вторник, 21 июля 2015 г.

uCreate A Delicious Dessert, Win California Woman’s $390K Homer


4 4 4 9
  • In the latest string of popular “create something, win huge reward” contests, a California woman is offering up her refurbished 1906 Craftsman home — valued at $390,000 — to the person who can come up with a winning dessert recipe.

    The 26-year-old licensed real estate agent and lover of renovating old homes decided to do something fun to help “sell” the 2,267 square-foot home in Jackson, CA through the investment company she founded. It boasts four bedrooms, two bathrooms and a large basement.

    She says that she came to the idea because the Jackson market is small and rural, and it can take a while to sell houses there.

    “I figured if I was going to have to wait awhile, I wanted to do something fun to ‘sell’ the house in the mean time,” she tells the Contra Costa Times.

    She adds that she started her investment company in 2014 “as a vehicle for doing historic renovations like this one.”

    To win the home — which features maple flooring in the downstairs areas that was salvaged from a local roller skating rink years ago, among other interesting features — would-be winners must pay a $100 entry fee to enter their dessert recipe. Creations will then be judged by a panel of food experts, who will decide who gets to have a new home.

    This contest model is proving popular this year: Ever since a Maine inn owner offered up her property for an entrance fee and an essay, we’ve seen a slew of similar contests, including a goat farm in exchange for a winning essay and a bakery looking for a new owner by way of a cupcake recipe.

    Best dessert wins renovated Craftsman home [Contra Costa Times]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uExpansion Of Military Lending Act Closes Loopholes Exploited By Predatory Lendersr


4 4 4 9
  • Nearly a decade after legislation was put in place to protect U.S. military personnel and their families from predatory financial products, the Military Lending Act received a much-needed update to close loopholes often exploited by shady lenders to skirt the rules and put the financial lives of servicemembers at risk.

    Today, President Barack Obama announced that the Department of Defense finalized improvements to MLA rules – first passed in 2006 – that include a more comprehensive definition of “consumer credit” to cover additional loan products and further prohibitions on the use of forced arbitration provisions in credit products.

    Under the revamped rules, the definition of consumer credit expands to cover all payday loans, vehicle title loans, refund anticipation loans, deposit advance loans, installment loans, and credit cards extended to service members. These products will now be subject to the current 36% interest rate cap service members and their families receive under MLA.

    This broader definition closes a loophole that allowed predatory lenders to continue targeting servicemembers by offering loans that were above $2,000 or had a duration of more than 91 days.

    Additionally, the expanded MLA now counts charges for add-on services, such as credit default insurance or identity theft monitoring products, toward the military annual percentage rate. This means lenders can no longer skirt rate cap rules by imposing extra fees.

    “For too long, predatory loans have trapped some members of our military in an endless cycle of debt, adding financial strains to families that already bear the burden of defending our country,” the White House said in a statement. “By distracting our troops with financial challenges or forcing them to leave military service to pay off debts, these abusive loans negatively impact military readiness.”

    As for forced arbitration provisions – those clauses often found buried in contracts for many credit products that prevent consumers from seeking redress for abuse in court – the upgraded rules prohibit the inclusion of such restrictions.

    Brad Carson, acting under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, tells the Military Times, that the new rules will be gradually implemented starting on Oct. 1.

    Carson added that the new protections do offer some exemptions to short-term loans – like no-interest loans, grants, and scholarships from the four Military Relief Societies and some short-term loans that abide by usury rates – allowing servicemembers to “have a variety of options.”

    Consumer groups, regulators and state attorneys general have been outspoken in urging the DOD to expand protections under MLA and close loopholes that cost military personnel and their families millions of dollars.

    As Consumerist has previously reported, shady lenders have been able to exploit loopholes in the current rules by creating products that are nearly indistinguishable from those prohibited by MLA.

    Those exploitations were confirmed in a CFPB report last year, which found that 22% of servicemembers took out more than $50 million in deposit advances during a 12-month period. Of those advances, the CFPB estimates servicemembers paid nearly $5 million in fees.

    “The findings indicate that some depository institutions extended millions of dollars in deposit advances to servicemembers with APRs that typically exceeded 300%,” the CFPB report states.

    The Bureau asserted back in December that such high-cost loans were made available to servicemembers because MLA rules only applied to three narrowly defined consumer credit products: closed-end payday loans for no more than $2,000 and with terms of 91 days or fewer; closed-end auto title loans with terms of 181 days or fewer; and closed-end tax refund anticipation loans.

    At the time, the CFPB report found MLA’s failure to address payday loans made in excess of $2,000, allowed a California company to charge a servicemember an APR of 219% on a $2,600 loan. In all, the servicemember paid $3,966.84.

    Despite the known failures of the original MLA, the road to finalizing the expanded protections has been contentious. Back in May, Congress attempted to delay implementation of the rules by at least a year through the use of a small clause in the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act that would have required the Sec. of Defense to submit a report to Congress by March 1, 2016 on any new MLA-related rules.

    The small provision would have prevented the Sec. of Defense from implementing changes until 60 days after the report was submitted, essentially pushing the new rules off by nearly a year.

    The provision was struck down just a week later, when Congress narrowly voted to remove the controversial language.

    On Tuesday, several consumer advocacy groups, including the CFPB, approved the expanded protections covered by MLA.

    CFPB director Richard Cordray said in a statement that the Bureau is ready to ensure illegal lending is not longer an issue military families must face.

    “The CFPB strongly supports the Department’s efforts to strengthen consumer protections for our nation’s military families,” he said. “Today’s rule will help ensure that American servicemembers get the legal protections they deserve.”

    Public Citizen said that the new rules help to ensure thousands of active service members and their families are no longer targets of unscrupulous lenders.

    “Not only are today’s new rules the right thing to do to prevent the exploitation of our nation’s service members, but the Defense Department has determined that they are crucial to maintaining our military force’s readiness,” Robert Weissman, president of the advocacy group, said in a statement.

    Weissman further urged regulators and lawmakers to extend protections from predatory practices to all Americans with a nationwide cap on interest rates modeled after the one included in these new rules.

    The National Association of Consumer Advocates also welcomed changes under MLA and reiterated Public Citizen’s call for more protections for all consumers.

    “We hope the CFPB follows the lead of the DoD to protect all consumers – both military and civilian – with a strong rule to eliminate forced arbitration clauses,” NACA’s Legislative Director Ellen Taverna said in a statement.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uComcast Should Pay You For Sitting Through All Its Product Placement In Sharknado 3r


4 4 4 9
  • Comcast's Universal Studios park is the backdrop for Jerry Springer and other Comcast-tied celebs to cash in on what remains of the Sharknado craze.

    Comcast’s Universal Studios park is the backdrop for Jerry Springer and other Comcast-tied celebs to cash in on what remains of the Sharknado craze.

    If you’re one of the 1,743 people who are still amused by the whole Sharknado phenomenon, then you should consider yourself warned that the latest entry into the self-consciously trashy TV franchise is apparently not much more than an extended commercial for numerous Comcast-owned brands.

    AdWeek’s Jason Lynch has an extended rundown of the massive amount of Comcast/NBC Universal product placement in the upcoming Sharknado 3, which airs on Comcast-owned Syfy, but we’ve pulled out the most salient badvertising you’ll be exposed to while enjoying this third adventure with wind-blown predators.

    • Universal Studios Florida serves as a prominent setting for much of the TV movie, with three different rides featured and a scene set inside the Universal globe at the park. That globe also gets conspicuous placement on the key art for the movie, alongside the White House and a bunch of sharks.

    • You’ll get to be reminded that Comcast owns the exclamatory E! network, with appearances by multiple personalities from that entertainment-themed cable channel. There are also a number of E! reality show veterans in the movie, like Kendra Wilkinson and Holly Madison.

    • Let’s not forget about NBC’s flagship morning show. The Today Show’s Matt Lauer and Al Roker reprise their cameos from the second Sharknado, and are joined by Savannah Guthrie, Natalie Morales, Hoda Kotb and Kathie Lee Gifford.

    • Frequent mentions of the Xfinity brand, and the use of the Xfinity logo on a stock car and several billboards.

    • Jerry Springer also shows up in Sharknado 3. While it’s not specifically mentioned in the AdWeek story, as we’ve previously noted, his show is distributed by NBC Universal.

    And this is all in addition to all the product placement paid for by outside advertisers.

    In a just world, cable subscribers would receive a discount for tuning in to watch two hours of advertising, but instead we live in a world where nearly every frame of a movie can be sponsored and our most celebrated magazine publishers now have entire divisions given over to creating ads that read like genuine editorial content.

    So bring on the Sharknado. Maybe it’s the TV we deserve.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uIt’s Not Just You: Apple’s Cloud-Based Music And App Stores Are Downr


4 4 4 9
  • tunezWe all got through last week’s brief Instagram outage together. Today, it’s not just you: some Apple cloud services, including the mobile and desktop App Stores, iTunes store, streaming music services except Beats, OS X update, and iBooks are down for, according to Apple, “some users.” [Apple System Status]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uCraft Breweries Adding Booze To Root Beer Because Why Not?r


4 4 4 9
  • smtownEither way you look at it — adding booze to root beer or adding root beer to booze — it’s a combination that makes sense: Root beer is delicious, people like drinking alcoholic beverages, so why not have a hard root beer? One craft brewery has already netted itself a national deal with major partners in the brewing industry after developing a boozy root beer that’s become quite popular.

    Not Your Father’s Root Beer from Small Town Brewery in Wauconda, IL is currently on the market, though it’s so in-demand, you might have trouble finding it, reports Bloomberg, while other breweries are coming up with their own versions.

    It sounds like even beer snobs may appreciate this new hard root beer, which earned a 94 out of 100 rating from Beer Advocate, an online review aggregator.

    “I would venture to say everyone I know who drinks alcohol has had [hard root beer] by this point,” Matt Simpson, the so-called Beer Sommelier tells Bloomberg. “As far as the popularity goes, it’s pretty simple: It tastes pretty good. It tastes like root beer, only with alcohol that you can’t really taste anyway.”

    Small Town first brewed hard root beer in 2013, using sassafras bark, vanilla, anise, wintergreen and other spices. It attracted the attention of Pabst Brewing this year amid a rush of attention, and Not Your Father’s brand was then purchased outright by a group of investors that included Pabst Chief Executive Officer Eugene Kashper.

    A national push and new owners doesn’t mean consumers can readily get it, as fans report long lines and have been sharing tips on where to find it online.

    “We really made this for ourselves and local consumers more than anything,” Small Town founder Tim Kovac told Bloomberg. “[I] had no idea it would take off this way. … It really seems to hit on a sense of nostalgia for people.”

    In the meantime, Pabst and Kovac are working on two new additional hard root beers, with 11% and 20% alcohol, respectively. Other craft breweries are hopping on the root beer train as well, with Rowdy Root Beer from Berghoff Brewery in Chicago joining the fray in June. Larger companies are taking note as well, with Boston Beer, the maker of Sam Adams, reportedly working on its own version.

    Boozy Root Beer Is About to Be Huge [Bloomberg]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uUSDA Providing $85M In Grants & Loans To Support Rural Broadbandr


4 4 4 9
  • (Jess)

    (Jess)

    The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture might not be the first federal agency that pops into your head when thinking about broaband Internet connectivity, but this week the USDA announced a total of $85 million in loans and grants that it hopes will help farmers and other rural Americans bridge the digital divide.

    Most of the distributions announced yesterday by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will take the form of loans, like the $12.63 million being loaned to Garden Valley Telephone in Minnesota. This money is to be spent on upgrades for rural customers’ telecom and data connections.

    Meanwhile, South Carolina’s FTC Communications will receive a $12.38 million loan to upgrade their wireless telecommunications network to LTE.

    The largest loan announced this week is $29.95 million going to the Triangle Telephone Cooperative Association in Montana to increase speed and the quality of service for their rural subscribers.

    USDA also announced a number of smaller grants around the country, like the $1.4 million for the Arctic Slope Telephone Association Cooperative in Alaska to provide Point Hope subscribers with high-speed Internet service and prepare the network for an undersea fiber connection currently planned for construction within the next two years.

    In Minnesota, the Northeast Service Cooperative will receive a pair of $3 million grants for two projects to provide broadband service to subscribers on the Fond du Lac Reservation. NESC will partner with the Fond du Lac Band of Superior Chippewa.

    Oklahoma’s @Link Services will receive nearly $1.5 million to provide high-speed broadband to homes, businesses and critical community facilities in parts of Seminole County.

    Virginia’s Scott County Telephone Cooperative will receive $2.1 million to build a broadband network with one gigabyte of bandwidth for 540 locations in Dickenson County.

    “Broadband is fundamental to expanding economic opportunity and job creation in rural areas, and it is as vital to rural America’s future today as electricity was when USDA began bringing power to rural America 80 years ago,” said Vilsack in a statement. “The investments USDA is making today will deliver broadband to rural communities that are currently without high-speed internet service, or whose infrastructure needs to be upgraded. Improved connectivity means these communities can offer robust business services, expand access to health care and improve the quality of education in their schools, creating a sustainable and dynamic future those who live and work in rural America.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


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