uAirbnb Releases Data On NYC Rentals To Combat Idea Of Greedy Landlords, Hoteliers Dominating The Platformr

4 4 4 9

• 
  In an effort to dispel the idea that Airbnb listings in New York City are filled with greedy landlords and homeowners who are basically hoteliers, the company has released new anonymized data that it says shows most listings are by hosts that only own one unit, and those that have multiple properties aren’t hogging an unfair share of the revenue generated using the platform.

  In November, Airbnb promised to start releasing anonymized data about how its hosts use the platform in different cities. NYC is the first city to have its data released to the public.

  According to the data published by Airbnb, of the 35,966 active listings on the platform, 19,742 are entire home units — which means you can rent the apartment without having to worry that you’ll run into the host on his way to the bathroom at 3 a.m.

  Airbnb said at first that 95% of those entire-home hosts only have one listing on the platform in NYC, while another 4% of entire home listings are from hosts with two properties. That would leave just 1% for hosts that own more than three properties. However after first touting that figure, Airbnb admitted it made a mistake, reported the New York Daily News, saying that figure for hosts with one listing was more like 75%, leaving about 21% open for hosts with more than three properties.

  

  This isn’t far from what the N.Y. State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office found in a report in November 2014. In that report, the state claimed that though the so-called “commercial” landlords — with at least three listings or more — made up only 6% of listings, they accounted for a disproportionate share of rental revenue, bringing in 37% of all revenue ($168.3 million).

  Airbnb’s data in this new report shows those numbers shrinking a bit, with total of 24% of revenue coming in from the 1% of hosts with listings of three properties or more. The company didn’t disclose in this report how much revenue was brought in, however.

  

  The number of hosts with six listings or more will shrink in the coming year, representing an even smaller slice of the revenue pie in NYC, Airbnb predicts, to 2% of overall hosting revenue compared to 7% now.

  Despite the data dump, NYC officials still aren’t impressed, as the data didn’t reveal the identity of the users who were likely illegal hotel operators and didn’t specify how many listings were violating the state ban on short-term rentals.

  It would also appear that many hosts are violating NYC law, which prohibits renting out apartments for less than 30 days. As Airbnb itself notes: “the overwhelming majority of Airbnb hosts are sharing the home in which they live on an occasional basis, such as when they leave town for work or vacation.”

  “It really got us nowhere,” City Councilwoman Helen Rosenthal told the NYDN. She’s sponsoring a bill to increase fines on the company.

  Schneiderman’s office told Consumerist it had no comment on the data dump.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uTarget Agrees To Pay Banks $39.4M For Expenses Resulting From 2013 Data Breachr

4 4 4 9

• 

  Target continues to put the disastrous 2013 holiday-season data breach behind it, agreeing today to pay $39.4 million to banks claiming they lost money during the hack. 

  Reuters reports that Target has reached a settlement, which still requires court approval, over reimbursing banks for their costs of covering fraudulent charges and issuing new credit and debit cards as a result of the breach.

  The agreement covers all banks that had not previously released their claims against the retailer.

  In the wake of the massive hack, which went on for weeks before being detected in late 2013, card issuers say they spent hundreds of millions of dollars issuing replacement cards and dealing with fraudulent charges tied to the breach.

  Under the proposed settlement, Target will pay up to $20.25 million directly to the banks, and $19.11 million to fund a MasterCard Inc. program related to the breach.

  A spokesperson for the company says it is “pleased that the process is continuing to move forward.”

  The proposed agreement comes three months after a judge gave the go-ahead for banks to pursue a class-action lawsuit against the retailer.

  By certifying the class-action status of the case, the judge gave the plaintiffs more leverage in negotiations with the retailer and made the hefty settlement more likely.

  In August, the retailer reached a deal with Visa to give about $67 million back to consumers affected by the breach.

  While the figure was attributed to “people familiar with the situation,” the company later confirmed the payment amount in an SEC filing.

  “In August 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with Visa under which we will pay up to $67 million to eligible Visa card issuers worldwide that issued cards that Visa claimed to have been affected by the data breach,” the filing reveals.

  In the wake of the massive hack, which went on for weeks before being detected in late 2013, card issuers say they spent hundreds of millions of dollars issuing replacement cards and dealing with fraudulent charges tied to the breach.

  The company previously settled a class-action case from consumers in March by agreeing to pay $10 million. The settlement was believed to potentially pay individual victims up to $10,000 in damages.

  Target in $39.4 million settlement with banks over data breach [Reuters]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uAT&T To Begin Slow Process Of Killing Off DirecTV, U-Verse Namesr

4 4 4 9

• 
  With AT&T now owning DirecTV and still operating its U-Verse network, the company has two separate pay-TV brands. But that won’t last forever, with AT&T telling employees that both brands will eventually be phased out in favor of a new, unified name covering both satellite and cable TV service.

  DSLreports.com points to a message posted to an internal AT&T site, explaining how the rebranding of both DirecTV and U-Verse will begin in January.

  First up is to get rid of the “Now part of the AT&T family” tagline slogan that DirecTV has been using since being acquired by the telecom titan earlier this year. Instead, the AT&T Death Star/Globe logo will be affixed to the DirecTV name. Both DirecTV and U-Verse logos will be done in matching fashions to reinforce this branding.

  But that’s not enough for AT&T, which plans to eventually do away with the two different pay-TV offerings in favor of a single name that just rolls off the tip of the tongue: AT&T Entertainment. You can hear all the teens screaming that name now, can’t you?

  “One we have established our next generation TV platform, we plan to transition all TV product names to AT&T Entertainment to symbolize our move to a single entertainment portfolio,” reads the notice.

  This includes rewrapping all of the company’s vehicles, redoing signs on buildings, etc. — an effort that will cost millions of dollars that could inarguably be better deployed in improving customer service.

  We’ve asked AT&T for official comment on this story and will update if we hear back.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uFirst Commercial Passenger Flight Touches Down In Antarcticar

4 4 4 9

• 
  Until now, tourists with a yearning to explore Antarctica have been much like the penguins that live there… flightless. Though cargo craft often fly to the southernmost pole with scientists and equipment for research purposes, most other visitors have had to rely on ships to carry them to the icy continent. That could all change in the future, with the landing of the first commercial passenger flight in Antarctica late last month.

  A commercial Boeing 757 flown by Icelandic Airlines (or Loftleidr Icelandic) landed at Union Glacier, Antarctica, last Thursday, though media outlets are just now catching up to the news. It was the first commercial flight ever to the continent, according to the tourism company that organized it, Antarctic Logistics & Expeditions.

  ALE said in a press release that flight was “undertaken to prove the feasibility of landing commercial passenger airliners at Union Glacier.” It usually transports between 400 and 500 passengers to the continent each season, to provide support for scientific research projects, as well as offering guided, small group experiences.

  The group says it’s now looking into using conventional passenger airliners in addition to the combination cargo/passenger aircraft it’s used in the past.

  “The Boeing 757-200 ER, fitted with 62 business class seats, will enhance passenger comfort yet maintain the safety of ALE’s activities and aircraft resources,” ALE said.

  If Antarctica does become more open to tourism, let’s just agree ahead of time not to bother the penguins, shall we? They have a lot of marching to do.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uAmazon Sends Me Someone Else’s Order. Why Don’t They Care If I Send It Back?r

4 4 4 9

• 
  In the midst of all the shopping on Black Friday, Cyber Monday, Giving Tuesday, Wet and Wild Wednesday, Thanksgiving 2.0 For People Who Were Out Of Town Or In The Hospital Last Week Thursday, and Black Friday All Over Again Because Why Not?, there are oodles of Amazon packages landing on shoppers’ doorsteps. In some rare cases, those packages might end up on the wrong doorstep, so why does Amazon not seem terribly concerned about getting those items back?

  This was the question posed by Consumerist reader Bobby, who didn’t realize until after the box was opened that one of the Amazon packages they received this week was actually intended for someone who had previously lived at their address.

  And so Bobby contacted Amazon’s chat customer support, and gave the rep the order number of the items involved. The customer service rep then tried to generate a UPS return label for the package, but because the ordered items weren’t associated with Bobby’s account, the links to print out the return labels did not work.

  Instead, Bobby got a message reading, “Error Occurred: This Amazon account is not associated with the return label or authorization you are trying to access.”

  At this point, the rep told Bobby to just keep the items.

  “I’m sorry but since it’s from different account we are not able to access it,” reads the transcript shown to Consumerist. “You can just keep the items or donate. Since you are not been charge. Thank you for trying to return the item.”

  So is this just a case of a rep not wanting to figure out how to send a shipping label that Bobby could actually use? Probably not, as federal guidelines say pretty clearly that Bobby has every right to keep unordered items — and that Amazon could get into trouble for pushing a customer to return something they didn’t order.

  The Federal Trade Commission rules regarding mail and online orders state that “customers who receive unordered merchandise are legally entitled to treat the merchandise as a gift.”

  Moreover, if Amazon tries to “obtain payment for or the return of the unordered merchandise,” it could be seen as being in violation of the FTC rules and make the company subject to a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

  In general, these rules are in place to protect consumers against shady mail-order and online businesses that send things to customers without their permission and then demand payment. However, this expanded FAQ from the FTC on this very subject deals with the issue of honest shipping errors, which appears to be the case in Bobby’s situation.

  If, like Bobby, you do receive unordered merchandise, you’re not legally obligated to tell the seller. But if you believe it’s just an error and want to see if it can be fixed, the FTC suggests that you notify the seller and offer to return the merchandise, so long as the seller is the one who will pay for all of the return shipping.

  “Give the seller a specific and reasonable amount of time (say 30 days) to pick up the merchandise or arrange to have it returned at no expense to you,” reads the FAQ. “Tell the seller that you reserve the right to keep the merchandise or dispose of it after the specified time has passed.”

  It never even got to that point in Bobby’s dealings with Amazon, as the company simply said to keep the unordered merch.

  We’ve been down this road before with other readers who received a lot more than the kids toys that Bobby ended up with.

  Back in 2012, we told you about two separate readers who each somehow ended up with five iPads from Best Buy even though they had only ordered one.

  Then last year, there was the Consumerist reader who found themselves the beneficiary of Walmart’s shipping department when their iPhone order included three additional Apple devices.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uMan Scores $1K Lottery Prize, Immediately Buys More Tickets And Wins $10Mr

4 4 4 9

• 
  If you suddenly find yourself with $1,000 more than you had a few seconds ago, would you hold on tight to that newfound reward, or use some of it to try to gain even more lottery glory? A California man let it ride, buying more lottery tickets with his winnings, and his gamble paid off, to the tune of $10 million.

  The Modesto, CA man usually buys four or five lottery tickets per week, reports KCRA-3 (warning: link has video that autoplays), and had decided to pick up some $30 California Lottery 30th anniversary scratchers tickets at a local convenience store while he was out running errands.

  Right away, he won $1,000 on his first ticket, and he didn’t stop there.

  “[He] scratched $1,000 and he came back,” the convenience store manager told the news station. “We had three last tickets left on that row and he said, ‘give me those three too.'”

  Moments later, he was a millionaire.

  “First off, I could not believe it,” the lucky guy said. “I had to ask the clerk at the store, and he said, ‘You better check it again at the machine.'”

  He hasn’t decided what he’ll be doing with his winnings. Perhaps $10 million worth of more lottery tickets would be pushing it.

  Modesto man lands $10M lottery right after winning $1K [KCRA-3]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uStarbucks Starts Delivery Test In Seattle, Charges A $6 Fee For One Cup Of Coffeer

4 4 4 9

• Nearly two months after Starbucks launched a test of its “Green Apron Delivery” concept at the Empire State Building, the coffee giant’s drinks have hit the streets of select Seattle neighborhoods. While the service could no doubt be a welcome convenience for some, the added fee creates a bit of sticker shock. 

  Starbucks announced its first neighborhood delivery service on Wednesday, noting that the option would be operated by Postmates and available through the Starbucks app — but only on the iOS version.

  The service has been long been seen as a way for the coffee company to attract more customers and increase its mobile footprint, but the option comes with a hefty $5.99 delivery charge, Re/Code reports.

  While it’s not surprising that you would have to pay extra for the convenience of delivery, the current fee effectively doubles the cost of many single drink orders from Starbucks. The charge will do less per-drink damage to your wallet if you’re ordering along with a bunch of co-workers.

  Starbucks says the service will work much like the one currently being tested at the Empire State Building, which comes with a $2 fee: individuals simply select “delivery” when placing an order on the company’s iOS app.

  Once the order is placed, a Postmates courier is dispatched to the closest Starbucks store. During this time, customers can track the progress of the delivery by watching a real-time map.

  Unlike the Green Apron Delivery at the Empire State Building, Starbucks lovers in Seattle may have to wait up to 60 minutes for their drinks to arrive, at least initially. However, the company notes that most orders should arrive in less than 30 minutes.

  The company doesn’t specify how close a delivery order must be for it to actually go through, only that the systems will select the closest location to ensure
  “customers receive the highest quality product.”

  Whether or not that product is piping hot by the time it gets to your hands is another question.

  [via Re/Code]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist