понедельник, 28 декабря 2015 г.

uVerizon, Sprint Customers Have Until Dec. 31 To Claim A Piece Of The $158M Cramming Settlement Pier


4 4 4 9
  • (Mike Mozart)/ (Mike Mozart)
    The holidays can be a tiring, stressful time, full of never-ending checklists. While you might have checked off plenty of your to-do items, if you’re a Verizon or Sprint customer, you’ll want to make sure you add “check to see if I’m eligible for a bill-cramming refund,” to the top of your list. 

    Individuals who currently have or had wireless service with Verizon and Sprint in the last five years have until Dec. 31 to apply for a refund as part of the companies’ $158 million settlement with the Federal Communications Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for bill-cramming, the practice of allowing third parties to add bogus, unauthorized charges to customers’ phone bills.

    Verizon and Sprint customers (or former customers) can visit the settlement websites — http://ift.tt/1G3arsV or http://ift.tt/1E3T0lO — to see if they’re eligible for refunds.

    According to the May settlements, Verizon’s portion of the penalty pie comes to $90 million; $70 million of that will go to redress for wronged customers. Sprint will pay $68 million, with $50 million going back to consumers.

    Both companies allegedly made hundreds of millions of dollars in commissions by allowing third-party services to charge for unauthorized subscription services at monthly rates ranging from $0.99 to $14. For each of these monthly charges, Verizon earned at least 30%, while Sprint’s commission was around 35%.

    Cramming occurred at all of the major wireless companies for years, even as consumers complained to their service providers and regulators about the unauthorized charges.

    In Oct. 2014, AT&T kicked off the bill-cramming settlement parade by reaching a deal with federal regulators. The company’s deal came out to $105 million, of which $80 millions as slated to be refunded to affected customers.

    In Dec. 2014, T-Mobile entered into a $112.5 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.

    The company agreed to pay $90 million in consumer refunds, $18 million in fines and penalties to the attorneys general of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and $4.5 million to the Federal Communications Commission.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


u9-Year-Old Opens PS4 Box On Christmas Morning, Finds Block Of Woodr


4 4 4 9
  • woodenPS4Christmas morning is a time for family togetherness, enjoying the delighted faces of children, and surprising loved ones with thoughtful gifts. Unfortunately, wrapping gifts and putting them under the tree until the recipient opens the box means risking a retail hazard: boxes of expensive electronics that contain notepads, bricks, picture frames, or mirrors. This is disturbingly common, and happened to a family in Massachusetts this Christmas.

    Imagine the scene: their 9-year-old son had only asked for a PS4 for Christmas, and his parents bought him one that included an Uncharted bundle at Target. After they took some pictures of the delighted boy, he opened the box and found… a wooden block cut precisely to fit the PS4 box, and what TV station WFXT (warning: auto-play video at that link) describes as a “profane message” written on the block with a black marker. Nice.

    If you aren’t familiar with the box of crap scam, here’s how it works: a not-very-nice person buys an electronics item, like a PS4 or an iPad, then removes the actual gadget and replaces it with something that weighs about the same. This could be bathroom tiles, rocks, or a piece of wood, as happened here.

    The scammer then returns the item to the store for a refund, counting on the clerk to not check inside the box. If no one checks the package before putting the item back on the shelf, it will be sold to another unsuspecting customer. When that person returns to the store, they’ll be accused of trying to scam the retailer, and often the stores don’t believe the customer, refusing to exchange the box of crap for a real item.

    The parents discussed their problem with a manager, and Target gave them a different PS4 bundle, a copy of Uncharted, and a $100 gift card for their trouble. It doesn’t make up for not being able to be able to play with his gift on Christmas morning, but that does help.

    The family in Massachusetts used a tactic that we didn’t think of back in 2008 when we put together a guide for consumers who find themselves in this situation: they returned the wooden block with a TV news crew standing by. It’s not clear whether the crew was already there to do a story about after-Christmas returns or whether the family had called the local TV station, but it probably didn’t hurt their case. Stores often suddenly believe victims once a local media outlet becomes involved in the situation.

    One way to avoid this is to open the box before you leave the store and make sure that the right item is in there. Will the gift recipient be happy to receive an already-opened PlayStation? Maybe not, but it’s an awful lot better than opening a box full of wood. For a game console, you can also do some of the basic setup work of connecting it to your home WiFi network and downloading upgrades, saving the recipient valuable play time when they open it.

    Family opens fake, wooden PS4 Christmas morning [WFXT] (Thanks, Tim!)

    FURTHER READING:
    What To Do When A Store Sells You Box Of Crap And Won’t Take It Back
    7 Examples Why You Should Always Check Inside That iPad Box Before You Leave Walmart
    Be On The Lookout For Boxes Of Rocks When Shopping For Post-Holiday Deals



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


среда, 23 декабря 2015 г.

uIllinois Attorney General Says DraftKings, FanDuel Are Illegal Gambling Sitesr


4 4 4 9
  • draftkingsWhile daily fantasy sports (DFS) sites DraftKings and FanDuel are hanging on to their hundreds of thousands of paying New York state customers by a legal thread, the high-profile operations are coming under scrutiny in the Central time zone, with the Illinois attorney general opining that DFS sites constitute illegal gambling under state law.

    Illinois AG Lisa Madigan provided this opinion today [PDF] in response to a query from two state legislators.

    The relevant state law says that a person is gambling when, among other things, he or she “knowingly plays a game of chance or skill for money or other thing of value… knowingly makes a wager upon the result of any game… knowingly sells pools upon the result of any game or contest of skill or chance… or knowingly establishes, maintains, or operates an Internet site that permits a person to play a game of chance or skill for money or other thing of value by means of the Internet or to make a wager upon the result of any game, contest, political nomination, appointment, or election by means of the Internet.”

    Madigan contends that the language and intent of this law is “straightforward and unequivocal. It clearly declares that all games of chance or skill, when played for money, are illegal gambling in Illinois.”

    While the federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act includes a carve-out specifically for fantasy sports because it holds them up as a game of skill, Madigan notes that the UIGEA also allows for states to have more restrictive definitions of gambling, which is why DFS sites are currently not operating in a number of states, like Washington, Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Nevada, and Montana.

    Furthermore, Madigan says it is “immaterial” to the state of Illinois whether DraftKings and FanDuel are games of skill or chance because the state law “expressly encompasses both.”

    The state law does include a number of exceptions to this rule — including one that exempts a contest from being considered gambling if it “Offers of prizes, award or compensation to the actual contestants in any bona fide contest for the determination of skill, speed, strength or endurance or to the owners of animals or vehicles entered in such contest.”

    But Madigan argues that DFS sites do not qualify for this exception because it requires “compensation to the actual contestants” or to the “owners of animals or vehicles” in such contests. And the actual contestants, according to the AG, would be the athletes upon whom DFS players are building their teams.

    Per the AG’s reading of this exception, it applies to “only those who actually engage in a bona fide contest for the determination of skill, speed, strength, or endurance, and not a daily fantasy sports contest participant who pays a fee to build a ‘team’ and who may win a prize based on the statistical performance of particular athletes.”

    She contends that paying an entry fee to enter a contest based on the performance of other people is no different than “persons who wager on the outcome of any sporting event in which they are not participants.”

    It’s worth noting that Madigan’s opinion, while important, is not the same as the cease-and-desist declaration issued earlier this year by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, which was an active attempt to stop the sites from operating in that state.

    Madigan could move to block DFS sites in Illinois, though she notes that there is legislation pending in the statehouse that would specifically exempt these sites from the state’s anti-gambling laws.

    Coming into the current NFL season, DraftKings and FanDuel each made incredibly lucrative deals with broadcasters, investors, and professional sports leagues. Both sites inundated the TV airwaves with commercials and in-show segment sponsorships. The final season of FXX show The League included an entire running subplot about one of the main characters playing (and winning money) from DraftKings.

    Several states are reportedly looking into the legality of DFS. Nevada was first out of the gate this fall, concluding that DraftKings and FanDuel are effectively unregulated sports gambling operations. Then came the New York showdown.

    In November, Massachusetts (home state of DraftKings) Attorney General Maura Healey proposed a new set of regulations that would keep the sites operating there, but with additional restrictions on age of users, and requirements for transparency about the expertise level of the small number of pro DFS players who win the overwhelming majority of the large prize payouts.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uWilliams-Sonoma Wasn’t Really Running A ‘Buy One Knife, Get 99 Free’ Saler


4 4 4 9
  • Some of our readers experience a modern moral dilemma: they order an item online, and multiple duplicates of that item appear on their doorstep. The retailer makes no attempt to collect the extra items, and sometimes doesn’t want to bother with getting them back. Two of our readers have experienced this recently: one changed a TV order and received an extra by mistake, and the other ordered knife and received 99 extra. That is not a typo.

    100_knives

    We aren’t talking about flimsy dollar-store knives here, either. The one knife that reader Chris ordered was a really nice Wusthof paring knife from Williams-Sonoma, which retails for about $40. Paring knives are small, though, which is why he was surprised to receive a large and heavy box. The company had shipped him a case containing 100 knives instead of a box with only one.

    You are allowed to just not tell the company when they’ve made a shipping mistake and keep the merchandise, the Federal Trade Commission tells us, but you need to turn to your own moral compass. Sometimes the company tells you to keep the merchandise anyway, as our readers who received cases of iPads learned. Sometimes they send you a shipping label, and you have an opportunity to be honest.

    “I don’t want someone at the retailer get in trouble and I don’t think I need 100 knives,” Chris wrote, “but if they are mine they could make nice gifts to friends and family.” Depending on the size of your circle of friends and family, that could be more knives than any household could ever need.

    We interceded, talking to customer service and Williams-Sonoma and referring them to Chris. They do want the knives back, so bad luck for his loved ones who were expecting knife bouquets.

    Cam’s problem is less hilarious, but was a moral dilemma all the same. He ordered a 48″ TV from Best Buy during Black Friday Weekend, then changed the order to a different 50″ model. He sent the 48″ one back, and went on to live in large-TV bliss. Then another 48″ TV appeared on his doorstep. He wasn’t charged for it. This was another moral dilemma.

    Having read our previous coverage, he knew that he could keep it. We contacted Best Buy without revealing his identity, and they said that it was one of multiple accidental shipments to customers over Black Friday weekend, and they’d be sending a label over to send it back. Our readers don’t get free stuff, but their moral dilemmas are solved.



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uTSA Updates Screening Procedure, Will Mandate Some Passengers Use Full-Body Scannersr


4 4 4 9
  • (frankieleon)

    Going through airport security is about to get a bit different for some passengers: the Transportation Security Administration can now require some travelers to go through body scanners even if the person asks to get a full-body pat-down instead.

    The TSA announced the mandated screening change [PDF] Wednesday morning, noting that the new system would be “warranted by security considerations in order to safeguard transportation security.”

    Currently, passengers undergoing screening can decline using the body scanners, known as Advanced Imaging Technologies, or AIT, in favor of full-body pat-downs by TSA agents. Under the new mandate, not everyone can opt for the pat-down procedure.

    According to the TSA’s update, the new policy was created to safeguard airline security during heightened terrorism concerns.

    “Given the implementation of Automatic Target Recognition (ATR, the process of identifying the location of an object) and the mitigation of privacy issues associated with the individual image generated by previous versions of the AIT not using ATR, and the need to respond to potential security treats, TSA will nonetheless mandate AIT screening for some passengers as warranted by security considerations.”

    The TSA reiterated on Twitter that the use of body-scanning technology “improves threat detection capabilities for both metallic and nonmetallic threat objects.”

    The TSA reminded passengers on Wednesday that AIT scanners don’t store images or any personally identifiable information, CNN reports.

    [via CNN]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uKmart Loses Two Customers’ Layaway Orders, Shrugsr


4 4 4 9
  • (eric731)
    You might remember Kmart’s layaway fiasco of last year, when the company canceled layaway contracts out from under customers the week before Christmas, giving an outrageously long timeline for when those customers could expect refunds. A repeat of that disaster would be disastrous for Kmart’s layaway business, but it looks like something similar only happened on a micro-scale this year, affecting a few customers in North Carolina.

    Two customers described how they did their Christmas shopping early, putting everything on layaway so they could pay the balance over time and keep the gifts hidden from their kids. “Here it is the week of Christmas and I basically have to start all over,” one of the customers told TV station WNCN.

    She stopped by Kmart before leaving town and learned that the company had somehow lost most of her layaway order. How do you lose things that are specifically put aside for one customer? Eight of the twelve gifts she had purchased for her daughter were missing.

    Another customer paid off her layaway account, then received an e-mail from Kmart saying that the whole transaction had been canceled. One item wasn’t in stock, she said, which led to the cancellation of the entire layaway order. Her local store couldn’t find the rest of her order, but the “missing” item wasn’t even out of stock in that store.

    “Bath Time Elmo was out of stock so they canceled the entire layaway,” she told WNCN. “I go to the store, and find six Elmos on the shelf.” They gave her a refund, and a $15 gift card as an apology.

    Kmart said in a statement that they offered both customers small gift cards to make up for the inconvenience, and refunded both of their orders. After the TV station became involved, the retailer offered the first customer a $60 gift card for the inconvenience.

    We haven’t heard of this happening in any other stores this year, but if it happens to you or you hear about it on your local news, let us know.

    2 Raleigh moms left scrambling after KMart cancels their layaway [WNCN]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uGood News: Malls Where Rich People Shop Aren’t Deadr


4 4 4 9
  • (Nicholas Eckhart)
    We’ve shared a lot of stories about dead and dying malls, and we wouldn’t blame you if you thought that the American mall is an endangered creature. Only it isn’t: high-end malls are doing just great. It’s malls in middle-class communities geared to middle-income customers that are suffering from high vacancy rates and failing tenants.

    You’ve probably seen this in action in the area where you live: there are probably multiple sad malls on life support in less affluent areas. (One in my city became self-aware and still has a Facebook page, years after being demolished.)

    Then there’s that one mall in the wealthy part of town. You know, the one with the Nordstrom, the designer purse stores in the middle, and the Tesla store. Keep your own city in mind when looking at these numbers: Bloomberg Businessweek shared research from Green Street Advisors showing that there are around 270 malls with “A” ratings––that’s the fancy mall in your city. There are about 700 malls with lesser grades, which range from malls past their prime to malls on life support with only a few stores remaining.

    Why is that? Shouldn’t malls for average Americans be booming, while the rich can tap their Apple Watch a few times to order a pair of artfully distressed jeans for $300. Middle-class malls may be disappearing with the middle class itself.

    Two malls in Atlanta serve as an example: the Lenox Square has a Cheesecake Factory, a Neiman Marcus, and a Bloomingdale’s, with Microsoft, Apple, and Tesla stores inside. Stores that sell electronics and cars boosts a mall’s average sales per square foot, which in turn makes the mall more appealing to retailers.

    Only eight miles away is a C-grade mall, Northlake, which offers a Macy’s, a JCPenney, and a Sears, along with other lesser-name anchors. There aren’t any destination restaurants or stores selling MacBooks or cars. Its anchors are all chains that have been closing stores as people shop less at department stores in general.

    These Malls Didn't Get the Memo They're Dying [Bloomberg Gadfly]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist