uThe Baltimore Orioles Will Play The Chicago White Sox In An Empty Stadium Tomorrowr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (KitanaOR)

  After twice postponing Monday night’s game citing security reasons, the Baltimore Orioles and Chicago White Sox have agreed to meet for the first of their planned three-game series Wednesday afternoon, playing for an empty stadium at Camden Yards.

  Tomorrow’s game between the Orioles and the Chicago White Sox will begin at 2:05 p.m. ET and will be closed to the public.

  — Baltimore Orioles (@Orioles) April 28, 2015

  The decision came after the Orioles consulted with Major League Baseball and other officials about how to handle moving forward with the games in the midst of violent riots going on in Baltimore right now, reports the Chicago Tribune.

  Protesters have taken to the streets this week after the funeral of a 25-year-old man who suffered a spinal injury while in police custody.

  MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said the Orioles had considered all options for the remaining two games, before deciding to make them up on May 28 in a single-admission doubleheader. There’s currently a citywide curfew in Baltimore starting at 10 p.m., meaning the games could have been moved to earlier in the day or played elsewhere.

  Instead, fans with tickets to Monday’s game will get admission to the double-header, or can exchange those tickets for any home game this season. The game will still be televised, SB Nation points out, while the team is also moving a May 1-3 series against the Tamp Bay Rays to Tampa.

  We reached out to the MLB to see if this kind of situation has any precedent, and will let you know if we hear back.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uAmericans Plan To Spend Slightly More On Moms This Yearr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Corey Templeton)

  Mother’s Day is our nation’s greatest guilt holiday: mothers brought us into the world, raised us, or even both, and we can at least buy them brunch and a handful of tulips, right? Of course! Stuff isn’t a proxy for love, but the National Retail Federation tells us that Americans plan to spend an average of $172.63 each on Mother’ Day festivities this year.

  Mother’s Day isn’t about buying stuff for only our own personal mothers, of course, 6,285 people took this year’s phone survey, and they named some other people who they celebrate on that day. These included wives, sisters, grandmothers, daughters, friends, godmothers, and “other relatives,” which probably includes stepmothers and aunts. Shoppers said that they plan to spend about $8 on cards for the holiday, and 80% of them planned to buy at least one card.

  67% of shoppers plan to buy flowers: while Valentine’s Day is the biggest holiday for giving flowers, Mother’s Day is the biggest holiday for having flowers delivered from afar. (Here’s our guide from earlier this year on how to get the freshest and most beautiful flowers for your money: lessons from Valentine’s Day still apply.)

  Other odd bits from the survey? 44% of participants plan to give their mother figures gift cards for the holiday, and 14% plan to give them some kind of consumer electronics.

  FAMILIES SPENDING MORE THAN EVER ON MOM, ACCORDING TO NRF SURVEY [NRF]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uUpcoming Online Airfare Comparison Changes Raise Privacy, Discrimination Concernsr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Themarcogoon49)

  A group of senators raised concerns Tuesday that a new airfare comparison shopping system currently being developed could lead to unfair discrimination practices based on information the airlines receive from customers.

  USA Today reports that six senators sent a letter [PDF] to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx expressing worries about privacy and unfair discriminatory practices that could occur under the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Resolution 787.

  The crux of the senators’ concerns rest in the new system for comparison shopping, which requires the large-scale collection, use and storage of sensitive personal information by airlines and travel agents in order to quote consumers prices on flights.

  Senators Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Bill Nelson of Florida, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Al Franken of Minnesota, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut say in the letter that they believe the new system could unfairly penalize consumers based on the information they provide the airlines.

  Under the new comparison shopping language, which airlines won approval to develop last August, an online travel agent would be able to market a greater variety of services such as bag fees and seat assignments than available at current comparison web sites.

  Currently, online travel agents like Orbitz and Priceline provide few options beyond the base price of tickets. Instead, customers have to visit an airline’s website to find and pay for things like baggage fees and seat reservations.

  By allowing customers to provide personal information to online travel sites for these extra services, the senators say, airlines could change their prices to either charge more or less based on the provided data.

  “For example, airlines, using consumer zip code information, may offer special fares to consumers who live in more affluent zip codes to entice them to travel more frequently while failing to provide those same discounts in lower-income areas,” the letter states. “On the other hand, business travelers who regularly fly the same routes could face higher prices.”

  Although the DOT has prohibited airfare vendors from using consumer-provided information to discriminate against consumers based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, political affiliation, disability and national origin, the senators say that by not banning judgement based on income level, marital status and the purpose of travel, the Dept. is leaving the door open to unfair and deceptive trade practices.

  Likewise, the senators say that while consumers can decline to provide personal information to airlines, the Resolution does not provide measures to prevent airfare vendors from penalizing those consumers and charging them higher fares.

  The letter asks Foxx to provide answers to an array of questions regarding the Resolution including how pricing will work and the privacy requirements that will protect consumers’ information.

  Senators raise concerns about airline marketing changes afoot online [USA Today]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uBud Light: We “Missed The Mark” On Bottle Suggesting That “No” Is A Drink Away From “Yes”r

4 4 4 9

• 

  (reddit)

  Earlier today we told you about the Bud Light “Up for Whatever” bottle tagline that suggested that the drink was the “perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary for the night.” While Bud Light has not responded to our multiple requests for comment, its parent company has released an apology of sorts.

  The statement, attributed to Alexander Lambrecht, Vice President, Bud Light, Anheuser-Busch:

  “The Bud Light Up for Whatever campaign, now in its second year, has inspired millions of consumers to engage with our brand in a positive and light-hearted way. In this spirit, we created more than 140 different scroll messages intended to encourage spontaneous fun. It’s clear that this message missed the mark, and we regret it. We would never condone disrespectful or irresponsible behavior.”

  This is the second time in only a few months that Bud Light has had to apologize over the lecherous implications of its “up for whatever” campaign. In March, the beer brand Tweeted that it was okay to go around pinching strangers in public on St. Patrick’s Day if you were “up for whatever.”

  Many saw this as the company promoting the idea of unwanted assault by drunken revelers. Bud Light subsequently removed the Tweet and apologized, but only to those who “misunderstood” the intention.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

u83-Year-Old Racks Up $24,289 In AT&T Charges By Still Using AOL Dial-Upr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Mike Mozart)

  Believe it or not, AOL still has more than 2 million paying customers who dial into the service to get Internet access. And for people whose online use is minimal, this may be the cheaper option — unless some glitch causes your modem to start dialing an international line, leaving you to rack up thousands of dollars in charges while your phone company pleads ignorance.

  That’s the lesson learned by a California octogenarian who took his $24,289 AT&T problem to the L.A. Times’ David Lazarus.

  The man said he’d long been paying $51/month to AT&T for landline service and that he’s one of the few remaining AOL dial-up users out there.

  Then suddenly, his AT&T bill jumps up to more than $8,000 in a single month. A call to the phone company resulted in nothing but head-scratching. A tech was supposedly dispatched, but the 83-year-old said he heard nothing further and that no one ever came into his house.

  Until the next month, when that bill was almost double the previous one — nearly $16,000. Again, AT&T could offer no real explanation other than to send out another tech. This time, a tech did show up, but only to tell the man there was something wrong with his modem.

  When the customer, who subsists on $1,500/month in Social Security benefits, called AT&T about lowering the bill, the company was not exactly willing to listen.

  “The woman said they couldn’t make an adjustment,” he explained to Lazarus. “I told her I couldn’t possibly afford what they wanted. She just insisted that I had to pay it. She was very blunt about it.”

  Then Lazarus and the Times got involved and suddenly AT&T was much more flexible.

  A rep for the company explained that the customer’s modem had somehow started dialing an international number and he was getting charged by the minute. Those minutes add up quickly and the next thing you know, you owe $8,000 just because you’re using a service most of us abandoned more than a decade ago.

  AT&T claims that it was actually in the process of addressing the issue when Lazarus contacted the company, but that doesn’t explain why the first two customer service calls were not sufficient to identify the issue, or why someone whose bill jumps up by more than 100x in a single month didn’t set off alarm bells.

  If AT&T can alert “unlimited” data plan holders when it thinks they are using too much data in a month, certainly the company has the ability to tell a landline customer when he might be on the hook for a phone bill that is larger than his annual income.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uAfter Decades Of Raking In Mountains Of Money, NFL Finally Decides To Abandon Not-For-Profit Statusr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (frankieleon)

  Last season, the NFL generated $10.5 billion in revenue, of which a solid $1 billion was profit. That’s a lot of money. And yet despite basically being able to fill a Scrooge McDuck tower thousands of times over, the NFL has been a tax-exempt non-profit organization — until today.

  As the Washington Post reports, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sent a letter today to team owners and members of Congress, explaining why the league was dumping its tax-exempt status.

  “The fact is that the business of the NFL has never been tax exempt,” Goodell said. “Every dollar of income generated through television rights fees, licensing agreements, sponsorships, ticket sales, and other means is earned by the 32 clubs and is taxable there.”

  The NFL has qualified as a nonprofit in the same way that trade groups do. In theory, the league simply promotes the work of the actual businesses: the teams. The teams, the logic runs, are the for-profit entities that churn up billions of dollars; the league is simply an umbrella organization that promotes their work, not its own.

  With the NFL finally giving up its tax-exempt status, the NHL is the last remaining major league sport claiming to be a non-profit. Major League Baseball made the switch in 2007, and the NBA is already a for-profit organization.

  So why would the NFL be willing to make the switch now? Because it won’t really hurt them, and it might even help. The amount of tax for which the league is expected to be liable is somewhere in the range of $10 million. For the NFL, that’s basically the change scraped out of the sofa cushions in America’s football-watching homes.

  But by becoming tax-exempt, the NFL also gets the ability to stop publicly disclosing certain information — specifically, what its executive employees make. The WaPo reports that the organization’s 2013 tax filings showed Goodell made $44 million that year, six other executives made over $1 million, and almost 300 NFL employees got $100k or more.

  In other words: the entire league will probably pay in tax less than 25% of what it pays its top man. And in return, they get to keep secrets. From their point of view, that’s a trade worth making.

  The NFL is dropping its tax-exempt status. Why that ends up helping them out [Washington Post]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

uShould A Landlord Be Allowed To Repeatedly Offer Buyout Offers To Resistant Tenants?r

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Earth2Kim)

  When it comes to courtship, sometimes asking more than once is just too much. That’s why a proposed law in New York City would make it illegal for landlords to offer a tenant a buyout after they’ve already been told that the renter doesn’t want any such deal. But a group representing the landlords says tenants might change their minds down the line.

  A bill introduced to the City Council would put restrictions on landlords trying to get rent-stabilized tenants out so they can raise the rent higher than they’re currently able to under rules set by the Rent Guidelines Board, reports Gothamist.

  A vacant apartment in NYC can have its rent increased more than one occupied by a rent-stabilized tenant — who gets the option to renew their lease at a lower rate of increase ever year. Offering tenants a buyout is an easy way for landlords to get those apartments empty — and thus, make more money off them.

  This bill would prevent repeated buyout offers after a tenant indicates verbally or in writing that they’re not interested in a deal. But a spokesman for The Rent Stabilization Association says that proffering such deals is a form of free speech. And besides, what if someone changes their mind later on?

  “I think there’s a real issue here in terms of First Amendment, free speech rights,” he told Gothamist. “If someone says, on January 1st, ‘Don’t bother me. I don’t want to be bought out,’ I don’t think there’s any harm in an owner three months or six months later saying, ‘By the way, have you changed your mind?'” he said. “Is that harassment?”

  Proposed Law Would Ban Landlords From Repeatedly Offering Buyouts [Gothamist]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist