понедельник, 4 января 2016 г.

uDomino’s Driver Stabs Customer For Complaining About Pizza Being 90 Minutes Later


4 4 4 9
  • (picturebot)
    Remember when Domino’s Pizza used to guarantee that you’d get your order in 30 minutes? The company stopped that promotion because some drivers were putting lives at risk with their dangerous driving. But it looks like delivering a pizza 90 minutes late can be just as harmful.

    NBC Los Angeles reports that a Domino’s driver in Covina, CA, got into an argument with a customer because the order was incredibly late.

    In the resulting altercation, the driver somehow stabbed the customer, who suffered serious but not life-threatening lacerations to his neck, hands, and wrists.

    The driver apparently went back to his place of work after the incident, as police arrested him at the Domino’s store, charging him with suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon. He was subsequently released on bail, reports NBC.

    In typical fast food fashion, Domino’s cited the all-forgiving franchisor/franchisee divide to distance the company from the crime.

    “We haven’t heard anything about of this,” the company said in a statement to NBC. A”ll the stores in California are owned by independent franchisees and because we have no information, we can’t provide comment other than to say we are shocked by the allegation and hope the customer is okay.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uStarbucks Adds Latte Macchiato To Permanent Menu — So… What The Heck Is A Latte Macchiato?r


4 4 4 9
  • Winter_2016-Latte_MacchiatoEvery now and then, Starbucks adds a new drink to its permanent menu and customers get all frothed up over it. But sometimes there’s a ton of buzz over something, and we’re left wondering if we even understand what everyone is so excited about. Case in point: Starbucks has announced it’s adding a Latte Macchiato to the menu Jan. 5. Okay, fine, but what exactly is a latte macchiato?

    Even if you’re the kind of person who orders a latte every day, or guzzles a caramel macchiato religiously on Saturday mornings after your early spin class, that doesn’t mean you may automatically understand exactly what Starbucks’ new drink is. After all, there was a time when your average person didn’t know what a frappucino was, until Starbucks told everyone.

    As it turns out, it’s pretty simple: espresso and milk. It’s different from other espresso and milk combinations already on the menu, due to the proportions of each in the drink.

    “The Latte Macchiato is just two ingredients – espresso and milk – combining perfectly aerated whole milk free-poured, creating a meringue like foam, and then topped with two full, roasty espresso shots which are slowly poured through the foam ‘marking’ the milk with a signature espresso dot,” reads a description from a Starbucks spokesperson, via Buzzfeed News.

    In other words, compared to the Flat White — another new-ish addition to the Starbucks menu — the Latte Macchiato has larger, standard shots of espresso, and it’s more than what you’d get in a latte as well. That results in a stronger espresso flavor, Starbucks Coffee Master Angus Maxwell explained to Buzzfeed News.

    Sure, it might be too much work to discern between an espresso, a latte, a latte macchiato, and a macchiato macchiato (is that a thing? Not yet, but who knows). But it could help Starbucks bring in more customers, so it’s worth a shot for the company (pun intended). The Flat White wasn’t a sure thing when it launched early last year either, Buzzfeed News points out.

    “I didn’t think it was a big idea. I was wrong,” said Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz at a conference last spring. “Flat White has been a runaway of success for the company.”

    Starbucks has a handy guide to help folks navigate the caffeinated waters of its espresso menu as well:

    Starbucks_Espresso_Classics



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uGM Investing $500M In Lyft, Hopes You Will Eventually Get Rides From Self-Driving Fleetr


4 4 4 9
  • (Ben Schumin)

    The world of business partnerships is kicking off 2016 with a bang, bringing together the old world of cars with the new. GM, the occasionally troubled behemoth carmaker founded in 1908, and Lyft, the once-mustachioed ride-hailing service (that isn’t Uber) founded in 2012, are embarking together on a half-billion dollar plan to bring the future to a street near you.

    As the New York Times reports, GM is investing $500 million in Lyft’s current $1 billion round of financing. That’s a lot of cash, and the two companies have big plans for what they will do with that money. It’s not just going to be business as usual for Lyft; there are two big changes coming.

    The first is a series of “short-term car rental hubs” that finally once and for all proves how big a fiction the concept of “ride-sharing” apps really is. The idea with these is that people who do not own cars will be able to go to a Lyft hub, rent a (GM) car for a few hours, and use it to work for Lyft, making money. (One can only hope that the per-shift takings are likely to exceed the rental cost. Otherwise, drivers will be paying Lyft for the privilege of being contract workers.)

    The other, however, is where we start to get into the stranger parts of living in the future: as part of the investment, GM will be developing an “on-demand network of self-driving cars,” according to the NYT. In this, GM suddenly finds itself entering the space where the best-known competitors so far are Google and Tesla, although Uber, Toyota, and others have all been making noise about autonomous vehicles in recent months as well.

    At this point, our first collective thought about GM is less likely to be “innovation” and instead more likely to do with the fatal defect in the ignition switches GM used across most of their fleet, which they kept secret and covered up for the better part of ten years, leading to well over a hundred deaths and a criminal investigation. (But no class action lawsuits, thanks to their 2009 bankruptcy and restructuring.)

    The partnership may feel strange, but from a business perspective it makes sense. Lyft can pocket millions or billions of dollars without worrying about pesky things like “labor law” if they can remove the drivers from their ride-hailing process entirely. And GM could really, really use some positive press as well as a partner helping them beat competitors and dive into the 21st century.

    “The car industry is going to change more in the next five years than in the past 50,” GM president Dan Ammann said in a statement. “Even for GM, $500 million is a lot of money, but investing in different business models are going to be an important part of our future.”

    G.M., Expecting Rapid Change, Invests $500 Million in Lyft [New York Times]



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uWhirlpool’s “Smart” Appliances Now Come Equipped With Amazon Dash Buttonsr


4 4 4 9
  • (frankieleon)

    When Amazon introduced the Dash Button, it claimed customers could easily reorder products with the simple push of a button. While the small gadgets have expanded in recent months to cover a slew of household items, the e-commerce giant’s technology can now be found built-in to an array of actual appliances, namely those from Whirlpool’s Smart Kitchen Suite. 

    The Verge reports that Whirlpool debuted its connected appliances at the Consumer Electronic Show in Las Vegas, showing off how its partnership with Amazon will allow customers to reorder detergent for their dishwasher, ink for their printer, and other necessities with the Dash Replenishment Service.

    The integration comes in the form of Samsung’s mobile Smart Kitchen Suite. Owners of the appliances can use the Smart Kitchen app — available both in iOS and Andriod — to link their Amazon account to their Whirlpool account.

    Instead of always keeping your eye on cleaning essentials like detergent, the appliance is capable of counting how many wash cycles you’ve done since you last ordered the cleaner, and will prompt you through the apple to buy more when you might be running low, The Verge reports.

    In addition to using Amazon’s Dash Replenishment System, Whirlpool has also integrated Nest into the Smart Kitchen Suite.

    The systems will now use Nest’s “away” signal to set energy-saving and anti-wrinkle settings in Whirlpools smart washer and dryers.

    Whirlpool’s new smart appliances have Amazon Dash built in [The Verge]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uA Message From The Year 2026 About The Future Of Your TVr


4 4 4 9
  • Thirty years ago, in 1996, you actually used your TV to watch broadcast or cable signals — live, as things aired. Twenty years ago, in 2006, you probably still had cable, but you probably also had a DVR, freeing you to watch programming at your leisure (much to the chagrin of advertisers). Ten years ago, in 2016, you may or may not have decided to cut the coaxial cord — but even if you had cable, odds were high you complimented it with some kind of streaming service. But by today, Jan. 4, 2026, if you even remember what “cable” was, that’s probably because you only see it at your grandparents’ house.

    And yet… what we have now is, in so many ways, the same as TV was ten years ago.

    The new year is a great time to pause, think about the months to come, and reflect on how we got to where we are today. In the world of TV, we’ve come so far so fast that it could make your head spin. All the change that brought us to where we sit today, at the dawn of 2026, really began to snowball in a big way in late 2015. So on this new year’s day, this seemed like a good time to do a retrospective about the last ten years, and look at how we got to where we are today.

    First, though, it would be remiss not to mention the two big technological developments that set us on this path, even though they happened outside of our ten-year window.

    The first was the launch of YouTube just over 20 years ago, way back in 2005 (it was subsequently purchased by Alphabet Inc. — back when the company was called “Google” in 2006). Prior to that, many attempts at “Internet video” had been made but most involved awkward downloads and long-forgotten tech like RealPlayer or QuickTime, all of which had reputations for bogging down users’ computers and frankly just not working right. (Ask your grandparents how it hard was to view trailers or other stuff in the ’90s.) But streaming video became a reality for millions when YouTube went big, and it laid the groundwork for what would come next.

    The other major development was the advent of subscription-based, bingeable streaming video. That came three years later, when Netflix — until then primarily a DVD-by-mail movie rental company — opened up video streaming as a bonus for its customers in January, 2008.

    2015, though, was the year when the tide really began to turn, which is why it makes a great starting point for our history.

    Why 2015 Was The Year of Change

    That was the year when Comcast finally had more Internet subscribers than TV ones. That was the year when streaming video became more than 2/3 of all Internet traffic. That was the year when big broadcasters and premium channels alike began to offer streaming-only, over-the-top (OTT) subscription options. And it was even the year when Amazon took its first baby steps into being the “cable” company millions of us use today.

    As we sat here ten years ago watching the clock turn over to start 2016, a few of the cable companies were starting to take their own first steps out of cable. Comcast had a little baby streaming service in tests, and a company called Time Warner Cable (then Charter, then purchased in 2021 by Anheuser-Busch InBev Miller Volkswagen Northrop Grumman) with 11 million subscribers was considering dumping the cable box and letting its service start being an app.

    The stage was set. Although programming had been delivered in bundles of channels through terrestrial providers for thirty years, the age of the “cord-cutter” was ascendant. Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu had proven that you could not only deliver programming without being a linear (i.e. the opposite of on-demand) network, but succeed at it. Early shows like Transparent and Orange is the New Black paved the way for the online distributors to prove that they were just as much a prestige network as any HBO, and consumers bought it.

    The Great Un- and Re-Bundling

    By January of 2016 and into 2017, then, basically everything anyone wanted was available over-the-top. A generation of cord-cutters — nearly all the so-called millennials, who by this point were as old as 36 or 37, and in charge of their own households — had broken with cable for good. The TiVo was invented when they were 18! They were the first digital generation! Cable was for dinosaurs and grandparents.

    But the marketplace was deeply fragmented, and getting worse. A consumer would pay $100 a year to Amazon, another $10 a month to Netflix and Hulu, and maybe $15 each to a couple of online versions of premium channels to get everything that she wanted to see… plus, for broadcast networks, she either had to cough up another $7 per month or fiddle with a digital antenna and over-the-air access… providing she even lived someplace where she got a good signal.

    For between $30 and $100 a month, having to assemble all your own crap, and not even having a single DVR or unified search feature to turn to, seemed like an awful lot of work. Outsourcing that work, consumers would realize, was the value a cable package still added. But prices were constantly on the rise, and so some consumers — especially the younger, primarily mobile-using ones — still preferred to piece things together themselves.

    So in 2016 and 2017, it both was and wasn’t surprising to see the traditional cable bundle break up more and more. It was still widespread, though: by the last quarter of 2017, analysts found that there were still over 89 million traditional pay-TV (cable or satellite) subscribers in the US, and even now that number still hasn’t ever dropped below 65 million.

    But by 2016, a number of the three-, five-, or eight-year contracts that programmers and distributors had agreed on before the ascendance of broadband TV had finally expired, and new contracts, focused on the digital space, were able to arise. In short: there were new players in town, and some of them would even end up playing against themselves.

    Amazon announced its first over-the-top bundle service in late 2016, to launch in early 2017. Its starting lineup included all of the Discovery and AMC networks, along with some but not all Disney properties (no ABC; only highlights from ESPN) and several of the premium channels (Starz, HBO) as add-on options. They smartly offered the bundle at a steep, subsidized discount to their Prime consumers: on top of the regular $119 annual Prime fee, getting “cable” would only cost $100 a year — less than $10 a month. As compared to an average cable company bill of $130 per month, it was a no-brainer for millions of consumers who already enjoyed watching Amazon content. A little over a later, Netflix even added its content to the package for an extra $15 a month, same as HBO.

    Comcast, meanwhile, started bringing their cable-free cable bundles online at about the same time, though they began with only a tiny handful of pilot cities and were slow to roll out nationwide. Their Internet-only subscribers were eligible to buy a programming package that included all of the NBCUniversal networks, all of the Discovery networks, all of the AMC networks, and all of the Scripps networks as well as access to EPSN and ABC (but not the Disney channel or any of their kids’ channels), and all the same premium HBO or Starz add-on content, for significantly less than the cost of a standard cable package delivered through a set-top box.

    But Comcast could pull one string that Amazon could not: zero-rating.

    Comcast, unlike Amazon, was an Internet infrastructure company as well as a pay-TV company. Through the teens, they gradually unrolled data caps across their footprint, and by January 2017, they enforced a 350 GB monthly cap on all users nationwide (with a $40 fee for unlimited data). All of those Amazon TV subscribers, of course, still had to get their Internet from somewhere. A Comcast OTT bundle was exempted from Comcast Internet data caps. An Amazon TV bundle was not.

    The other TV/Internet providers weren’t far behind Comcast. Verizon and AT&T launched their comparable packages in late 2017. Charter, which had only finished its merger with Time Warner Cable and Bright House in December 2016, took longer; theirs launched at the end of 2018. Smaller providers, meanwhile, had been sticking with the Internet biz but dropping TV altogether since as early as 2014.

    For the first half of our decade, competition seemed robust… but there was trouble brewing.

    Here Comes The Judge

    It took until 2020 for the big lawsuit to land. That was when Amazon sued Comcast, Charter, Verizon, and AT&T in the now-landmark Amazon v Comcast.

    The big A-to-Z argued, in summary, that the way in which ISPs over-the-top non-cable cable bundles were being treated preferentially was (1) against the FCC’s Open Internet Rule of 2015, and (2) anticompetitive, and against antitrust law.

    It wasn’t a blocking or throttling issue; that was settled once and for all in 2016, when the ISPs failed lawsuit against the FCC over net neutrality got smacked down by the Supreme Court. Rather, the big A-to-Z argued that the infrastructure-owning companies’ preferential treatment of their own video services an anticompetitive measure under antitrust law. (Although they did also contend it was in violation of the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Rule.)

    The issue of data caps became pressing more quickly than most consumers had anticipated. The shift to 4K video, the adoption of streaming VR gaming content, and the sheer amount of streaming-only television produced all at once came together to make 300 GB or even 350 look laughably low in a household with three or more members. A significant enough number of households felt constrained by data restrictions that they opted to stick with programming packages distributed by their ISPs instead of by Amazon or one of the other nascent businesses, and so Amazon had a strong case.

    The wheels of justice turn slowly, though, and a surprisingly protracted government shutdown in 2021 bumped the proceedings even farther. It was 2022 before a federal court found in favor of Amazon. All of the ISPs, of course, appealed, and it was 2024 before the appeals court found in their favor. And that’s how we came to where we sit now: The Supreme Court heard arguments about Amazon v Comcast this fall, in October 2026, but we won’t know how it’s going to play out for a few months still… and the future of TV as we know it hinges on the outcome.

    Charter is no longer a defendant; they came to an agreement with Amazon and have, since 2023, permitted their app to be accessed on all devices and amended their data policy so that most customers are not subject to a cap or limit. Comcast and AT&T, however, have doubled down.

    So where will we be sitting another decade from now, on New Year’s Day 2036?

    Well, that’s anyone’s guess. There’s only so far into the future our crystal ball can peer.



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uWalmart And Patti LaBelle Hope To Continue Dessert Magic With Two New Cakesr


4 4 4 9
  • (Patti LaBelle on Facebook)
    This holiday season, Walmart tried something new to move more baked goods: they created a celebrity-branded pie. The retailer, which moves a lot of groceries, teamed up with famed singer Patti Labelle to mass-produce pies loosely based on her own recipe. That product was extremely successful, and now two new products are hitting Walmart’s store shelves: a pound cake and a caramel cake.

    Buzzfeed shared this exciting news, and we learned something interesting about the original sweet potato pie frenzy: the singer and the mega-retailer had been working on the baked-goods project since March. The sweet potato pie was meant to be a limited-time offering before Thanksgiving, not a permanent bakery offering.

    As celebrity pie fever swept the nation and stores in many areas sold out, Walmart apparently realized that they had a hit, producing more pies in December and making their presence on the pie shelf permanent.

    You may not associate the singer of “Lady Marmalade” with a lifestyle brand, but Patti LaBelle is a cookbook author, her own line of sauces sold on her website, and until recently had her own line of sheets, comforters, and throw pillows. (No marmalade, though.) The Walmart baked goods are all sold under her “Patti’s Good Life” brand.

    “We haven’t had so much excitement since we relaunched Twinkies,” the retailer’s VP for bakery and deli told Buzzfeed. Yes, customers were thrilled with the pies, but it’s unlikely that there will be a similar frenzy over the cakes.

    The pound cake with vanilla icing will cost $6.44, and the caramel cake will retail for $13.94. They both go on sale two weeks from today, on January 18.

    Patti LaBelle Launches Two New Cakes At Walmart, “Patti Cakes” [Buzzfeed]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


пятница, 1 января 2016 г.

uLooking Ahead: 5 Big Issues To Follow For 2016r


4 4 4 9
  • Now that 2015 is done and we finally learned that Luke Skywalker is actually Faye Dunaway’s daughter (and sister!), it’s time to take off the party hats, sweep up the confetti, and do the walk of shame forward into the uncharted territory of the year to come.

    And it is indeed a trudge, because so many of the issues that will make headlines in the weeks and months to come are holdovers from the last year. If only we could wipe the slate clean every first of January, but the news doesn’t really care what day it is.

    Now that we’ve had our orange juice and a bite of bagel, let’s get on to the consumer topics and issues we predict will be in the fore for 2016:

    #1: Privacy

    Image courtesy of Mike Mozart

    While the most invasive portions of the Patriot Act have lapsed and been replaced with the smaller-scale snooping allowed by the new USA FREEDOM Act, concerns about invasions of privacy — both from the government and private industry — will only continue to grow for the foreseeable future.

    Law enforcement officials at just about every level have pushed back against manufacturers’ efforts to provide consumers with devices that can only be accessed by the user. The U.S. Department of Justice and others have for years called for phone and computer makers to include so-called backdoor access to devices or weaker encryption standards so that computers, phones, and other items can be searched with a warrant, but without requiring the users’ password, fingerprint, or some other key.

    The tech industry and privacy advocates have fired back, arguing that this sort of access is not only unprecedented — when you get the lock changed on your garage, you’re not required to provide a copy to the police — but that the inclusion of any sort of built-in backdoor is like putting out a “welcome” mat for hackers.

    But even as device manufacturers and Internet giants argue against weakened protections for consumers, some of these same companies stand accused of crossing the line and invading users’ privacy.

    A recent complaint accuses Google of spying on users of its Apps for Education. A pending class action claims that Twitter eavesdrops on supposedly private direct messages. Samsung riled up the Internet and privacy advocates by recording audio and transmitting it to a third party, as did the new Hello Barbie doll.

    Additionally, the growing “Internet of things” has brought web-connectivity to everything from your thermostat to your garage door to your toothbrush. So much of this is new territory, some of it being charted by new companies with little understanding of best practices for data privacy.

    We’re effectively in a pre-adolescent stage in our relationship with the IoT. As these products continue to replace boring ol’ items that don’t connect to the Internet, we’re going to go through a lot of growing pains sorting out when, how, and why we share our data.

    #2: Holding Car Companies Accountable

    Image courtesy of I Am Rob

    By General Motors’ own accounting, 124 people died and another 275 were severely injured because the car company failed to issue a recall to replace a part that cost GM a few bucks each. Yes, the car company has paid out nearly $600 million to those victims and their families — and yes, GM did agree to pay $900 million to defer federal criminal charges, but many consumers wanted to know why not a single person at GM was held criminally responsible for negligence that led to so many untimely deaths.

    Likewise, Volkswagen has acknowledged that millions of its supposedly “clean diesel” vehicles — several hundred thousand of them sold in the U.S. alone — were anything but. In fact, these cars used “defeat devices” to trick emissions-testing devices into believing the vehicles were meeting standards. As a result, VW deceived both regulators and consumers, and may have caused dozens of people to die as a result of the additional toxins released into the air because of their cars.

    In addition to these lingering automotive dramas, there is the still-unresolved Takata airbag issue, which involves potentially lethal safety devices in millions of cars made by a wide variety of manufacturers. So far, nine deaths have been linked to the defective airbags — which can spew shrapnel when they explode — with eight of those coming from just the U.S.

    Looking ahead to 2016, you can expect to see a concerted push from safety advocates and legislators to hold car makers (and their suppliers) more accountable for their failings.

    #3: What’s In Your Food?

    Image courtesy of Corey Templeton

    At a time when we’re more aware than ever about food safety and the need for proper handling and storage, we still see major companies — Costco and Chipotle in just the past couple of months — hit with outbreaks of E. coli and other nasties, sickening customers all over the country and making people even more concerned about the food they buy.

    After decades of warnings from doctors and researchers, a growing number consumers are beginning to demonstrate concern about the huge amount of antibiotics being fed to cows, pigs, and poultry — a practice that only encourages the development of drug-resistant bacteria, aka “superbugs,” that sicken millions, and kill thousands of Americans each year.

    Farm animals consume about 75% of all antibiotics sold in the U.S., almost all of it sold without a prescription or veterinary feed directive. And with increased demand for meat products in fast-developing countries like China, Brazil, and India, it’s expected that antibiotic overuse is poised to pose a global health concern.

    A more controversial subject for 2016 is going to be genetically modified and genetically engineered food. The FDA recently approved the first GE animal — a salmon — for sale as a food item in the U.S., but said it could not require any special labeling because the fish is not nutritionally different from its non-GE counterpart.

    A rider attached to the end-of-year federal spending bill does compel the FDA to create a label specifically for this fish. Opponents say that such a requirement is alarmist and anti-science. Supporters of labeling argue that the label only allows consumers to make the choice on their own.

    In 2016, we expect to see pro-GMO campaigns intended to highlight the science behind these foods. At the same time, we predict we’ll continue to see calls for more transparency and labeling about GE foods and ingredients.

    #4: Net Neutrality Showdon v. 2.0

    Image courtesy of Steve

    In early 2014, Verizon successfully convinced a federal appeals court to gut the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order, which first established the “net neutrality” rules preventing Internet service providers from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing content.

    Rather than appeal the matter further up the legal ladder, the FCC chose instead to take a second stab at the rules. This time, it took the controversial step of reclassifying broadband as a “Title II” common carrier, much like landline phone service.

    Now neutrality is back in court again, facing lawsuits filed by AT&T and others, claiming — among other things — that the FCC is restricting ISPs’ First Amendment rights.

    Regardless of who wins this first round of the new neutrality battle, we’re predicting that the matter will ultimately end up being decided by the nine robed justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    As that legal war wages, expect to see the FCC making smaller decisions about related matters, like whether or not “zero rating” deals — in which an ISP doesn’t count the data used for certain content providers — count as a violation of the neutrality rules, or whether it’s just a new way to deliver data.

    #5: The Student Loan Time Bomb

    Image courtesy of thisisbossi

    Student loan debt in the U.S. has long since passed the $1 trillion mark. At the same time, a number of the nation’s largest for-profit colleges — responsible for the largest chunk of federal student loan borrowing — are either failing or are under investigation for questionable practices.

    We’ve already seen the collapse of Corinthian Colleges — the company behind for-profit education chains like Everest, WyoTech, and Heald — and the subsequent sale of some campuses to Educational Credit Management Corporation.

    In December, the federal government forgave more than $100 million in student loans for thousands students who attended CCI schools. However, that’s a small fraction of the billions in outstanding loans from current and recent CCI students.

    And CCI wasn’t the only problem child in the for-profit playground. The parent company of industry biggie University of Phoenix recently lost its ability to participate in tuition assistance programs for active-duty military personnel. Executives at ITT Educational Services have been charged with fraud by the federal government. And Education Management Corporation, the operator of Brown Mackie College, Argosy University, and the Art Institutes, agreed to pay $95.5 million to settle claims it violated state and federal False Claims Act provisions regarding its recruiting practices. Yet these companies still managed to receive billions of dollars in federal aid money in 2014.

    At the same time, the for-profit college industry has tried to fight the government’s attempt to hold them more accountable. Though they succeeded in scuttling the Department of Education’s first attempt to draft a gainful employment rule — requiring these schools to demonstrate that a certain percentage of their graduates are able to obtain meaningful work after finishing their education — the administration eventually finalized the rules in late 2014.

    The industry tried to fight the rules in court. When that failed, industry-backed lawmakers tried to undercut the rule through legislation, slapping on amendments to federal spending bills that would have blocked Education officials from implementing the requirements. In the end, that too failed.

    We’ve not yet hit bottom on the issue of student loans, for-profit college, and holding schools accountable — and we may not hit it in 2016 — but there will undoubtedly be plenty of stories about these topics as we keep digging.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist