вторник, 25 августа 2015 г.

uAmazon Quietly Launches Same-Day Beer, Wine Delivery In Seattler


4 4 4 9
  • When you’re hosting a party and notice that the alcoholic beverages are running a little low, you might momentarily panic: who in their right mind wants to leave such a great shindig to go on a beer run? No one, that’s who. And now, with the long-awaited addition of alcohol delivery to Amazon’s one- or two-hour Prime Now service, no one has to… unless you live outside of Seattle, in which case you still have to go to the store.

    When Amazon announced the launch of its expedited delivery program in Seattle today, the company quietly revealed the newly expanded service would offer something new: alcohol delivery.

    Instead of making a big to-do about adding beer and wine delivery to Prime Now for the first time in the U.S., Amazon stealthily snuck a few mentions of the beverages into a statement about the expanded services.

    “Residents of Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond and Kirkland can now get one-hour delivery on tens of thousands of items like paper towels, wine, beer, chilled and frozen items like milk and ice cream, televisions and Kindle devices,” the company said in its announcement.

    Rumors have swirled for weeks that the e-commerce giant would rollout beer, wine and liquor delivery in Seattle after it was reported that the company had applied for liquor licenses for three warehouse sites in the area.

    A spokesperson for Amazon tells Re/Code that it will evaluate customers use of the alcohol delivery service, but plan to “continue to expand it.” However, the company did not specify what cities might expect boozy deliveries in the future.

    Including alcohol delivery is a first for the company’s Prime Now operations in the U.S. Amazon’s Prime Now service in the U.K. already offers such deliveries.

    As with all previous Prime Now rollouts, customers in Seattle must be members of Amazon’s $99/year Prime service to receive deliveries in either two hours for free or one hour for $7.99.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uHuggies Tells Parents There Isn’t Any Glass In Its Baby Wipes After Video Controversyr


4 4 4 9
  • After one mom’s video of small, hard, shiny particles on a Huggies baby wipe hit the Internet’s you-know-what fan, prompting parents to seek a recall, parent company Kimberly-Clark is clarifying that it doesn’t use glass to make its wipes.

    A Florida mom posted a video online showing odd bits on Huggies brand baby wipes she’d been using, after she and her husband said their two kids were complaining about irritated skin, reports First Coast News.

    “I was really upset at first,” the mom said. “There was a really big hard piece on it. It honestly kind of looked like glue.”

    Others made videos as well, with some people saying the particles looked like glass shards.

    But Kimberly-Clark maintains that those bits aren’t glass.

    “It is important to note that no glass is used during the manufacture of our wipes,” the company said in a statement addressing the controversy, noting that the specks were most likely melted fiber particles of the wipe material used in the manufacturing process.

    After testing the material, the company confirmed that no glass was found in the wipes, sharing the outcome of an analysis done by an independent testing firm of the wipes that customers returned.

    “We can confirm NO glass or fiberglass was present. We found only microfibers used to manufacture our baby wipes. A shimmer can be caused by the microfibers reflecting light,” Kimberly-Clark says in a new statement, noting that in “extremely rare occasions,” the manufacturing process can cause “tiny particles of microfiber to form on the wipe that can be felt, but do not present a safety risk.”

    “Based on the findings of the independent testing, we are confident that our product is safe,” the company says.

    Palm Coast mom finds what some believe to be glass in Huggies baby wipes [First Coast News]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uPeople Trust Optometrists More Than Costco Or 1800CONTACTS, At Least According To Optometrist Groupr


4 4 4 9
  • As we’ve previously reported, there’s a legal war going on — with optometrists and manufacturers on one side, and discount and online retailers on the other — over how much you should have to pay for your contact lenses. Both sides of this battle have recently released surveys they hope will help win over public opinion.

    Just a quick catch-up on this whole situation for latecomers.

    Unlike most healthcare professionals, optometrists are allowed to sell products directly to their patients. And until online discounters and big box stores got into the market, many consumers were buying their lenses through their eye doctors.

    In 2013, the largest contact lens manufacturers (Bausch & Lomb, Alcon, and Johnson & Johnson), accounting for some 80% of the market in the U.S., began establishing price floors for their products to help protect the optometrists they depend on to prescribe their lenses.

    With a price floor in place, consumers end up paying the same for lenses at their doctor as they would from Costco or 1-800-CONTACTS, and that price is whatever the manufacturers say it is.

    Utah — which also happens to be the state that 1-800-CONTACTS calls home — recently passed a law [PDF] intended to prohibit contact lens companies setting price floors in the state, though the manufacturers are fighting it.

    And so the two sides have take the fight to the court of public opinion.

    The first salvo was fired late last week in the form of survey results released by a group called “See Clearly, America.”

    Questions asked in the survey included “Who would you say it is RISKIEST to purchase prescription contact lenses from?” To which only 1% responded that their “Family eye doctor” was the riskiest. More than half picked “An online retailer like 1-800 CONTACTS, Vision Direct, Coastal Contacts, or Lens.com,” while 21% said “A store like Walmart or Costco” was the riskiest.

    Note that the question doesn’t point out that the lenses you buy at these online and retail stores are the same as the ones you get from your family doctor; so really the only risk is from damage during shipping.

    Another question asked “Who would you say is most likely to offer the most personalized eye care for you?” And not surprisingly, nearly 9 out of 10 respondents picked the family eye doctor — because that’s the eye doctor’s job. Only 4% picked either the online sellers or big box stores — because it’s just their job to sell you the lenses the doctor prescribed; not offer “personalized eye care.”

    Similarly 89% of survey respondents said the family eye doctor cares most about your eye health. Here’s a hint: if your eye doctor cares less about your eye health than a retailer, then you should be looking for another eye doctor.

    But just because your eye doctor cares a lot about your eyes doesn’t mean that price floors should be used to make sure you can’t buy the exact same lenses from someone else for less.

    So who is “See Clearly, America,” aside from the rare group that inserts a comma into its name?

    The press release for the survey doesn’t mention it, but See Clearly is actually a campaign, started in 2013 (the same year that the price floors began), sponsored by the American Optometric Association, a trade group representing nearly 40,000 optometrists in the U.S..

    When we asked a rep for the AOA why the survey results announcement wasn’t transparent about SCA’s affiliation with the optometrists’ group, he explained that “See Clearly is a just a differently branded project designed to educate the public about important eye health issues.”

    We also asked 1-800-CONTACTS for a statement regarding the See Clearly survey, but rather than provide a comment on the data, the online retailer released survey results of its own.

    The 1-800-CONTACTS survey doesn’t directly counter any of the See Clearly findings. Instead, it seems intent on talking up the benefits to buying your lenses online.

    According to their survey, 70% of people who buy lenses from online sellers replace their contacts as recommended most of the time, compared to only 61% of those getting lenses from their eye doctors.

    Online buyers are, at least according to these results, more fastidious about replacing their contact lens cases on a regular basis (every 9 months or less), with 60% of online contacts customers swapping out their cases this frequently, compared to 51% for customers who go the traditional route.

    Of course, 1-800-CONTACTS’ questions and results aren’t without ulterior motive, as the company uses them to point out that when customers don’t have to pay full-price for contacts, they can afford to get new lenses as recommended.

    Price floors were effectively outlawed for nearly 100 years until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 2007 case of Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., that manufacturers could set minimum retail prices in some situations.

    The court determined that retailers facing price floors could take the money they would have lost through discounts and invest it in “greater customer service” so as to gain a competitive edge. But opponents of price floors for contact lenses contend that these pricing arrangements put all the burden on retailers.

    In its argument against contact lens price floors, Costco claims that eye doctors already have the patient, the prescription, and the product in one place ready to make the transaction. And since there is no incentive for the patient to shop around for a lower price, the doctors would have an edge over retailers.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uBest Buy Figures Out Key To Retail Success: Competitive Prices, Good Service, Apple Watchesr


4 4 4 9
  • We don’t cheer on the demise of companies here at Consumerist: when a company appears on this site repeatedly, it’s because we want them to be better. Best Buy used to be a frequent subject of posts here, but now they aren’t. Americans haven’t all abandoned the retailer: it’s actually doing well, with its mini-store concept paying off. What’s coming up soon for the company? More Apple mini-stores.

    Specifically, the company has become an Apple authorized reseller. They’ve sold Apple products for years, but weren’t an official location for service for Apple products. Now they will be, though whether you want freshly-trained Best Buy employees cracking open your Apple Watch is a whole other question.

    Yes, your Apple Watch: the chain started with a pilot program, but announced today that they’ll first spread the wrist computers out to a few hundred stores, then roll it out to every full-sized Best Buy store.

    Overall, Best Buy is succeeding by…getting back to the basics of what retail is supposed to be. “our strategy of offering advice, service and convenience at competitive prices is paying off,” Best Buy CEO Hubert Joly said in a statement accompanying the quarterly results.

    We thought that these were basic rules of retail, but Best Buy lost its way for a while, instead making up its own rules about not letting any computer out the door without being “optimized” by Geek Squad. Now they’ve learned their lesson, and offering something as simple as price-matching is helpful in de

    Best Buy Posts Surprise Sales Rise; Shares Jump [Reuters]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uPossible Food-Borne Illness Sickens 77 At California Chipotler


4 4 4 9
  • Health officials in Ventura County, California, are investigating a possible outbreak of a food-borne illness after dozens of people who either ate or work at one local Chipotle fell ill.

    The Ventura County Star reports that a Chipotle in Simi Valley closed for a short time last week after nearly 60 customers and 17 employees complained about feeling ill following a visits to the restaurant on August 18 and 19.

    For now the cause of the outbreak, which sent some people to the hospital, remains unknown.

    Mike Byrne, Ventura County Environmental Health Division food safety supervisor, says that inspectors and specialists are following up with those who became sick to try to determine if the illnesses stemmed from a specific food problem or if changes are needed make sure food is safe.

    Customers and employees reported various symptoms following their visits, including fever, diarrhea and vomiting.

    One customer tells NBC Los Angeles that she and her sister became ill after eating at the restaurant on August. 18.

    “We were throwing up, going to the bathroom. We had really bad chills,” she says. “I just want to get the answer.”

    The eatery closed for one day while inspector disinfected the area and brought in all new food, Byrne says.

    While the location reopened on Saturday, employees who became ill have not returned to work in an attempt to avoid reintroducing any possible pathogen, the Star reports.

    Dozens report feeling sick after eating at Chipotle in Simi Valley [Ventura County Star]
    Dozens of Customers Report Feeling Sick After Eating at SoCal Chipotle [NBC Los Angeles]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uFDA Warns Company Behind “Just Mayo” That Its Product Isn’t Actually Mayonnaiser


4 4 4 9
  • justmayoWhat difference does a food label make? A whole heck of a lot, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Which means if your product doesn’t abide by federal guidelines, it can’t masquerade as something it’s not. As such, the FDA is warning the makers of “Just Mayo,” a vegan-friendly spread, that it can’t call itself mayo because mayonnaise contains eggs, which its product does not.

    Back at the end of last year, Hellmann’s maker Unilever backed off on a lawsuit it’d filed against Hampton Creek over the mayo/not mayo issue, noting that it yanked the suit “so that Hampton Creek can address its label directly with industry groups and appropriate regulatory authorities.”

    Eight months later, the appropriate regulatory authorities have come a’knocking, by way of a warning letter from the FDA to Hampton Creek, dated Aug. 12 and posted online on Tuesday. The letter addresses “Just Mayo” and “Just Mayo Sriracha” products.

    “The use of the term ‘mayo’ in the product names and the image of an egg may be misleading to consumers because it may lead them to believe that the products are the standardized food, mayonnaise,” the FDA said, which must contain eggs by definition.

    “Additionally, the use of the term ‘Just’ together with ‘Mayo’ reinforces the impression that the products are real mayonnaise by suggesting that they are ‘all mayonnaise’ or ‘nothing but’ mayonnaise,” the FDA adds, though again, the products aren’t technically mayonnaise. They also include “contain additional ingredients that are not permitted by the standard of identity for mayonnaise, such as modified food starch,” the agency notes.

    The FDA also takes issue with Hampton Creek’s claim that Just Mayo is cholesterol-free, and points to statements the company makes on its site about heart health, including, “When your heart is healthy, well, we’re happy. You’ll never find cholesterol in our products.”

    “Adjacent to this statement is a heart-shaped symbol with a smiling face,” notes the FDA. “Together these statements and heart symbol are an implied health claim that these products can reduce the risk of heart disease due to the absence of cholesterol.”

    However, the FDA says, Just Mayo contains too much fat to make such health claims.

    The agency instructs Hampton Creek to ensure its products comply with regulations and gave the company 15 days to respond to the letter.

    When reached for comment, a Hampton Creek Foods representative told Consumerist there was no statement to share at this time.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uFederal Court Rules: Chicken Sandwich Not Protected By Copyrightr


4 4 4 9
  • pechuchickenYou may recall that we recently tested various burger recipes sent in by readers. What if I took one of those recipes, slapped the name “Morranwich” on it and made it the basis of a billion-dollar burger empire? While the reader whose recipe I used for the sandwich might be really upset, they couldn’t make a copyright claim against Morranwich Worldwide (a division of Cyber Dynamics Systems Corporation) because, as precious as a sandwich recipe might be, it’s not copyrightable.

    Yesterday, a federal appeals reminded everyone of this in a ruling involving a copyright and trademark claim against a fast food chicken chain.

    The seeds of this case were planted back in 1987, when a man named Norberto started working for South American Restaurant Corporation [SARCO], a franchisee and operator of Church’s Chicken locations in Puerto Rico.

    At some point, Norberto suggested an addition to the Church’s menu. After some testing, the new chicken sandwich, dubbed the “Pechu Sandwich” by Norberto, eventually went on sale locally in Dec. 1991.

    In 1999, Puerto Rican trademark officials granted a registration for that name. By 2005, that registration had been conferred on SARCO, who filed and received a federal trademark registration for “Pechusandwich” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

    Norberto sued SARCO for a percentage of the profits it has earned from the sandwich he claims to have created. He alleges that the company violated Section 38 of the Lanham Act by committing fraud upon the USPTO in the procurement of the Pechu Sandwich trademark.

    He subsequently argued in appeal that SARCO had violated his copyright by allegedly stealing the recipe and name for the sandwich.

    But as a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals For the First Circuit notes in its opinion [PDF] that you can’t really claim copyright on a sandwich.

    First, recipes and food products are not among the eight copyrightable categories enumerated by Congress (literary works; musical works, including lyrics; dramatic works, including musical score; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works).

    Additionally, previous courts have held that a recipe is a “mere listing of ingredients” that don’t merit copyright protection, and that they “are functional directions to achieve a result” and therefore not copyrightable.

    “A recipe — or any instructions — listing the combination of chicken, lettuce, tomato, cheese, and mayonnaise on a bun to create a sandwich is quite plainly not a copyrightable work,” reads the court’s opinion.

    And while you can trademark a name like “Pechu Sandwich,” the court explains that copyright protection does not extend to “words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans.”

    As for Norberto’s claim that SARCO committed fraud in obtaining the Pechu trademark, the court says that the plaintiff “simply fails to sufficiently allege that any false statement exists,” that Norberto “merely offers conjecture about SARCO’s actions and intentions,” without providing any facts to back up his contention that SARCO “intentionally, willfully, fraudulently and maliciously procured” the trademark in question.

    [h/t: @markjkings]



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist