uClerk Sells Wrong Lottery Ticket, Customer Wins $381K In Powerballr

4 4 4 9

• 
  Many years ago, I had a job that included selling lottery tickets. Sometimes I’d make a mistake, maybe printing out a quick-pick when the customer wanted to dictate numbers to me, or printing off a Win 4 ticket instead of a Take Five. “That’s okay,” some customers would say. “Maybe it was a lucky mistake. I’ll buy that one.” This never translated to big payouts for my customers, but won a convenience store customer in California $380,774.

  How does that happen? The winner, a regular customer at a 7-Eleven store, asked for two tickets for the multi-state Mega Millions drawing. Instead, the store clerk explained to the Los Angeles Times that he pressed the wrong button and printed off a single $2 ticket for another multi-state lottery game, Powerball. The customer graciously declared the incorrect ticket to be a lucky one, and bought it instead. It turned out to have every number except the titular Powerball, winning him the second prize in that lottery.

  The winner told lottery officials that he plans to build an addition to his house with the money. He has continued to stop by the 7-Eleven store where he purchased the winning ticket to buy his daily tickets.

  Regular customer at Burbank 7-Eleven wins $380K after clerk accidentally sells him winning lotto ticket [LA Times]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uMacy’s Stores Will Open At 6 P.M. On Thanksgiving Dayr

4 4 4 9

• 
  If you were worried that you might have to spend all of Thanksgiving Day at home and not inside a Macy’s store, there’s no need to worry. The department store chain will open on Brown Thursday at 6 P.M., allowing employees some of the holiday with their families if they choose to or are asked to work.

  The first year that Macy’s stores that aren’t the end point of a parade route opened on Thanksgiving Day was 2013, and the stores opened their doors at 8 P.M. and stayed open for 24 hours straight. In 2014, they moved the opening back two hours. This year, at least they aren’t moving the opening time back to 4 P.M., so that’s something.

  Macy’s opening on Thanksgiving Day, again [Fortune]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uSenators Say They Will Try To Reverse Robocall Exemption For Federal Debt Collectorsr

4 4 4 9

• 
  Right now, the U.S. Senate is going through process of discussing the bipartisan budget proposal intended to prevent another federal shutdown. It’s a bill that, by most accounts, is destined to pass without removal of a provision that gives the federal government — and only the federal government — the permission to place unwanted, automated robocalls for the purposes of debt collection without the recipient’s permission. But some lawmakers are pledging to do something after the budget bill has passed.

  First, Sen. Ron Wyden from Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee came out swinging against the clause.

  “Debt collectors should not be gifted broad permission to harass people, particularly through robocalls, running up costly charges in many cases,” said the senator on Thursday morning.

  While some lawmakers appear to have conceded that the best they could do now is ask the FCC — which will have nine months to come up with the rules for these robocalls — to draft sensible, pro-consumer regulations, Wyden contends that “FCC limits on the number and duration of calls are not sufficient.”

  At the same time, he acknowledges that the current budget battle seems to require approving the bill as is, then doing something about it later.

  “In a healthier budget process, this kind of proposal would get weeded out,” explains Wyden. “So I’ll be working with my colleagues to reverse this action in the weeks ahead.”

  We’ve asked the senator’s office to clarify what form that reversal might take, but have not yet heard back.

  Then shortly after 5 p.m. today, Sen. Ed Markey from Massachusetts was more explicit about his post-budget plans to combat robocalls.

  The budget compromise “comes at a price,” said Markey. “More unwanted calls and texts to Americans.”

  He noted that the robocall exemption for the entire federal government “makes it easier to harass consumers on their mobile phones… That is wrong; Just plain wrong.”

  In response, Markey says he intends to introduce legislation shortly after the budget bill passes that will roll back the robocall provision.

  The senator hopes to have the legislation expedited, but that may not be so easy in the current pre-election atmosphere in D.C.

  Our colleagues at Consumers Union have already gathered more than 40,000 e-mails from Americans who wanted to voice their concerns directly to their legislators. Click here for more information. Even though it may be too late to alter the budget bill, consumers can still let their voice be heard on Capitol Hill.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uMan Will Pay Dentist Bill With 45 Years’ Worth Of Penniesr

4 4 4 9

• 
  A 73-year-old man in Louisiana did not originally start saving all of his pennies as a fun personal finance hack. He says that he began the habit 45 years ago as a reminder to pray every day. His collection grew with the help of a friend who had a similar collection of nickels and by simply holding on to every penny that passed through his hands.

  “There have been days where I failed to pray and more often than not, a lost or dropped penny would show up to remind me,” he told the News-Star. From there, he tried to get a few pennies with every store transaction, and they added up after 45 years.

  Bank employees split the plastic jugs open and poured them into a coin-counting machine, and since the machine’s bags only hold $50 worth of pennies, they had to be changed quite often.

  The total came to more than half a million coins, stored in plastic jugs. He finally decided to give up the collection because his homeowner’s insurance wouldn’t cover it: it would take a very determined thief to run off with his penny hoard, but a fire or natural disaster could destroy them, taking the total value of the collection with it.

  He plans to put the $5,136.14 toward his dental bills, but didn’t say whether he plans to start hoarding any type of coin over again. Cashing them in annually is fun and doesn’t take five hours: maybe he could try that from here out.

  Louisiana man cashes in life savings in pennies [News-Star]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uVirginia Artist Accuses Target Of Ripping Off Designs For Cellphone Coversr

4 4 4 9

• 

  They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but that’s not how one Virginia artist sees it. At least not in the case of cellphone covers she says Target and one of its suppliers copied from her designs. 

  The woman, who has created and sold original cellphone covers online since 2013, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court this week accusing Target and supplier Weihai Luda Craft Co. of copyright, vicarious and contributory infringement.

  According to the lawsuit [PDF], the artist specializes in creating cellphone covers decorated with specifically chosen flowers and plants in original arrangements.

  Two of those designs, titled “Lemon and Honey” and “Morning Dew,” have been available for purchase through the artist’s website since August 2013. She applied for copyrights to the designs in April and May of 2015.

  

  She claims in the lawsuit that she recently discovered a Target store located in Washington selling unauthorized copies of these two designs under the Target-owned Merona brand. After searching other stores, she found the cellphone covers for sale in Virginia stores and online.

  “The floral mobile telephone covers sold by Target are substantially similar and infringing copies of [the artist’s] works ‘Lemon and Honey’ and ‘Morning Dew,'” the lawsuit states. “Both Target and Weihai knew or should have known that the Merona Mobile telephone covers are unauthorized copies [of the woman’s] works.”

  Through the lawsuit, the woman seeks $300,000 in damages, an injunction to stop Target from selling the covers, and attorney fees.

  [via The Virginian-Pilot]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uFertility Service Threatens Customer With Multimillion-Dollar Lawsuit For Complaining To Better Business Bureaur

4 4 4 9

• 
  A New Jersey woman who thought she’d been cheated out of several thousand dollars by a service that connects prospective parents with willing egg donors did something that a lot of ticked-off consumers do: She filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau — not knowing that the company would then threaten her with a massive legal action for daring to speak her mind.

  Here’s the background, according to Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen.

  The customer found what she’d believed was the ideal donor in the company’s online database, and so she sent them a sizable check for their fee. After receiving payment, the company then said that the selected donor had backed out.

  Since the customer couldn’t get the donated eggs she’d paid for, she requested a refund, but the company only offered to allow her to select from another donor in their database.

  Feeling like she was being taken for a ride, the woman filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.

  Now, contrary to what some believe, the BBB has no actual authority and companies are not legally required to respond or take action to complaints. But while some companies might completely ignore this sort of filing, the fertility service went ballistic.

  “You directly violated our legal agreement by attempting to post an online review,” reads a letter to the customer. “As such, we are setting the plans in motion for a multi-million dollar defamation case against you…. unless you withdraw your unwarranted BBB complaint or any illegal online reviews, we will proceed at lightening [sic] speed in a defamation case against you to minimize as much damage as possible. We have your signed legal agreement clearly stating you will NOT post online reviews.”

  Granted, the customer’s written agreement [PDF] with the service does state that customers “agree NOT [caps in original] post any online reviews anywhere on the Internet without first presenting it” for legal review to the fertility service.

  As Levy notes, the response from the fertility service gives no indication as to what the company believes is false or defamatory about the BBB filing.

  But this clause in the service’s contract isn’t meant to apply to only negative or false reviews; it also covers positive reviews.

  “Even good reviews can be misconstrued and hurt potential business,” reads the agreement, which also includes a barely veiled warning against trying to post something anonymously. “There are truly no anonymous reviews because web sites that post them, if they receive a complaint, will be required to show the real identity of the poster and with a court order will be forced to remove the post until the facts are revealed.”

  Except… that’s not really true. Getting a court order to remove the post before the “facts are revealed,” would be an example of prior restraint. And as Walter Sobchak has previously, if loudly, pointed out, the U.S. Supreme Court has not exactly been a fan of prior restraint.

  There were more clumsy contradictions in the fertility service’s customer agreement and its letters to this unhappy customer.

  The first notice threatened a “multi-million dollar defamation case” against the woman. But per the agreement, any disputes that can’t be resolved through mediation must go into binding arbitration, and that the customer’s contract is “governed and interpreted by California jurisdiction,” meaning the arbitration would need to take place in California.

  Thing is, California outlawed these sorts of anti-disparagement clauses in 2014, meaning the clause can’t be enforced.

  Earlier this month, Levy wrote [PDF] to the fertility service on behalf of the customer, explaining the various legal problems with their threats of expensive litigation. He also stated the customer was fine with having her BBB filing “reviewed” by the fertility service’s legal team.

  Subsequent responses from the company revealed that it had no intention of providing a lawyer to do this review, and it had still not explained what was defamatory about the customer’s statement.

  As Levy notes, companies don’t need non-disparagement clauses to protect them from defamation. That’s why slander and libel laws exist.

  Companies only use these sort of bullying tactics as a way to chill any speech about their products and services.

  In April, members of Congress tried once again to introduce federal legislation that would outlaw non-disparagement clauses nationwide, but even though this version of the bill was sponsored by powerful California Representative Darrell Issa, it has been sitting untouched in committee since being introduced in April.

  More recently, a Senate version of this legislation was introduced by Sen. John Thune of South Dakota. GovTrack gives this one a slightly better — but still slim — chance of being enacted.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uGroup Must Pay $700K Penalty For Allegedly Profiting From ‘Charity’ Donation Binsr

4 4 4 9

• 
  How do you turn a charitable donation into a scam? Take the donated item and sell it for a profit, instead of giving it to the needy. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said his office has reached a settlement with a for-profit company accused of doing just that, by way of more than 1,100 clothing donation bins scattered throughout the New York City area.

  According to Schneiderman’s office, Thrift Land USA allegedly set itself up as a charitable outfit, using logos for Big Brothers Big Sisters of Rockland County and I Love Our Youth to “trick and mislead the public into believing that the clothing it collected would benefit the charity whose name and logo appeared on its bins.”

  Instead, Thrift Land turned around and sold the clothing at “huge profit” and the charities featured on the bins only got a small, monthly fee for use of their name and logo.

  As part of the settlement resolving the above allegations, Thrift Land has agreed to pay $50,000 in penalties and costs, and will give $650,000 to two not-for-profit organizations “so that the charitable intent of the people who placed clothing in its bins will be fulfilled,” Schneiderman’s office said.

  It will also be required to attach a prominent disclosure label on all of its bins, nothing that none of the clothing people put in will benefit a charity, reading: “This is not a charity. Donated items deposited here will NOT support any charity and are not charitable donations, but will be sold for profit.”

  Schneiderman’s investigation also found that Thrift Land engaged in false advertising with mailings and its website, both which misled the public to believe that proceeds from the sale of used clothing would go toward helping the two charitable groups.

  On top of all of the above, Schneiderman’s office found that Thrift Land deceived people who scheduled home pickups of used clothing by answering the phone using the name I Love Our Youth, and “falsely led people who arranged for home pickup to believe that their donations were tax deductible.”

  I Love Our Youth will also pay $50,000 to settle claims that it continued to let Thrift Land use its name to reap rewards from the scheme, even after the charity’s state registration and federal tax exempt status had been revoked. The chairman of the group has also agreed to dissolve it.

  Big Brother Big Sisters of Rockland County has agreed to keep a closer eye on any charitable solicitations or advertisements in its name to resolve allegations that it had failed to oversee what Thrift Land was doing with its name and logo.

  “Duping members of the public into thinking that they are making a charitable donation, when in fact they are enriching a for-profit corporation, is both deceptive and illegal,” said Attorney General Schneiderman. “When a for-profit company masquerades as a charity, my office will hold it and its owners accountable.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist