed to.

When some doctors began instructing patients to take OxyContin more frequently, the Times reports that Purdue responded by urging these physicians to instead prescribe higher doses.

Even as some doctors were complaining that upwards of 80% of their patients were only seeing 4-8 hours of relief from OxyContin, sales reps were told to convince these physicians to stick to the 12-hour guidelines because testing had shown that “100% of the patients in the studies had pain relief on a q12h dosing regimen.”

The reps were also reminded that they could encourage doctors to increase the amount of OxyContin prescribed every 12 hours because there was no upper limit on that number.

But, as the Times points out, a boost in dosage primarily benefits Purdue’s bottom line, as a bottle of 10mg OxyContin bills brought in $97 for the company in 2001, compared to $630 a bottle for the 80mg version of the drug.

Sales reps were told that, by encouraging doctors to sell the larger doses, they could “blow the lid off” their sales stats and earn bonuses, like a trip to Hawaii

Within five years of its release, OxyContin was bringing in $1 billion a year in revenue. By 2010, that number grew to $3 billion, accounting for one-third of all sales revenue from painkillers.

For more on Purdue’s addiction to 12-hour OxyContin, check out the full L.A. Times report.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Apple’s App Store Is Having Some Serious Issues Finding Popular Apps Right Now

http://ift.tt/21AfIAv
That's not what I want, App Store.
If you were looking to listen to some music on your iPhone using that new service Tidal, perhaps you’d rather get tide charts near you for free? Or maybe you thought you wanted to use Tumblr on your iPad — but hey, never mind, how about making some photo collages? Apple’s App Store has been having a bit of a fit this morning, and is apparently refusing to locate some popular apps.

MacRumors started noticing a bunch of people complaining on Reddit and Twitter on Thursday morning about the App Store preventing many popular iOS from appearing in search results — unless you already have them installed.

Some on the list: Google, Periscope, Spotify, Tidal, Tumblr, Uber, Vine, Maze, and more.

I tried it for myself with a few apps I don’t have downloaded on my phone, and didn’t get the correct results either:

The search issues seem to affect everything from iPhones to iPads and iPod Touch customers, and according to Apple, “all users are affected.”

“Users are experiencing a problem with the App Store,” Apple said in a system status update on Thursday morning. “We are investigating and will update the status as more information becomes available.”


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist