uNetflix Will Release Audio Description Tracks For ‘Daredevil’ So Blind Fans Can Enjoy The Show Toor

4 4 4 9

• 
  

  Unless you’ve had your head buried in the sand or this is your first time using the Internet, you probably know enough about Marvel’s Daredevil series to know that the hero is blind. The thing is, if Matt Murdock existed in real life without any of the comic book powers he possesses on the new Netflix show, until yesterday he wouldn’t have been able to fully enjoy his own kick-punching romps through the bad guys of Hell’s Kitchen.

  
  

  Daredevil, like all Netflix shows, didn’t come with an audio description track for blind and visually impaired fans until the company announced yesterday that it would provide one.

  
  

  This, after blind and visually impaired fans pointed out what blogger Andrew Pulrang of Disability Thinking (via MarketWatch) calls “laughably terrible PR for them to leave it out of this show in particular…”

  
  

  Audio description tracks are exactly what they sound like — explanations of what is appearing on screen, from physical actions to facial expressions, whether someone is wearing a chicken suit or a pin-striped suit, changes in the setting or scene and anything else that needs describing.

  
  

  The director of content operations at Netflix, Tracy Wright, wrote in a blog post Tuesday that the company is adding audio descriptions on “select titles,” starting with Daredevil, before rolling it out in other Netflix original content like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black.

  
  

  Wright says Netflix is also looking into adding description tracks in other languages, and eventually, other shows besides its own.

  
  

  “Over time, we expect audio description to be available for major Netflix original series, as well as select other shows and movies,” the blog post reads. “We are working with studios and other content owners to increase the amount of audio description across a range of devices including smart TVs, tablets and smartphones.”

  
  

  Such moves are to be applauded, but it’s not like Netflix suddenly woke up one day with this great idea to enhance access for everyone. As Pulrang points out, the folks at the accessible Netflix project have been pushing the company to add audio description tracks for some time now.

  
  

  Netflix Begins Audio Description for Visually Impaired [Netlfix blog]
  
  Daredevil: Live Tweet, First Impressions, and an Epic Accessibility Fail [Disability Thinking]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  


• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uNeiman Marcus Accused Of Continuing To Sell “Faux Fur” Products Containing Real Furr

4 4 4 9

• 
  
  
  

  One of three products sold recently on the Neiman Marcus website that were labeled as “faux fur” but which contained real fur. In this case, the boot’s inner label explicitly states “Real fur.”

  
  
  
  Two years ago, Neiman Marcus and two other retailers settled a Federal Trade Commission complaint that they had sold “faux fur” products on their websites that contained actual animal fur. As part of that agreement, the upscale department store was permanently enjoined from “falsely or deceptively advertising any fur product by misrepresenting or failing to disclose that the fur in any fur product is faux or fake.” However, a new petition filed with the FTC alleges the Neiman Marcus has continued to sell products that appear to violate this agreement.
  

  The Humane Society of the U.S. has filed the petition [PDF] with the FTC, asking the agency to investigate and “take prompt action” against Neiman Marcus. This could include the imposition of monetary penalties for alleged violations of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the 2013 FTC order.

  
  

  According to the petition, the HSUS says it was able to identify three products for sale on the Neiman website that were advertised as containing “faux fur,” but which testing later revealed to contain actual animal fur.

  
  

  One boot was sold as “faux fur” on the website and its label stated “Contains Faux Fur, 55% Polyester 45% Acrylic.” HSUS testing of the product turned up real fur, a fact that Neiman later confirmed to HSUS.

  
  

  A second boot design from the same maker was described on NeimanMarcus.com as a “weatherproof stretch microfiber boot with faux-fur (polyester/acrylic) trim,” however the actual label for the product reads “Real Fur, Dyed Rabbit.” Testing by HSUS confirmed the presence of animal fur. See above for image.

  
  

  The third product mentioned in the petition is another supposedly “faux fur”-lined boot whose label disagrees with this claim. This time, the label inside the boot read, “Real Fur from rabbit, Fur Origin China.”

  
  

  As of right now (April 13, 2015), this particular boot is still listed on the Neiman Marcus site as a “faux fur product”:
  
  

  
  

  “Many Americans are opposed to buying or wearing animal fur because they object to rabbits, foxes, coyotes and other animals suffering and dying for frivolous trimmings on jackets and shoes,” reads a statement from HSUS. “American consumers deserve to have the facts, and should be able to make socially-conscious decisions while shopping.”

  
  

  We’ve reached out to Neiman Marcus regarding the allegations made in the petition and will update if we hear anything back.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  


• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uJCPenney Executive Accidentally E-Mails Sales Figures To Stock Analystr

4 4 4 9

• 
  
  
  

  (Mike Mozart)

  
  
  
  Here’s a bit of cheery news about a venerable American retailer: JCPenney’s comparable store sales as calculated so far for the first quarter were up 6% over last year. Unfortunately, the reason why we know this is somewhat less cheery. Someone described as a “senior official” at the company accidentally e-mailed early figures that weren’t yet public for the first quarter of 2015 to a securities analyst.
  

  Everyone who uses e-mail regularly has done something like this at some point. My favorite story is about how I once sent a photo of a flower instead of an invoice to Consumer Reports. However, when most of us send the wrong document to the wrong person, it results in some confusion or embarrassment. In this case, the Securities and Exchange Commission was involved, since the company had to notify the government about the non-public information that escaped and was made public.

  
  

  The company’s stock price fell slightly, since what investors want are increasing sales figures, and JCP’s growth is slowing down as it tries to recover from its slump of the last decade or so.

  
  

  The company isn’t identifying the executive who made the e-mail slip. The worst result could be the fall in stock price, as mentioned before, and a fine if the SEC discovers that the company didn’t let them know about the escaped information in a timely manner.

  
  

  J.C. Penney says executive inadvertently disclosed same-store sales [Reuters]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  


• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uTobacco Companies Sue FDA Over Cigarette Packaging Guidelinesr

4 4 4 9

• 
  
  
  

  (mendhak)

  
  
  
  For more than 5 years, the FDA has had authority to regulate tobacco products, and last month, the agency issued guidance to the tobacco industry about when cigarette makers must seek FDA approval on changes to packaging. The country’s largest tobacco businesses now believe the FDA is overstepping its authority and violates their rights to free expression.
  

  Subsidiaries of tobacco giants Altria, Reynolds American, and Lorillard (which is being bought by Reynolds) filed suit against the FDA on Tuesday in a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

  
  

  At issue is the March 4 guidance document [PDF] issued by the FDA to clarify when and how cigarette makers would need to seek approval on new products and product changes.

  
  

  For new products, tobacco companies have to either go through the premarket approval process with the FDA or demonstrate that the new product is “substantially equivalent” to one already on the market. There are also expedited review processes available for products with minor modifications to their contents.

  
  

  The guidance that the tobacco companies have an issue with is under the heading of “Label Changes,” in which the FDA explains that “if a product’s label is modified in any way that renders the product distinct from the predicate, even if its characteristics remain the same, the modified product is a new product.”

  
  

  This could mean something as minor — in general marketing terms — as a change in color or logo, according to this chart from the guidance document:
  
  

  
  

  The plaintiff tobacco companies contend that, even though the guidelines are not legally binding, following them has the effect of locking manufacturers into all existing packaging designs or opens them up to financial and legal costs if they make changes.

  
  

  They contend that the law does not grant the FDA the authority to prevent cigarette companies from making changes to their packaging. Their understanding of the law is that the FDA is limited to reviewing label changes to products that claim to present a lower risk to the smoker. To the plaintiffs, the conditions spelled out in the guidance document are a violation of their First Amendment rights.

  
  

  “We disagree that FDA’s new requirements that manufacturers must obtain agency authorization before changing certain product labels when the actual physical tobacco product remains exactly the same,” an Altria rep tells the Wall Street Journal. “We’re asking the court to resolve these issues so that we and other manufacturers know how to proceed.”

  
  

  Tobacco companies sue FDA to block guidelines [AP]

  
  

  Tobacco companies sue U.S. FDA over label approvals [Reuters]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  


• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uAmericans Are Spending More To Dine Out Than On Groceries For The First Timer

4 4 4 9

• 
  
  
  

  (Cpt. Brick)

  
  
  
  In a first for Americans, a new study says we’re spending more as a country eating away from home than we are on groceries. Why slave away over a hot stove creating something that may or may not end up tasting good when you can pay someone else to do it for you?
  

  That’s how many consumers have been feeling over the past several months, reports Bloomberg News, according to Commerce Department data released today that shows restaurants and bars raked in more in sales in March than grocery stores, which is a first.

  
  

  Millennials, those darlings of the consumer world, have been pegged in the past as more willing to spend money on “food away from home,” according to a report from Morgan Stanley in November, while older people prefer to eat at home. But boy, is the industry paying attention to those lucrative millennials:

  
  

  “Millennials view dining out as a social event (i.e. a chance to connect),” the National Restaurant Association says on its website. “They tend to favor fast food, deli food and pizza restaurants over coffee shops, high-end dining and casual dining. Their diversity and interest in new things draw them to more ethnic restaurants too.”

  
  

  It’s not all doom and gloom for grocery stores, however — retailers like Walmart, Target and Costco also sell grocery items but aren’t included in the Commerce Department’s grocery-store category, and instead are classified as “general merchandise retailers.”

  
  

  Americans’ Spending on Dining Out Just Overtook Grocery Sales for the First Time Ever [Bloomberg]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  


• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uFDA To Health Food Companies: The Word ‘Healthy’ Has An Actual Meaningr

4 4 4 9

• 
  
  
  

  (Mike Mozart)

  
  
  
  Kind bars are quite tasty, but are they healthy? Sure, they’re made from ostensibly healthy ingredients like nuts and dried fruit, but some bars also have ingredients like chocolate and peanut butter. The Food and Drug Administration sent the company a warning letter about their use of the word “healthy” to describe their snacks on the label.
  

  Of course the FDA has rules about who can plaster the word “healthy” on their packaging: they also have rules about which products are allowed to call themselves peanut butter and ice cream. Unlike “natural,” which seems to be a meaningless marketing buzzword when it comes to food, the FDA will catch up with companies that label their products as “healthy.” Eventually.

  
  

  In the case of Kind’s products, it was their saturated fat content that caught the FDA’s attention.

  
  

  
  

  In accordance with 21 CFR 101.65(d)(2), you may use the term “healthy” as an implied nutrient content claim on the label or in the labeling of a food provided that the food, among other things, is “low saturated fat” as defined in 21 CFR 101.62(c)(2)

  
  

  
  

  That would mean that the item has one gram or less of saturated fat per serving, or that 15% of its calories or fewer come from saturated fat. That isn’t the case with Kind bars. A company representative explained to Bloomberg News that this is because the bars are made from nuts, which contain “healthy fats.” That may be true, but

  
  

  Bragg, a venerable brand in the natural foods world, also received its own warning letter about its use of the term “healthy” on the label. The FDA also objected to the product being labeled “no additives.” Why? You can see them turn on the bureaucratic snark:

  
  

  
  

  Your product bears the claim “No Additives[.]” To the extent that this claim means that your Bragg Healthy Vinaigrette product contains no added substances, we note that the list of ingredients on your product label indicates that the product is composed of more than one ingredient, and therefore that the product contains added substances.

  
  

  
  

  Can’t argue with that.

  
  

  Kind has responded to the FDA, and will need to change the packaging of its products or risk having them pulled from store shelves.

  
  

  KIND, LLC 3/17/15 [FDA Compliance Letters]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  


• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uConnecticut Tribes Join State Leaders In Fighting Unlicensed Payday Lending By Oklahoma Triber

4 4 4 9

• 
  
  
  

  (C x 2)
  

  
  
  
  The fight against payday lenders operating through affiliation with Native American tribes to skirt Connecticut law escalated this week as leaders of the state’s federally recognized Indian tribes joined forces with state officials to denounce the often financially devastating credit practice.
  

  WTNH-News8 reports that Mohegan Tribal chairman Kevin Brown and Mashantucket Pequot Tribal chairman Rodney Butler shared their support on Monday with Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy and Rep. Matthew Lesser’s effort to end one tribe’s practice of offering high-interest payday loan to residents though direct mail and websites.

  
  

  The Connecticut Department of Banking previously took the Otoe-Missouria tribe of Oklahoma – the owner of two online lenders – to court and fined it $1.5 million for violating Connecticut’s loan regulations capping interest rates at 12%.

  
  

  Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, another group began purchasing billboards and sending post cards to consumers saying the state’s actions were an attack on Native American tribes.

  
  

  Brown said during a press conference that rejecting unlicensed payday lending practices “has nothing to do with denying Native American business, sovereignty or welfare, and everything to do with protecting the consumers of the state of Connecticut.”

  
  

  Butler further raised concerns about the industry, saying that “tribes and the entire industry should also ensure they are being responsible and that their customers can repay those loans without getting charged unreasonable fees and paying extremely high interest rates.”

  
  

  Both tribal leaders said they have previously been approached by the Oklahoma tribe to do business, but both denied the offer.

  
  

  By showing support for the state’s fight, both leaders said they wanted to ensure there was no confusion over where the attacks against Malloy are coming from.

  
  

  “To ensure that Connecticut residents don’t mistake the flyers that they’re seeing, the billboards that they’re seeing with these two tribes in the state of Connecticut,” Brown said.

  
  

  In addition to rallying support behind the state’s fight against payday lending, Rep. Lesser said Monday that the legislature’s Banks Committee is working on a bill that would declare the most egregious loans “null and void,” meaning consumers wouldn’t be liable for any amount in excess of the maximum 12% interest rate.

  
  

  Banking Committee Chair: ‘Payday loan sharks preying on most vulnerable’ [WTNH-News8]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  


• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist