uBig Data Predicts Pollen Levels, Keeps Allergy Medicines In Stockr

4 4 4 9

• 

  The enemy: pollen. (Karen Chappell)

  Here in the Northeast, people who are allergic to pollen are having a harsh spring. They should take comfort, though, that there isn’t a corresponding shortage of allergy medicines, as there apparently was five years ago. Drug companies have learned how to take global climate data and turn it into more plentiful antihistamines when people need them.

  Bayer, for example, is the maker of Claritin, a pretty standard and popular new-generation antihistimine. According to the Wall Street Journal, Bayer plans its entire supply chain for Claritin as early as nine months in advance, and uses software that models climate patterns to predict levels of popular allergens, then make sure that those areas stay supplied. Real-time and past years’ sales data are important, too, but weather is an important variable in how demand for a certain medication can change.

  This spring, pollen levels are apparently up 25% on the coasts of the United States, which explains why people allergic to pollen are so unhappy, and why my car looks green. Experts say that this is because plants are spewing pollen, but there has been less rainfall than usual, which means that the pollen continues to float around, hitting humans in the face and causing allergic reactions.

  Using weather models has other applications outside of allergy drugs, but those are trickier since other health conditions don’t map as precisely as pollen levels do to allergic reactions. You can try to predict demand for cough medicine along with spans of cold temperatures, for example, but that’s imprecise. If you can predict pollen levels, though, you can probably predict demand for allergy medicines.

  Big Data Brings Relief to Allergy Medicine Supply Chains [Wall Street Journal]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uFTC Affirms Consumers’ Right To Go To Court Over Warranty Disputesr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Ryan Glenn)

  In just the last four years, the U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled against consumers’ rights and in favor of companies that use fine print in their contracts to block wronged customers from suing in court and from joining together as a class action. In spite of these rulings, the Federal Trade Commission recently upheld rules that give warranty buyers the right to a day in court, even if they have to go through arbitration first.

  Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975, the FTC is responsible for interpreting and reviewing the rules guiding warranties.

  While these rules don’t bar warranty providers from requiring that customers enter into arbitration for dispute settlements, § 703.5(j) states that an arbitrator’s decisions “shall not be legally binding on any person.”

  This is very different from the increasingly popular mandatory binding arbitration that so many companies — particularly financial institutions and telecom providers — have been inserting into their terms of service and contracts.

  In those binding situations, not only is the customer forced into individual arbitration — a process that is heavily unbalanced in favor of the larger company — but the decision of the arbitrator is final.

  § 703.5(j) makes sure that warranty customers still have the right to take their matter before a court. The arbitrator’s decision can be introduced as evidence, but that’s it.

  During the FTC’s recent review process of the warranty rules, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers called for the removal of § 703.5(j), saying “it creates disincentives for manufacturers or sellers” to offer arbitration in the first place.

  While two federal appeals courts have ruled that the Magnuson-Moss act doesn’t prohibit binding arbitration, the FTC has repeatedly held that the 1975 law never intended for arbitration rulings to be the ultimate say in a dispute.

  The Commission points to § 2310(a)(3)(C) of this law, which deals with informal dispute settlement procedures.

  The law states that “any decision in such procedure may be admissible in evidence” in “any civil action arising out of a warranty obligation.” To the FTC, this clearly implies that the legislators saw arbitration as a first step that could resolve some disputes, but not the final, binding word on all disputes.

  Some opponents of this rule also claim that arbitration doesn’t come under the umbrella of “informal dispute settlement mechanisms” [IDSM] and therefore Magnuson-Moss doesn’t apply to these procedures.

  “[A]ny arbitration proceeding is, by comparison to judicial proceedings, an ‘informal’ ‘mechanism’ for ‘dispute settlement,'” counters the FTC, “and it thus falls squarely within the plain meaning of the term ‘informal dispute settlement mechanism.'”

  In addition to retaining the prohibition on binding arbitration, the FTC is adding to § 700.10, which that limits warrantors’ tying of warrantees to select parts or service providers.

  In its current form, that rule prohibits a company from voiding a warranty just because a customer uses someone other than an authorized dealer or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty work. In other words, if your laptop screen dies while under warranty, the manufacturer shouldn’t be able to say the warranty was voided just because you replaced the sound card.

  The revised rule clarifies that this extends to the mere implication of voiding the warranty for customers who choose to use parts and services unrelated to the manufacturer.

  “[W]arranty language that implies to a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances that warranty coverage requires the consumer’s purchase of an article or service identified by brand, trade or corporate name is similarly deceptive,” reads the revised rule. “For example, a provision in the warranty such as, ‘use only an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer’ or ‘use only ‘ABC’ replacement parts,’ is prohibited where the service or parts are not provided free of charge pursuant to the warranty.”

  A real life example of this case occurred recently, with BMW reaching a settlement deal with the FTC for telling drivers of the company’s Mini vehicles that the only way to maintain a vehicle’s safe operation and value is to “have routine maintenance performed only by Mini dealers unless the representation is true and BMW can substantiate it with reliable scientific evidence.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uIRS: Thieves Obtained Information On 100,000 Taxpayers From Transcript Systemr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Jimmybionic)

  A tax transcript is a document from the IRS that shows key information from tax returns that you’ve already filed, or changes to what you and the government owe each other that may have been made after the return was filed. You can normally order them online, but the system is now closed after the IRS learned that people identified only as “thieves” accessed transcripts for about 100,000 people.

  If you’re one of the unlucky 100,000, the IRS says that they will contact you so you can take precautions. To access a person’s transcript, someone would need some key personal information about them that isn’t all that hard to find, like their Social Security number, tax filing status, address, and birthdate. While a stolen tax return can be very valuable to an identity thief, the culprits would have already used the most important pieces of personal data to obtain the transcripts in the first place.

  The main filing system was not breached, the IRS assures the public: only the system that generates transcripts. The same group of thieves made an estimated 200,000 attempts from what the agency called “questionable email domains” to request transcripts with ill-gotten personal information.

  APNewsBreak: IRS says thieves stole tax info from 100,000 [Associated Press]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uFTD, Classmates Inc. To Pay $11M To Resolve Multi-State Allegations Of Deceptive Advertisingr

4 4 4 9

• The attorneys general from 22 states signed an $11 million settlement with a national flower delivery service and social networking site today to resolve allegations that the two companies misled consumers into buying subscription services they didn’t want.

  Florists’ Transworld Delivery, Inc., its subsidiary FTD.com and online social networking company Classmates, Inc., allegedly violated state consumer protection laws by allowing third-party marketers to charge online customers who failed to expressly opt-out of a membership program, according to the New Jersey Attorney General’s office.

  According to the settlement [PDF], the companies, which were previously subsidiaries of United Online, Inc., engaged in deceptive advertising and billing practices for nearly nine years.

  “Businesses have a duty to be clear, direct and honest when advertising, and to respect consumer privacy laws by not sharing sensitive credit card and debit card account information without proper disclosure and/or consumer consent,” New Jersey’s Acting Attorney General John Jay Hoffman said in a statement.

  In addition to New Jersey, states involved in the investigation and subsequent settlement include Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

  Tuesday’s settlement stems from a multi-state investigation that found FTD and Classmates took part in a practice known as negative option marketing.

  Consumers who visited websites controlled by FTD and Classmates tell the AGs they were often sold “trial term” subscriptions for goods and services by third-party marketers using the companies’ websites.

  The AGs alleged that those customers were not adequately informed that the subscriptions would renew automatically once the trial period ended, and that their credit cards would be billed for the renewal until the consumer actively canceled the subscriptions.

  The investigation found that these deceptions were made possible because FTD and Classmates allowed sales and membership offers – such as discount clubs, travel rewards and insurance programs – by third-party marketers to pop-up during online consumer transactions.

  In some cases, the pop-ups displayed FTD and Classmates logos, leading consumers to believe that they were still doing business with the two companies even when they weren’t.

  Customers who signed up for the third-party promotions were typically charged an initial trial period.

  When the trial period ended, a “free-to-pay” aspect of the deal was triggered. However, the investigation found that portion of the deal was not adequately disclosed, and resulted in consumers unwittingly being billed for paid memberships or subscriptions.

  According to the investigation, in order to pay the third-party marketers, Classmates and FTD allegedly engaged in “data passing” – the sharing of consumers’ data including their personal billing information without properly disclosing the practice to customers.

  In addition to allegedly being duped by the companies, customers tell the AGs that when they became aware of the added charges, they found it difficult to cancel their subscription.

  Under the settlement, FTD will pay $8 million to the 22 states involved, while Classmates will establish a $3 million restitution fund for customers who were enrolled in the subscription service without authorization or were unable to cancel their subscription.

  The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office reports that to be eligible for restitution, consumers must have purchased subscription services from Classmates between January 1, 2008 and May 26, 2015.

  Despite agreeing to pay a combined $11 million in penalties and restitution, the two companies do not admit any wrongdoing or liability.

  New Jersey Joins Multi-State Settlement Resolving Allegations That FTD, Classmates Inc. Engaged in Deceptive Ad Practices [New Jersey Office of the Attorney General]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uTarget Clarifies: They Reserve The Right To Ban Resellersr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (JeepersMedia)

  Target’s collections of downscale versions of products from big-name designers are hot sellers, and the quick disappearance of this year’s Lilly Pulitzer collection from its physical and virtual shelves followed the pattern. A month after that, people began to report that they were being banned from making purchases from Target because they bought too much. No, Target wasn’t rejecting capitalism: the retailer confirmed that they were taking action to deter resellers.

  You may remember that the Lilly Pulitzer collection sold out so quickly that the company had to take action to prevent its website from crashing. it appeared that they were trying to prevent resellers from buying up merchandise and flipping it for more money elsewhere. Arbitrage is the simple practice of buying something and then selling it elsewhere at a higher price. That’s not a new invention, but the Internet has made it a lot easier to engage in arbitrage by picking up a few shift dresses at Target and listing them on eBay.

  Target says that they aren’t banning all resellers outright, but re-emphasized in a statement to eCommerceBytes that they reserve the right to limit how much they sell to any given person, and a recent change to this policy includes allowing stores and their e-commerce division to limit sales to people who are obviously reselling merchandise.

  At Target, we put our guests first and are committed to offering a convenient shopping experience. In order to ensure we have the inventory of products to meet our guests’ needs, we recently established a new policy that reserves Target the right to prohibit purchases to resellers. It is not a new policy for Target to reserve the right to limit quantities on orders. Guests will be notified at the time of purchase if quantity limits will be applied.

  Target Explains New Policy on Resellers [eCommerceBytes]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uMystery Drone Operator Drops Cash On Lunchtime Crowd In Michigan Cityr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (MLive.com)

  For all those times you’ve wished it would suddenly start raining money, the odds are you haven’t been that lucky… yet. The lunchtime crowd enjoying the great outdoors in Grand Rapids, MI enjoyed a fleeting brush with unexpected fortune when a mysterious drone flew over head, dropping cash as it flew.

  According to MLive.com, who had an employee on the premises when the drone flew over downtown around 12:30 p.m. today, people were scurrying around with joy. As one does when MONEY IS FALLING OUT OF THE SKY.

  “It was hovering over the center of the circle and after a couple of minutes it dropped what appeared to be money,” the employee recalled. “Once people realized the cash was real, they swarmed to pick it up.”

  It appears that all the money was single dollar bills, with about $50 getting dropped before the drone went on its merry way.

  The MLive worker at the scene said it appeared the operators were standing on top of the JW Marriott hotel nearby, but officials at the hotel said they had no knowledge of a planned promotion or other occasion for a drone flight.

  Mystery drone drops cash on downtown lunch crowd [MLive.com]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uLawmakers Criticize Plan To Bottle Springwater In Oregon During Droughtr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Yusuf C)

  Drought conditions in some parts of the country have people distressing jeans with ozone and painting their lawns green. Yet one industry keeps guzzling water and attracting the ire of the lawn-painting public: water-bottling operations.

  In practical terms, not bottling water wouldn’t conserve very much of it, and also would mean that the same amount of water bottled somewhere else would have to be trucked in. “We’ve determined that bottled water serves a good use, especially in drought-stricken areas where people’s wells have gone dry,” a spokesperson for the state water control board told CNN. (warning: auto-play video)

  The image of large corporations like Nestle and Starbucks bottling up water from agricultural regions in California affected by the drought and sending it out of the area reflects poorly on everyone involved. After a flurry of publicity against companies bottling water during a drought, Starbucks announced that it would bottle its Ethos brand of water in Pennsylvania.

  Nestle, however, isn’t moving their bottling operation, but they would like to tap some nice springwater up in rural Oregon. After working out an arrangement with the state government, the plan could go forward. There’s one problem, though: the drought issues in other western states are affecting parts of Oregon, and even state legislators are concerned about the plan to bottle Oregon’s water when other parts of the state could use it, too.

  Nestle Bottled-Water Plan Draws Fight in Drought-Stricken Oregon [Bloomberg News]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist