среда, 1 июля 2015 г.

uAT&T, CBS Make Nice And Sign New Contract, Avoiding Network Blackoutr


4 4 4 9

  • In a nice change for consumers, a content company and a distribution company managed to save everyone the rigamarole of a blackout and a finger-pointing yell-a-thon when they instead settled their differences and negotiated a new contract hours after the old one expired.

    The Wall Street Journal reports that representatives from CBS and AT&T negotiated through the night to come to an agreement that will keep CBS’s broadcast networks, as well as the Showtime premium channel, available for U-Verse subscribers.

    Had the late-night talks not been productive, approximately 2.5 million of U-Verse’s six million subscribers would have lose their local CBS affiliates, and millions more would have lost Showtime. Happily for all involved parties, that didn’t have to happen.

    Negotiations had been taking place since March, according to the WSJ, but stalled out as CBS called out AT&T for being more focused on its planned acquisition of DirecTV than on its existing TV contracts.

    The detailed terms of the agreement have not been released, because contract carriage fee agreements never are. However, the deal will put extra CBS networks on U-verse subscribers’ screens in 2016, including Pop, CBS Sports, and the Smithsonian Channel.

    CBS, AT&T Reach New Distribution Deal [Wall Street Journal]



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uCompanies Must Refund Millions Of Dollars For Credit Card Add-On Services Customers Never Receivedr


4 4 4 9
  • As a rule of thumb, if you’re a company and you charge a customer for a service or product, you’re supposed to actually provide that service or product. That apparently wasn’t a practice adhered to by two credit card add-on companies that must now pay millions of dollars in fines and refunds.

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took action today against Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. and Intersections Inc. for unfairly charging consumers for credit card add-on benefits they never received.

    Add-on services such as credit monitoring or identity theft protection are often offered to customers by their credit card companies or third-party vendors for an extra monthly fee.

    According to the CFPB complaints, Affinion and Intersections are both vendors of these types of products, and partnered with banks to provide such services to credit card holders and other bank customers.

    An investigation into the companies found both engaged in unfair practices related to the billing or administration of these products, in violation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

    In Affinion’s case [PDF], the CFPB alleges that from about July 2010 through August 2012, the company enrolled consumers in add-on products that claimed to provide benefits including credit monitoring, credit report retrieval, or both.

    The services generally cost between $6.95 and $15.99 per month, and customers were typically billed directly to their credit cards or bank accounts.

    The Bureau alleges that Affinion or its partner banks billed full product fees to at least 73,000 accounts while failing to provide the full credit monitoring or credit report retrieval services promised, and failed to refund fees to those consumers.

    When customers called to complain or cancel the add-on service, Affinion retention specialists provided inaccurate or incomplete information about the value and benefit of add-on products, the CFPB claims.

    During some calls, Affinion retention specialists claimed they could directly remove inaccurate information from consumers’ credit reports and raise their credit score as a result. However, according to the CFPB, the company had no control over the information contained in a consumer’s credit report.

    According to the CFPB complaint against Intersections [PDF], the company began its unfair billing practices earlier.

    The company – which had agreements with about 35 banks – marketed and sold add-on products to consumers, promising them access to their credit reports and a credit score, email, or phone alerts when new credit accounts were opened, and access to a phone representative to respond to their credit report questions from 2009 to early 2013.

    Intersections’ add-ons generally cost between $8 and $10 per month, which was typically billed directly to customer credit cards.

    The CFPB alleges Intersections billed or instructed the banks to bill approximately 300,000 consumers who signed up for their products knowing they were not receiving all the benefits.

    To settle the unfair billing charges, the CFPB announced that Affinion [PDF] and Intersections [PDF] entered into proposed consent orders that require them to provide refunds to affected customers.

    Affinion must pay approximately $6.8 million in refunds to about 73,000 eligible consumers who enrolled in the credit monitoring products between July 2010 and August 2012 and were charged for services that were not received, but who have not already received refunds.

    The company must also pay a $1.9 million fine to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund.

    Intersections must pay approximately $55,000, to customers who, for at least one month, were billed for identity theft or credit monitoring products, but were not receiving full product benefits.

    The company previously entered into an agreement with the CFPB that required it to refund some customers. The Bureau estimates the company only has about $55,000 in refunds left to disseminate.

    Intersections must also pay a penalty of $1.2 million to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund.

    CFPB Takes Action Against Companies For Unfair Billing Of Credit Card Add-On Products And Services [CFPB]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uSprint Backpedals, Won’t Slow Video Speeds For Unlimited Data Customersr


4 4 4 9
  • Well, that was fast: A day after Sprint stirred up the ire of customers with its new “All-In” unlimited plan that stuck users with 3G speeds for streaming video, the company has now reversed course.

    CEO Marcelo Claure wrote on Twitter that he was “asleep in Tokyo” when the backlash was in full cranky mode, and said in another Tweet that there won’t be limits on streaming video:

    But as these things go, that’s not the whole story: In a press release from the company about the decision, Claure added that that there might still be some times when the company has to “manage the network in order to reduce congestion and provide a better customer experience for the majority of our customers.”

    So what does “manage the network” mean, in light of the fact that Sprint recently announced it wouldn’t throttle data for unlimited users?

    The Washington Post asked for clarification on that end, and was told that Sprint won’t slow down streaming video for any of its postpaid customers either, along with those on All-In plans. But the company didn’t explain what “standard network management practices” would mean other than not choking video speeds.

    Below are the plans that Sprint says will no longer have streaming video limits:

    sprint



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uWatch The Tiny Hamster At A Tiny Barbecue With His Tiny Friends (Because It’s Wednesday)r


4 4 4 9

  • Feel like you just can’t make it through the next few days before the holiday weekend? We interrupt your regularly scheduled Wednesday programming with a perfect panacea for the hump day blues: The Tiny Hamster at a tiny Fourth of July barbecue with his tiny friends (and one normal-sized human). Sure, the video is two days old, but that doesn’t make it any less adorable or brain soothing. Or tiny. [Hello Denizen on YouTube]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uMacy’s Dumps Trump Over Controverial Comments, He Says It Was His Idear


4 4 4 9
  • What do a southern chef, the owner of a professional basketball team and a candidate in the 2016 presidential election have in common? They’ve all been ditched by brands, retailers and other companies after being accused of making racist comments. The latest addition to the list comes as Macy’s announced it would sever its decades-long relationship with businessman Donald Trump.

    CNN reports (warning: link contains video that autoplays) that Macy’s joined the growing list of businesses cutting ties with Trump after he recently made controversial remarks about Mexican immigrants.

    The department store plans to begin pulling Trump brand merchandise from its stores, saying it “stands for diversity” and that it has no tolerance for discrimination. It was unclear when or if the company would pull television advertisements in which the presidential candidate appears.

    “In light of statements made by Donald Trump, which are inconsistent with Macy’s values, we have decided to discontinue our business relationship with Mr. Trump and will phase-out the Trump menswear collection, which has been sold at Macy’s since 2004,” the company said in a statement.

    Following Macy’s announcement, Business Insider reports that Trump announced he wasn’t the ditchee, he was the ditcher – saying it was his idea to end his relationship with the department store.

    “I have decided to terminate my relationship with Macy’s because of the pressure being put on them by outside sources,” Trump said in a statement. “While selling Trump ties and shirts at Macy’s is a small business in terms of dollar volume, my principles are far more important and therefore much more valuable.”

    The pressure Trump alludes to came in the form of a petition calling for the removal of his products from the department store. The effort on MoveOn.org had garnered more than 700,000 signatures as of Wednesday morning, CNN reports.

    Macy’s is just the latest company to distance itself from Trump following his disparaging statements last week.

    NBC Universal, which airs the Celebrity Apprentice reality TV show and jointly owns the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageant with Trump, severed ties with the entrepreneur last week.

    Trump’s recent rejection by corporate entities is the most recent evidence that companies feel little obligation to stand behind celebrities – or athletes – that allegedly say or partake in controversial behavior.

    Last fall, the NFL found itself in the rejected corporate sponsorships arena following several domestic violence scandals.

    Specific players – like Adrian Peterson and Ben Roethlisberger – were personally dumped by brands for alleged domestic violence and sexual assault cases.

    In the spring of 2014, L.A. Clippers (now former) owner Don Sterling was accused of making racist comments. What followed was a long list of high-profile brands – like CarMax and Virgin America – cutting ties with the NBA team.

    And we certainly can’t forget 2013’s Deengate, in which southern chef and restaurateur Paula Deen lost a bevy of endorsement deals, closed several restaurants and had products phased out by Walmart and Target after copping to using racist language in her past.

    First on CNN: Macy’s dumps Donald Trump [CNN]
    Donald Trump: It was my decision to cut off ties with Macy’s [Business Insider]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uVisa, MasterCard Cut Ties With Backpage.com After Pressure From Law Enforcementr


4 4 4 9
  • After pressure from law enforcement, both Visa and MasterCard have announced they will no longer process payments for classified ads on Backpage.com. The site has often been criticized for its “Adult” section, which some say makes it easy for pimps and sex traffickers to solicit customers for sex.

    Illinois’ Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart sent a letter to both companies on Monday, asking them to bar patrons from using them cards to purchase ads on the site, reports the Wall Street Journal. Dart has been on Backpage.com’s case for some time, tracking solicitations for prostitution. The classified ads site features subcategories in the Adult section like for “escorts,” “male escorts,” “body rubs” and other things.

    In his letter, Dart asked MasterCard and Visa to “immediately cease and desist from allowing your credit cards to be used to place ads on websites like Backpage.com, which we have objectively found to promote prostitution and facilitate online sex trafficking.”

    “After years of unchecked growth in the online sex trade, it has become increasingly indefensible for any corporation to continue to willfully play a central role in an industry that reaps its cash from the victimization of women and girls across the world,” the sheriff wrote.

    MasterCard announced yesterday that it’d be cutting ties with Backpage.com, with Visa following suit today.

    “They are being removed as a merchant in our system based on a request from the sheriff’s office that we received,” a MasterCard spokesman said on Tuesday, according to the WSJ.

    “MasterCard has rules that prohibit our cards from being used for illegal or brand-damaging activities. When the activity is confirmed, we work with the merchant’s bank to resolve the situation,” the company told the Chicago Tribune.

    Visa cited “moral, social and legal” reasons in its decision to cease processing transactions from Backpage.com.

    “Visa’s rules prohibit our network from being used for illegal activity,” a company spokesman said in a statement, via USA Today. “Visa has a long history of working with law enforcement to safeguard the integrity of the payment system and we will continue to do so.”

    The WSJ cites people familiar with the matter who say American Express previously stopped processing ad payments on the site earlier this year.

    This isn’t the first case of cutting straight straight to the middlemen who move the money in an attempt to take down illegal content online: In November, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont wrote to the heads of Visa and MasterCard asking them stop serving file-sharing sites.

    MasterCard Stops Processing Purchases of Ads on Backpage.com [Wall Street Journal]
    MasterCard says its cards can’t be used to pay for adult ads on Backpage [Chicago Tribune]
    Visa follows MasterCard, cuts off business with Backpage.com [USAToday]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uRisk Evaluation Report Finds Mobile Banking Leaves Some Banks More Vulnerable to Cyber Attacksr


4 4 4 9
  • While mobile banking is no doubt convenient for customers – and banks – there’s a significant downside to the fact that more and more financial institutions are using the technology: an increased risk that your personal information will fall in the hands of a cyber criminal.

    A new report [PDF] from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency suggests that banks’ strategies to implement mobile technology often leaves their infrastructure open to cyber attacks, the Chicago Tribune reports.

    According to the OCC’s semiannual risk perspective report released on Tuesday, banks are increasingly embracing the use of technology such as cloud computing and mobile banking to stave off the competition.

    While the ease of mobile banking and other advances can not only save customers time but save banks money, the OCC found that these systems can “increase exposure to technological and operational risk.”

    “Banks and their employees, customers and third-party service providers continue to be vulnerable to cyberattacks that can compromise data or systems or allow criminals to illegally obtain personally identifiable information,” the report states.

    The report also found that many banks lacks sufficient response plans if they find themselves on the wrong side of a cyber attack.

    “There are many systems out there that have known, existing vulnerabilities that need to be addressed and can be addressed,” Beth Dugan, the OCC’s deputy comptroller for operational risk, tells the Wall Street Journal. “As the larger institutions do put in mitigating controls and strengthen their systems, the bad actors are just going down [to smaller firms] looking for the weakest link.”

    In addition to pointing out some financial institutions’ lack of cybersecurity, the OCC’s report found other worrisome issues in the banking industry, mainly in the form riskier of lending.

    According to the report, competition pushed banks to make more exceptions to their lending and underwriting policies during the first part of 2015.

    The banking regulator said it’s seen a “loosening of standards” – such as less underwriting – across many credit products including business loans, commercial real estate loans and vehicle loans.

    “Bankers continue to express concerns about the effects that intensified competition with other regulated financial institutions and nonbank financial firms are having on underwriting standards,” the comptroller wrote.

    The OCC says that a change in standards could be seen in the way banks have altered terms for auto loans, specifically extending the life of a loan.

    Last month, a report from credit reporting agency Experian found that the average loan terms for new and used vehicles span 67 and 62 months, respectively.

    In all, that report found that even longer loans – those with terms lasting 73 to 84 months – are on the rise, with 29.5% of all new vehicles financed with such terms. Long-term used vehicle loans for the same duration represented 16% of that market.

    Banks making riskier loans; consumers vulnerable to cyberattacks: report [Chicago Tribune]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist