uLawmakers Propose Bill To Prevent Businesses From Suing You For Complaining About Themr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Brad Clinesmith)

  Most of the time, consumer interactions with businesses go just fine. We give a company our money, they provide us with goods or services, and everyone is happy. But sometimes, things go awry. The customer isn’t happy, the business doesn’t make it right, and we complain: not just to the business, but to Facebook, Twitter, or Yelp. And that, too often, is when the story starts to get even uglier.

  It happens all the time: a customer complains online, and the business responds with a lawyer. Instead of a change in policy, or an offer to make amends, the consumer ends up on the receiving end of a legal threat basically saying, “if you don’t stop saying mean things about us forever, we will sue you.”

  These lawsuits have an acronym: SLAPP, for strategic lawsuit against public participation. Most people have neither the time nor money to spend fighting off a lawsuit from a lawyered-up business, so they respond to legal threats by backing down and removing their posts from the internet. That makes SLAPP suits a cheap and easy way for businesses to shut down dissent and negative criticism: more often than not, they don’t even have to spend real resources following through and going to court.

  In short, SLAPP suits suck. They prevent people from fairly (or unfairly) speaking their mind, and use intimidation as a means of silencing. The legal battles, when they do come, can be intense and long-lasting — even when filed in one of the states that has an anti-SLAPP statute on the books. And so members of Congress want to act to make SLAPP suits against the law nationwide.

  That’s what a bill just introduced in the House would do. The proposed legislation (PDF), called the SPEAK FREE Act of 2015, is modeled on existing laws in California and Texas. Basically, it gives anyone being targeted with such a suit the ability to call it what it is and ask to have it dismissed in a faster, less cumbersome way than the legal system would ordinarily allow. Since consumers would be able easily to get out of being sued for having opinions, businesses would be less likely to threaten to sue customers for sharing those opinions.

  That’s the theory, anyway.

  Yelp, which as one of the biggest and most popular sites for consumers to vent about businesses is at the center of so many of these lawsuits, is thoroughly in favor of the SPEAK FREE Act as well as a related newly-proposed bill that would ban anti-disparagement clauses.

  “Whether people are expressing their opinions in the form of a consumer review, an editorial in a newspaper, or commentary on a blog, it’s important that they not be bullied into retracting their criticism,” Yelp representatives wrote in an official blog post. “Having both of these laws in place at the federal level will ensure that Yelpers, and all Americans who care about their freedom of speech, are protected from wealthy bullies and powerful special interest groups.”

  Anti-SLAPP laws are one of the many never-blooming flowers in the Congressional garden of perennial bills. We covered a similar proposed law back in 2010. So how likely are these current bills likely actually to pass and to benefit consumers?

  They stand a better-than-average chance, according to GovTrack.us, but still not a great one. The bill against SLAPP suits has an 18% chance of getting through committee and a 3% chance of becoming law; the bill prohibiting anti-defamation clauses stands a 5% chance of becoming law.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

uSupreme Court Says Convicted Felons Have A Right To Sell Their Gunsr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Misfit Photographer)

  Plenty of Americans legally own firearms. If any of them are later convicted of a felony (that isn’t related to the weapons) and can no longer own a gun, should they have the right to have some input on where their former firearms go? According to the U.S. Supreme Court, yes.

  The matter before the court in Henderson v U.S. involved a U.S. Border Patrol agent who was arrested on marijuana distribution charges. As a condition of his bail, the FBI took possession of his firearms. He later entered a guilty plea to a felony charge.

  Under 18 U.S.C. §922(g), convicted felons are prohibited from possessing a firearm. So the man requested that the FBI transfer ownership of his guns to a friend. However, the FBI refused.

  A federal court denied his request saying that the transfer of the weapons to a friend could effectively allow him to retain possession of the guns through the friend. An appeals court affirmed this decision.

  In arguing before the Supreme Court, the government had maintained that the law prevents all transfer of convicted felons’ weapons to third parties, even in cases where a court approves the recipient, except to licensed firearms dealers who will sell them on the open market.

  But in today’s SCOTUS ruling [PDF], Justice Elena Kagan explains that this is too oversimplified a view of the law.

  She writes that the government is conflating the right to possess an item with the right to “sell or otherwise dispose of that item.”

  Taking away a felon’s right to own a gun does not necessarily mean the felon gives up all his rights to decide where that gun ends up. Likewise, giving the felon the ability to determine the disposition of his guns doesn’t put him in possession of the weapons.

  Kagan notes that in the Henderson example, where the felon turned over his guns to the FBI before he was even convicted, “The felon has nothing to do with his guns before, during, or after the transaction in question, except to nominate their recipient.”

  So if the felon nominates a recipient, a judge approves that recipient, and law enforcement handles the transfer, Kagan writes that this is just doing exactly what the law is supposed to — getting the weapons out of the hands of a convicted felon.

  “Such a felon exercises not a possessory interest (whether directly or through another), but instead a naked right of alienation—the capacity to sell or transfer his guns, unaccompanied by any control over them,” she explains.

  The appeals court had held that Henderson had no standing on which to request equitable relief for his weapons being held by the FBI because of “unclean hands.” But in a footnote to the SCOTUS ruling, Kagan dismisses this line of thought, pointing out that the while the “unclean hands doctrine proscribes equitable relief,” that is only in instances where the felon’s misconduct has “immediate and necessary relation to the equity that he seeks.”

  Because Henderson’s conviction had nothing to do with firearms, this doctrine doesn’t apply, explains Kagan.

  SCOTUS believes that courts have the authority to review firearm transfer requests from felons. The trial court “may properly seek certain assurances: for example, it may ask the proposed transferee to promise to keep the guns away from the felon.” If the court doesn’t believe that this transfer or sale will prevent the felon from exercising possession, it can deny the request.

  Today’s ruling could have farther reaching implications for convicted felons who have been denied requests to transfer or sell property that was seized but unrelated to the crime for which they were committed.

  [via SCOTUSblog.com]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uThis Poisonous Beetle Is Not A Crunchy Salad Toppingr

4 4 4 9

• This photo has been censored for your protection. The real photos are at the end of this post. Don’t scroll down if you’re eating salad, maybe.[/caption]Small animals love vegetables, and so do people. Sometimes small animals end up harvested along with vegetables, slip through safeguards in the system, and end up in our bowls. Usually, these are harmless, but what if they aren’t? Four people in different places have found potentially poisonous beetles in their salad greens, and we really, really hope that there aren’t more out there lurking in more salads.

  All four of these critters were reported to the ever-useful r/whatsthisbug subreddit, where users correctly identified the salad beetles as Tegrodera aloga, the Iron Cross blister beetle. (A real-life entomologist confirmed this identification.) All four were in organic lettuce, spinach, or packaged salads. Two reports were in Illinois, one in Virginia, and one in Ohio. None of those are areas where the Iron Cross blister beetle normally hangs out: while different species of blister beetles are scattered all over the world, this species is supposed to live in the American Southwest and Mexico. Not in Ohio. Not in salad containers.

  Here’s the problem with these beetles hanging out in food: when stressed, they give off a substance called cantharidin, which is poisonous. While eating one beetle won’t kill a human adult, it will definitely cause pain and suffering. Eating insects that give off cantharidin or plants that these insects have contaminated has been known to kill farm animals, and toddlers have been documented eating cousins to these beetles and becoming critically ill as a result.

  If you’ve spotted one of these beetles in your salad, let us know. More importantly, let the company that packaged the product and the Food and Drug Administration know. Call them to file a complaint. Even if they can’t do anything in your individual case, reporting incidents like this to the government helps them to notice patterns and investigate them.

  

  

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uAmazon Is Using NYC’s Subway System For Prime Now Deliveriesr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (afagen)

  Anyone who’s ever tried driving through a big city knows that cars aren’t always the best way to get from point A to point B, especially during rush hour and other busy times, or when construction is snarling traffic. So when it comes to getting packages delivered on time, Amazon figures it might as well skip the truck and take public transit instead.

  The company is now using New York City’s subway system to ferry around its products for Prime Now deliveries in Manhattan, reports the Financial Times, as often taking the train is a lot faster than taking four wheels. Prime Now promises delivery within an hour for $7.99 or two hours for free.

  According to two workers manning pushcarts of Amazon packages on the subway that FT spoke with, the company is using the subway for most Prime Now deliveries, for exactly the reason why anyone would — it’s faster.

  Amazon confirmed that it’s using the subway for Prime Now orders where it can: “In Manhattan, our folks bike, walk or use public transportation. They only drive if the item is large like a flat screen TV.”

  Here’s where you brag about that one time you carried a flat screen TV on the subway because no cabs would pick you up.

  Amazon trolleys take a ride on New York subway [Financial Times]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

u10 Things We Learned About The World’s Largest Diploma Millr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (rayovolks)

  Earning a diploma can take years, but some people simply don’t have the time. For that reason, companies have been cropping up year after year offering consumers the chance to obtain a diploma, degree or certification in exchange for hundreds – and sometimes thousands – of dollars. A new report from the New York Times details how one company allegedly rakes in millions of dollars a month by selling those bogus documents though a series of fake websites and forceful sales calls.

  Axact – a Pakistan-based IT company – reportedly exudes the picture-perfect image of a bustling Silicon Valley-like corporation. But in reality, the Times investigation finds the company is the mastermind of an enormous scheme selling fake academic degrees on a global scale.

  We really recommend that you head over and read the entire report from the Times, but here are the ten things that we learned from the exposé, which relied on statements from former employees, company records and an analysis of the fake academic websites.

  1. The nearly 400 picturesque high schools and universities depicted on websites and in advertisements are actually stock photos. Paid actors are used to portray profession in advertisements and fictitious reports are allegedly posted to CNN’s iReport section for citizen journalism.

  2. The Axact headquarters in Karachi employs more than 2,000 people, most working as telephone sales agents providing prospective students with information about purportedly legitimate degrees and coursework.

  3. While many of the people who contact the plethora of Axact schools know they are simply buying an instant degree, others who were seeking a genuine education say they were manipulated by sales agents’ incessant calls and assurances that they were qualified to receive a degree without further schooling.

  4. Former employees estimate that the company brings in several millions of dollars each month through its fake diploma business where a high school diploma costs around $350 and a doctoral degree can run $4,000 or more.

  5. Sales agents are taught to upsell to prospective customers. In some cases former employees say agents cold-call customers impersonating American government officials, intimidating people into paying thousands of dollars for authentication certificates allegedly signed by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

  6. An Egyptian man who knew he was paying for a fraudulent degree from Nixon University and U.S. certificate tells the Times he spent $12,000 with the company last year.

  7. Another man from Abu Dhabi says he spent $3,300 for what he thought was a legitimate 18-month online master’s program in business administration from Grant Town University. The courses never occurred and the man was pressured into paying $33,000 for additional certifications after being threatened by supposed government agents.

  8. The Times found that several Axact-related diploma mill operations and -owned school websites have been part of investigations by U.S. federal agencies over the years. A retired FBI agent says, “hands down, this is probably the largest operation we’ve ever seen. It’s a breathtaking scam.”

  9. Another unit of the company sells a service offering on-demand term papers for college students.

  10. Funds from the scheme – which are funneled to off-shore accounts, according to the Times – are currently being used to fund Axact’s broadcast studios and recruitment of journalists for a television and newspaper group called Bol.

  Representatives for Axact responded to the Times request for comments on the issue with a letter from company lawyers, who offered a blanket denial of the report.

  Fake Diplomas, Real Cash: Pakistani Company Axact Reaps Millions [The New York Times]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uCrayola: Don’t Use Our Colored Pencils On Your Facer

4 4 4 9

• 

  (frankieleon)

  In another example of why it’s not a good idea to believe every viral thing you come across on the Internet, Crayola is warning customers not to use its colored pencils as makeup after some beauty bloggers posted tutorials on how to soften the drawing tools and use them as eyeliner.

  Though it might be tempting to save a few bucks and head to the art supply aisle instead of the cosmetics area of your local drug store, Crayola is warning against the practice of using its pencils as makeup.

  Some bloggers have advised softening colored pencils in water and spreading the color on eyes or lips as they’re non-toxic, but Crayola notes that while its products are safe for use by kids who might say, chew on them, they haven’t been tested for use as makeup.

  “As the manufacturer of children’s products, safety is our top priority at Crayola,” the company said on its website. “Although our products are nontoxic, we do not recommend using them to make lipstick, eyeliner or other make-up and strongly discourage their use in this manner. They are not designed, tested or approved for this purpose.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uCoca-Cola Says It Didn’t Pay For Placement In Mad Men Finaler

4 4 4 9

• 

  This image from the Mad Men finale has nothing to do with Coca-Cola. We just love Stan’s style.

  If you haven’t watched the series finale of Mad Men, then you really shouldn’t be reading a story about the series finale of Mad Men. And if you continue reading this story about the series finale of Mad Men, don’t get angry at us for giving away what happens in the final moments of the series finale of Mad Men.

  For the rest of you who did watch the episode or don’t care about having it spoiled, the show ended its seven-season run on Sunday with ad men extraordinaire Don Draper bottoming out at a West Coast therapy retreat only to be reborn from his own ashes like a smirking phoenix who comes up with the idea for the most iconic Coca-Cola ad of all time, and easily one of the most famous commercials ever put on American TV.

  In fact, the show doesn’t even conclude with one of Don’s famous pitches, but rather with virtually the entire classic 1971 “Hilltop” ad, best known for its “I’d like to buy the world a Coke” jingle.

  Interestingly, Coca-Cola didn’t make our extensive round-up of the 72 real-life brands that were pitched during the seven seasons of Mad Men. That’s because Don actually fled McCann before we ever had the chance to see him make that pitch. At least now we know it went well.

  While Coca-Cola says it knew that the commercial would be included in the finale, the company says it didn’t pay a dime to be the final thing anyone ever watched of the AMC hit.

  “We’ve had limited awareness around the brand’s role in the series’ final episodes, and what a rich story they decided to tell,” reads a statement from the company.

  Maybe AMC should be asking for money from Coke, given the ridiculous level of brand exposure the few seconds of commercial scored for the beverage behemoth.

  From AdAge:

  The online conversation sparked a 991% increase in Coke’s digital consumption after the episode aired, according to Amobee Brand Intelligence, a digital marketing company. Its “consumption” stat is a measure of how often a term or brand is seen online.
  There were 21,204 tweets involving Coca-Cola in the three hours following the Mad Men finale, according to Amobee.

  For those unfamiliar with the story behind the ad, it was indeed created by McCann Erickson, the ad agency that absorbed Don, et al, during the final season — and from which he fled after only a few days.

  According to Coca-Cola, the McCann creative director who thought of the ad had been waylaid at the airport in Shannon, Ireland, when he noticed that the angry passengers on his plane were now getting along and bonding over bottles of Coke at the airport cafe.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist