среда, 2 сентября 2015 г.

uLawsuit Claims Operators Of Two Adult Subscription Sites Sent Unsolicited Texts Linking To Pornr


4 4 4 9
  • (afagen)

    (afagen)

    No one likes getting spammed, but when you’ve got unsolicited text messages blowing up your phone with links to porn, it’s a lot harder to avoid than the pitches for fake Rolexes and male enhancement drugs that end up banished to your email’s spam folder. A lawsuit in Illinois that’s seeking class-action status claims the operators of two subscription adult entertainment sites spammed peoples’ phones with links to their sites, though the recipients never signed up for such texts in the first place.

    In the lawsuit [PDF], the plaintiff says he and what he believes to be thousands of others have had their phones spammed by the companies behind sites called “Well Hello,” which is run by Smoochy Brands LLC and displays nudity while offering free registration for men interested in “casual sexual” encounters, and “Badoink,” operated by CM Productions LLC, a “subscription-based website featuring nondownloadable adult-themed photographs and videos.”

    The complaint says the plaintiff (and the putative class) received a text message reading: “What does a girl have to do to get a guy to buy her a cup of coffee?, msg back on that site … Lily-F” that included a link. Clicking on the link leads users to a site that warns the link may contain “inappropriate content” or “spam or malicious code.”

    Following the links will take users to the Well Hello site, the complaint says, which invites visitors to put in personal information and then search for matches on the site, as well as to register and subscribe with one of the three tiers of paid membership. Trying to go back in a browser will just bring users to other websites owned and operated by Smoochy and CMP that advertise other paid services, the lawsuit alleges.

    The plaintiff says he and others that may be included in the lawsuit never gave express consent to receive said text messages, and alleges that the text campaign designed by Smoochy and CMP was sent “en masse to a list a list of thousands of wireless telephone numbers or randomly generated phone numbers.”

    To do so, the complaint alleges that the companies used “equipment that had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.” In other words, porn robospammers.

    All of this constitutes a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the complaint claims, which requires senders of SMS message advertisements for goods or services to obtain to obtain the recipient’s prior express written consent.

    The plaintiff says he is not and never has been a member of any of the defendants’ sites, and says that by sending unsolicited text messages, the defendants caused the plaintiff and class members “actual harm” because one, it’s annoying to get text messages you don’t want, and two, some folks might have to pay their wireless carriers each time they receive a message, or have it count against a monthly allotment of texts.

    The lawsuit is seeking an injunction “requiring Defendants to cease all unsolicited text message activities, an award of statutory damages to the Class members under the TCPA, and an award for damages for conversion, together with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uFox News Anchor Sues Hasbro Over Toy Hamster With Her Namer


4 4 4 9
  • harris_faulkner_is_not_a_hamsterHarris Faulkner, an anchor on the Fox News cable network, is a human and has been on TV for decades. Yet the toy company Hasbro sells a tiny plastic hamster as part of its Littlest Pet Shop line which is named Harris Faulkner. How did the hamster get its name? Is it intended to insult or honor Ms. Faulkner, or just a very strange coincidence? She has sued the company for $5 million dollars, either way.

    Sure, I would love if someone named a toy hamster after me, but not without my permission. Faulkner may not have anything about hamsters, but her lawsuit says that the company “willfully and wrongfully appropriated Faulkner’s unique and valuable name and distinctive persona for its own financial gain.” The letters (TM) appear after the name Harris Faulkner on the toy’s package, which implies that the journalist’s name has been trademarked by Hasbro.

    She also happens to have daughters who are six and eight years old, which is the target market for Littlest Pet Shop toys. The lawsuit is happening because she complained about the toy back in January, and Hasbro didn’t respond. The suit describes the existence of this doll as “distressing,” since the she believes that the hamster doll “bear[s] a physical resemblance to Faulkner’s traditional professional appearance,” including her skin tone, eye shape, and the design of the animal’s eye “makeup.”

    “Further,” the complaint says, “Hasbro’s portrayal of Faulkner as a rodent is demeaning and insulting.” Not just a rodent, but an officially licensed plastic rodent: Faulkner doesn’t endorse or license products, believing that’s inappropriate for a journalist.

    We noticed that the toy is no longer on the Littlest Pet Shop site, and also isn’t in stock online at Diapers.com or Target, but it isn’t clear whether that’s due to the lawsuit or the toy has been rotated out of the current lineup of Littlest Pet Shop characters.

    In a statement to Entertainment Weekly, Hasbro declined to comment on the lawsuit about the resemblance of the hamster to Ms. Faulkner, but over her allegation that the toy is unsafe, and that a child could potentially choke on a rodent with her name on it. Hasbro sent a statement to Entertainment Weekly:

    While we generally do not comment on litigation matters, it is critically important to correct a false statement made by Ms. Harris in the complaint regarding the safety of the product. The Littlest Pet Shop product identified, and all products in the Littlest Pet Shop line, meet and exceed all safety standards.

    Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner sues Hasbro over same-named toy hamster [Deadline Hollywood]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uAnalysts Say McDonald’s All-Day Breakfast Could Drive Up Egg Prices, Exacerbate Shortager


4 4 4 9
  • Before McDonald’s big announcement on Tuesday that it would roll out all-day breakfast across the country starting next month, we wondered if the fast food giant would scrap its plans because of egg shortages caused by the recent avian flu outbreak and the high egg prices that have resulted from it. While we now know that the Golden Arches wasn’t put off by the possibility of dishing out more cash for eggs, its new venture could further aggravate the egg-supply issues plaguing other businesses.

    Industry analysts say that the chain’s foray into all-day breakfast could mean higher prices for other businesses and consumers alike, Bloomberg reports.

    “It’s going to make it harder for everyone,” analyst Darren Tristano tells Bloomberg. “It’s going to lift prices across a lot of those products that use eggs. The cost will likely be passed through to the consumer.”

    An increased strain on the egg industry isn’t exactly surprising with McDonald’s latest menu chain: the company has long been known to shake up the food-supply chain when it adds or removes items from its lineup.

    According to Bloomberg, when the company announced it was going to bring back chicken tenders earlier this year, it boosted the poultry industry.

    Before that, when the company began offering apples as a side item, it became the nation’s largest buyer and seller of the fruit.

    The addition of more eggs to the company’s menu will likely have similar effects, but unlike the poultry industry which had an oversupply of product, the egg industry continues to struggle to come out of the recent avian flu outbreak.

    The shortage of eggs has already shot up prices in recent months, and caused some chains to cut back on their use of the products.

    In June, Texas-based Whataburger trimmed its breakfast hours to cut down on the number of eggs it went through. Dunkin’ Donuts has already scrapped an eggy promotion it had on the calendar for later in the year.

    Some supermarkets are saying the high retail prices for eggs (wholesale prices have more than doubled since the beginning of the year and are expected to keep going up) are keeping retail demand down, but if McDonald’s suddenly needs to significantly increase its egg-buying to make sure it can meet McMuffin demand, it could drive the price even higher.

    McDonald’s All-Day Breakfast Might Make America’s Egg Shortage Worse [Bloomberg]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uAnalysts Say McDonald’s All-Day Breakfast Could Drive Up Egg Prices, Exacerbate Shortager


4 4 4 9
  • Before McDonald’s big announcement on Tuesday that it would roll out all-day breakfast across the country starting next month, we wondered if the fast food giant would scrap its plans because of egg shortages caused by the recent avian flu outbreak and the high egg prices that have resulted from it. While we now know that the Golden Arches wasn’t put off by the possibility of dishing out more cash for eggs, its new venture could further aggravate the egg-supply issues plaguing other businesses.

    Industry analysts say that the chain’s foray into all-day breakfast could mean higher prices for other businesses and consumers alike, Bloomberg reports.

    “It’s going to make it harder for everyone,” analyst Darren Tristano tells Bloomberg. “It’s going to lift prices across a lot of those products that use eggs. The cost will likely be passed through to the consumer.”

    An increased strain on the egg industry isn’t exactly surprising with McDonald’s latest menu chain: the company has long been known to shake up the food-supply chain when it adds or removes items from its lineup.

    According to Bloomberg, when the company announced it was going to bring back chicken tenders earlier this year, it boosted the poultry industry.

    Before that, when the company began offering apples as a side item, it became the nation’s largest buyer and seller of the fruit.

    The addition of more eggs to the company’s menu will likely have similar effects, but unlike the poultry industry which had an oversupply of product, the egg industry continues to struggle to come out of the recent avian flu outbreak.

    The shortage of eggs has already shot up prices in recent months, and caused some chains to cut back on their use of the products.

    In June, Texas-based Whataburger trimmed its breakfast hours to cut down on the number of eggs it went through. Dunkin’ Donuts has already scrapped an eggy promotion it had on the calendar for later in the year.

    Some supermarkets are saying the high retail prices for eggs (wholesale prices have more than doubled since the beginning of the year and are expected to keep going up) are keeping retail demand down, but if McDonald’s suddenly needs to significantly increase its egg-buying to make sure it can meet McMuffin demand, it could drive the price even higher.

    McDonald’s All-Day Breakfast Might Make America’s Egg Shortage Worse [Bloomberg]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uNCR Confirms Technical Issue Resulted In Duplicate Charges For Some Shoppers At Multiple Retailersr


4 4 4 9
  • If you shopped at a grocery store, drug store or a big box store last Friday and found you’d been charged twice or multiple times when paying with a debit or credit card, you’re not alone: NCR confirms that a technical issue affecting retailers nationwide that use its payment processing service may’ve resulted in multiple for a single transaction for some customers.

    Earlier this week, we passed along the story of a Jewel-Osco shopper who found her debit card had been hit with multiple charges for one transaction last Friday, after her card was at first declined a few times and she was told to swipe it again. Jewel said it was an issue with the chain’s payments system and the charges would be reversed soon, though as of Monday she was still waiting for the funds to be returned to her bank account.

    Shortly after that, we heard from a Consumerist reader who works in the IT department of “a small grocery chain” who said NCR’s Connected Payments system had gone haywire on that same day, Aug. 28, causing duplicate charges and a big old mess for his employers.

    Though NCR said it didn’t discuss its customers and therefore would not confirm that Jewel-Osco was included in the outage, the company did confirm to Consumerist that it experienced an “internal technical issue,” which caused a disruption in the payments system for a few hours on Aug. 28.

    “We corrected the issue and restored the system to normal performance that evening. Connected Payments was operating more slowly than normal and declined some transactions,” a company spokesman told Consumerist. “As this was taking place, there may have been some duplication of charges. We are investigating this and are working with each individual retailer to resolve those issues with customers.”

    NCR added that the slowdown didn’t affect all Connected Payments retailers, but that customers who were hit by the outage “include a variety of retailers, including grocery, drug and mass merchandise.”

    The Chicago Tribune noted in an update today that Jewel-Osco wouldn’t name its payments processor, but a spokeswoman for the chain said that the incident on Friday was a “nationwide problem affecting many retailers,” and that customers should see duplicate charges corrected by Thursday, though “some banks may take longer to credit individual accounts.”

    This all makes it seem likely that the glitch in question is one and the same as NCR’s disruption.

    NCR says it’s addressed the technical issues on its end, and will work with each retailer on an individual basis to clean up the mess. Shoppers who were overcharged should see those charges reversed “within five business days” of the incdient, which would mean this Friday, Sept. 4. Cold comfort to folks with bounced checks and overdraft fees, however.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uCompany That Paid YouTube Users To Promote Xbox One Settles Charges Of Deceptive Advertisingr


4 4 4 9
  • When Microsoft teamed up with Machinima to launch a promotion that paid affiliated YouTubers for shilling for the Xbox One console in January 2014, we questioned whether any potential negative publicity and regulatory hassle would be worth it. Turns out, we were right to think the company would face scrutiny from federal regulators, as the Federal Trade Commission says it has cleared Microsoft of wrongdoing and settled charges that Machinima pushed videos of people endorsing the video game without disclosing they had been paid.

    The FTC announced today that California-Based entertainment network Machinima agreed to settle [PDF] charges that it engaged in deceptive advertising by paying “influencers” to post YouTube videos endorsing the Xbox One system and games.

    According to the FTC’s original complaint [PDF], the influencers paid by Machinima failed to adequately disclose they were being compensated for their “seemingly objective options.”

    “When people see a product touted online, they have a right to know whether they’re looking at an authentic opinion or a paid marketing pitch,” Jessica Rich, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. “That’s true whether the endorsement appears in a video or any other media.”

    The company and its YouTube users were part of an Xbox One marketing campaign managed by Microsoft’s advertising agency, Starcom MediaVest Group.

    The first phase of the campaign included a small group of influencers who were given access to pre-release versions of the console and video games in order to in order to produce and upload two endorsement videos each.

    Machinima paid two of these endorsers $15,000 and $30,000 for producing You Tube videos that garnered 250,000 and 730,000 views, respectively, according to the FTC.

    In a second phase, the FTC alleges that Machinima promised to pay a larger group of influencers $1 for every 1,000 video views, up to a total of $25,000.

    At no time did Machinima require any of the influencers to disclose they were being paid for their endorsement, the complaint alleges.

    The campaign began to make waves in January 2014 after a report from Ars Technica pointed out that by paying the YouTubers to show off the Xbox One and limiting them to saying only nice things about the console, the campaign could be running afoul of Federal Trade Commission guidelines on endorsement.

    In settling the complaint, Machinima is prohibited from misrepresenting in any influencer campaign that the endorser is an independent user of the product or service being promoted.

    The company must also prominently disclose any material connection between the endorser and the advertiser. It is prohibited from compensating any influencer who has not made the required disclosures.

    In addition, it requires the company to follow up within 90 days of the start of a campaign to ensure the disclosures are still being made.

    On Tuesday, the FTC also said it had sent letters [PDF] to Microsoft and Starcom closing its investigation into the two companies.

    According to the letter, after careful review, the agency determined not to recommend enforcement action against the companies.

    “We considered several factors in reaching this decision,” the letter states. “The failures to disclose here appear to be isolated incidents that occurred in spite of, and not in the absence of, policies and procedures designed to prevent such lapses.”

    Xbox One Promoter Settles FTC Charges That it Deceived Consumers With Endorsement Videos Posted by Paid ‘Influencers’ [FTC]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uI Signed Up For Samsung’s “Ultimate Test Drive” And All I Got Was A Defective Phone With No Way To Return Itr


4 4 4 9
  • A few weeks ago, Samsung announced a new promotion called “Ultimate Test Drive,” wherein iPhone users (and only iPhone users) could sign up to receive a Galaxy smartphone and try it out for a month, for just a $1 processing fee. Consumerist reader Alex figured he might as well take Samsung up on its offer, and signed up to get a Galaxy Note 5 for the month. He’s now stuck with a Samsung phone that doesn’t work, no way to return it and the company hasn’t responded to any of his requests for help.

    Alex signed up for the promotion and received his phone on Aug. 28. After a few days, he noticed that the phone seemed to be defective — it drained from 100% full charge to zero in about two hours or maybe less, which isn’t what you want in a phone. He says he’s tried reaching out to Samsung via email with no response, as well as calling the number listed for Samsung Promotions, but that no one answers and the voicemail is full.

    He’s also out of luck when it comes to trying to get the actual phone back to Samsung: as part of the test drive, the company said it would supply participants with a prepaid shipping box to return phones when the time came. But Alex didn’t receive any such packaging, so if he wants to get it back within the 30-day limit for the trial, at this point he’d likely have to fork over the cash to send it back himself.

    Alex says though it’s unlikely Samsung intended to send out defective test drive phones, it could’ve happened to others — and those people might be stuck without a prepaid way to return those devices as well.

    He adds that he’s upset to be “wasting time enrolling, setting up and now reporting” the issues he’s having, without a word from Samsung.

    “It’s unlikely this is the type of poor experience Samsung wants its customers to have,” especially with one of its flagship devices, Alex adds.

    In the meantime, he still has his iPhone 6, which he’s gone back to using, so at least he’s not totally without a phone. He just has an extra one he can’t use and doesn’t want to be charged for after the month is up.

    We reached out to Samsung to ask what he should do with the defective phone, as well as what actions others in his situation should take to get it resolved. We have yet to hear back, either from the promotions team or from any public relations representatives.

    In the meantime, if you’ve had a similar experience, let us know: email tips@consumerist.com with the subject line, SAMSUNG TEST DRIVE.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist