uYet Another “Hoverboard” Catches Fire While Charging, Singes Carpet In New Jersey Homer

4 4 4 9

• 

  As expected, so-called “hoverboards” – that don’t actually hover at all – were a hot commodity under the Christmas tree. But for one New Jersey family, the holiday gift quickly turned from exciting new device to dangerous fire-starter after it burst into flames while charging. 

  PIX11 TV reports that the latest instance of a hoverboard catching fire and damaging a home occurred late Sunday evening while the device was plugged in to charge.

  Local fire officials posted on Facebook that the family was at home when the incident occurred, but that no one was injured. The fire singed the home’s carpet.

  The incident renewed calls from fire officials that the devices should never be left charging unattended.

  Safety concerns related to the gadgets began popping up last month when a Louisiana family says the not-actually-a-hoverboard caused a fire that burned down their home.

  Shortly after that episode, retailers, including Amazon and Target, began pulling the self-balancing scooters until manufacturers could provide proof of safety standard requirements.

  The Consumer Product Safety Commission also announced this month that it would increase its scrutiny of the devices, noting that the agency was working “non-stop” to find the root cause for the fire hazards linked to the scooters.

  Hoverboard bursts into flames in New Jersey home [PIX11 TV]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uIn Wake Of Storms, Don’t Be Taken In By Home-Repair Scams Or Fake Charitiesr

4 4 4 9

• 
  Over the weekend, tornadoes ripped through the Dallas area, rending homes into piles of wood and destroying lives. Additionally, bad weather in the region resulted in damage to the property of countless other Americans. We can understand the desire to get your life back in order immediately — or to donate money to help victims — but don’t let yourself be taken in by unscrupulous scammers.

  Homeowners whose houses were merely dinged up — shattered windows, damaged roofs — by this weekend’s nasty weather may be targeted by home-repair con artists who have no intention of doing a quality repair job, if they even show up for work at all.

  We’ve seen this sort of behavior before in the wake of hurricanes and other disasters, and the Texas attorney general’s office has an entire page on its website dedicated to informing consumers about what to look out for when confronting a possible disaster scam.

  The key thing is to fight the instinct to rush into accepting the first bid from the first person who offers to fix up your property. You should get at least two estimates, and probably more, to make sure that you’re not being gouged. Multiple estimates may also show that the first repair bid was too low because it did not account for all the work that would ultimately have to be done.

  Check out your contractor. Get references from other customers — and be sure to call them. Check with the Better Business Bureau. Even if there are no open complaints against the company, ask if there are any closed complaints and, if so, what they were about.

  While an out-of-town contractor — even one with bona fides that check out — might give you a good estimate, you might also have difficulty resolving/correcting any problems after the work is completed.

  Get everything in writing — estimates for the total cost, scope of work to be done, schedule, payment terms — and keep it all together in one file.

  In Texas, a notice of cancellation, which gives you the right to change your mind within three business days, must be included if the transaction occurs at your home.

  Ask for proof of insurance, including disability and workers’ compensation insurance. Without those, you could be liable if any of the workers are hurt on your property.

  Don’t pay for completed work until after it’s been inspected, and don’t sign completion papers or make final payment until the work is completed to your satisfaction.

  If the contractor is guaranteeing their work, get it all in writing. The document should clearly state what is guaranteed, who is responsible for the guarantee (the dealer, the contractor, or the manufacturer), and how long the guarantee is valid.

  If you think you’ve been the victim of a home repair scam, contact your state’s attorney general’s office. The National Association of Attorneys General has a full list of AGs for each state and territory, along with links to their respective sites.

  In Texas, victims of home repair scams and price gouging can call the Office of Attorney General Ken Paxton at 1-800-252-8011.

  How To Tell If A Charity Is A Scam

  If you want to help, WFAA-TV has this thorough list of aid organizations, and The Dallas Morning News has a story on how people can contact several legitimate aid agencies to help victims of the tornadoes, but in general, there are certain red-flag behaviors that should alert you to the likelihood you’re being duped. The anti-scam folks at the Federal Trade Commission have this checklist for dealing with a possible charity to make sure you’re not getting hosed:

  Don’t be shy about asking who wants your money. If you’re solicited for a donation, ask if the caller is a paid fundraiser, who they work for, and the percentage of your donation that will go to the charity and to the fundraiser. If you don’t get a clear answer — or if you don’t like the answer you get — consider donating to a different organization.

  Call the charity. Find out if the organization is aware of the solicitation and has authorized the use of its name. If not, you may be dealing with a scam artist.

  Ask for written information about the charity. This includes its full name, address, and telephone number.

  Contact the office that regulates charitable organizations and charitable solicitations in your state, The National Association of State Charity Officials has contact information for regulators in each state available on its website.
  Your state office also can verify how much of your donation goes to the charity, and how much goes to fundraising and man­agement expenses.

  You also can check out charities with the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance and GuideStar.

  Trust your gut and check your records.
  Callers may try to trick you by thanking you for a pledge you didn’t make. If you don’t remember making the donation or don’t have a record of your pledge, resist the pressure to give.

  Be wary of charities that spring up overnight.
  This is especially true after natural disasters. They may make a compelling case for your money, but as a practical matter, they probably don’t have the infrastructure to get your donation to the affected area or people.

  Watch out for similar sounding names.
  Some phony charities use names that closely resemble those of respected, legitimate organizations. If you notice a small difference from the name of the charity you intend to deal with, call the organization you know to check it out.

  Be wary of charities eager to collect cash.
  If they say they are sending a courier or offering overnight delivery service to collect your donation immediately, you have to wonder whether the charity is legitimate.

  Know the difference between “tax exempt” and “tax deductible.”
  Tax exempt means the organization doesn’t have to pay taxes. Tax deductible means you can deduct your contribution on your federal income tax return.

  Do not send or give cash donations.
  Cash can be lost or stolen. For security and tax record purposes, it’s best to pay by credit card. If you’re thinking about giving online, look for indicators that the site is secure, like a lock icon on the browser’s status bar or a URL that begins “https:” (the “s” stands for “secure”)

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uAdvocate: Additional IRS Funding Should Be “Extremely Helpful” In Actually Helping Taxpayersr

4 4 4 9

• 
  As we approach 2016, taxpayers might be wary of dealing with the Internal Revenue Service after last year’s identity theft problems. But according to the IRS’ national taxpayer advocate, the agency is going to be much better at dealing with taxpayers than it was last year.

  This, according to the national taxpayer advocate, Nina Olson, who has represented the voice of taxpayers to Congress since 2001 in her role heading up the Taxpayer Advocate Service, an independent organization within the IRS.

  She spoke with MarketWatch about her expectations for how the agency can improve in the future, especially with the $290 million in extra funding it received as part of the recently signed Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (more info on that bill here). That bill included a total of $11.2 billion in fiscal funding for the IRS in 2016.

  Some of the IRS’ customer service issues could improve next year, Olson says, because of the additional boost the agency is getting. That money will go toward improving the IRS’ telephone service, cyber security and identity theft issues.

  “The additional funding will be extremely helpful over the next two years,” she told MarketWatch, adding that some taxpayers had their worst tax season to date in 2015.

  Though the extra money isn’t likely going to fix things in time for the filing season’s start in January, there should be fewer logistical headaches this year, Olson says. For one, she expects the money to help with things like “courtesy disconnects,” which is what happens when the IRS switchboard can’t handle the volume of calls and just hangs up on people.

  “Taxpayers should see an improvement on the phones sooner rather than later,” Olson said.

  More money, staff and training will go a long way in 2016, she adds, to help combat other issues like folks who overpay the Affordable Care Act penalty for not buying insurance if one can afford it. Olson said most of the 300,000 people last year who overpaid were exempt because of their income. There will sitll be a risk of that in 2016, she notes, despite her office’s work with software providers to give taxpayers clearer warnings.

  Fraud filters to prevent identity theft won’t be improved yet this year, however, as the IRS already tweaked them in response to this year’s issues. The money will go toward assigning more workers to identity theft cases, Olson says. Doing so “may be able to reduce cycle time and issue refunds to legitimate taxpayers more quickly.”

  IRS service should improve after some saw their ‘worst tax season,’ advocate says [MarketWatch]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uHere’s Where The Gifts You Return To The Store Will End Upr

4 4 4 9

• 
  Are you planning to return a gift this holiday season? The odds are good that you’re returning something: as many as 15% of all items bought online are returned to the retailer, and the number is even higher for items where fit and color can vary, like clothing. When an item has been opened or is otherwise unfit to go back on the store shelf, where does it end up? It goes to a growing industry of specialized liquidators.

  An executive at the logistics company Genco told the Wall Street Journal that this industry is called “re-commerce,” which doesn’t make us cringe as much as industry terms like that normally do. Often, items that you send back to a retailer go straight to a logistics warehouse, which in turn sells it to a liquidator. The retailer gets back maybe 10-20% of the value of these items, which end up in closeout stores, dollar stores, or with flea market vendors or in pawn shops.

  As more of our shopping shifts online, where return rates are higher, how can retailers get more back from these returns? The current system pretty much means accepting a small amount of money in exchange for someone taking the items away. Most big e-commerce outfits don’t handle their own returned merchandise, but selling their unwanted returns in smaller batches helps: instead of selling by the truckload, they perhaps sell only by the pallet.

  One company, Shorewood Liquidators, sells on its own auction site as well as on eBay, with final prices usually ending up at maybe half of the original retail price.

  Where Your Unwanted Christmas Gifts Get a Second Life [Wall Street Journal]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uTarget Jumps On Gift Card Exchange Bandwagon; Offers Customers Less Than Cards Are Worthr

4 4 4 9

• 

  With the bulk of the holiday celebrations having come and gone, you might be sitting around the dried-out Christmas tree counting up all those random gift cards you received. While you appreciate the generosity of your friends and family, you just don’t have any desire to make a purchase with said cards. To that end, a number of retailers are willing to offer you a trade; joining the ranks of Walmart, GameStop, and Coinstar this year is Target. 

  The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that Target will offer a year-round gift card trade-in program in about 1,500 stores.

  The program, which started last month, is similar to Walmart’s past initiative in that the company doesn’t offer to pay a customer the full value of the traded card.

  Instead, once the card is brought to the mobile phone counter in the electronics department, an employee of Market Source — wearing a black shirt instead of the traditional Target red — will give customers an offer for a lesser amount based on the resale value of the card.

  For example, the company says, a $100 Walmart gift card can be exchanged for an $85 Target gift card.

  “We know guests sometimes have unwanted or unused gift cards and [we] want to give them a convenient option to put those unused dollars toward shopping at Target,” Kristy Welker, a Target spokeswoman, tells the Star Tribune.

  The retailer declined to provide information on how much it makes through the exchange program, which is slated to run year round.

  Target’s program is a partnership between the retailer, card exchange site Cardpool.com, and other vendors.

  Don’t like the gift card you got for Christmas? Target, other retailers will offer you a trade [Minneapolis Star Tribune]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uNo, Mark Zuckerberg Is Not Giving Away Millions In Facebook Stock To People Who Copy, Paste Somethingr

4 4 4 9

• 

  Have you ever heard of someone who was rewarded with millions of dollars just for copying and pasting text? It sounds like a hard job to get, because it is — it doesn’t exist. That’s why no one is going to get free shares of Facebook stock simply by slapping a chunk of text into a status message and posting it. You will, however, get more people to realize how gullible you are.

  In the most recent iteration of this particular Facebook hoax, the kind that somehow seeps into the collective conscious so thoroughly that even people you thought would know better succumb to it, users are copying and pasting a message that says by doing so, they could win free Facebook shares.

  

  This particular hoax seems to have a long life, and first appeared in early December before gaining steam again over Christmas. If you have posted that status in recent weeks, you probably already know that four hours from when you posted it, no one announced that any Facebook shares were being distributed to lucky posters.

  This all seems to stem from Zuckerberg’s real announcement that he and his wife, Priscilla, would be giving away nearly all of their Facebook shares — 99% — to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, LLC. The announcement was tied to the news of the birth of their daughter Max, in late November. But though that might’ve been discussed on Good Morning America, nowhere in the statement did Zuckerberg say the 99% would go to Facebook users who know how to copy and paste status messages.

  It’s not too late to take that status down before too many people see it. And next time, take a quick spin on Google to see if what you’re posting for the world to see is a hoax. If it involves millionaires giving strangers money for no good reason, it’s probably not true. You also won’t be charged to keep your profile private if you don’t share something.

  We reached out to Facebook for an official comment on the hoax messages and will update this post if we hear back.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uCoca-Cola Paid $550K Directly To Head Of Pro-Soda, Anti-Obesity Groupr

4 4 4 9

• In addition to the funding that Coca-Cola provided to the now-defunct Global Energy Balance Network — an anti-obesity organization with a decidedly pro-soda bent — the cola giant also paid $550,000 directly to the GEBN president.

  The Denver Post reports that, starting in 2010, Coca-Cola began paying money to James Hill, director of the University of Colorado’s Anschutz Health and Wellness Center, and eventual GEBN president.

  A rep for the company tells the Post the money paid to Hill was for work he did “prior to the establishment of Global Energy Balance Network. These funds paid for honoraria, travel, education activities and research on weight management.”

  Hill saw the world — Mexico, Grenada, England, Australia, and New Zealand — on Coke’s dime. He also asked a company exec — the same VP who would eventually push through the GEBN funding — to help him find a job at Coca-Cola for his son.

  In response to the Post’s report, Hill contends that he properly reported his Coke-funded trips to the school and that they helped “to present research to other scientists and to encourage physical activity and responsible eating habits.”

  However, the validity of Hill’s message — which stresses the importance of exercise and downplays the role of sugary drinks and food in the obesity epidemic — has been called into question because of the role that Coca-Cola played in backing his work.

  Back in 2009, the Coca-Cola VP behind GEBN (who has since resigned) wrote in an email that Hill would be “willing to do exercise and energy balance — focusing on why it is critical for maintaining a healthy weight.”

  In a 2014 email, Hill wrote that “It is not fair that Coca-Cola is signaled [sic] out as the #1 villain in the obesity world, but that is the situation and makes this your issue whether you like it or not. I want to help your company avoid the image of being a problem in peoples’ lives and back to being a company that brings important and fun things to them.”

  Earlier this year it was revealed that Coke had provided more than $1 million to the University of Colorado Foundation “for the purposes of funding” the GEBN.

  That was a case of the school and the soda behemoth attempting to have it both ways. The money from Coke was categorized as an “unrestricted monetary gift,” as opposed to direct funding for research. State law protects the identity of those who donate gifts.

  At the same time, as subsequently revealed emails showed, Coca-Cola had not only provided the money expressly for the funding of GEBN, but that the company was also heavily involved in shaping the group’s message.

  One email from a Coca-Cola exec likened GEBN to “a political campaign, we will develop, deploy and evolve a powerful and multi-faceted strategy to counter radical organizations and their proponents.”

  On Nov. 30, weeks after the university gave back $1.1 million to Coca-Cola, GEBN disbanded, posting a notice to the website that Coca-Cola had registered on the group’s behalf.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uAnalysts Predict Chipotle Sales Slump To Continue Into Late 2016 Amid Food Safety Issuesr

4 4 4 9

• 

  Back in November when Chipotle’s woes centered solely on a six-state E. coli outbreak, stock analysts predicted the company’s sales would be down for the fourth quarter. Now, with the addition of another rare strain of E. coli sickening five customers in two additional states and more than 150 students sick from norovirus in Boston, analysts are anticipating declining sales for the fast casual restaurant until at least September 2016.

  Business Insider reports that the recent string of food safety issues at Chipotle could result in prolonged sales declines for the company.

  While Chipotle warned previously that same store sales could fall 8% to 11% in the current quarter – the first decrease in sales for the company in its history – JPMorgan predicts the slide could be just the beginning.

  Analyst John Ivankoe tells BI that he believes Chipotle’s same-store sales will decline for at least the next five quarters, ending September 2016.

  As part of the prediction, Ivankoe says that sales at stores that have been open for at least a year will fall 13% this quarter, and then 12%, 7% and 4% throughout the first three quarters of 2016.

  The prolonged sales decline comes as Chipotle contends with news of a second E. coli outbreak affecting five customers in Kansas and Oklahoma and a norovirus outbreak that sickened more than 150 customers in Boston. That store recently reopened.

  “The new news flow shows the impact continuing and more importantly a management team that seems to be scrambling for answers,” Ivankoe writes in a research notes.

  Chipotle’s sales decline is just beginning [Business Insider]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uUnited Airlines Expands Age Range For Children Flying Alone Who Are Required To Use $150 Servicer

4 4 4 9

• 
  If you’ve got a tween who’s preparing to fly alone on United Airlines, you might end up paying a fee you weren’t prepared for: United Airlines has quietly expanded the age range of children who have to use a $150 service when flying without an accompanying adult, raising it from an upper limit of age 12 to age 15.

  Any tickets sold after Dec. 14 for children ages 5 to 15 who are flying alone will require a $150 fee for the airline’s “unaccompanied minor service,” according to United’s new policy. That service includes airline employees ushering children to their seats and making sure they’re picked up by a designated adult upon landing.

  As for why the airline made the change, United seems to have just decided 13-, 14-, and 15-year-olds need adults around to fly.

  “We made a thoughtful review of the policy and decided that this change will provide the best possible care for these travelers,” United spokesman Charles Hobart told the Los Angeles Times.

  It’s also a great way to get more money out of travelers, without adding any value, one airline revenue consultant told the LAT. The airline could’ve offered some kind of upgrade to the service, he says, instead of just dropping the new policy on parents.

  “Obviously, they are going to generate more revenue from this,” he said. “They should make an attempt to improve the product.”

  Delta and American Airlines charge the same $150 for unaccompanied minors, for kids ages 5 to 15. Southwest only requires the service for youths age 5 to 11, for $50.

  United Airlines makes changes to program for children flying alone [Los Angeles Times]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

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

4 4 4 9

• 
  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

• Christmas 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

uIllinois Attorney General Says DraftKings, FanDuel Are Illegal Gambling Sitesr

4 4 4 9

• While 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.

  

  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

• 

  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.

  Generally, passengers undergoing screening will have the option to decline AIT screening in favor of a pat-down. Some passengers… 1/2

  — TSA (@TSA) December 22, 2015

  …will still be required to undergo AIT screening as warranted by security considerations in order to safeguard transportation security. 2/2

  — TSA (@TSA) December 22, 2015

  [via CNN]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uKmart Loses Two Customers’ Layaway Orders, Shrugsr

4 4 4 9

• 
  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

• 
  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

uEighth U.S. Death Linked To Takata Airbag Defect; Additional Vehicles Added To Recall Listr

4 4 4 9

• 

  Yet another death has been linked to Takata airbags that can explode and spew potentially lethal shrapnel at passengers, federal regulators said on Wednesday, increasing the number of fatalities in the U.S. to eight, and nine worldwide. 

  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced Wednesday that the death was the result of a driver side airbag rupture in a vehicle located in an area of high humidity.

  A spokesperson for NHTSA tells Reuters that the fatality took place in July when a 2001 Honda Accord was involved in an accident near Pittsburgh.

  The teenaged driver was hospitalized after the rupture, but died several days later.

  Honda, whose vehicles have been linked to all seven prior Takta-related deaths, tells Reuters the company is working to determine the teen’s cause of death.

  The car manufacturer say the previous owner of the vehicle first got a recall notice in 2010, and that the company had mailed a new notice on July 21 – one day before the crash.

  In addition to confirming the eighth U.S. death related to the exploding airbags, NHTSA announced Wednesday that the recall process for affected vehicles has been “accelerating rapidly.”

  According to the agency, in the two-week period ending Dec. 4, just over 950,000 vehicles have been repaired. To ensure the pace of recall completion continues, NHTSA has appointed John Buretta, a former official in the Justice Department’s criminal division, to serve as independent monitor overseeing the recall.

  Buretta will be responsible for assisting the agency in providing important oversight of both the coordinated remedy program and of Takata’s compliance with consent orders.

  While more cars than ever are being fixed for the Takata default, automakers have also added new models to the list of affected vehicles.

  Honda, Subaru, and Mazda each added hundreds of thousands of vehicles to the massive recall.

  The expansions include the model year 2005 to 2008 Mazda6, 2002 to 2004 Honda CR-V and 2005 to 2008 Subaru Legacy and Outback.

  [via Reuters]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uFDA Recalls Several Weight Loss Supplements Containing Unsafe Ingredientsr

4 4 4 9

• Earlier this year, the owner of a dietary supplement company was sentenced to 30 months in prison for selling “all natural” products that secretly contained harmful active ingredients that shouldn’t even be available to U.S. consumers. Today, the FDA announced recalls for more than a dozen additional products containing these same, unsafe ingredients.

  The products — listed below — were all found to contain undeclared levels of sibutramine and/or phenolphtalein, two chemicals that had been previously used in weight loss drugs and laxatives, but which have long been deemed unsafe for general use by consumers.

  Sibutramine, an appetite suppressant, was once sold under the Meridian brand as a weight-loss prescription drug. It has been off the market in the U.S. since 2010 when its maker pulled the product following studies that showed increased risk for heart attack and stroke in certain populations, including those with a history of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, arrhythmias or stroke.

  

  

  The tongue-twisting (metaphorically, at least) phenolphthalein was previously used in over-the-counter laxatives. In 1999, the FDA reclassified the ingredient as “not generally recognized as safe and effective” after studies indicated that phenolphthalein presented a potential carcinogenic risk. According to the FDA, phenolphthalein has also been found to be genotoxic, meaning it can damage or cause mutations to DNA.

  

  FDA testing of the products below turned up evidence of at least one of these ingredients in the following:

  • Asset Bold 500 mg capsules
  • Asset Extreme Plus 500 mg capsules
  • Evolve 250 mg capsules
  • Infinity 500 mg capsules
  • Jenesis (all lots)
  • La Trim Plus (all lots)
  • Oasis capsules (all lots)
  • Prime 500 mg capsules
  • SlimeX-15 capsules
  • Slim Trim U 250 mg capsules
  • Ultimate Formula 250 mg capsules
  • Xcel capsules
  • Xcel Advanced 350 mg capsules
  • Zi Xiu Tang 250 mg capsules

  If you have any of these products, you should cease using them. If you’re a reseller or distributor of these products, you should stop selling them. Both consumers and retailers should discard any unused capsules.

  

  Bee Extremely Amazed LLC Issues Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Various Products Distributed For Weight Loss Due to Undeclared Drug Ingredients [FDA Notice]

  Urgent: Drug Recall – Weight Loss Dietary Supplements with Undeclared Sibutramine and Phenolphthalein [FDA Notice]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uA Whole Bunch Of Christmas Movies You Can Stream Instead Of Talking To Your Familyr

4 4 4 9

• 

  The presents have all been unwrapped, the egg nog has done its job and you’re ready to stop talking to everyone who’s been getting on your nerves all day. Here’s to hoping you’ve got access to a streaming subscription service, and your father-in-law finally figured out where he put the piece of paper with the WiFi password on it.

  Whether you’ve got Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime, you’ve got plenty of opportunities to avoid your Great-Aunt Glady’s incessant questioning and watch fictional people enjoy (or not enjoy) the holiday season.

  Note(s): I make no claims on seeing all of these movies, so read the summaries with a shaker of salt handy and watch at your own risk. And again, you’ll need a subscription for the below options.

  Netflix

  A Christmas Carol (1938): The classic tale of a miserly old man who gets to hang out with a few ghosts so he (spoiler alert) can fully understand what a gift love can be.
  Starring: Reginald Owen, Gene Lockhart, Kathleen Lockhart, Terry Kilburn, Barry MacKay

  Happy Christmas (2014): A classic tale of a recently-single 20-something who tries to start over for the holidays but (surprise!) finds that’s easier said than done. Ah, indie comedies.
  Starring: Anna Kendrick, Melanie Lynskey, Joe Swanberg, Mark Webber, Lena Dunham

  One Magic Christmas (1985): A mother dealing with a bunch of family issues that’ve turned her Grinchy has trouble summoning the Christmas spirit, until her daughter takes a trip to deliver a letter to Santa. Because Santa fixes everyone’s parents at Christmas.
  Starring: Mary Steenburgen, Harry Dean Stanton

  The Fitzgerald Family Christmas (2012): The classic tale of the prodigal father/husband, returning at Christmas so that hijinks and heartfelt moments can ensue and everyone can learn a valuable lesson about family.
  Starring: Edward Burns, Kerry Bishé, Connie Britton

  White Christmas (1954): According to my mother, because I always fall asleep trying to watch this movie, “I think that’s the one where Bing Crosby and Gene Kelly (editor’s note: not Gene Kelly) go to an inn in Vermont where they’re struggling financially and they fall in love with Rosemary Clooney and do a lot of singing and dancing and sing ‘White Christmas’ and put on a show to save the inn.”
  Starring: Bing Crosby, Danny Kaye (not Gene Kelly), Rosemary Clooney, Vera-Ellen

  Love Actually (2003): Every British person ever plus an American or two figure out love and remake a Mariah Carey song while the Prime Minister makes out with his employee at a children’s Christmas pageant and everyone is basically fine with it.
  Starring: Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson, Colin Firth, Liam Neeson, Laura Linney, Alan Rickman, Keira Knightley, Rowan Atkinson, Bill Nighy

  12 Dates of Christmas (2011): Like Groundhog Day, except it’s Christmas and Zach Morris is romantically involved with someone other than Kelly Kapowski. I’m probably going to watch this right now.
  Starring: Mark-Paul Gosselaar, Amy Smart

  All American Christmas Carol (2013): In this iteration of the Charles Dickens classic, Scrooge is a self-absorbed mother who drinks too much and ends up hanging out with three Christmas ghosts.
  Starring: Taryn Manning, Beverly D’Angelo, Wendi McLendon-Covey

  While You Were Sleeping (1995): Sandy Bullock uses the tried-and-true dating method of pretending to be the girlfriend of an unconscious guy to win over his family, while refusing to deal with the reality of the situation (spoiler alert: she’s got a crush on a comatose dude with the best eyebrows ever).
  Starring: Sandra Bullock, Bill Pullman, Peter Gallagher

  Serendipity (2001): A romantic comedy about what happens when two good-looking people both want to buy the same pair of gloves.
  Starring: John Cusack, Kate Beckinsale, a pair of gloves

  A Christmas Kiss (2011): It’s Christmas, there’s kissing in elevators, mistaken identities and other shenanigans one might expect out of a movie with the words “Christmas” and “kiss” in the title.
  Starring: Elisabeth Rohm, Lauren Breckenridge, Brendan Fahr

  The Legend of Frosty the Snowman (2005): This is a cartoon about a snowman and it’s narrated by Burt Reynolds. That’s all you need to know.
  Starring: Burt Reynolds’ voice, a snowman named Frosty

  Beethoven’s Christmas Adventure (2011): If the holidays need saving from a bad guy (and they always do) you better believe a giant St. Bernard is going to show up.
  Starring: A huge dog

  Santa Buddies (2009): There are a lot of Christmas movies about dogs doing stuff. Where are all the Christmas cat movies? This one also features dogs saving Christmas.
  Starring: Lots of golden retrievers, Santa Claus

  The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993): Jack Skellington is sick of being pigeon-holed as only a Halloween guy, so he kidnaps Santa Claus in order to take his place. Hey, sometimes we all want something different in a career, right?
  Starring: Danny Elfman, Catherine O’Hara, Chris Sarandon, creepy awesome animation

  Christmas With the Cranks (2004): WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU WANT TO SKIP CHRISTMAS JUST BECAUSE YOUR KID MOVED OUT OF THE HOUSE? A cautionary tale for all grumpy parents.
  Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis, Tim Allen, Dan Aykroyd

  Radio City Christmas Spectacular (2007): Can’t make it to New York City? No problem, the Rockettes are kickin’ it on Netflix.
  Starring: Badass ladies doing their thing. Also, Santa.

  I’ll Be Home For Christmas (1998): OH BUT WILL YOU, JTT? WILL YOU?!? You’ll have to watch to find out.
  Starring: Jonathan Taylor Thomas AKA JTT, Jessica Biel

  Ernest Saves Christmas (1988): It’s the ’80s, Christmas needs saving yet again, and this time Ernest is on the job.
  Starring: Ernest, duh. I mean, Jim Varney.

  The Ref (1994): If you’re going to get burgled on Christmas Eve, it might as well be by Denis Leary, right?
  Starring: Denis Leary, Judy Davis, Kevin Spacey

  Trading Places (1983): Oh, so you think this isn’t a Christmas movie? It all starts with an office holiday party, so think again.
  Starring: Dan Aykroyd, Eddie Murphy, Ralph Bellamy, Don Ameche, Denholm Elliott, Jamie Lee Curtis

  Bad Santa (2003): Mall Santas gone wrong. If you couldn’t tell that from the title, that is.
  Starring: Billy Bob Thornton, Tony Cox, Lauren Graham, Bernie Mac, John Ritter

  A Very Murray Christmas (2015): Not really a movie, but it is Bill Murray and it is about Christmas so give it a chance.
  Starring: Bill Murray, obviously, as well as celebrity buddies: Chris Rock, Jenny Lewis, Maya Rudolph, Amy Poehler, Miley Cyrus, and George Clooney

  Get Santa (2014): Don’t be fooled by the title — this movie is NOT about trying to figure out what to get Santa Claus for Christmas, but instead about an apparently very irresponsible St. Nick crashing his sleigh and then it’s up to others to — guess what? — save the bearded one, and therefore, Christmas.
  Starring: Jim Broadbent, Rafe Spall, Warwick Davis, Kit Connor

  I Am Santa Claus (2014): A documentary that follows five mall Santas through the season, not to be confused with I Am Robot. Though a robotic mall Santa might be kind of cool…
  Starring: Five guys who dress up as Santa.

  Hulu

  A Very Brady Christmas (1988): Here’s the story of a lovely lady and a man named Brady who had a popular TV show in the ’70s that kept making specials and sequels into eternity. This one is about Christmas.
  Starring: Florence Henderson, Robert Reed, Ann B. Davis, Maureen McCormick, Eve Plumb, Jennifer Runyon, Barry Williams, Christopher Knight

  The Little Rascals Christmas (1994): Spanky’s mom needs a new winter coat, and the gang needs to learn the true meaning of Christmas.
  Starring: Travis Tedford, Bug Hall, Brittany Ashton Holmes

  The 12 Dogs of Christmas (2005): These dogs don’t appear to be intent on saving Christmas, but instead are just a bunch of dogs that show people the true meaning of Christmas during the Depression. The true meaning of Christmas HAS to have something to do with canines, based on the fact that there are so many Christmas dog movies.
  Starring: I am just going to assume, 12 dogs.

  Truman Capote’s One Christmas (1994): I have never seen this movie but it’s based on an autobiographical story by Truman Capote and stars The Fonz and Katharine Hepburn. That is the only time you will ever see that grouping of people together, I guarantee it. Also, Christmas is involved.
  Starring: Katharine Hepburn, Henry Winkler, Swoosie Kurtz

  The Man Who Saved Christmas (2002): Seriously, how many times do we need to save Christmas? This is about a man who did so in 1918, according to IMDB, despite the effort of all those dogs already on the case.
  Starring: Jason Alexander, Kelly Rowan, Ari Cohen

  Switchmas (2012): What happens when a Jewish guy obsessed with Christmas figures out how to get the Christmas of his dreams by trading airline tickets and places with another boy on his way to snowy Christmastown, WA? I honestly don’t know, but this movie will apparently have the answers.
  Starring: Elliott Gould, David DeLuise, Elijah Nelson

  A Christmas Wish (2011): The original Buffy the Vampire Slayer (aka Kristy Swanson) is abandoned by her husband right before Christmas and goes on a cross-country trip with her kids to find work. IMDB tells me there are warm-hearted people involved which is good because there are no dogs around to save this Christmas.
  Starring: Kristy Swanson, Edward Herrmann, K.C. Clyde

  Dear Santa (2011): You know when you’re lonely and drifting through life and you find a letter from a little girl asking for a new wife for her dad for Christmas, and you decide to go find them just in case you fall in love? Yeah, that. AND it’s directed by Jason Priestly of 90210 fame.
  Starring: Amy Acker, David Haydn-Jones, Emma Duke

  Holiday Engagement (2011): A recently-dumped woman employs the tried-and-true method of hiring a boyfriend to bring home for the holidays. What could go wrong? My guess? Everything.
  Starring: Bonnie Somerville, Shelley Long, Jordan Bridges

  A Christmas Wedding (2013): If you want to really test your relationship and familial bonds, why not plan your wedding for Christmas in a rural town with your fighting in-laws? At least you know things will end happily, because life is just like a TV movie.
  Starring: Vivica A. Fox, Miguel A. Núñez Jr., Hawthorne James

  Who needs a plot? Just put something on: Christmas Fireplace, Holiday Lights, Christmas Village, Magical Christmas, Winter Splendor, and Christmas Traditions

  Amazon Prime

  Under the Mistletoe (2009): Just your average feel-good, family movie involving a tragic car accident, Christmas, and, ostensibly, kissing under the mistletoe.
  Starring: Jaime Ray Newman, Michael Shanks

  Tyler Perry’s A Madea Christmas (2013): Madea finally gets a Christmas flick, eight movies into Perry’s neverending franchise. Likelihood that hijinks will ensue when she heads to the country for the holidays: inevitable.
  Starring: Tyler Perry, Chad Michael Murray, Tika Sumpter

  A Norman Rockwell Christmas Story (1996): Having a painting come to life might be slightly terrifying, depending on the artist, but in this case it’s Americana favorite Norman Rockwell, so we’re hoping this is actually the “heartwarming Christmas tale” the synopsis says it is, and not some nightmarish scenario.
  Starring: Kippy Kroh, Chris Liberto, Emily Newman

  Christmas Classics Vol. 1 (2005): This animated set is an 8-for-the-price-of-one-except-it’s-free-with-your-Amazon-Prime-membership set, including Somewhere In Dreamland, Santa’s Surprise, Hector’s Hectic Life, Snow Foolin, Jack Frost, Christmas Comes But Once A Year, The Night Before Christmas, and The Shanty Where Santy Lives
  Starring: Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, other cartoon creatures associated with Christmas

  Rudolph and Frosty’s Christmas in July (1979): What happens when Rudolph and Frosty combine forces to protect the North Pole? My guess is they save Christmas five months before it happens.
  Starring: Red Buttons, Ethel Merman

  Frosty’s Winter Wonderland (1976): This one has all the makings of a Christmas movie, combined with a classic rom-com, so I’m just going to go with the Amazon summary: “Frosty has lots of young friends, but he’s still lonely. The children build him a wife named Crystal, but jealous, cold-hearted Jack Frost plots to keep Frosty and Crystal apart.” I AM ON THE EDGE OF MY SEAT.
  Starring: Andy Griffith, Shelley Winters, Dennis Day

  Christmas Lodge (2011): What’s a girl to do when the site of treasured family memories has fallen into disrepair? You better believe she’s going to save not only the lodge of her youth, but Christmas itself.
  Starring: Erin Karpluk, Michael Shanks

  An American Christmas Carol (1979): You can probably get the gist of this one without me telling you, but it’s got all that Scrooge and Tiny Timness we all know from the classic tale except, PLOT TWIST! It’s set in America.
  Starring: Henry Winkler, Dorian Harewood, David Wayne

  Jack Frost (1998): Though the titular character may look terrifying, and the plot may sound super creepy, it’s just because he’s a snowman with Michael Keaton’s eyebrows with the soul of a young boy’s dead father. I actually was terrified by this movie when I saw it.
  Starring: Michael Keaton, Michael Keaton’s eyebrows, Kelly Preston, Joseph Cross

  The Christmas Wife (1988): Lonely widower, Christmas, personal ad for “social introductions.” Nuff said.
  Starring: Jason Robards, Julie Harris

  Christmas, Again (2014): Who’s gonna rescue a heartbroken Christmas tree salesman living in a trailer and working the night shift? A mysterious woman and some colorful customers, natch.
  Starring: Kentucker Audley, Hannah Gross

  Lost Christmas (2014): Kid, tragic events, Christmas and a happy ending. Done.
  Starring: Eddie Izzard, Larry Mills

  Yule Log: Video of a burning log in a fireplace.
  Starring: A burning log/the chemical process of combustion

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uCollege Financial Service Provider Higher One To Pay $28M In Fines, Refunds For Misleading Studentsr

4 4 4 9

• 

  Higher One, Inc. promises to help students reach their goal of achieving a degree by providing money management and refund services. But federal regulators say the company misled these students into paying improper fees, opening unneeded accounts through deceptive marketing tactics, and now it must pay $28.5 million in fines and restitution to harmed consumers. 

  The Federal Reserve Board announced Wednesday that Connecticut-based Higher One must provide $24 million in refunds to students, and pay a penalty of $2.23 million. Higher One must pay an additional $2.23 million to the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) as a penalty for a number of deceptive, harmful practices.

  Higher One provides colleges and universities with financial aid disbursement services for students. Specifically, after payment of tuition and other expenses owed directly to the school, the remaining financial aid — money for books, supplies, and living expenses — can be disbursed to students through Higher One’s “OneAccount.”

  The company allegedly failed to tell students they could obtain their financial aid disbursements without opening a OneAccount with Higher One. The company also failed to disclose fees, features, and limitations of the accounts prior to requiring students to make a selection regarding the method of disbursement.

  Additionally, the company failed to provide information about the locations of ATMs where students could access their disbursements without cost, and used the prominent display of a school logo, giving the impression the institution endorsed the OneAccount product.

  “Deceptive marketing practices with respect to student loans will not be tolerated,” Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard said in a statement. “This action ensures that students who were misled into paying fees to access their financial aid funds will receive restitution for those fees.”

  Under the Federal Reserve’s restitution plan, nearly 570,000 students who opened a OneAccount with Higher One through Cole Taylor Bank of Chicago, or Customers Bank of Phoenixville, PA, between May 4, 2012 and Dec. 19, 2013 will be reimbursed for fees related to the company’s deceptive practices.

  The company must also pay a civil penalty of $2.23 million to the Federal Reserve and a fine of $2.23 million to the FDIC.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uYouTube Calls Out T-Mobile For Throttling Video Trafficr

4 4 4 9

• 
  Net neutrality says that internet providers can’t throttle some services and speed others up. That much is clear. But if they’re throttling literally everyone, even those who didn’t sign up for it, is it still a violation? Google says yes, and has a definite complaint about the way T-Mobile is starting to handle video.

  YouTube is calling out T-Mobile for interfering with its content, the Wall Street Journal reports, and the world’s biggest streaming video provider is not happy about it.

  This challenge sits at the nexus of two different issues within net neutrality.

  The core of net neutrality, as it currently sits, is the FCC’s bright-line rule that broadband carriers — which includes the wireless companies — explicitly may not either give some services faster virtual lanes, nor throttle services into slower ones. There is no weaseling around that one; it is the lead-off of the entire zillion-page rule.

  However, there is a big fat way to play with data and stay within the boundaries of net neutrality, and that’s zero-rating. That’s the catch-all name for the plans that have data caps, but exempt certain sites or services from them, usually in exchange for some cash changing hands. The head of the FCC has called such zero-rating programs, en masse, innovative and competitive, but the commission as a whole is still exploring how these plans square with net neutrality.

  T-Mobile’s recently-launched Binge On plan is almost, but not quite, the same as other zero-rating efforts. Instead, it makes its peace with data in another way: any video service can opt-in to the plan, for no fee. Likewise, any T-Mobile consumer can opt-in or opt-out. For those who do opt in, video fidelity is somewhat scuttled in the name of data preservation: all those feeds, like Netflix, HBO, and Hulu, come through at a reduced quality. You see your content at 480p, instead of 720p or the standard HD resolution of 1080p.

  The service launched with more than two dozen participating video companies, which is fairly impressive. But Google’s (Alphabet’s) YouTube was not on that list. So T-Mobile customers, even those who subscribe to Binge On, should be able to see YouTube videos in all their high-def glory… right?

  Well, YouTube certainly thinks so. “Reducing data charges can be good for users, but it doesn’t justify throttling all video services, especially without explicit user consent,” a YouTube spokesman told the WSJ.

  T-Mobile says that YouTube was not included in Binge On from the start because of “technical difficulties,” and told the WSJ that the two companies are trying to work things out.

  YouTube Says T-Mobile Is Throttling Its Video Traffic [Wall Street Journal]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

uMinnesota Vikings Sue Wells Fargo For Attempting To “Photo Bomb” New Stadiumr

4 4 4 9

• 
  When you build a new multibillion-dollar stadium for an NFL franchise, you probably want to make sure that advertisers are paying for their name on or in the building, not just near it. And you probably want to ensure that those advertisers who do pay for their name on the building aren’t being overshadowed by the neighbors. Which is why the Minnesota Vikings are suing Wells Fargo.

  The team is currently in-construction on a new stadium set to debut at the beginning of the 2016 NFL season. U.S. Bank has already agreed to fork out hundreds of millions of dollars to have its name on the venue for the next decade.

  Now the team — more precisely Minnesota Vikings Football Stadium LLC — is accusing Wells Fargo of trying to leach off the notoriety of the new venue by erecting large, illuminated Wells Fargo signs on the roofs of two nearby towers.

  In the complaint [PDF] filed yesterday in a Hennepin County, MN, court, the team explains that in order to preserve the value of the naming rights for the new stadium, it made arrangements with owners of neighboring buildings — including Wells Fargo — “concerning the image, location, scale, size, and utility of any exterior signage, including roof top signs.”

  The suit alleges the the team made specific deals with Wells regarding a pair of two 17-story towers the bank is constructing immediately adjacent to the stadium.

  According to the complaint, the parties agreed that the bank could put roof top signs on those buildings but only if they were “non-mounted” and were not illuminated.

  “Agreeing to any roof top signs at all was a major concession” by the team, claims the lawsuit, which says the Vikings “had the ability to prohibit and all roof top and other exterior signage on the Wells Fargo towers.”

  Originally, the two Wells towers would have flat logos painted flat on their roofs. These could be seen in aerial shots of the stadium, but would not be visible in most ground-level exterior images.

  Then, according to the lawsuit, those flat-painted logos became raised and illuminated lettering. Still primarily only visible in aerial images of the stadium, but an alleged violation of the signage agreement.

  Here is a photo from Dec. 21 that the Vikings included in their complaint:
  

  The purpose of these signs is to “photo bomb” the stadium, which will be the subject of any number of aerial exterior shots during upcoming Vikings game — not to mention Super Bowl LII in Feb. 2018.

  If those Wells Fargo signs are visible, the team contends that it will “adversely affect U.S. Bank Stadium’s iconic image.”

  The lawsuit claims breach of contract, and seeks an injunction against the team installing or maintaining the signs in question. Additionally, the team is asking the court to rescind Wells Fargo’s rights to place any roof top signs on the two towers.

  A rep for Wells Fargo tells Minnesota Public Radio that the bank is “satisfied with the signage package that was approved for our $300 million community investment initiative for our new campus.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist