четверг, 30 июля 2015 г.

uTexas Attorney General Says RadioShack Knowingly Sold Gift Cards That Would Soon Expirer


4 4 4 9
  • (JeepersMedia)

    (JeepersMedia)

    If the leadership of a company knows that they’re about to file for bankruptcy, should they stop selling gift cards? That’s what the Attorney General in Texas contends: that RadioShack knew after the 2014 holiday season ended that it would be declaring bankruptcy soon, and that gift cards they had issued would lose their value at the time of the bankruptcy or shortly afterward. Yet they sold ’em anyway.

    The AG says that 16,700 gift cards were sold between January 1 and the Shack’s bankruptcy filing. In their June lawsuit, which this count has been added to, they declared it unfair that customers with gift card balances would have to file claims and get in the metaphorical line behind the company’s creditors in the bankruptcy proceedings to get any money back at all.

    The smoldering remains of Radioshack, or RS Legacy Corp as it’s now known, have now been charged by the Texas AG of violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by selling gift cards that it knew wouldn’t be valid for very long.

    RadioShack says that it doesn’t know how to find the holders of outstanding gift cards, but the AG’s office thinks that’s a whole bunch of nonsense: many of those cards were given as promotional items with a purchase, or purchased by people who were already registered in RadioShack’s customer-tracking system.

    The Defendants have informed Texas that they do not know who the holders of unredeemed gift cards are. However, Texas respectfully contends that such an assertion must be viewed with some skepticism in light of the fact that the Defendants maintain extensive data regarding their customers’ purchases. The Defendants likely know the names, mailing addresses, and email addresses of at least some of the purchasers if not the holders.

    If gift card numbers are part of the transaction records, then that could be cross-referenced with the list of gift cards with outstanding balances. Right?

    Amended Complaint Re: Gift Cards [Texas State Attorney General]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uFDA Warns About Mixups Between Drugs With Similar Namesr


4 4 4 9
  • (Scoboco)

    (Scoboco)

    Here’s a scary thought: dangerous medication mixups could begin at your doctor’s office. The FDA put out a warning today that they’ve received reports of mixups between similarly-named drugs that do very different things. The FDA urges patients and caregivers to know what the drug they’re supposed to be taking looks like, and alert medical providers if the drug that they receive looks different.

    The most prominent example that the FDA cited are the drugs Brintellix and Brilinta. Both are relatively new, and dispensed under their very similar brand names. Brintellix is an antidepressant, and Brilinta is a blood thinner. The FDA knows of 50 incidents where one drug has been dispensed instead of the other, but none yet where a patient has been harmed.

    Some mixups occurred when pharmacists made an error, confusing the two drugs. Some others began back in the doctor’s office, when a provider went to type an e-prescription into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system. When a physician types “BRI” in to the system, both drugs pop up; all he or she needs to do is pick the wrong one.

    The FDA’s advice to patients and caregivers is to know the names of the medicines you’re taking and why you’re taking them. This is important when you actually receive the medication, so you can study the bottle and any guides that the pharmacy has included. These will explain the medication, how to take it, and what conditions it’s normally taken for. If something doesn’t match up, alert the pharmacist.

    FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA warns about prescribing and dispensing errors resulting from brand name confusion with antidepressant Brintellix (vortioxetine) and antiplatelet Brilinta (ticagrelor) [FDA]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uNow Kids Can Chat With Thomas The Tank Engine, Toor


4 4 4 9
  • You might remember Hello Barbie, a wifi-enabled smart doll that lets children hold conversations with their Barbie dolls…after that speech is recorded, transmitted to product creator ToyTalk, converted to text, and the answer is sent back to Barbie. While the idea of a doll that can hold a conversation is interesting, there are a lot of other products out there that want to chat with your kids.

    The company behind the voice functions of Hello Barbie, ToyTalk, makes its own apps, which it calls “interactive storytelling.” They release an app today called “Thomas and Friends Talk to You,” which is exactly what it sounds like.

    In case you’re worried that the app is eavesdropping on your toddler and analyzing every word she says, ToyTalk made sure to explain to a reporter from Fast Company that the app, like the doll, is only listening when you press the “speak” button. One challenge with the “Thomas” app, aimed at a younger audience, was redesigning that talk button so toddlers would understand it easily.

    HOT ON HELLO BARBIE’S PLASTIC HEELS, TOYTALK NOW LETS KIDS CHAT WITH THOMAS THE TANK ENGINE [Fast Company]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uHanes Website Is The Latest, Oddest Victim Of Data Breachr


4 4 4 9
  • haneshackTo be honest, we had no idea that you could buy Hanes underwear (and socks, shirts, etc) from the Hanes website, mostly because we’d never really thought look at the Hanes website. But if you have been shopping at Hanes.com — and potentially at other sites in the Hanes Brands catalog — some of your information may have been compromised.

    A Consumerist reader forwarded us the above e-mail from HanesBrand exec David Thompson, letting customers know that the breach may have exposed personal info like name, address, phone number, along with the last 4 digits of the credit card on the account.

    The company says it has fixed the leak, but is taking questions via its customer service line at (800) 503-6681.

    We’ve reached out to Hanes to confirm this is genuine and to get an understanding of exactly which Hanes Brand sites were breached.

    The Hanes Brand umbrella includes a wide variety of apparel companies, including L’eggs, Playtex, Wonderbra, Champion, and Maidenform.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uMan With Prosthetic Leg Says He Was Told To Stay Off Water Park’s Slidesr


4 4 4 9
  • (KTXS)

    (KTXS)

    There’s perhaps nothing as refreshing in the heat of summer than splashing around in cool water. But one man said he was kept from the fun and relief a water park’s attractions can bring, after a worker told him he wasn’t allowed to go down slides because he had a prosthetic leg.

    An Abilene, TX man was at the park celebrating his 7-year-old’s birthday, and had arrived at the top of a water slide when he says the employee prevented him from going down the slide because of his prosthetic leg, reports KTXS.

    He walked back down and told a manager that he’d been visiting water parks across the state his entire life, and hadn’t had any issues before.

    “The manager said ‘I don’t make the policy at other places, and I can’t explain to you why they let you go down their slides,’” he said, quoting the manager. “’I don’t make the rules here, but I do enforce them so you can either abide by them or leave.’ ”

    After his mother posted about the experience on Facebook, a spokesman for the water park issued a statement on their prosthetic policy, and apologizing for any “embarrassment the family have suffered.”

    “Any apparatus that has metal pieces protruding from it has the legitimate potential of damaging or scratching the riding surface. The next rider will follow a very similar path and have the potential for a very painful fiberglass cut,” he said.

    But the prosthetic technician who built the man’s prosthetic leg says it shouldn’t have been a problem.

    “There’s nothing down there, in my opinion, that would hurt either a tube or a slide,” the technician told KTXS.

    The park spokesman added that upper management is “discussing a better way to handle situations such as these in the future, without creating a potential dangerous situation for subsequent riders,” noting that the park may include more specific signage at the entrance of the park and at the bottom of attractions, “to alleviate the unfortunate situation of a young guard being required to ask a disabled guest to exit a ride in front of other guests.”

    The man says he’s appreciated the outpouring of support he’s received online, and hopes that his experience will educate others.

    “I definitely feel a lot of positivity from it,” he said. “I definitely feel a lot of people uniting, and I think that’s great.”

    Abilene man with prosthetic leg kept off slides at Texas water park [KTXS]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uAllegiant Under Increased Scrutiny From Regulators After Latest Flight Disturbancer


4 4 4 9
  • After a string of in-flight disturbances and accusations from a pilot’s union of poor safety standards, the Federal Aviation Administration has stepped up its scrutiny of budget carrier Allegiant Airlines.

    The Wall Street Journal reports that the FAA’s increasingly watchful eye regarding the Las Vegas-based airline comes after an incident last week in which a flight carrying 150 passengers declared an emergency in order to land at a closed airport because it was running dangerously low on fuel.

    To make matters worse, the airline had been informed that the airport was closed to passenger jets prior to takeoff and the company’s executives – Greg Baden, its vice president of operations, and Michael Wuerger, director of flight safety – were the ones manning the aircraft.

    The July 23 incident involved a plane flying from Las Vegas to the Fargo, ND, airport, which was closed for the U.S. Navy’s Blue Angels aerobatic jets to practice. The airline says the flight was allowed to take off because dispatchers believed the FAA notice meant the airport was still open for passenger airlines.

    When the flight landed, it had just 42 minutes of fuel remaining, the WSJ reports. Regulations require aircraft to have 45 minutes more fuel than what its scheduled route should require.

    The FAA says it is gathering additional information regarding the emergency landing. The agency’s increased scrutiny comes as the airline has been under fire from pilots for sub-par safety standards.

    While the FAA and airlines don’t make the number of maintenance-related issues public, the pilot’s union – which had intended to strike earlier this summer – estimates that at least 65 incidents including aborted takeoffs and diversions occurred between September 2014 and March 2015. Another 28 incidents reportedly occurred between June 8 and July 6.

    Other recent issues included a plane diverting because of a wasp’s nest on a sensor and passengers using emergency exits to climb on a jet’s wing after landing when a fuel leak sent fumes into the cabin.

    A spokesperson for Allegiant said that the airline generally has a high number of diversions – although, he didn’t specify a number – because it doesn’t have mechanics in most cities it services.

    “That presents a unique challenge when it comes to customer service, but if anything, it’s an example of our focus on safety,” he said.

    Safety experts tell the WSJ that it makes sense federal regulators would train a more watchful eye on the airline.

    “There are a lot of questions about this one,” said air-safety consultant John Cox, a former airline pilot. “With the number of incidents this year, increased scrutiny is understandable.”

    FAA Steps Up Scrutiny of Allegiant [The Wall Street Journal]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uCompany Caught Switching Customers’ Phone Service Without Permissionr


4 4 4 9
  • So your phone company calls you and says there’s a new plan that can save your on your phone bill, or maybe to let you know that you’re being overcharged for your current service. So you go ahead and switch to the more sensible plan, only to find out weeks later that you’ve actually been switched over to a new service provider you’ve never heard of — and to a plan that costs more than your old one. This was a reality for dozens of people who complained to the FCC about a Michigan-based company that now faces a potential $2.4 million fine.

    The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau has filed a Notice of Apparent Liability against the Long Distance Consolidated Billing Company after investigating more than 70 complaints from consumers and state regulators about people who’d found their long-distance service provider had been switched to LDCB.

    A number of customers say that LDCB’s telemarketers pretended to represent the customer’s current telephone company when they made their sales pitch.

    “I received a call from a gentleman who posed as a representative of AT&T,” says one complainant. “He said that I needed to go through the phone verification process for my long distance phone service. Then, he connected me with the service to record my responses. When I did not hear AT&T in the recording, I stopped the process and was reconnected with the gentleman who had initially called me. He reassured me that, even though the name wasn’t AT&T, that it really was AT&T that was being represented, just trust him.”

    Others said they were told the caller was employed by CenturyLink, Cox, and Verizon, according to the FCC.

    This sort of trickery is a violation of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act, as the FCC contends that misrepresenting facts about a carrier’s identity to obtain a consumer’s authorization to change service constitutes an unjust and unreasonable practice.

    In addition to lying about their employer, the telemarketers for LDCB also allegedly misled consumers by providing false information about their service.

    On complainant says someone claiming to be from Verizon told him they needed to correct an error his phone bill.

    “They stated that we had an overcharge on our Verizon account of 13 cents per minute and it should be 5 cents per minute on our long distance calls,” he writes.

    Some customers who were misled into switching to LDCB with the promise of cheaper plans, only to find out they were more expensive than their previous provider, found they were unable to switch back to their older, less-expensive plans.

    “The record shows that these were not mere errors by LDCB and its agent whereby the Company mistakenly verified the carrier switch with someone who was not authorized to make the switch or the result of a miscommunication with a consumer,” reads the FCC notice. “Instead, the record establishes intentional misconduct where LDCB, through its telemarketers, pretended to call from the consumer’s own carrier.”

    The FCC said it could find no evidence demonstrating that any of the complainants had any interest in actually changing providers. Additionally, LDCB failed to show that its telemarketers did not mislead customers about their affiliation with the current provider.

    Switching a consumer’s toll phone service to a new provider without permission is a violation of the Communications Act and federal telecom rules.

    And since the switch to the new company was not authorized, any charges on your bill from those companies now counts as bill-cramming — the practice of placing unauthorized charges on a customer’s phone bill — another violation of the Communication Act.

    The FCC notice proposes that LDCB be charged with a $2.4 million penalty for its alleged bad deeds.

    “It is unacceptable for any company to pad unauthorized charges on bills or trick consumers into changing their preferred phone company,” said Travis LeBlanc, Chief of the FCC Enforcement Bureau. “The FCC will not tolerate companies that deceive consumers into changing their telephone services or carriers.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist