четверг, 23 апреля 2015 г.

uGift Card That Isn’t A Gift Card Can Ignore Consumer Lawsr


4 4 4 9
  • There are some disadvantages to using gift cards, but there are some laws that protect consumers who buy and use them. California has the strongest laws of this type: gift card holders can ask a retailer to cash in a gift card at any time, for example. Yet what happens when something that seems like a gift card isn’t, and it isn’t regulated the way that you expect–even in California?

    That state’s laws also dictate that gift cards can’t ever expire. That’s why a parent who bought a ten-visit card for a local indoor playground was confused when she saw that the pass would expire in six months. She brought it to CBS Sacramento’s Kurtis Ming, who learned that stores don’t have to obey gift card law for something that isn’t a gift card.

    A visit to this place, Climbaroo, normally costs $8-10 per visit, and the “VIP Play Pass” entitles the holder to ten visits. It costs $60, but is considered a “promotional pass,” and the company keeps track of a holder’s visits in their system apart from the physical card.

    That’s a nice way around the law that normally dictates that gift cards can’t expire. The facility told CBS Sacramento that it generally allows bearers to use the cards past the printed expiration date, but leaving an unregulated “promotional pass” up to the discretion of the business owner is really against the spirit of California’s consumer protection laws.

    Call Kurtis: Can Prepaid Cards for Services Expire? [Bloomberg News]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uMichigan High School Baseball Team Stranded In Florida After Spirit Cancels Flightr


4 4 4 9
  • Just two days ago the American Customer Satisfaction Index revealed that Spirit Airlines was the worst when it comes to, well, customer satisfaction, and it seems the airline is wasting no time in confirming that it earned its low scores. Just ask the Michigan high school baseball team that had to fork over thousands of dollars for a chartered bus after being told they would have to wait an extra week to rebook their canceled Spirit flight.

    WXYZ-TV in Michigan reports that the airline left a Detroit-area baseball team unsatisfied after stranding the high school students in Florida last month.

    The ordeal began when the team was attempting to fly back to Detroit after spending a week training in Florida.

    When the group arrived at the Orlando airport they learned that their flight was canceled due to weather. With few other options, the team stayed the night in a hotel and returned to the airport in the morning.

    However, the team’s coach tells WXYZ-TV that when the players and chaperones attempted to rebook, they were told the only flight that could accommodate the large group was six days later, meaning the students would have to miss about a week of classes.

    Because missing so much school was out of the question, the team ended up spending $12,000 to charter a bus and drive back to Michigan.

    As if the 21-hour ride wasn’t bad enough, the funds used to pay for the bus came from the team’s fundraising account.

    “To say a week – that’s not a viable option. I feel as if they should play a part in getting us home,” the team’s coach tells WXYZ-TV. “One of our mottos is, do the right thing, and Spirit could have done the right thing.”

    But it doesn’t look the airline follows the same motto. The coach says that while the airline did refund the return portion of the group’s trip, it refused to refund baggage fees.

    While the team feels that the airline should help cover the cost of the bus trip home, Spirit says that falls outside of the airline’s responsibility.

    A spokesperson for the Spirit tells WXYZ-TV that because the flight was canceled due to weather, the company is only responsible for getting passengers home on their airline, even if that’s a week later.

    Baseball team says Spirit Airlines not a good sport after weather cancellation leaves them on buses [WXYZ-TV]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uSenators Want To Close Federal Funding Loophole Exploited By For-Profit Collegesr


4 4 4 9
  • Each year for-profit colleges receive billions of dollars in Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits by exploiting a loophole in the rules that govern how these institutions collect federal funds. Once again, a group of senators has set out to change the way in which these schools count student aid, this time by urging the Department of Education to take an aggressive stand.

    A group of 20 U.S. senators sent a letter to Dept. of Education secretary Arne Duncan asking him to assist in closing a loophole that allows for-profit colleges to count GI benefits as non-federal funding in their revenue breakdowns.

    “The negative effects of this loophole for students and taxpayers have been well documented in news articles and Congressional investigations and reports. It has led to aggressive marketing and recruitment of servicemembers and veterans,” the senators wrote.

    The current federal 90/10 rule – used to cap for-profit colleges’ federal funding – is a provision in the law that bars for-profit colleges and universities from deriving more than 90% of their revenue from the U.S. Department of Education’s federal student aid programs. The other 10% needs to come from sources other than the federal government.

    Currently, tuition assistance for servicemembers and MyCAA for their spouses are not included in the 90/10 calculation.

    In the letter, the senators express concern over the lack of protection servicemembers and veterans have when it comes to being targeted and exploited by some for-profit colleges because of their access to 9/11 GI Bill funding.

    As part of the senators’ quest to better protect servicemembers, the group asked the Dept. to provide public data about how much for-profit colleges truly receive from taxpayers.

    Although those figures aren’t currently made public, a report released last summer by now retired Iowa senator Tom Harkin found that during the 2012-13 school year for-profit colleges enrolled a record number of veterans, bringing in more than $1.7 billion in Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits thanks in part to the 90/10 Rule loophole.

    The senators point out that those figures aren’t going to improve unless changes are made.

    The group then cites a 2013 analysis from the Dept. of Education that found 133 for-profit colleges received more than 90% of their revenues from taxpayers when the Department of Defense and Veterans Administration benefits were counted as federal education assistance, and another 292 institutions received more than 85%.

    According to that analysis, obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting, embattled for-profit chain Corinthian Colleges Inc. – which operates Everest University, Heald College and WyoTech – received $186 million in VA Post-9/11 GI Bill dollars alone.

    CCI isn’t the only scrutinized for-profit chain receiving significant funding through veterans’ benefits.

    Seven of the eight for-profit college companies currently under investigation by state Attorneys General and federal agencies for deceptive and misleading recruiting or other possible violations of state and federal law are among the top recipients of Post-9/11 GI Bill funds.

    The senators, several of whom previously backed legislation last year that would close the 90/10 loophole, say in the letter that they plan to introduce similar measures this year.

    And while the group expressed satisfaction with a measure in President Obama’s 2016 proposed budget that would close the loophole in the 90/10 funding rule, they urged the Dept. of Education to take immediate action.

    “We ask that the Department include the amount and percentage of institutions’ revenues that are received from all federal educational programs, in addition to calculations required by current law, when it publishes the report required… of the Higher Education Act,” the letter states.

    By publishing the information, the senators say the Dept. can provide a more accurate picture of the for-profit industry’s heavy reliance on federal taxpayers for many of their operations.

    Senators who signed onto the letter include Dick Durbin (IL), Tom Carper (DE), Barbara Boxer (CA), Sherrod Brown (OH), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Chris Coons (DE), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Al Franken (MN), Mazie Hirono (HI) Ed Markey (MA), Claire McCaskill (MO), Jeff Merkley (OR), Chris Murphy (CT), Patty Murray (WA), Gary Peters (MI), Jack Reed (RI), Bernie Sanders (VT), Brian Schatz (HI) and Elizabeth Warren (MA).

    Senators: Education Secretary Must Shine Light On For-Profit College Loophole That Harms Veterans And Military Students And Taxpayers [Sen. Dick Durbin]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uTelemarketer Penalized $3.4M For Scamming Elderly Into Paying For Unwanted Medical Alert Servicer


4 4 4 9
  • Two years ago, the Federal Trade Commission shut down a Brooklyn-based telemarketing scheme that bullied elderly consumers into paying for a medical alert service they never ordered or wanted. Now a federal court has hit the telemarketer’s repeat-offender operator with a $3.4 million penalty.

    Here’s the quick background on this case. Telemarketers for a company called Instant Response Systems would place calls to elderly and infirm consumers, many of them living on fixed incomes (and many of them with numbers on the National Do Not Call registry), falsely claiming they were responding to a request for information placed either by the consumer or a loved one.

    The telemarketer would then ask questions about the person’s health and medical care before pitching them on a pricey service ($817 to $1,602) that supposedly provided around-the-clock medical alerts via a pendant worn by the customer.

    The company was accused of sending devices and billing customers who never placed an order. Customers who contested the invoices or issued stop-payment orders on checks written to Instant Response were either unable to reach the company or received threatening messages, like the one telling a consumer to “consult an attorney and ask about the criminal and civil consequences of bouncing checks.”

    In at least one instance, Instant Response allegedly sent a false police report to a victim, describing the pendant as “stolen property” if it was not paid for immediately.

    “There is no genuine dispute that Defendants, in letters and phone calls, made material misrepresentations that consumers ordered medical alert services and owed [Instant Response] money when, in fact, they did not,” reads the summary judgement [PDF].

    While the defendant contended that the customers did indeed place these orders and that their complaints to the FTC and others were just “feeble” attempts to get out of paying their bills, the judge notes that the sole piece of evidence provided by the defendant to support this claim was a single written affidavit that was inadmissible as it was not signed under penalty of perjury.

    And even if that affidavit were allowed, the judge points out that the woman who wrote it was an independent contractor for Instant Response who “lacks personal knowledge of the consumer complaints or the calls at issue… Her job did not involve communicating with consumers.”

    The company didn’t provide any affidavits from the telemarketers who spoke with consumers, nor did Instant Response provide a single recording or transcript of any phone calls with alleged customers, even though the company stated that all calls were recorded.

    The court held that the company and its operator had violated the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the Unordered Merchandise Statute.

    Jason Abraham, the man behind Instant Response, was already subject to a permanent injunction by a federal court in 2003 that banned him from making material misrepresentations in the sale of any goods or services.

    “Instant Response Systems lied to older people to get them to pay for medical alert systems they didn’t order and didn’t want,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Their high-pressure, deceptive phone pitches were illegal, and they violated the Do Not Call rules to boot.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uThere Are Two Things That Could Stop The Comcast/TWC Merger, And We Might Get Bothr


4 4 4 9
  • Comcast-TWCLogo
    Comcast and Time Warner Cable announced their intention to merge well over a year ago. They assured shareholders that the process would be relatively quick, beneficial to all, and likely to be approved and move forward in less than a year. Reality, however, has proved less accommodating to the would-be juggernaut. After months of lobbying, advertising, and public commenting from all comers, we’re down to the actual brass tacks of regulation, holding our collective breath to see if we get the rulings that will effectively kill the merger where it stands.

    In the past, we’ve likened the merger to a corporate marriage. The two companies may be engaged, or even standing at the altar, but we’re essentially poised waiting for the, “speak now or forever hold your peace” part to clear before anything else happens.

    There are two entities that both have to give the yea or nay before anything can move forward. If either of those agencies, the FCC and the Department of Justice, puts the kibosh on the deal, then Comcast and TWC have to call it off and argue over who’s paying the caterer.

    A merger like this planned one has to go before both the FCC and the DoJ because each organization has a different mandate. Though there are areas of overlap, they’re looking over the pros and cons of the transaction from different angles.

    The FCC is required to oversee the issuing and the transferral of licenses and authorizations for communications companies — so TWC handing over its licenses to Comcast, for example, triggers a review. The standard the FCC has to use to judge mergers is whether the public interest is actively served by the transaction, not just if it would fail to cause harm.

    The Justice Department, meanwhile, is specifically responsible for antitrust issues: if something is anticompetitive or likely to cause a monopoly, the DoJ is supposed to step in and stop them before they can go around causing harm.

    Way back in the long-long-ago time of 2014, we outlined in-depth the review process the merger has to go through at both the FCC and the DoJ.

    The TL;DR version of the FCC’s process goes something like this:

    1. The parties that want to merge file their application
    2. The FCC makes a public notice and creates a docket
    3. The cycle of comments, reply comments, and replies to reply comments kicks off
    4. The FCC does its homework on all the issues for however long it takes, informally but not statutorily within a 180 day “shot clock”

    After all of that, there are basically three possible outcomes. Two of them are approval: either the FCC can give the green light to the merger as-is, or it can request potentially significant conditions be attached. But the third is basically a giant red light: if the FCC is for any reason not able to find the merger in the public interest and give it a go-ahead, the deal goes to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

    Such a hearing is a really, really bad sign for the companies that want to merge, because it indicates that the FCC has been unable to come up with any conditions for the merger that would make it in the public interest. The last time the FCC recommended a major merger — AT&T and T-Mobile — go to a hearing, the companies instead gave up and withdrew their application, realizing the gig was essentially up.

    And that kind of hearing is what reports indicate FCC staff are now recommending for Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

    That’s one of two. As for the other…

    The FCC’s process is more public than the DoJ’s, so we have a fractionally better sense of what’s going on. Over at Justice, the process goes more like this:

    1. Companies announce their intention to merge
    2. [a whole lot of highly confidential research and legal stuff]
    3. A lawsuit appears in public, and the merger happens or doesn’t

    A lawsuit from the DoJ doesn’t mean the agency is blocking the merger. Sometimes, as in the Comcast/NBCU merger in 2011, a lawsuit and its settlement are announced at the same time, and the settlement is that the companies agree to the conditions that the DoJ is placing on the merger. The lawsuit is simply the way that the agency can legally respond.

    However, a lawsuit can also seek to block the merger outright as being anticompetitive. And reports once again indicate that Justice is considering just that. Everyone’s favorite, “people familiar with the matter,” say that merger review staff at the DoJ could recommend filing a lawsuit to stop the merger as soon as next week.

    The FCC, much to the cable industry’s chagrin, has been making a habit in the last year of actually working very hard to prioritize the well-being of consumers over the desires of entrenched corporate interests. The commission’s net neutrality and municipal broadband rulings, and the momentum behind those movements, have merger opponents cautiously optimistic that the FCC will stand in the way of Comcast’s plans.

    Justice is more opaque, but the arguments made in public forums by the opposition (including us) show that there are tons of reasons why letting this merger happen would be anticompetitive in the extreme. So it’s easy to believe — or at least, to want to believe — that the rumors are right.

    If the merger were going to be rubber-stamped as is, it would already have been sometime in the last 14 months. At the very least, the merger will face mitigating conditions — but those are unlikely to be enough really to help consumers (or other businesses). And so maybe, just maybe, we’re finally reaching the end of this road… and it will be an end that makes everyone except Comcast (and TWC, and Charter) happy.



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uAT&T Claims That DirecTV Merger Will Allow It To Expand GigaPower Fiber Networkr


4 4 4 9
  • ATT-logoWhile we’ve been critical of the Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger, the motivation behind that deal is clear: It would instantly add 10 million customers to Comcast’s bottom line and give the company control over cable/broadband access for the two largest markets in the country. The reasoning behind the less-scrutinized marriage of AT&T and DirecTV isn’t as cut-and-dry.

    In a recent merger-related filing [PDF] with the FCC, AT&T contends that the addition of the nation’s largest satellite-TV provider (and second-largest pay-TV service) will allow it to expand its high-speed GigaPower fiberoptic broadband service.

    It might seem counterintuitive that you could grow a wireline service by acquiring an inherently wireless business, but AT&T (which only has around 5 million U-Verse TV customers) argues that the TV-related cost savings of adding 20 million DirecTV subscribers will free up resources to invest in fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) service.

    “Based on the expected content cost savings alone, AT&T concluded that it will have an economically viable business case to justify expanding FTTP GigaPower’s reach to at least two million additional customer locations that would not meet investment thresholds absent the merger,” reads the filing, “and AT&T has committed to do exactly that within four years of the closing of the merger.”

    AT&T also claims that the availability of DirecTV for customers might result in improved performance for U-Verse broadband customers. According to the company, it would be able to offer bundles of satellite TV and U-Verse Internet access. Since the U-Verse connection would no longer have to carry a TV signal, it would free up capacity for broadband.

    The filing does acknowledge that this offloading of TV service onto DirecTV is not a longterm solution or replacement for FTTP.

    (We will be sure to remind AT&T of this statement when, in a few years, the company inevitably argues that its existing U-Verse service is just fine and there is no need for costly investment in FTTP expansion.)

    DSL Reports’ Karl Bode is even more skeptical of AT&T’s claims that a DirecTV acquisition will result in improved and expanded broadband.

    Pointing out that the AT&T filing redacts any relevant math that would give us an idea of exactly how much the company could save, Bode writes that “it’s highly unlikely” that consumers will ever see those savings passed on to them.

    “It’s also highly unlikely this savings would be used to expand gigabit offerings with AT&T so squarely focused on wireless,” he writes. “AT&T’s ‘Gigapower’ deployment of fiber to the home is aimed primarily at select high-end developments where fiber is already in the ground, but the telco has dressed it up as a much broader effort for PR effect. There’s nothing specifically about the DirecTV acquisition that will impact these plans; in fact AT&T has a long history of pretending that already-scheduled broadband deployments are only possible if Uncle Sam gives it what it wants.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uMcDonald’s Closes 700 Locations In First Half Of 2015r


4 4 4 9
  • Just yesterday McDonald’s new CEO Steve Easterbrook claimed that he was in the midst of developing a turnaround plan for the once unstoppable fast food force. However, it appears his ideas on how to reverse sagging sales and criticism of labor practices comes a bit too late for about 700 locations that have already closed or are slated for closing this year.

    Fortune reports that the Golden Arches shuttered 350 poorly performing stores in the U.S., Japan and China in the first part of 2015. Those stores are in addition to 350 other stores that were already targeted for shutdown in the first three months of the year.

    McDonald’s CFO Kevin Ozan told analysts on Wednesday that these shuttered restaurants were chosen after comparable sales for the locations fell between 2.3% and 4.8% in the first quarter of the year.

    Although the closure of 700 stores seems like a lot, it’s only a small fraction of McDonald’s 32,500 stores worldwide.

    Analysts tell Fortune that the unexpected closures signify one way in which McDonald’s is attempting to aggressively address slumping sales.

    McDonald’s announced Wednesday that same-store sales were down 2.6% in the first quarter, despite the company’s massive media push with its “lovin’” campaign, which briefly allowed random customers to pay with non-currency like hugs. The marketing, which included prominent Super Bowl advertising, increased brand awareness of McDonald’s but failed to improve sales or consumers’ feelings toward the company.

    Other measures to bring the company back to its glory days included a Turnaround summit that some franchisees called a farce, and recently announced pay hikes for employees at certain company-owned stores.

    Still, as Consumerist reported Wednesday, Easterbrook will provide actual details on new plans to turnaround the fast foot giant during a May 4 strategy call.

    McDonald’s is closing hundreds of stores this year [Fortune]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist