uVW Expands “Goodwill Package” To Include 3-Liter Vehicles That Evade Emissions Standardsr

4 4 4 9

• 

  Back in November, Volkswagen announced a “goodwill package” of cash and credit intended to placate some owners of supposed “clean diesel” cars that were rigged to cheat emissions tests. Now the company is expanding this offer to include owners of 3-liter diesel cars from VW, Audi, and Porsche.

  Consumerist reader Rob brought the recent expansion of the goodwill package to our attention after his wife received the offer from VW in an email.

  “In December, my wife went to [VW’s] website and signed up to be notified of any developments,” Rob, who owns a 2011 VW Touareg, writes in an email. “Yesterday, we got an offer in the email that sounds about the same as the one they made to owners of the [3-liter] diesels: $1000 split between dealer credit and a prepaid Visa loyalty card.”

  Originally, the program – which offers the payments in two ways: a $500 Visa prepaid card to be used however the customer desires, and $500 in credits toward a VW purchase and three years of free roadside assistance – applied only to certain Jetta, Jetta Sportwagen, Beetle, Beetle Convertible, Audi A3, Golf, Golf Sportwagen, and Passat vehicles.

  According to VW’s website, the company recently added goodwill package eligibility to the owners of the 2015-2016 VW Touareg, the 2014-2016 Porsche Cayenne, and the 2015-2016 Audi A6 Quattro, A7 Quattro, A8, A8L, and Q5.

  The carmaker admitted in November that those vehicles also included a “sophisticated software algorithm” programmed to detect when the car is undergoing official emissions testing, and to only turn on full emissions control systems – the temperature conditioning mode – during that testing.

  While Rob tells Consumerist he’s glad the additional vehicles were added to the goodwill package, he would have liked to have been offered a package that takes into account that the Touareg and others are larger vehicles than those first eligible under the goodwill package.

  We reached out to VW about whether or not the company considered creating a goodwill package that reflects the cost of the additional vehicles. We’ll update this post when we hear back.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uMarket Research Firm: Cadbury Creme Egg Sales Down £6 Million After Recipe Change Outside Of U.S.r

4 4 4 9

• 
  At this time last year, the rest of the world was freaking out over the prospect of a change to the recipe of Cadbury Creme Eggs. Here in the United States, we were safe from the recipe change, with our Hershey’s-licensed creme eggs remaining as inferior as they’ve ever been. However, researchers speculate that the recipe change cost Cadbury £6 million ($8.6 million) in lost sales.

  The Easter candy season is apparently just now kicking off in the United Kingdom, since they don’t start putting out Easter candy in mid-December like Americans do. This news doesn’t come from Cadbury itself, but an outside market research firm, IRI, which looked into the egg situation on behalf of a grocery trade group.

  Their research found that Cadbury’s Easter candy lines sold about £10 million less than would have been expected, putting most of the blame on the Creme Egg change.

  Cadbury, for its part, insists that they never sold Creme Eggs in a shell of Cadbury’s Dairy Milk chocolate, and that all of this fuss over a recipe change is fuss over nothing. “The fundamentals of the Cadbury Creme Egg remain exactly the same as the original in 1971 recipe with delicious Cadbury chocolate and a unique gooey creme filling,” a spokesperson told The Telegraph.

  Sure, this news doesn’t affect us directly, but it’s a reminder of an important consumer fact: don’t mess with people’s cherished holiday candy memories.

  Cadbury loses more than £6m in Creme Egg sales after changing recipe [The Telegraph]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uSelling “Silence Of The Lambs” Killer’s House Not As Easy As You’d Thinkr

4 4 4 9

• As we saw with the prolonged attempt to sell Cameron’s house from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, having your property featured in a famous movie is no guarantee that it will be snatched up at a good price. Just ask the owners of the Pennsylvania home used in the Oscar-winning horror film Silence of the Lambs.

  Director Jonathan Demme used the quaint home on the outskirts of tiny Perryopolis, PA, to film some of the movie’s final standoff, where [spoiler alert for those who have somehow managed to not see this movie, or have it spoiled, at some point in the last 25 years] Jodie Foster’s FBI agent-in-training Clarice Starling unwittingly stumbles across murderer Jame “Buffalo Bill” Gumb, played by Ted Levine.

  While the tense early part of the sequence was indeed filmed inside the home’s entryway and kitchen, the subsequent chase through its basement was not. Which is a way of saying that this house does not contain a sub-basement starvation pit where a buyer could prep a victim before her eventual flaying.

  Perhaps that’s why the home has had difficulty attracting an interested buyer since it went on sale last year. The homeowners, who have owned the house for 40 years, tell the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that they have received a lot of calls from curious fans of the 1991 movie that won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director, along with one for its screenplay.

  The home was originally listed for $300,000, but it’s recently been dropped to $250,000. Even so, that may be a high price for a one-bathroom house in remote western Pennsylvania, an hour away from Pittsburgh.

  A look through real estate sites for this area shows other homes going for significantly less than even the reduced asking price for the (in)famous film set.

  However, the homeowners say that bona fide potential buyers are starting to show interest.

  “We got the message out to the curious, but not to the people who are interested in actually buying,” the husband tells the Tribune-Review. “We’re finally starting to get a little bit of motion.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uCouple Says Uber Driver Left Woman Stranded On NYC Sidewalk While She Was In Labor, Still Charged Her $13r

4 4 4 9

• 
  If there’s one time in your life when you could really use a lift somewhere, it’s got to be when you’re preparing to birth a human being. But can an Uber driver who may be adverse to transporting a person in labor just leave you hanging? That’s what happened to one couple in New York City, who say that after the pregnant woman vomited on the sidewalk, their driver refused to give them a ride to the hospital… and charged $13 for the privilege of being stranded.

  The family is still peeved over the November incident, when the first-time parents were all ready to make the three-mile trip to the hospital after the woman went into labor, reports Fortune. The Uber driver arrived just in time to see the woman loose her cookies on the pavement. He told them he’d lose money if she became sick in the car, and said no other driver would accept a woman in labor as a passenger either. He left, despite the couple’s pleas, and charged them $13 for his lost time.

  Uber eventually refunded the $13 after the couple complained, but the husband says he’s frustrated that the company initially wouldn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing by Uber or by the driver. He says that he asked Uber for more informaiton on the driver so he could pursue a complaint with NYC’s taxi regulator, and that a customer service rep refused (that info can be found in your emailed receipt, however).

  Though the couple were able to hail another Uber and make it to the hospital in time and safely, the situation shouldn’t have happened in the first place: Uber frowns on the practice as a matter of policy, and New York city and state laws prohibit it.

  An Uber spokesperson told Fortune that denying service to a passenger in labor is “unacceptable.”

  “It goes against our code of conduct and the standard of service our riders rely on. We extend our deepest apologies to both riders and have taken action to respond to this complaint. We are glad that the rider’s next driver was professional and courteous,” the rep said, adding that whenever a rider reports discrimination, the company will investigate and, when warranted, remove that driver from its platform.

  According to Emily Martin, general counsel of the National Women’s Law Center, it’s against the law in New York to discriminate against passengers in such a condition.

  “Uber drivers are bound by the same public accommodation laws that prohibit New York City taxi drivers and car services from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy when deciding who they will pick up—and those laws are a good thing, as they help ensure that not many babies end up being born on New York City sidewalks,” Martin told Fortune.

  The family is still upset over the situation — though the husband says he’s not blaming the company for one driver’s actions — but says Uber should have done more to address the situation.

  “Uber should have clarified their policies on drivers and women in labor, and confirmed that the driver received appropriate disciplinary action,” he told Fortune. “I’m fortunate enough to know my rights and have access to resources, but I feel for the person who is not as lucky.”

  Uber Driver Refuses To Pick Up Woman in Labor, Charges Her $13 [Fortune]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uCarmakers, Regulators To Announce Agreement To Improve Vehicle Safetyr

4 4 4 9

• 

  Federal regulators and automakers from around the world are set to announce an agreement on Friday to reform and improve auto safety following a year of record fines and safety recalls. 

  Reuters reports that the agreement, which will be unveiled at the Detroit auto show, is intended to spur a culture change within the auto industry.

  Automakers taking part in the agreement, which has been in discussions for several weeks, include General Motors, Toyota, Ford, Diamler AG, Fiat Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Nissan, and Hyundai.

  According to sources briefed on the matter, among other things, the agreement would improve vehicle cyber security and the use of early warning data to detect potential defects that could lead to large-scale recalls. Additionally, the agreement would create government-industry task forces that would work long term to improve auto safety.

  In a letter to NHTSA last week, automakers said that support for the agreement “reaffirms our shared commitment to safety, and signals to the public the areas in which government and industry intend to collaborate to further improve automotive safety.”

  Still NHTSA administrator Mark Rosekind tells Reuters that the agency won’t hesitate to aggressively enforce rules and fine automakers that fail to follow mandates in the future.

  While the agreement showcases growing collaboration between automakers and regulators, it falls short of meeting safety advocates call for binding legal requirements to toughen safety rules.

  In fact, Rosekind tells Reuters that the new agreement isn’t enforceable, but that it does meet the agency’s mission to find new tools to make sure vehicles are safe.

  Exclusive: U.S., major automakers to announce safety accord Friday – sources [Reuters]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uGeneral Mills Sues Chobani For Advertising That Yoplait Contains “Bug Spray”r

4 4 4 9

• If you’re going to casually advertise that your competitor’s product contains an insecticide, you should probably expect to get sued. Just ask the lawyers at General Mills, who are none to happy about Chobani ads claiming that Yoplait’s competing yogurt contains a product used to “kill bugs.”
  

  General Mills, which owns the Yoplait yogurt brand, filed the suit [PDF] Sunday in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, accusing Chobani of false advertising.

  The ad campaign, which debuted Jan. 6, includes TV commercials, print advertisements in major newspapers, coupons, and a presence at fitness gyms that target other yogurt brands with similar 100-calorie options, including Yoplait and Dannon.

  In the ad, Chobani notes that the Yoplait Greek-style yogurt contains the commonly used preservative potassium sorbate. But then the ads goes on to imply that this ingredient is actually a pesticide, saying it is “used to kill bugs.”

  “The television commercial that leads the Chobani attack campaign goes so far to convey that, because Yoplait Greek 100 is laced with a pesticide, it is so dangerous and unfit to eat that consumers should discard it as garbage,” the suit states.

  The TV spot prominently displays Yoplait Greek 100, with a woman examining the package. At this point a voiceover states, “Yoplait Greek 100 actually uses preservatives like potassium sorbate.”

  The narration then continues, “Really?! That stuff is used to kill bugs!” During this exchange, the woman’s face is pinched in a look of disgust as she further examines the Yoplait container; she then flings the container into the garbage.

  General Mills contends that Chobani falsely claims that Yoplait is “toxic” because it contains potassium sorbate, a fungicide-like preservative that prevents yeast and mold growth.

  “General Mills is informed and believes that there is no scientific evidence that potassium sorbate is effective against insects,” the company said in the suit, noting that potassium sorbate is considered safe by multiple federal agencies, according to the lawsuit.

  The suit also takes issue with Chobani’s print and website advertisements for its 100-calorie yogurt. The print ads include references to “bad stuff” — preservatives — in General Mill’s Yoplait yogurt, while the Chobani website allegedly “falsely communicates that the potassium sorbate should be considered a ‘pesticide’ by consumers.”

  General Mills claims in the suit that it has spent more than $900 million in marketing and advertising for its Yoplait products in the past five years and that Chobani’s campaign could do irreversible damage to the brand.

  “The offending ads are therefore both literally false by necessary implication and highly misleading,” the suit states. “Unless Chobani is immediately enjoined, the Chobani Attack Campaign will irreparably harm General Mills and the goodwill it has developed over several years.”

  General Mills’ lawsuit comes less than a week after Dannon threatened to sue the company over claims that its Light & Fit product contains sucralose, an artificial sweetener processed with “added chlorine,” the Star Tribune reports.

  Before Dannon could head to court, Chobani sued the company in New York federal court asking for a declaration that its claims don’t constitute false and deceptive advertising. Dannon promptly countersued.

  Peter McGuinness, Chobani’s chief marketing and brand officer, told the Star Tribune in a statement on Monday that he wasn’t surprised by the General Mills or Dannon lawsuits.

  “I’m disappointed that Dannon and General Mills are focused on stopping people from having the facts about artificial sweeteners and artificial preservatives,” he said. “This campaign is about giving people truthful and accurate information so they can make more informed decisions about the food they buy.”

  [via Star Tribune]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uPapa John’s Is Eliminating All Artificial Flavors, Synthetic Colors From Its Menur

4 4 4 9

• 
  Now that the anti-everything-artificial train has left the station, it is showing no signs of stopping: Papa John’s says it’s the first pizza chain to eliminate all artificial flavors and synthetic colors from its entire menu.

  The announcement comes a few weeks after the chain promised to go antibiotic-free for its chicken toppings and poppers. Unlike removing antibiotics from food, however, eliminating artificial ingredients is more about appealing to consumers’ changing preferences than it is about health.

  The change will apply to all pizza ingredients, pizza toppings, dessert items, and sauce selections, Papa John’s said in a statement Tuesday.

  “We closed out 2015 announcing our commitment to serve chicken raised without antibiotics and are ringing in the New Year artificial-flavor and synthetic-color free,” said Sean Muldoon, Papa John’s Senior Vice President of Research and Development. “We’re so proud to be able to show our customers how much we care about what they’re eating. This exemplifies Papa John’s continued efforts to deliver high-quality products. It’s the right thing to do.”

  The company says the elimination of artificial flavors and synthetic colors is effective as of now, while chicken toppings and poppers will be antibiotic-free by the summer.

  Papa John’s is just the latest food company to hop on the anti-artificial train: Panera just announced it’s removed all artificial ingredients from its entire soup menu; Pepsi is planning an organic Gatorade; Hershey is ditching artificial flavors from some chocolate products; Campbell’s changed its chicken noodle soup recipe to do away with artificial flavors; and Schwan is eliminating artificial flavors and ingredients by 2017, just to name a few.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist