среда, 11 марта 2015 г.

jikGovernment Accuses DirecTV Of Deceptive Advertisingde

4 4 4 4
The Federal Trade Commission says that DirecTV is deceiving consumers by failing to adequately disclose how much these promotional prices will increase after 12 months, that subscribers face hefty early cancellation fees, and that they may be automatically subscribed to expensive premium channels after three months.

The Federal Trade Commission says that DirecTV is deceiving consumers by failing to adequately disclose how much these promotional prices will increase after 12 months, that subscribers face hefty early cancellation fees, and that they may be automatically subscribed to expensive premium channels after three months.



While DirecTV may make people laugh (or cringe) with its multiple Rob Lowe ads, the thing that matters to many people when choosing between cable and satellite is price. But a new Federal Trade Commission complaint filed against the nation’s second-largest pay-TV service alleges that DirecTV is tricking consumers into believing they’re getting a better deal than they end up with.

According to the complaint [PDF] filed today in a federal court in California, the FTC alleges that DirecTV violated multiple federal laws by not adequately disclosing the terms of its pricing promotions.


Like many pay-TV providers, DirecTV uses low introductory rates for new customers that subsequently increase, by upwards of 70%, after the promotion ends. The satellite service is also fond of throwing in free premium networks like HBO and Showtime for a few months to sweeten the deal.


While DirecTV includes fine-print disclosures about the fact that the promo price is only good for 12 months but requires a 24-month contract — or that the free premium channels will cost you money after three months — the FTC alleges that these disclosures are “inadequate in terms of their content, presentation, proximity, prominence or placement such that consumers are unlikely to see or understand” them.


The complaint claims that DirecTV automatically enrolls new subscribers into a so-called “negative option continuity plan,” meaning that the customer must tell DirecTV they don’t want to continue with HBO and other promotional add-ons or else they will start being billed for them when the free period ends.


New visitors to the DirecTV website are shown in huge bright numbers the promotional pricing for the different available programming packages and there is the much smaller note that the price is good “For 12 months with 24-mo. agreement.”


But the FTC claims that this fails to disclose the significance of the price hike during the second 24 months of the contract or that subscribers could face hundreds of dollars in early cancellation fees if they leave before the end of the two years.


“This additional information would be material to consumers in deciding to purchase Defendants’ subscription services,” contends the FTC.


The complaint also alleges that the particular negative option marketing used by DirecTV for the premium stations is in violation of the 2010 Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act. That law prohibits negative options unless the seller clearly and conspicuously discloses all material terms of the transaction before obtaining the consumer’s billing information, obtains the consumer’s express informed consent before making the charge, and provides a simple mechanism to stop recurring charges.


The FTC is asking the court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting DirecTV from further violations of the FTC Act and ROSCA. The government is also seeking consumer redress from the satellite provider, which could mean everything from refunds to allowing subscribers out of their contracts.


“DirecTV misled consumers about the cost of its satellite television services and cancellation fees,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez in a statement. “DirecTV sought to lock customers into longer and more expensive contracts and premium packages that were not adequately disclosed. It’s a bedrock principle that the key terms of an offer to a consumer must be clear and conspicuous, not hidden in fine print.”




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

jikMall Sends Wrong Emergency Alert To Retailers During Robbery, Prompting Scare Over Active Shooterde

4 4 4 4

Being inside a store when the gates clang down and having employees rush you into a back storeroom is bound to be a scary experience. And it was one that was totally unnecessary at a mall in Houston, after mall management accidentally sent an emergency alert to retailers warning of an active shooter on the premises, instead of a smash-and-grab robbery at a jewelry store.

A group of children and their parents were inside the mall’s Build-a-Bear at the time, reports KHOU-11 (warning, link has video that auto-plays), when the manager threw down the gates and herded the group to a storage room.


“They were screaming, ‘We have to get in the back, there’s a shooter,’ ” said one mom.


But when one of the parents called another mom walking through the food court, nothing seemed to be amiss.


“No security guard, there was no announcement from the mall or anything like that,” said the woman who’d been in the food court. She adds that now she’s concerned over what could happen in a real emergency, as no one took action after the alert was sent out.


A mall spokesperson released a new statement on Tuesday confirming that there was never an active shooter:



“We have a system in place, including training, for getting shoppers to safety in the event an actual shooter was in the mall. As we mentioned yesterday, there was never an active shooter and the message that went out was incorrectly broadcasted and subsequently corrected. Our tenants are provided with recommended emergency guidelines on how to handle various scenarios. Every situation is different, so I couldn’t provide you with exact wording to a particular situation. I do want to emphasize that safety and security are always our top priorities, every day — not just when incidents occur.”



Though it’s unclear, it’s possible that the other stores in the mall received the “corrected” message while the group inside the Build-a-Bear was still hiding, which could account for the lack of action in other parts of the mall. The spokesperson didn’t go into detail about whose job it is to secure people in common areas, but did say it wasn’t necessary this time because it was a false alarm.


Wrong emergency alert sent out in mall sparks concern [KHOU-11]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

jikiTunes And App Stores Down Worldwide, Other Apple Sites Also Reported Downde

4 4 4 4

It’s easy to laugh at the idea of an iTunes-related emergency, but such a thing is possible. If you’re having trouble reaching services from Apple like the mobile and desktop App Stores, iTunes Store, and iBooks store, the company confirms that those are down for everyone, not just you. There are intermittent reports that other services are down, but Apple has not confirmed those.

Apple did deploy software upgrades for their desktop and mobile operating systems yesterday, but the systems should be robust enough to let millions of people download without taking the music store out, too. In theory. Apple reports on its site for developers that iTunes Connect and TestFlight (a service to let users test pre-release versions of Apple apps) are down as well, including intermittent outages of the entire developer site, technical support pages, iCloud e-mail and other services from all over the world.


One user in Scotland even reported that the systems were down at their local Apple retail store.






How can you have an actual iTunes-related emergency? “Needed iMovie for something and couldn’t download it,” reports reader Mike, who let us know about these outages.


Apple’s iTunes Store is having problems and iTunes Connect is down [TheNextWeb]




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

jikOwners Of Wrecked Boat Out $20K Because AAA Tow Driver Used Personal Vehiclede

4 4 4 4

Common sense would tell you that if your vehicle is wrecked while in the care of a AAA tow truck driver, either that driver’s insurance or AAA would be responsible for making you whole again. But if the tow driver is using their own personal truck at the time of the collision, you could be stuck holding the bill.

That’s what happened to a San Francisco-area family who called AAA after the tire on their boat trailer went flat on the highway.


The family advised AAA that it would need to send someone out with a flatbed to safely move the boat, and AAA told them that one was on the way. The family could not stick around to confirm this, as state highway patrol officers had asked them to relocate for their own safety and leave the boat behind on the roadside for AAA to retrieve.


But here’s where things go wrong. The tow truck operator says that she was not told she needed to bring a flatbed truck and that she was only dealing with a flat tire, so she drove out to the boat in her own vehicle. Once there, rather than calling for a flatbed, the driver repaired the tire and hitched the boat trailer to her truck.


At some point afterward, the driver was involved in a collision with another vehicle and the boat was totaled, as you can see in the video here.


So the tow driver’s insurance should cover the damage to the boat, right? Nope. The driver’s insurance, like many personal policies, has a clause saying the vehicle is not covered if used for commercial purposes. Because the driver was using her own truck, her insurance would not pay.


What about the car that caused the collision? Unfortunately, that vehicle fled the scene and you can’t make an insurance claim against a driver you can’t identify.


What about AAA? Even when the family pointed out that the tow driver was effectively uninsured because she was using a personal vehicle, AAA insisted that the driver did have insurance, and because the tow driver was not at fault, the family would have to seek payment from their own insurer.


Their insurance company did pay $10,000, but replacing the boat would cost $40,000. The tow company where the driver works offered to pay another $10,000, but in installments over several years.


That leaves the family out at least $20,000 on a boat that someone else is responsible for wrecking.


After CBS San Francisco’s ConsumerWatch got involved, a state Dept. of Insurance investigation confirmed that the driver, contrary to AAA’s assertion, was indeed uninsured at the time of the accident because she was using her a personal vehicle for commercial purposes.


AAA would not tell ConsumerWatch whether it has rules prohibiting drivers from using personal vehicles or if the service verifies that third party tow companies are sending out the proper trucks to tow sites.


However, AAA now says it will “review (further documentation) and provide the member with an updated assessment of this case.”





by Chris Morran via Consumerist

jikAirlines Expecting Number Of Passengers Flying This Spring To Hit 7-Year Highde

4 4 4 4

Americans are taking to the skies in numbers that are expected to surpass the amount of passengers in the last seven years, falling just shy of the number of air travelers in 2007, just before the recession smacked the country back down to the ground.

Airlines expect the number of passengers traveling this spring to be at a high, according to the trade group Airlines for America, reports USA Today.


More people are taking to the air now because more people have jobs and thus, are making more money, says John Heimlich, the group’s chief economist. Spring travel will be buzzing due to “an improving economy, the highest consumer sentiment in a decade and the continued affordability of air travel, which remains one of the best bargains for consumers,” he says.


Ten publicly traded airlines are expecting to carry a combined 134.8 million travelers during March and April, a 2% bump from the same period last year.


In order to accommodate the rush, airlines are adding seats by deploying new, larger aircraft, Heimlich notes.


Though the trade group points to the “affordability” of flying and says the drop in fuel prices will allow airlines to reinvest in their equipment with bigger planes and onboard WiFi, among other things, skeptics say the increased numbers don’t necessarily mean the airlines are treating consumers well.


“Every piece of evidence we have shows that our infrastructure is already straining under the current load, and that passengers are frustrated beyond words by overcrowded flights and delays in the terminal and on the tarmac,” Roger Dow, CEO of the U.S. Travel Association told USA Today. “The travel community has said time and again that we need to work together to modernize and expand our system in order to maximize efficiency and let new carriers into the marketplace.”


Airlines expect the most passengers since 2007 [USA Today]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

jikParents Using Uber To Chauffeur Kids To School, Even Though It’s Not Allowedde

4 4 4 4

Rather than packing their kids onto a crowded bus in the morning or having to take time out of their morning schedule to get those students to school (or just making them walk, which is what legs were invented for), some parents are looking to ridesharing service Uber to ferry their youngsters around — even though it’s against the company’s own rules.

“It’s cheaper. It’s on-demand, so you only use it when you need it, as opposed to reserving somebody,” one suburban Maryland mom explains to the Washington Post. “Uber is just another tool for families to make it work.”


She says that traffic in her neck of the woods can be so bad in the after-school hours that it makes more sense to just send an Uber to fetch her teen daughters.


Problem is, Uber’s terms of service explicitly forbid hiring a car for unaccompanied minors.


“[Y]ou may not allow persons under the age of 18 to receive transportation or logistics services… unless they are accompanied by you,” reads the terms.


The company isn’t commenting on the increased use of its cars to chauffeur minors in violation of its own rules, but the Post notes that there are a number of newly launched services around the country that are specifically catering to parents who can afford to pay someone else to drive their kids around.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

jikMcDonald’s Will Pay SXSW Performers After Allde

4 4 4 4

Global fast-food mega-brand McDonald’s has gone digging behind its metaphorical couch cushions this week after negative music festival-related publicity. A band exposed the company’s plans to not pay artists invited to play in its showcase at the South by Southwest Music Festival, even though it had budgeted to distribute free McDonald’s food and drink. Now, in an unsurprising move, McDonald’s iwll pay the bands that play in its showcase.

After the letter from half of the duo Ex Cops sped around the global infosphere, McDonald’s says that it reconsidered its plans, in consultation with the musicians that had promised to show up, as well as the people in charge of SXSW.


McDonald’s had apparently misunderstood how things work at the festival: an insider explained to Billboard magazine that while it’s true that many other sponsors don’t pay showcase players in cash, they typically offer festival credentials or some other non-cash compensation that’s more substantive than fries, milkshakes, and “lovin’.”


In a statement, McDonald’s says that more than 20 bands will be taking part in their showcase, and they’re all going to get paid something. The statement doesn’t specify how much they’ll get paid, but it’s the gesture and reshuffling of its even budget to accommodate how other sponsors act at this particular event that counts.


“We are thrilled that our letter made a difference,” the Ex Cops posted on their Facebook page overnight. “Thank YOU for helping us. Artists should be paid for their work.”


McDonald’s To Pay Performers at Its SXSW Showcase [Billboard] (via Gawker)




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist