uThe Chip-And-PIN Credit Card Era Starts Today. What You Need To Knowr

4 4 4 9

• 

  Over the past few months, you may have noticed more retailers adorning their checkout stands with shiny new credit card readers. While those systems still have an area along the side where you swipe your card’s magnetic strip, they also have a smaller slot in the front where you simply jam gently insert your card. This is all part of the country’s shift toward more secure, but far from perfect, chip-enabled cards that kicks into high-gear today.

  To ensure that customers’ credit card information doesn’t end up in the hands of ne’er-do-wells, credit card companies today implemented a shift in liability that means retailers who haven’t implemented the new EMV systems will be responsible for any fraudulent purchases made with a chip-enabled card.

  Under the EMV system — named for EuroPay, MasterCard and Visa and already in use in Europe — consumers will use a smartcard embedded with a microchip and provide their PIN (or a signature) to complete a transaction. The chips make reproducing a card difficult for criminals. Even if the credit card information is gathered, without the chip, the card is useless for in-person transactions.

  With the liability shift, first announced by Visa and MasterCard back in 2012, non-gas station retailers who don’t have the systems up and running will assume all liability if an incident of fraud occurs.

  That means if a merchant is using the old swipe-and-sign system they are responsible for the cost of fraudulent charges if the customer has a chip card. If the merchant has the proper chip-and-PIN system but the bank hasn’t issued a new chip-and-PIN card to the customer, then the bank is liable.

  There are some exceptions to the accountability shift. While changes take place today for Visa, MasterCard and Discover, ABC News points out that American Express won’t shift liability until Oct. 16.

  Additionally, the change won’t affect some businesses, mainly gas stations, for a while: Automated Fuel Dispensers (pay at pump) transactions won’t make the change until October 1, 2017.

  A survey of 600 small business owners compiled by Wells Fargo earlier this year found that more than half of those who accept point-of-sale card payments were unaware of the requirement change to EMV chip card technology.

  Nearly 51% of the small business owners that took part in the survey say they were unaware that after October 1, they would be liable to cover the costs of any fraudulent transactions.

  Of the business owners who currently accept point-of-sale card payments, only 31% said their systems are capable of accepting chip-enabled cards.

  So what exactly does today’s push for retailers to move to EMV chip-enabled card readers mean for consumers?

  Not a lot, really — aside from learning a new way to pay at the register and having a bit of piece-of-mind that your sensitive payment information is more secure.

  Instead of simply swiping your card like you’ve done for years, the new terminals require customers to insert their card into a small slot at the front of the machine.

  The system then scans the card, reading the chip, which – in my experience – can take a few seconds. The screen then instructs you to remove the card and either sign your name or enter a PIN.

  While the new system is more secure than traditional swipe-and-sign payment methods, customers can continue to use magnetic strip cards if they have them.

  Because some businesses haven’t made the transition to EMV, consumers will likely encounter the swipe method for months or years to come.

  Still, Sean McQuay, a credit card expert at NerdWallet, tells ABC News that people should be wary of stores forcing them to use the swipe method, noting that the ” terminals will become the path of least resistance for theft.”

  Customers should also be aware that the new cards have limitations in their security. For example, it doesn’t necessarily prevent an ID thief from using stolen card numbers for online or phone purchases. There is no such thing as a card that is 100% safe from clever criminals.

  [Via ABC News]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uTwo More Peanut Company Employees Sentenced To Prison For Deadly Salmonella Outbreakr

4 4 4 9

• 
  A week after a court sentenced the former owner of Peanut Corporation of America to 28 years behind bars for knowingly distributing salmonella-tainted food products tied to nine deaths and potentially thousands of illnesses, two more PCA staffers have received federal prison sentences for their part in the conspiracy to defraud and sicken consumers.

  Samuel Lightsey, a former operations manager at PCA’s plant in Blakely, GA, received a sentence of three years in federal prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release.

  Another former manager at Blakely, Daniel Kilgore, will serve six years behind bars, also to be followed by three years of supervised release.

  Both men pleaded guilty to conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, and the sale of misbranded and adulterated food — all tied to a 2008-2009 outbreak of salmonella that was traced back to PCA products.

  While the government has confirmed 714 illnesses in 46 states directly related to the PCA outbreak, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, believes that there were more than 20,000 additional cases that were not reported.

  In 2014, Lightsey and Kilgore both testified in the trial of since-convicted PCA owner Stewart Parnell, his brother and PCA food broker Michael, and Blakely manager Mary Wilkerson. Michael Parnell received a sentence of 20 years, while Wilkerson was sentenced to five years in prison and two years probation.

  The government says the two men aided the Parnells in defrauded PCA customers about the presence of salmonella in the company’s products by, among other things, fabricating certificates of analysis — documents that summarize laboratory results, including test results concerning the presence or absence of pathogens in food — that accompanied food shipments.

  The bogus certificates declared that the PCA products were free of pathogens, but prosecutors say the company failed to test for salmonella or other potential bugs.

  And when FDA officials visited the Blakely plant to investigate the outbreak, Stewart Parnell, Lightsey and Wilkerson gave untrue or misleading answers to officials’ questions.

  “Today’s sentences are a just result,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “They reflect the roles that the defendants played in these terrible acts, their acceptance of responsibility for those roles, and their willingness to assist the government, albeit after the fact, in ensuring that all of those who engaged in criminal activity were held accountable.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uWisconsin Officials: Letter Warning Residents That Lawn Ornaments May Be Included In State Deer Tally Is Faker

4 4 4 9

• 
  In yet another instance proving you should not believe everything you read on Facebook, Wisconsin wildlife officials are trying to put the kibosh on a recent hoax letter making the rounds online, instructing people to make sure they remove deer lawn ornaments so they won’t be accidentally included in the state’s tally.

  The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources posted a copy of a hoax letter that surfaced recently, warning residents that any concrete deer lawn ornaments need to be removed from yards, or they’ll be counted as part of the deer population.

  Officials note that people have been contacting the department about the letter, which appears to come from DNR, complete with contact phone numbers and a graphic used by the department to make the letter appear official.

  “The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources will be conducting a state-wide deer count and some yard ornaments have been counted over the past two years by mistake,” the letter reads.

  That isn’t the case, the department says in its Facebook post, so you can keep Bambi on your lawn.

  “This letter is a fake. It was not crafted, nor distributed by DNR. DNR is not asking the public to remove concrete deer ornaments or any other lawn ornaments from their yard,” the notice reads.

  Here’s a copy of the letter:

  

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uSprint Will Raise Cost Of Unlimited Plans By $10 This Monthr

4 4 4 9

• 
  If you find Sprint’s deal offering unlimited voice, text, and data usage for $60 per month tempting and Sprint coverage in your area is good, you should go ahead and switch right now. Sprint is raising the price for new customers by $10 on October 15, but it will remain the cheapest unlimited postpaid plan in the country even after the price hike.

  Yes, Boost Mobile’s unlimited plan costs $60, and Straight Talk’s costs $45, but those are both prepaid carriers and Boost is actually part of Sprint. T-Mobile’s unlimited plan costs $80. If you’re looking for a new iPhone and have a new enough model to trade in, you can rent a new iPhone 6S for as little as $1 per month. That might offset the price increase a little bit.

  You might like having “unlimited” data on principle, even if your carrier practices “tethering,” or slowing data down past a given limit when you’re using too much for their network. Unlimited everything might draw you in, but it’s hard to rack up hundreds of minutes’ worth of calls if Sprint doesn’t work in your home or office.

  Check your monthly average data usage: if it’s a few gigabytes or less, don’t bother with an unlimited plan. There’s no need to buy a ticket to an all-you-can-eat buffet when all you want is an ice cream sundae.

  Sprint’s unlimited data plan is getting more expensive [PC World]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uNew United CEO Apologizes For 5 Years Of Merger-Related Problemsr

4 4 4 9

• 

  The five-year-old marriage between United and Continental airlines appears to be hitting the seven-year itch a few years early, as new United CEO Oscar Munoz began his tenure acknowledging the mega-merger may not have been such a good idea after all. 

  Munoz, who took over three weeks ago after the abrupt departure of Jeff Smisek amid a federal investigation, tells the Wall Street Journal that the companies could have handled the 2010 union better.

  United began its regrets tour today – the official fifth anniversary of the creation of United Continental Holdings – by taking out ads in eight newspapers around the country. The ads feature Munoz apologizing for failing to meet customer expectations and vowing to improve.

  “This integration has been rocky. Period,” he tells the WSJ. “We just have to do that public mea culpa… The experience of our customers has not been what we want it to be.”

  Indeed, the process of coming together saw some significant hiccups: when the two companies merged reservation systems in 2012, months of disruptions ensued. Passengers reported that reservations magically disappeared, and at one point the new system moved cities closer together — Denver and Los Angeles somehow were only three miles away from each other.

  In his interview with the WSJ, Munoz outlined some of the steps he plans to take to make up for the often problematic merger.

  At the top of his list of things to do as new head of the organization: rally the troops, so to speak, by increasing morale among employees.

  He tells the WSJ that since the merger, the company’s 85,000 employees across the country have been “allowed… to be disengaged, disenchanted, disenfranchised – the three nasty D’s. I’ve got to win them all back.”

  To do that, Munoz says he’ll start by hosting a summit later this month to discuss new labor deals with the airline’s flight attendants and mechanics. Currently, these employees are working via agreements that first began when United and Continental were separate companies.

  After addressing lagging employee morale, Munoz says attention will be turned to improving the carrier’s liability in passengers’ eyes.

  While he didn’t provide details on this plan, Munoz says he will study what rival airlines do and determine what United issues are “overcome-able and what’s not.”

  He’s also asked senior United management to “go back five years and assess what we told the board we were going to do” and see what worked and what went wrong.

  Since the merger, United has seen its customer satisfaction decrease. Starting in 2012, the airline was responsible for one-in-three consumer complaints. The following year the company was named the worst airline when it came to customer service scores.

  On Thursday, the company took a small step in addressing those issues by launching a new website called UnitedAirtime.com. The site will serve as a place for customers and employees to offer ideas, give feedback and read about what the newly minted CEO has been up to.

  New United Continental Boss Starts Tenure With Apology [The Wall Street Journal]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uWould You Send No-Show Wedding Guests A Bill For Their Uneaten Dinners?r

4 4 4 9

• 
  It’s always a bummer to have to back out of plans you’ve been looking forward to at the last minute, but one Minnesota couple says their regret over missing a relative’s wedding turned to confusion when the newlyweds sent them a bill for the dinner they didn’t get a chance to eat.

  The couple were getting ready for a night out a few weeks ago, when the woman’s mom called and said she wouldn’t be able to babysit their kids, reports KARE-11.

  Since the invitations said no children, that meant they’d have to stay home that night. She explained to ABC News that she didn’t call or text the bride and groom, because when she and her husband had gotten hitched, the last thing she wanted was extra phone calls on that day.

  “We had discussed if we should contact anyone and decided against it because, coincidentally enough, we’d had people RSVP and no-show to our wedding and I knew when I got married I didn’t want to be bothered with phone calls on the day of my wedding,” she explained. “I just assumed, I guess, that we’d let them know the situation later on.”

  Then this week, she says they received a bill for the dinner they didn’t get to eat — $75. 90 for two herb crusted walleye, as well as a service and tax charge.

  “This cost reflects the amount paid by the bride and groom for meals that were RSVP’d for, reimbursement and explanation for no show, card, call or text would be appreciated,” the note read.

  She says they threw out the invoice and don’t plan to pay it, but she that she and her husband will likely give a check to charity instead, and send the newlyweds the receipt.

  In this situation, etiquette experts (and a little bit of common sense) say that while you should never send someone a bill if they can’t make it to a wedding, the considerate thing to do is to notify hosts as soon as possible if you can’t attend. To that end, however, couples should plan for some guests to be no-shows… or for others to show up unexpectedly.

  “General rule is prepare for about 10% of overage or underage when you’re planning a big event like that and catering companies are well aware of this,” Sarah Baumann Rogers, editor of Minnesota Bride, told KARE-11.

  The couple in question wanted to remain anonymous, but issued a statement to the couple via ABC about the bill hooplah:

  “We apologize for not being tactful in expressing our disappointment in your absence. We waited three weeks after the wedding for any correspondence and received nothing, this along with your last minute RSVP caused us to act on emotion rather than logic,” the statement read.

  What would you do in this situation? Take the poll below to weigh in:

  Guest gets bill after not showing up to wedding [KARE-11]
  Minnesota Woman Says She Was Billed by Bride for Missing Wedding [ABC News]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uParamount Pictures Copyright Bot Falsely Accuses Forum Commenters Of Piracyr

4 4 4 9

• 
  Even though the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal for a copyright holder to knowingly file a bogus copyright claim against someone else, that hasn’t stopped some of the biggest stakeholders in the entertainment industry from carelessly registering takedown complaints with Google for content that in no way infringes on anyone’s copyright.

  The latest bunch of idiocy comes from Paramount Pictures, whose copyright bots appear to be scouring the Internet for any combination of words like “torrent” and the studio’s movie titles.

  TorrentFreak noticed several instances of the movie studio demanding that Google remove links to online forum discussions simply because they may contain common words or phrases that were also titles of Paramount films.

  Like this DMCA takedown request for alleged infringers of the little-seen 2009 Eddie Murphy movie Imagine That.

  Paramount sought to have links to this forum discussion at utorrent.com removed, claiming it was infringing on the copyright of this particular film.

  But there is no mention of this movie, nor any links to any sort of torrent file. Merely a discussion that includes the phrase “imagine that’s” somewhere in one of the comments.

  Another utorrent.com discussion that had nothing to do with the Paramount movie Ghost was cited in a DMCA takedown notice as infringing on the copyright of that Patrick Swayze-starring documentary on homemade pottery. Why? Most likely because of the word “cyberghost” in the forum’s subject line.

  The clueless studio also didn’t realize that someone in a utorrent forum might describe themselves as “cluless” without actually infringing on the copyright of the movie Clueless.

  Thankfully, Google is better at reviewing takedown requests than the companies that file them, as these utterly unrelated discussions have not been flagged as piracy sites… because they aren’t.

  We understand that piracy is a huge and valid concern for the movie industry, but it can’t just cast such a wide and careless net without regard for innocent people who might get caught in it.

  A federal appeals court recently allowed the mom behind the now-famous “Dancing Baby” YouTube video to pursue her lawsuit against Universal Music. In that case, the record label ordered YouTube to remove a 29-second video of a baby dancing to a quick snippet of a Prince song.

  The mom was able to convince YouTube that her video was an allowable “fair use” of the song and the clip has remained. She is now trying to prove in court that Universal violated the law by knowingly filing a false DMCA takedown notice.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist