FCC To Dish: No, You Are Not A Small Business, You May Not Use Small Business Discounts

(Jim Ellwanger)

The FCC has an auction process to sell spectrum to businesses. The FCC also is charged with promoting competition. So there’s a credit available to small businesses who play in the auction. But this week, the FCC has had to tell one behemoth that small means small, and that no amount of pretending otherwise will actually change that.

A bit of background on spectrum auctions: All wireless communications — TV, radio, wifi, cell signals, 4G, and so on — fly around in the electromagnetic spectrum. Visible light takes up a small slice of that spectrum, and the rest is where radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, and other kinds of radiation travel. So far, so good.

Certain stretches of the EM spectrum are better than others for specific kinds of signals. There’s a comparatively narrow stretch of radio frequencies where cell phones, broadcast TV, and other signals can work, so there’s a lot of competition for those frequencies.

If everyone just flung all their stuff out there at once, there would be chaos. Signals would collide and interference would be rampant — nothing would work. So the FCC regulates the airwaves. Each company gets a range of frequencies assigned to them that they are allowed to use, and that is their chunk of spectrum. When businesses merge, spectrum is one of the valuable assets they bring with them.

The FCC currently allocates spectrum through an auction process. There are a lot of complicated details about where the spectrum comes from and who can bid, but in general, it’s an auction. However, the FCC also has a mandate to protect and encourage competition. Letting the biggest companies (i.e. Verizon and AT&T) waltz in with their moneybags and snap up all the spectrum because they can bid most would be the opposite of encouraging competition — it would let a pair of businesses become essentially a duopoly, which would be bad for everyone.

So the auctions have a system of handicaps and credits, to ensure that smaller businesses can stand a chance to participate. The FCC has spent a lot of time and energy in the past couple of years discussing the rules of the most recent auction, which concluded in January, and the next one, which takes place in 2016. And that’s where this most recent ruling comes in.

In the last auction, two small businesses, SNR Wireless and Northstar Wireless, each bid on and won a stretch of spectrum to use. Because they are small businesses, they received a combined $3.3 billion in small business credits toward the $13.3 billion winning bid, meaning they paid $10 billion. That’s a pretty good discount.

But there’s one problem: those businesses aren’t exactly small, free-floating entities. They are both owned by Dish.

Dish claims that it has non-controlling interests in each company, and so they should still be eligible for the small-business credits. But that “non-controlling interest” isn’t exactly a minority stake; Dish owns a full 85% of each company.

The FCC decided this week that no, seriously, Dish does not get to claim small business credits just because their subsidiaries were the faces that did the bidding. In a statement about yesterday’s vote, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler said, “Small businesses require an on-ramp into the mobile marketplace to provide more choices for consumers. Our competitive bidding rules were designed to do just that — give bona fide small businesses an opportunity to acquire valuable spectrum.”

Bona fide being the key words there. The FCC’s review process concluded that SNR and Northstar are not, in fact, genuinely small businesses.

Dish has a few options now: they can pay the $3.3 billion difference, they can appeal, or they can pay a penalty.

Dish has not indicated what it intends to do. Although the satellite pay-TV company does not in fact provide any mobile services, they have been stocking up on spectrum where possible. The rumor mill has it that the company is in talks to buy T-Mobile, and as far as those negotiations are concerned any spectrum Dish is sitting on is an incredibly important factor. Dish being unable to use the discount may be a major factor in those as-yet-unannounced merger plans.

FCC says Dish can’t use $3.3B in credits in airwaves auction [Associated Press]

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Facebook Launches Feature That Lets Users And Businesses Message Each Other

Everlane is one of two brands that Facebook tested Messenger capabilities with; now other businesses will have the option, too.

After Facebook announced in March that it’d be launching a pilot program with a few brands that would let customers and companies communicate privately, the social media network said Wednesday that it’s expanding the rollout of Messenger for businesses.

This means customers will be able to send messages to companies or brands with customer service requests, including questions about orders, receive order confirmations or get responses to quick questions.

Businesses can include a “send message” button in their ads on Newsfeed, reports Reuters, allowing users to click a button and send a private message. And if a user posts on a business’ Facebook page, the company will be able to privately message that person as well. Users can choose to block those businesses from private messages, however.

Because another form of contact is no guarantee that companies will be obliged to reply quickly, Facebook is awarding “very responsive messages” badges to businesses who do react promptly, and respond to 90% of messages, and reply on average within five minutes.

Facebook will also include a note on Pages that have messaging enabled (as it’s an optional function), telling visitors how often it usually takes them to respond.

“Our ultimate goal is to facilitate communication between consumers and businesses in the way they prefer most,” Benji Shomair, director of Pages product marketing at Facebook told CNET. “When people message the page, they have expectation for a response in a timely fashion,” he added.

Facebook launches feature to allow businesses to privately message users [Reuters]
Facebook aims to make it easier for companies to message you [CNET]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

From Apple To Walmart, Over A Dozen Of The Biggest Businesses In The U.S. Sign On To White House Climate Pledge

(Mike Matney)

A huge number of the world’s nations are coming together in Paris this December to negotiate an agreement to stem emissions and forestall further climate change. Ahead of this winter’s United Nations talks, however, some well-known names here at home are pledging their own contributions to the cause.

The White House announced today that thirteen major businesses have signed on the climate pledge, with more due in the fall. The companies that announced their participation today include Alcoa, Apple, Bank of America, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Cargill, Coca-Cola, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Google, Microsoft, PepsiCo, UPS, and Walmart.

The pledges come ahead of international climate talks slated to take place in Paris this coming December.

In terms of publicity for attempts to protect the environment and stem the tide of climate change, it’s a landmark agreement. The thirteen businesses are all national and global leaders in their fields — huge, well-known brands across a variety of industries. In terms of actual impact, though, there’s a lot of variety in the promises.

The thirteen businesses have not all signed on universally to the same, single goal; each is, instead, making some promise relating to its own strengths and line of business.

Bank of America, for example, doesn’t exactly have widespread manufacturing operations they need to improve the efficiency of. Instead, they plan to move money around: their pledge is to increase lending, investing, and advisory services in their “environmental businesses initiative,” as well as to make investing in clean energy financially attractive to other parties. A similar plan of investment and lending comes from Goldman Sachs, which also pledges to achieve carbon-neutrality across all its operations this year and to use 100% renewable energy by 2020.

The energy and physical goods businesses do all promise some more direct actions to increase energy efficiency, increase their reliance on renewable energy instead of fossil fuels, or both, to varying degrees. Apple’s pledge is to keep doing what they’ve already been doing, for example, as they point out that all of their U.S. operations already run on 100% renewable energy.

Alcoa’s pledge includes a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2025, and also to prove by then that the products they make and sell (to other industries) will result in an emissions reduction equal to three times that of their production. That is to say, if an aerospace widget takes 2 tons of carbon emissions to make, then that aerospace widget will create 6 fewer tons of carbon emissions than you would spend by not using that aerospace widget.

Coke and Pepsi both promise improvements up and down their supply chains, from farming to bottling to shipping. Coca-Cola’s specific promise is to reduce the carbon footprint of “the drink in your hand” by 25% by 2020; PepsiCo plans to halt deforestation in their global supply chain and to eliminate hydrofluorocarbons from all their new equipment in the U.S. by that same year.

UPS also promises to increase their efficiency, promising to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 20% (as compared to 2007) by 2020. Walmart also plans to reduce the amount of energy their buildings use by 20% by 2020, along with increasing their renewable energy use by 600% as compared to 2010.

Google and Microsoft both pledge to shift 100% to renewable energy for their data centers, offices, and labs. Although neither provides a target year for meeting that goal, Google commits to tripling their purchases of renewable energy by 2025. Both companies also pledge to reduce their carbon footprint in business transportation.

Perhaps most notable is Berkshire Hathaway’s pledge, however: the energy business not only plans to keep investing in solar and wind power actoss the west and midwest, but also to retire more than 75% of their coal-fueled power plants in Nevada over the next few years.

Many of the pledges are essentially statements that businesses intend to keep making a profit, and that renewable energy and increased energy efficiency are seen as ways to make and save money as much as they are ways to save ecosystems. In the end, though, that’s a good thing: business goals and environmental goals must become aligned in order to get the world’s largest industries actually to make serious moves on emissions reductions and increased use of renewable fuel.

As Google pointed out on their blog, “We’re serious about environmental sustainability not because it’s trendy, but because it’s core to our values and also makes good business sense. After all, the cheapest energy is the energy you don’t use in the first place.”

The full fact sheet, detailing all 13 businesses’ pledges, is available on the White House official site.

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Lawmakers Introduce Legislation That Would Give Legal Marijuana Businesses Access To Banking Services

(Fred Morledge)

One of the biggest challenges facing the new legal marijuana industry comes down to money: now that businesses in certain states have gotten the go ahead to sell weed, many of them are stuck in a tough spot when it comes to actually dealing payments for their products, since the drug is still illegal under federal law. A group of senators is seeking to change that, introducing a bill that would take the heat off legal marijuana operations and give them access to banking services.

The Marijuana Businesses Access to Banking Act of 2015 introduced by Oregon’s Sen. Jeff Merkley and Sen. Ron Wyden, Colorado’s Sen. Michael Bennet and Washington’s Sen. Patty Murray piggybacks on a previous bill of that name introduced in the House in April by Rep. Ed Perimutter of Colorado.

The situation is tricky for marijuana business operating under state laws that have legalized marijuana, either for medical or recreational purposes, as it’s still illegal to peddle pot under federal law.

And though the federal government previously released guidelines for banks and financial institutions that may do business with marijuana businesses, many still don’t have access to things like credit cards or bank accounts. That means they’re forced to do business on a cash-only basis, which can be a safety risk. It’s also harder to pay taxes that way — something states definitely have an interest in.

“Forcing businessmen and businesswomen who are operating legally under Oregon state law to shuttle around gym bags full of cash is an invitation to crime and malfeasance. That must end,” said Merkley in a press release. “The people of Oregon have spoken, and the federal government should make sure that legal marijuana businesses can operate properly within our banking system. It’s time to let banks serve these legal businesses without fearing devastating reprisals from the federal government.”

The bill would create a safe harbor from criminal prosecution and liability and asset forfeiture for banks that provide financial services to legitimate, state-sanctioned pot operations. Banks can still choose not to offer those services, however.

The legislation would also prevent federal banking regulators from a variety of activities:

• Prohibiting, penalizing or discouraging a bank from providing financial services to a legitimate state-sanctioned and regulated marijuana business;
• Terminating or limiting a bank’s federal deposit insurance solely because the bank is providing services to a state-sanctioned marijuana business;
Recommending or incentivizing a bank to halt or downgrade providing any kind of banking services to these businesses; or
• Taking any action on a loan to an owner or operator of a marijuana-related business.

Previously: You Probably Won’t Be Able To Buy Marijuana With A Credit Card Anytime Soon

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Etsy Launches Pilot Crowdfunding Program To Help Sellers Grow Their Businesses

While Etsy has long been a marketplace where sellers could launch small businesses, the site has not had a Kickstarter-like crowdfunding platform for sellers to raise money to grow their businesses. Today, Etsy announced it is finally giving crowd-sourced funding a shot with the launch of a new pilot program.

“Fund on Etsy” aims to allow sellers to raise money directly on Etsy’s website to improve their businesses in various ways, from studio expansions to purchasing new tools to hiring a helping hand, the company said in an announcement of the two-month long pilot program on Tuesday.

“Fund on Etsy is a way to expand the Etsy Economy, where creative entrepreneurs find meaningful work and thoughtful consumers discover and buy unique goods while building relationships with the people who sell to them,” Joe Lallouz, product lead for Etsy’s Maker Innovation team said in a blog post.

Much like Kickstarter, individuals who support a Fund on Etsy project won’t be charged until the funding goal is met. The crowdfunded products are expected to ship within six to nine months.

A limited group of the company’s one million sellers have been chosen to participate in the U.S.-only pilot program, which will run from June 16 to August 16.

CNBC reports that the Brooklyn-based company will take a 3.5% cut of each transaction plus a 20-cent posting fee.

Etsy says about 100 vendors have been working for the past two months to create funding campaigns – ranging from a few hundred dollars to $10,000 – to further their businesses’ success.

“Growth means different things to different people, and we believe Fund on Etsy will allow sellers to continue to grow on their own terms,” Lallouz said.

One example given by the company includes a seller who began selling modern housewares on the site after she was laid off as a designer. She plans to use the platform to raise $4,500 to develop and produce a new line of hand-marbled wooden plates.

In addition to helping sellers improve their operations, Etsy says the crowdfunding aspect of the site will allow buyers to feel more connected to their purchases.

“We believe that crowdfunding on Etsy is a natural way for sellers to forge even more resonant connections with their existing communities and customer bases and to grow in ways that may not have been possible before,” the company says. “By funding a campaign, buyers can participate in a new product’s journey from initial concept to their front door, while forging even more meaningful relationships with Etsy sellers they care about.”

Etsy says that following the pilot program it will look at buyer and seller feedback to determine whether or not crowdfunding should become a permanent platform for the company.

Etsy Launches Fund on Etsy Pilot Program to Crowdfund New Products [Etsy]
Etsy launches crowdfunding pilot program [CNBC]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

FDA Giving Businesses Another Year To Comply With Rules Requiring Calorie Counts On Menus

(Jackie Alpers)

Restaurants and other businesses that were living under a deadline to include calorie counts on menus and displays will get a bit of wiggle room to comply with the rule passed by the Food and Drug Administration last fall. The agency now says food purveyors will have another year to get their acts together, extending the previous deadline from Dec. 1, 2015 to Dec. 1, 2016.

The FDA said today that it decided to tack on another year because restaurants and other retailers said they needed more time to implement the rules, reports the Associated Press.

In the meantime, the agency says those businesses are in the midst of training workers, installing menus and menu boards and developing software for more efficient and specific calorie label displays.

When the rules finally go into effect, restaurants and other businesses that sell prepared foods and have 20 or more locations will have to post the calorie content of food “clearly and conspicuously” on their menus, menu boards and other displays. The posted information will tell patrons that the basis for daily nutrition is a 2,000-calorie diet, while noting that individual calorie needs may vary.

Included in the rules are chain restaurants (both fast food and sit-down establishments), grocery and convenience stores selling prepared food meant for one person, movie theaters, amusement parks and even vending machines.

Vending machine businesses that own or operate more than 20 machines already had an extra year to comply with the rules, with a requirement that they show calorie counts on stickers or signs near each specific food for sale, or near the button to select it. In the updated information for consumers on the FDA site, it seems vending machines will have to have their labels sorted out by Dec. 1, 2016 along with the rest.

FDA: Calories on menus, menu boards delayed until 2016 [Associated Press]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Pot-Centric Colorado Credit Union Sues Federal Reserve Bank For Denying Account

The state of Colorado no longer outlaws recreational marijuana use, but the U.S. government still considers it a Schedule I controlled substance, so many businesses making money from the locally legal sale of cannabis are having trouble finding banks to handle their cash. One credit union formed with the goal of providing financial services to those in the marijuana industry received a charter from Colorado, but has filed suit against a regional Federal Reserve bank for blocking its ability to work with other banks.

Denver-based Fourth Corner Credit Union, whose stated mission is to “service the unique financial needs of the cannabis and hemp industries and their supporters,” received a charter from Colorado regulators in late 2014. The credit union then reached out to the Federal Bank of Kansas City to apply for what’s known as a “master account.”

Master accounts at Fed branches allow banks to not only deposit their cash reserves, but gives banks the ability to easily transact business with other financial institutions by settling credits and debits through the account at that Fed branch bank. Basically, the master account is the bank’s bank account.

Without a master account, “a depository institution is nothing more than a vault,” notes Fourth Corner in its lawsuit [PDF].

The credit union accuses the Fed bank of delaying review of Fourth Corner’s master account application for nearly nine months, claiming that the usual turnaround for processing an application is only five to seven days.

Fourth Corner argues that federal law requires the Fed banks to provide their payment services to all “depository institutions,” even if the institution is not a member of the Federal Reserve system.

Despite the increasing decriminalization and legalization of marijuana, many established financial institutions are refusing to accept deposits from pot sellers, growers, and distributors out of concern that it may lead to unwanted scrutiny of their business from federal regulators and law enforcement.

In early 2014, the U.S. government attempted to provide some guidance for banks who might find themselves involved with marijuana money, but it may have only muddied the waters. Banks now know they should file “suspicious activity reports” that are specific to the pot industry, but they don’t really know if they are breaking federal law by continuing to do business with these account-holders.

As a result, there are a number of licensed marijuana businesses in Colorado and Washington who can’t deposit their piles of cash in the bank.

Not only does this make it difficult for these businesses to pay taxes, rents, salaries, and other costs that would normally be dealt with through checks or electronic transfers, it is a growing public safety risk. In an era when gas station and fast food heists turn up less money because of increased use of credit cards, robbers will certainly be tempted to go after primarily cash businesses that have no bank in which to deposit their earnings.

Part of the Fed’s eventual decision to deny the Fourth Corner master account application was the fact that the National Credit Union Administration — an independent federal regulatory agency — refused the credit union’s application for deposit insurance.

In order to get a master account, an institution must show that it’s eligible to receive this type of insurance, but Fourth Corner argues that the insurance need not come from the NCUA and can be privately obtained. The credit union has filed a separate suit against the NCUA claiming it was denied due process in the insurance application review.

Andrew Freedman, Colorado’s director of marijuana coordination, had hoped the Fed would be more open-minded about Fourth Corner’s business.

“We thought it was a good solution to the problem,” Freedman told Dealbook about the Fed’s decision. “Here was a place willing to take on the risk of banking this underbanked group — and that could do rigorous compliance.”

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Small Business Owners Say DirecTV Installation Errors Result In Collections Lawsuits

(Ángel Raúl Ravelo Rodríguez)

If a small business, like a bar or restaurant, lies to a cable company and orders residential service instead of the more costly commercial offerings, it would make sense that the pay-TV provider might sue to collect the money it should have received. But what if the reason for the gaffe wasn’t intentional deception but a mistake by an installer?

That’s the question that a number of commercial DirecTV customers are asking after being sued by a law firm representing the satellite giant (which is coming under the ownership of AT&T). They claim this is just a money grab and that they never meant to deceive anyone.

The Dallas Morning News’s Dave Lieber has spoken to some business owners and reviewed others’ claims of being on the end of DirecTV collections complaints.

A lawyer representing several of these businesses alleges that a New York-based law firm that collects on DirecTV’s behalf trained the satellite company’s auditors to seek out small, often rural business owners who may be using residential accounts.

Even after DirecTV said it would stop paying the auditors to do this sort of search, the law firm went out of pocket and paid for the audits because each collection action could result in substantial amounts of back subscription fees being paid by the defendant.

The lawyer also contends that this collection firm deliberately targeted businesses with minority owners under the assumption that they would be less likely to challenge the action in court.

Lieber learned of these disputes when covering the story of a Garland, TX, restaurant that was facing a collections bill of $15,000 from DirecTV. Even after the third-party installer admitted that it had erred and that DirecTV should show some mercy on the restaurant owners, the company refused to relent.

The restaurant attempted to sue DirecTV over the dispute, and 18 other businesses attempted to combine their legal actions with this case, but because DirecTV’s agreement for commercial customers [PDF] has a clause that requires all disputes are resolved through binding arbitration, each business was ordered by the court to enter into the arbitration process individually in their respective home states.

For its part, DirecTV denies allegations that it’s deliberately targeting small businesses to make money off collections actions.

“The allegations are completely false,” a company rep tells the Morning News. “These business owners were violating federal law, our customer agreements and taking unfair advantage of neighborhood bars and restaurants who are paying legitimate commercial rates for programming. We are confident these baseless claims will ultimately be rejected.”

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

FCC Proposal: Phone Companies Need To Offer Backup Power, Actually Notify You If They Kill Off Your Copper-Wire Landline

(Alan Bruce)

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler is introducing new to the commission today that would attempt to protect consumers’ interests while advancing the transition away from plain old copper-wire service and onto IP data networks.

The FCC gave the green light to some pilot programs for the IP transition (where service transitions to the internet protocol) in January, 2014 and in November, 2014 kicked off the rulemaking process to put some consumer protections in place as that transition goes forward.

Landline companies are, in general, more than happy to get out of the copper wire business as soon as possible. Accusations abound that Verizon, in particular, has been neglecting maintenance to hasten the transition, preferring to push customers to FiOS. In recent weeks, that impatience has manifested in direct communications to customers threatening to cut off their service entirely if they don’t make the switch.

Wheeler is circulating two different orders to his fellow commissioners this week that will, if adopted, formally create those consumer protections during the transition.

When The Lights Go Out
The first Report and Order deals very specifically with one of consumers’ largest concerns about abandoning copper-wire phone service: Old tech still works in a power outage, allowing you to make emergency calls. New tech does not.

To resolve that, the FCC’s new rule would require phone providers to offer a backup power source (i.e. a battery) that would last for at least 8 hours to consumers when they sign up for service. Within three years, phone companies would also be required to offer a power source good for 24 hours or more of standby backup power.

Businesses are allowed to charge as they will for that backup power source, but consumers would not be required to buy the backup power. The FCC fact sheet frames this as “promoting consumer choice,” but a senior FCC official also explained it as a cost containment measure. Allowing businesses to recoup the costs by passing them through to consumers should, in theory, keep the cost of service plans lower across the board.

The rule would not only require providers to make backup power available, but also would require them to inform both existing and new customers about how services would be limited during power outages and to provide information about how to access service during a multi-day power outage.

The other proposed rule is also all about transparency and notification.

Knowing What You’re Plugged In To
The second Report and Order addresses those accusations of neglect and nasty letters to consumers.

A company that can provide 100% equivalent levels of service to its copper-wire service using another technology — fiber optics, coaxial cable, fixed wireless systems, whatever — is allowed to turn off its copper-wire service and replace it with the new tech without first seeking permission from the FCC under Sec. 214 of the Communications Act. But under the new rule, they would not be allowed to do so without first actively notifying their customers.

The new rule would mandate that telephone companies notify their customers well in advance of any plans to retire local area copper networks. Residential customers would have to receive three months’ notice, and non-residential customers (businesses, schools, and so on) would get the heads’ up six months before the switch.

The notification process would, in part, force telephone companies actually to retire their copper-wire networks specifically by choice and at a pre-announced time, rather than simply neglecting them until they fall apart and forcing customers to make a move then.

As long as they meet the notification requirements, including to interconnecting carriers, companies that can transition to new tech without discontinuing, reducing, or impairing service can carry on.

Competition and Consumer Needs
The proposed rule also centers on the FCC’s mandate to promote competition wherever possible. The proposal is most concerned with the enterprise market and special access services: businesses, governments, schools, libraries, hospitals, and the like.

The new rule proposes that, for the time being and specifically as an interim measure, any telecom company that drops copper wire service to those institutions has to provide their new service at “rates, terms, and conditions that are reasonably comparable” to the old service. That means they can’t just jack up prices to schools and libraries when they switch technology. A separate proceeding, to figure out how to deal with special access services, is also underway at the FCC. That proceeding, when concluded, would end the interim measure and replace it with a new, permanent rule of some kind.

The new rule would also kick off a proceeding to clarify what, exactly, “discontinuing, reducing, or impairing” a service actually means legally, since it is the standard to which providers are held when transitioning without seeking prior approval. If adopted, the rule would kick off a public comment period asking for input.

The FCC has a fact sheet and blog post about the proposals available, and the commission will be discussing and voting on these proposals at their August 6 open meeting.

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Cheaper, More Competitive Broadband: Not Gonna Happen Anytime Soon, Analyst Tells Congress

(Tom Richardson)

A committee in Congress yesterday held a hearing on promoting broadband infrastructure investment. That is, getting more wires put in the ground so more people can get online faster and more reliably. That’s a laudable goal that we here at Consumerist tend to cheer on. But one theme became clear from the testimonies of the assembled analysts, industry members, and local public companies who spoke: real improvement is going to be a long, ugly series of fights… and consumers are going to keep paying a lot more while it happens.

There are a lot of different problems and policy questions rolled up under the umbrella of “broadband infrastructure investment.” Ultimately, there are two main separate, but connected, kinds of projects we’re talking about.

The first pressing problem has to do with reaching all of the underserved or entirely unserved areas of the country — about 55 million people, or just around 1/6 of the population. The FCC has a mandate from Congress to bring broadband coverage to as many people as possible, and so government broadband pushes often rightly focus on the parts of the country that are still largely offline, or crawling along on the best dial-up speeds 1995 could offer.

The other problem is one of adding more competitors to areas that are already served. Because competition in broadband just plain sucks, and the FCC also has a mandate to protect and promote competition in communications where they can. Millions upon millions of us live in areas where only one high-speed provider operates, despite deregulation in recent decades that promised to open up a free market where competition would flourish. But that just keeps not happening, because the barriers to entry are just too high.

And so your bills are going to go up for a well-worn and predictable reason: because they can.

That was the message from industry analyst Craig Moffett.

Moffett started his testimony by, in his own words, pointing out the obvious: infrastructure deployment is really expensive, and companies are only going to do it if they expect a healthy return on the wad of cash they spend. He continued that the large, incumbent, publicly traded cable companies — Comcast, TWC, Charter, and Cablevision — all make healthy returns on their broadband systems, now, because much of the outlay was done in earlier years.

But AT&T and Verizon aren’t making a whole lot of money on upgraded networks. And that’s why Verizon has pretty much called a halt to FiOS expansion, even while it kills off its copper-wire phone and DSL networks as quickly as it can.

In short, Moffett said, “the returns to be had from overbuilding — that is, being the second or third broadband provider in a given market — are generally poor.” And if a business isn’t going to make money doing something, they won’t do that thing.

“Stated simply,” Moffett concluded, “it means that market forces are unlikely to yield a competitive broadband market.”

And not only are we all stuck in an uncompetitive market, but our broadband providers are also our TV providers, in many cases… and we’re buying less TV. Money they can’t make from us on one side, they will have to make up on the other.

“This may sound nefarious,” said Moffett, “but it’s not intended to be so. It’s simply an observation that cable operators have historically benefitted from the fact that their infrastructure can support two separate businesses … Absent reforms to restrain the runaway growh in programming costs, video will become unprofitable and broadband will be left to carry the entire burden of incremental deployment.”

All else being equal, he added, that either means that either new broadband builds will become less frequent and stop happening, or broadband prices will jump.

Or we could see both.

Speaking later in the proceeding, Rep. Anna Eshoo of California called Moffett’s appraisal of the situation “highly pessimistic,” adding that it was “depressing” to hear his descriptions of the telecom marketplace. And yet, it’s the marketplace we all have to live in at the moment — and Moffett’s analysis seems spot-on.

Take Comcast, for example, which released their most recent quarterly earnings report just this morning. The headline news was that their broadband subscribers officially outnumber their TV subscribers. They also demonstrated that their revenue from high-speed internet has increased by over 10% as compared to this time last year.

But here’s the key number: their “total revenue per customer relationship” has increased 4.5%. That means that Comcast’s hand-over-fist money-making machine isn’t growing by reaching new households (although it does routinely pick up some of those, too); it’s growing by making more off of every existing customer. In short, we’re all paying more.

Breaking that monopoly, of course, takes exactly the kind of infrastructure investment the hearing was convened to discuss. Some of the new competition comes from corporate expansion — AT&T and CenturyLink promising to unveil new fiber networks, or Google making its slow roll across the country. But much of that comes from local public entities starting their own municipal cable and fiber networks.

Businesses in search of maximum profit not only don’t want to go rural, but also really hate municipal networks. And yet cities just keep starting and expanding them. And despite incumbent businesses arguing against it, the FCC recently voted to allow two cities to preempt industry-funded state laws and expand their own municipal networks. (That legal fight is still ongoing.)

In the end, businesses and communities do not always share goals, as Deb Socia of Next Century Cities, an organization of communities that have or plan to launch municipal networks, summed up.

“When you think about profit … I think the ways that our cities are looking at ‘what is a profit’ are a little bit different than the ways that a company might look at what a profit is. Right?” Socia said.

She then listed off a set of civic goals that communities routinely want to meet and enhance, including economic development, transportation, and education before asking: “What is that worth? How do we ensure that our tribal lands and our rural communities can benefit in the same ways that our other communities are able to?”

You can watch the full video of the hearing below.

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Lawsuit Claims Amazon Local Stole Provider Lists, Other Info From Rival Angie’s List

Though some might say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, achieving that verisimilitude by stealing information from a competitor is not going to go over well. That’s what Angie’s List is alleging in a new lawsuit against upstart Amazon Local, a subsidiary of the ecommerce giant, claiming that the new rival on the scene boosted provider lists and other proprietary information from Angie’s website.

The federal lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court Indianapolis, where Angie’s List is based, accuses Amazon Local executives and some employees of gaining access to Angie’s information by signing up as members of the site, then copying provider profiles, member reviews and other information, reports the Indianapolis Star.

Angie’s List says in the lawsuit that Amazon Local is taking all those juicy details and using it to build up its competing service. The company says its member agreement “explicitly prohibits the use of Angie’s List’s accounts and information for commercial purposes.”

According to the lawsuit, more than a dozen Amazon employees named as co-defendants in the lawsuit violated those terms. Basically, Angie’s says Amazon Local is acting like the popular kid in class mooching off a smarter classmate’s test.

“Amazon Local has chosen not to devote the necessary time, resources and effort to compete legitimately with Angie’s List. … Instead, Amazon Local and its employees have chosen the shortcut of surreptitiously accessing and misappropriating Angie’s List’s proprietary information … through dozens (if not more) of Angie’s List membership accounts that were fraudulently obtained and misused,” the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also claims Amazon Local tried to sign up businesses using names obtained from Angie’s List online profiles, by going over provider lists to find the top-rated companies and, in some cases, using the site’s own messaging system to contact them and try to bring them over to the Amazon Local side.

Amazon is new on the scene, debuting Amazon Local last year as a test, and recently re-dubbing its home services section, aptly, Amazon Home Services. Much like Angie’s List, the goal is to connect customers with plumbers, home repair services, electricians and the like when they need something done around the home.

Angie’s List was founded in 1995, and has a national listing of those same types of businesses. Members then rank the services, and others can check out those rankings when deciding which service to hire.

Among the charges aimed at Amazon Local: Misappropriation of trade secrets, theft, computer trespass, civil conspiracy and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Angie’s List is seeking unspecified damages, and wants Amazon Local banned from using information taken from Angie’s.

“Angie’s List has spent more than 20 years developing our substantial database of proprietary information relating to home improvement service providers, consumer preferences and expectations, and industry standards across the country,” a spokeswoman said. “This information is available to Angie’s List customers for personal use — not for other businesses to use for commercial gain. We welcome competition, but on fair and legal grounds.”

Amazon didn’t reply to the Indy Star’s request for comment.

Angie’s List sues Amazon Local [Indianapolis Star]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Man Charged With Operating American Dream Scheme Sentenced To Jail, Must Refund $6.4M

(Brian Turner)

A man who helped perpetrate a scam that promised consumers they could obtain the “American Dream” by selling coffee and greeting cards at retail establishments across the country will spend 70 months in jail and must repay $6.4 million to victims.

The Department of Justice announced today that it has closed yet another chapter in a scheme – operated in Costa Rica – that defrauded thousands of Americans through a series of fraudulent business opportunities.

A U.S. District Court in southern Florida sentenced John White, aka Gregory Garrett, on charges of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud for his part in an operation that fraudulently induced Americans to buy business opportunities in USA Beverages Inc., Twin Peaks Gourmet Coffee Inc., Cards-R-Us Inc., Premier Cards Inc. and The Coffee Man Inc.

According to the Justice Department, from 2005 to 2008 the man and at least 11 other co-conspirators sold business opportunities to individuals for $10,000 and up, claiming the businesses would allow purchasers to sell coffee or greeting cards from display racks located at other retail establishments.

Each of the businesses operated for several months and after one company closed, the next opened.

The conspiracy used various means to make it appear to potential purchasers that the businesses were located in the U.S., including using bank accounts, office space and other services in the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere. However, in reality, the conspirators operated out of call centers in Costa Rica.

As part of his plea, White admitted that he and his co-conspirators made numerous false statements to potential purchasers of the business opportunities, including that purchasers likely would earn substantial profits; that prior purchasers of the business opportunities were earning substantial profits; that purchasers would sell a guaranteed minimum amount of merchandise, such as greeting cards and beverages; and that the business opportunity worked with locators familiar with the potential purchaser’s area who would secure or had already secured high-traffic locations for the potential purchaser’s merchandise stands.

Additionally, purchasers were falsely told that the profits of the companies were based in part on the profits of the business opportunity purchasers. The Justice Department alleges that these statements created the false impression that the companies had a stake in the purchasers’ success and in finding good locations for the stands, when that wasn’t the case.

“This international and domestic investigation shows the Postal Inspection Service’s resolve to protect Americans from business opportunity scams,” Postal Inspector in Charge Ronald Verrochio of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) Miami Division, said in a statement.

U.S. Citizen Sentenced In Connection With Costa Rica-Based Business Opportunity Fraud Ventures [Department of Justice]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Bill Aims To Stop Employers From Incorrectly Classifying Employees As Independent Contractors

(Alex Behrens)

In general, an independent contractor or freelancer is a worker who runs their own business but is hired by others for specific purposes and projects. But a growing number of employers have been using the independent contractor label on what had long been considered employees, often with the goal of shedding the cost of contributing to insurance and retirement benefits. A new piece of legislation seeks to make sure that businesses aren’t mislabeling employees as contractors.

The Payroll Fraud Prevention Act of 2015 [PDF], introduced by Sen. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania and Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota, would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to require that workers understand whether they are being classified as an employee or a non-employee contractor, and what the implications are for non-employees in terms of benefits, and legal protections generally afforded to employees.

Workers would also be made aware of their rights to file grievances about their classification, while employers could face penalties for misclassifying workers, or for taking actions against those workers who challenge their status. Misclassified employees would be allowed to seek lost wages and possibly damages.

There are already 50 million American workers classified as non-employee contractors, freelancers, or temporary workers, and the number is expected to grow to 60 million before 2020, meaning nearly 40% of the U.S. workforce would be without access to protections like unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, and retirement benefits.

The senators sponsoring the bill allege that when companies shift their employee base to “contractors,” they’re forcing the hands of competing businesses to do the same in order to keep their costs down too.

A 2009 report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said that the tax revenue lost by misclassified employees is “markedly higher than $1.6 billion.”

“We owe workers a fair shot at good jobs where they can receive basic workplace protections,” says Sen. Casey in a statement. “Too many workers are classified as independent contractors when it’s clear that they are employees.”

Adds Franken, “These workers often don’t qualify for things like minimum wage, overtime pay, workers’ compensation insurance, and retirement benefits. Our legislation would crack down on payroll fraud, a practice that is hurting our workers, costing taxpayers, and putting businesses that play by the rules at a competitive disadvantage.”

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

United Airlines CEO: Checked Bag Fees Are Here To Stay, Just Part Of Doing Business

(Adam Fagen)

Despite Southwest Airlines’ recent admission that charging for bags would be a financially irresponsible policy change, it doesn’t appear that other airlines feel the same way.

Reuters reports that United Airlines, for one, has no plans to stop charging check bag fees, no matter what other airlines do.

The airline’s CEO Jeff Smisek defended the fees, noting that some passengers have “difficulty recognizing that we’re now a business.”

“They criticize us if we charge for more legroom. Let me tell you though: that’s what businesses do,” he said during an industry lunch on Thursday.

Smisek said that customers should expect checked bag fees to be based on a sliding scale, like extras offered by other businesses.

“If you want more data on your data plan so you can watch faster, better cat videos, you call AT&T, and they’re happy to increase your data plan,” he said. “And they charge you for it. That’s what businesses do.”

Airline checked bag fees, which range from $15 to more than $25, have become an important source of revenue for many carriers. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the first three months of 2015 saw airlines collecting more than $864 million in revenue from the fees.

Despite those proceeds, Southwest said earlier this week that it isn’t doing so bad without the added fees. The company’s net income increased nearly $143 million over the past year.

Of course, hefty fees for checked bags could soon be a thing of the past, as legislators recently introduced the Baggage Fee Fairness Act of 2015 that would limit checked-baggage charges to just $4.50/bag.

United Airlines CEO: Checked bag fees are here to stay [Reuters]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Lawsuit Claims Amazon Local Stole Provider Lists, Other Info From Rival Angie’s List

Though some might say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, achieving that verisimilitude by stealing information from a competitor is not going to go over well. That’s what Angie’s List is alleging in a new lawsuit against upstart Amazon Local, a subsidiary of the ecommerce giant, claiming that the new rival on the scene boosted provider lists and other proprietary information from Angie’s website.

The federal lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court Indianapolis, where Angie’s List is based, accuses Amazon Local executives and some employees of gaining access to Angie’s information by signing up as members of the site, then copying provider profiles, member reviews and other information, reports the Indianapolis Star.

Angie’s List says in the lawsuit that Amazon Local is taking all those juicy details and using it to build up its competing service. The company says its member agreement “explicitly prohibits the use of Angie’s List’s accounts and information for commercial purposes.”

According to the lawsuit, more than a dozen Amazon employees named as co-defendants in the lawsuit violated those terms. Basically, Angie’s says Amazon Local is acting like the popular kid in class mooching off a smarter classmate’s test.

“Amazon Local has chosen not to devote the necessary time, resources and effort to compete legitimately with Angie’s List. … Instead, Amazon Local and its employees have chosen the shortcut of surreptitiously accessing and misappropriating Angie’s List’s proprietary information … through dozens (if not more) of Angie’s List membership accounts that were fraudulently obtained and misused,” the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also claims Amazon Local tried to sign up businesses using names obtained from Angie’s List online profiles, by going over provider lists to find the top-rated companies and, in some cases, using the site’s own messaging system to contact them and try to bring them over to the Amazon Local side.

Amazon is new on the scene, debuting Amazon Local last year as a test, and recently re-dubbing its home services section, aptly, Amazon Home Services. Much like Angie’s List, the goal is to connect customers with plumbers, home repair services, electricians and the like when they need something done around the home.

Angie’s List was founded in 1995, and has a national listing of those same types of businesses. Members then rank the services, and others can check out those rankings when deciding which service to hire.

Among the charges aimed at Amazon Local: Misappropriation of trade secrets, theft, computer trespass, civil conspiracy and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Angie’s List is seeking unspecified damages, and wants Amazon Local banned from using information taken from Angie’s.

“Angie’s List has spent more than 20 years developing our substantial database of proprietary information relating to home improvement service providers, consumer preferences and expectations, and industry standards across the country,” a spokeswoman said. “This information is available to Angie’s List customers for personal use — not for other businesses to use for commercial gain. We welcome competition, but on fair and legal grounds.”

Amazon didn’t reply to the Indy Star’s request for comment.

Angie’s List sues Amazon Local [Indianapolis Star]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Facebook Testing Shops Built Into Retailers’ Pages

Facebook shows a fake brand in this mock-up.

Like Google, Twitter and its own Instagram platform, Facebook is toying with the idea of allowing users to buy stuff directly from retailers’ pages, instead of seeing those items in an ad and going outside the social network to purchase them.

The company is building out shops within Facebook Pages that would function as mini e-commerce sites, reports Buzzfeed News, acting like a second home for retailers and brands who want to not only engage with customers, but get them to buy products while they’re being social.

“With the shop section on the page, we’re now providing businesses with the ability to showcase their products directly on the page,” Facebook product marketing manager Emma Rodgers told BuzzFeed News.

Online commerce and digital advertising are both growing, notes Buzzfeed, so it makes sense to partner the two with social media. Go where the people are already posting cat videos and baby photos, advertise to them and then help them buy what you’ve just convinced them they need.

This move also aligns with Facebook’s recent push into commerce, including a feature for its Messenger app that’s in the works and could help consumers research products they might be interested in buying.

Facebook says there are shops numbering in the double digits currently, with plans to expand, although it wouldn’t share any of the names of businesses in the pilot program right now. The mock-up shown above is for a fake brand, and shows what future business’ pages could look like.

The social network says eventually the shop idea could move beyond commerce businesses and spread to public figures, sports teams or groups, though so far it’s too early to tell if that will happen.

“We’ll continue to add incremental features and capabilities to Pages because they are such an important part of the consumer experience on Facebook,” Facebook’s Rodgers told Buzzfeed.

Facebook Takes Big Step Forward On Commerce, Builds Shops Into Pages [Buzzfeed]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

FCC Votes To Give Consumers The Right To Block Annoying Spam Robocalls And Texts

(Jenn and Tony Bot)

You hate getting robocalls. The FCC knows you hate getting robocalls. And so today the Commission voted to move forward with a proposal that would allow consumers to block all those annoying calls and texts.

The commissioners were agreed on one major theme: seriously, everyone hates getting calls from “Rachel at card services” during their family dinner hour. Outside of that, reactions were less universal, and individual commissioners each presented a mixed bag of affirmations and dissents. Despite the varying perspectives from all present, the vote moved through 3-2 along party lines, as predicted.

The discussion of the robocall proceeding delved heavily into the legal technicalities surrounding the definitions of autodialers and what, exactly, is covered under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Specifically, however, the FCC staff presenting the report concluded that wireline and wireless carriers, as well as VOIP providers, are free to provide consumers with services and technologies to block unwanted robocalls.

The order also specifies that consumers who had previously consented to robocalls could withdraw that consent at any time and “through any reasonable means.”

Speaking in favor of the proposal, Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel pointed out that the FCC receives more complaints about robocalls than about any other issue.

“We receive thousands of complaints, and our friends across town at the FTC received tens of thousands more,” Rosenworcel said, “at one point receiving nearly 200,000 in a single month.”

“It is time, long past time to do something about this.”

Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly focused on potential harm to businesses who might get slapped back after “erroneously” contacting customers who had withdrawn their consent, or who received numbers that were reassigned from previous users.

Pai, like Rosenworcel, pointed to the extraordinary volume of robocall complaints, specifying that last year the FCC received 96,288 reports. He also pointed to the sheer number of deceptive robocalls made, specifically, by scam artists targeting senior citizens.

However, Pai mainly concentrated on inefficiencies and perverse incentives in the existing legal structure, describing cases where the TCPA has “strayed beyond its addidional purpose,” and pointing out that the FCC could use its existing mechanisms to close loopholes and shut down scammers while protecting businesses’ rights to contact consumers.

“The primary beneficiaries will be trial lawyers, not American consumers” Pai concluded, spinning a theoretical tale of a potential guy getting slammed with a TCPA suit for texting a girl who doesn’t particularly want to hear from him.

O’Rielly, as usual, objected strenuously to the entire procedure and, in fact, the commission overall. “After 14 months working on this issue it is clear the process brought out a new low I’ve never seen in politics or policy making, which is saying something,” said O’Rielly, who earlier this year likened municipal broadband to the destruction of capitalism itself.

Instead, O’Rielly called for Congress to take action, if action is needed, and for the FCC to step back from a plan that “will lead to more litigation that places burdens on legitimate businesses without protecting consumers from robocalls made by bad actors.”

Chairman Tom Wheeler concluded the proceeding by pointing out that the problem is exacerbated by vague or outdated wording in the FCC’s own existing rule.

“Technology has made it cheaper, and as a result there’s been an explosion in the number of calls — an explosion which has been aided by exploiting the wording of our rules to claim a loophole. Clever lawyers have [spurred] the explosion in robocalls by claiming if the company substitutes sofware for hardware to drive the calls and/or does not call from a list, they are exempt from our rules.”

“There is a simple concept in the statute that we embrace today,” Wheeler concluded: “Yo cannot be called unless you consent to be called. The consumer should be in control.”

“Listening to Congress, the American people, the message is clear: no unauthorized, automated calls. Stop it, and stop today.”

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Square Trying To Help Small Businesses Meet October Deadline For New Chip & PIN Credit Cards

A survey released last week by Wells Fargo found that a majority of small business owners aren’t prepared for the October deadline to switch from traditional swipe-and-sign credit card transactions to the supposedly more secure chip-and-PIN card system. Now, one mobile payment company says it wants to take some of the burden off the shoulders of these companies by offering to pay for any charges incurred from a breach — as long as the business owner has ordered its new card reader.

Square is courting new customers by telling business owners “don’t worry” about the potentially costly liability shift that comes along with the October system switch, the Washington Post reports.

The mobile payment company says that as long as customers purchase its new chip-enabled reader it will cover all costs should it suffer a data breach while waiting for the new system to arrive.

Nearly 51% of the small business owners that took part in Wells Fargo’s survey said they were unaware that after October 1, they would be liable to cover the costs of any fraudulent transactions.

That means if a merchant is using the old swipe-and-sign system they are liable for the fraudulent charges if the customer has a chip card. Conversely, if the merchant has the proper chip-enabled system but the bank hasn’t issued a new chip card to the customer, then the bank is liable.

“Smaller businesses are often late to the game, and they suffer as a result,” Dana Wagner, Square’s general counsel, says. “This makes it cheap and simple for the corner store to have cutting-edge technology in their hands.”

Square says it has already got the ball rolling by giving away 250,000 readers to small businesses as part of an education program.

Companies that didn’t score a free reader, won’t have to break the bank in order to take Square up on its offer to cover liability costs. The readers, which are expected to ship this fall, cost $49 and the company will provide buyers a $49 credit for processing fees, the Post reports.

In addition to tackling the new chip payment processing systems, Square says its new refers will also support contact-less payments from Apple Pay, Android Pay and tap-to-pay cards.

We’re about to say ‘so long’ to the credit card swipe. Square’s trying to make that less scary. [The Washington Post]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Connecticut Labor Department Inspects 25 Nail Salons, Shuts Down 23 For Wage Violations

(Yellow Sky Photography)

New York City isn’t the only town on the eastern seaboard that’s cracking down on poor work conditions at nail salons lately: labor department officials up north in Connecticut say recent inspections at 25 nail salons resulted in closing down 23 of those businesses for a range of wage violations.

The Connecticut Department of Labor’s Wage and Workplace Standards Division recently stopped by unannounced at several nail salons in the state after receiving numerous complaints from people working at those businesses, and citizens who’d read news coverage of the New York Times’ investigation into nail salons and wanted to know what Connecticut would do about it, the Hartford Courant reports.

After swinging by those 25 salons on Aug. 3, the department issued Stop Worker orders to 23 of the businesses inspected. Investigators say that at those that were temporarily shut down, they found that many employees were paid in cash, without any payroll records to trace wages. Workers were often paid below the minimum wage of $9.15 per hour, and they weren’t being paid for overtime, according to Gary Pechie, director of the Wage and Workplace Standards Division.

At one salon, he said women were being paid $40 for a 10-hour work day. Even if tips may have raised those wages higher than the $9.15 minimum, only restaurants and bars are allowed to pay servers below the minimum and let tips make up the rest.

The department has ordered at least $62,000 in back wages to more than 50 women, and adds that it could give even more cash back to workers as the investigation continues, NBC Connecticut reports.

“An additional $79,000 in civil penalties was levied and collected for under-reporting payroll and paying employees in cash, and $21,300 for wage and hour violations,” according to the labor department.

State Sweep Of Nail Salons Nets Widespread Labor Violations, At Least $62,000 In Back Pay [Hartford Courant]
23 Connecticut Nail Salons Shut Down Over Wage Violations [NBC News]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

America’s Biggest Companies React To SCOTUS’ Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

(Jeff Kubina)

While it might not seem like there’s a direct link to same sex marriage and our country’s biggest businesses, even before the Supreme Court of the United States ruled today that marriage is a constitutional right for any American, many major companies came out in support of same-sex marriage, saying those rights help them do business better. Today, some of those companies — and more — spoke out in celebration of the landmark ruling.

American Airlines: “We’re on board. Diversity strengthens us all & today we celebrate #MarriageEquality & the landmark #SCOTUS decision.”

We’re on board. Diversity strengthens us all & today we celebrate #MarriageEquality & the landmark #SCOTUS decision. http://pic.twitter.com/gqej2xMzIU

— American Airlines (@AmericanAir) June 26, 2015

Google/YouTube: “The United States took a step in the right direction today. https://goo.gl/yxnoHz #ProudToLove”

The United States took a step in the right direction today. https://t.co/rcbVwtd8iM #ProudToLove http://pic.twitter.com/NvusiL6NWF

— YouTube (@YouTube) June 26, 2015

Though Apple isn’t on Twitter, CEO Tim Cook is: “Today marks a victory for equality, perseverance and love.”

Today marks a victory for equality, perseverance and love.

— Tim Cook (@tim_cook) June 26, 2015

JetBlue: “Love is in the air. #LetFreedomWing #SCOTUSMarriage #MarriageEquality”

Love is in the air. #LetFreedomWing #SCOTUSMarriage #MarriageEquality http://pic.twitter.com/2JDRJnYFU7

— JetBlue Airways (@JetBlue) June 26, 2015

MasterCard: “Love matters. Happiness matters. #AcceptanceMatters #Marriage #Equality”

Love matters. Happiness matters. #AcceptanceMatters #Marriage #Equality https://t.co/JhR3lU5rPo

— MasterCard (@MasterCard) June 26, 2015

Maytag: “Here’s to finding the one who completes you. #SCOTUSMarriage”

Here's to finding the one who completes you. #SCOTUSMarriage http://pic.twitter.com/Ox1WB3WCL1

— The Maytag Man (@TheMaytagMan) June 26, 2015

Ben & Jerry’s: “How #MarriageEquality became a reality in the United States! #LoveWins”

How #MarriageEquality became a reality in the United States! #LoveWins https://t.co/CV5jYBttnA

— Ben & Jerry's (@benandjerrys) June 26, 2015

Hilton Hotels: “From sea to shining sea. Let’s celebrate #equality!#SCOTUS”

"From sea to shining sea. Let's celebrate #equality! #SCOTUS http://pic.twitter.com/U6pUUkS7Hh

— Hilton Hotels (@HiltonHotels) June 26, 2015

Staples: “MAKE equality HAPPEN #LoveWins”

MAKE equality HAPPEN #LoveWins http://pic.twitter.com/BF3lP2K6fU

— Staples US (@Staples) June 26, 2015

Uber: “It is so ordered. #LoveWins”

It is so ordered. #LoveWins http://pic.twitter.com/KV6mTddEkS

— Uber (@Uber) June 26, 2015

According to Seth Fiegerman of Mashable, Uber’s app now shows cars with rainbow flags as well:

Uber's app now shows cars with rainbows http://pic.twitter.com/sVIZuIYhFi

— Seth Fiegerman (@sfiegerman) June 26, 2015

We’ll keep updating the list as the day goes on — if you spot other companies reacting to the news, feel free to email us at tips@consumerist.com.

In March, some of the above companies signed an amicus brief filed in the in the matter of Obergefell v. Hodges, saying bans on gay marriage caused low employee morale and were bad for business.

“The burden imposed by inconsistent and discriminatory state laws of having to administer complicated schemes to account for differential treatment of similarly situated employees breeds unnecessary confusion, tension, and diminished employee morale,” the brief read.

Though many companies don’t have a direct stake in same sex marriage, they argued that if the court decided to allow each state to decide for itself about marriage equality, “the costs and uncertainty imposed by inconsistent state marriage laws will only continue,” while establishing equality as the law of the land would “reduce current costs, administrative burden, and diversion of resources from our core businesses.”

Companies who joined the brief included: Comcast, Coca-Cola, Aetna, Amazon, American Express, Apple, Citigroup, DirecTV, eBay, General Mills, Google, JetBlue, Marriott, MillerCoors, the New England Patriots, NIKE, the San Francisco Giants, Tampa Bay Rays, Verizon, Visa, Twitter, Prudential, Facebook, Staples, Office Depot, Disney and hundreds more businesses.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist