пятница, 11 декабря 2015 г.

uLegislation Would Require Liquid Nicotine Come In Child-Proof Packagesr


4 4 4 9
  • ecigLegislation to ensure children aren’t able to get their little hands on tasty-looking – but poisonous – liquid nicotine has made it past one hurdle: the Senate unanimously passed the measure yesterday, indicating widespread support for the Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015. 

    The Act [PDF], introduced by Florida Senator Bill Nelson, aims to treat the packaging of liquid nicotine the same as household substances under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970: requiring the use of child-proof bottles and containers.

    Liquid nicotine, used to refill e-cigarettes, has been a point of concern for consumer advocates, health officials and lawmakers in recent years, with reports indicating that children, who may be drawn to the product’s bright color packaging and flavors, are at a higher risk of death from coming into contact with the toxin.

    According to the poison control data, the substance is highly toxic if ingested or absorbed through the skin, as little as half a teaspoon can be fatal if ingested by an average-sized toddler. In 2014, poison control centers received more than 3,000 calls related to e-cigarette and liquid nicotine exposure, and one toddler died, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reports.

    At issue in the bill is the packaging of the products. Currently, manufacturers aren’t required to use child-resistant containers.

    That would change under the Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015, which now makes its way to the U.S. House of Representatives for final passage.

    Under the Act, manufacturers of liquid nicotine would be required to sell products in child-resistant packaging consistent with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) standards within six months of the bill’s passage.

    The packaging must be difficult for children under five years of age to open or to obtain harmful contents from.

    Additionally, the bill would preserve the Food and Drug Administration’s authority to regulate the packaging of tobacco products.

    AAP, which backed the measure, applauded legislators’ unanimous vote on the Act, noting that it marks an important step in the process of protecting children.

    “Every child deserves a safe home environment, and the Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015 helps to provide just that,” AAP President Sandra G. Hassink, said in a statement. “With e-cigarettes becoming more and more common in households across the country, we cannot afford to wait another day to protect children from poisonous liquid nicotine.”



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uCourt Temporarily Blocks DraftKings, FanDuel From Doing Business In New York Stater


4 4 4 9
  • draftkingsLast month, New York state investigators came to the conclusion that daily fantasy sites DraftKings and FanDuel are, under state law, illegal gambling operations. The state then sued the companies, seeking to stop the high-profile operations from doing business in New York, and today a court issued a temporary injunction that bars them from doing just that.

    At issue in New York is whether or not daily fantasy sports (DFS) are “contests of chance,” which are generally illegal in New York state, or a game of skill that merely charges an entry fee.

    In arguing against the injunction, lawyers for the DFS sites pointed to federal court precedent that held paying an entry fee is not the same as placing a wager or a bet.

    But in today’s order [PDF] granting the injunction, New York State Supreme Court Judge Manuel Mendez notes that contrary to that case, which involved paying a non-refundable, one-time entry fee to play in the contest, DFS participants “pay a fee every time they play, potentially multiple times daily instead of one seasonal entry fee, with a percentage of the fee being paid to Fanduel, Inc., and DraftKings, Inc.”

    The judge also pointed out that the New York law does not make any mention of wagering or betting, but rather states that in a contest of chance, a person “risks something of value.”

    “The payment of an ‘entry fee’ as high as $10,600 on one or more contests daily could certainly be deemed risking ‘something of value,’” writes the judge.

    The DFS sites also contended that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman had overstepped his authority because, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which effectively outlaws most online games of chance, includes a carve-out specifically for fantasy sports.

    But the judge countered that the very definition of “unlawful Internet gambling” in that law is the placing, receiving, or otherwise knowingly transmitting a bet or wager “by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.”

    Thus, because New York state believes these sites to be illegal gambling, the judge says the UIGEA carve-out does not apply. A number of states — Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, and Washington — have laws on the books that prevent residents from playing on DraftKings and FanDuel, and neither site accepts fees from users in these states. Nevada was also added to that list after it too came to the conclusion that DFS sites constituted unlicensed gambling in the state.

    “We are pleased with the decision, consistent with our view that DraftKings and FanDuel are operating illegal gambling operations in clear violation of New York law,” reads a statement from AG Schneiderman. “I have said from the beginning that my job is to enforce the law, and that is what happened today.”

    The folks at DraftKings are, as you’d expect, not pleased with the injunction.

    “We are disappointed with the Court’s decision, and will immediately file an emergency notice of appeal in order to preserve the status quo,” says David Boies, counsel to DraftKings. “Daily Fantasy Sports contests have been played legally by New Yorkers for the past seven years and we believe this status quo should be maintained while the litigation plays out.”

    Between the two sites, they stand to lose access to more than 1 million paying users in New York state while the injunction is in place.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uChipotle Has Been Making Customers Sick Since The Summer, Company Says “There Really Wasn’t A Pattern”r


4 4 4 9
ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


u7 Things We Learned About Federal Student Loans & The Companies That Profit From Themr


4 4 4 9
  • (Tracy O)

    Fifty years ago, Congress created the federal loan program as a way to help Americans realize their dreams of a better life through higher education. While millions of students have no doubt benefited from the program, millions of others have found themselves burdened by mountains of debts, fielding calls from debt collectors and loan servicers, and watching as their paychecks are whittled down by garnishments. Today, seven million former college students are in default with a record $115 billion in federal loans. While those figures may be oppressing borrowers, it’s providing a stream of income – and profit – for companies contracted by the government to collect payments from debtors. 

    A new report from Bloomberg highlights just how profitable the federal student loan industry can be for debt collectors, refinancers and for-profit colleges.

    While the report is full of surprising numbers and consumer stories of the gigantic industry, it also provides insight into a system some say is failing students, despite its original intention of making life better for them.

    Student loans, both private and federal, combine to create a trillion-dollar business — that’s 12 zeros — and that money is going somewhere, often to companies that use illegal, hurtful tactics to collect their share of the bill.

    Here are seven things we learned from Bloomberg’s report on who’s profiting from $1.2 trillion of federal student loans:

    1. The federal student loan program is big business: the government has distributed about $100 billion in education loans each year since 2009.

    And the tab is only expected to increase – nearly doubling to $200 billion issued annually in the next decade.

    2. It’s not just students who benefit from the federal loan program. Companies that make money off the loans run the gamut from debt servicers like Affiliated Computer Services Inc. – part of Xerox Corp., which is currently under federal investigation for inaccuracies and overcharges – to for-profit colleges like Education Management Corporation, which just agreed to pay $95.5 million to settle fraud and recruitment violations, and Apollo Education Group – the operator of the embattled University of Phoenix.

    3. Not all loans are issued by the government, but they all have ties to the feds. Private lenders also issue billions of dollars in loans each year, most backed by the government.

    During the recession, the federal government purchased $112 billion in existing debt. Bloomberg reports that Sallie Mae recorded a gross revenue over two years of more than $600 million from selling debt.

    4. Student loan borrowers generally aren’t aware of what’s going on behind the scenes with their loan originator. Instead, their point of contact is typically a loan servicer, which processes monthly payments.

    These companies are contracted by the federal government to collect payments from borrowers in default, and these agreements can be lucrative.

    According to Bloomberg, Education Department awarded servicing companies $576 million in fees in the most recent fiscal year.

    Under the contracts, firms typically earn monthly fees by loan status: $2.85 for those in repayment, $1.05 when borrowers are in school and $0.45 when they’re delinquent 361 days or more, data from the Federal Procurement Data System shows.

    5. Some of these servicing companies are under investigation by federal regulators for illegal collection practices.

    Navient Corp, which spun off from Sallie Mae in 2014, announced in August that it could face a lawsuit from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over allegedly unfair practices like overcharging and imposing excessive fees on consumers’ loans.

    A spokesperson for the Dept. of Education tells Bloomberg that the agency will review performance standards for loan servicers before rebidding contracts next year.

    6. Servicers aren’t the only companies that receive an influx of cash from the feds when it comes to student loans. Debt collection firms are also contracted by the Dept. of Education to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

    FMS Investment Corp., a collection company, was paid $227 million by the Dept. of Education from October 2011 to Sept. 2015. But that company is just a small cog in a bigger machine.

    It’s a unit of Ceannate Corp., one of two dozen collection firms that were paid $936 million in the last fiscal year by the Dept. of Education.

    Those figures are only expected to grow, Bloomberg reports, as the Dept. of Education is bidding a new contract, its largest ever.

    Despite the mounting contract costs, using collection agencies – even to the detriment of borrowers – has created results for the government.

    According to the Government Accountability Office, collection companies helped recover about $9 billion on more than 1.5 million loans from 2011 to 2013.

    7. When attempts by servers and collection agencies fail, the government doesn’t simply give up on its owed debt. Instead, the Treasury Department turns to garnishments of Social Security, tax refunds or wages, Bloomberg reports.

    Treasury said it had net offsets of $2.27 billion for education debts in fiscal 2015.

    While the way in which the federal student loan program operates likely won’t change overnight, advocates say it’s something that prospective borrowers should keep in mind when looking at their college financing options.

    “This is not some small cottage industry,” Rohit Chopra, the former student-loan ombudsman for the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which oversees loan servicers, debt collectors and private student lenders, tells Bloomberg. “There is a large student-loan industrial complex. Rising costs of college and flat family incomes have created enormous business opportunity for every step of the loan process.”

    Who’s Profiting From $1.2 Trillion of Federal Student Loans? [Bloomberg]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uMen’s Wearhouse CEO Says He Knows How To Fix Jos. A. Bankr


4 4 4 9
  • No more three-for-one deals, but BOGO is alive and well on Jos. A. Bank's homepage.
    Men’s Wearhouse is about a year and a half into its ownership of Jos. A. Bank, and it’s safe to say things aren’t going so well: after layoffs in March 2015, and ending three-for-one suit deals, sales are down, way down. But Men’s Wearhouse says it’s got a plan to turn things around, and isn’t giving up on the suit-slingers at Jos. A. Bank just yet.

    Men’s Wearhouse executives said on a Thursday morning conference call reported by MarketWatch that they didn’t realize how “toxic” some of Jos. A Bank’s promotions would be before they decided to buy the company for $1.8 billion in November 2014.

    It seemed like a good challenge, said Chief Executive Doug Ewert, as Men’s Wearhouse had a history of taking on struggling brands and turning them around. The company saw an opportunity to grab a nice chunk of the market, and it went for it.

    But customers didn’t react well when the retailer ended the three-for-one suit deal, with Jos. A. Bank reporting in November that comparable-store sales dropped 14.6% at Bank stores, while the same figure increased slightly at parent brand Men’s Wearhouse. At that time, it was expected that sales would fall 20%-25% in the next quarter.

    As it stands now, five weeks into the current quarter, same-store sales at Jos. A. Bank are down 35%. That’s in comparison to an average growth of 5% at Men’s Wearhouse and its other brands.

    “What we did not know then but do now was just how toxic some of the promotions were, and how deep and far-reaching the transformation required would be, and how significantly near-term performance would suffer as we began to execute painful but necessary steps to restore the long-term sustainable profit model and reshape the business towards a healthy and growing Jos. A. Bank,” Ewert said.

    He’s not about to shutter the brand, however, and has a plan to fix things. Thus far that’s meant integrating the brands, upgrading the e-commerce system and other areas and now, doing away with “unsustainable promotions.”

    “During the second quarters and third quarters this year, the effectiveness of the promotional model deteriorated more quickly than we’d anticipated,” Ewert said.

    The next step is to analyze company data and take customer feedback into account to figure out what promotional strategy will yield the most profitable results. Also included in the turnaround plan: tweaking merchandise, refreshing its marketing strategy and of course, looking at cost-cutting opportunities. Taking all that into account, Ewert said the company is “not anywhere near” a decision to close Jos. A. Bank stores or sell the company.

    Men’s Wearhouse ends ‘buy-one-get-three-free’ promotions to turn around Jos. A. Bank [MarketWatch]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


ueBay Wants To Help You Cash In Your Christmas Giftsr


4 4 4 9
  • eBay used to be a site where individual users listed items for auction. Now the company no longer wants to be known as an “auction” site, and instead wants to be a site where large chain retailers like Toys ‘R’ Us sell their wares, and where individual users pay “valets” to list items for them. To promote the latter, eBay is offering free valet service, including real-life sales stations, after Christmas to help people sell unwanted gifts for cash.

    Valet users usually gt 60 to 80% of the item’s selling price, but the service accepts a limited selection of goods. To be sold through Valet, your stuff has to be in good condition, an easy qualification for a new item that you received as a gift. It can’t be breakable or heavy, or so valuable that it needs to be authenticated.

    Items that sell best are the exact kind of things you might receive as a holiday gift: clothing and electronics. eBay wants to turn ditching your stuff into an annual tradition, and will have temporary in-person valet stations at three Westfield-owned malls in San Francisco, Chicago, and Paramus, NJ. People in other cities will have to delay gratification, and have to make do with drop boxes in some other Westfield-owned malls, or mail their items in. These have the very inaccurate name of “regifting stations.”

    eBay found a brilliant way to profit from the holiday gifts you don’t want [Business Insider] (via eCommerceBytes)



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uDisney Forces Takedown Of Star Wars Figure Photos; Realizes Maybe That’s Not A Good Idear


4 4 4 9
  • This post on the SWAN Facebook page was hit with a copyright claim by Disney.
    We understand the desire for Disney to protect its huge investment in the Star Wars franchise — who knows, maybe the new sequel will only clear a couple billion dollars at the box office. Disney also has a long, long history of being overly protective of its copyright — to the point where no new copyrighted works of any sort will reach the public domain in the U.S. until at least 2019. But to tick off your biggest fans by forcing them to remove legally obtained photos of Star Wars action figures? That’s just plain stupid.

    The House that Mickey Built is learning that this week, after it sent takedown notices to Facebook and Twitter over photos posted by fans on social media of new official action figures from the upcoming Force Awakens movie.

    The problem, it seems, involves the fact that the even bigger idiots at Walmart started putting out the new action figures early. Thus, when Disney’s copyright bots spotted the images, they freaked out and labeled them as screen shots of “an unreleased figurine for Star Wars: Force Awakens,” according to a DMCA takedown notice posted on StarWarsUnity.net.

    Legitimate Twitter posts were deleted because of these takedown demands, and the folks at Star Wars Action News had to remove a completely legal image from their Facebook page.

    “A friend texted my husband saying, hey, are you getting sued?” Marjorie Carvalho of SWAN tells Ars Technica about learning of the widespread takedown demands. “We looked and noticed we’d gotten a notice from Facebook saying our image violated copyright. It was confusing because our staff member, Justin, he took the photo.”

    And so, even though this was Walmart’s error and Disney has, at best, an arguable copyright claim over someone sharing their photo of a legally purchased action figure online, the company chose to aggravate the franchise’s fan base rather than brush up on fair use law.

    “Yes there’s a copyright, but I don’t think that entitles Disney and Lucasfilm to try to make that image disappear from the Internet,” Mitch Stolz of the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains to Ars. “Someone may have screwed up, and violated an agreement as to when the toys would hit the shelves. But that doesn’t make a photo of a toy forbidden information.”

    Someone at the Magic Kingdom must have come to this same conclusion, because the DMCA demand for the photo posted on the SWAN Facebook page has been retracted.

    “When we received the notice from Facebook, we e-mailed the Disney e-mail that was included. We received zero response from Disney however sometime overnight the picture was restored to our page,” Carvalho tells Business Insider. “We received an email from Facebook that ‘The reporting party, The Walt Disney Company, has retracted their report.'”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist