uWendy’s Jumping On Organic Bandwagon With Addition Of Honest Tea At Restaurants Nationwider

4 4 4 9

• 

  (kc2gvx)

  Though not many of its fast food rivals have taken the plunge into organic waters, Wendy’s is just going with the trend embraced increasingly by consumers, announcing that it’ll be serving Honest Tea nationwide at its restaurants, brewed fresh by workers and sweetened with fair-trade sugars and natural flavors approved in USDA certified organic foods.

  According to the Wall Street Journal, this move into organic beverages around the country makes Wendy’s a bit of a standout among its peers, and shows that it’s ready to get on board with the the kind of healthier eating lifestyle that has become popular among consumers in recent years.

  The tea will be brewed on site, Seth Goldman, co-founder and chief executive of Bethesda, Md.-based Honest Tea (its parent company is Coca-Cola) told the WSJ. Wendy’s has an exclusive deal to sell one flavor — Honest Tropical Green Tea.

  Washing down French fries with an organic drink might seem like a stretch, but traditional soda isn’t the ruler of the roost it once was — consumption of Diet Coke alone has decreased 15% in the past two years, the WSJ points out, with Coke’s sales volumes from soda rising a measly 1% in each of the last two years worldwide.

  Coke is now hoping to reap the rewards of owning Honest Tea, with Goldman saying it’s hoped the drink will hit $500 million in sales in five years, after making $134 million in sales in 2014.

  The company is aiming to do some of that with the Wendy’s deal, where Honest Tea will be sold at a suggested price of $1.69 for a small drink (compared to $1.39 for a small soda), in the hopes that if you can’t be convinced to part with your money to drink soda while you’re eating fries — dusted in sea salt, even — maybe you’ll fork over a little extra for a trendy organic drink.

  Wendy’s to Start Selling Honest Tea [Wall Street Journal]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uUnited Airlines Foots The Bill To Fly Dog Missing For Four Years Back To Familyr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Dave Transier)

  It’s not every day you see a dog flying first class – for free – on an airplane. But that’s exactly what passengers on a flight from Iowa to Louisiana witnessed Wednesday, as United Airlines footed the bill to reunite a dog with his family after going missing four years ago.

  ABC News reports (warning: link video autoplays) that United pulled out all the stops when it came to reuniting Sam, a Yorkshire terrier, with his family in Louisiana.

  The ordeal began in 2011, when the family says Sam went through a hole in their backyard fence into the surrounding wooded area. The family tried everything they could to find the dog, but had no luck.

  That is until this April when an animal control officer in Cedar Rapids, IA, spotted the pup and brought him to a local shelter.

  “The Yorkie was in fair condition, but was straggly and weighed only 5 1/2 pounds,” according to the press release from the city of Cedar Rapids. “Despite the dog’s condition, Animal Care and Control staff was able to determine that the Yorkie had a microchip.”

  After scanning the microchip, the shelter contacted the family, who had all but given up hope on finding their furry friend.

  “We were waiting to hear around here if someone found him,” the family’s mom says. “They would have called us. After four years, you kind of give up hope.”

  Because the family couldn’t afford to bring Sam home themselves, they set up a fundraising page and raised more than $250. But after hearing the story, United Airlines stepped in and paid for the dog’s return trip in first class with an animal worker.

  Upon landing at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport on Wednesday, the dog and his newly reunited family were welcomed with balloon and refreshments provided by the airline.

  ABC News reports that the individuals who initially donated for the dogs transport have agreed to allow the family to put the funds toward caring for Sam.

  Dog Found in Iowa Returned to Louisiana Owner After Missing Nearly 4 Years [ABC News]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uAd Watchdog: Scooter Commercials Show Too Much Unsupervised Funr

4 4 4 9

• Zooming along the sidewalk at up to 13 miles per hour on an electric-powered scooter sounds like a lot of fun. However, one scooter company has run into trouble by running its ads that show an unsupervised teen zipping around the neighborhood during shows for inappropriately young kids. Their commercials caught the attention of the ad watchdogs over at the Children’s Advertising Review Unit of the Advertising Self-Regulatory Council.

  Because I spend too much time on the Internet, I wasn’t aware that anyone under 13 actually watched the current generation of “My Little Pony” cartoons. In all seriousness, though, the CARU found this spot inappropriate for the audience of “Friendship is Magic,” which is when it aired.

  Based on the description, the ad in question appears to be this one:

  While the subject of the ad scooters around a residential neighborhood, the ad’s disclaimers tell us that it’s a “closed and controlled course.” The bigger problem, though, is that the more powerful scooters displayed in the ad aren’t appropriate for kids under age 13 or so. The main character in the ad films himself and there aren’t any adults present, which is a key part of the industry’s self-imposed safety rules. “children are prone to exploration, imitation, and experimentation and may imitate product demonstrations or other activities depicted in advertisements without regard to risk.”

  The ASRC is a self-regulation body that reviews current ads and responds to complaints from competitors about problematic advertising. In this case, Bravo Sports informed the watchdogs that they are no longer airing this ad, and that they will keep the concerns about safety and adult supervision in mind if they make more electric scooter ads in the future.

  CARU Recommends Bravo Sports Depict Safety Gear, Supervision in Future Scooter Ads Directed to Children Under 12 [ASRC]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uApple Now Requires ResearchKit Apps To Get Ethics Board Approvalr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (iDiapo)

  Since introducing ResearchKit, its open-source framework for scientists to develop iPhone apps for medical research, Apple has made a few tweaks to the submission guidelines for apps that aim to collect and use sensitive medical data. One new addition is that anyone submitting an app that does research on humans must submit proof that the study has been approved by an independent ethics review board.

  Whether the research includes simply taking a survey or experimental drugs or surgery, any research that involves experimenting on people must be approved by an ethical review board. That doesn’t mean that you take a research proposal down the hall to friendly colleagues and say, “Hey, guys, does this look ethical to you?” For researchers who work at a hospital or a university, for example, their institutions will have their own review board which should function independently. Review boards for hire are also available. Apple is now leaving those decisions to the respective review boards of researchers who are submitting apps.

  This probably won’t matter very much in the context of apps that will be part of ResearchKit, since it’s difficult for taking a survey or monitoring your heart rate on a smart watch to kill or significantly harm you. Still, participants’ privacy is important, and so is their overall well-being: asking remote research subjects to perform tasks that could be dangerous for them or questions that are potentially upsetting.

  App Store Review Guidelines [Apple]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uNew Law Would Ban Companies From Penalizing Customers Who Write Negative Reviewsr

4 4 4 9

• 

  Here’s an example of a non-disparagement clause in the real world. This one is from a wedding supply vendor’s contract. It forbids customers from making disparaging remarks or encouraging others to make them.

  For the last couple of years, we’ve been telling you about ridiculous, so-called “non-disparagement” clauses that threaten customers with financial penalties for writing (or threatening to write, or even encouraging someone else to write) something negative online about a company. California has already outlawed these clauses, which tend to fail when challenged in court, but an attempt to enact legislation at the federal level has so far fallen short. But that’s not stopping some members of Congress from trying to ban this form of consumer bullying.

  Rep. Eric Swalwell from California, the lawmaker behind the Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2014, is trying again with the Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015 [PDF], which would void any contract clause that “prohibits or restricts the ability of a person who is a party to the form contract to engage in a covered communication,” or which “imposes a penalty or fee” against that person, or which gives the business any intellectual property rights over the customer’s lawful communications.

  This last one might seem odd to people who haven’t followed the news about these nonsensical contracts, but a number of businesses have attempted to quiet consumers by claiming a copyright on the customers’ reviews and photos.

  There was the dentist whose contract included a clause automatically granting her intellectual property rights to anything her clients wrote about her. She tried to use this copyright claim to have negative reviews of her business taken down, but now she owes the customer thousands of dollars after failing to defend herself in court.

  Then there was the Florida apartment complex that not only claimed copyright on tenants’ reviews, but on any photos they took of the property. After the news got wind of this clause, the management company claimed it no longer included that condition in its contracts, though at least one tenant said otherwise.

  Just this month, we told you about the Orlando wedding supply vendor that not only tries to ban customers from saying bad things about their business, but also prohibits customers from encouraging anyone else to say something negative. The most perplexing part of the contract is that there is no mention or description of what sort of penalty the customer might face if they violated this clause.

  “Too often, a consumer shares a negative customer service experience with others, then learns that according to the fine print in the boilerplate contract, he may not criticize the business publicly, including writing an online review,” says Scott Michelman of Public Citizen, who has helped represent consumers in non-disparagement cases. “Companies use these unjust terms to bully dissatisfied customers into silence.”

  Michelman believes the Consumer Review Freedom Act would would protect individual consumers from hidden contract terms that forbid criticism.

  “It also would help prospective customers avoid unscrupulous businesses by enabling them to learn from the experiences of their fellow consumers,” he adds.

  This latest version of the federal legislation may stand a better chance, as Swalwell is joined in introducing the bill by powerful Congressman Darrell Issa, also from California, who is Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Having bipartisan support from a prominent member of the House can’t hurt the bill’s chances.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uReport: Uber Testing Same-Day Delivery For Retailersr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (dsuniaga)

  Not content to ferry passengers, packages and food, Uber is reportedly casting its net in the pool of merchant delivery, by taking advantage of both its drivers and its UberRUSH courier service to connect online shoppers with their goods the same day they order them from popular retailers.

  You could ostensibly be riding with someone’s hamburger in the back seat with you while another stranger’s shoes are reclining up front, reports TechCrunch: The site says it got its hands on training manuals for its drivers and couriers who will be a part of the merchant delivery pilot program.

  Insiders say retailers like Neiman Marcus, Louis Vuitton, Tiffany’s and more have discussed being a part of the program, for a total of more than 400 merchants currently talking to Uber about same-day delivery.

  Uber issued a statement from a spokesperson to TechCrunch, saying neither yes nor no: “Experimenting and finding new, creative ways for the Uber app to provide even greater value to our riders and driver partners is a way of life at Uber. We have been piloting UberRUSH with multiple retailers for the last year.”

  TechCrunch says it’s more than just UberRUSH from what it can see in the documents, with divers and couriers taking orders through a different app than the one used for normal UberRUSH orders. At some point, it appears drivers will be able to carry both humans and Uber Merchant orders through one app.

  Uber Is Quietly Testing A Massive Merchant Delivery Program [TechCrunch]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uExecutives & Loan Officers Must Pay $600K For Being Part Of Illegal Mortgage Kickback Schemer

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Steven Depolo)

  Nearly five months after Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay more than $35 million – including $11.1 million in redress to affected consumers – for their part in an illegal mortgage kickback scheme, the purported masterminds behind the “pay-to-play” arrangement are finally facing action from federal regulators for their shady dealings.

  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, along with the Maryland Attorney General, announced today that they reached a proposed deal with five of the six defendants previously working as executives for now-defunct title company Genuine Title and loan officers for various bank branches, that would bar them from the mortgage industry and require them to pay a total of $662,500 in penalties and refunds to affected consumers.

  The proposed consent order stems from the individuals’ part in real estate closing company Genuine’s years-long scheme to provide cash, marketing materials and consumer information in exchange for mortgage referrals.

  Under federal law, companies and individuals are prohibited from giving or receiving kickbacks in exchange for a referral of business related to a real-estate-settlement service.

  According to the CFPB’s complaint [PDF], Jay Zukerberg, the owner of Genuine Title, along with director of marketing Brandon Glickstein, developed the scheme to win over more business.

  The company offered to complete marketing duties for loan officers, such as purchasing, analyzing, and providing data on consumers, and creating letters with the loan officers’ contact information that the company printed, folded, stuffed into envelopes, and mailed.

  In exchange for performing these services, loan officers working in the greater Baltimore area would refer homebuyers to the company for closing services.

  At times when marketing services were not needed, the four loan officers named in today’s order would receive cash kickbacks from Genuine.

  The CFPB and Maryland AG’s office allege that because Zukerberg and Glickstein knew it would look “fishy” if Genuine paid cash directly to the officers, they devise an operation in which the payments were funneled through companies owned by the four loan officers.

  In all, the complaint alleges that Zukerberg and Glickstein arranged for cash payments to the loan officers from Genuine Title in amounts ranging from about $130,000 to $500,000.

  The proposed enforcement order, if accepted by the court, requires Zukerberg to be banned from the mortgage industry for five years and pay $130,000 in redress and penalties. Glickman would also be banned from the mortgage industry for five years and required to pay $300,000 in redress.

  Three of the four named loan officers would be banned from the industry for two years and must pay redress ranging from $30,000 to $65,000 each. The fourth loan officer declined to settle with the CFPB and attorney general and as a result action will proceed against the individual, the CFPB says.

  The CFPB and state of Maryland’s action previously reached deals with the banks where the loan officers were employed, after investigators found more than 100 employees of Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase were allegedly involved in illegal tit-for-tatting with Genuine Title.

  Wells Fargo agreed to pay $10.8 million in redress to consumers whose loans were involved in this scheme, along with another $24 million in civil penalties. For it’s part, JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay back approximately $300,000 to affected consumers and $600,000 in civil penalties.

  CFPB and State of Maryland Take Action Against “Pay-To-Play” Mortgage Kickback Scheme [CFPB]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist