uElectronic Mortgage Documents Easier To Understand, Provide More Benefits For Consumersr

4 4 4 9

• If you’ve ever bought a house, you’re more than familiar with the mountain of paperwork you have to deal with at closing, not all of which are easy to understand.  But a study claims that homeowners who utilize a newer electronic method for reviewing closing documents may better comprehend what they’re signing.

  This is according to research [PDF] from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that found electronic mortgage closings – technology for borrowers to view and sign closing documents electronically – can be a benefit for consumers, helping them navigate the mortgage process.

  The report – the latest in the Bureau’s “Know Before You Owe” initiative aimed at improving the home buying experience – found that those who closed their mortgages using an electronic platform generally have a better understanding of terms and feel more empowered than borrowers who used paper forms.

  

  The CFPB study found that consumers felt better about the mortgage closing process when given electronic documents.

  The Bureau’s research on the effectiveness on eClosings was initiated after a 2014 report found that consumers felt like they didn’t have enough time to review documents and were overwhelmed by the stack of paperwork provided during the closing process.

  Following that report, the CFPB identified eClosings as an option to alleviate some of consumers’ apprehension with the mortgage lending process.

  An eClosing pilot program, administered by the CFPB for the study, took place over a four-month period involving seven lenders, more than 3,000 consumers, four technology companies and several settlement agents and real estate professionals.

  While some consumers in the pilot used traditional paper documents, others used a complete eClosing process, and others used a combination of the two.

  After the closing process was completed, borrowers provided the Bureau with a survey about their feelings on their given method.

  When it came to having a better understanding of terms and fees, consumers who used eClosing were about 7% more likely to believe they understood the contracts compared to borrowers who used paper documents.

  Asked about their perceptions of the process’s overall efficiency, the study found a 17% positive difference in scores for borrowers using eClosings.

  Additionally, the study found that consumers were 15% more likely to feel empowered by having more time to review documents, ask questions and flag concerns during the closing process.

  “The CFPB finds the results of this study encouraging for industry participants that are currently completing eClosings, working toward eClosing implementation, or are still in early discussions on eClosing,” the report states.

  Still, the Bureau believes the study shouldn’t be used as a final verdict on the potential of eClosing, because of constraints in the data used and consumers reported mixed feeling on some of the technology-focused processes, specifically when it came to refinancing options.

  “Given these constraints and results, we instead view this study as confirmation of growing interest in eClosing as an option for consumers and as a platform to spur further research,” the Bureau states.

  Today’s report comes just two months before the CFPB’s “Know Before You Owe” mortgage disclosure rule takes effect.

  The new rules requires two redesigned, easier-to-use mortgage disclosure forms that clearly lay out the terms of the loan for a homebuyer.

  The first form is the Loan Estimate, which provides a summary of the key loan terms and estimated loan and closing costs. This form will be provided to consumers within three business days after they submit a loan application.

  The second form is the Closing Disclosure, which offers a detailed accounting of the transaction. The rule requires the delivery of the Closing Disclosure three days before closing.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uKellogg Joins Food Industry Cool Kids, Will Remove Artificial Ingredients By 2018r

4 4 4 9

• 

  The colors of Froot Loops could change once the company phases out artificial colors. (frankieleon)

  Major food producers and chain restaurants have to follow trends to stay relevant, and right now the trend is ditching artificial flavors, colors, and preservatives. The latest manufacturer to join this party is Kellogg, a company with falling sales since Americans just aren’t as into cereal as we used to be.

  Kellogg is joining a party that’s been going on for the last few months, as a wide variety of food producers, including the other major U.S. cereal maker, General Mills, have announced that they’ll be removing artificial colors and flavors from their products. Other companies that have done the same this year include Nestlé USA, Campbell Soup Company, and Kraft and chain restaurants like Subway, Panera, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut.

  Kellogg says that most of its cereals are already made without artificial colors (75% without) and artificial flavors (more than 50% without) and that they will remove the additives from 90% of its products by next year, finally phasing all of them out by 2018.

  Key colorful cereals like Froot Loops are already made with plant-derived food colorings in international markets. Froot Loops in Australia, for example, use the following for their colours: “carmine, paprika, caramel I, turmeric, copper chlorophyll, and vegetable carbon.”

  If they choose similar ingredients once natural ingredients are phased in, don’t tell your kids that carmine is a red coloring made from ground-up bugs. Or maybe they’d be more likely to eat it if they knew that.

  Kellogg to stop using artificial products in cereals, snack bars [Reuters]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Nebwq - Your Source for Social News and Networking

Nebwq - Your Source for Social News and Networking

uAmazon Isn’t Cracking Down On Shared Prime Accounts, Reminds Everyone Of Actual Rulesr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (tehchix0r)

  Amazon is finally sort of cracking down on Prime members who share their membership within a “household” that actually consists of their old roommate, their dad who lives four states away, and a co-worker. We all learned this when the e-commerce company quietly changed who is considered a “household” for the purpose of sharing your Prime benefits. Now Amazon has responded, and their main point is valid: most people weren’t using the feature in a licit manner in the first place.

  The Prime-sharing program is now set up to allow for two adults and four children in a “household.” The two adults share access to their credit cards, which is why you should be very close to the person you choose to add to your account.

  What an Amazon representative emphasized to CNET, though, is that the company isn’t actually enforcing the “household” thing, and the people you’ve already added to your account so they could have Prime shipping get to stay unless you manually remove them from here out. “We would give people plenty of notice before we did anything to those accounts,” an Amazon spokesperson assured CNET.

  The subtle shift in this change is that instead of shipping Amazon packages for free to five different households (which is how many people used, or misused, the program) letting children have their own accounts emphasizes the streaming video and music available through Prime, and lets kids access media through their own login.

  Amazon responds to furor over limits on Prime sharing [CNET]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uNoted Porn Copyright Troll Asks Court To Block Use Of Terms Like “Porn” & “Copyright Troll”r

4 4 4 9

• 

  (jpmarth)

  We’ve told you before about Malibu Media, the porn company that has filed more than 3,500 lawsuits against alleged illegal online sharers of its adult content, thus earning its “copyright troll” badge with ease. But the company doesn’t want that term being used against it in court.

  In a case that’s been going on for three years, Malibu recently filed a motion [PDF] asking a federal court to block the defendant from using terms that it believes “would be unfairly prejudicial.”

  Because Malibu makes porn — the alleged violation in this case involves something with the title “Pretty Back Door Baby” — and because it has filed thousands of lawsuits — what the company describes as a “proactive stance against on-line copyright infringement” — the company acknowledges that “it is no secret” that Malibu has been presented in a less than glowing light by some.

  “Accordingly, Plaintiff has been referred to in many different negatively connoted ways, including: ‘copyright troll,’ ‘pornographer,’ ‘porn purveyor,’ and ‘extortionist,’” reads the motion. “Referring to Plaintiff at trial by any title except ‘Plaintiff’ or ‘Malibu Media’ would be unfairly prejudicial and would only serve to impede the impartial administration of justice.”

  While one could understand the argument against using phrases like “troll” and “extortionist” in trial might be prejudicial, it’s a little difficult to understand why a company that makes pornography would fight against that label.

  Thankfully, Malibu has an explanation.

  “Although it is undisputed that Plaintiff creates ‘adult content,’ use of the aforementioned terms in this context is undoubtedly pejorative and invokes preconceived negative connotations,” explains a company that willingly chose to get into making erotic content, presumably with full knowledge of the stigma involved. “Such preconceived negative connotations may impart that Plaintiff’s works are not entitled to copyright protection or that Plaintiff should be treated differently under the law simply because of the industry that it is in. Such is not the case. Plaintiff’s copyrights are valid and Plaintiff deserves the same rights as any other federal court litigant.”

  This last part is especially tricky, as some have argued that obscene materials can’t be copyrighted and thus, any sharing of that content would thus not be a violation of copyright.

  By not allowing the defendant to bring up the term “pornography” in trial, Malibu appears to be trying to short-circuit any attempt to claim at trial that there was no copyright to begin with. The company proactively cites a handful of legal precedents to bolster their assertion that copyright exists regardless of the cultural, educational, or scientific value of the copyrighted content.

  As Malibu notes, several courts have prevented the use of terms like “patent troll,” “lawsuit lottery,” or “shakedown.”

  But in his response [PDF], the defendant argues in favor of using some version of the supposedly objectionable terms.

  For example, he points to a case where the term “patent troll” was blocked, but where phrases like “patent assertion entity,” “company that does not make anything,” “company that does not sell anything,” or “licensing entity,” were allowed.

  Thus, the defendant argues that describing Malibu as a “producer of pornographic films” is neutral, factual, and accurate.

  Likewise, citing a definition of copyright troll as a party that is “more focused on the business of litigation than on selling a product or service or licensing their [copyrights] to third parties to sell a product or service,” the defendant says he should be able to point out that Malibu “is very focused on its copyright litigation business.”

  “According to public record, Plaintiff has filed approximately 3,539 lawsuits in the United States District Courts,” reads the defendant’s response. “The Court is permitted to take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s litigation history. A court may take judicial notice of its own court documents and records… Accordingly, Defendant should be permitted to offer descriptions of Plaintiff’s litigation history, which are matters of public knowledge.”

  There’s an irony to Malibu Media asking the court to prevent potentially prejudicial name-calling. Last year, it sought a protective order against the site Fight Copyright Trolls, and in court documents, it referred to the site as a “fanatical Internet hate group.”

  Additionally, Malibu has no trouble using the lascivious-sounding titles of porn videos to convince defendants to settle. In fact, it recently went so far as to try to compel defendants to reveal the titles of non-Malibu porn sites and videos they had viewed in the apparent hope of using this unrelated information to embarrass them.

  [via TorrentFreak]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uAt Least 124 People Died Because Of General Motors Ignition Defectr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Louis Abate)

  One year after General Motors’ victim compensation fund began accepting death and injury claims related to its massive ignition switch issue and six months after the submission deadline, the carmaker announced it had completed its review. Now, instead of acknowledging just 13 deaths tied to the deadly defect, the car manufacture is admitting that 124 deaths – nearly 10 times the original tally – resulted from its failure to address the problematic switches in more than 2.59 millions of vehicles.

  The Detroit News reports that the company-appointed review team responsible for vetting the death and injury claims completed its review this week after receiving 4,300 death and injury claims over the last year.

  In addition to the 124 death claims, the fund approved 274 injury claims, of which 17 were considered serious.

  While the death and injury claims are much higher than GM previously acknowledged, the fund ultimately rejected 91% of all submitted claims — 338 of which were for deaths.

  Additionally, although the initial review process is over, many of the approved claims have yet to be assigned a dollar figure for their individual proposed payouts, according to an administrator for the fund.

  Of the victims and survivors that have been given offers, 100 are still outstanding – having either been rejected or not yet accepted, the Detroit News reports.

  So far the company has paid out about $285 million in compensation for the approved claims. When all cases are closed, GM expects to pay $625 million related to the fund.

  Despite the conclusion of the funds’ review process, consumer advocates continue to raise concerns on how compensation was doled out to victims.

  Clarence Ditlow, executive director for the Center for Auto Safety, tells the Detroit News that the fund likely worked against consumers by requiring a burden of proof that was too high.

  “The entire program was designed to get help get Congress and the Justice Department off GM’s back,” Ditlow said. “The one thing is clear that we will never know how many people were killed or injured because it goes back so far.”

  A Texas lawyer suing GM over the defect maintains that the compensation fund doesn’t account for all injuries and included “clunky and unfair” provisions, such as only providing relief for those who stayed overnight in the hospital.

  “Many of my clients were fortunate enough not to suffer severe bleeding or other open-wound type injuries, but ended up having surgery months later because of neck/back injuries. As they were sent home from the emergency room and not admitted — [the fund] does not allow for consideration of the surgeries. This led to a gross unfairness for many and a very small offer,” he tells the Detroit News.

  According to the plan’s formula, families of those who died are entitled to at least $1 million, plus the calculation of lifetime earning lost, and $300,000 for a spouse and for each dependent.

  In a hypothetical scenario provided by GM the family of a 25-year-old married woman with two children who was earning $46,400 a year at the time of her accident would receive $4 million.

  Consumers who suffered life-altering injuries could receive even more when the cost of lifetime medical care, lost earnings power and other factors are considered.

  The plan also addressed consumers who faced less-severe injuries. Those who were treated at a hospital or an outpatient medical facility within 48 hours of the accident are eligible for a claim.

  The formula for that claim is $20,000 for one night in the hospital; $70,000 for two to seven overnights, $170,000 for eight to 15 overnights, with a maximum of $500,000 for 32 or more overnights. Those treated on an outpatient basis could receive a maximum of $20,000.

  While the conclusion of the review process closes the door on a portion of GM’s decades-year-long ignition switch debacle, the issue is far from settled for the car maker.

  The Department of Justice continues to look into bringing criminal charges against the car company for allegedly making misstatements about the ignition switches in the Chevy Cobalt, Saturn Ion and other vehicles.

  As Consumerist previously reported, the exact charges that might be filed are still up in the air, as is the issue of whether GM will go along with a guilty plea, or perhaps a deferred-prosecution deal. Either result would also result in a sizable settlement payment, which is another issue to be sorted out, but would likely be north of $1 billion.

  Individual employees could also face charges from the DOJ. Some at the company knew before the affected cars even went into production that there was a problem with the ignition switch. It could be inadvertently turned into the “Off” position by a heavy keychain or if the driver’s knee came into contact with the switch.

  GM ignition fund ends review approving 124 death claims [The Detroit News]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uCVS/Caremark Dropping Viagra From Drug Formularyr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Felix E. Guerrero)

  Patients who use the erectile dysfunction pill Viagra and whose health insurance drug coverage is through CVS/Caremark will have to pay cash or switch to Cialis: the pharmacy benefits administrator has removed the drug from its formulary, which is a fancy word for “list of drugs that we’ll pay for.”

  Despite what all of the spam messages in your inbox tell you, generic Viagra isn’t on the market yet in the United States. That will happen in 2017, which is the same year that the patent on Cialis expires. The latter, which is made by Eli Lilly.

  Here’s where things get confusing. By “CVS,” we don’t mean the CVS on the corner where you fill your prescriptions. That store will still sell Viagra, and you can use your insurance for it as long as you have a benefits administrator that isn’t CVS/Caremark.

  The pharmacy chain shares a name and a parent company (CVS Health) with CVS/Caremark, a pharmacy benefits administrator once known as Caremark. They’re the companies that act as an intermediary between your pharmacy and your employer or your insurance company, determining how much the plan will pay for different drugs and which drugs the plan will or won’t cover. Their major competitor in this market is Express Scripts, and some insurance companies also handle their own drug benefits.

  Even more confusing, the mail order pharmacy of CVS/Caremark handles the processing end of Pfizer’s direct-to-consumer Viagra mail-order program, which began in 2013 and requires a valid prescription. They’ll dispense Viagra by mail-order pharmacy, just not to their own customers.

  No More Viagra: CVS Drops Coverage of Erectile Dysfunction Drug [Bloomberg News]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist