uTicketmaster Sells Me Useless Parking Pass, Won’t Give Me A Refundr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Sadat Shami)

  Adam recently attended a performance by comedian Kevin Hart in Boston, a city where parking is scarce and expensive. Ticketmaster offered him the opportunity to pay for his parking in advance along with his tickets, and he did. Doing so didn’t simplify his night out, though, since there was no one at the automated garage to accept his parking pass. He paid with a credit card and sought a refund from Ticketmaster later. They wouldn’t give him one, until Consumerist intervened… and also learned how the parking garage really worked.

  He wondered how to use a computer printout at a parking garage, and he called the company that was, according to their website, the owner of the garage. They claimed not to own the garage. That was confusing, so Adam contacted Ticketmaster to ask how the prepaid parking worked.

  It took a few attempts to get a relevant answer, which may have been an early warning sign. The e-mail response from Ticketmaster was pretty straightforward, explaining the locations of the garage entrances and explaining how the parking passes worked.

  “Prepaid parking tickets will be scanned upon entering the garage,” the helpful customer service representative wrote, along with accurate-looking directions to the garage entrance. Excellent.

  In hindsight, Adam should have called the venue (TD Garden) directly instead of going right to Ticketmaster: they, might have some idea who owns the garage. You know what they say about hindsight, though: you don’t have it when you’re waving a piece of printer paper at an unresponsive automated interface.

  Yes, ticketing and payment were completely automated at the garage. “When we arrived at the lot, no employee or signage of any kind was present,” Adam told Consumerist. He and his companion couldn’t figure out how to use the passes, so they paid again to park in the garage that they had already paid for.

  There must have been an error or miscommunication between Ticketmaster and the parking garage. Right? Adam contacted Ticketmaster for a refund, and they refused. He finally received this rather condescending response from a customer service representative:

  I’m sorry to inform you, but we can not offer you a refund. The event has passed, and it is not on our end you didn’t find the parking lot. There ways to find out information [sic], you could have called the venue to find out about the parking, showed up a little earlier, or drove around till you saw a usher [sic].

  Thank you, Ticketmaster representative: Adam will be sure to do that as soon as he builds his time machine so he can go back and attend the show again. It was Ticketmaster that gave Adam bad instructions, and where would they find “a usher” in an unmanned parking garage in the neighborhood surrounding a massive urban sports and entertainment venue?

  That was Adam’s last exchange with the company: after that, he turned to Consumerist. We contacted Ticketmaster’s communications department, and we were able to do two things: get his $42 back (event parking in Boston is no joke) and find out what it was that he was supposed to do with the parking pass.

  It turns out that the kiosks in the parking garage are able to scan the printout from Ticketmaster, and there’s no human interaction required. That sounds confusing, especially if there isn’t clear signage with instructions. New England Consumerists, maybe don’t bother buying your parking from Ticketmaster when attending events at TD Garden.

  “We very seldom receive complaints of this nature, but will certainly work to prevent any future issues – this includes addressing this matter with our customer service staff,” the Ticketmaster representative told Consumerist. She also said that they brought Adam’s complaint back to the venue so everyone can avoid having this issue again in the future.

  It’s excellent that Ticketmaster promises to improve the information that employees give out along with the parking passes that they sell. It’s a convenient service (I’ve used it with no problems in the past), but confusing and pricey when it goes wrong, as it did for Adam.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uMartha Stewart Omnimedia Sells Out, Will Be Corporate Sibling To Franklin Mintr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Mike Mozart)

  While Martha Stewart’s lifestyle and publishing empire isn’t as popular as it once was, its founder’s name is still a good shorthand for domesticity and good taste. That’s why the news today that her company has been acquired by Sequential Brands, the owner of Justin Bieber’s denim brand and the Franklin Mint, surprised many people.

  From a business point of view, it makes logical sense, Sequential is the company that has also ended up owning the Linens-N-Things brand, which it operates as an online store, Jessica Simpson’s clothing brand, and Heelys: those sneakers with built-in roller skates that were a menace to adults last decade.

  Then there’s the Franklin Mint, home of commemerative statues and dolls for every occasion, and a company that thought a framed shadowbox full of gold-plated, hologrammed state quarters was a good idea, because just gold-plating or just hologramming is not enough for these monsters.

  Anyway, back to Martha Stewart. The company, which is publicly traded, was worth as much as $1 billion at its peak, but a collapse in the publishing industry followed Stewart’s imprisonment, making lifestyle magazines no longer as profitable a venture as they once were.

  About half of the company’s revenues come from the magazines and other publications. The other half comes from the sale of licensed products in different store: you may remember when JCPenney and Macy’s squabbled over which retailer had the right to sell branded housewares merchandise. The empire also includes home-improvement supplies and crafting supplies, and even branded collections of pet toys and accessories.

  One financial analyst told Reuters that the main advantage of merging with Sequential is that the new owners are better positioned to expand Martha Stewart Living into international markets. However, he thought that the sale price was too low, and the company would sell for more if it were sold off in parts.

  Martha Stewart’s Media Empire Sold for Fraction of Its Former Value [New York Times]
  Martha Stewart Living to sell itself in $353 mln deal [Reuters]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uPrivacy Group’s FTC Complaint: Uber Shouldn’t Track Users When They’re Not Using The Appr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Adam Fagen)

  A digital-privacy group has filed a complaint against Uber, saying the company’s new privacy policy says it could use a rider’s location information to track where they are even when the app is running in the background, and also takes issue with the company’s policy regarding collecting address book information. The Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C wants the FTC to investigate.

  Under fire in the group’s complaint [PDF] is the new privacy policy for riders that Uber introduced in May, which is slated to go into effect on July 15.

  Specifically, the part under “Location Information” that reads: “…we may also collect the precise location of your device when the app is running in the foreground or background. We may also derive your approximate location from your IP address.”

  And in the “Contacts Information” section: “If you permit the Uber app to access the address book on your device through the permission system used by your mobile platform, we may access and store names and contact information from your address book to facilitate social interactions through our Services and for other purposes described in this Statement or at the time of consent or collection.”

  EPIC says in its complaint that Uber’s updated privacy policy is an unlawful and deceptive trade practice.

  “These changes ignore the FTC’s prior decisions, threaten the privacy rights and personal safety of American consumers, ignore past bad practices of the company involving the misuse of location data, pose a direct risk of consumer harm, and constitute an unfair and deceptive trade practice subject to investigation by the Federal Trade Commission,” the complaint reads.

  “What the company calls a privacy announcement actually serves a different purpose,” Julia Horwitz, a coordinator at EPIC told Bloomberg News. “It actually gives the company many more permissions.”

  Uber says these updated privacy polices don’t constitute a shift in a shift in practices, and are only meant to lay out what data the company collects and why.

  “There is no basis for this complaint,” Uber said in a statement. “Our new privacy statements are much simpler to read and set out more clearly the data we collect, as well as how we use it. That is a significant improvement for riders and driver-partners. In our announcement we were also transparent about what new data we might collect going forward — and the fact that users will be in control.”

  The company says it’s not currently collecting background location data and has no plans to do so starting July 15. It points out that users will be able to opt out of gathering location data in the background, if it chooses to start collecting that information, as well as choose not to share contact information with the app.

  On iOS devices you can change such settings on an app-by-app basis, telling each app whether it can collect location data while you’re using the app, in the background or never. You can also limit which apps can use information in your address book.

  But Android’s mobile platform applies such permissions to either all apps a user downloads, or none. If for example you don’t want your contacts to sync with Uber, you’d have to enter someone’s information manually, when you want to split a fare with a friend or share promotional offers.

  Likewise with sharing location data: if an Android user wanted to bar Uber from refreshing location information the background, they would have to turn that off for all apps (which someone might want to do, understandably). That is, unless Google at some point changes its settings to allow users to modify settings for each individual app instead of across the entire platform.

  EPIC’s complaint goes on to say, however that even though users can disable these settings, “Uber can still collect location information through the phones’ IP addresses.”

  To that, Uber again said EPIC’s allegations are misleading, and that it receives Internet-protocol addresses as part of the traffic data that all apps receive.

  A spokesman for the FTC told Bloomberg that the agency carefully reviews complaints from consumers, but declined to comment on whether the FTC is investigating Uber’s practices.

  Uber’s Customer Tracking Draws FTC Complaint From Privacy Group [Bloomberg]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uSenator Pushes For System To Notify Consumers ‘The Moment Access To Their Credit Is Requested’r

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Chris Blakeley)

  It seems like every day, another retailer, service provider, or government agency falls victim to a data breach, and if a hacker uses that stolen info to open up a new line of credit in your name, you may not know until long after the fact. One lawmaker is hoping to curb identity theft by giving consumers a heads-up whenever their credit reports are accessed.

  Today, New York Senator Chuck Schumer announced a proposed plan that aims to better protect consumers from falling victim to identity thieves by directing the three national credit reporting agencies (CRAs) – Experian, Equifax and Transunion – to create a notification system to alert consumers whenever access to their credit is requested.

  Currently, credit bureaus are not required to provide consumers with notification when a third-party asks if their credit is in good standing.

  “The most frightening thing to many people is that they have no idea whether they have been the victim of an attack until it’s too late,” Schumer said in a letter to the CRAs. “Too many people have faced the reality of learning that someone else has opened new lines of credit in their names only once their score has already been run into the ground.”

  Under the plan, the CRAs would be required to notify individuals by phone or email anytime there is an inquiry rewarding their credit. The alerts would be made even if the inquiry were authorized, such as those made when an individual applies for a loan, credit card or mortgage .

  The voluntary system would be similar to notifications that consumers receive from credit card companies when there is an instance of suspicious activity.

  If someone receives the notification they would then have the ability to freeze their credit before new purchases are made or before access to credit turns into costly fraud.

  “Despite widespread hacking and identity theft across the country, consumers are not notified when access to their credit is requested to create a new account,” Schumer said in a statement. “Instead, consumers are often in the dark until their credit is drained or their credit score has tanked.”

  Schumer says that if the CRAs are unwilling to take the lead on such a system, she would work with relevant federal regulators or pursue legislation to ensure mandate the adoption of a notification system.

  Schumer announces plan that would require consumers be notified the minute access to their credit is requested [Sen. Charles Schumer]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uAd Watchdog: Toy Lightsaber Doesn’t Light Up, Commercial Is Misleadingr

4 4 4 9

• As far as we know, the Jedi are not real. Lightsabers are not real. For children, though, the lines between real life and fiction can get a little fuzzy. That’s why the ad industry’s self-regulation body is not impressed with Hasbro’s ad for an awesome double-bladed lightsaber, since it cuts footage of an animated character together with footage of a kid playing with the toy, which creates the impression that the toy lightsaber lights up. It doesn’t.

  There are other “Star Wars” licensed lightsabers that do light up, and kids who are fans would probably know that, which is one possible point of confusion that the Children’s Advertising Review Unit of the Council of Better Business Bureaus points out.

  We couldn’t find the 30-second version of the ad under question, but here’s a 15-second cut that has the major elements, including the animated Inquisitor character wielding his lighted saber.

  While the actual toy in the ad doesn’t light up, every other lightsaber in the ad does. “child viewers could reasonably takeaway the message that the toy does light up,” CARU notes, since there’s only a brief disclaimer

  CARU Recommends Hasbro Modify Advertising for ‘Inquisitor Lightsaber’ to Better Assure Viewers Understand Product’s Capabilities [ASRC]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uCourt Case Illustrates Just How Difficult It Is For Borrowers To Discharge Student Loans In Bankruptcyr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (steakpinball)

  Students being crushed under the weight of mounting student loan debt have few options when it comes to receiving forgiveness for their debts, and bankruptcy is often the least obtainable – thanks in part to the nearly impossible to meet “undue hardship” standard. To see just how difficult and seemingly arbitrary this guideline is, all one needs to do is hear about a recent federal court case out of Maryland that determined a woman couldn’t escape her debt obligation because she had failed to make a good faith effort in repaying the loans despite the fact she’s unemployed, disabled and living below the poverty line.

  A federal district judge ruled this month that the 45-year-old woman could not discharge $37,400 in student debt during bankruptcy proceedings despite the fact her entire $10,000 income comes from Social Security disability benefits and public assistance, Bloomberg reports.

  The woman, who hasn’t worked since 2008, initially took out student loans worth $13,250. However, over the years that debt ballooned to more than $37,000.

  She initially sought to discharge the debt in bankruptcy. When a judge ruled she couldn’t skirt her obligations, she took the case to the U.S. District Court in Maryland.

  It was there that a judge ruled the woman failed to meet the undue hardship test.

  As we’ve previously reported, discharging student loans in bankruptcy is a long and tedious process that often provides little relief to consumers.

  In order to shake student loans debt in bankruptcy court, borrowers must prove undue hardship through a court determination. That means it is entirely up to the court to decide whether a borrower meets the three-pronged standard. To make matters worse, the standard can vary a great deal, because the bankruptcy code does not provide an actual definition of undue hardship.

  In general, one prong of the undue hardship standard relates to a plaintiff’s ability to prove that repaying the debt would make it impossible to “maintain, based on current income and expenses, a ‘minimal’ standard of living.”

  The second prong includes proving that “additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans.”

  While the woman was successful in proving those two standards, the court ruled that she was incapable of proving the third: “that the debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans.”

  According to Bloomberg, the judge found the woman failed this test because she didn’t attempt to repay her loans while holding a government-sponsored job in 2008.

  However, at the time the woman was only making $11,000, just $1,000 more than her current income. She told the court she used the additional funds to pay credit card debt and other expenses.

  Although the woman is currently still on the hook to pay her student debt, the district court judge provided her with information on government forgiveness programs that may be of assistance.

  Courts Rule That Disabled Woman Living Below the Poverty Line Must Repay Student Loans [Bloomberg]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uSCOTUS Sides With California Farmer Who Refused To Pay Raisins Into The National Reserver

4 4 4 9

• 

  (manoftaste.de)

  A few years back we heard the tale of a California farmer who was raisin’ a stink over the government’s insistence that he pay 1.2 million pounds of raisins into the national reserve without paying him for them. Today, the Supreme Court of the United States sided with him, saying the Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes personal property (movable property), just as when it takes real property (things like land).

  Quick background: Around 2002, the farmer had refused to let the government take away 1.2 million pounds of raisins, under something called a “marketing order” that takes the raisins and dumps them into a national reserve. In this case it was Marketing Order 989, which was initiated as part of the New Deal as a way to keep demand for raisins high when prices decline.

  The raisins that go into the reserve are then sold off by the Raisin Administrative Committee, which runs the reserve. These are raisins the farmers got nothing for, but that are then exported in noncompeting markets, given to charity or other purposes. It gets them off the open market and keeps the supply for commercial buyers low. That means you could be paying higher prices for raisins than you would if the farmers were allowed to sell all their crops off.

  Farmers are supposed to get whatever’s left of the net proceeds RAC makes after deductions for the export subsidies and the Committee’s administrative expenses.

  For their refusal to fork over the free raisins, the government ultimately fined the farmers about $480,000, the market value of the fruit, plus “an additional civil penalty of $200,000.”

  In the opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority today [PDF], he explains the system and notes that during the years at issue in this case, the net proceeds from the RAC were less than the cost of producing the crop one year, and nothing at all the next. Which means the farmers basically got nothing.

  “Growers generally ship their raisins to a raisin ‘handler,’ who physically separates the raisins due the Government (called ‘reserve raisins’), pays the growers only for the remainder (‘free-tonnage raisins’), and packs and sells the free-tonnage raisins,” Roberts wrote. “The Raisin [Administrative] Committee acquires title to the reserve raisins that have been set aside, and decides how to dispose of them in its discretion.”

  The farmers in question produced some of the raisins at issue here themselves and acquired some from other producers, “paying those growers in full for all of their raisins, not just the free-tonnage portion.”

  The decision today doesn’t invalidate marketing orders, which have been permitted for a while as a condition for selling in interstate commerce. But essentially, the government can’t make raisin growers give up their property without just compensation.

  The court held that when the government “physically takes possession” of property, that constitutes a “per se taking,” instead of a regulatory one, so that just compensation is required, whether it’s personal property or real estate.

  The court also rejected the United States Department of Agriculture’s argument that promising to share future proceeds from the sale of the reserve raisins was enough to meet that requirement of just compensation.

  Though eight of the justices agreed on that (with Justice Sotomayor dissenting), when it came to deciding what “just compensation was,” the justice voted 5-4, with Justice Roberts concluding:

  “The Government has already calculated the amount of just compensation in this case, when it fined the [the farmers] the fair market value of the raisins: $483,843.53,” he wrote, saying the government can’t go back on that valuation now. Instead of giving the farmers that amount, he says they should “simply be relieved of the obligation to pay the fine and associated civil penalty.”

  All of the justices agreed, however, that “Raisins… are a healthy snack,” Roberts wrote in the part of the opinion joined by Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan.

  “I could not agree more,” Sotomayor agreed in a footnote.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist