четверг, 24 сентября 2015 г.

uBMW, Daimler Deny Manipulating Emissions Testsr


4 4 4 9
  • (Kenny Lannert)

    Less than a week after regulators called out Volkswagen for using “defeat device” software to cheat on emissions tests for 11 million vehicles worldwide, the integrity of some other German automakers is being called into question.

    Both BMW and Daimler, the maker of Mercedes-Benz, have issued denials that they were involved in any sort of illicit tinkering with their cars’ emissions control systems.

    German magazine Autobild, citing research from the International Council on Clean Transportation, alleged that BMW had rigged the exhaust on its diesel-powered X3 xDrive to pass emissions tests even though the cars releases significantly more than the allowable emissions standard

    BMW denied this report, saying it was unaware of the tests cited by the magazine, and that no specific information about the tests have been revealed.

    The company noted that previous tests by ICCT found 14 of its vehicles met pollution standards.

    “The BMW Group does not manipulate or rig any emissions tests,” BMW said in a statement. “We observe the legal requirements in each country and fulfill all local testing requirements. In other words, our exhaust treatment systems are active whether rolling on the test bench or driving on the road.”

    The company went on to stay that it uses “clear, binding specifications” to avoid wrongdoing.

    “We are willing to discuss our testing procedures with the relevant authorities and to make our vehicles available for testing at any time,” BMW said in a statement.

    Reuters reported on Thursday that fellow German carmaker Diamler also denied that it manipulated emissions data for diesel engines.

    A spokesman for Daimler said it did not use the defeat devices employed by Volkswagen and complied with rules on nitrogen oxide emissions around the world.

    Daimler says does not use defeat devices [Reuters]
    [via The Washington Post]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uNetflix Deal With Oculus & Samsung Means You’ll Actually Have Something To Watch With That VR Headsetr


4 4 4 9
  • oculusdkSo you’ve got your cool virtual reality headset, and you’re just dying to try it. But what are you supposed to watch on it? Until now, there’s been a limited amount of content available for VR headsets. That’s all changed now, as Netflix announced a deal with Oculus and Samsung that includes a virtual reality version of Netflix’s entire library.

    Samsung executive Peter Koo said at the Oculus Connect Show today that the two companies have partnered up for a new Samsung Gear VR headset that will be available by Black Friday, reports The Verge. At $99, it’s half the price of Samsung’s current Gear VR. It’ll work with all of Samsung’s 2015 smartphones as well, instead of only the Galaxy S6 or Note 4.

    But what’s a VR headset without stuff to watch? That’s where Netflix comes in — its app for the Gear VR (and Oculus Rift, when it goes on sale in 2016) will give users access to everything in its streaming library, reports Tech Insider.

    Other deals will provide even more content as they come to fruition in the near future: Hulu, Twitch, Vimeo and TiVo were all part of today’s announcement, and films from 20th Century Fox and Lionsgate will also be available for rental and purchase in the coming weeks.

    While you might imagine popping on a VR headset and getting to walk around inside movies and generally hang out, that’s not quite how it works (yet). Until studios and other content producers start filming movies shot specifically for VR technology, the headsets mostly act as a way to create the experience of sitting in a virtual home theater, on a screen conveniently located right in front of your face.

    What I want to know is when I can watch Jamiroquai’s “Virtual Insanity” music video in VR. That has to happen, and yes, the song is now going to be stuck in your head (sorry).

    The new Gear VR will work with any new Samsung phone and cost $99 [The Verge]
    You can watch Netflix in virtual reality starting today — and it’s incredible [Tech Insider]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uNJ-Based Bank Must Pay $33M To Settle Discriminatory Lending Chargesr


4 4 4 9
  • hudsonwebgrab

    “Redlining” is the act of denying services, either directly or through selectively raising prices, to residents of a certain area based on race or ethnicity. Federal law prohibits creditors from this type of discrimination, but New Jersey-based Hudson City Savings Bank is now on the hook for a total of nearly $33 million for allegedly providing unequal access to credit in parts of four states.

    In what is being called the largest redlining settlement in history, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Department of Justice announced today that New Jersey-based today that Hudson has agreed to the conditions of a proposed consent order which directs the bank to pay $27.5 million to increase mortgage credit access in affected areas, and a $5.5 million penalty for allegedly denying black and Hispanic neighborhoods fair access to mortgages.

    According to the complaint [PDF], from 2009 to 2013, Hudson City Savings Bank violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by engaging in illegal redlining by offering unequal access to credit based on the race and ethnicity of prospective borrowers’ neighborhoods.

    “Without access to affordable credit, neighborhoods deteriorate in the long shadow cast by unfair lending,” CFPB director Richard Cordray said on Thursday.

    Specifically, Hudson located branches and loan officers, selected mortgage brokers, and marketed products to avoid and discourage prospective borrowers in predominantly black and Hispanic communities in three metropolitan areas [PDF]: New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island; Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington; and Bridgeport, Stamford, Norwalk in CT.

    Hudson generates the vast majority of its mortgage loan applications for properties within these areas.

    However, a joint investigation by the CFPB and DOJ found that from 2004 to 2010, the bank expanded branches in these areas in a way that created a semi-circle around four counties in New York with the highest proportions of majority black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

    “Ninety-four percent of the branches opened or acquired as a result of this expansion effort were outside of majority-Black-and-Hispanic neighborhoods,” the complaint states. “Hudson City also placed all of its loan officers outside of majority-Black-and-Hispanic areas.”

    By avoiding using mortgage brokers in these areas, the complaint alleges, Hudson generated 80% of its mortgage applications outside of minority areas.

    This map shows that, in spite of Hudson's popularity in the region, the bank was doing very little loan business in predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhoods (those areas marked in red and orange on the map).

    In fact, in 2011 and 2012, 94.5% of the company’s top 50 brokers’ offices were not in majority black and Hispanic areas.

    When marketing its services, Hudson supposedly limited promotions in neighborhoods in minority areas.

    The complaint uses two marketing initiatives as evidence that the company knowingly tried to dissuade minorities from seeking its services.

    In one campaign, the company chose Suffolk County, NY, as its base. The county has a lower proportion of majority black and Hispanic neighborhoods than any other county on Long Island.

    A second initiative advertised and offered discounted home improvement loans only to residents of certain counties, excluding from eligibility the four New York State counties with the highest proportions of majority black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

    Additionally, the complaint accuses the company of excluding such minority areas from its credit assessment areas.

    Under the Community Reinvestment Act, Hudson is required to select an area and to meet the credit needs of residents in that area. However, the complaint alleges that in doing so, the bank excluded most or all majority black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the areas selected.

    For example, Hudson’s assessment area near Philadelphia and Camden excluded all 337 neighborhoods with a majority of black and Hispanic residents.

    Under a proposed consent order [PDF], Hudson must take remedial measures to provide access to credit to the black and Hispanic neighborhoods that it allegedly redlined.

    The order, which is subject to court approval, requires the bank to pay $25 million to a loan subsidy program to increase access to affordable credit. The loan subsidy program will offer residents in majority black and Hispanic neighborhoods in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania mortgage loans on a more affordable basis than otherwise available from Hudson.

    Additionally, the company must spend $1 million on targeted advertising and outreach and $750,000 on local partnerships with community-based or governmental organizations that provide assistance to residents in the affected areas, as well as provide $500,000 on consumer education during the five-year term of the proposed order.

    Hudson must also offer full-service banking, expand assessments, and assess credit needs in the affected areas.

    Finally, the company will be required to pay a $5.5 million penalty to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund.

    “This case should send a message to lenders throughout the country that the Justice Department will not tolerate racial discrimination in the extension of credit,” Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division said in a statement.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uUlta Has A Great Return Policy, Except For Keeping My Sales Taxr


4 4 4 9
  • (Mike Mozart)
    Vee made a small purchase from the cosmetics store Ulta, and needed to return it. That happens. Where things got confusing, though, is that she didn’t receive a refund of the sales tax she had paid. When she questioned this, a store representative’s response was that “the website does not state that we do not give the taxes back when making a return.” What?

    By this logic, you can make up just about any rule, as long as it’s not specifically excluded in the return policy. Ulta’s return policy, for example, also doesn’t say that my local store will not require me to sacrifice a chicken in the middle of the store while returning mascara. Consumerist’s user agreement doesn’t say that we do not require readers to dance the Hokey-Pokey at all times while reading the site, so get up and start dancing.

    She had made the purchase online, but part of the appeal of shopping at an omnichannel retailer is being able to return items to a physical store. As a chain with a physical presence in California, Ulta had to charge her sales tax, but they’re also supposed to refund the tax when she returns the item, right?

    We checked in with Ulta’s public relations department, which is when things got weird. Consumerist left a specific question about refunding sales tax as a voice mail, and received an e-mailed response:

    Thanks for reaching out to us. In response to your inquiry, items purchased online can be returned to our stores within 60 days of the initial purchase. We ask guests to print out their order confirmation and bring it to the store along with the items they wish to return. They have the option of exchanging the purchase for other products or getting a refund.

    That’s all true and very useful information for when customers are returning something, but doesn’t answer the sales tax question. We e-mailed back, repeating the question about sales tax, and received no response.

    Ultimately, Vee received a small “sorry for your trouble” gift card from Ulta, but didn’t get the tax back, and didn’t receive a good response for why they weren’t refunding her sales tax.

    Meanwhile, we took this question to California’s Board of Equalization, which is what they call the tax department. We will add their answer to this post when we receive it.



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uWe Live In A World Where There’s An iPad Waiting In Line To Buy An iPhone 6Sr


4 4 4 9
  • (dlayphoto.com)
    What with the inevitable, eventual artificial intelligence revolution always hangin on the horizon, we’re actually sort of surprised that this is the first we’ve heard of a robot holding a spot in line to buy a new iPhone. A woman in Australia sent her mechanical representative to wait for the release of the iPhone 6 at the Apple Store in Sydney, because it’s much better than camping out for hours or even days. And robots don’t even have to leave for bathroom breaks.

    The term “robot” should be used loosely here, as it’s really just an iPad mounted on a Segway, but still, it’s not a human: Mashable reports that a woman named Lucy sent her “telepresence robot,” also named Lucy, to act as her proxy. She’s currently fourth in line, and human Lucy has been communicating through her with an app.

    This is probably the first time a robot has lined up and purchased an iPhone, a feat made possible by the woman’s company, a media agency that has sourced and built six of these robots for use in their office.

    “We use them for everything, just to show new technology. It is a cool demonstration of what the future of technology will be,” Human Lucy Mashable Australia. “We are obsessed with them.”

    “I am a robot, give me an iPhone,” robot Lucy might’ve said.

    A robot named Lucy is lining up to get an iPhone 6S in Australia [Mashable]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uSprint Leasing iPhone 6S For $1/Month With iPhone 6 Trade-Inr


4 4 4 9
  • iphone6sThe day after T-Mobile tried to undercut all the competition by touting a $5/month lease for the iPhone 6S, Sprint is cutting even further, offering the new Apple phone for only a buck a month.

    Per the company’s announcement, the deal will be available at Sprint-branded stores starting tomorrow, Sept. 25, for anyone who trades in an iPhone 6.

    Since the 6 is barely a year old, most people who currently own that phone are probably still either under contract or still have monthly installments to go before they own the device outright.

    That means Sprint won’t be overloaded with customers only paying $12/year for a phone that retails for around $650. And the iPhone 6 devices that are traded in are still new enough to be resold on the secondary market as used phones or be refurbished and handed out as insurance policy replacement phones.

    If you want the iPhone 6S Plus or a 6S with more memory, you’ll have to pay more for this offer. The 64GB 6S leases for $5.77/month; $10.53 for the 128GB version. The 6s Plus starts at $5/month, increases to $9.77/month for 64GB and $14.53 for 128GB.

    Though Sprint’s program is called “iPhone Forever,” meaning you’ll just trade in this phone when you’re done with it and get the newest version, the $1/month price may not be forever.

    As we noted earlier this week, the fine print on iPhone Forever is that the “Forever” applies to the customer’s ability to upgrade, and notes that the “Upgrade does not include same generation model iPhone. Does not guarantee monthly payment amount, phone selection, or service plan rates.”

    There also appears to be a 22-month minimum for the lease, and if “service or lease is cancelled early, the remaining lease payments become due immediately and customer must return the device or pay the purchase option.”

    It’s unclear if that means the customer would have to pay just the remaining payments of $1/month, or if they would be required to pay the full retail price for the phone. It’s certainly a question worth asking at the Sprint store before you switch service, especially if you’re unfamiliar with Sprint’s coverage in the areas you need service most.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uUnited Airlines Apologizes To Couple Who Found Full Barf Bag In Seat-Back Pocketr


4 4 4 9
  • (Adam Fagen)
    Perhaps the only thing worse than actually having to use a barf bag on a flight is finding out that someone else used it before you got to your seat… and it’s still sitting in the seat-back pocket. What’s a totally grossed out passenger to do? One couple turned to the media after a recent United Airlines flight that found them dealing with another traveler’s leftovers.

    A couple on their anniversary trip to Hawaii said they found a full barf bag in a blanket in the seat-back pocket in front of them, reports CBS Sacramento, and naturally, they weren’t pleased to have to deal with someone’s bodily fluids.

    The woman said when she handed the bag over to a United Airlines flight attendant, the contents spilled on both her and her husband’s clothes. Though the attendant offered them new seats, it was too late, she says — the smell was already on their clothes and they had to endure it for the rest of the flight.

    “Smelling that smell on us and around us was just totally, totally disgusting,” she recalls.

    After the couple hit a few brick walls when reporting the issue to United, they turned to Call Kurtis, who was able to get them a $300 credit toward a future flight. A company rep apologized, admitting that “our cleaners apparently failed to clean all of the seat-back pockets.”

    That flight credit might go unused, however.

    “I’ve lost a lot of faith and trust with the airline,” the woman said.

    Call Kurtis: I Found a Filled Barf Bag In the Seatback Pocket On My Flight [CBS Sacramento]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist