uOf Course There’s A Company That Will Ship You Fall Leaves From New Englandr

4 4 4 9

• Sure, you can wear tank tops and shorts in Los Angeles in the fall, but perhaps you’re missing the sight of the leaves on trees changing from green to orange, gold, red and even purple. To bridge the distance for people who can’t make a trip to see the bright autumnal hues of New England in person, there’s a company that offers to ship the fall foliage anywhere in the country.

  Those piles of leaves you have to rake every day might start to resemble dollar signs, as apparently people are willing to pay $19.99 for a company called ShipFoliage.com to send three leaves collected from the forests of Vermont and Hampshire.

  “Each leaf is carefully picked and color balanced in a bundle of three,” the website reads.

  So what makes this different from anyone else who might want to shove a handful of leaves in an envelope and make a tidy profit? The company says its leaves are specially treated, undergoing “a unique preservation process” that ensures “your leaves will last for years to come.”

  The guy behind the company says that foliage just seemed like an untapped market. And the bundles are worth the price, Kyle Waring told the Boston Globe, because he “filters through tons … to find Grade A leaves,” cleans them, and preservers them using ammonia and glycerin.

  “That way the leaves won’t just crumble. It gives them this glossy texture,” he said.

  This isn’t the first time we’ve heard of folks packing up Mother Nature’s bounty for a profit — Waring also made headlines last year for selling Massachusetts snow from his front yard to those in warmer climes during last year’s wintry blast. He eventually started a business called Ship Snow, Yo, but wouldn’t tell the Globe how much money he made with that venture.

  Leave New England? Company sends foliage to you [Boston Globe]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uVW Offering Owners $2,000 “Loyalty Bonus” For Buying A New Car, Sticking With The Companyr

4 4 4 9

• The hundreds of thousands of consumers still waiting to hear just how Volkswagen plans to fix their “clean diesel” vehicles rigged to cheat emissions tests could simply go buy a new automobile from the carmaker — you know, one that isn’t affected by the scandal. Or at least that’s what it appears VW is saying with the launch of an “Owner Loyalty Bonus” program.

  The embattled automaker quietly launched the program this week with the aim of persuading vehicle owners to stay with the company by offering them what everyone presumably wants: money.

  The Owner Loyalty Bonus campaign, which expires Nov. 2, offers a $2,000 incentive on the purchase or lease of new model year 2015 and 2016 vehicles.

  The deal extends to any individual who currently owns a VW, or anyone in that person’s family as long as they live at the same address.

  Of course, the company understands consumers probably don’t want one of vehicles with “defeat device” software.

  In fact, it continues to abide by a stop-sale of new and pre-owned diesel vehicles put in place shortly after the EPA announced on Sept. 18 that the vehicles spewed harmful pollutants at 40 times the allowable standards during normal driving conditions.

  And so, according to the company’s website, the incentive can only be used on gas-powered or hybrid Jetta, Passat, CC, Beetle, Beetle Convertible, Eos, Golf, Golf GTI, Golf R, e-Golf, Golf SportWagen, Tiguan, and Touareg models. Although, it remains to be seen whether or not VW’s gas vehicles could be touched by the emissions scandal.

  The Los Angeles Times points out that the campaign hasn’t exactly been sitting well with owners of vehicles that contain the defeat devices.

  One California resident says she has no plans to take VW up on its offer – or stick with the company in the future.

  “They could give me a VW for free and I wouldn’t take it,” she tells the L.A. Times, noting that she’s already embarrassed to be seen in her current Sportwagen TDI.

  “Everyone knows you’re driving this horrible machine,” she said. “I’m not partaking of any of it. I feel like I was betrayed by the brand, and I’m not doing any more business with them.”

  [via The Los Angeles Times]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uNew York Attorney General Looking Into DraftKings & FanDuelr

4 4 4 9

• 
  With the higher profile of unregulated fantasy sports betting comes more scrutiny from the public and more concerns from law enforcement about how these businesses might be running afoul of the law. Days after it was confirmed that a DraftKings employee had made $350,000 in one weekend gambling on competing site FanDuel, the attorney general for the state of New York has opened an inquiry into this growing industry.

  Yesterday, New York AG Eric Schneiderman sent letters to the heads of DraftKings [PDF] and FanDuel [PDF], noting that the employee’s actions and the companies’ subsequent responses “raise legal questions relating to the fairness, transparency, and security” of their operations and the “reliability of representations your company has made to customers.”

  The ongoing scandal at these sites involves a mid-level employee at DraftKings who, shortly before kickoff for Week 3 of the NFL season, Tweeted out a list showing ownership levels of players in the site’s weekly Millionaire Maker contest.

  This information, which shows how many people in the contest have put a certain NFL player on their fantasy team, could be incredibly important for someone looking for an edge over the thousands of other players involved in the contest, and it’s usually kept quiet until after the NFL games have started and fantasy lineups have been locked in.

  After it got out that this same employee had, that same weekend, earned $350,000 in FanDuel’s NFL Sunday Million competition, people began to accuse him of using his access to this data to gain an unfair advantage.

  Both companies have denied that the employee misused the information and now have policies barring staffers from gambling on the others’ site.

  In response to this situation, Schneiderman is asking both sites to identify employees who may have access to important statistical information regarding its contests. The letters also seek info on how and for how long this sort of data is stored, along with explanations on how and when employees can use this info.

  The companies have until Oct. 15 to reply.

  Speaking to NPR yesterday, Schneiderman said that “Fraud is fraud. And, consumers of any product…whether you want to buy a car, participate in fantasy football, our laws are very strong in New York and other states that you can’t commit fraud.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uComing Soon To An AOL Ad Network Near You: All That Data Verizon Collects On Mobile Usersr

4 4 4 9

• 

  When Verizon first announced its plans to acquire AOL back in May, jokes abounded. The name “AOL” still conjures the sound of modems screeching and a friendly digital voice announcing haltingly, “You’ve got mail!” It does not, on the other hand, immediately inspire one to think of a $4 billion media and data empire. But the latter is exactly what it is — and in conjunction with Verizon’s more pernicious tools, it may be about to get a whole lot bigger.

  The merger raised red flags for privacy advocates when it was announced, and those concerns are proving to have been right on the nose, ProPublica reports. It comes down to tracking: who’s doing it, what they’re learning, and where the data goes.

  Remember those troublesome tracking “supercookies” Verizon was putting on users’ phones? Here’s a refresher: Verizon appends a little header that you can’t see to all web traffic coming out of your phone. The tracker, called a UIDH (unique ID header) is consistent and permanent. Unlike regular trackers, clearing out your browser cookies and checking your privacy settings doesn’t do anything about these. And they build a comprehensive, unique, entirely trackable history of basically everything you’ve ever Googled or visited on your phone.

  After media reports triggered a hue and cry, Verizon has finally been permitting users to opt out since April. Those supercookies, though, are still present for anyone who hasn’t specifically disabled them… and now, thanks to the AOL acquisition, they serve an internal purpose for Verizon.

  The other half of the equation is AOL’s advertising network, which is substantial. It’s not quite a Google or a Facebook, but it’s still a huge player in the space — and with the new information from Verizon added to it, poised to become larger still.

  Verizon will have all of that tracking data from your phone. It will be anonymized, for what that’s worth, and then combined with AOL’s ad network data. The combination works out in Verizon and AOL’s favor, by allowing the company to serve you more ads, in more spaces, that are theoretically better targeted to your individual interests and, therefore, more likely to make you buy stuff.

  Privacy advocates have pointed out that not only is the data potentially intrusive, but also unencrypted, and easily intercepted. Karen Zacharia, chief privacy officer at Verizon, told ProPublica, “I think in some ways it’s more privacy protective” than working with third-party ad networks would be, “because it’s all within one company.”

  Verizon’s Zombie Cookie Gets New Life [Pro Publica]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

uUrban Outfitters Will End On-Call Scheduling In New Yorkr

4 4 4 9

• 
  Following in the footsteps of retailers like Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works, Abercrombie & Fitch and Gap, Urban Outfitters says it will stop using on-call scheduling — but only in New York. This, after pressure from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman with a probe into various companies known to use the system.

  Critics of on-call scheduling say its unpredictability is stressful for workers: they often get their schedules at the last-minute, and won’t know ahead of time how many hours they can expect to work in a week. It also requires them to be ready at a moment’s notice to show up for an early shift.

  The Philadelphia-based retailer says it’s phasing in the change starting in November,Schneiderman’s office said in a statement, and has agreed to give workers their schedules at least a week in advance.

  “Workers deserve basic protections, including a reliable work schedule that allows them to budget living expenses, arrange for childcare needs, and plan their days,” Schneiderman said.

  But while many of the other brands vowed to end the practice in all their stores, or to do so eventually, Urban Outfitters is only getting rid of on-call scheduling in its New York locations. We reached out to Urban Outfitters to see if this is something the company will apply nationwide, and will update this post if we hear back.

  Schneiderman’s office sent letters to J. Crew Group Inc., Burlington Coat Factory, TJX Companies, Target Corp., Sears Holding Corp., Williams-Sonoma Inc., Crocs, Ann Inc. and J.C. Penney Co. Inc. as well.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uFrontier Airlines Loses Passenger’s Hockey Sticks Not Once, But Twice In Two Weeksr

4 4 4 9

• 

  When putting your belongings in the hands of an airline, you’re taking the risk that those items might not make it to your desired destination – just ask Alaska Airlines’ CEO. Still, what are the chances that the same airline would lose your gear not once, but twice?

  A well-traveled Denver teen certainly experienced his fair share of travel-related nightmares recently. He claims that Frontier Airlines lost his hockey sticks twice on two trips, Fox 31 Denver reports.

  The first incident occurred when the teen was traveling to a hockey tryout in North Dakota in July. Although the flight was direct, the teen says his two hockey sticks never made it to their destination.

  With camp starting the next day, the teen’s mother says they had no other option but to purchase new equipment.

  “He was kind of frustrated. He didn’t know what to do,” she says. “While he was in Bismarck for the three or four days of camp, he never got his sticks back and Frontier didn’t contact him or anything.”

  When the sticks still weren’t returned to the family the next week before the teen was slated to fly to Florida for a tournament, the family shelled out even more cash for a backup stick.

  “He flew with those two sticks to Florida and he got his bag but he did not get his sticks again,” the teen’s mother said. “I mean, we were just like, ‘No way.’”

  With his two replacement sticks now missing, the teen was forced to sit out the first game of the tournament. He was able to purchase yet another stick before the second game began.

  Although Frontier eventually found and returned all of the lost sticks, the family says they spent nearly $700 on equipment they can’t return. As a result, they’re seeking reimbursement from the airline.

  The mother says she’s contacted Frontier about their policy, which states the carrier will reimburse passengers for incidental expenses incurred as a result of delayed baggage delivery per DOT guidelines. The DOT directive instructs airlines to cover costs up to $3,400.

  However, after weeks of back-and-forth with Frontier, the woman says she stopped hearing from the carrier, leading her to file a complaint with the Colorado Attorney General’s Office and contacting the TV station last week.

  Since then, she says she’s heard from Frontier, but missed the call.

  A spokesperson for the airline tells Fox 31 that it is working with the family to get information about the case.

  Family wants reimbursement after Frontier Airlines temporarily loses hockey sticks twice [Fox 31 Denver]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uChristina Hendricks Nice ‘n Easy Ad Banned In UK For Being Misleadingr

4 4 4 9

• As her run on Mad Men came to an end, famously redheaded actress Christina Hendricks started showing up in an ad for Procter & Gamble’s Nice ‘n Easy hair dye, where she transforms into a blonde. Now the commercial has been red-flagged in the UK after an ad watchdog declared it misleading.

  According to the Advertising Standards Authority’s ruling, the regulator received complaints from professional hair colorists who said there was no way Hendricks’ bright red hair could have been converted to the “natural honey blonde” shown in the ad using only the Nice ‘n Easy product being advertised.

  P&G admitted to shooting the color transformation in reverse — first dying the actress’s hair with the blonde coloring, and then dying it the next day to “natural light auburn” to get the “before” footage.

  The company — one of the largest advertisers on U.S. TV — says it wanted to shoot the transition in the order demonstrated in the commercial, but that “Christina Hendricks had limited availability around the time of the shoots.” It argued that it would have had to first dye her hair auburn, then blonde, and then back to auburn “because the new shade was not yet to be publicly revealed.”

  Hendricks maintained the red hair until March 2015, when it was dyed blonde again to coincide with the media push for her ad campaign.

  In spite of claims from professional colorists to the contrary, P&G said that only the Nice ‘n Easy products were used to change the actress’s hair and that the products were used according to their instructions.

  They argued that the 9% hydrogen peroxide solution in the blonde dye was high enough to lighten hair as shown in the ads.

  The company also claimed that it did no post-production trickery — aside from removing some flyaway strands of hair — to alter Hendricks’ hair color.

  But in the end, the ASA determined that the reverse order of the filming resulted in a misleading commercial.

  “We acknowledged there were practical reasons for P&G having shot the ‘blonde’ part of the ad first,” reads the ruling. “However, we noted the colour effects shown had been achieved firstly by colouring the model’s hair to blonde after it had not been coloured for around eight weeks, and then by dying her hair from blonde to a vibrant red, whereas the impression given by the ad was that the effect had been produced when changing from the red shade to the blonde.”

  P&G had provided photographic evidence of Hendricks’ hair shortly before the blonde dye job in an effort to show that it wasn’t demonstrably different than what’s seen in the ad.

  But the ASA says the photo was taken weeks before the first change to blonde and that it “was not necessarily sufficient to demonstrate the colour of her hair almost two weeks later and were in any case concerned… that the effect shown in the ad had not been achieved in the way suggested.”

  Additionally, the watchdog noted that the bright red and blonde colors shown in the commercial were much more vibrant than photos of Hendricks’ hair in 2015.

  “For those reasons, we considered the evidence was not adequate to demonstrate that the effect shown in the TV ad could be achieved using the product alone,” reads the ruling, which concluded that the commercial “misleadingly exaggerated the capability of the product.”

  So P&G is barred from airing the ad in its current form in the UK.

  [via AdAge]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist