понедельник, 27 июля 2015 г.

uWA State Attorney General Orders Non-Delivering Kickstarter Campaign To Pay Upr


4 4 4 9
  • asylumcardsLast year, the Washington state attorney general tried something that no government had ever tried before: it sued the people behind a Kickstarter campaign that never shipped the merchandise that it promised. Justice moves slowly, but that case has finally been settled, with the company that failed to send Asylum horror-themed playing cards, being ordered to pay a total of $54,851 in restitution, civil penalties, and the attorney general’s costs and fees.

    The problem with such a case being brought by a state attorney general is that everything must be calculated based on only the Kickstarter backers who live in the state of Washington. Out of the 810 backers, 31 were Washington residents at the time of the campaign in 2012, so the case was brought on their behalf.

    The Kickstarter project was supposed to be a set of horror-themed playing cards, and the campaign raised $25,146 back in 2012. The cards were supposed to be delivered at the end of 2012, but the people behind the project haven’t communicated with their backers since the summer of 2013.

    The final judgement against the Nashville-based company includes:

    $668 in restitution to Washington state backers
    $1,000 in civil penalties per Washington backer for a total of $31,000
    $23,183 of costs and fees for the AG’s office to bring this case

    AG MAKES CROWDFUNDED COMPANY PAY FOR SHADY DEAL [Washington State OAG]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uIn 1998, Kmart Invited Customers To Come To Kmart And Shop Onliner


4 4 4 9
  • kmart_solutionsBack in 1998, home broadband connections were rare, Amazon was only four years old, and shopping online was kind of a novel and weird concept to most Americans. Kmart was out to change that, encouraging their customers to purchase an amazing array of merchandise from the comfort of their own… local Kmart.

    This idea has actually come back around, with some retailers offering in-store kiosks where you can order sizes and items that aren’t in stock from the website.

    atyourservice

    We aren’t quite sure what happened to Kmart Solutions: the person who pulled this YouTube video from the DVD that played in stores says that it lasted for maybe two years, then failed to catch on because Americans simply weren’t ready yet.

    K-Mart’s 1998 Concept That Made You Drive To A K-Mart To Use The Internet [Digg]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uUnsanitary Growing Conditions Leads To Partial Import Ban On Mexican Cilantror


4 4 4 9
  • Bad news for cilantro lovers: U.S. officials have implemented a partial ban on imports of the herb after health officials linked hundreds of illnesses to cilantro growing in feces- and toilet paper-covered fields in Mexico.

    The Food and Drug Administration announced the seasonal import ban after health officials in Texas and Wisconsin identified cilantro grown in the Mexican state of Puebla as a suspect in separate illness clusters, and investigations of local farms and processing plants turned up unsanitary conditions.

    Increasing outbreaks of cyclosporiasis – a parasitic illness that causes diarrhea and explosive bowel movements – linked to the herbs have been reported over the last several years.

    Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported receiving 304 cases of cyclosporiasis, while Bloomberg reports 205 cases have been identified so far this year.

    According to the ban, from April to August 30 of every year fresh cilantro from the Puebla region will be detained at the border and won’t be allowed into the U.S. without inspection and certification.

    Several restaurants – including Chipotle and Taco Bell – that use cilantro in their meals tell Bloomberg they don’t expect to be affected by the partial ban. A spokesperson for Chipotle says their cilantro comes from California.

    Starting in 2013, the FDA and Mexican authorities began investigating outbreaks of cyclosporiasis by inspecting farms and packing houses in Mexico to determine the conditions and practices that may have resulted in the contamination of cilantro.

    In all, the groups inspected 11 farms and packing houses, of those five were linked to the illnesses and investigators observed questionable conditions at three others.

    The inspections found, among other things: human feces and toilet paper in growing fields and around facilities; inadequately maintained and supplied toilet and hand washing facilities or a complete lack of toilet and hand washing facilities; food-contact surfaces – such as plastic crates used to transport cilantro or tables where cilantro was cut and bundled – visibly dirty and not washed; and water used for purposes such as washing cilantro vulnerable to contamination from sewage/septic systems.

    “Based on those joint investigations, FDA considers that the most likely routes of contamination of fresh cilantro are contact with the parasite shed from the intestinal tract of humans affecting the growing fields, harvesting, processing or packing activities or contamination with the parasite through contaminated irrigation water, contaminated crop protectant sprays, or contaminated wash waters,” the notice states.

    At least 304 people in 19 states came down with cyclosporiasis linked to the herbs last year, seven of those people reported being hospitalized, according to the CDC.

    Of those cases, 133 were from Texas and 57% of those people reported having eaten fresh cilantro two to 14 days before becoming six. As a result of that outbreak, Texas health officials and the FDA increased sampling of cilantro from Puebla farms.

    The previous year, a cyclosporiasis outbreak in 25 states was linked to Puebla cilantro, as well as salad mix from Taylor Farms de Mexico.

    CDC and state and local public health partners say they are continuing surveillance to identify and interview additional ill persons to identify other sources of infection.

    Import Alert 24-23 [Food & Drug Administration]
    Mexican Cilantro Contamination Spurs Partial U.S. Import Ban [Bloomberg]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uYet Another Uber Passenger With Service Dog Allegedly Left At The Curbr


4 4 4 9
  • uberdawgDivit is a guide dog, who has been trained to keep his owner safe and independent and to have impeccable manners in public. Yet Divit’s owner says that they were left at the curb on their way to a vet appointment, simply because the driver assigned to their ride didn’t want to have a dog in the car. Even a service dog, which in theory is allowed to go anywhere that its owner or trainer does.

    Uber says that it makes allowances for drivers who have religious issues with certain animals, or allergies, but that drivers “are expected to comply fully with ADA requirements, and we provide our driver community with information on best practices for accommodating riders with disabilities.” Uber also told NBC News that the driver who refused to transport this passenger has had his account deactivated.

    You could say that he was fired, but Uber isn’t an employer, it’s an app. The company maintains that it’s simply a service that brings together people who need rides and people willing to accept money for rides. That means they don’t have direct control over their drivers on the ground, who are not their employees.

    The timing is bad for yet another Uber driver to be accused of refusing to transport a service dog. The company is facing a civil rights lawsuit by the National Federation of The Blind, where one passenger claims that their guide dog was forced to ride in the car’s trunk when a driver wouldn’t allow it in the backseat.

    Uber Allegedly Turns Away Wisconsin Blind Man and His Service Dog [NBC]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uWendy’s Finally Begins Testing Antibiotic-Free Chickenr


4 4 4 9
  • (Photo: Consumerist)

    (Photo: Consumerist)

    More than a year after Chick fil-A began its transition away from drugged-up chickens, and months after McDonald’s announced its plans to eventually go the antibiotic-free route, Wendy’s — the one major burger chain with ads that tout its better, more natural ingredients — is finally dipping its toes into the no-antibiotics pool.

    According to the Wall Street Journal, Wendy’s will begin the test this week of antibiotic-free chicken products in a few locations in Orlando; Gainesville, FL; Kansas City, MO; and Austin.

    The company says the test is being done in response to rising customer demand for meat sourced from animals not raised on steady diets of low-dose antibiotics.

    To run through it one more time. Many farmers feed their chickens, pigs, and cows continual, sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics, primarily because it encourages tissue growth. Unfortunately, this overuse of antibiotics has the unintended result of creating new, drug-resistant “super bugs” that require stronger antibiotics to fight.

    Antibiotics sold for use on farm animals account for around 80% of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. In late 2013, the FDA asked drug makers to stop selling the drugs that were solely for growth-promotion, but since most livestock antibiotics were approved for both therapeutic and growth-promotion purposes, this really only required farmers to change the reason they purchased the drugs, not the amount they used.

    Under increased pressure from doctors, scientists, public health advocates, and a growing number of consumers, several large companies are making the switch to drug-free, especially for chickens.

    Both Perdue and Tyson have made commitments to drastically reducing the drugs given to their birds, while restaurant chains like Chipotle, Panera, Chick fil-A, McDonald’s (and hopefully Wendy’s) have helped nudge demand. A coalition of 50 different groups recently petitioned Subway in the hope of getting the company to source antibiotic-free meat.

    A Wendy’s exec tells the Journal that the company’s decision to expand the test will depend on customers’ response.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uOwners Of Nike+FuelBands Eligible For $15 Check Or $25 Gift Card Under Class-Action Settlementr


4 4 4 9
  • FuelbandOwners of Nike+Fuelband fitness trackers are eligible for a partial refund after Nike and Apple agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit that claimed the companies misled consumers about the accuracy of the wearable device.

    The settlement, in which neither company admits wrongdoing, stems from a 2013 lawsuit filed by consumers alleging Nike and Apple made false or misleading claims about the FuelBand’s ability to track calories, steps and NikeFuel, the sports company’s fitness tracking metric.

    Under the proposed settlement [PDF], consumers who purchased the fitness tracker between January 19, 2012 and June 17, 2015 are eligible to receive either a $15 check or a $25 gift card redeemable online and at Nike-owned stores.

    While both companies agreed to resolve the lawsuit, only Nike is responsible for covering the $2.4 million associated with attorney’s fees and refunds.

    The Nike+Fuelband, first released in 2012, was developed out of a sporting technology partnership between Nike and Apple that began back in 2006, the settlement states.

    According to the lawsuit [PDF], both companies consistently advertised in promotional materials that the FuelBand “measures each step taken and each calorie burned,” “tracks steps, calories, and time of day,” and “tracks calories burned, steps taken and more.”

    However, in reality, the suit contends that the FuelBand could not and does not track each calorie burned or each step taken, as users “experience wildly inaccurate” step, calorie burn and NikeFuel readings.

    “Despite their knowledge of the FuelBand’s inability to accurately track each of a user’s calories burned, steps taken, or to read or measure physical activity sufficiently to provide any form of accurate measurement of that activity,” the suit states. “The defendants promulgated and implemented the false and misleading advertising alleged herein as part of a business scheme designed to unfairly and unlawfully reap substantial profits at the expense of [consumers].”

    A spokesperson for Nike tells the Wall Street Journal that the company remains committed to Nike+ and NikeFuel.

    Consumers eligible for a partial refund under the settlement must make a claim on nikefuelbandsettlement.com by Jan. 4, 2016.

    [via The Wall Street Journal]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uFrom Apple To Walmart, Over A Dozen Of The Biggest Businesses In The U.S. Sign On To White House Climate Pledger


4 4 4 9

  • A huge number of the world’s nations are coming together in Paris this December to negotiate an agreement to stem emissions and forestall further climate change. Ahead of this winter’s United Nations talks, however, some well-known names here at home are pledging their own contributions to the cause.

    The White House announced today that thirteen major businesses have signed on the climate pledge, with more due in the fall. The companies that announced their participation today include Alcoa, Apple, Bank of America, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Cargill, Coca-Cola, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Google, Microsoft, PepsiCo, UPS, and Walmart.

    The pledges come ahead of international climate talks slated to take place in Paris this coming December.

    In terms of publicity for attempts to protect the environment and stem the tide of climate change, it’s a landmark agreement. The thirteen businesses are all national and global leaders in their fields — huge, well-known brands across a variety of industries. In terms of actual impact, though, there’s a lot of variety in the promises.

    The thirteen businesses have not all signed on universally to the same, single goal; each is, instead, making some promise relating to its own strengths and line of business.

    Bank of America, for example, doesn’t exactly have widespread manufacturing operations they need to improve the efficiency of. Instead, they plan to move money around: their pledge is to increase lending, investing, and advisory services in their “environmental businesses initiative,” as well as to make investing in clean energy financially attractive to other parties. A similar plan of investment and lending comes from Goldman Sachs, which also pledges to achieve carbon-neutrality across all its operations this year and to use 100% renewable energy by 2020.

    The energy and physical goods businesses do all promise some more direct actions to increase energy efficiency, increase their reliance on renewable energy instead of fossil fuels, or both, to varying degrees. Apple’s pledge is to keep doing what they’ve already been doing, for example, as they point out that all of their U.S. operations already run on 100% renewable energy.

    Alcoa’s pledge includes a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2025, and also to prove by then that the products they make and sell (to other industries) will result in an emissions reduction equal to three times that of their production. That is to say, if an aerospace widget takes 2 tons of carbon emissions to make, then that aerospace widget will create 6 fewer tons of carbon emissions than you would spend by not using that aerospace widget.

    Coke and Pepsi both promise improvements up and down their supply chains, from farming to bottling to shipping. Coca-Cola’s specific promise is to reduce the carbon footprint of “the drink in your hand” by 25% by 2020; PepsiCo plans to halt deforestation in their global supply chain and to eliminate hydrofluorocarbons from all their new equipment in the U.S. by that same year.

    UPS also promises to increase their efficiency, promising to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 20% (as compared to 2007) by 2020. Walmart also plans to reduce the amount of energy their buildings use by 20% by 2020, along with increasing their renewable energy use by 600% as compared to 2010.

    Google and Microsoft both pledge to shift 100% to renewable energy for their data centers, offices, and labs. Although neither provides a target year for meeting that goal, Google commits to tripling their purchases of renewable energy by 2025. Both companies also pledge to reduce their carbon footprint in business transportation.

    Perhaps most notable is Berkshire Hathaway’s pledge, however: the energy business not only plans to keep investing in solar and wind power actoss the west and midwest, but also to retire more than 75% of their coal-fueled power plants in Nevada over the next few years.

    Many of the pledges are essentially statements that businesses intend to keep making a profit, and that renewable energy and increased energy efficiency are seen as ways to make and save money as much as they are ways to save ecosystems. In the end, though, that’s a good thing: business goals and environmental goals must become aligned in order to get the world’s largest industries actually to make serious moves on emissions reductions and increased use of renewable fuel.

    As Google pointed out on their blog, “We’re serious about environmental sustainability not because it’s trendy, but because it’s core to our values and also makes good business sense. After all, the cheapest energy is the energy you don’t use in the first place.”

    The full fact sheet, detailing all 13 businesses’ pledges, is available on the White House official site.



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist