среда, 22 июля 2015 г.

uBratz Dolls Return With Slightly More Clothing, Selfie Sticks, Still No Nosesr


4 4 4 9
  • Bratz, a line of noseless fashion dolls whose owner has spent the last decade in litigation with Barbie-maker Mattel, have returned to store shelves. Is this a good thing? Maybe. The company is certainly making a big deal out of its relaunch, with ad campaigns, a “brand anthem,” and a big event in Times Square.

    MGA has other lines of toys now, including Moxie Girlz, a product that we criticized for its inaccurate portrayal of pet ownership. Bratz have stayed popular even through the litigation, though. The dolls outsold Barbie for a while, either in spite of or because of their skimpy outfits, heavy makeup, and strangely-proportioned bodies.

    The company tried to change some things about Bratz when they relaunched in 2010, but Bloomberg Businessweek reports that redesigns of the girls and of their outfits never quite caught on, especially with the important market of adult collectors.

    The new line is called “Generation Z,” and has mobile app tie-ins and other digital goodies for children. As you can see in the photo above, the dolls even have their own mobile phones and selfie sticks. While the characters are connected, the dolls themselves aren’t: MGA probably knows better than to release a competitor to the wifi-connected Barbie doll that can converse with your kid.

    The poor girls still have only the tiniest of noses, though.

    Bratz Are Back, but Does Anyone Want to Play With Dolls Anymore? [Bloomberg]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uTarget Sorry People Are Offended By Its “Trophy” T-Shirt For Womenr


4 4 4 9
  • Screen Shot 2015-07-22 at 1.34.26 PMA storm has been brewing recently on social media over a women’s T-shirt sold by Target that bears the word “TROPHY” across it. As in, a trophy wife, someone who is meant only to adorn the arm of another and look pretty. But Target says it’s just part of its collection for women of the marrying kind, and that it’s received an “overwhelmingly positive” response to the item.

    “It is never our intention to offend anyone and we always appreciate receiving feedback from our guests,” Target said in a statement about the controversy, noting that the shirt “is part of a collection of engagement and wedding shirts that are available in our women’s and plus size departments. The collection also included shirts that say ‘Team Bride,’ ‘Mrs.’ and ‘Bride.’ These shirts are intended as a fun wink and we have received an overwhelmingly positive response from our guests.”

    Perhaps if the “trophy” T-shirt was also available in the men’s section, some shoppers wouldn’t be up in arms. As it stands now, however, there are plenty of Target customers on Twitter who have an issue with the garment, in posts going back to May:

    There’s also a Change.org petition called that seeks the removal of the shirt from Target’s shelves, which has more than 11,000 signatures at this point.

    “Help women around the world by standing against these types of messages in our culture,” the petition reads. “You may say to yourself, “It’s only a shirt, what’s the big deal?” I would respond by asking you to consider how strong words can be, and the power they have to both help and hinder. This shirt hinders progress made by thousands of advocates before us. It says that, despite being ‘equal’ on paper, we are still viewed as ‘things,’ and Target wants to profit off of that.”

    On the other hand, some folks think it’s perfectly harmless.

    (Note on above Tweet: the word “trophy” only appears on women’s items, and we weren’t able to locate any Strand brand of underwear for men on Target.com)

    One of the two reviews of the shirt at Target.com (both positive) also doesn’t mind the “trophy” idea:

    “Great cut makes for a cute fit- and hey- are we talking about my body, or my mind?!!! Yay! Definitely a conversation starter.”

    What do you think? Vote below.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uWhen Comparing Colleges, It Would Help To Know If A School Is Under Investigationr


4 4 4 9
  • Many consumers thinking of pursuing a higher education weigh the pros and the cons of a specific college: tuition, convenience, available areas of study. Last month, the Department of Education announced it would make the college shopping experience a little easier for prospective students by creating a consumer-facing online college comparison system. While the tool will no doubt be helpful, consumer advocates warn that, as it stands, the system will be missing a vital information: whether or not schools are party to investigation, lawsuits or settlements over harmful and deceptive practices.

    Today, nearly 50 consumer advocacy groups sent a letter [PDF] to Education Secretary Arne Duncan urging the department to include publicly available data regarding federal or state investigations, lawsuits, or settlements in the upcoming comparison tool.

    “Students deserve to know when a college’s practices are under heightened scrutiny from federal and state regulators, just as investors in publicly traded for-profit colleges are required to be notified of such events,” the letter states. “Students should not be kept in the dark.”

    According to the signed organizations – which include The Institute for College Access & Success, National Consumer Law Center, Center for Responsible Lending and our colleagues at Consumer Union – providing such information could help steer students away from potentially harmful and deceptive educational institutions.

    The groups contend that if such data had been readily available previously, fewer students might have enrolled at the now-defunct for-profit chain Corinthian Colleges‘ Heald College, Everest University and WyoTech campuses.

    CCI, which closed its campuses and filed for bankruptcy this spring, had been party to several federal and state investigations and lawsuits during it year-long downfall.

    The letter points to the Department’s prior determination that details regarding scrutiny of a school can be valuable to consumers.

    The groups cite, Education Under Secretary Ted Mitchell’s statement from March that data – like the Heightened Cash Monitoring list – can serve “as a caution light” for prospective students.

    “It means we are watching these institutions more closely to ensure that institutions are using federal student aid in a way that is accountable to both students and taxpayers,” Mitchell stated at the time.

    However, the advocacy groups say that details aren’t communicated clearly to consumers, but “a consumer-focused college comparison tool is the appropriate place to do so.”

    “We believe all students have a right to this information and need it in order to make informed decisions about where to enroll,” the letter states.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uWalmart Ending Overnight Shopping Hours At More 24-Hour Storesr


4 4 4 9
  • If you’re used to shopping at Walmart at 3 a.m., you might need to revamp your schedule. The nation’s largest retailer has decided to close the doors to overnight shoppers at dozens of 24-hour locations.

    The approximately 40 affected stores, which Bloomberg reports are in New Jersey, Maryland, and here in Philadelphia, won’t be completely shuttered between midnight and 6 a.m. Instead, the retailer has decided it’s better to spend the overnight time and resources to do things like restock shelves.

    While Walmart workers at these stores were as surprised as shoppers to find out about the change, the company says that most employees will continue working the overnight shift. Cashiers who aren’t given other duties will be offered jobs at other stores or given severance.

    “Based on a recent review of our customers’ shopping patterns, we have made the decision to adjust hours at some of our stores,” a company rep tells Bloomberg. “This is the kind of decision we make on a store-by-store basis and will allow us the ability to reallocate resources to serve our customers during peak shopping hours.”

    Walmart has repeatedly been criticized for having bare shelves and overstocked warehouses. In e-mails to Consumerist, employees have blamed this on poor resource management. Too few staffers have been tasked with maintaining inventory, so items remain in boxes and on pallets where customers can’t get to them.

    The retailer has already made this move at around two dozen previously 24-hour stores, and this latest announcement hints at the possibility of a larger rollout.

    Some analysts are skeptical about whether or not the few overnight hours without customers will have much of an impact on restocking shelves, and believe that Walmart is just dipping its toes into cutting hours to see if it can save money without losing sales.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uTaylor Swift Fighting Counterfeit Products By Partnering With Chinese Companies To Sell $60 Branded T-Shirtsr


4 4 4 9
  • Tmall.com (above), along with JD.com, will soon start selling official Taylor Swift merchandise.

    Tmall.com (above), along with JD.com, will soon start selling official Taylor Swift merchandise.

    One of the most common reasons someone might be tempted to purchase counterfeit product is price — fakes are likely to be much cheaper than the real thing, hence the appeal. So the choice by popular musician Taylor Swift to fight back against counterfeits by selling $60 T-shirts is well, a bit of a head scratcher.

    Of course, brands should be able to set their own prices and expect anyone who wants that official product to pay accordingly. But Swift’s new plan to partner with two Chinese companies to sell branded merchandise — including those $60 T-shirts, as well as a line of women’s clothing priced between $100 and $120 per item — could very well drive customers straight into the arms of cheaper, albeit illegal counterfeit competitors.

    The Wall Street Journal reports that Swift is launching her own branded clothing line with JD.com and Alibaba in China, two major e-commerce companies, in an effort to get them to stop selling pirated or counterfeit products. China has seen an explosion of fake Swift products as the pop star has gained popularity.

    Beginning Aug. 8, JD.com and Alibaba’s Tmall marketplace will carry the branded $60 designer T-shirts, followed by a women’s collection on JD.com in September, with prices upwards of $100. Products will bear antipiracy tags proclaiming them as the real thing, allowing customers to track their authenticity on the web.

    Kate Liegey, chief operating officer of Heritage66, A Nashville-based branding company that’s representing Swift’s line and bringing it to China, says she’s been working with the two companies to remove unauthorized goods from their sites.

    “It’s time for Chinese companies to say, ‘We don’t want to be known for piracy anymore,’” she said.

    She added that she believes Chinese consumers will pay $100-$120 for a Taylor Swift dress. Meanwhile, over on Taobao, an Alibaba marketplace, shoppers can snag fake Taylor Swift Keds sneakers for around $11, and Taylor Swift watches and cell phone cases for $10 or so.

    A sampling of "Taylor Swift" shoes on JD.com

    A sampling of “Taylor Swift” shoes on JD.com

    It’ll be a hard battle for Swift in China, where there are nine trademarks registered under “Taylor Swift,” three of which are not actually owned by Swift herself, for things like purses, baby onesies, bathing suits, shoes and hats.

    Despite the fact that she’s a celebrity, trademark law in China is based on who files first, Benjamin Bai, a partner in the Shanghai office of law firm Allen & Overy LLP explained to the WSJ. Therefore, if Swift wants to sell swimsuits under her brand, she’d technically be infringing on someone else’s trademark.

    “So even though you may be internationally famous if I’m the owner of your name in China you can’t get me,” Bai explains.

    Heritage66 says Swift is currently working with lawyers in an effort to recoup trademarks using her name.

    Taylor Swift Counters Knockoffs in China [Wall Street Journal]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


u45 Attorneys General Agree: Phone Companies Should Give Consumers Ability To Block Robocallsr


4 4 4 9
  • While the FCC tries to allow consumers to take a more active role in which calls they do or don’t receive, a group of 45 state attorneys general (well, 44 states and the AG for the District of Columbia) are calling on the phone companies to just stop dilly dallying and start offering call-blocking services already.

    In a letter [PDF] to the CEOs of AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, and CenturyLink, the 45 AGs say that while they are busy prosecuting telemarketers that make obnoxious prerecorded calls, “The better solution is to stop intrusive calls before they ever reach the consumer.”

    The telecom industry had previously cited potential legal and regulatory roadblocks to instituting call-blocking technologies, but in June, the FCC clarified for phone companies that federal rules do not prohibit service providers from offering optional services that block unwanted calls.

    With that cleared up, the attorneys general ask these telecom titans to “take full advantage of the opportunity provided by the rule clarification” and “offer call-blocking technology to your consumers.”

    “This clarification by the FCC should remove any doubt about your legal authority to empower consumers by providing call-blocking technology to help stop robocalls, scam text messages and unwanted telemarketing calls,” reads the letter, signed by the attorney general for every state except Arizona, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Texas.

    “Every year, our offices are flooded with consumer complaints pleading for a solution to stop intrusive robocalls,” concludes the letter. “Your organizations are now poised to offer your customers the help they need. We urge you to act without delay.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uDiscover Bank Must Pay $18.5 Million Over Illegal Student Loan Servicing Practicesr


4 4 4 9
  • 49025-discover-student-loans-box

    As federal regulators continue to probe potentially unscrupulous student loan servicing practices, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has ordered Discover Bank and its affiliates to pay nearly $18.5 million in refunds and fines for, among other things, overstating amounts due on student loans and failing to notify borrowers of their rights.

    According to the CFPB consent order [PDF], Illinois-based Discover Bank and its affiliates – Student Loan Corporation and Discover Products Inc. – have engaged in illegal student loans servicing and debt collection practices since at least 2010, when the company acquired some 800,000 private student loans accounts from Citibank.

    The Bureau contends that since that time, thousands of borrowers encountered issues with Discover as soon as their loans became due.

    The CFPB claims the company and its affiliates overstated the minimum amount due for certain borrowers who were just starting to pay off their student loan debts.

    In some cases, the minimum payment due incorrectly included interest on loans that were still in deferment and were not required to be paid. As a result, some borrowers diverted payments from other expenses or failed to provide that month’s loan payment, incurring additional fees and penalties.

    The CFPB also alleges that Discover and its affiliates misrepresented the amount of student loan interest paid on borrower accounts that it acquired from Citibank.

    For tax purposes, student loan servicers are required to provide borrowers with a statement each year specifying how much they paid in interest if it is more than $600. The CFPB contends that Discover did not provide this information for thousands of borrowers.

    Instead of readily providing the customary tax information it offered its other borrowers, Discover made the newly acquired Citibank loans holders submit additional paperwork. However, according to the CFPB, Discover never explained that the borrowers were required to fill out a form to get the correct amount of interest they paid.

    As a result, the online accounts for many of the acquired loan holders reflected an interest amount paid of $0.00 in 2011 and 2012. The CFPB asserts that because of this consumers were misled into believing that they did not qualify for the student loan tax deduction, potentially causing consumers to not seek important tax benefits.

    As for Discover’s allegedly illegal debt collection tactics, the CFPB contends the company placed more than 150,000 calls to student loans borrowers at inappropriate times: before 8 a.m. and after 9 p.m. in the borrower’s time zone.

    Discover became aware of the violations in October 2012 but failed to address the problem until February 2013, according to the complaint.

    Additionally, when Discover acquired the accounts from Citibank in 2010, it also received a portfolio of defaulted debt. When the company began attempting to collect those debts, it failed to comply with federal laws regarding consumer notices.

    The CFPB states in its complaint that the company failed to provide consumers with specific information about the amount and source of the debt and the consumer’s right to contest the debt’s validity. Per federal law, this information is required to be provided during the collector’s initial communication or in written notice following the initial communication.

    To settle the CFPB’s charges, Discover and its affiliates have agreed to provide $16 million in redress to more than 100,000 borrowers.

    Specifically, the order requires Discover to provide an account credit to about 5,200 consumers who were misled about their minimum payments in an amount equal to the greater of $100 or 10 percent of the overpayment, up to $500. About 5,200 victims will get this credit.

    The company must provide reimbursement of up to $300 in tax preparation costs for about 130,000 borrowers who amend their 2011 or 2012 tax returns to claim student loan interest deductions. For consumers who do not participate in this tax program or did not take advantage of earlier ones offered by the company, Discover will issue an account credit of $75 for each relevant tax year.

    Discover is required to provide account credits of $92 to nearly 5,000 consumers subjected to more than five but fewer than 25 out-of-time collection calls. Consumer who received more than 25 of these calls will receive account credits of $142.

    In addition to reimbursements made to borrower accounts, Discover must improve its billing, student loan interest reporting, and collection practices, as well as pay a $2.5 million penalty to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund.

    CFPB Orders Discover Bank to Pay $18.5 Million for Illegal Student Loan Servicing Practices [CFPB]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist