среда, 16 декабря 2015 г.

uScammy Used Car Dealer Also Employed By IRSr


4 4 4 9
  • (Sarah)

    The owner of a former used car dealership in Arizona that admitted to defrauding dozens of customers just so happens to also be a long-time employee of the federal government, helping consumers with financial issues through an IRS Taxpayer Assistance Center. 

    The Arizona Republic reports that the owner of the now-defunct Uncle Joe’s Auto Sales dealership in Phoenix, dealership in Phoenix continues work for the IRS, despite admitting to taking advantage of poor and non-English speaking customers and being party to a consumer-fraud lawsuit filed by state prosecutors.

    To make matters worse, the report also alleges that the woman’s husband, who was included in the lawsuit, may still be working in the auto sales industry despite a court order barring him from doing so.

    According to the Republic, the IRS confirmed the woman has been an employee since 1998 and continues to work for the agency. However, officials declined to provide information on her specific duties.

    The IRS Taxpayer Assistance Center in Phoenix, one of dozens across the country, functions to give taxpayers the option of talking face-to-face with an IRS representative to resolve issues or ask questions on tax law.

    A spokesperson for the Arizona Attorney General says that the office will initiate an investigation into the man’s employment and whether or not it violated the terms of a settlement baring him from working in the used-car sales industry in the state.

    Under the couple’s previous settlement with the state, a violation of the terms could result in $335,000 in civil penalties.

    Issues with Uncle Joe’s Used Auto Sales began just eight months after it opened in February 2014, as it racked up dozens of consumer complaints, the Republic reports, including 30 filed with the Arizona AG.

    According to the AG investigation, the company allegedly used Craigslist ads to get customers on to the lot. Once there, the couple persuaded individuals to buy vehicles, making promises to make repairs that were never completed.

    The pair was also accused of overcharging customers hundreds of dollars in license, filing, registration, and other fees.

    As part of a settlement to resolve the lawsuit, the owner admitted that she “approved, endorsed, directed, ratified, controlled or otherwise participated in the acts and practices of Uncle Joe’s.”

    In the end, the pair agreed to pay $70,000 in restitution and at least $30,000 in penalties to settle the consumer-fraud lawsuit.

    Phoenix auto dealer who scammed customers works for IRS [The Arizona Republic]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uWhich Retailers Have Changed Their Return Policies This Holiday Season?r


4 4 4 9
  • (Geoff Fox)
    While it’s always important to keep a store’s return policy in mind when you shop, during the holiday season, return policies are extra important. That’s what happens when we give gifts that other people may not want. Every year, ConsumerWorld’s Edwin Dworsky compiles a list of major retailers’ return policies, comparing them to each other and to previous years’ policies. What do stores have planned for remorseful buyers and giftees in 2015 and early 2016?

    There’s mostly good news in the field of returned stuff. Sears made a change that tightens their policy but also simplifies it: instead of a plan where different categories of items had to be returned in 30, 60, or 90 days, now it’s much simpler. There’s a 30-day limit, with some understandable exceptions, like furniture, Christmas merchandise, and mobile phones.

    Costco has changed what used to be a famously loose policy: now members have 90 days to return many electronics items, but can return anything else pretty much whenever.

    Also, a growing trend is retailers paying return shipping on items purchased online, including retailers in the Gap family, Macy’s, and Saks. Check policies before buying: there may be limits, and some companies are offering return shipping only during the holiday season. Notably, PayPal is doing so as a promotion this year.

    Remember that these policies may vary by state if your state’s laws differ. Provide a gift receipt when possible, look for holiday exceptions to normal policies, and don’t fight the crowds on December 26 if a policy states that you have until well into January to bring items in.

    2015 Retailers’ Return Policies Compared [Consumer World]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uChipotle Takes Out A Full-Page Ad To Continue The Apology Parader


4 4 4 9
  • (C_Dubyaa)
    Chipotle CEO and founder Steve Ells has been riding a great big apology train around the news circuit lately, issuing a mea culpa on TV last week and mentioning again this week how “deeply sorry” he is that the chain has been linked to a nine-state E. coli outbreak that’s sickened more than 50 people and a major norovirus incident in Boston involving 120 students. He’s not done yet, either: the company took out a full-page ad in 61 newspapers around the country on Wednesday to continue apologizing to customers.

    It ran today in major U.S. newspapers including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today, which are the top three U.S. newspapers by circulation, notes Fortune, reaching an average of 8.5 million readers every day combined.

    The ad features a letter from Ells, adorned only with a Chipotle watermark at the bottom, and offers details on the company’s plan to turn its food safety procedures around “to be sure all of the food we serve is as safe as it can be,” and is peppered with additional apologies to add to the CEO’s continuing chorus.

    “I’d like to take this opportunity to apologize on behalf of all of us at Chipotle,” wrote Ells. “The fact that anyone has become ill eating at Chipotle is completely unacceptable to me and I am deeply sorry.”

    He writes that Chipotle worked with food-safety experts to run a “farm-to-fork risk assessment” of every ingredient it uses and restaurant protocols, and will also provide more food safety training for employees and implement more cleaning steps to make sure its kitchens aren’t breeding grounds for germs.

    “In the end, it may not be possible for anyone to completely eliminate all risk with regard to food (or from any environment where people congregate), but we are confident that we can achieve near zero risk,” Ells wrote.

    Read the letter in its entirety below, via The Boston Globe:

    chipotlead



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uLender EZCORP Must Pay $10M In Refunds, Fines For Illegal In-Person Debt Collection Practicesr


4 4 4 9
  • Screen Shot 2015-12-16 at 12.32.56 PM

    A small-dollar lender has been slammed with a top-dollar penalty by federal regulators who say that the company’s debt collection practices violated the law. 

    Until recently, Texas-based lender EZCORP provided high-cost, short-term, unsecured payday and installment loans through 500 storefront locations in 15 states, operating under names like “EZMONEY Payday Loans,” “EZ Loan Services,” “EZ Payday Advance,” and “EZPAWN Payday Loans.”

    The company ceased offering these loans in July 2015, but today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced that EZCORP must pay $7.5 million in refunds to 93,000 customers, on top of a $3 million penalty, for its alleged use of illegal debt collection practices.

    According to the CFPB consent order [PDF], after providing customers with short-term loans, EZCORP collected debt through illegal visits to consumers at their homes and workplaces, made empty threats of legal action, lied about consumers’ rights, and exposed consumers to bank fees through unlawful electronic withdrawals

    The CFPB alleges that since at least 2013, EZCORP made in-person collection visits to debtors’ homes or workplaces, and calls to credit references, that disclosed or risked disclosing consumers’ debt to third parties. Additionally, regulators claim this action could have led to adverse consequences for employment like disciplinary actions or firing.

    In many cases, EZCORP allegedly threatened consumers with legal action if they didn’t pay their debts. However, the CFPB found that in practice, the company did not refer these accounts to any law firm or legal department and did not take legal action against consumers on those accounts.

    From Nov. 2011 to May 2012, EZCORP reportedly deceived borrowers with advertisements that claimed they would not be subject to a credit check. In reality, the company routinely ran checks on applicants targeted by those ads.

    Until Jan. 2013, regulators claim EZCORP violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act by requiring borrowers to repay installment loans through electronic withdrawals from their bank accounts.

    Through this practice, the company would routinely make three simultaneous attempts to electronically withdraw money from a borrower’s bank account for a loan payment, the consent order states. As a result, tens of thousands of consumers incurred fees from their banks, making it even harder to climb out of debt when behind on payment.

    When customers contacted EZCORP about the withdrawals the company told them the only way to stop the transfers was to make a payment or set up a payment plan. In reality, consumers could revoke their authorization for electronic withdrawals and demand that EZCORP’s debt collectors stop calling.

    Under the CFPB’s proposed consent order resolving its action against EZCORP, the lender must refund $7.5 million to about 93,000 customers who made payments based on the company’s illegal practices.

    Additionally, the company must stop collection on about 130,000 payday and installment loan accounts currently in default. Debts in these accounts total tens of millions of dollars, the CFPB estimates.

    The company must also request that consumer reporting agencies amend, delete, or suppress any negative information related to those debts.

    Finally, EZCORP is ordered to pay a $3 million penalty to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund.

    In addition to announcing action against the Texas-based lender, the CFPB issues a warning bulletin [PDF] to all organizations in the financial industry about the illegal use of in-person collection attempts. If companies are found to use such practices, they could also end up on the receiving end of a hefty fine.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uGrubHub Putting The Kibosh On Shark Fin Menu Itemsr


4 4 4 9
  • (jpmarth)
    The next time you have a hankering for shark fin soup, you won’t be able to order it through GrubHub or any of its other mobile food ordering platforms: the company says it won’t allow restaurants to sell shark fin menu items any longer.

    GrubHub announced the decision along with advocacy group Oceana in a press release that notes that although the process of shark finning is illegal in U.S. waters, fins can still be purchased in many states. The fins often come from unsustainable foreign fisheries in countries that have ineffective shark finning bans, Oceana says, which contributes to the decline of the world’s shark population.

    While GrubHub says it works with about 35,000 restaurants in 900 cities, there’s one question we had for the company — how many of those actually sell shark fin products?

    “Only a small handful of restaurants were affected by the change, and we’ve already worked with them to remove the menu item from our platforms,” a company spokesperson told Consumerist, noting that restaurants that sell those products can remain on GrubHub’s platforms, just their shark fin dishes have to go.

    Ocean applauded the move by GrubHub, urging other businesses involved in shark finning to follow their lead.

    “Shark finning is a wasteful and inhumane practice that needs to end, and GrubHub has helped to make that happen with this decision. The bottom line is that sharks are worth infinitely more swimming in our oceans than in a bowl of soup,” said Lora Snyder, Oceana campaign director.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


u10+ Things Consumers Should Know About The New Federal Spending Billr


4 4 4 9
  • (inajeep)
    This morning, after months of slapping on, then removing, then replacing pork barrel riders on the federal Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, we finally know exactly which add-ons made it into the omnibus spending bill and which ones didn’t.

    #1: Scuttling The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    Lawmakers in both the House and Senate attempted to undermine the CFPB — a Bureau created by Congress itself only a few years ago — by eliminating its direct funding source and restructuring it as a commission. Those lawmakers failed and the CFPB will continue to exist as it is — at least until the next bank-funded attempt to scuttle it.

    #2: Limiting Banks’ “Get Out Of Jail Free” Card
    As we mentioned recently, certain riders sought to prevent the CFPB from implementing new rules that would limit the use of forced arbitration — which allows companies to effectively break the law by taking away consumers’ right to sue and to join together in class actions — by banks, credit card companies, and other creditors. These riders also failed to make the final cut.

    #3: Neutering Net Neutrality
    Riders intended to circumvent the legal system and preempt the FCC from enforcing the 2015 Open Internet Order (aka “net neutrality”) are not in the final omnibus.

    The final spending bill also drops the rider that would have preempted the FCC from any sort of rate regulation on broadband services. While the FCC has said it will not set rates for these newly regulated services, it will allow consumers to challenge, on a case-by-case basis, allegedly unfair or unreasonable rates.

    A number of high-profile Internet companies — both on the content and infrastructure sides of the business — recently called on Congress to drop this rider, even though some of them would benefit from a total lack of regulation on rates.

    #4: Holding For-Profit Colleges Accountable:
    Lobbyists and lawyers representing the multibillion-dollar for-profit college industry — which produces a higher percentage of student loan defaulters and has a higher dropout rate than non-profit schools — have been fighting tooth-and-nail to stop the enforcement of the Dept. of Education’s new “gainful employment” rules, which require that schools demonstrate that a certain percentage of their students are able to obtain paying jobs in their trained fields.

    Having failed to prevent the rules from being drafted (though it took two attempts by the DOE to get it sort-of right), and having failed in the courtroom, the for-profit industry helped introduce riders to the omnibus bill that would have blocked the DOE from implementing the gainful employment rules. But sanity won out over campaign funds, and no such riders made their way to the final bill.

    #5: Airline Ticket Transparency:
    The Dept. of Transportation is in the process of drafting rules that require companies to display any fees that would be added to the ticket price, and to explain how airline tickets are displayed when a customer searches for certain types of tickets online. But a Senate rider sought to undermine this rule by severely restricting the DOT’s ability to enforce it for most online ticketing sites. This rider did not make it to the gate on time and was left behind to wander the concourse.

    #6: Super-Long Tractor-Trailers & Sleepy Drivers
    You know those long trucks hauling two cargo trailers? A rider was attached to the omnibus with the intention of compelling all states to allow so-called “Double 33s” — trucks carrying two, 33-foot long trailers — on highways. Some believe that the existing double trailers on the road already pose enough of safety hazard, but the combined length of those trailers would exceed current limits for commercial trucks by 10 feet.

    Following opposition from safety advocates and law enforcement groups, like the State Highway Patrol Association, the rider did not make it.

    “Today, Congress put the safety of all motorists before the special interest agenda of a few select trucking and shipping companies,” says Jackie Gillan, President of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, one of the groups that argued against this rider.

    However, Gillan notes that the omnibus bill include an extension of the “tired truckers” provision from last year’s spending bill.

    “This provision takes away truck drivers ‘weekends off’ and pushes them to work up to 82 hours a week,” says Gillan. “Annually 4,000 people are killed and another 100,000 more are injured in crashes involving a large truck, and fatigue is a major factor and well-known crash cause.”

    #7: Genetically Modified Food Labeling
    A rider that would have pre-empted states from having laws that require the labeling of genetically engineered or genetically modified food did not make it into the spending bill.

    In fact, the bill does include another rider that directs the FDA to come up with some sort of labeling for the recently approved, genetically engineered AquAdvantage salmon. When the FDA approved this product earlier this month (the first of its kind in the U.S.), it said that special labeling was not required because there was no significant nutritional difference between the GE salmon and traditional farmed salmon.

    #8: Approval Of New Tobacco Products
    One rider aimed to expedite the process for approving potentially thousands of new tobacco and nicotine-delivery products — everything from e-cigarettes to cigars — without FDA approval. This also failed to make the cut.

    #9: Doing Business With Marijuana Sellers
    In states where marijuana is legal and regulated, many federally insured banks are still reluctant to do business with these businesses because the product has not been legalized by the federal government. One rider explicitly tried to block banks from any commercial activities with a pot seller in these states, but the rider did not succeed.

    #10: Providing Solid Financial Advice

    The House version of the omnibus bill included a rider that blocked funding for a “fiduciary responsibility” rule drafted by the Dept. of Labor. This rule is designed to ensure that
    financial advisers are providing advice in the best interests of their clients, rather than advice that is better for the adviser’s bottom line.

    Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America says this rider to block that rule was the result of one of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in recent memory.

    “Had they succeeded in getting a policy rider included in this must-pass bill, hopes that workers and retirees would finally get the protections they deserve when they turn to financial professionals for retirement investment advice would have been dashed,” says Roper.

    This story is a work in progress. We’re still scouring through the omnibus bill and will undoubtedly be adding more things as the day goes on.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uFlaw In Target’s Wish List App Feature Can Expose Phone Numbers, Emails, Other Personal Infor


4 4 4 9
  • (Mike Mozart)

    There’s just something about the holiday season and Target that leaves customers’ personal information open for the taking. Two years after the retailer suffered a massive data breach affecting more than 100 million customers, another – albeit smaller – security flaw in the company’s mobile app has left the emails and phone numbers for some users vulnerable. 

    Customers who created wish lists through the Target app have unwittingly made their addresses, phone numbers, and other personal information open to unauthorized access, thanks to a flaw in the feature, researchers from security firm Avast reported in a blog on Tuesday.

    Avast discovered the flaw while examining the security and privacy levels of various mobile apps.

    “If you created a Christmas wish list using the Target app, it might be accessible to more people than you want to actually receive gifts from,” researchers said in the post. “The Target app keeps a database of users’ wish lists, names, addresses, and email addresses. But your closest family and friends may not be the only ones who know you want a new suitcase for your upcoming cruise!”

    According to researchers, the flaw is a result of the app’s Application Program Interface (API) being easily accessible over the Internet. Once someone figures out how a user ID is generated they can access a file that contains email addresses, shipping addresses, phone numbers, the type of registries, and the items on the registries.

    A spokesperson for Target tells CNET that the company disabled elements of its wish list app on Tuesday evening.

    “We apologize for any challenges guests may be facing while trying to access their registry,” Molly Snyder, a communications manager at Target, said in a statement. “Our teams are working diligently overnight to resume full functionality.”

    It’s unclear how many customers were using the wish list feature.

    In addition to finding Target’s wish-list app vulnerability, researchers with Avast found other major retailers’ shopping apps lack in security and privacy protections. For example, Walgreen’s app asks for permissions that have little to do with the purpose of the feature.

    Target back on naughty list with another security vulnerability [CNET]
    Retailer’s apps reveal your Christmas list to the public [Avast]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist