uAmazon Launches Mobile App Referral Program Offering Users $5 (In Coupons)r

4 4 4 9

• Amazon thinks the future of shopping is in your hands, literally. The company recently launched a referral program that offers users of its mobile shopping app a few bucks to pass on the handheld shopping bug to friends. 

  TechCrunch reports that while the Amazon mobile app referral program has been live for quite some time, the company is now pushing it out via a pop-up ad that appears when customers open the app.

  The promotion, which is only available in the U.S., offers current users $5 to share the Amazon app with friends. It then gives friends who install the app $5 to spend.

  The incentive comes in the form of an Amazon coupon, not cash, and can only be redeemed once the new users makes their first purchase on the app.

  Shoppers thinking of trolling around on the app will be now be greeted with an ad asking them to “give your friends $5 to spend on Amazon.” Users can either click “get started” or “no thanks.” To get the ad to go away forever, users can check a “don’t show me this again” box.

  If you choose to accept the deal, the program will access your phones’ contact list to send app invitations to your friends. Users can also opt to share a personalize referral code on social media.

  A rep for Amazon says the company began pushing the app as a way to showcase its different shopping options.

  “We wanted to help give customers a way to share it with an added incentive,” a company rep explains. “So, we introduced a program that provides a $5 incentive for customers to refer a friend or family member to shop with the app.”

  Amazon Rolls Out A Referral Program To Encourage More Customers To Shop On Mobile [TechCrunch]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uCard Data Breach Hits Group Behind Golden Nugget Casinos, Rainforest Cafe, And Morer

4 4 4 9

• 
  As compared to the flood of the last couple of years, the number of hacks and data breaches facing consumers this holiday season is but a mere trickle. But while the pace may be slowing, shoppers’ card data is, as ever, at risk. The latest large-scale victim? A restaurant conglomerate with over 500 locations.

  Security researcher Brian Krebs reported earlier today that data from banks showed a pattern likely to lead to the Landry restaurant group, and Landry has since confirmed the breach PDF).

  You probably haven’t heard of Landry, but you probably have heard of or eaten at one of their restaurants. The company manages dozens of chains including Morton’s Steakhouse, McCormick & Schmick’s, and the Rainforest Cafe. They also manage several hotels, resorts, and casinos, including the Golden Nugget chain.

  Contacts in the banking industry told Krebs last week that they suspected Landry properties were the common point in several cases of fraud. The problem appears to have started as early as May, 2015 and may still be ongoing.

  Landry did not confirm how many locations were or are affected, saying, “Even though we will not know the full scope of this incident until the investigation is completed, we will work vigilantly to address any potential issues that mat affect our consumers.”

  Landry also wants you to know that they think it shouldn’t happen again, probably: “We want to assure our customers that protecting their payment card information is a top priority and are working non-stop to complete the investigation,” Landry said in their statement. “System changes that we began implementing even before we were apprised of the reports of unauthorized usage have already been made, both to the specific restaurants where the suspect activity occurred as well as the overwhelming majority of our restaurants. The new, enhanced payment system encrypts the card data throughout our processing system.”

  In the meantime, as always, keep a close eye on your own credit and debit card statements and call your bank immediately if you see any suspicious charges.

  Banks: Card Breach at Landry’s Restaurants [Krebs on Security]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

uGillette Suing Dollar Shave Club Claiming Razor Subscription Service Infringes On Its Patentsr

4 4 4 9

• 
  With all those lumbersexuals and their bushy beards taking a big cut out of the razor business, it’s no surprise that competition is fierce. In an effort to protect its slice of the market, Gillette is suing online subscription razor service Dollar Shave Club for violation of intellectual property.

  The civil suit filed in Delaware accuses Dollar Shave Club of using patented technology without Gillette’s approval, reports the Wall Street Journal. To back that claim up, Gillette cites a patent from 2004 for a razor blade coating method it uses in its Mach 3, Venus, and Fusion razor products.

  Gillette wants an injunction preventing Dollar Shave Club from selling any products that infringe on its patents, and is also seeking monetary damages.

  While the popularity of facial hair has had the razor industry on edge in recent years, web sales of men’s shaving gear is a booming business, almost doubling in the 12 months through May of this year to $263 million, the WSJ notes, which is about 8% of the total $3 billion market.

  Gillette is trying to elbow its way into an increasingly crowded online sales market for razors: though it has a hold on about 60% of the retail market right now, that market is shrinking, and its online subscription service (launched last year, ostensibly in response to Dollar Shave Club’s existence) only makes up about a fifth of the online market.

  P&G’s Gillette Sues Dollar Shave Club [Wall Street Journal]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uCan You Safely Wash Fine China In The Dishwasher? Maybe.r

4 4 4 9

• 
  When you have guests over for a fancy gathering, or you’re celebrating an important holiday, some families like to haul out china. Maybe it’s a family heirloom, or maybe it was a pricey wedding gift that you regret not exchanging for a KitchenAid mixer. Either way, the more guests you have, the more important this question becomes: can fine china go in the dishwasher?

  Advanced modern dishwashers have a specific setting for china and crystal, which is like the “delicate” cycle in laundry, only for dishes. The question is, how gentle is it? Our colleagues down the hall at Consumer Reports do test dishwashers, but fine china isn’t part of the testing process. A reader wrote in to ask whether it was safe to put his china in the dishwasher, and the problem is that no one really knows in advance.

  The reader’s china has gold edging, and it’s impossible how to predict how it will react to even the gentlest dishwasher cycle, especially if the china predates the time when dishwashers were common in middle-class homes.

  When in doubt, CR’s dishwasher experts say, consult your dishwasher’s manual and check with the manufacturer of your china, if possible. If that doesn’t get you any conclusive proof, opt instead for the cleaning methods of your ancestors, especially if you’re using their antique china. Wash everything by hand.

  Is Fine China Safe in a Dishwasher? [Consumer Reports]
  Don’t put granny’s glassware in the dishwasher and other tips [Consumer Reports]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

u10 States Investigating Movie Theater Chains Over Antitrust Violationsr

4 4 4 9

• 

  You know how it’s almost impossible to ever see one of those big blockbuster films showing at the little movie theater down the street? That issue is largely the result of exclusive agreements between large theater chains and film studios that effectively prevent independent rivals from showing certain films. While these deals might be great for the bigger companies, they aren’t so awesome for consumers. And so, 10 state attorneys general are looking into whether or not the contracts used by Regal Cinemas, AMC Entertainment, and Cinemark constitute antitrust violations. 

  Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine confirmed the 10-state investigation into the chains’ exclusionary conduct that allegedly limits consumer choice, The Associated Press reports.

  According to DeWine, the investigation centers on whether or not the movie theater companies have tried to stifle the business of independent movie theaters and nonprofit film centers.

  The agreements, most common among large chains, limit the number of theaters allowed to screen certain movies in some locations, essentially keeping potential blockbuster films out of smaller competitors’ reach.

  All three major U.S. theater chains – AMC, Regal, and Cinemark – have previously said that clearance agreements are a long-established industry practice that only affect a small number of locations. Additionally, they say the requests are only approved at the discretion of movie studios.

  However, those opposed to the practice maintain that the contracts allow larger chains to flex their muscle and exert their substantial market power in order to drive new, smaller competitors out of the industry.

  “All businesses should have a fair chance to compete,” DeWine said. “We’re investigating the movie theater chains because of concerns that smaller, independent businesses have been unfairly pushed out of the market.”

  DeWine’s office declined to reveal the other nine states involved in the probe.

  Word of a multi-state investigation into AMC, Regal, and Cinemark began to surface earlier this winter in company filings, the AP reports.

  In July, Regal and AMC announced in Securities and Exchange Commission filings that they had received formal inquiries the Department of Justice seeking information regarding their use of so-called clearance agreements.

  Ohio Attorney General Confirms Movie Theater Antitrust Probe [The Associated Press]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uDairy Crisis Averted: Advertising Group Weighs In On String Cheese Warr

4 4 4 9

• 
  When there’s a cheese war raging, who’re you gonna call to settle things? If it’s a fight over whether or not a product is being incorrectly advertised, The National Advertising Division (an offshoot of the Council of Better Business Bureaus) often weighs in. This time, it’s addressing a string cheese dispute between two different companies, in the hopes that we can all just relax and enjoy some cheese.

  Lactalis American Group — the company behind cheese brands like President and Sorrento — had challenged advertising claims made by its competitor, Saputo Cheese, USA. Lactalis had an issue with a claims made on product packaging and online for a few Saputo products.

  NAD looked at claims including: “Low-Moisture, Part-Skim Mozzarella Cheese”; “Light Low-Moisture, Part-Skim Mozzarella Cheese”; and “Naturally Nutritious.”

  Lactalis argued that Saputo’s products contain artificial phosphate and fillers, which are a no-no under the Food and Drug Administration’s standard of identity for “low-moisture part-skim mozzarella cheese,” and said the labels misled consumers as to the real makeup of those products. Lactalis also had a beef with the “Natural” characterization of Saputo’s products, because they include phosphate and fillers.

  But Saputo responded by saying that phosphorus is a nutritious, healthy mineral that can be found naturally in any cheese. The levels of phosphorous in its products were within the range of levels across many varieties of cheese — low-moisture, part-skim mozzarella included. In addition, Saputo argued, its products are naturally produced (whatever that means_ and don’t contain artificial ingredients.

  NAD sided with Saputo, saying it had basis to make its advertising claims. It noted in its decision that it “accords great weight to FDA regulations and seeks to harmonize its efforts with those of the regulatory world.” To that end, the FDA defines low-moisture, part-skim mozzarella cheese as having between 30% and 45% milkfat content, a range that Saputo’s products undisputedly fall into.

  The NAD doesn’t have the power to determine whether a product is misbranded, however, as that’s something the FDA decides. But in reviewing the product packaging claims, NAD determined that consumers could reasonably understand the claim, “low-moisture, part-skim” mozzarella to mean that the string cheese product purchased is, in fact, “low-moisture, part-skim.”

  On the “Naturally Nutritious” front, Lactalis had argued that the presence phosphorous in the product should bar Saputo from using that language. NAD disagreed again, noting that the FDA has said it will maintain its policy regarding the use of “natural,” as meaning that nothing artificial or synthetic has been added to a food that would not normally be expected to be found in that food. There’s also no evidence to conclude that consumers have any expectations regarding the presence of phosphorus in a product or not.

  Saputo said in a statement that the company “supports NAD’s self-regulatory process and is grateful for the significant time and effort NAD and its staff took to consider this matter.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uIdentity Theft Company LifeLock Once Again Failed To Actually Keep Identities Protected, Must Pay $100Mr

4 4 4 9

• Five months after federal and state regulators accused identity theft protection company LifeLock of violating a 2010 settlement in which it paid $11 million for allegedly using false claims regarding effectiveness of its services, the company has been ordered to pay $100 million in penalties and refunds for once again misleading consumers. 

  The Federal Trade Commission announced the new settlement [PDF] today after finding that from at least October 2012 to March 2014, LifeLock violated four components of its previous agreement.

  Under the previous deal, LifeLock was barred from making deceptive claims about services and was required to take more stringent measures to safeguard the personal information it collects from customers.

  LifeLock had essentially promised not to misrepresent that its services offer “absolute protection against identity theft because there is, unfortunately, no foolproof way to avoid ID theft.”

  But those are promises LifeLock hasn’t abided by, the FTC claims in its recently filed order.

  According to the FTC, LifeLock failed to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program to protect users’ sensitive personal information, including their social security, credit card and bank account numbers.

  Despite these failings, the company routinely advertised that it protected consumers’ sensitive data with the same high-level safeguards used by financial institutions.

  From January 2012 through December 2014, the FTC alleges that LifeLock falsely advertised it would send alerts “as soon as” it received any indication that a consumer may be a victim of identity theft.

  Additionally, the complaint states that LifeLock violated its previous order by failing to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program to protect its users’ sensitive personal data, including credit card, social security, and bank account numbers.

  News of a settlement between the FTC and LifeLock is a bit of a surprise. When regulators filed action against the company in July, LifeLock said the two parties had gotten to that point because there was no way to reach an agreement outside of a court of law.

  “We disagree with the substance of the FTC’s contentions and are prepared to take our case to court,” the company said in a statement at the time. “LifeLock takes the accuracy of our advertising materials very seriously. The alerting claims raised by the FTC did not result in any known identity theft for LifeLock members.”

  Under the new settlement, in which LifeLock neither admits nor denies allegations, the company must deposit $100 million into the registry of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Of that $100 million, $68 million may be used to redress fees paid to LifeLock by class action consumers who were allegedly injured by the same behavior alleged by the FTC.

  Any funds not received by consumers in the class action settlement or through settlements between LifeLock and state attorneys general will be provided to the FTC for use in further consumer redress.

  In addition to the monetary settlement, the 2010 order’s stipulations on record keeping have been extended to 13 years from the date of the original order.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist