пятница, 14 августа 2015 г.

uRetailer That Overcharged, Then Sued Military Personnel Is Going Out Of Businessr


4 4 4 9
  • USA DiscountersA year ago, Virginia-based USA Discounters was in the spotlight after the supposedly discount retailer — which had several locations adjoining military bases and directly marketed its financing to servicemembers — was criticized for charging ridiculously high prices on its products and then suing soldiers in such a way that they could rarely defend themselves in court. The retailer then changed its name to USA Living and promised to not be so evil, even though the lawsuits continued. Now comes news that the retailer is going to close up shop for good.

    ProPublica’s Paul Kiel, who has been driving the reporting on USA Discounters, writes that the chain is now holding “going out of business” sales at the seven locations that currently remain open. Most of the retailer’s stores were located near military bases.

    For those new to this story, USA Discounters marketed itself as a low-cost financing option for military personnel and their families, but like many other rent-to-own and installment-payment retailers, USA Discounters was actually marking up products much higher than other stores.

    A $329 iPad was listed at $699; a laptop that would cost you (at most) $650 elsewhere was listed at $1,799 by the store. With interest on the monthly installments, customers ended up paying even more. We found a TV ($960 on Amazon) that would have ultimately cost a USA Discounter customer $2,256 — and that doesn’t include things like the “warranty fee,” “credit life insurance,” “credit property insurance,” plus taxes and “specialist fees” charged to servicemembers. Last August, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reached a $400,000 settlement, including $350,000 in refunds to customers, over this illegal specialist fee.

    That $650 laptop mentioned above? The ultimate price tag was $2,993. When he couldn’t keep up with the $130/month payments, he was sued by the retailer… in Virginia, more than 1,500 miles away from where he lived. Since he couldn’t make the trip to appear in court, USA Discounters was awarded a default judgment of $8,626.

    Since 2006, USA Discounters has filed more than 13,470 of these lawsuits, winning almost all of them.

    The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), gives active duty servicemembers the right to defend themselves in court, but does not specify where lawsuits must be filed. Thus, USA Discounters filed many of its complaints in the same two courts in Virginia.

    Why Virginia?

    The SCRA also says there must be a court-appointed attorney to represent servicemembers who aren’t there to represent themselves, but Virginia courts allow the creditor to suggest which attorney should be appointed. Not surprisingly, USA Discounters often selected the same attorney to represent absent servicemembers.

    And that lawyer’s only obligation, as he would advise defendants who likely had little idea what was going on, “is to review your response and request an additional stay or continuance if I feel it is appropriate given your answers.”

    USA Discounters and similar lawsuit-happy installment retailers target servicemembers for a few reasons. First, many younger soldiers come from lower-income backgrounds and/or have little knowledge of or experience with the risks of financing a purchase. Second, military personnel could use allotments to direct some of their pay directly to the retailer. A new rule now prohibits retailers from accepting allotments, a fact that the CFPB is actively reminding stores of.

    Finally, it’s easy for a creditor to garnish the wages of a federal employee. USA Discounters had seized more soldiers’ pay than any other company in the country.

    In addition to no longer being able to accept allotments, USA Discounters is facing legal challenges, in the form of a class-action lawsuit alleging “unconscionable sales practices and usury,” and a lawsuit filed by Colorado’s attorney general. North Carolina’s AG is also investigating the retailer.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uSouthwest Airlines, TSA Blame Each Other For Unusually Long Security Lines At Midway Airportr


4 4 4 9
  • People traveling out of Chicago’s Midway International Airport on Friday aren’t getting very far, as travelers are said to be waiting an hour or more to get through unusually long security checkpoint lines.

    CBS Chicago reports that hundreds, if not thousands, of people are currently waiting in lines that the regular airport checkpoints apparently can’t contain.

    One man who was able to bypass the queue through the TSA Pre-Check lane, which provides expedited screening for pre-vetted travelers, says the queue now extends to the airport’s exterior.

    “It’s outside,” he said. “One of the TSA guys said you can’t see the end, because it’s outside.”

    Unlike the last long-line fiasco at the airport, today’s issue can’t exactly be blamed on post-holiday travel overload.

    Instead, travelers trying to make their flights say that Transportation Security Administration and Southwest Airlines employees at the airport are placing the blame on each other.

    Some at the airport tell CBS Chicago that TSA workers said they were short-staffed on Friday, while others were told that the issues were the result of a Southwest fare sale that led to all flights being full.

    A spokesperson for the TSA says security checkpoints at Midway are currently fully staffed, noting that the delays are just a result of an unusually busy day at the airport.

    The agency also denied that wait times had exceeded an hour, saying that the average time was closer to 35 minutes.

    Consumerist reached out to Southwest for comment on the delays at the airport, where it serves as the largest carrier. We’ll update this post if we get a response from the airline.

    Irritated passengers turned to Twitter early Friday to voice their displeasure for the long wait.

    Busy Morning At Midway Has Security Lines Jammed [CBS Chicago]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uFCC Proposes Rules To Reduce TV Blackouts, Potentially (But Probably Not) Lower Pricesr


4 4 4 9
  • The FCC has proposed a kind of arcane-sounding rule change that on the surface might not seem to affect consumers very much. But if all goes well, the rule will prove to be the kind of upstream change that prevents all the you-know-what from flowing on downhill to everyone else, and makes one of the most annoying things about cable TV into ancient history.

    The new proposal is going to tackle two of consumers’ least-favorite things, the FCC announced this week: hikes in cable prices, and the blackouts that happen when content companies and distribution companies can’t agree on terms.

    Just in the last year, subscribers to various cable and satellite pay-TV services have faced blackouts of Cartoon Network, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and The Weather Channel, among others. At this point the disagreements are routine enough and frequent enough that basically anyone could recite the PR script for both sides without looking.

    It’s bad enough that consumers lose access to content they pay for when companies fight, but what’s even worse is that consumers get used as pawns in that fight. Every time there is a channel blacking, each multimillion-dollar business spends time and money crafting marketing campaigns trying to make annoyed would-be viewers blame and harangue the other guy. The idea is that if a horde of angry subscribers descends upon and blames Party A for the problem, Party B can win the more advantageous contract terms. And consumers continue to lose.

    The new proposals won’t solve every contract dispute out there, but they will address the problems that arise specifically between broadcast networks — the CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox stations of the world — and cable and satellite companies, like the month-long CBS/Time Warner Cable dispute in 2013.

    Cable companies obviously want to spend as little money as possible on getting broadcasters’ content. Broadcasters, on the other hand, want to make as much money as possible. It’s a recipe ripe for an impasse.

    To address some of those challenges, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler is circulating a proposal that would review the “totality of the circumstances test” for retransmission negotiations. Basically, that test is the tool the FCC uses to determine if negotiations are actually happening in good faith. If negotiations are not in good faith, the FCC can intervene.

    Another separate, but related, proposal from Wheeler would eliminate “exclusivity rules.” Those are the rules that prohibit your cable company from swapping in a different city’s network affiliate if contract negotiations have resulted in yours being blacked out or dropped. So for example if CBS had another dispute with a provider and pulled their owned and operated stations from the lineup, the cable or satellite company in question could swap in an independently-owned affiliate instead.

    Wheeler described that change as “the Commission tak[ing] its thumb off the scales” and letting businesses come to their own agreements instead. And changing that policy would indeed give cable companies more leverage in their disputes with content providers, since they would be able to say, “We don’t need you; we’ll swap someone cheaper in instead.”

    If you’re wondering, “Okay, but why is the FCC doing this now? What took so long?” the answer is, Congress. The FCC (and every other regulatory agency, for that matter) acts within a mandate that comes from laws enacted by Congress. At the tail end of last year Congress passed the STELAR (Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization) Act of 2014, which basically told the FCC to come up with a way to modernize a bunch of rules regarding satellite, cable, and broadcast TV. And so the FCC is doing just that.

    Will it actually work out to consumers’ benefit in the long run? That’s anybody’s guess. Cable companies cite high retransmission fees as a major driver behind the skyrocketing prices that consumers pay, but it is also true that cable companies are monopolies that enjoy making money. So only time will tell.



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uVolkswagen Recalls 420,000 Vehicles Over Non-Deployment Of Airbagsr


4 4 4 9
  • Automakers have recalled more vehicles for airbag issues in the last year than many of us can keep track of. Today, Volkswagen joined the long list, calling back some 420,000 sedans equipped with airbags that may not deploy.

    The car manufacturer announced today that it would recall thousands of model year 2010 to 2014 Volkswagen CC, Passat, and Tiguan, model year 2010 to 2013 Eos and Jetta, model year 2011 to 2014 Golf and GTI, and model year 2011 to 2013 Jetta Sportwagen vehicles.

    According to a notice [PDF] filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, debris has been found to contaminate the airbag clock spring – a cable that keeps the airbag powered while the steering wheel is being turned.

    If debris is present, the cable could tear, leading to a loss of electrical connection to the driver’s frontal airbag, preventing the safety device from deploying in the event of a crash.

    The recall comes five months after NHTSA first opened an investigation into airbag issues in Volkswagen Passat and CC models.

    NHTSA’s Office of Defect Investigation opened the probe [PDF] into the vehicles after receiving nine consumer complaints alleging airbag failures.

    The consumer reports indicated that failures occurred during normal driving conditions and were sometimes accompanied by an audible noise from the steering column. In some cases, the airbag error light on the dash was activated.

    “Upon pulling out of my driveway and turning the steering wheel there was a cracking noise and then the airbag light went off with an airbag warning,” one complaint from January 2015 reads. “At which point all mechanisms within the steering wheel stopped working.”

    According to a chronology [PDF] filed with NHTSA, Volkswagen knew about the issue several years before NHTSA initiated its investigation.

    The company received its first report of issues with the airbags back in December 2011. An initial evaluation in May 2012 found a low failure rate and no impact on vehicle safety.

    Almost three years later, in March 2015, NHTSA opened its investigation. Just months later in July, the manufacturer met with regulators, where NHTSA explained its risk assessment of the vehicles and demanded notification of defects in the safety devices.

    Volkswagen says it has yet to identify a fix for the problem, but say that since 2012 there have been improvements to the clock spring.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uAT&T Revises Data Plans: Lower Prices But Fewer Optionsr


4 4 4 9
  • From AT&T's announcement of its new data plans. Note, the monthly device charge shown is for smartphones. There are different monthly charges for other items like tablets and hotspots.

    From AT&T’s announcement of its new data plans. Note, the monthly device charge shown is for smartphones. There are different monthly charges for other items like tablets and hotspots.

    Why is the wireless industry so antsy? Not so long ago, it was all about giving customers a vast array of options so they could very precisely buy just the amount of data they want. Now, following Verizon’s recent simplification of its plans, AT&T is culling a number of its data tiers, which could result in savings — if you make sure to do some math before switching.

    AT&T’s newest slate of data plan offerings do away with a number of existing options. No more 1GB, 3GB, 6GB, or 10GB monthly plans. Instead, AT&T has resurrected the 2GB and 5GB plans, and started giving away 15GB for the same price as it had been charging for 10GB.

    Note that these changes don’t affect AT&T customers’ current plans. So if you have a 3GB plan, you’re not being automatically switched to 2GB or 5GB. But if you’re an AT&T Next user — meaning you pay for your phone through the company’s installment plan — or you are already own your phone outright, then you can switch if you want.

    But whether you switch depends on your current plan and how much data you’re actually using.

    For example, AT&T’s current 1GB/month offering is $25/month. The 2GB/month plan will be $30/month. Yes, it’s five dollars more per month, but the per-gigabyte price is cheaper ($15/GB vs. $25/GB). So if you’re a 1GB customer who has to be ultra-conscious of your data each month because you keep nearing your limit, it might be worth considering. But if you’re a bare-bones data user who just occasionally checks e-mail or resolves a bar bet with Wikipedia, then maybe you’re better off just saving the $5.

    Customers who currently have 3GB plans ($40/month) have two directions they can go: down to 2GB or up to 5GB.

    Downshifting to 2GB will actually drive up the per-gigabyte rate ($15/GB vs. $13.33/GB), but could save conservative data users $10/month if they haven’t been getting anywhere near their 3GB limit.

    Jumping up to 5GB at $50/month brings that per-gigabyte cost down ($10/GB vs. $13.33/GB), but at the expense of adding $10/month to your bill. Again, if you’ve been getting near your limit or have reined in your data use to make sure you avoid overage charges, this might be worth considering.

    Current 6GB ($70) customers really only have one option if they want to change and stay close to their current data limit, and that’s to downsize to 5GB. Shaving off the one gigabyte will save them a little in per-gigabyte terms ($10/GB vs. $11.66), but they should really only consider this if they are not coming near their current monthly data limit.

    A 6GB customer thinking of upsizing has to jump all the way up to 15GB, which is now available at the same price ($100) that AT&T had been charging for 10GB. The math here is slightly more complicated.

    Yes, there’s a significant $40/month jump in data costs. But at the same time, you’re also cutting the per-gigabyte rate in half ($6.66/GB vs. $11.66/GB). Additionally, the monthly per-device charge (if you’re on AT&T Next) drops by $10 from $25/month to $15/month. We don’t see any obvious situation in which a single person would really benefit from making this jump to the 15GB plan, but for couples or families looking for a manageable shared data plans, it might be worth comparing to your current service.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uConsumerist Friday Flickr Findsr


4 4 4 9
  • Here are seven of the best photos that readers added to the Consumerist Flickr Pool in the last week, picked for usability in a Consumerist post or for just plain neatness.

    Want to see your pictures on our site? Our Flickr pool is the place where Consumerist readers upload photos for possible use in future Consumerist posts. Just be a registered Flickr user, go here, and click “Join Group?” up on the top right. Choose your best photos, then click “send to group” on the individual images you want to add to the pool.



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uVerizon Stops Throttling Data For Unlimited Wireless Data Plans, Doesn’t Tell Anyoner


4 4 4 9
  • (dooley)

    (dooley)

    For four years, Verizon has been throttling 3G data speeds for its few remaining “unlimited” data plan holders who dared try to take advantage of having access to supposedly unlimited data on their wireless devices. But earlier this summer, the nation’s largest wireless carrier quietly put an end to this supposed “network management,” but only because it has done such a good job of driving customers away from their unlimited plans.

    RCRwireless.com made note of a page on the Verizon Wireless website titled “Explanation of Video Optimization Deployment.” The text on that page ends with a brief explanation of how, in 2011, Verizon started throttling the data speeds for its top 5% of data devourers with unlimited data plans.

    That final paragraph concludes with the note: “We discontinued this practice in June, 2015.”

    This appears to indicate that Verizon is no longer throttling data speeds for customers still on unlimited data plans. In 2014, the company had intended to start throttling LTE access for these heaviest users, but backed down amid public backlash and a note from FCC Chair Tom Wheeler that he was “deeply concerned” about the practice.

    Companies like Verizon and AT&T used unlimited plans to lure customers to ditch traditional cellphones for smartphones and data plans, but have long since gotten rid of this option. Subscribers who had those plans were allowed to keep them, but often under conditions that took away things like subsidized phone upgrades. Throttling by both AT&T and Verizon also took away the incentive of keeping a plan that didn’t actually provide “unlimited” data.

    As a result, the number of people remaining on unlimited plans has dwindled. In a statement to the Washington Post, a rep for Verizon says the company gave up on throttling unlimited subscribers, “Because it was such a small subset of customers who were affected.”

    AT&T is currently fighting a possible $100 million penalty from the FCC for its alleged failure to adequately disclose the conditions under which throttling would occur or the extent to which speeds would be throttled.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist