понедельник, 7 декабря 2015 г.

uDunkin’ Donuts Pledges To Only Serve Cage-Free Eggs In The U.S. By 2025r


4 4 4 9
  • (Consumerist)
    After mulling its position over for the last seven months, Dunkin’ Donuts says it’s ready to take the plunge, pledging to serve only eggs from cage-free hens by 2025.

    Dunkin’ announced the plan Monday, along with the Humane Society, saying it’s starting the move toward using cage-free eggs in all its menu items (well, in the ones that use eggs, because no one wants eggs in their coffee, cage-free or no).

    “We have a responsibility to ensure the humane treatment of animals, an issue we know is also important to both our franchisee community and our loyal guests,” said Christine Riley Miller, senior director of corporate social responsibility for Dunkin’ Brands, in a statement.

    Back in March, Dunkin’ had said it was considering going entirely cage-free. It’s also planning on buying pork in the U.S. only from suppliers that don’t put animals in gestation crates by 2022.

    The breakfast chain isn’t alone in its move toward cage-free eggs: McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Panera Bread and General Mills have all come out with similar promises.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uFTC Says Staples-Office Depot Deal Is A No-Go, Files Antitrust Lawsuit To Stop Mega-Mergerr


4 4 4 9
  • (Mike Mozart/frankieleon)

    The nightmare dream of the formation of the $6.3 billion StaplesMaxDepot Voltron has officially hit a (very big) speed bump: federal regulators unsurprisingly filed a complaint today charging that the proposed mega-merger’s affect on commercial businesses would violate antitrust laws. 

    As expected, the lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission to block the deal focuses less on retail sales at physical stores, and more on the retailers’ contracts to provide supplies to large corporations and businesses.

    The administrative complaint – filed one day before the FTC’s self-imposed Dec. 8 deadline to move on the deal – is based on the findings that a merged company would reduce competition nationwide in the market for “consumable” office supplies – pens, paper, sticky notes, etc. – sold to large business customers.

    Because Massachusetts-based Staples – the world’s largest seller of office products and services – and Florida-based Office Depot are each other’s closest competitors in the sale of office supplies to large business customers, the agency believe that the proposed merger would “eliminate beneficial competition that large companies rely on to reduce the costs of office supplies.”

    According to the complaint, the business-to-business market – in which large companies buy supplies from either Office Depot or Staples through contracts – is distinct from the more competitive nature of selling supplies to individual consumers.

    In competing for contracts, both Staples and Office Depot can provide the low prices, nationwide distribution and combination of services and features that many large business customers require.

    If the companies were to merge, the FTC alleges that these customers would pay more and receive a lesser quality product.

    While it was previously reported that regulators’ concerns would be placated if Staples sold off a chunk of its commercial business – one proposal in October had the company selling that portion of its business to Essendant – the FTC’s complaint on Monday claims that such a sale would “not be timely, likely, or sufficient to counteract the anticompetitive effects of the merger.”

    The FTC’s action came after the commission’s four-person panel voted unanimously to file the lawsuit.

    The Wall Street Journal reports that the fight for a combined company is far from over. Both Staples and Office Depot say they plan to contest the lawsuit, saying that the FTC decision was “based on a flawed analysis and misunderstanding of the intense competitive landscape in which Staples and Office Depot compete.”

    Monday’s lawsuit is the second time the FTC has taken action to ban the marriage of the retailers. In 1997, the commission won a ruling from a federal judge blocking a deal.

    FTC Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block Staples-Office Depot Merger [The Wall Street Journal]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uMan Says He Can’t Access His Credit Report After Equifax Sent Him Personal Info For Dozens Of Strangersr


4 4 4 9
  • (KIRO-TV)
    Getting an unexpected surprise in the mail can be fun sometimes — a birthday gift from your grandma or some free electronics — but one Washington man was far from happy to find credit reports in his mailbox that were apparently intended for a bunch of strangers. Even worse, he says he can’t get access to his own report to make sure there aren’t unexpected debts attached to his credit history.

    The man tells KIRO-TV that he’d contacted Equifax in an effort to clean up his credit earlier this year, and instead received dozens of envelopes for three days in a row, filled with strangers’ credit reports. Letters attached to the reports informed him that he owed a long list of debts.

    “Ten or 15 student loans, 10 houses, many cars; I’m starting to really freak out,” he told the news station.

    Then in March, he got another letter from Equifax, saying that the company had “inadvertently mailed” certain consumer information to incorrect individuals. The mixup was due to a “technical error,” the company said, and there had been no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing. The letter also asked for the papers to be returned, which the man sent through his lawyer.

    Since then, he says he’s tried to get his credit report from Equifax — you know, just in case those strangers are still haunting his records — but that Equifax hasn’t come through.

    “I want everything cleared. I mean, there are hundreds of pages, and each page says I’m responsible for everything. As far as I know, it’s still on my credit,” he said.

    KIRO-TV asked the company how it can assure customers that their financial information won’t end up in the hands of strangers, and Equifax replied:

    “Earlier this year, a technical error of short duration caused certain consumer information to be released to an isolated number of other individuals. We conducted a full investigation, identified the individuals who had received this information,” including the man who received all those credit reports, “and retrieved it,” Equifax said. “We contacted all impacted consumers to whom the information belonged and have mitigated this situation.”

    The man has now hired an attorney to help him file a lawsuit against Equifax, accusing it of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

    “We can be pretty sure that whatever procedures they have in place are not reasonable to protect the accuracy of our information,” she said.

    *Thanks for the tip, Paul!

    Equifax sends Washington man dozens of strangers’ credit reports [KIRO-TV]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uDebt Collector Must Pay $2.5M In Refunds, Penalties For Illegally Collecting Consumers’ Old AT&T Debtr


4 4 4 9
  • (frankieleon)

    Federal regulators continued their fight against unscrupulous debt collectors today, ordering a Massachusetts organization to pay $2.5 million in refunds and penalties for illegally collecting unverified debt and providing inaccurate information to national credit reporting agencies. 

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced today that it will require EOS CCA to refund at least $743,000 to consumers, and pay a $1.85 million civil money penalty for a slew of illegal practices related to the collection of $2.3 billion in consumer cellphone debt purchased from AT&T.

    According to the CFPB’s complaint [PDF], in 2012, EOS paid AT&T $35.4 million for a portfolio of more than three million cellphone accounts with a total face value of $2.3 billion.

    Many of these debts were old accounts that had been previously sent to multiple collection agencies and contained several inaccuracies, including fraudulent, already paid, or settled debts.

    Despite these issues, which EOS became aware of after acquiring the portfolio, the CFPB claims the company continued to collect and report on the debts, including debts that consumers disputed, without verifying that those debts remained outstanding.

    While EOS tried to obtain sufficient documentation about the debts from AT&T, the complaint alleges that when that wasn’t possible, it still continued to report and collect on certain disputed debts.

    The company also allegedly reported to CRAs that all three million of the debts it acquired were disputed by customers, when it knew not all of the accounts were disputed.

    “EOS flip flopped on this twice, removing the dispute flags and then reinserting the dispute flags a month later,” the complaint states.

    In all, the CFPB estimates that EOS’s unlawful collection and reporting practices resulted in consumers paying about $743,000 on more than 2,000 accounts that were disputed and unverified.

    Under the proposed consent order [PDF], EOS must refund at least $743,000 to consumers, cease collecting and reporting disputed AT&T debt, stop collecting all unverified debts, ensure accuracy when providing information to CRAs and pay a civil penalty of $1.85 million to the CFPB.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uReport: Grocers Failing In Commitment To Open New Stores In “Food Deserts”r


4 4 4 9
  • (Listener42)

    In 2011, many of the nation’s largest food retailers committed to opening or expanding 1,500 grocery or convenience stores in and around neighborhoods without supermarkets by 2016, with the aim of providing healthier options for consumers. However, a new analysis of the four-year progress for the initiative found that only a fraction of these companies have lived up to their promise. 

    An analysis of federal food stamp data by the Associated Press found that not only have many of the major grocers that took part in first lady Michelle Obama’s healthy eating initiative failed to open the number of stores pledged, they actually have avoided the areas targeted by the action in the first place.

    According to the report, of the 10,300 stores opened by the nation’s top 75 food retailers – including those that didn’t sign on to the healthy food initiative – since 2011, only 250 were in so-called “food deserts.”

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture considers a neighborhood a food desert if at least a fifth of the residents live in poverty and a third live more than a mile from a supermarket in urban areas, or more than 10 miles in rural areas, where residents are more likely to have cars, the AP reports.

    The Partnership for a Healthier America’s latest update on the initiative in 2014 found that well below half of the group’s goal had been met, and the AP estimates that just 1.4 million of the more than 18 million people who live in food deserts as of 2010 have a new supermarket.

    But these food deserts haven’t been completely forgotten. In fact, while supermarkets have avoided these areas, dollar stores have flocked to them.

    Dollar General, Family Dollar and Dollar Tree made up two-thirds of the new stores that opened in food deserts. While these locations do offer customers some food products, they typically don’t sell fresh fruits, vegetables or meat – key components for the healthy foods initiative.

    “The dollar stores are popping up everywhere in the food deserts, but that doesn’t mean anything if the owners don’t give customers the opportunity for fresh produce,” Norman Wilson Sr., a food desert activist who is pastor of a Pentecostal church in Orlando, tells the AP.

    A lack of access to healthy foods contributes to health problems, such as obesity and diabetes, research has shown. The AP reports that proximity to a supermarket can make a big difference in what people eat.

    So while stores like Dollar General and 7-Eleven might offer some healthy options, larger chain grocers have more leverage to bring a wider variety of products to consumers at cheaper prices.

    Supermarkets say that while they want to offer options to people in food deserts, it’s not always possible.

    The AP reported that a Schnucks store in a St. Louis-area food desert closed last year, leaving residents with few options. The company says it had to shutter the store because it was losing money.

    Part of the problem with stores losing money on these food desert locations is a lack of knowledge about their customers, Tom Vilsack, Agriculture Secretary says.

    “You have to cater to the people who live there. You have to know who they are,” he tells the AP.

    And that’s a hurdle larger chains haven’t been able to jump. The CEO of Brown’s Super Stores in the Philadelphia area tells the AP that larger stores often have rigid formats that aren’t easily adaptable to food desert areas.

    “They’re not selling what they should be selling because they don’t understand,” Jeff Brown says, noting that stores that do succeed in these areas often have other amenities like pharmacies or banks.

    And it’s not just the first lady’s food initiative that seems to be faltering, the AP reports. Lawmakers’ attempts to introduce legislation offering incentives for groceries to build in food deserts have also been unsuccessful.

    Grocery chains leave food deserts barren, AP analysis finds [The Associated Press]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uRemains Of St. Louis Disney Theme Park That Never Opened Its Doors Up For Saler


4 4 4 9
  • (BrandenM)
    When it’s time to head to a Disney park, images of the warm, sunny environs of California or Florida probably come to mind. But if things had gone another way, we might have also thought of a decidedly Midwestern vibe: Walt Disney Co. had plans at one time for an indoor theme park in St. Louis, home of the Gateway Arch, with nary a palm tree in sight.

    All that remains of that never-realized theme park is up for sale. A set of 13 pages of blueprints from 1963 for a five-level indoor theme park called “Walt Disney’s Riverfront Square” in St. Louis is going to the auction block as part of Disney’s “Animation and Disneyana” sale.

    The blueprints are in “very good” condition and expected to sell for at least $5,000 to $10,000, a consignment specialist working with Disney told the Associated Press.

    “I believe this is the only complete set of plans,” he told the AP. “It’s amazing how many people don’t even know that they were going to build a park in St. Louis.”

    Walt Disney wanted to build on the success it saw with Disneyland, which opened its doors in 1955, and the company had its eye on St. Louis for its expansion. But as the story goes, Anheuser-Busch’s head cheese August A. Busch Jr. said that the theme park would have to sell beer if it wanted to do business at all. Disney said no to that plan.

    It wasn’t the suds issue that caused the park proposal to die out, however: historian Todd James Pierce, writing about the St. Louis project for the Disney History Institute, said that the beer kerfuffle had been smoothed over eventually. Really, Disney was fine paying for rides and attractions, but wanted St. Louis’ redevelopment corporation to pay for the building. The corporation declined to do so.

    And thus, the five-story theme park never existed beyond the pages of those blueprints, and Disney officially backed out in 1965. Instead, many of the rides planned for the Midwestern park were used at Disney World in Orlando and Disneyland, including the Pirates of the Caribbean, the Haunted Mansion, Big Thunder Mountain Railroad.

    Vestige of St. Louis Disney park that never was up for sale [Associated Press]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uGE Decides Not To Sell Appliance Business To Electrolux After Allr


4 4 4 9
  • (KogeLiz)
    More than a year after announcing that it’d be selling off its appliance division to Swedish company Electrolux for a few billion dollars, General Electric is pulling the plug on the deal.

    The deal announced in September 2014 would’ve given Electrolux a stronger foothold on this side of the pond, with the company saying back then that its North American sales would more than double with the acquisition.

    But it seems GE got cold feet, and will not be selling brands like GE Monogram, GE Cafe and Hotpoint after all: GE has terminated the planned deal, which U.S. authorities opposed, the companies said Monday, according to the AFP.

    The U.S. Department of Justice had sued both companies over concerns the deal would create a duopoly, giving Electrolux an estimated 40% share of the U.S. market. Electrolux said it’d been trying to figure out a way to achieve regulatory approval, and was a bit bummed that GE backed out while the deal was still being worked out in court.

    “Although we are disappointed that the acquisition will not be completed, Electrolux is confident that the group has strong capabilities to continue to grow and develop its position as a global appliances manufacturer,” said Electrolux President and Chief Executive Keith McLoughlin.

    As part of the agreement, Electrolux has to pay GE a termination fee of $175 million.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist