пятница, 30 октября 2015 г.

uJustFab Is Reviewing Just What Makes So Many Customers Angryr


4 4 4 9
  • justfab_headerAny company with millions of customers will have some customer service problems and complaints: where a company succeeds or fails is in how they respond to and resolve those problems. JustFab is a controversial company with roots in sketchy diet supplement and wrinkle-cream businesses, and JustFab representatives claim that they’re working really hard to resolve consumer complaints that they blame on rapid growth. Can their way of making sales ever become consumer-friendly?

    We’re not sure whether that’s the case. How the sites in the JustFab family work is that every month there’s an item of the month––an outfit or a pair of shoes––that their “VIP” members will be billed for if they don’t log in and opt out of receiving it during the first five days of the month.

    A customer might be drawn in with a single item that looks interesting, and end up signing up for a VIP membership (note: there is no less important tier of membership) when the price and terms aren’t disclosed until well into the checkout process. Memberships are difficult to cancel, and some combination of these factors is what has led to most of the thousands of complaints filed against the company. JustFab paid $1.8 million to settle a consumer protection lawsuit over these issues a year ago.

    “When you’re bringing in hundreds of thousands of new customers a month, you’re not going to get everything right,” one of the company’s co-CEOs explained to Bloomberg Business. He conceded that maybe they will consider making a way to cancel through the website possible, but the reason why they would force customers to call in is to talk them out of canceling.

    JustFab Is Reviewing Customer Service Practices as Complaints Pile Up [Bloomberg]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uEPA May Finally Ban Toxic Pesticide For Food User


4 4 4 9
  • (Patrick Herlihey)
    A federal agency entrusted with protecting the health of Americans has finally gotten around to doing the job it’s paid to do by taxpayers. And once again, the only reason this agency is doing anything is because a court has ordered it to.

    Back in 2000, and not without some pressure from outside organizations, the Environmental Protection Agency banned the in-home use of chlorpyrifos (also known by the brand name Dursban), one the most widely used pesticides, because it has been shown to have neurotoxic effects in humans, especially children.

    Even though the EPA acknowledged at the time that the prohibition was necessary for the protection of America’s youth, the ban not only allowed Dow — the maker of Dursban and Lorsban — and others to continue selling home-use products containing chlorpyrifos for two additional years, it permitted the continued use of chlorpyrifos in crops for food production.

    Then in 2007, concerned groups — the Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North America — petitioned the EPA to consider a larger ban on all uses of chlorpyrifos, but to no avail; not because the EPA did the research and firmly concluded that the pesticide was indeed safe, but because the agency never made a decision.

    Last summer, under pressure from a lawsuit by the NRDC to finally do something about chlorpyrifos, the EPA told the court that it would get around to proposing a rule by spring 2016.

    This didn’t impress the court, which accused the EPA of deliberately dragging its feet on the matter.

    “Although filibustering may be a venerable tradition in the United States Senate, it is frowned upon in administrative agencies tasked with protecting human health,” reads the order [PDF] from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The court said that, rather than respond to the 2007 petition, the EPA had only provided “a litany of partial status reports, missed deadlines, and vague promises of future action.”

    While acknowledging that science isn’t easy, especially when you’ve got public health advocates and industry tugging at you from both ends, the court still declared that the EPA’s “ambiguous plan to possibly issue a proposed rule nearly nine years after receiving the administrative petition is too little, too late.”

    The court gave the agency until Oct. 31 to fully respond to the 2007 petition, but since that’s a tomorrow and good luck finding a bureaucrat on a Saturday, the EPA released a passive-aggressive announcement today saying that it is now considering a wider ban on chlorpyrifos.

    “EPA is not denying the petition because we are unable to make a safety finding based on the science as it stands currently,” reads the announcement, which disregards the fact that the agency has had nearly a decade to respond. “EPA is not issuing a final revocation rule because we have not proposed it and have not completed our refined drinking water assessment, leaving certain science issues unresolved.”

    So instead, the EPA is proposing to revoke all chlorpyrifos tolerances based on the science as it stands.

    That science, claims the EPA, shows that there is no apparent danger from chlorpyrifos with regard to food, but people who get drinking water from watersheds where chlorpyrifos is used heavily may be getting too much of the chemical.

    Today’s announcement does not definitely mean the end of the road for chlorpyrifos. Instead, it means that the EPA is throwing open the door to comments on the subject, with the goal of releasing a final rule by… Dec. 2016.

    But if the EPA does move forward with revoking all tolerances of chlorpyrifos, that would have the effect of canceling all associated food uses of the pesticide.

    The NRDC is, not surprisingly, okay with today’s announcement.

    “If this dangerous, World War II-era chemical does make its final exit from our fields, farmworkers would be safer on the job and children would have the chance to grow up healthier, free from its toxic effects,” writes NRDC Staff Scientist Veema Singla. “We look forward to working with EPA to swiftly implement the ban.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uLawyer Accused Of Submitting 40K False Claims Against BP After Oil Spill (Including One For A Dog Named Lucy)r


4 4 4 9
  • (pdxmac)

    Now that there’s a finalized settlement between the Department of Justice and BP that puts an end to the legal debacle related to the 2010 explosion at the Deepwater Horizon oil well in the Gulf of Mexico — which left eleven dead and released millions of gallons of oil into the water — officials are taking a close look at the claims made against BP… including one filed by a dog named Lucy for $36,000.

    In a recently unsealed indictment against one particularly noteworthy alleged fraudster, U.S. Prosecutors say a lawyer for plaintiffs has filed around 40,000 bogus claims, reports Bloomberg.

    BP has maintained that many of those claims have no connection to the 2010 catastrophe, and sued the San Antonio lawyer in December 2013. The company accused him of falsely claiming tens of thousands of “phantom” victims of the spill. The case was put on hold while federal criminal investigators poked around a bit more, and it seems they’ve come up with some fodder: officials in Mississippi unsealed an indictment of the lawyer, his brother and five others on 95 counts of conspiracy, mail fraud, and identity theft for allegedly submitting more than 40,000 false claims against BP.

    The gem among all the others, of course, is a bit from the indictment involving a canine client, alleging that the defendant “submitted or caused to be submitted a ‘Presentment Form’ to BP claiming ‘costs and damages’ in the amount of $45,930.00 in the name of ‘Lucy Lu’ and claiming ‘Lucy Lu’ was a deckhand on a commercial seafood vessel. ‘Lucy Lu’ was a dog.”

    All told, only four of the defendants clients were found eligible for payments, the indictment said, and we assume Lucy was not one of them.

    Woof.

    The lawyer has denied wrongdoing, and his attorney says the indictment merely “recycles” BP’s civil fraud claims. Prosecutors say, however, that they began investigation in 2011, before BP took legal action.

    That Time a Dog Claimed $46,000 in Damages From the BP Oil Spill [Bloomberg]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uFormer Starz VP Says Network Manipulated Comcast Merger, Asked Him To Inflate Subscriber Numbersr


4 4 4 9
  • When reached for comment, a one-handed rep for Starz replied, "Groovy."
    As the saying goes, hell hath no fury like a former senior vice president of sales and affiliate marketing at a premium cable TV network. A recently dismissed Starz exec is now alleging that his former employer had been up to no good, manipulating the (since-failed) swap of markets between Comcast and Charter, and asking executives to inflate the network’s subscriber numbers.

    This is all found in a lawsuit [PDF, via Deadline.com] filed yesterday in a California court by former Starz SVP Keno Thomas against the network, its top brass. Liberty Media — the former parent company of Starz, and part-owner of Charter Communications — is also named.

    The lawsuit accuses the network of, among other things, firing Thomas after he repeatedly brought up concerns about allegedly questionable business practices at Starz.

    First, after a former DirecTV executive was added to the Starz board of directors in 2013, Thomas says he raised questions about potential conflicts of interests and access to confidential information from the satellite company. Thomas claims that his direct supervisor, Chief Revenue Officer Michael Thornton (a named defendant in the complaint), told Thomas he’d be fired if he brought up the topic one more time.

    Then, on April 28, 2014 — the same day that Comcast and Time Warner Cable (then attempting to merge) announced a deal with Charter to swap a few million customers and spin off others into a new company (partially owned by Charter) — Thomas says he attended a dinner in Los Angeles where his boss Thornton bragged that he and Gregory Maffei (Chairman of the Board at Starz and CEO of Liberty Media) had, according to Thomas “successfully and illegally manipulated a pending merger” in order to benefit Starz.

    At the time, Comcast’s contract with Starz was set to expire, meaning the network was likely in for a protracted renewal negotiation.

    But at that dinner, Starz announced that it had reached a new agreement with Comcast — without having to go through the typical rigmarole.

    That’s when, per the complaint, Thornton explained that Maffei had called Comcast and talked them into extending their agreement with Starz — at a loss to Comcast.

    Since Starz executives were not supposed to have any advance knowledge about this market-swap deal between Comcast and Charter, the suit implies that Maffei, whose Liberty Media controls 27% of Charter, was able to use the Comcast/Time Warner Cable/Charter ménage à trois, which would have added some 10 million customers to Comcast’s roster, to the benefit of Starz.

    Thomas claims he then brought up the issue of the legality of this sort of maneuver, but was told by Thornton to never repeat those concerns or he’d risk losing his job.

    The lawsuit also points out that Starz was one of the few content providers to openly support the Comcast/TWC merger.

    Shortly after this dinner, Thomas says that even though it was largely his role to negotiate the network’s contract with DirecTV, other Starz execs began omitting him from communications involving this deal.

    As part of the deal that was eventually negotiated with DirecTV, the satellite TV service would not have to begin integrating Starz into its marketing program until 2015. Thomas says this lack of promotion was hurting the network’s subscriber and revenue numbers.

    That’s why, Thomas alleges, in Sept. 2014, he and others were directed to provide inflated revenue and subscription figures to the network’s board of directors.

    Thomas claims that even though this order came through the network’s director of finance, it was really a directive from Thornton and Starz CEO Chris Albrecht.

    He says he defied this directive, believing it to be unlawful. Not long after, he was let go after ten years with the network.

    “Starz ultimately terminated Mr. Thomas for his whistleblowing, his refusal to participate in illegal activities, and his advocacy on behalf of women and minorities,” reads the complains, which also alleges Thomas was fired for “bringing to light the unlawful influence Liberty had on the deal between Comcast and Starz.”

    For its part, the network is denying the allegations made in the suit.

    “Normally, we would not comment on pending litigation, and, in this instance the company has not even been served,” a rep for Starz told Deadline. “However, based on reading the complaint in the press, rest assured that Starz, as well as the other defendants cited, will defend themselves vigorously against these scurrilous, unsubstantiated and offensive attacks by a disgruntled former employee.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uAt Target, Tide Free Is Free Of Dyes, Perfumes, And Logicr


4 4 4 9
  • Reader Rob is a longtime reader and very familiar with our “Target Math” series of posts, so he knows to check the actual price per ounce on items he plans to buy. Especially, he notes, at Target. This recent promotion for laundry detergent demonstrates why.

    fee_gentle_gc

    That’s a nice deal, right? It makes each bottle cost $9.49 as long as you eventually remember to use that gift card. Under normal circumstances, though, the larger bottle of the same product would be a better deal per ounce. It’s not.

    free_gentle_lg

    “That’s 18.7 cents/oz for the medium-sized bottle, and 19.9 cents/oz for the larger one,” Rob observes. At least the amount of detergent in a load is consistent across the sizes: 1.56 ounces. However, he points out, you don’t even need that gift card as an inducement to buy two smaller bottles instead. You don’t have to buy two bottles to get the gift cards at all, because the smaller bottle is a better deal. “Even without the $5 gift card with purchase of 2 bottles, the smaller package was still the better deal,” Rob observes.



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uPeet’s Makes Another Run Down The Indie Coffee Roasters Aisle, Buys Majority Stake In Intelligentsiar


4 4 4 9
  • (fordsbasement)
    Peet’s Coffee & Tea is on quite the caffeine kick lately, and it seems it’s not ready to leave the coffee roasters aisle just yet: a few weeks after snapping up Stumptown Roasters, Peet’s says it’s bought a majority stake in Intelligentsia Coffee.

    Peet’s didn’t disclose the terms of the deal in a news release, but Intelligentsia will continue to run independent of its new parent. The Chicago-based company has roasting operations in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, as well as 10 coffee bars across Chicago, Los Angeles and New York.

    Co-founders Doug Zell and Emily Mange and co-owner Geoff Watts will maintain “significant” stakes in the business, Peet’s says.

    “We’re excited to welcome Intelligentsia to the Peet’s family as the growth of the super-premium coffee market continues to explode in the U.S.,” Dave Burwick, president and CEO of Peet’s Coffee & Tea said.

    As long as it isn’t actual super-premium coffee exploding in the U.S., because that sounds dangerous.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uFacebook Tweaking “Real Name” Policy To Make It Easier For Users To Verify That They Are Who They Claim To Ber


4 4 4 9
  • (quinn.anya)
    If you’ve ever tried to insist to Facebook that you really do go by the name Her Magnificence The Empress Of Catland and been frustrated at your efforts, things are about to change: the company announced it’s tweaking its so-called “real name” policy to make it easier for users to verify that they really do answer to a name other than their legal one.

    Facebook has long held onto its anti-pseudonym stance, one that it isn’t abandoning altogether. Instead, it’s offering easier recourse for those who lose access to their accounts over their name, allowing users to provide more context about their chosen name. It’ll also require others flagging those profiles for fake names to hand over more information.

    “We want to reduce the number of people who are asked to verify their name on Facebook, when they are already using the name people know them by,” wrote Facebook VP of Growth Alex Schultz in a letter the company released today (via Buzzfeed News). “We want to make it easier for people to confirm their name if necessary,” he added.

    So if, for example, your legal name is Frances but you’ve always, ALWAYS gone by Baby because you knew someday you’d be meeting a handsome dance instructor and he’d need to tell others not to put you in a corner, you can add those details when Facebook asks you to confirm your authentic self. This was something you couldn’t do before.

    “This should help our Community Operations team better understand the situation,” said Schultz. “It will also help us better understand the reasons why people can’t currently confirm their name, informing potential changes we make in the future.”

    Anyone who has an issue with your name will also have to fork over more information about why they’re reporting it, in the hopes of tamping down circumstances where someone might use the system as a weapon.

    “When people use the name others know them by, they are more accountable for what they say, making it more difficult to hide behind an anonymous name to harass, bully, spam or scam someone else,” he said.

    The changes are expected to begin taking effect in December.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist