Menu

Friday, September 23, 2016

GM Offers To Buy Out 40% Of Cadillac Dealers

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

If there are fewer places around where you can buy a Cadillac, will that make the brand seem more luxurious and precious? That’s not really why General Motors has offered to buy out the franchises of 400 of its dealers that sell Cadillacs, but maybe it will help make the brand seem more exclusive, like its weird brand experience café/art gallery in Manhattan.

According to Automotive News, there were 1,422 Cadillac dealerships in 2008, before the brand’s parent company filed for bankruptcy. Now there are 925, and the brand is offering dealers up to $180,000 to drop the franchise and focus on selling other vehicles instead.

The 400 are Cadillac’s lowest-volume dealerships, and almost all of them sell multiple GM brands, not just Cadillac. It’s not that they’re underperforming, exactly, but the imported brands that GM sees as Cadillac’s peers, like Lexus and Mercedes-Benz, have fewer dealerships while selling more cars.

The buyouts are part of an overhaul of Cadillac’s dealership business that sorts dealers into “tiers” based on their sales volume, turning the lowest performers into showrooms that aren’t allowed to keep an inventory of cars in their lots, instead having customers order their vehicles.

Some state dealers’ associations object to these changes, and Cadillac insists that they aren’t mandatory: it’s just that dealers who agree to the new program will have different incentives from the manufacturer and

If all 400 dealerships took the buyouts, based on the median payout figure given to the media, Automotive News estimates that the program could cost Cadillac up to $50 million.

Cadillac offering buyouts to 400 smaller U.S. dealers [Automotive News]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

That Was Quick: 6 Top CEOs Who Have Been Unceremoniously Kicked To The Curb Since 2013

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Upon hearing the news this morning that American Apparel CEO Paula Schneider was resigning from her post, we couldn’t help but feel a twinge of deja vu. After all, she’s far from the first top executive to cause a stir with a sudden departure.

Schneider resigned after two years on the job, taking over for the company’s previous CEO Dov Charney in 2014. And oh, hey, speaking of Charney, we thought we’d look back at a few other executives Schneider is joining in what we’ll call the Sudden Departures Hall of Fame.

1. American Apparel CEO Dov Charney: Fired Dec. 2014

After removing founder and then-CEO Dov Charney from his post in June 2014, American Apparel officially fired him in Dec. 2014. Following an investigation into his “alleged misconduct and violations of company policy,” the company said “it would not be appropriate for Mr. Charney to be reinstated as CEO or an officer or employee.”

Back in February, reports circulated that Charney was creating another retail chain in American Apparel’s likeness.

2. George Zimmer, Men’s Wearhouse: Fired June 2013

The founder and longtime face of the men’s clothing company who told shoppers that they’d “like they way they look” in a Men’s Wearhouse suit served as CEO until 2011, when he transitioned to the job of executive chairman. That all came crashing down in June 2013 when he was removed from that post, and subsequently resigned from the board altogether.

Zimmer might still like the way you look — though he’s likely legally prohibited from saying so — as he’s gone on to found an on-demand tailoring business and an online tux rental service.

3. Jeff Smisek, United Airlines: Fired Sept. 2015

When United Airlines and Continental merged, they kept the United name but elevated Continental CEO Smisek to be CEO and chairman of the combined carriers. He didn’t last long.

In Sept. 2015, amid allegations that he’d gone too far in his efforts to curry favor with the operator of Newark International — including allegedly creating an entire route between New Jersey and South Carolina just to ferry the Port Authority chairman to his other house — Smisek suddenly stepped down from his top position at the airline. But don’t feel bad for him — he received quite the golden parachute when he was let go, including free airport parking for life.

4. Ron Johnson, JCPenney: Fired April 2013

After a little more than a year as CEO of JCPenney, former Apple retail guru Ron Johnson was sent packing in April 2013.

During his tenure, he failed to resurrect the struggling retailer with efforts like his decision to disrupt the industry by getting rid of sales — a concept that he gave up on after only a few months.

The Wall Street Journal noted at the time that JCPenney’s board met “and agreed to part ways” with Johnson. Translation: you’re fired.

He’s got a new job now: hand-delivering cellphones for AT&T.

5. Martin Winterkorn, Volkswagen: Resigned in Sept. 2015

While it usually takes at least a month of so for a scandal to result in a CEO getting the boot, Volkswagen’s Winterkorn was shot out the exhaust pipe less than a week after it was revealed that his company had been lying to regulators and the public about the efficiency and emissions on its so-called “clean diesel” cars. Technically, Winterkon resigned, saying he was stepping down after eight years as CEO “in the interests of the company even though I am not aware of any wrongdoing on my part.”

6. Mattel CEO Bryan Stockton: Fired Jan. 2015

Bryan Stockton’s 2015 exit from the toy company is memorable partly because it was so confusing: As Fortune reported at the time, Mattel issued a press release in Jan. 2015 saying Stockton would be resigning. But a few months later, the company changed its tune, noting in a regulatory filing that Stockton’s “employment was terminated.” His three years at the toy company were not easy ones, as Mattel struggled to compete amid sluggish sales of Barbie and Fisher Price products.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Digital Textbook Codes Mean No Selling Used Books, Higher Prices

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

While the price of course materials has fallen overall, there’s one specific course material that’s pricey and possibly unexpected. Digital content codes give students access to materials like quizzes, study materials and digital-only extra books, but much like digital music or ebooks, they can’t be exchanged or resold. That means publishers set the price, and there’s no secondary market.

The Student Public Interest Research Groups analyzed course materials at ten colleges of diverse types, and found that codes usually cost about $100 by themselves from campus bookstores, and $126 when they come in a bundle with a textbook.

The New York Times spoke to one student, for example, whose Italian textbook was stolen along with the rest of her bag. The bookstore and book publisher hadn’t accounted for this, and told her that the only choice was to buy a new book.

The codes are a nice continuing, year-after-year revenue stream for publishers, but that shouldn’t be your problem if you’re a student. If you encounter a situation where you or your child can’t afford a code that goes along with a book, check with the instructor: there may be an alternate way to get the same materials.

A New Cost at College: Digital Access Codes


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Be Careful When You Cancel Your Spirit “$9 Fare Club” Membership

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

When you’ve got a subscription that automatically renews, it’s always a good idea to know when that renewal date is coming so you’ll be able to cancel in time before being re-upped for another year. However, as one Spirit Airlines traveler learned, you can cancel a subscription too early and unwittingly throw money down the drain.

Consumerist reader Paul is a member of Spirit’s $9 Fare Club, which let subscribers book the airline’s cheapest fares and  pay discounted baggage fees. The first year of the plan costs $59.95 but auto-renews at $69.95 each year afterward.

In order to save some money, Paul wanted to cancel the plan in advance of the auto-renew, but had questions about what exactly would happen to the remainder of his money or access to the plan.

After all, auto-renewal subscription plans come in various forms. Some will let you cancel the auto-renew, but since you’ve paid the full annual fee you retain membership for the remaining time. Others let you cancel anytime, but you not only forfeit the money you’ve paid, you cease having access to any of the benefits. Paul glanced at the terms [PDF] for the $9 Fare program and got the feeling it fell into the latter category.

“I thought this didn’t seem right, so I emailed customer service and asked how I could just cancel the re-bill and keep my membership for the rest of the year that I had already paid for,” Paul tells Consumerist.

This, apparently, isn’t possible per Spirit customer service.

“Once the membership is terminated, the Free Spirit account will no longer be a part of the $9 Fare Club,” the rep told Paul in an email. “Thus, benefits from the program are removed effective immediately after cancellation.”

This is fairly clear in the terms and conditions for Spirit’s $9 Fare Club membership.

“A Member will not be entitled to any refund of any membership fees upon cancellation of membership in the Club. Memberships will automatically renew upon expiration if Member has not cancelled prior to their renewal date. The renewal charge will be assessed to the applicable credit card on file.

A Member may cancel his or her membership in the Club at any time by selecting the unsubscribe option within their FREE SPIRIT account profile or by notifying Spirit in writing at the address at the bottom of this page. Cancellations by mail will take approximately 4 to 6 weeks to become effective.“

We reached out for clarification from Spirit on the terms of the membership providing a specific example.

If a subscription is going to be auto-renewed Jan. 1 but I cancel Oct. 1, does that mean I’m out just the money (but keep my existing subscription through Dec. 31), or am I out both the money and the remaining months?

Per Spirit, you’re out both.

“To enroll the customer has to agree to the terms and conditions of the club, which states that memberships are non-refundable, non-transferable, and are automatically renewed yearly,” a rep tells Consumerist. “Please note, upon the cancellation of a $9 Fare Club Membership, the customers benefits will cease immediately without a refund being issued.”

So when should a customer cancel their account if they essentially don’t want to lose money?

The rep for Spirit didn’t tell us, but did note that a reminder email is sent to the customer informing them of the upcoming renewal.

Because email reminders aren’t always foolproof — it could go to your spam folder or you may overlook it — the best idea could be to set a calendar reminder — either electronically or in your datebook (if that’s still a thing).

Or, if you don’t want to cut it too close, you could cancel the membership a month in advance, so long as you’re okay not flying with Spirit for that last month.


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Lululemon Wants 40% Of Its Business To Come From Male Shoppers Someday

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

It seems anti-ball crushing pants were just the start of Lululemon’s campaign to appeal to male shoppers, with the athleisure company’s CEO saying he wants 40% of the brand’s sales to come from men someday.

CEO Laurent Potdevin says that with the help of an expansion into menswear overseas, the chain could eventually have almost half its shoppers be men, Bloomberg reports. Right now about 80% of the retailer’s customers are female, he added.

It’ll be easy, Potdevin says, once male customers get over the idea that Lululemon apparel is only for women and try the clothing for themselves. Hey, men can wear yoga pants, too!

The ABC pants helped with that earlier last quarter, Lululemon said earlier this month: same-store sales for ithe men’s category went up a percentage point in the mid-teens during that time.

“Our men’s business is certainly a billion-dollar franchise,” said Potdevin. “There is plenty of room for us to grow.”

Lululemon Looks to Get 40% of Sales From Men as Chain Expands [Bloomberg]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

What’s Going Wrong With Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Exchanges — And What You Can Do

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Samsung issued an official recall of the defective, flammable, potentially exploding Galaxy Note 7 phone just over a week ago. Since then, consumers who own the defective devices have been trying to get the exchanges they’re due… but it’s not always going so well.

Yesterday, we asked anyone having issues swapping out a defective, recalled Samsung Galaxy Note 7 phone to drop us a line. Boy, did you. In less than 24 hours, we received dozens of messages from frustrated phone owners, and they’re still coming in.

The Problems

When we sat down and parsed out all the different complaints we’ve received from consumers, the issues fall into two main categories: supply and communication.

Supply is a tough one to tackle. The top problem users are encountering is simply one of availability, and there’s really not much more that can be done about that. Samsung has reportedly already shipped about 500,000 units of the new, non-exploding Note 7 to the U.S. for distribution… but roughly 1 million of the original, defective version were sold.

That means simple math says that at best, only half of users could get new Note 7s right now — and the math is anything but simple. The reality is a complex web of distribution, with devices going to different regions and retailers as they become available. The phones went to customers nationwide, who purchased from a dizzying array of third-party retailers, each and every one of which has its own customer list and inventory management system.

Samsung’s making and shipping new phones as fast as they can, but rushing production is reportedly what led to the defect and the recall in the first place, and so doing it right takes time. On top of that, the market is global: U.S. customers aren’t the only ones who need faulty phones exchanged, nor is the U.S. the only market where Samsung wants to get new, non-exploding units on the shelves ASAP.

Communication is another tough nut. Samsung, and all the retailers and manufacturers who sold the Note 7 phone, each have a corporate policy on the recall, and a customer service number you can call. But again, the web of retail stymies us here: as you might guess, not every front-line employee in every store is equally well-versed on the issue.

One Verizon customer told us his local store charged him a $30 restocking fee for his Note 7, even though Verizon has officially waived those fees. Another Note 7 owner told us he called three different T-Mobile stores in his area, and received three different stories about when replacement units would be shipped by Samsung. Similar stories were common across other carriers.

The most challenging communications issues, though, are showing up with customers who bought their phones from places other than the four wireless biggies.

Consumers who bought at third-party retailers — including Best Buy, Costco, Sam’s Club, Target, and various online shops — may have bought their Note 7s from different sellers, but they all report a similar pattern: the great handoff.

They call their carriers; the carrier says, “contact the retailer where you bought it.” They contact the retailer; the retailer says, “contact your wireless carrier or Samsung.” They contact Samsung; the manufacturer says, “contact the retailer where you bought it.”

You can see how this might lead to frustration.

One customer who bought secondhand from an online retailer (before the recall was announced) reports spending 11 hours and counting on the phone so far with Samsung, with no solution in sight.

First, he claims that Samsung told him the warranty didn’t apply; then when he got them to understand his phone was recalled, he says he got handed around to multiple agents, at every level of customer service, who gave conflicting information about when (or if) he could expect a replacement phone — before finally transferring him back to his wireless carrier, incorrectly.

Also up a creek, evidently, are some customers who purchased from Samsung directly. Many of the complaints we received were from shoppers who ordered their Note 7 devices from samsung.com, and are now unable to get help.

“Currently, Samsung has made no official announcements… calling Samsung has been no help whatsoever,” one writes.

Another says, “Never have I had such an awful buying experience… I keep repeating to 3 or 4 different people that I did not buy the phone from [my carrier] after they tell me to take it there. I gave the IMEI like three times…. then they just transfer me to someone from sales. I was on the phone for over one hour … and finally they tell me their sales number is closed and I’ll have to call back Monday.”

A third: “As of the 21st I was told that since I purchased the Note 7 directly from samsung.com, that I would have to wait for them to contact me with what to do. Apparently FedEx won’t ship the old one.”

In the midst of confusion and poor communication, we hope we can help arm consumers with facts.

Your Rights And What You Should Do

Here are your rights: if you own a recalled Galaxy Note 7 (how to check), you may do one of three things with your faulty phone:

1.) Exchange it for a new, non-defective Galaxy Note 7

2.) Exchange it for a different phone, either a Galaxy S7 or S7 Edge or, depending on who you purchased from, a broader selection of models, with a refund of the price difference between the two

3.) Return it for a full refund

Carriers and retailers have to let you do these things, a representative from the CPSC stressed to Consumerist. “We want to be abundantly clear that a full refund is one option” consumers can take, the spokesperson told us.

“We’re not sure if all available options are being presented to every consumer,” he added — a finding very much in line with what we’ve been hearing from frustrated consumers, too.

Here’s what we do know: in general, you should take your phone back to the place you bought it. All major carriers say that if you bought the phone you use on their service from someone else, you need to take it back to that someone. More specifically…

AT&T:

AT&T’s page for consumer information is here.

AT&T asks customers to visit “the original place of purchase or come to the AT&T store nearest you” to exchange faulty Note 7 phones.

Customers who purchased online or by phone are also encouraged to go to AT&T stores to exchange their phones. If you can’t visit an AT&T retail location, the company says to call (800) 331-0500 for assistance.

Sprint:

Sprint also wants you to send your phone back from exactly whence it came — but can’t promise anything on the timing front. Units in stores are being sold or exchanged to customers as those customers come in; there’s no waiting list.

Specifically, a representative for Sprint tells Consumerist, “We recommend customers call the store where they purchased the Note 7 to learn about current stock which will vary by location. Stores are handling exchanges on a first-come, first-served basis and cannot reserve devices.”

Sprint customers who bought from Sprint.com or by phone should call (888) 211-4747 about exchanging their devices, and Sprint customers who purchased their Note 7 at a national retail partner (like Best Buy, Costco, or somewhere else) should contact the original store location about inventory and exchange.

T-Mobile:

T-Mobile’s page for consumer information is here.

“Customers should definitely bring their phones into a retail store,” T-Mobile told us yesterday. “We’ll give them new accessories, whatever they have that they got with their Note 7, we’ll take care of it.”

The representative also stressed that it doesn’t matter if the phone is damaged, that affected Note 7 owners can exchange their devices for any other phone in the store’s inventory, and that they can still keep any purchase or signing bonus or goodies they received initially.

T-Mobile also says that customers who cannot go to a store can call (844) 275-9309 to get “any device of your choice in our inventory” sent with free next-day shipping. However, consumers should note that does not actually guarantee that there will be a Note 7 in the warehouse inventory to send; waiting for one of those may take a while.

Verizon:

Verizon’s page for consumer information is here.

Yesterday a representative for Verizon confirmed to Consumerist that owners should go back to the same retail location where they bought the phone. If you got yours at a Verizon store, go back to the same one. If you got yours from a third-party store, like Best Buy, you should go back there. If you bought it from Samsung, you have to contact them.

Verizon customers who bought from the Verizon website are also asked to go to a corporate store (different from an “authorized retailer”) to process the exchange if at all possible.

Verizon is waiving the restocking fee for any customer returning or exchanging a Galaxy Note 7, Verizon confirmed, so if a representative in-store tells you otherwise, they’re wrong. Verizon is also accepting damaged phones for the recall, so if an in-store representative says they can’t, they’re wrong too.

Samsung.com:

Samsung asks consumers who bought directly from them to call 1-844-365-6197 for further help and instructions.

It is true that FedEx will not take your old phone, if Samsung asks you to ship it back. “The FAA prohibits FedEx from shipping recalled or defective lithium batteries on our aircraft. As such, effectively immediately, FedEx Express will not accept recalled Galaxy Note7 devices in its network … FedEx will not accept shipments of any Galaxy Note7 devices at any of our retail locations or drop boxes,” a FedEx representative told Consumerist. Only shipments from authorized distributors and retailers will be collected, and those shipments have to meet strict criteria and can only travel through FedEx Ground services.

We also asked UPS for their policy; as yet, we have not heard back, though we will update if/when we do. However, given that the FAA restriction applies to all air carriers, its statement is likely to be similar.

The USPS will ship the recalled Note 7 phones, a spokesperson told us, but with restrictions. They can only travel Retail Ground / Parcel Select, must be sent in rigid packaging (a cardboard box as opposed to a bubble envelope), and must be clearly marked with a Surface Transportation Only label. They also are prohibited in international mail, “including mail to and from Army Post Offices, Fleet Post Offices and Diplomatic Post Offices.”

All of this leaves one big gaping question for consumers: if you bought the phone from Samsung, and Samsung requires you to send it back but no actual shipping company they can send you a label for will take it, what are you supposed to do?

We’ve asked Samsung exactly that. They have promised a response; we’ll update when they send it.

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


by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Have You Been Paying Attention? Take The Consumerist Quiz To Find Out!

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

O Autumn, laden with fruit, and stain’d with the blood of the grape, pass not, but sit beneath my shady roof; there thou may’st rest, and tune thy jolly voice to my fresh pipe, and all the daughters of the year shall take the Consumerist Quiz!

Sing now the lusty song of mergers and bankruptcies, but try to do better than last week, where the median score was a disappointing 53%. This isn’t Dead Poets’ Society here kids, this is serious stuff. Gather ye rosebuds on your own time.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Marketer Of Pills Claiming To “Prevent & Reverse” Graying Hair Ordered To Refund $391K

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Sporting an ashen ‘do can make a person look distinguished — or fashion forward — but there will always be people who want to stave off the gray as long as possible. But why shell out big bucks for dye jobs, when dietary supplements promise to actually reverse the presence of gray hair? Maybe because there’s no proof that those pills will actually do anything to get rid of the grays?

The Federal Trade Commission announced Friday that a judge recently granted summary judgment against COORGA Nutraceuticals… supplements — ordering the company to refund customers $391,335 and stop claiming that Grey Defence eliminates gray hairs.

According to the ruling [PDF], COORGA engaged in unfair or deceptive practices and the misrepresentation and omission of material facts when promoting Grey Defence.

The FTC’s original complaint [PDF] against the company, filed in May 2015, claimed that COORGA marketed Grey Defence as a supplement that could break down the production of gray hair.

The product, which came in many variations including Gray Defence Xtreme and Grey Defence Xtreme2, was sold in packages ranging from $69.00/bottle to $1,269.99 for 24 bottles.

The court found that there was no scientific evidence supporting COORGA’s advertising claims that Grey Defence supplements prevent or reverse gray hair, and claims that the products are scientifically proven to do so are false.

Additionally, the court found that a customer survey touted by COORGA was not well-designed or scientifically controlled.

The court also ruled that COORGA owner Garfield Coore oversaw and directed every aspect of the business and either knew, or was recklessly indifferent about the misrepresentations and false claims used for Gray Defence.

Under the ruling, COORGA and Coore are prohibited from making gray hair-reversal or prevention claims and other health claims, unless they are not misleading and are supported by reliable scientific evidence.

The FTC previously settled similar claims with the marketers of GetAwayGrey, LLC and Rise-N-Shine, LLC, both of which are now also barred from making gray hair elimination claims unless they are not misleading and are supported by reliable scientific evidence.


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

California Police Catch Driver In The Carpool Lane With Mannequin Passenger

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Listen: if you want to hang out with a mannequin or a wooden dummy instead of a real person, no one is going to stop you from being your best Lars and the Real Girl self. Just don’t expect the police to count your inanimate friend as a passenger when you’re in the carpool lane.

The Brea Police Department shared a recent bizarre citation on Facebook, writing that the encounter all started on Wednesday around 5 p.m., when an officer on a congested freeway saw a pickup truck suddenly veer out of the carpool lane close to his bike.

The officer rode up to the driver to remind him to be careful when switching lanes, which is when he noticed that the man had an interesting passenger with him — a mannequin torso, dressed in a hooded sweatshirt.

“The driver admitted to having done this for quite some time, and related that he would now just accept the fact he needed to sit in traffic like everyone else,” police said in the post.

The driver was cited for driving alone in the carpool line, which comes with a minimum fine of $481.

“While our partners at the CHP probably see things like this more frequently, this is a first for Brea PD,” police noted.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Senators To Wells Fargo CEO: Don’t Strip Wronged Customers Of Their Day In Court

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Now that Wells Fargo is in the hot seat for allegedly pushing its employees to meet sales goals and quotas by opening millions of bogus accounts in customers’ names, will the bank use the anti-consumer terms of its customer contracts to get out of the inevitable class action lawsuits? A coalition of U.S. senators have written the bank’s CEO asking him to please not strip customers’ of their day in court.

Customers have already filed at least one class action against Wells Fargo over these fraudulent accounts, but as we noted in our story about that case, the bank’s contracts include a clause that not only allows Wells to force lawsuits out of the court system and into private arbitration, but also bars harmed customers from joining their complaints together as a class.

Wells already used this tactic — employed by a growing number of businesses — to get out of a related lawsuit filed last year by a customer in California, and consumer advocates are concerned the bank might pull the forced arbitration lever again to minimize its total liability.

At a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf was asked about his plans to use arbitration, but his response was non-committal, saying only that he would need to discuss the matter with his legal staff, and “I have instructed my team to do whatever it takes, within reason, to take care of these customers.”

Today, a group of six lawmakers, led by Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT; Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee) and Sherrod Brown (OH; Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee), sent a letter to Stumpf, contending that the bank’s forced arbitration clauses are actually partly to blame for this mess.

“A major reason that these outrageous practices continued for at least five years is that Wells Fargo’s customer account agreement includes a forced arbitration clause,” reads the letter [PDF]. “These clauses eliminate consumers’ ability to bring a claim in open court or to band together in a class action, before any dispute has arisen. Forced arbitration clauses deny access to the courts even when consumers are seeking to enforce their rights under fundamental state and federal laws. Instead, consumers must seek justice individually, on a case-by-case basis in closed-door arbitration proceedings that are often stacked in favor of the corporate defendant.”

Unlike court proceedings, the results of arbitration cases are not made part of the public record. This lack of transparency, argue the senators, “helps hide fraudulent schemes such as the sham accounts at Wells Fargo from the justice system, from the news media, and from the public eye.”

What would make the use of arbitration particularly galling in this case, explains the letter, is that it involves the use of real customer accounts to “deny customers access to the court system to challenge Wells Fargo’s creation of sham accounts.”

If, as Stumpf proclaimed in his testimony before the Banking Committee, he accepts “full responsibility for all unethical sales practices,” the senators say he should show he really means it by pledging to not use the arbitration clauses to avoid lawsuits.

The senators have asked Wells to respond with information about its customer agreements, complaints about the fake accounts, and the bank’s use of arbitration.

For example, they want to know when it first started hearing allegations of bogus accounts (Stumpf admitted this week that he learned of the practice back in 2013), how many allegations it received through Sept. 2016, and how many of these were compelled into arbitration? And is the bank’s policy to put a gag order on arbitration results?

“What percentage of these allegations were heard by the same arbitrator or arbitration provider?” continues the line of questions. “Did Wells Fargo disclose to its investors allegations concerning the unauthorized creation of accounts?”

The senators also want to know who at Wells was responsible for setting legal strategy with regard to these bogus accounts.

“Specifically, who decided that your legal strategy would be to deny people access to the courts and force people to submit to mandatory arbitration on fraudulent accounts?” asks the letter.

In addition to Senators Leahy and Brown, the letter was signed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA), Sen. Richard Durbin (IL), Sen. Al Franken (MN), and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT).


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Uber Implementing New “Selfie” Security Requirement For Drivers

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

In an effort to prevent drivers’ accounts from being compromised, Uber has announced a new security measure called Real-Time ID Check that will require drivers to periodically take a photo of themselves before they can sign onto the platform and accept rides.

“We then use Microsoft’s Cognitive Services to instantly compare this photo to the one corresponding with the account on file,” Uber’s chief security officer Joe Sullivan wrote in a post today. “If the two photos don’t match, the account is temporarily blocked while we look into the situation.”

Sullivan says that during the pilot of the new selfie system, most the mismatches came down to unclear profile photos, but that more than 99% of drivers were ultimately verified.

“Given that verification takes only a few seconds to complete, this feature proactively and efficiently builds more security into the app,” Sullivan writes.

However, some critics are calling the move an admission by Uber that drivers often share accounts.

“This is Uber acknowledging drivers share their accounts and the company’s effort to reduce this practice,” David Sutton, a spokesperson for the “Who’s Driving You?” public safety campaign run by the Taxicab, Limousine and Paratransit Association, said in an emailed statement. “Despite intense criticism of Uber’s screening process, the company is admitting there are drivers who’ve never undergone any form of background check.”

Uber is no stranger to criticism when it comes to its safety procedures: earlier this month, a judge denied a $28.5 million settlement in the company’s legal battle over $449 million it collected in “safe ride” fees.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Facebook Really Sorry It Spent 2 Years Overestimating How Long We Watch Videos

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Video has been really important to Facebook in recent years, with the social media company pushing its live broadcasts and inserting videos in our feeds. The thing is, though, how long does the average user spend actually watching videos that pop up in our feeds, whether they’re an ad or just a clip of a friend’s kitten? Not as long as Facebook tells advertisers that we have.

Facebook recently admitted to advertisers that it has been inflating the amount of time that users spend actually watching its videos. It did that by simply tossing out views under three seconds: if a video started up and you just kept scrolling, that view didn’t count.

While that makes sense, the problem is that by dropping those people who glance at a video and keep scrolling, Facebook boosted the average length of time that viewers spent watching that video.

“The metric should have reflected the total time spent watching a video divided by the total number of people who played the video. But it didn’t,” the company’s vice president of business and marketing partnerships explained to advertisers in a Facebook post (not a video post, though.)

“We know we can’t have true partnerships with our clients unless we are upfront and honest with them, including when we make mistakes like this one,” VP David Fischer continued, noting that this is why Facebook does make third-party tools available to advertisers so they don’t have to depend on Facebook’s metrics.

The company told advertisers that the discrepancy didn’t affect the amounts they paid for any ads included in the miscalculated watch times, and that Facebook’s totals for number of times a given ad has been viewed are still accurate. However, this doesn’t really help keep advertisers’ confidence up in Facebook videos as a platform.

Facebook Apologizes for Video Metric Miscalculation [Wall Street Journal]
An Update on Facebook Video Metrics [Facebook]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

McDonald’s Is Testing A Breakfast Happy Meal

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

McDonald’s just can’t stop riding the breakfast wave that has boosted the company’s sales and brought customers back through its doors, it seems: after scoring with all-day breakfast, the fast food chain is now toying with the idea of offering Happy Meals in the morning hours.

Starting Monday, the chain will start testing a breakfast Happy Meal at 73 locations in the Tulsa area, USA Today reports (warning: link contains video that auto plays).

The meals will feature more kid-focused items than the options on the adult menu, with a choice between two McGriddles (just the two maple-flavored cakes, not a sandwich like the adults get) or a new egg and cheese McMuffin that comes without Canadian bacon. Side options include apple slices or yogurt, and some restaurants will also offer hash browns.

The addition of breakfast would be the first major new choice for the Happy Meal in more than three decades, a spokesperson tells USA Today.

“All day breakfast has really been a big hit with our customers, and that started from our customers telling us this is what they wanted,” says Pam Williams, a director of innovation at McDonald’s USA. “Since the launch of all day breakfast, more of our customers have been reaching out to us and asking us for these choices for their kids In the Happy Meals.”

If the tests prove successful, McDonald’s could introduce breakfast Happy Meals nationwide next year.

McDonald’s to test breakfast happy meal [USA Today]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Credit Repair Service Accused Of Misleading Customers, Charging Illegal Fees

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

It can take years, decades even, to repair one’s credit. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix, despite promises of relief from companies offering their services for a price. Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued one such company, Prime Marketing Holdings, for allegedly misleading consumers and charging illegal fees. 

The CFPB accused the company — which operates under a number of names, like Park View Credit, National Credit Advisors, and Credit Experts — of misrepresenting the cost and effectiveness of its services.

According to the complaint [PDF], Prime has marketed credit repair services to consumers across the country who had recently sought to obtain a mortgage, loan, refinancing, or other extension of credit.

Prime allegedly lured consumers in with misleading, unsubstantiated claims that it could remove virtually any negative information from credit reports and could boost credit scores by significant amounts, the CFPB claims.

To fulfill these claims, Prime Marketing allegedly promised to improve customers’ credit scores by challenging items on their credit reports, regardless of whether the information is accurate.

The complaint claims that once a customer signed up for services, Prime Marketing would charge a variety of illegal advance fees that it had not disclosed previously.

Under federal law, telemarketers and certain companies are barred from requesting or collecting fees for credit repair services until certain conditions are met around the delivery of services.

In the case of Prime Marketing, the CFPB claims, the company violated this law by charging consumers initial fees that it at times claimed were required to obtain special credit reports for consumers. The company also charged set-up fees totaling hundreds of dollars and monthly fees that often came to $89.99 per month.

Additionally, the company allegedly failed to disclose the limits of its “money-back guarantee.”

For example, the company’s sales contracts typically limited this guarantee to the removal of “a minimum of one disputed item within one hundred and eighty days of the execution of this Agreement.”

According to the CFPB lawsuit, at times, Prime Marketing represented, directly or indirectly, that the guarantee applied to increases in a credit score.

Most often, the suit claims, Prime Marketing failed to explain in telemarketing calls that customers had to pay for at least six months of service to be eligible for the money-back guarantee.

The CFPB lawsuit seeks to halt the company’s harmful conduct and to obtain relief for consumers, including refunds of fees paid to the defendant.

In addition to filing the lawsuit on Friday, the CFPB released a consumer advisory that outlines consumers’ rights and warns them of potentially harmful practices to look out for.

As part of the advisory, the Bureau is highlighting that consumers do not have to pay anyone to help correct inaccurate information in their credit reports. The Bureau also reminds people of their right to obtain a free credit report from each of the largest three credit reporting companies every year and the steps they can take on their own if they need to dispute inaccurate information on their reports.

The full advisory can be found on the CFPB website.


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Trump Hotel Group Settles With NY Attorney General Over Credit Card Data Breaches

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

In the wake of two data breaches at hotels operating under the Trump Hotel Collection umbrella, the attorney general for the state of New York has reached a settlement with the company that involves a small financial penalty and promises of improved data security.

Last summer, the Trump hotel group confirmed a data breach affecting the payment card systems at multiple locations run by the company. Though the breach was discovered in June 2015, investigators later learned that the malware that had infected the system had been in place for about a year, collecting payment card information for some 70,000 accounts.

According to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, the hotel group further erred by not providing notice to affected customers until Sept. 25, 2015, even though it knew that some stolen card information had already been used to try to make fraudulent purchases. The state alleged that this delay is a This delay violated a New York law requiring businesses that have been hit with a data breach to alert affected customers “in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay.”

The 2014 breach affected the following seven hotels:
• Trump SoHo New York
• Trump National Doral (Miami)
• Trump International New York
• Trump International Chicago
• Trump International Waikiki
• Trump International Hotel & Tower Las Vegas
• Trump International Toronto

Breach #2

Earlier this year, there were reports of a subsequent data breach affecting five Trump hotels.

Schneiderman’s office says an investigation found that this particular malware attack had begun on Nov. 10, 2015, months after the company learned of the earlier breach. Additionally, the attacker behind this second breach was able to obtain personal information — including names and Social Security numbers — for around 300 people from an older database of Trump Hotel Collection property owners.

Investigators into the first breach had recommended that the Trump group adopt a number of improved security precautions that the AG’s office believes could have prevented the second breach. However, Schneiderman says they were not deployed until April 2016, after the second attack had been discovered.

In addition to a $50,000 penalty, the hotel group has agreed to a number of changes to improve its data security, like instituting a program to identify data and privacy risks, implementing reasonable safeguards — like two-factor authentication for remote access to the networks — to control these risks; and regular testing of these safeguards.

“It is vital in this digital age that companies take all precautions to ensure that consumer information is protected, and that if a data breach occurs, it is reported promptly to our office, in accordance with state law,” said Schneiderman in a statement.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Parents Of Kids With Allergies Now Question Role In Supporting EpiPen Programs

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Requiring epinephrine auto-injectors to be available in schools in case a child has a life-threatening allergic reaction isn’t necessarily a bad idea. Under some circumstances, it’s a life-saving one. However, EpiPen maker Mylan recruited mothers of children with food allergies as ambassadors for its own interests a few years ago while continuing to hike the price of EpiPens, hurting the very same community of families. Now the bloggers question their participation in Mylan’s “summits” and their blogging for the cause.

You might remember the EpiPen program for schools: the same one that the state of New York is now inevstigating for possible antitrust violations. Mylan provided free or discounted pens to schools that voluntarily kept epinephrine auto-injectors on hand, or were legally required to.

That’s admirable, but one reported feature of the program was less admirable: participating schools weren’t allowed to buy any of the few competing injectors on the market. That made the schools program life-saving and self-serving, and parents who blogged in support of mandatory pens in schools now question their own actions.

Reuters spoke to some parents who traveled to the educational “summits” and wrote blog posts about the important issue of making auto-injectors available in schools. Mylan provided them with training in how to give on-camera interviews and persuade lawmakers, and some testified before state legislatures.

“I personally believe that Mylan held the summits to gain blogger trust and then used those bloggers to spread word about their initiatives,” one mother who no longer blogs about food allergy issues but who attended summits told Reuters in an e-mail. “They raised prices while those initiatives gained traction.”

Companies recruiting parent bloggers as brand ambassadors is common, but in this case, they are the same parents dealing with rising co-payments or retail prices for EpiPens. One mother began as a blogger-advocate and ended up working for Mylan as a spokeswoman. Reuters reports that she quit last month as the controversy over EpiPens picked up just in time for back-to-school season.

Parent bloggers question role in Mylan’s EpiPen schools push [Reuters]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Using Uber Outside The U.S.? Make Sure You Don’t Pay $146 For An $11 Ride

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

One of the conveniences of Uber is that, rather than trying to figure out to flag down a taxi in every possible language and culture, you can use the same service to hail a ride in dozens of countries on every non-Antarctica continent. However, if you’re using Uber abroad, be sure to check your bank statement afterward to make sure that you’re not getting taken for a ride financially.

Consumerist reader J.P. recently used Uber while visiting Cape Town, South Africa. The approximately 10-mile trip from the suburb of Rondebosch to the airport totaled 146 South African Rands (ZAR), a little less than $11.

But according to the credit card statement J.P. showed Consumerist, Uber somehow charged failed to convert from ZAR to USD, and instead charged him $146, more than 13 times the actual fare for the ride.

J.P. contacted Uber by email — since the company makes other forms of customer service all but impossible — and a rep for the company denied there was any problem, writing, “I checked the trip and can see that this has been charged R146.00.”

The rep did however, ask J.P. to send a screenshot of the charge. That screenshot, which he supplied to the company, clearly shows a $146 hit to J.P.’s account.

Since then, Uber has only sent him an automated note that the issue has been resolved but with no explanation and no money credited back to his account.

He tells Consumerist that the last contact he had with Uber was Sept. 15. Since Uber has not cooperated, J.P. is now working with his bank to resolve the erroneous charge.

We’ve sent Uber multiple requests on J.P.’s behalf, but have yet to even receive a “no comment” in reply. If the company decides to respond, we’ll update.

J.P.’s story might be a one-off error, but it’s also the kind of error that might be overlooked by some Uber passengers, or might not be discovered until it’s too late to dispute the charge.

He says, “If I was not so vigilant about checking and reconciling my credit card statements I might easily not have noticed this.”


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Report: Twitter Looking To Sell Itself — Maybe To Google

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Twitter might be a hugely popular social media platform, but for all its influence and reach, the company is not exactly minting money.  So it may not come as a surprise that Twitter is once again the subject of merger rumors.

Several tech companies are said to have been approached by Twitter, including Google and Salesforce.com, CNBC reports (warning: link has video that autoplays), citing sources close to the matter.

The sources say that Twitter has received expressions of interest from several tech and media organizations, and could receive a formal bid in coming weeks. While a sale is not imminent, Twitter’s board is reportedly set on making a deal — with someone.

Reps for Google and Salesforce.com, a professional social networking site, declined to comment on the possible interest.

However, Salesforce.com CEO Vala Afshar Tweeted (fittingly) his personal views regarding the social network, listing four reason for, “Why Twitter?”

He followed the initial Tweet with clarification that “I simply love Twitter” and had created similar lists in the past.

In June, it was reported that Twitter had met with Yahoo about a possible merger. However, that was before Verizon won the bidding war for the ’90s internet relic.

Twitter may soon get formal bid, suitors said to include Salesforce and Google [CNBC]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Some Verizon Customers Say They Aren’t Getting Data Overage Alerts Anymore

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Amid recent reports of Verizon Wireless customers getting dinged on their bills for going over their monthly data allotments, some of these subscribers say they are going over their data limits because Verizon stopped sending them overage alerts.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer has been highlighting the stories of Verizon customers who say they stopped receiving text alerts from the carrier warning them that they were was approaching their monthly limits.

One woman says her bill is normally $130 a month, but this month’s bill came to $838 — including $700 in overage fees. She called Verizon and the company said it had been sending her text alerts, alerts she swore she never received until the one that said her payment was late.

Another subscriber who faces a $1,700 bill tells the Plain Dealer that she’d previously relied on the automated overage warnings to keep her from going over her limit, but claims she stopped receiving them.

A woman in Iowa says her family somehow managed to go through a month’s worth of data in just a few days, but the only alerts they get are when it’s too late.

Another Verizon customer says he’s been smacked with fees because Verizon stopped alerting him about possible overages before he hits 90% of his monthly allocation.

“I no longer get the 75% notification,” he told the Plain Dealer. “I relied very heavily on the warnings because then I could manage my usage.”

That’s because Verizon does not automatically alert users at 75%. A rep for the company tells Consumerist that users can opt in to receiving alerts at this threshold, but the automatic alert doesn’t kick in until you reach 90% of your monthly allotment.

“All Verizon customers receive a text alert on their device when they’ve used 90% of their plan data in a month and then again when they’ve hit 100% (which indicates they’ve gone over),” the rep told Consumerist. “In addition, customers can also better manage their data use by opting in to a 50% alert and a 75% alert.”

He also pointed out that the New Verizon Plan has a Safety Mode for all data bucket sizes, a free feature that kicks in once a customer hits their data limits. If it’s enabled, it means you won’t get an overage — your data speeds will just slow to 128 kbps once you’ve exceeded your plan limit.

We checked in with the other three major carriers to clarify their policies on data overage alerts as well, and it seems that Verizon is the only one that requires users to opt in at lower threshholds:

T-Mobile: The company confirmed that there are no data alerts — because T-Mobile got rid of overage fees entirely for all post-paid customers in 2014.

AT&T: AT&T automatically sends a courtesy text message and email alert when you reach 75%, 90%, and 100% of the data included in your plan, a company spokesperson told Consumerist.

Sprint: Sprint customers receive notifications at 75%, 90%, and 100% of data bucket usage, a company spokeswoman confirmed to Consumerist. There’s also the option of the Better Choice Plan, where customers can choose to get unlimited data at 2G speeds after 100% data usage/after exhausting their monthly allotment.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Older Model Samsung Phone Disregards Plane’s ‘No Smoking’ Signs

http://ift.tt/2d5SdiI

The Samsung Galaxy Note 7 is currently under recall following reports of smoking and exploding batteries, but as we noted in previous stories on this matter, consumers have raised similar overheating and smoking concerns about earlier Galaxy devices. Now comes a report that the battery on a Galaxy Note 2 began to smoke during a commercial airline flight. 

Reuters reports that the incident happened earlier today during an IndiGo flight from Singapore to Chennai, India.

The phone was reportedly stowed in the overhead bin of the plane when witnesses say they saw smoke leaking out into the cabin. Reuters reports that witnesses also claim to have seen sparks coming from the device.

“Taking precautionary measure, the cabin crew on priority relocated all passengers on other seats, and further observed smoke being emitted from a Samsung Note 2 which was placed in the baggage (of a passenger) in the overhead bin,” the airline confirmed to The Times of India. “The crew discharged the fire extinguisher… and quickly transferred the Samsung Note 2 into a container filled with water in the lavatory.”

Officials with the airline said the incident did not cause damage to the aircraft and the flight continued to its destination without issue.

While the Galaxy Note 2 isn’t part of the Samsung recall, a spokesperson for India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation says it will send an advisory to airlines warning passengers to keep all Samsung Note phones switched off during flights or avoid carrying them on commercial planes, Reuters reports.

A Samsung spokesman in India had no immediate comment for Reuters, but said the company would issue a statement soon.

In the U.S., the Federal Aviation Administration and airlines have asked owners of the Note 7 to not use or charge the devices on planes after reports that their batteries could catch fire and explode. Of course, this doesn’t apply to the Galaxy Note 2 involved in the IndiGo incident.

However, several versions of Samsung’s Galaxy and Galaxy Note smartphones have come under scrutiny in recent weeks following several reports of smoking or exploding devices.

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s SaferProducts.gov database, there are a number of complaints published that allege similar fire and smoking problems with previous device models in the Galaxy line.

The owner of another Galaxy Note 2 notified CPSC in June 2015 that her device became hot, and emitted smoke and sparks.

“The battery then projected out of the back of the device onto the floor, leaving burn marks and a hole in the carpet,” the woman writes, noting no injuries resulted from the incident.

In Aug. 2013, an owner of a Galaxy S2 alleged that their smartphone exploded and caught fire in the middle of the night while on the charger.

“I grabbed it and threw it in the master bedroom bathroom sink and turned on the water,” the man writes of the incident. “The smell in the bedroom was bad enough to take your breath away. We aired out the bedroom put the phone in a baggy. There was minimal damage to the end table and carpet.”

displaydocument-2

The owner of another Galaxy S2 reported in Feb. 2013 that while the phone hadn’t exploded or caught fire, he believed it was only a matter of time.

“Cellphone over heating, battery swelling, battery jumps down in charge after heat,” the complaint states. “The phone shuts off, restarts with now battery reserve. There’s a fear of a battery fire.”

While recent Galaxy devices have batteries that are not easily replaced, earlier models in this Samsung line had batteries that could be swapped out with relative ease, so it’s possible in some of these previous instances that the batteries were not original to the device.

Samsung phone emits smoke on Indian plane mid-air, no damage [Reuters]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Apparel CEO Expected To Leave Company Next Monday

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

While clothing company American Apparel has survived bankrutpcy and is considering outsourcing its manufacturing operations to a cheaper city than Los Angeles, it will have to do all of that under a different leader: the company’s current CEO is reportedly leaving in just over a week. The company’s chairman also left recently after just about six months in the job.

The company remains open to selling all or part of itself, which may have something to do with CEO Paula Schneider’s decision to step down now. “[T]he sale process currently underway for all or part of the company may not enable us to pursue the course of action necessary for the plan to succeed nor allow the brand to stay true to its ideals,” she wrote in her resignation letter to the board.

Reorganizing was one option for the company coming out of bankuptcly, with a group of investors backing original founder and longtime CEO Dov Charney. Instead, Charney is reportedly starting his own new company that would most likely compete with American Apparel, whatever form it takes under new owners.

Schenider was appointed to run the company after Charney’s antics lrd to his suspension and firing for being a jerk back in 2014.

Possible shake-up at American Apparel: CEO Paula Schneider is expected to exit post [Women’s Wear Daily]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Audiobooks Are Gaining Listeners While E-Book Sales Take A Dive

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Using your eyes to read books? That’s so 2015, according to a new report that says audiobooks are becoming more and more popular while e-book sales have started to slide.

Even while sales of paperback books are up and independent bookstores are doing well again, a new report shows that publishers had a bit of a rough first quarter of 2016, the New York Times reports. Revenue dipped 2.7% in that time period compared to the same months in 2015, the Association of American Publishers said in its new report.

E-books might have something to do with that slide, as sales fell by 21.8% in the quarter. Digital audiobooks squashed everyone else in the book game, with sales rising by 35.3%. Paperback sales also contributed sales gains with an increase of 6.1% over the first quarter of 2015.

It might not be as dire as it sounds, the NYT points out, as the first quarter of the year is often a slow one: many publishers save their big books for the summer (vacation reading) or the fall (holiday shopping).

That being said, the e-book slide is likely to continue to publishers’ woes, according to Michael Cader, a book industry analyst and the creator of Publishers Marketplace who weighed in on the issue with the NYT. That’s because despite the fact that e-books cost basically nothing to produce and zero to ship, publishers have raised prices on the digital materials after negotiating with Amazon and gaining the ability to set their own prices.

Audiobooks Turn More Readers Into Listeners as E-Books Slip [The New York Times]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Apple Reportedly Looking To Create Competitor To Amazon Echo

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

With the iPod, iPhone, and iPad, Apple led the charge to make new personal digital products accessible, popular, and now all but necessary. But the electronics giant may now be playing catch-up to Amazon in the connected-home market, as the e-tailer’s Echo device and its various spinoffs become more affordable and functional. Now comes news that Apple is looking to build a connected-home speaker/assistant of its own to go head-to-head with Echo.

This is according to Bloomberg, citing the ever-chatty but ever-shy “people familiar with the matter.” They say that Apple has been tinkering with an Echo-like product for around two years.

Like the Echo, this in-development Apple product would allow users to control an array of other connected home devices and systems, like lights and door locks. Bloomberg reports that Apple has also tested new functionalities like facial recognition that could help differentiate the eventual product from Echo.

If this Apple device ever becomes a reality, it could face a crowded marketplace. Earlier this year, Google pulled back the curtains on Google Home, its take on the connected-home hub, which may have the added advantage of being under the same corporate umbrella as Nest — makers of connected thermostats, smoke alarms, and security cameras — and Google’s Chromecast line of audio and video connectors.

One advantage an Apple hub might have is better integration across multiple devices. Amazon has Fire tablets that work with Echo’s Alexa voice-operated assistant, but these low-cost devices do not have the same market penetration or app support that the iPad or iPhone does. Likewise, while Google’s Android mobile operating system is wildly popular, its deployment varies from one phone manufacturer to the next, and can also depend on the device’s wireless provider. Since Apple’s iOS is only on Apple devices, the company may be able to offer a home hub with more seamless integration.

Of course, until Apple unveils a device (or until dozens of leaked photos and videos of it are posted online), this is all speculation.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

AT&T Taking Nashville To Court To Try To Slow Down Google Fiber

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

They said they’d do it, and so, by gum, they’re doing it: Surprising basically nobody, AT&T has filed a lawsuit against the city of Nashville and its officials, seeking to block a recently-passed law that would make it possible for Google Fiber to come to town.

The lawsuit is just the latest step in a saga that’s been unfolding for months. The city of Nashville first proposed a one-touch law over the summer. Comcast and AT&T objected strenuously, because having actual competition in town, driving down prices and perhaps siphoning consumers away, is not in their best interest.

The Metro Council looked at Comcast and AT&T’s objections, saw their threats to sue over it, and then went ahead and passed the ordinance anyway, and mayor Megan Barry signed it into law earlier this week. So, AT&T’s making good on their threat.

The complaint (PDF) can’t actually say, “we just really don’t want to compete with Google,” because that’s not a legal argument. Instead, AT&T has to lay out arguments why the ordinance is actually unlawful, so it gives three reasons.

Number one: it “conflicts with and is preempted by the pole attachment regulations of the Federal Communications Commission.” This one is an interesting claim because since 2011, the FCC has been undertaking procedures to make the pole attachment process as cheap, quick, and efficient as possible for new broadband competitors.

Reason two is more local: AT&T claims the ordinance is “invalid as a matter of Tennessee law because it conflicts with Metro Nashville’s Charter,” which is one for Tennessee law experts to hash out.

And reason three? “The ordinance impairs AT&T’s existing contract with Metro Nashville” in violation of clauses in both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions.

AT&T’s agreement with the city, that gives it the right to hang its wires from the utility poles in town, dates from 1958 — the Ma Bell era. In that contract, which AT&T helpfully provided to the court, the city agreed that, “[e]xcept as herein otherwise expressly provided, each party shall place, maintain, rearrange, transfer and remove its own attachments.”

Therefore, AT&T argues, since the 1958 contract is the one under which it still operates in town, by letting anyone else (i.e., Google) touch their wires, Nashville is in violation of their agreement.

After laying out its three legal arguments, AT&T concludes that unless the court declares the new rule invalid and prohibits the city from informing it, “AT&T will suffer irreparable harm that cannot be redressed by recovery of damages.”

The argument is basically the same one AT&T made when it filed suit against Louisville in February. In fact, this statement in the Nashville complaint:

“The Ordinance thus purports to permit a third party (the Attacher) to temporarily seize AT&T’s property, and to alter or relocate AT&T’s property, without AT&T’s consent and with little notice”

is almost word-for-word identical to the complaint it made against Louisville earlier this year, when AT&T said:

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

The Louisville case is still in process, and Charter has joined AT&T in objecting to the possibility of Google coming to town.

It’s anyone’s guess how long the Nashville case will take to play out. In the meantime, Google has promised legal help to Nashville in fighting the Battle Of The Giant Corporations.


by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Education Dept. Revokes Recognition Of Troubled Accreditor Of For-Profit Colleges

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

The accrediting body responsible for holding a large number of for-profit schools accountable — including the recently shuttered ITT Tech, and the now-bankrupt Corinthian Colleges — received some bad news this week. The U.S. Department of Education has terminated its federal recognition. 

The Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) is the largest accreditor in the U.S. and is itself a non-profit, but many of the schools it provides accreditation to are for-profit institutions.

The ACICS came under increased scrutiny after the collapse of Corinthian Colleges in 2015, with regulators asking how the accreditor missed apparently obvious red flags. If ACICS had pulled CCI’s accreditation, it could have stopped billions in federal aid money going to these schools.

In June, Education Dept. staff and an advisory panel each voted in favor revoking ACICS’s accreditation. That decision has now been finalized by a Department of Education senior designated official, was made based on findings that the organization failed to properly monitor and discipline the colleges it oversees.

In a letter [PDF] to ACICS, the Dept. of Education official said she considered ACICS’s petition to keep recognition, as well as reports and transcripts of meetings between the Dept. of Education and the accreditor during its review.

The Dept. of Education’s staff report found numerous issues on ACICS’ part, including failing to address how well graduates of its accredited institutions succeed on licensing exams, failing to provide documentation of schools’ relationship with licensing related entities, and failing to clarify and document its entire process for the recruitment, selection, and verification of the qualifications and experience possessed by those selected to serve on the agency’s evaluation teams and decision-making bodies.

“Having reviewed the record before me, I concur with the recommendations of Department staff and NACIQI,” the letter states. “Accordingly, I am terminating the Department’s recognition of ACICS as a national recognized accrediting agency.”

In all, the senior official, who had 90 days to make a decision on the accreditor’s future, found that ACICS was in violation of numerous regulatory criteria. Specifically, it was out of compliance in 21 areas. Under the law, an accrediting agency that is out of compliance cannot have its recognition renewed, the official writes.

While agencies have 12 months to come into compliance, reports from the Dept. of Education found that ACICS could not remedy many of the serious deficiencies in that time frame.

ACICS has 30 days to file an appeal directly with Dept. of Education Secretary John King.

Still, a reprieve for ACICS appears unlikely, as several consumer advocates, lawmakers, and even DOE staff, have pushed for the agency to lose its recognition. 

By revoking ACICS’ recognition, the 243 schools that have received its accreditation will have 18 months to find a new accreditor and remain eligible for federal student aid programs, the DOE said in a FAQ.

In the case that a school can not find another accreditor, students would no longer be able to use their federal aid at those schools.

“Students who want to continue their education using federal loans or grants past that point would need to transfer,” the Department says. “Schools also need to have a plan in place to inform students about their options so students are not left scrambling.”

Over its history, ACICS has accredited 725 different institutions, and currently accredits 243 institutions, according to a previous report from the Center for American Progress. Most of these schools are for-profit colleges.

Without this accreditation, schools cannot receive federal student grants and loans.

CAP’s report [PDF] found that 17 institutions, campuses, or corporate entities under investigation by the federal or state government received accreditation from ACICS, taking in more than $5.7 billion in federal funds over the past three years.

When compared to campuses receiving accreditation from the top five national companies, ACICS’s institutions have the worst graduation rates, the lowest rate of students repaying their student loans, and the second-worst student loan default rates.

Issues for ACICS came to a head in this spring.

In June, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren published a report related to the DOE’s accreditation practices and the failures of ACICS. Warren urged the Dept. of Education to take “strong, aggressive” action against the accreditor, pointing to ACICS’s “dismal record of failure,” including its repeated accreditation of schools operated by the now-defunct Corinthian Colleges Inc., in spite of evidence of obvious shortcomings and problems at these colleges.

Prior to that, California Attorney General Kamala Harris also sent a letter to the DOE urging it to revoke federal approval from ACICS.

With the letter, Harris expressed support for 13 other state Attorneys General who previously voiced their concerns over the renewal of ACICS as an accreditation agency.

ACICS attempted to show it was able to do its job properly in August, when the agency revoked the accreditation for troubled for-profit operator ITT Technical Institutes. The move resulted in the Dept. of Education banning the college from enrolling new students using federal financial aid. Within two weeks, the school had shut down, leaving nearly 40,000 currently enrolled students scrambling to finish their education or received federal student loan discharges.


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

UPS Testing Using Drones For Package Deliveries In Remote Locations

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Whether it’s robotic carrier pigeons or unmanned aircraft dropping off burritos, drones are big in the delivery world. UPS is the latest company to take to the drone-filled skies and see if the aerial vehicles are the right fit for its delivery system.

UPS is teaming up with a robotics company called CyPhy Works to test using the drones to make commercial package deliveries to places that aren’t so easy to reach, the company announced today.

The first test drone launched on Thursday, with a drone taking off from Marblehead, MA, and flying a programmed route for three miles over the Atlantic Ocean to drop off an inhaler at Children’s Island.

The drone landed successfully, much to the delight of UPS and CyPhy folks gathered on the island to witness, the Associated Press reports.

“I thought it was fantastic,” John Dodero, UPS vice president for industrial engineering, told the Associated Press.

No matter how great tests go, there are still obstacles to drone deliveries: Federal Aviation Administration regulations don’t allow commercial drones to fly over any humans not involved in operating them, and requires them to stay within line of site of their pilots at all times. That makes it kind of tough for your average company like Amazon to make commercial deliveries.

But while those companies work with regulators to tweak the rules, companies like UPS and others are likely going to stay busy testing drones so they’re ready for the big time.

“Our focus is on real-world applications that benefit our customers,” said Mark Wallace, UPS senior vice president of global engineering and sustainability in a press release. “We think drones offer a great solution to deliver to hard-to-reach locations in urgent situations where other modes of transportation are not readily available.”


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds

http://ift.tt/2cMeFvW

Here are nine 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.

rainbow slinky
.sanden.
elnina999
JoelZimmer
Bjarne Winkler
Renee Rendler-Kaplan
Michael Verhoef
pjpink
Karen Chappell

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

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Americans To Spend $8.4 Billion On Halloween, Not Including Pumpkin Spice Foods

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

If you’ve noticed more Halloween decorations and candy on store shelves, there’s a good reason for that: Americans are expected to spend an average of $82.93 per person celebrating Halloween this year, or a total of $8.4 billion.

Every year, the National Retail Federation checks with consumers to find out how much we plan to spend on upcoming holidays. This year’s Halloween survey shows that our spending has hit a record high after plummeting during the recession.

As you might imagine, the biggest slice of the predicted total goes to costumes, at $3.1 billion. Candy is a close second at $2.5 billion, and people expect to spend almost as much on decorations at $2.4 billion.

People also plan to spend $390 million on greeting cards, which are apparently a thing.

By the way, while 47% of adults said that they planned to dress in costumes, 16% said that they plan to dress their pets in costumes.

HALLOWEEN SPENDING TO REACH $8.4 BILLION, HIGHEST IN SURVEY HISTORY [NRF]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Target Ends Kiddie Cart Experiment After Children Terrorize Parents, Stores

http://ift.tt/2bEeQLF

You’ve probably been to a store that has child-size shopping carts: they’re a popular amenity that my five-year-old self would have enjoyed. Target recently decided to give mini carts a try in a few dozen stores in Minnesota and in New York, and has now removed them after only about a month.

What happened? Target’s official explanation is that it really values customers’ opinions, and customers apparently didn’t like them very much.

“We briefly tested kiddie carts at 72 Target stores, and after reviewing guest and stores feedback, we have made the decision to stop the test,” a spokeswoman told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Looking deeper, it turns out that the kids liked them just fine, but the wide aisles and sheer size of a Target store combined with tiny children was not a good combination.

Why? The Star-Tribune’s Kavita Kumar found this video on Twitter that may explain the problem:

Another mother noted that her ankles were bruised:

It’s unfortunate, because the carts are adorable, with little dog mascot flags. Unfortunately, children are tiny candy-eating monsters of destruction.

Target removes kids’ shopping carts after kids went wild with them [Minneapolis Star-Tribune]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Ad Watchdog Warns Comcast & Dish To Use Caution When Dissing DirecTV

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Pay-TV services might need to be a bit more careful when it comes to the messages they put out into the universe following an ad watchdog’s suggestion that Comcast and Dish revise some of the claims made against competitors in national ads.

The National Advertising Division — an independent industry watchdog administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus — investigated complaints leveled at Comcast and DISH from rival DirecTV finding that some of the claims made in advertisements weren’t truthful.

Specifically, in Comcast’s case, NAD found that the service provider should discontinue unsupported claims made in two separate ads, including claims that DirecTV is built on old technology and that Comcast subscribers have access to four times more unique TV show and movie titles on-demand than DirecTV subscribers.

According to NAD, DirecTV challenged the express and implied claims that appear in ads titled “Get Faster” and “Reruns” that highlight Comcast’s Xfinity X1 set-top box cable service

In “Get Faster,” Comcast featured dancers with satellite dishes, singing “we built this thingy on tech that’s old” — set to the tune of “We Built This City on Rock and Roll.” In one scene, an actress states: “Yeah, XFINITY built this newer thingy that lets me search with my voice.” The commercial then ends with this voiceover: “Don’t fall for DirecTV. Find shows faster with the X1 Voice Remote.”

In “Reruns,” Comcast parodies another ’80 song — “Everybody Have Fun Tonight” — using the phrase “Everybody is bored tonight. They’re watching reruns tonight.” A voiceover in the commercial claims that Comcast subscribers “get four times more TV shows and movies on demand with XFINITY.”

NAD agreed with all of DirecTV’s complaints, except for one that referred to watching reruns, noting that the phrasing did not need substantiated.

In a statement to NAD, Comcast’s advertiser says it will take the watchdog’s recommendations into account when developing future advertisements.

In another recommendation on Thursday, NAD reviewed additional claims by DirecTV directed toward ads used by Dish.

According to NAD, DirecTV took issue with Dish’s claims in six ads that subscribers of DirecTV pay an average of more than $100 per month, and pay additional fees for viewing local channels.

Dish advertisers told NAD that they had discontinued two of the three ad claims challenged by DirecTV: a claim that DirecTV customers pay an average of over $100 per month and the claim that DirecTV imposes a “Year One Price Increase” on its customers.”

As a result, the watchdog did not review the claims, but noted that the voluntarily discontinued claims will be treated, for compliance purposes, as though NAD recommended their discontinuance and the advertiser agreed to comply.

As for the remaining claim, that DirecTV imposes a “local channels fee” — featured in an ad where a pay-TV installer informs a consumer that he cannot watch television without first swiping his credit card on a remote control — NAD determined that consumers were unlikely to take away a message that DirecTV, specifically, charges a local channels fee.

The decision was made based on the fact that DirecTV isn’t mentioned and there are no visual references to DirecTV in that portion of the ad.

In a statement to NAD about the recommendations, Dish says it agrees with the local fee findings, but “respectfully disagrees with NAD treating the claims that it did not review on their merits as though NAD recommended their discontinuance and DISH agreed to comply.”


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

State, Federal Agencies Crack Down On Companies That Allegedly Facilitate Mail Fraud Of Elderly

http://ift.tt/2dkREPQ

Each year, millions of elderly consumers are lured into mail fraud schemes by all-too-attractive claims that they have won unimaginable prizes, like millions of dollars or trips around the world. Today, the U.S. Department of Justice took unprecedented steps to ensure these scammers no longer victimize older Americans by announcing action against companies that they allege are some of the little-known perpetrators of the alleged schemes: the payment processor, mailer printers, and lead generators.

The U.S. Attorney General’s Office, along with U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Federal Trade Commission, and other law enforcement agencies, announced Thursday sweeping action involving mass-mail fraud that resulted in criminal charges, economic sanctions, seizure of  allegedly criminal proceeds, and civil injunction lawsuits against several companies and individuals.

The sweep targeted a global network of mass mailing schemes that have allegedly defrauded millions of elderly and vulnerable victims across the U.S. out of hundreds of millions of dollars, according to the AG’s office.

“Today’s actions send a clear message that the Department of Justice is determined to hold the perpetrators of these harmful schemes accountable,” U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said. “And they make unmistakably clear that we are committed to protecting our people from exploitation – especially our older citizens, who are so often the focus of these shameful ruses.”

The alleged mail schemes involved a complicated web of organizations that created “direct mailers” that falsely claimed a recipient had won, or would soon win, cash or valuable prizes, as well as the companies that printed the mailers, processed payments, and provided lists of potential victims.

Mail fraud generally works in the same way despite being operated by different companies. The fliers — which often appear to come from legitimate sources using official-looking letterheads but are, in reality, identical form letters personalized to the addressee — claim that a victim has been chosen as the winner for a large prize. In other cases, a clairvoyant or psychic claims in a mailer to have information about a large sum of money or another good fortune event that will soon happen for the victim.

In most cases, in order to collect these prizes described in the letters, the victims were directed to send in a small amount of money for a processing fee or taxes.

As part of the regulator and law enforcement crackdown announced Thursday,  several companies that did work on behalf of these direct mailer organizations were sued, shut down, or otherwise penalized for their part in the schemes.

This includes payment processors, the printer that manufactures the solicitations and arranges for bulk shipment to U.S. victims, and list brokers who buy, sell, or rent lists of victims from one mailer to another so that once a victim has fallen prey to one scheme, others are able to target this victim.

The Payment Processor
PacNet, a Canadian-based payment processor, cashes the checks for dozens of allegedly unethical and scheme-y mail fraud organizations that target the elderly, according to the Dept. of Justice.

For more than 20 years, the DOJ claims, the payment processor has helped dozens of international fraud organizations gain access to U.S. banks and take money from victims.

As part of the action, PacNet has been designed as a “significant transnational criminal organization.”

The DOJ, U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), and U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) claim in court filings that PacNet has a long history of engaging in money laundering and mail fraud, by knowingly processing payments on behalf of a wide range of mail fraud schemes that target victims in the United States and throughout the world.

The agencies claim that in 2016 alone, PacNet has processed payments for more than 100 mail fraud campaigns involving tens of millions of dollars.

“PacNet has knowingly facilitated the fraudulent activities of its customers for many years, and today’s designations are aimed at shielding Americans and the nation’s financial system from the large-scale, illicit money flows that are generated by these scams against vulnerable individuals,” said OFAC Acting Director John E. Smith.

An investigation by CNN found that PacNet worked with dozens of organizations dealing in mail fraud against the elderly.

The company would allegedly receive the checks, cash them, take a cut, and then send the remaining funds to the direct mailing company that had promised victims million-dollar prizes in exchange for a $20 check.

In one case, CNN found an 91-year-old Iowa woman had sent more than 749 checks, totaling more than $29,000, in response to phony prize notifications and personalized letters from so-called psychics promising financial fortune.

Of the checks that were sent, 566 were deposited by PacNet on behalf of nearly 50 different mail fraud schemes.

Connecticut Direct Mailer
The AG’s office, along with the Iowa Attorney General, FTC, and other agencies took separate action Thursday against a number of direct mailers that allegedly sent hundreds of thousands of cash prize notifications from fictitious companies to elderly Americans.

They took action to shut down a California mailer, Florida printer, and Florida list broker that they claim perpetrated a scheme against these victims.

According to the FTC complaint [PDF], the company sent letters to mostly elderly consumers informing them that they won a substantial cash prize of nearly $1 million or more.

ftc

The notifications instruct consumers to pay a fee of approximately $25 to collect their prizes, but those who paid received nothing in return.

According to the complaint, operators Terry Somenzi and David Raff, directly and through third-parties, provided the cash prize notifications and mailing lists of consumers’ names and addresses to Ian Gamberg, who then arranged to have the notifications printed and mailed.

This process, the regulator believes, created a cycle of fraud that continuously targeted the same victims.

Many consumers who paid the “fees” later received numerous other deceptive personalized cash prize notifications from the defendants and other companies who purchased lists containing the consumers’ personal information, the FTC alleges.

The Iowa Attorney General’s Office and federal authorities took separate action against Connecticut-based list broker Macromark that marketed lead lists to third-party direct mailers.

According to the DOJ’s complaint, Macromark rented lead lists to direct mailing companies that used the lists to personalize and address hundreds of thousands of solicitation packets to potential victims across the United States.

Macromark marketed the lead lists as containing the demographic information of individuals likely to send money in response to the solicitations. The lists collectively contained approximately 750,000 potential victim names and addresses, according to the complaint.

The Iowa AG announced that it had reached an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with the broker resolving claims it facilitated fraudulent activities.

The AVC with Macromark requires it to refrain from any further facilitation of such fraudulent activities affecting Iowa residents and to pay $30,000 into a fund that protects elderly Iowans against consumer fraud.

The state brought separate action against Waverly Direct Inc. a direct mailer, and Nicholas Valenti, an individual accuse of sending deceptive mailings to elderly residents.

Nevada Mass Mailer
The U.S. AG’s Office announced the arrest of Glen Burke, of Las Vegas, for his alleged involvement in operating fraudulent schemes including a mass-mailing prize campaign that violated a federal court order.

According to the complaint, Burke’s business mailed solicitations — using fictitious names and, in many cases, created to look as if they were from law firms or financial institutions — claiming a recipient had won thousands or millions of dollars.

The indictment alleges that the solicitations advised consumers to pay a fee – usually $20 to $30 – in order to claim their winnings. Once consumers paid, however, Burke allegedly failed to send anyone their promised winnings of thousands or millions of dollars.

In addition to his direct mailing business, the AG’s office accused Burke and another man, Michael Rossi, of creating and operating a telemarketing company that mirrored the mass-mailing campaign.

The complaint alleges that Burke hired telemarketers to contact consumers claiming they had been selected for a valuable prize, and that they would receive the funds if they purchased certain products.

New York Direct Mailer
In another civil injunction action, the DOJ seeks to stop a collection of businesses and individuals who it says have operated a direct mailing scheme based out of Long Island, NY, since at least 2012.

The complaint [PDF] alleges that DMCS Inc., Direct Marketing Consulting Services Inc., Horizon Marketing Services Inc., Quantum Marketing Inc., and their owners committed mail fraud in connection with their scheme that included sending fraudulent solicitations styled as notifications that the recipient has won a large cash prize, typically worth more than $1 million.

In all, the complaint alleges that the defendants mailed hundreds of thousands of solicitations to potential victims throughout the United States every year and have grossed roughly $30.4 million since 2012.

Dutch “Caging” Companies
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a consent decree [PDF] of permanent injunction against two Dutch caging businesses — known as Trends — and their principal, to prevent them from assisting mass-mailing fraud schemes.

According to the original complaint [PDF], filed in June, since at least 2012 two companies based in Utrecht, Netherlands, operated “caging” services for multiple international mail fraud scams, meaning the companies receive and open responses from victims, and process payments for the scammers.

Trends and its operator agreed to settle the litigation and be bound by a consent decree of permanent injunction that prohibits them from performing caging services for prize or psychic mailing campaigns, or any other mailing campaign that misrepresents itself to consumers. The injunction also allows USPIS to intercept U.S. mail headed to the defendants, and to return that mail – along with any money being sent to the defendants – to U.S. victims.

As part of the settlement, the companies and operators did not admit wrongdoing or liability.

Swiss/Singaporean Direct Mailer
The United States brought a suit to shut down BDK Mailing GmbH, Mailing Force, and Only Three, known collectively as BDK, that allegedly collected approximately $50 to $60 million from victims annually.

According to the complaint, BDK acts as a “direct mailer” responsible for mailing millions of multipiece solicitations to potential victims throughout the U.S. that profess to come from financial entities, scholars, and world-renowned psychics, with contrived names like “Harrison Institute,” “Dr. Grant,” “Finkelstein & Partner,” and “Marie de Fortune,” among others.

The solicitations are written to give the impression that they are personalized and inform recipients that they will receive large sums of money, guaranteed money-making methods and/or powerful talismans in return for payment of a fee of $50 to $55, the complaint alleges.

Indian Printer
The U.S. filed suit [PDF] against Mail Order Solutions India, an Indian-based printer and distributor, that allegedly serves as one of the printer/distributors used by mail fraud organizations, including BDK, since at least 2005.

MOSI designs, edits and proofreads BDK’s solicitations, then “lettershops” them for delivery to the U.S. The complaint alleges that since 2013, MOSI has shipped at least 24.5 million solicitation packets to the U.S.

Turkish Direct Mailer
In a criminal complaint [PDF] filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the government charged Ercan Barka, 34, a resident of Turkey, with conspiracy to commit mail fraud.

According to the criminal complaint, Barka arranged for fraudulent solicitations to be mass-mailed to victims across the United States.

The mailers allegedly informed recipients — again mostly the elderly — that they had won cash awards or lavish prize items and needed to pay a “fee” to claim their winnings.

The DOJ also brought civil action [PDF] against Barka’s company, Delaware-based True Vision, under the Anti-Fraud Injunction Statute. The complaint, which claims Barka sends millions of notifications resulting in pilfering more than $29 million from victims since 2012, seeks to permanently ban Barka from participating in mail fraud schemes.

Preventing The Schemes
As part of Thursday’s crackdown, the government is working with several non-profit organizations — including our colleagues at Consumers Union – to create education tools that aim to protect vulnerable citizens.

The tools include websites, newsletters, social media channels, training, and outreach events.

screen-shot-2016-09-22-at-2-22-08-pm

The material provides information on how potential victims can spot mail fraud and prevent being lured into the schemes.

The outreach also includes messages to caregivers – such as friends, relatives, social workers and others in contact with older individuals – about the need to be vigilant against prize or psychic letters being sent to those under their care.

“This new campaign shines a spotlight on mass-mail fraud, where we see some of the most outrageous and sophisticated crimes aimed at the elderly,” Laura MacCleery, Vice President of Policy and Mobilization, Consumer Reports, tells Consumerist. “We are committed to helping educate and empower people so they can spot these schemes and avoid becoming the next victim.”


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist