среда, 16 сентября 2015 г.

uRecaro Recalling More Than 173K Car Seats Over Strap That Can Break, Leave Seat Unsecuredr


4 4 4 9
  • Recaro recalled more than 173,000 seats because a tether can break, leaving seats unsecured.

    Recaro recalled more than 173,000 seats because a tether can break, leaving seats unsecured.

    Recaro Child Safety initiated a recall this week of more than 173,000 car seats after finding a strap that holds the seat in place can detatch in the event of a crash.

    The recall covers 173,063 ProRIDE and Performance RIDE Convertible car seats manufactured by Recaro between April 9, 2010 and June 9, 2015.

    According to a notice [PDF] the company sent to customers, when the affected car seats are installed using the top tether, the top portion of the restraint can crack and separate.

    As a result, in the event of a crash, the restraint could fail to protect the child from contacting interior surfaces of the vehicle, increasing the risk of injury. Recaro says it has received no reports of injuries related to the recalled car seats.

    The company will send notification letters to all registered ProRIDE and Performance RIDE owners who are affected by this recall.

    Consumers will also receive a fix kit containing a tether load redistribution strap and instructions for how to affix the new tether load redistribution strap to the car seat.

    “The safety of your child is our number one concern,” the company says, noting that if customers have questions regarding the ProRIDE and Performance RIDE recall to contact Recaro customer service at 1-866-628-4750 or recarorecall@m-s-s.com.

    [via The Associated Press]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uOlive Garden Is Bringing Back The Pasta Pass, Adds Family Optionr


4 4 4 9
  • Screen Shot 2015-09-16 at 9.55.16 AMIf you missed your chance to buy one of the 1,000 never-ending Pasta Passes from Olive Garden last year, mark your calendars… for tomorrow: the fast-casual chain says it’s bringing back the cards that entitle bearers to shove as much pasta down their gullets as they can for seven weeks. This time, friends and family can be included in the endless feast as well.

    Olive Garden says on its website (warning: link has auto-play video) it’ll sell 1,000 of the $100 regular Pasta Passes starting Thursday, Sept. 17 at 2 p.m. EDT on its website — and this time, officials promise there won’t be any website glitches like last year, the Orlando Sentinel notes.

    In a new twist, there will also be 1,000 family Pasta Passes up for grabs, which cost $300 and allow cardholders to bring up to three guests with them to the table.

    Like last year, the passes aren’t transferable and can’t be sold — the person whose name is on the card is the only one who can use it. They can be used between Oct. 5 to Nov. 22, and entitle the bearer to a never-ending pasta bowl, as well as breadsticks, soda and soup or salad.

    Last year’s promotional ballyhoo had the passes selling out in 45 minutes, and inspired a slew of stories about people who were taking advantage of the passes to the fullest: there was the guy who ate 115 meals at Olive Garden in seven weeks, the reader who tried to make us bow to the power of his Pasta Pass and turn us into his vassals, and the do-gooder who figured out how to use his pass to feed people in need of a decent meal.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uTarget To Face Class-Action Lawsuit From Banks Over Data Breachr


4 4 4 9
  • A month after Target agreed to pay financial institutions that issue Visa-branded credit cards $67 million related to its massive 2013 data breach, a federal judge gave the go-ahead for other banks to pursue a class-action lawsuit against the retailer.

    Reuters reports that a federal judge in St. Paul, MN, on Tuesday granted class-action status to the financial institutions suing Target for damages stemming from the data breach that affected more than 100 million customers.

    By certifying the class-action status of the case, the judge gives the plaintiffs more leverage in negotiations with the retailer and make hefty settlement more likely.

    An attorney representing the banks tells Reuters that the ruling “brings financial institutions one step closer to collectively holding Target accountable for its unprecedented data breach.”

    He said that lawyers would work to provide notice to all financial insinuations covered by the class, and that they “look forward to obtaining proper compensation.”

    A spokesperson for Target says the company was “disappointed” and would evaluate its next steps.

    The judge’s ruling comes just a month after Target reached a deal with Visa to give about $67 million back to consumers affected by the breach.

    While the figure was attributed to “people familiar with the situation,” the company confirmed the payment amount in a recent SEC filing.

    “In August 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with Visa under which we will pay up to $67 million to eligible Visa card issuers worldwide that issued cards that Visa claimed to have been affected by the data breach,” the filing reveals.

    In the wake of the massive hack, which went on for weeks before being detected in late 2013, card issuers say they spent hundreds of millions of dollars issuing replacement cards and dealing with fraudulent charges tied to the breach.

    Target said at the time it will continue to dispute claims filed by the three other major payment networks.

    “We expect to dispute the remaining unsettled claims regarding the data breach that have been or may be made against us by the payment card networks,” the company says. “With respect to the three major payment card networks other than Visa, we think it is probable that our disputes would lead to settlement negotiations.”

    The company previously settled a class-action case from consumers in March by agreeing to pay $10 million. The settlement was believed to potentially pay individual victims up to $10,000 in damages.

    U.S. judge certifies class action over Target Corp data breach [Reuters]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uAnheuser-Busch InBev Asks Miller To Consider Taking Its Hand In Merger Marriager


4 4 4 9
  • It’s a mega-merger that’s been hinted at for years, but today it moved out of the realm of “people close to the situation” and into an an actual confirmation from Anheuser-Busch InBev that it has talked to the folks at SABMiller about combining the two beer giants into an even larger beer titan.

    In a statement [PDF] released this morning by Belgium-based AB InBev — the company behind dozens of brands, including Budweiser, Rolling Rock, Stella Artois, and of course King Cobra — confirmed that it had approached the board of SABMiller (makers of everything from Miller to Coors to Milwaukee’s Best) about “a combination of the two companies.”

    This is not a firm merger offer, explains AB InBev, which says its “intention is to work with SABMiller’s Board toward a recommended transaction,” but notes, “There can be no certainty that this approach will result in an offer or agreement.”

    InBev now has until Oct. 14 to make a decision about whether or not to move forward with a bona fide merger.

    While today’s announcement puts no dollar value on the possible deal, the Wall Street Journal reports that the AB InBev would likely offer more than Miller’s current market cap of $75 billion.

    If the deal does move forward, it will receive a huge amount of antitrust consideration in the U.S. and abroad. These two companies are already the world’s first- and second-largest beer makers. If they were to combine without having to shed any of their brands, they would control around 70% of the American beer market, and 30% of the global market.

    One analyst is already predicting that U.S. antitrust regulators would “almost certainly insist on the disposal of SAB’s stake in MillerCoors in the USA,” in order to make the deal more palatable.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


вторник, 15 сентября 2015 г.

uFarmers Say They’re Making Too Much Money Off Beef To Go Drug-Freer


4 4 4 9
  • We already know that 4-in-5 popular restaurant chains have put little to no thought into dealing with the overuse of antibiotics in the farm animals that provide the beef, chicken, and pork for their foods. And though chicken titans like Perdue and Tyson are nudging the poultry industry toward fewer antibiotics, cattle farmers are apparently more reluctant to head the drug-free route because they are making big profits on drugged-up cows.

    The Wall Street Journal reports that, with ranchers ranchers seeing some of their largest profits ever, they are balking at providing antibiotic-free meat to customers.

    Following a drought in 2014 that culled cattle herds to historic low levels, cattle prices have been at all-time highs recently. The price of fresh beef in July was up 11% over the previous year to $6.16/lb.

    Grassfed and antibiotic-free beef often sells for a higher price, but some farmers say that making that switch requires additional investment and time. If farmers are already making more now than ever before on cows raised using an abundance of antibiotics, they have little incentive to switch to providing a product that might not be as immediately profitable.

    “With a real strong market like that, there’s just no advantage to going to a natural program,” explains one Oregon farmer who has declined to join a local natural beef cooperative.

    Antibiotic-free beef only accounts for about 5% of the whole U.S. market, representing around $800 million in sales a year. But the popularity of organic beef has soared by more than 300% since 2011, compared to only about 12% overall growth in the fresh beef business.

    And there are more people out there who want to buy the product, at least according to a rep for a natural cattle cooperative — representing 80 ranchers in the Western U.S. — who tells the Journal that “supply is our bigger issue.”

    With an apparent shortage of antibiotic-free meat in the U.S. and an industry that is slow to adopt — partly because cows take so much longer to go to market than chickens — some big buyers of the drug-free stuff have had to look across the ocean for beef vendors.

    Last year, with beef prices rising and not enough stateside providers to meet its demand, Chipotle — one of only two major restaurant chains to earn an “A” in today’s antibiotics scorecard — had to resort to getting some of its grassfed beef from Australia.

    The Journal notes that CKE Restaurants — the parent company of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s — also relies on Australian beef for its “All-Natural Burger.”

    Antibiotics for farm animals account for around 80% of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. While some of those drugs are used for the genuine treatment of actual diseases, the majority of these antibiotics are provided to the animals — through their feed and water — in doses too low to effectively kill disease-causing bacteria. In fact, this sort of prophylactic, non-therapeutic application of antibiotics is believed to be aiding in the development of bacteria that is resistant to traditional drugs.

    A recent investigation by our colleagues at Consumer Reports recently turned up antibiotic-resistant bacteria in 18% of tested ground beef samples. Meanwhile, only about 9% of more sustainably sourced beef contained these nasty pathogens, which turned up a mere 6% of grassfed beef tested for the study.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uFacebook Close To Unveiling The Long-Awaited “Dislike” Buttonr


4 4 4 9
  • The opposite of this could be coming to a Facebook page near you soon. (afagen)

    The opposite of this could be coming to a Facebook page near you soon. (afagen)

    Nearly a year after Facebook overlord Mark Zuckerberg said the company was kinda, sorta looking into creating a “dislike” button for all those posts you, well, don’t like, he says the social network is on the cusp of unveiling a companion for the often overused thumbs-up sign.

    Zuckerberg announced that the company was gearing up to unveil the option for negative Nellies during a town hall meeting at Facebook headquarters on Tuesday, reports USAToday.

    “It’s important to give people more options than just ‘like’ to help express empathy, Zuckerberg said. “Not every moment is a good moment.”

    For years Facebook has stood steadfast against a dislike button, saying the option could be perceived as bullying or shaming other users.

    The company’s aversion to a thumbs-down button appears to have been wavering, as Zuckerberg noted in the town hall meeting that there were certain instances in which a “dislike” would come in handy, such as a family death or a crisis.

    Facebook working on ‘dislike’ button, Mark Zuckerberg says [USA Today]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uLawsuit Claims Twitter Eavesdrops On Direct Messagesr


4 4 4 9
  • When you send a direct message on Twitter, you might imagine it zipping straight from your account to its intended recipient, arriving exactly how you wrote it, untouched and unchanged. But a new lawsuit in California claims Twitter is effectively snooping on users’ direct messages, and changing them to benefit its own advertising goals.

    A lawsuit seeking class-action status [] filed Tuesday on Monday in a San Francisco federal court claims Twitter “surreptitiously eavesdrops on its users’ private direct message communications. As soon as a user sends a direct message, Twitter intercepts, reads and, at times, even alters the message.”

    As for how those messages are allegedly altered, the lawsuit claims Twitter’s algorithm searches direct messages for links, then changes them using its own link shortening tool. This, despite the fact that link shortening tools aren’t as necessary now that direct messages have been freed from the 140-character limit.

    “Twitter’s algorithms will read through the Direct Message, identify the hyperlink, and replace it with its own custom link, thereby sending the person clicking on the link to Twitter’s analytics servers before passing them on to the original linked-to website,” claims the suit, which was originally reported by the Hollywood Reporter.

    The suit uses the example of a story a user might send from the New York Times to another follower via direct message, using the full URL. Twitter will modify it to something like “http:/t.co/xxxxxxxx,” while users still see the text using “http://ift.tt/1Fds5eT;

    By sending users to analytics servers first, the lawsuit claims Twitter could benefit by showing the New York Times (and other potential advertisers) where the source of the traffic is.

    “The end result is that Twitter can negotiate better advertising rates,” says the lawsuit.

    This interference represents a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California’s privacy law, the lawsuit claims.

    The lawsuit was filed on behalf of any Americans who have sent or received a direct message and seeks damages that would amount to about “$100 per day for each Twitter user whose privacy was violated.”

    A Twitter spokesman responded to the lawsuit by simply saying: “We believe these claims are meritless and we intend to fight them.”



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist