вторник, 21 июля 2015 г.

uCitibank Must Pay $700M Over Illegal Marketing, Collection Practicesr


4 4 4 9
  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ordered Citibank and one of its subsidiaries to pay $700 million in relief to more than 8.8 million consumers for engaging in a string of illegal credit card practices, including deceptively marketing and billing for debt protection and credit monitoring services, and misrepresenting fees related to debt collection actions.

    In all, the CFPB estimates seven million consumer accounts were affected by Citibank’s deceptive marketing, billing, and administration of debt protection and credit monitoring add-on products, while one of its subsidiaries deceptively charged expedited payment fees to nearly 1.8 million consumer accounts during collection calls.

    According to the CFPB complaint [PDF], from at least 2003 through 2012, Citibank and its subsidiaries – Department Stores National Bank and Citicorp Credit Services, Inc. – allegedly used deceptive means to market and enroll consumers in five debt protection add-on products, four identity theft add-on services and one credit monitoring add-on product.

    The debt protection products – AccountCare, Balance Protector, Credit Protection, Credit Protector, and Payment Safeguard – were advertised to account holders as allowing the cancellation of a consumer’s balance, or deferment of the payment due date, if the consumer experienced certain hardships, such as job loss, disability, hospitalization, and certain life events, such as marriage or divorce.

    The identity theft add-ons, called IdentityMonitor, DirectAlert, PrivacyGuard, and Citi Credit Monitoring Services, offered credit-monitoring or credit-report-retrieval services, while another product called Watch-Guard Preferred, was advertised as a wallet-protection service that notified credit and debit card issuers if the consumers reported a card lost or stolen.

    The CFPB alleges that Citi and its subsidiaries routinely marketed these products deceptively to consumers during telemarketing calls, online enrollment, point-of-sale application and enrollment at retailers or when already enrolled customers called to cancel products.

    In some cases, the CFPB, alleges that telemarketers misrepresented or did not inform the consumer about the cost of the products. For example, in one telemarketing script cited by the CFPB, Citibank allegedly instructed employees to claim a blanket “free” 30-day trial period. However, Citibank still charged consumers during the initial 30 days of membership.

    In other instances, Citibank allegedly failed to inform consumers that they would be billed after the 30-day trial period if they did not cancel the product.

    The company also told some consumers they could avoid the fee by paying their balance in full by the due date. But it failed to specify that in order to avoid the fee, consumers must pay off the balance before the end of their billing cycle so that there would be no balance on the account when billing statements went out.

    Customers who signed up for the credit-monitoring products were promised that they would be notified of any fraudulent purchases. However, the CFPB asserts that the product only provided alerts to changes in a consumer’s credit file maintained by major reporting companies, not at the transaction level.

    Additionally, Citibank allegedly told customers the credit score used in the products was generated from all the three major credit reporting companies, when in reality the score was generated by a third-party vendor.

    As for Citibank’s subsidiaries, the CFPB claims that Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., used leading questions to obtain billing authorizations from consumers for certain add-on products. It also enrolled some consumers without any billing authorization or by construing ambiguous responses during calls for a billing authorization as permission for enrollment, and then charged consumers for the products.

    When it came to charging customers for these add-on products, the CFPB contends Citibank and its subsidiaries relied on illegal billing practices, ultimately affecting nearly 2.2 million customer accounts from at least 2000 through 2013.

    In many instances, the CFPB claims, Citibank billed consumers for add-on products without actually having the authorization necessary to perform the credit-monitoring and credit-report-retrieval services.

    Other times, the company and its vendors continuously charged account holders for services they were never eligible to receive in the first place or only partially received because of a lack of information in consumer reporting files.

    In addition to deceptively marketing services and illegally billing customer accounts, Citibank and its subsidiaries allegedly engaged in deceptive collection practices when trying to obtain payment on delinquent retailer-affiliated credit cards.

    According to the CFPB, Citibank offered consumers the option to make payment by phone using a checking account – for a $14.95 fee – so the payment would post to the account on the same day.

    The Bureau alleges that when offering this method of payment, Citibank failed to disclose other non-fee options and misled consumers by referring to the $14.95 payment fee as a “processing” fee instead of simply a fee to allow payment.

    As a result of the allegedly misleading and illegal credit card practices, the CFPB has ordered Citibank to provide $700 million in relief to affected account holders.

    Of that redress, $479 million will go to the roughly 4.8 million consumer accounts impacted by deceptive marketing or retention practices. Approximately $196 million will be provided to about 2.2 million consumer accounts that enrolled in the credit monitoring products and were charged while Citibank did not perform all of the promised services.

    Finally, subsidiary Department Stores National Bank must provide about $23.8 million in consumer relief to almost 1.8 million consumer accounts for charging expedited payment fees on these delinquent accounts.

    In addition to consumer relief, Citibank must pay a $35 million penalty to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund, as well as end its unfair billing practices and cease engaging in the deceptive marketing of add-on products.

    CFPB Orders Citibank to Pay $700 Million in Consumer Relief for Illegal Credit Card Practices [CFPB]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uNew York Sues Leukemia “Charity” For Allegedly Raising $10 Million Through Deceptionr


4 4 4 9
  • This archived page from the NCLF website shows the many programs and services that the Foundation claimed to operate. In reality, claims the state, the group was doing little to nothing to help fight leukemia.

    This archived page from the NCLF website shows the many programs and services that the Foundation claimed to operate. In reality, claims the state, the group was doing little to nothing to help fight leukemia.

    Most of us understand that not every dollar given to a charity is going directly to the people or causes that the charitable organization supports, but when the charity tells lies about how your money will be spent and instead wastes nearly every penny on enriching a handful of employees, a line is crossed.

    This morning, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office filed a petition in Kings County (better known as Brooklyn) Superior Court to shut down an organization dubbed the National Children’s Leukemia Foundation (NCLF).

    The suit alleges that while NCLF presented itself to donors as a leading organization in the fight against leukemia, and claimed to run a bone marrow registry and a service that fulfilled the final wishes of children with terminal conditions, very little of the money raised ever went to any sort of charitable program, and the organization had not sponsored any Disney World trips in years.

    Donors were also sold on the NCLF’s supposed umbilical cord blood banking program, its cancer research center, and a patent application for a new lifesaving treatment for leukemia. None of these existed, claims the petition.

    Between April 2009 and March 2013, NCLF collected approximately $9.7 million from donors. Around 90% ($8.9 million) of that was brought in through professional fundraisers who kept approximately $7.5 million as payment.

    Of the $2 million and change that remained, only $57,541 — less than 1% — was spent on direct cash assistance to leukemia patients. Meanwhile, $655,000 went to a shell organization in Israel run by the sister of NCLF founder Zvi Shor, allegedly for “research” purposes.

    Shor paid himself around $600,000 in salary over the course of those four years, plus another $600,000 in deferred compensation.

    NCLF also allegedly misled donors and the state about the existence of a board of directors. According to Schneiderman’s office, for two decades the “charity” was effectively just Shor, who operated it out of the basement of his home in Brooklyn.

    The petition contends that NCLF president Yehuda Gutwein held that title in name only, and that Gutwein was given the position in 2010 after it became public knowledge that Shor had been convicted of felony bank fraud in 1999.

    Shor’s son, Shlomo, was listed as a director and vice president, but the state says he just signed checks and filled in forms at the direction of his father.

    New York law requires that the board of directors of a charitable organization be true overseers of the organization, and that directors perform their fiduciary duties, including reviewing documents and overseeing management.

    The NCLF accountant allegedly filed audit reports with the Attorney General’s office, but did not conduct any audits. These filings allegedly misrepresented NCLF as having a board of between 13-16 directors and a separate medical advisory board.

    The petition seeks to recover the full amount of all funds raised through fraudulent representations.

    “Nothing is more shameful than pocketing millions of dollars donated by good-hearted people who just wanted to help children afflicted with a terminal illness,” said Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. “I urge New Yorkers to continue giving to the neediest among us, but to give wisely.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uAshley Madison Says It’s Secured All Customer Data After Hack Attackr


4 4 4 9
  • ashleymadison-580x370After a group of hackers posted a sampling user data stolen from AshleyMadison.com, the parent company of the dating site for cheaters says it’s secured all customer information that was allegedly leaked.

    Avid Life Media told Business Insider that ALM was working to delete the leaked data and had already “successfully removed all posts related to this incident as well as all Personally Identifiable Information (PII) about our users published online.”

    The leaked data included users’ real names and addresses, as well as information about ALM’s internal servers, and sensitive company data like bank accounts and salaries. ALM didn’t confirm how much of that exposed information was legitimate, but hackers claimed they had accessed the full database of around 40 million accounts from Ashley Madison, along with other ALM sites like Cougar Life and Established Men.

    ALM says it used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and various other unspecified techniques to remove the data, but wouldn’t give BI more details as to how it removed the content. It added that it’s continuing to work with law enforcement and “forensics security experts” to find the root of the breach.

    Hackers reportedly blamed the breach on the company’s failed promise to permanently delete users’ information when they opted for a $19 “full delete” service. The hackers called that feature a “complete lie,” saying it doesn’t actually delete paying customers’ information.

    ALM denied that allegation in a statement to Business Insider.

    Contrary to current media reports, and based on accusations posted online by a cyber criminal, the ‘paid delete’ option offered by AshleyMadison.com does in fact remove all information related to a member’s profile and communications activity.

    The process involves a hard-delete of a requesting user’s profile, including the removal of posted pictures and all messages sent to other system users’ email boxes. This option was developed due to specific member requests for just such a service, and designed based on their feedback.

    Ashley Madison says it has removed its customers’ leaked data from the internet [Business Insider]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uThe 10-Minute Jell-O Shot Machine Is Herer


4 4 4 9
  • Jell-O shots are fun and delicious, but they have a serious disadvantage: they’re quick and easy to prepare, but require hours of lead time and a lot of fridge space while they congeal. This limits the potential for spontaneous boozing at your house party, but one entrepreneur realized that it also affects bar profits. His solution: a machine that cranks out a tray of Jell-O shots in 5 minutes.

    This is an unfortunate case of a genericized trademark, where the makers of Jell-O may not want us referring to their product specifically, but at the same time, no one says “small servings of flavored gelatin interspersed with alcohol.” They’re just Jell-O shots.

    It took the company, headed by a serial entrepreneur and a former bar owner, three years and $3 million to develop the machine. Don’t go planning your parties just yet: it takes ten minutes to produce twenty shots, but won’t be on the market until next spring.

    Its name? The Jevo. Its business model comes from part of the beverage industry that isn’t a bar: the Keurig machine has been a hit, even as the company actually makes money on producing or licensing the pods that its machines use. Selling the machines isn’t the point, but selling the pods is. It will be the same with the proprietary gelatin mix that the Jevo uses.

    It might not be called Jevo by the time it hits the market, bar owners: a spokesperson for Kraft Heinz, the owner of the Jell-O brand, says that the name infringes on their long-standing Jell-O trademark, simply taking the two letter Ls and tilting them at angles.

    Applications for a near-instant gelatin dispenser aren’t all recreational, either: the founder has visions of Jevo machines cranking out medicine-laced gelatin cubes in hospitals and assisted living centers. Think of the success of gummy vitamins!

    This Man Spent $3 Million to Make Instant Jello Shots [Bloomberg]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uTwitter Takes Down Background Images, Doesn’t Explain Whyr


4 4 4 9
  • Have you checked Twitter today? If so, then you may have noticed a few things. First, that beautiful background image you carefully selected to show a bit of your personality is no longer decorating your page; instead, it’s been replaced with a plain white void. The result: this new version of Twitter looks an awful lot like Facebook: a small profile picture on the left and a long photo of your choosing plastered at the top of the page.

    Mashable reports that Twitter began removing users’ background photos on Monday, giving little explanation for the abrupt change.

    A spokesperson for the social networking site confirmed the change, but didn’t specify why exactly Twitter is making the overhaul.

    “We’re removing background images from the home and notifications timelines on web for all users,” a Twitter spokesperson told Mashable. “Now, background images are only available where logged-in users will see them publicly (Tweet pages, list pages and collections pages).”

    So what this means, essentially, is that perhaps your most visited pages on Twitter – your profile and timeline – is plain jane, while some of your less frequently viewed pages – like that list of loud mouth celebrities you follow or an individual Tweet – are still decorated with your stunning, personally chosen background image. It just seems a bit, well, odd.

    We’re not the only ones left scratching our heads over Twitter’s change of pace: users were quick to Tweet their outrage and confusion over their now barren backgrounds.

    While many users expressed their displeasure with the new look, others questioned whether Twitter removed the custom backgrounds for other, more lucrative means of its own.

    Mashable reports that Twitter’s move on Monday isn’t its first when it comes to utilizing subdued profiles. The company apparently started favoring the blank background last year after a redesign. At that time, new users to the site weren’t given the option to customize their pages.

    Twitter just removed your homepage wallpaper, and people are furious [Mashable]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uWhat It’s Like To Be Inside A Car When Hackers Take Control From Miles Awayr


4 4 4 9
  • (jayRaz)

    This car wasn’t hacked. (jayRaz)

    It sounds like a nightmare: You’re driving along, maybe whistling along to the radio, when suddenly the music changes and starts blasting, the car begins honking and won’t stop and the transmission cuts out. Nightmarish though that may sound, it could be a reality for hackers able to get control of a vehicle from miles away.

    Wired.com’s Andy Greenberg has a great story today of his time working with Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek, hackers who turned him into a “digital crash-test dummy” as they tested their car-hacking research. They developed a technique that can target Jeep Cherokees wirelessly and give the attacker control of any of thousands of vehicles via the Internet.

    For the tests, Greenberg knew the car he was driving would be hacked, he just didn’t know when or how. The hackers — working from a laptop 10 miles away — promised not to do anything that could endanger him, however. He writes that he was going 70 mph on a highway when the team took control.

    At first, they blasted him with cold air and hitched the radio’s volume up as high as it could go, and he couldn’t turn it off. The windshield wipers turned on and sent wiper fluid streaking across the glass. And then, things did get a bit scary: the transmission cut out.

    Immediately my accelerator stopped working. As I frantically pressed the pedal and watched the RPMs climb, the Jeep lost half its speed, then slowed to a crawl. This occurred just as I reached a long overpass, with no shoulder to offer an escape. The experiment had ceased to be fun.

    After the Jeep gets stuck on an upward slope, with a semi-truck approaching it from behind, he finally called the hackers and begged them to make it stop so he could get out of that tough spot.

    Miller and Valasek are planning to publish some of their work on the Internet pegged to a talk they’re giving at the upcoming Black Hat security conference. Wired.com says their work on wireless hacking has inspired new legislation from senators Ed Markey and Richard Blumenthal, who are planning to introduce an automotive security bill on Tuesday to set new digital security standards for cars and trucks.

    This kind of work is proving useful in the automotive industry, with car manufacturers and industry groups working together to create cyber defenses for commercially available vehicles. Though no instances of car hacking are known publicly, security experts and car makers have been busy conducting tests like the above to show how easily it could become a reality.

    “You’re stepping into a rolling computer now,” Valasek told AP last fall.

    Check out the rest of Greenberg’s tale at Wired.com.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uGoogle Shutting Down Google+ Photos Next Month, Because Two Picture Storage Sites Is A Bit Muchr


4 4 4 9
  • Sometimes having the same thing twice is nice: that sweater you love or an extra toothbrush, you know, just in case. But having two similarly named photo synching and sharing applications – Google+ Photos and Google Photos – that pretty much do the same thing is a bit, well, redundant. And so, Google announced yesterday that it plans to send Google+ Photos to pasture with all the other outdated and seldom used apps and programs that came before it.

    Google announced in a post on its social network site, Google+, that staring on Aug. 1 it will begin winding down Google+ Photos.

    According to the tech company, the Android version of Google+ Photos will be the first to shutter, with the web and iOS versions going dark shortly after.

    The company says the decision to shut down the platform was made in an effort to “ensure everyone has the best photo experience we can deliver.”

    The move isn’t exactly surprising considering the company recently launched a standalone cloud photo and video storage app, Google Photos, which offers many of the same options as Google+ Photos.

    The biggest difference between the two platforms is that with Google+ users had to actually visit the network on the web to access photos, while Google Photos has its own dedicated web interface, 9to5 Google reports.

    Individuals still using Google+ Photos can transfer their stored pictures to Google Photos via a link found on their Google+ account photo page.

    Google assures users that if they aren’t quick enough in transferring their content, it won’t simply vanish. Instead, photos and video will still remain available for download through Google Takeout, a program that allows users to download a copy of their data stored within Google products.

    Goodbye Google+ Photos, hello +Google Photos! [Google]
    Google+ Photos being discontinued August 1st following standalone Photos service debut [9to5 Google]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist