вторник, 12 мая 2015 г.

uReport: Scammers Breach Starbucks Accounts, Refill And Drain Gift Card Balancesr


4 4 4 9
  • starbucks gift cards

    (Molly)

    Do you use a Starbucks stored-value card so you can have the fastest possible access to coffee? If you have that card set to auto-reload using a credit or debit card, you may be providing a way for criminals to vacuum money out of your bank account and into their own. How does that happen? Savvy scamsters can use a loophole in the way the cards work to reload and drain them for you.

    Starbucks accounts are an interesting hybrid of gift cards and debit accounts, but that means that they lack the protections of bank accounts. Consumer reporter Bob Sullivan broke this story, sharing the stories of readers whose accounts had been breached.

    The problem is that by changing a user’s Starbucks account password, scamsters can repeatedly transfer the victim’s balance to a card of their own, and this amount is theoretically unlimited as long as the victim has auto-reload turned on. (Do you use the Starbucks card or app and have auto-reload turned on, leave this page and go turn it off right now. Don’t even finish reading this paragraph. Why are you still here?)

    Sullivan contacted Starbucks about the scam, and they couldn’t provide specifics. They did point out that the value of a registered gift card is protected, and that customers aren’t ultimately liable for transfers made fraudulently.

    EXCLUSIVE: Hackers target Starbucks mobile users, steal from linked credit cards without knowing account number [Bob Sullivan]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uSEC Charges Current, Former Executives Of For-Profit Chain ITT Educational Services With Fraudr


4 4 4 9
  • ITTBack in September ITT Educational Services – the operator of for-profit college chain ITT Technical Institute – revealed it was facing increased scrutiny by several government agencies. That scrutiny turned to action this week as the Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges against current and former executives with the company for their part in concealing problems with company-run student loan programs.

    The SEC announced Tuesday that the charges against former CEO Kevin Modany and current CFO Daniel Fitzpatrick stem from their alleged fraudulent concealment of the poor performance and looming negative financial impact of two student loan programs the company financially guaranteed to investors.

    The loan programs – called PEAKS and CUSO – provided loans for ITT’s students after the collapse of the student loan markets. ITT guaranteed that the loans carried little risk of loss from the student loan pool to entice financial institutions to finance the loans.

    According to the SEC complaint [PDF], the loans performed so poorly by 2012 that the company’s guarantee obligations were triggered. However, instead of disclosing the issue to investors, ITT and its management took a variety of actions to create the appearance that ITT’s exposure was more limited.

    “Our complaint alleges that ITT’s senior-most executives made numerous material misstatements and omissions in its disclosures to cover up the subpar performance of student loans programs that ITT created and guaranteed,” Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, said in a statement. “Modany and Fitzpatrick should have been responsible stewards for investors but instead, according to our complaint, they engineered a campaign of deception and half-truths that left ITT’s auditors and investors in the dark concerning the company’s mushrooming obligations.”

    The SEC alleges that ITT and the executives engaged in a fraudulent scheme and made a number of false and misleading statements to hide the magnitude of ITT’s guaranteed obligations to the loan programs.

    For example, ITT regularly made payments on delinquent student borrower accounts to temporarily keep PEAKS loans from defaulting and triggering tens of millions of dollars of guarantee payments, without disclosing this practice.

    ITT also netted its anticipated guarantee payments against recoveries it projected for many years later, without disclosing this approach or its near-term cash impact.

    While these actions don’t spell the end for ITT-operated schools, they do mark another issue for the for-profit company that is already under government scrutiny.

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

    SEC Announces Fraud Charges Against ITT Educational Services [Securities & Exchange Commission]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uWarner Music Is Totally Cool With Streaming Music Now That It’s Making More Money Than Song Downloadsr


4 4 4 9
  • Once seen as the knife that would slay the music industry, it seems the popularity — and profitability — of streaming music is making some labels change their tune. Warner Music Group said revenue from streaming music has passed that from digital downloads for the first time.

    Streaming music sales managed to outstrip revenues from CDs in March across the industry, and now WMG says it’s beating download sales as well, a first for any large music label, notes re/code.

    Revenue from companies like Spotify and YouTube, which offer subscriptions as well as free content, grew 33% in Q2, Warner CEO Stephen Cooper announced during the company’s earnings call.

    Overall, digital revenue grew 7%, which means that download sales from iTunes and other outlets decreased in that same time.

    “The rate of this growth has made it abundantly clear that in years to come, streaming will be the way that most people enjoy music,” Cooper said in a statement at the beginning of the call. “We’ll continue to collaborate with our streaming partners to expand their businesses, and more importantly, to ensure that copyright owners, artists and songwriters receive appropriate value for their work.”

    Warner Music Says Streaming Revenue Has Passed Downloads, and It Wants More [re/code]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uSeaWorld Lawsuit: “Shamu Show” Was A Sham That Masked “Ugly Truth” About Lives Of Whales At The Parkr


4 4 4 9
  • Despite attempting to reassure the public that all is well under its artificial seas, SeaWorld continues to face criticism from the general public: A new class-action lawsuit against SeaWorld claims that the park made hundreds of millions of dollars from its “Shamu Show,” all while hiding the truth of how its killer whales were treated.

    In a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court Southern District of California [PDF], the lead plaintiff says that she would never have paid SeaWorld Entertainment for tickets or membership if she had known about alleged orca abuse.

    While the park claimed that whales and humans there lived in harmony and played together for public entertainment, the lawsuit claims there’s a side to the park visitors don’t know about — and if they did, the park wouldn’t be raking in the dough.

    “This illusion masks the ugly truth about the unhealthy and despairing lives of these whales. This is a truth that, if known to the purchasing public at the time families make the decision to visit SeaWorld, buy a membership, or pay for an ‘exclusive park experience,’ would lead them to seek entertainment elsewhere,” according to the May 7 lawsuit.

    The lawsuit goes on to claim that SeaWorld conceals from the public the impact on the animals kept captive “in a confined space, the forced separation of young whales from their mothers, the unnatural mixing of whales that do not have the same culture in small spaces, the forced breeding and inbreeding of young female whales, the routine use of pharmaceutical products to unnaturally drug the orcas, the psychological manipulation and at times food deprivation to which they are subjected, the deep rake marks on their bodies that result from incompatibility and cramped conditions, and many other life-shortening and painful experiences from which they have no escape.”

    The 87-page lawsuit (via Courthouse News) alleges that such treatment means whales at SeaWorld die many years before they would in the wild, and that the park lies to the public about how long orcas usually live.

    It also outlines the alleged potential dangers faced by trainers at SeaWorld, as evidenced by the death of trainer Dawn Brancheau, which was chronicled in the 2013 movie Blackfish.

    After the documentary about the 32 years Tilikum spent at SeaWorld leading up to the moment when he dragged Brancheau to her death below the water, the backlash against the park was widespread, with schools canceling field trips and musical acts canceling scheduled performances at the park. Corporate sponsors like Southwest Airlines and Taco Bell also cut ties, the lawsuit notes.

    Despite this, the complaint says anyone who questions the idea of making money from captive whales is accused of “radicalism” and “extremism” by SeaWorld, which continues to claim that its whales are treated well and have “fun” lives in captivity, the complaint adds.

    The three co-plaintiffs want to represent customers who bought SeaWorld tickets, memberships or other orca “experience” products at the San Diego, Orlando and Texas facilities before they became aware of the park’s alleged mistreatment of its captive whales, and seek injunctive relief requiring SeaWorld to stop with its alleged misleading business practices.

    SeaWorld has been trying to repair its tarnished public image, launching a campaign called “Ask SeaWorld” and pledging to spend $10 million on orca research and expand the whale environment at the park, among other things.

    But although SeaWorld has said it beefed up safety measures for its workers, earlier this month the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in California cited SeaWorld San Diego for not properly protecting employees.

    Though the park hasn’t commented on this particular lawsuit — the third of its ilk in the last month or so — a senior corporate affairs officer for SeaWorld Entertainment said in a press release in April: “We love these animals and do everything in our power to assure that they’re happy and healthy.”



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uBanks Continue To Improve Consumer Safeguards, But Progress Isn’t Coming Fast Enoughr


4 4 4 9
  • Opening a checking account with a bank is a rite of passage of sorts for many consumers, but the plethora of small-print disclosures, fees and other services are enough to confuse even the most seasoned account holder. While banks attempted to simplify their practices over the years, a new Pew Charitable Trusts report shows that some banks – and regulators – have a long way to go before they’re truly doing everything they can to protect consumers.

    The new report [PDF], the third in the organization’s Checks & Balances series, analyzes 45 of the 50 largest banks in the U.S. – 32 of which have been examined in all three of Pew Charitable Trust’s reports since 2013.

    Banks are evaluated for their “best” and “good” practices across three categories: disclosure, overdraft, and dispute resolution.

    According to Pew, best practices are defined as those that are most effective in providing checking account holders with clear and concise disclosures about fees and terms; reducing the incidence of overdrafts; eliminating practices that maximize overdraft fees; and allowing consumers to choose the method by which they resolve a problem with their bank, rather than requiring pre-dispute binding arbitration.

    In all, the report found just one bank that received best practices across all three categories.

    While most banks continued to improve regarding disclosures, the prevalence of harmful overdraft fees and account terms changed very little, or in some cases got worse during the past 12 months.

    DISCLOSURE PRACTICES
    When it comes to disclosure practices – how a bank informs consumers about services, fees and other account details – Pew found continued progress in making this information clear and concise for consumers.

    More banks than ever have adopted comprehensive disclosure forms for consumers.

    More banks than ever have adopted comprehensive disclosure forms for consumers.

    Pew found that 78% of the 32 banks reviewed over the three-year period have adopted a summary disclosure box of terms and fees that meet Pew’s standards. That figure is leaps and bounds higher than the 25% of banks that provided the disclosure box back in 2013.

    Of the 45 banks analyzed this year, nearly 62% had adopted complete disclosure boxes.

    Still, the study finds that the average length of a financial institution’s disclosure form is 40 pages, too long to be helpful or easily digestible for consumers, Pew says.

    OVERDRAFT PRACTICES
    Overdrafts and their resulting high fees have long been a point of immense scrutiny for consumer advocates.

    Since 2010, financial institutions have been required to obtain an opt-in confirmation from consumers before enrolling them in overdraft penalty plans. These plans involve the bank making a short-term advance to cover the transaction and charging a fee for the service.

    Despite federal regulations, a June 2014 Pew report found that more than 50% of people who incurred such penalty fees in the previous 12 months didn’t believe they had opted into any such plans.

    Those figures are likely to change in 2015, if Pew’s latest study is any indication. That’s because all 45 banks studied for the most recent report provided clear disclosures regarding the fee for incurring an overdraft penalty, if they enrolled in the program.

    The report found that many banks have also improved their default disclosures for account holders. The default allows ATM and point-of-sale transactions to be declined at no cost if the account holder if the transaction would cause the account to be overdrawn.

    In fact, 84% of the banks that have been studied since 2013 have made the default option clear to consumers, an improvement of 37% since the first report.

    Once again, the average overdraft fee clocks in at $35.

    Once again, the average overdraft fee clocks in at $35.

    When it comes to actual overdraft fees, Pew finds the figures mostly unchanged from 2014, with large banks continuing to charge between $35 and $38 per overdraft occurrence. Fourteen of the banks charge $35.

    Pew also looked specifically at the practices of the country’s largest three banks – Wells Fargo, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase – and found an array of policies regarding overdrafts.

    For instance, Bank of America doesn’t allow customers to overdraw at the point of sale but does allow them to withdraw “emergency cash” at an ATM in excess of the available balance for an overdraft fee; a practice Pew describes as an ATM overdraft.

    On the other hand, Chase doesn’t allow ATM overdrafts, but does allow point-of-sale overdrafts, while Wells Fargo allows both types of overdrafts.

    Pew found that some banks continue the hazardous practice of processing transactions from largest to smallest, an act that can maximize the number of overdrafts charged.

    Of the banks surveyed all three years of the study, Pew found that 91% no longer reorder transactions, up from 88% last year. When all 45 banks are considered, 84% have no or limited high-to-low reordering of transactions.

    In all, four of the 45 banks surveyed this year recorded best practices for all of Pew’s overdraft categories.

    DISPUTE RESOLUTION
    For years now, companies have been taking away consumers’ right to sue them when they screw up through the use of small, hidden clauses to require mandatory binding arbitration instead

    Earlier this year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that 75% of consumers surveyed did not know if they were subject to an arbitration clause in their credit card contract.

    More banks are ensuring that customers have full access to all available legal remedies.

    More banks are ensuring that customers have full access to all available legal remedies.

    But it’s not just the credit card companies that use these clauses. Pew finds that only 6% of the banks that were studied for all three Check & Balances reports didn’t use binding arbitration clauses.

    Overall, the study finds that the percentage of banks requiring customers to waive their rights to a jury trial have declined, with 34% requiring the clauses in 2015, compared to 38% in 2013.

    Additionally, some banks with arbitration clauses include an opt-out provision that gives customers the opportunity to retain their legal rights, typically by writing to the bank within a certain number of days after either the account is opened or the arbitration clause is added to the agreement. The median number of days prior to the opt-out expiring is 45.

    Nearly 59% of banks surveyed during the three-year period offered the opt-out provision, while 62% surveyed in 2015 offered the option.

    In all, four banks analyzed in 2015 met Pew’s best practices standards for dispute resolution.

    RECOMMENDATIONS
    While Pew maintains that many bank practices have improved since last year’s analysis, the study authors say the three-year results show that policymakers cannot wait for financial institutions to voluntarily adopt comprehensive practices ensuring that checking accounts are safe and transparent.

    Pew provided the following policy recommendations to make checking accounts safer for consumers:

    • Summarize key information about terms and fees in a concise, uniform format. 
    • Provide account holders with clear, comprehensive terms and pricing information for all available overdraft options.
    • Make overdraft penalty fees reasonable and proportional to the financial institution’s costs in providing the overdraft loan.
    • Post deposits and withdrawals in a fully disclosed, objective, and neutral manner that does not maximize overdraft fees.
    • Prohibit, in checking account agreements, pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration clauses, which keep account holders from accessing courts to challenge unfair and deceptive practices or other legal violations.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uMcDonald’s Plans Simpler Drive-Thru Menu To Speed Up Orders, Expanding Test Of All-Day Breakfastr


4 4 4 9
  • Beyond selling off a bunch of company-owned restaurants to franchisees, McDonald’s has been a bit vague on the details on how it intends to turn around struggling sales at the chain. Yesterday the company offered a glimmer of its vision for the future, sharing a plan with franchisees to trim its drive-thru menu, add some more midprice offerings and expand tests of its (limited) all-day breakfast menu.

    During a webcast meeting with franchisees, McDonald’s executives said the company wants to show only the top-selling items on the outside menu boards so orders can go through faster and improve service, the Wall Street Journal reports, citing people familiar with the matter.

    This is in line with earlier reports that McDonald’s was cutting several items from its menu, including the Deluxe Quarter Pounder and six chicken sandwiches, among other things.

    McDonald’s isn’t just taking things away from the menu: It’ll add in some more midprice menu items in the range of $1.50 to $3, which is more than its Dollar Menu items but not so pricy as the premium menu offerings. Franchisees have complained in the past that there are not enough mid-priced items on the menu, prompting customers to either buy on the low end or the high end.

    Also appearing on menus will be a mid-price McChicken sandwich with leaf lettuce and tomato and a double burger, also with lettuce and tomato. Those will be sold in addition to the lower-priced versions without vegetables on them.

    Fans of breakfast food might be pleased to hear as well that the company is planning to expand a test of the all-day breakfast menu, which is only in San Diego now but will roll out to Nashville.

    A spokeswoman for the chain declined to comment to the WSJ on the webcast, saying instead in a statement:

    “We’re always innovating around McDonald’s food, drinks and restaurant experience, and we’ll share news on these initiatives when the time is right,” she said.

    McDonald’s Wants to Speed Up With Smaller Drive-Through Menu [Wall Street Journal]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uVerizon Buys AOL For $4.4 Billion To Create Video Content, Ad-Sharing Mega-Companyr


4 4 4 9
  • verizonaol_logos (1)Old tech and new tech are coming together in a massive $4.4 billion deal, with mobile service powerhouse Verizon Communications buying the brand of the ’90s AOL — a deal that gives the country’s largest mobile phone operator a stronger foothold in the race to create ad-content that targets customers as they move from desktops to mobile devices.

    The New York Times’ DealBook reports that Verizon – the nation’s largest mobile phone operator – will expand its already robust portfolio by adding AOL’s collection of media and technology companies in a deal expected to close this summer.

    For Verizon, the deal represents a larger presence in the arena of video offerings. While the company already distributes mobile video through its mobile phone network, the array of platforms owned by AOL will give the company an opportunity to provide content through the internet.

    AOL, which owns The Huffington Post and other intentional new websites, as well as a once-iconic dial-up Internet business, could offer Verizon an avenue to compete with Facebook when it comes to seamlessly targeting users with internet marketing.

    The purchase of AOL will allow Verizon to tap into the former company’s software used to buy ads across the web and to connect user identity across mobile and desktop platforms.

    Verizon and other mobile phone companies have struggled in the past to identify users as they move between the products, in part because of the poor performance of cookies on mobile devices, AdAge reports.

    “Verizon’s vision is to provide customers with a premium digital experience based on a global multiscreen network platform,” Lowell C. McAdam, Verizon’s chief executive, said in a statement. “This acquisition supports our strategy to provide a cross-screen connection for consumers, creators and advertisers to deliver that premium customer experience.”

    AOL CEO Tim Armstrong – who will stay on at the company after the acquisition if it passes regulatory muster –– says that the two companies have a shared vision.

    “The companies have existing successful partnerships, and we are excited to work with the team at Verizon to create the next generation of media through mobile and video,” he said in a statement.

    Verizon to Buy AOL for $4.4 Billion in Cash [The New York Times DealBook]
    Verizon Buys AOL for $4.4 Billion [AdAge]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist