Showing posts sorted by relevance for query free. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query free. Sort by date Show all posts

Friday, July 10, 2015

7-Eleven Isn’t Just Giving Away Slurpees For One Day This Year, It’s Creating A Week Of (Almost) Free Stuff

(scrappy!)

(scrappy!)

Who wants a free Slurpee? Well, good thing tomorrow is July 11 – otherwise known as 7-Eleven Day – a day in which the convenience store will once again bestow free sugary, icy drinks on customers at no cost. Not content to merely give away free frozen drinks this year, 7-Eleven stores are expanding their yearly celebration to an entire week.

Business Insider reports that 7-Eleven will mark its 88th birthday on Saturday by kicking off 7Rewards Week.

The company announced the super-sized free goodies week with an event on Facebook, asking customer to “raise a cup to 7Rewards Week! Because everyone loves free food and drinks, right? Obviously.”

The week-of-7-Eleven begins tomorrow when customers can stop by a store between 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. (their local time) to get a free small Slurpee.

Then beginning on Sunday – and continuing until July 18 – customers who buy a coffee, chillers iced coffee, Slurpee, or Big Gulp and scan the 7-Eleven app get a free item.

11709505_10153350005150867_4184339441422782055_n

That free item is described as a 7-Select food or drink item under $2. A photo on the Facebook event shows bags of jelly beans, gummy bears, water, peanuts, breakfast bars, and popcorn as options.

7-Eleven is about to give away a ton of free stuff — here’s how you can get it [Business Insider]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Thursday, July 16, 2015

iTunes Ditches Free Music Downloads Again

free_whole_screenYou, iTunes user! What use do you have for free downloads when you have the glorious streaming library of Apple Music to enjoy? Earlier this year, iTunes appeared to discontinue their free music download of the week, a decade-old feature. We speculated that Apple was doing away with the feature because of their acquisition of Beats, which has a music streaming service. Now that Apple Music has arrived, the free music downloads are gone again.

For now, of course, Apple Music is free for the first free months, but old-school iTunes users might miss their free tunes. Now all that’s available are TV episodes as free downloads, which you can see above. Reader Andrew points out that downloadable movie trailers are also gone from iTunes.

This time, the freebies might be gone for good: streaming video sites like YouTube are a better way to watch movie trailers, and consumers are buying fewer full albums and more streaming subscription.


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Thursday, June 25, 2015

FTC Says Some Of Those “Risk-Free Trials” For Skincare Products Are Bogus, Shuts ‘Em Down

The marketers shut down by the FTC hawked "risk free trials" of a variety of skincare products that weren't actually free.

The marketers shut down by the FTC hawked “risk-free trials” of a variety of skincare products that weren’t actually free.

Sometimes it’s hard to ignore the lure of a “risk-free trial” when it comes with a product that promises to leave your skin youthful, radiant and as soft as a baby’s bottom. But as the Federal Trade Commission once again reminds us, those deals often come with strings attached and hollow promises.

The FTC announced today that at its request a federal district court temporarily shut down a group of marketers using allegedly deceptive online “risk-free trials” for skincare products.

The 15 California-based marketers allegedly use deceptive offers to trick consumers into providing their credit or debit card information to charge them full price for the product and enroll them in recurring programs for additional fees.

According to the FTC complaint [PDF], the marketers, which sell Auravie, Dellure, LéOR Skincare, and Miracle Face Kit brand products, have used such deceptive techniques on a variety of websites since 2010.

Much like the equally deceptive weight loss supplement marketing schemes, these marketers used pop-up advertisements, banner ads, and advertising space on third-party websites – including Amazon.com, Huffingtonpost.com, and Lowes.com – to tout “risk-free trial” offers to direct consumers to their websites.

The sites – aurviefreetrial.com, auraviewtrialkit.com, and mymiraclekit.com, just to name a few – then instruct visitors to provide their credit or debit card information to pay shipping fees of $4.95 to receive the trial offer.

“Defendants also use deceptive pop-up advertisements that discourage consumers from leaving Defendants’ websites without accepting a trial offer,” the complaint states. “When consumers attempt to leave the websites, a text box appears that offers to ship the trial offer at an even lower shipping price.”

Many customers say they were charged far more than the stipulated shipping fees.

The FTC alleges that the companies often charge full price for the product – at times up to $97.88 – thanks in part to terms hidden in the fine print on the websites.

In addition to unknowingly being charged full price, customers are often enrolled without their consent in subscription plans. Such plans ship additional products and charge recurring fees to the provided credit or debit card.

To make matters worse, the FTC alleges that when customers attempt to cancel their trial and unwanted subscription plans, the marketers make it extremely difficult.

For example, the “100% satisfaction guarantee” touted by the companies only allow customers to return opened products within 10 days of the purchase. However, the products generally don’t arrive until after – or nearly after – that 10-day window.

Additionally, the companies failed to disclose that returns of unopened products can only be made within 30 days of purchase.

“Defendants’ marketing practices are materially deceptive and employ tactics including hidden costs, signing up consumers for negative option continuity plans without their consent, and undisclosed and onerous return policies,” the complaint states.

The FTC’s complaint also purports that the marketers misrepresented themselves as being accredited by the Better Business Bureau with an “A-” rating. In reality, the companies are not accredited and have a BBB rating of “F.”

Although, today’s court order is temporary, the FTC is seeking to require the companies to provide refunds to consumers and be permanently barred from continuing the alleged deceptions.

At FTC’s Request, Court Temporarily Stops Online Skincare Marketers Who Deceive Consumers with Bogus “Risk Free Trial” Offers and Recurring Fees [Federal Trade Commission]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Costco CEO: We Aren’t Ready To Set A Date For All Cage-Free Eggs Yet

Amid a campaign by the Humane Society and certain famous faces to push Costco to only sell cage-free eggs, CEO Craig Jelinek says the company is being unfairly targeted. Although the company pledged to go fully cage-free in 2007, he says Costco isn’t prepared to announce when that change will happen.

The Humane Society is lobbing another ball at Costco with footage of hens allegedly being mistreated going on display in the center of Times Square on a 1,700-square-foot billboard, Fox Business reports. Jelinek says that kind of pressure isn’t warranted.

“This has been going on for about two to three months. We probably are the largest seller of cage-free eggs in the United States,” Jelinek told Fox. “The society would like us to give them a timeline as to when we will be all cage-free and we are not prepared to do that.”

He says Costco only represents 15% of the supplier’s business that’s shown in the video, but no other retailers are called out.

But the Humane Society says it’s time for a firm answer, noting that other companies who promised to go cage-free have announced specific plans on that process.

“Costco should be a leader, not a laggard, when it comes to preventing animal cruelty in its supply chain,” said Paul Shapiro, the Humane Society’s Vice President of Farm Animal Protection. “Numerous other major retailers have already committed to getting rid of eggs from caged hens with firm timelines for doing so in place. Some include Burger King, Unilever, Aramark, Sodexo, and Compass Group.”

In addition, General Mills announced recently that it will eventually only use eggs from cage-free hens in U.S. operations, and Dunkin’ Donuts said it’s considering a similar move.

Costco released a statement after Brad Pitt, Ryan Gosling and Bill Maher pushed the company to go entirely cage-free, saying that it’s “committed to the ethical treatment of animals” and its code of ethics is part of the company mission statement. In some cases, Costco said, cages are safer for hens.

“Some jurisdictions, such as California, have laws mandating that eggs derive from hens confined in cages of a certain size,” the company said.

Costco CEO Fires Back Amid Caged Egg Billboard [Fox Business]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Monday, June 29, 2015

All Major U.S. Airlines Offer Free Cancellations Within 24 Hours, Except One

Even the most prepared traveler occasionally has to change their itinerary for unforeseen circumstances. While dealing with airlines to make a simple change can be both test your patience and drain your bank account, if you catch the issue soon enough you might save hundreds of dollars in change fees. That’s thanks, in part, to Department of Transportation rules that allow a ticket to be held at the same price for 24 hours before purchase or canceled within 24 hours after purchase — most of the time.

Although DOT guidelines [PDF] on the 24-hour reservation requirements have been effect since 2012, not ever traveler knows their rights or, more importantly, that the interpretation of these rules can vary from airline to airline.

Consumerist reader “B.” found this out the hard way recently after booking and trying to cancel a flight on American Airlines within that 24-hour period.

Under the DOT’s regulations, as long as a customer books a non-refundable ticket at least seven days ahead of the scheduled departure, an airline is required to offer one of two options: allow that customer to change or cancel the trip within 24 hours without penalty, or hold that reservation at the current price for 24 hours without payment.

While the regulations seem fairly straightforward, it should be noted that airlines are not required to offer both of the options, just one of them. That’s where things can get tricky, especially in the case of American Airlines – B.’s airline of choice for his flight.

Unlike nearly all the other domestic airlines which subscribe to the policy of allowing a passenger to purchase a flight and make changes within 24 hours at no charge, American only allows customers to hold their seat and fare for 24 hours without payment.

Customers who pay for the fare without selecting the hold option will not be able to cancel or change their flight during the subsequent 24-hour period free of charge.

B. tells us that he purchased a flight with the airline, and thought the process would be the same as other airlines. Except it wasn’t.

When he decided he needed more time to confirm with friends about the upcoming trip, he attempted to cancel the flight, as it was still within the timeframe afforded by all the other major carriers.

“I lost $550 to American Airlines recently after booking a flight and then canceling it within the 24-hour required period,” he says. “When canceling the flight there was no notification that the cost would not be refunded.”

He attempted to find confirmation on the airline’s website about the cancellation policy, but he couldn’t. That’s, of course, because the airline only allows the holding of a fare for 24 hours, not the purchase and refund option.

“Because there was no indication that there would not be a refund, I assumed there would be and pressed the button,” he says. “I didn’t receive any form of notification and only realized that it wasn’t refunded on my credit card several weeks later.”

While B. does concede that he could have been more careful and that American allows the 24-hour hold option, he believes that choice isn’t as visible as it could be.

“I went through the order process twice and asked two friends to do the same,” he says. “None of us could figure out how to do it.”

Part of the reason for this confusion is because the “hold reservation” selection is included with other payment options, like “Credit/Debit Card,” and “PayPal”:

hold aa

“I wouldn’t normally consider a ‘hold’ a payment option,” writes B., “and given its credit card-like symbol and location on the far right I just ignored it like I would ignore a specialized type of credit card that I didn’t have.”

Although American’s hold reservation option may be lumped in with other payment options, it isn’t technically running afoul of the DOT guidelines.

According to the requirements, carriers are expected to include information about their specific policy “in their customer service plans and to post the plans on their websites; they are also expected to incorporate the 24-hour reservation requirement into their general cancellation policies and make appropriate disclosure wherever those polices are provided to the public.”

And American does indeed do that, dedicating a page to the hold policy.

To ensure airlines abide by the 24-hour reservation hold or cancellation policy, the DOT checks websites periodically and investigates consumer complaints. Any airline found to be in violation of the rules is subject to a civil penalty of up to $27,500.

For B. the confusion over American’s policy ends on a happy note. After contacting the airline, a representative suggested B. file a complaint with customer relations, and he was eventually notified that a refund would be processed.

While it’s possible that airlines may choose to change their preferred option under the 24-hour hold or refund regulation, here are the current policies (as of June 2015) for major U.S. airlines:

Alaska Airlines: 24-hour free cancellation.

Allegiant Airlines: 24-hour free cancellation.

American Airlines: Keeps reservations on hold for free for 24-hours.

Delta Airlines: provides a full refund if cancellation is made by midnight the day after purchase of most flights.

Frontier Airlines: 24-hour free cancellation.

JetBlue: 24-hour free cancellation.

Southwest Airlines: No fee for cancellation, customers receive full credit toward future flight.

Spirit Airlines: 24-hour free cancellation [PDF].

United Airlines: 24-hour free cancellation.

Travelers hoping to take advantage of the 24-hour rule will only be able to do so if they book directly with the airline – either through their website, on the phone or in person.

Third-party websites and outside ticket agents do not have to comply with the regulations, according to the DOT.

This means, if you book through a site like Airfare.com or others that compare ticket prices, you may be out the entire cost of your ticket, plus any fees imposed by that company.

However, the DOT has, in the past, proposed rules that would require certain companies – specifically those with revenue of $100 million or more – to adhere to the same 24-hour regulation. So far, those rules have not been approved.


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

General Mills Says It Will Eventually Use Only Cage-Free Eggs In U.S. Operations

General Mills is the latest big food company to jump on the cage-free egg bandwagon, announcing today that it’s preparing to make the move to only use eggs from hens that aren’t confined to cages in 100% of its U.S. operations… eventually.

The company says the move is part of an updated animal welfare policy that now extends throughout its global supply chain, reports Associated Press, but didn’t nail down a date for that change. It’s now working with suppliers to figure out a “reasonable timeline” to execute the plan.

General Mills uses eggs in many of its products, though some brands like Haagen-Dazs already use not only cage-free eggs, but free-range eggs.

Animal advocates are praising the company for joining others in treating the animals we use for food with more consideration.

“General Mills’ announcement is a major victory to improve the lives of farm animals,” Josh Balk, senior director of food policy for the Humane Society of the United States, told the AP.

The organization worked with General Mills on its new policy, which is based on the British government’s Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare. Those pillars include freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; freedom from fear and distress; and freedom to engage in normal patterns of animal behavior.

Walmart adopted a similar policy based on those British precepts in May, while Dunkin’ Donuts also recently said it was looking into cage-free eggs.

General Mills already held to those principles in regards to its dairy suppliers, but the new policy expands those methods to all animals in its worldwide supply chain, says Steve Peterson, the company’s director of sustainable sourcing.

The company won’t be cage-free immediately, however, as General Mills needs time to work with suppliers to make sure there are enough ingredients raised in line with the new policy.

“You just don’t make these transitions quickly,” Peterson adds.

General Mills plans major move toward cage-free eggs [Associated Press]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Monday, July 20, 2015

Everyone Likes Free Office Food Because We’re All Basically Cave People

It's Marlene's birthday. You know, Marlene from accounting? (Faded Photograph)

It’s Marlene’s birthday. You know, Marlene from accounting? (Faded Photograph)

All it takes is a single email with the words “free food” in it and an entire office can be brought to its feet, sending workers scurrying toward the communal area and a chance at a handout. From cupcakes to pizza, the thought of getting something for nothing is a tempting one — even if you don’t know whose birthday it is or why there are free subs in the conference room. This, because we’re all just trying to survive, just like we did when we lived in caves.

Though cave people didn’t have offices or email, they sure knew how to appreciate food when it was available for the taking, in order to survive. That instinct could be one reason we all go running when there’s grub up for grabs, reports the Huffington Post.

“It’s reminiscent of survival kicking in,” Dr. Steve Terracciano, a board-certified cognitive and behavioral psychologist told HuffPo. “Food can bring out something primal in people.”

Obviously, if an email went out notifying workers that leftovers or samples would cost something, it’s likely that not many people would run quite so fast as when free food is literally on the table.

Some of this behavior is also learned — think piñatas at birthday parties, or Halloween traditions that have kids scrambling for candy to make sure they can get as much as they can.

“Part of all of this is how you’ve learned to participate with groups of people,” Terracciano said.

It’s not all greed, however, as HuffPo cites a clinical psychologist who notes that eating together is a communal experience, one that extends to the office environment.

“Breaking bread together is a sign of trust,” Dr. Chloe Carmichael explains. “Sharing a meal together does help people to bond. It facilitates communication, trust and a shared sensory experience.”

Until there’s only one piece of free pizza left. Then everyone finds out how strong that workplace bond truly is.

Why You And Your Co-Workers Go Absolutely Nuts For Free Office Food [Huffington Post]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Frontier Airlines Claims To Save $1.9M By Eliminating Toll-Free Customer Service Calls

If you’ve ever run into an issue with your airline of choice, then you probably know one of the preferred ways to reach out to the carrier is through their toll-free customer service phone number. But that’s not the case anymore for Frontier Airlines, which has ditched its 800 number in order to cut costs. 

The Denver Post reports that the airline recently eliminated its toll-free number in favor of a Salt Lake City phone number; a move the company claims will save an estimated $160,000 per month – or $1.9 million per year.

So what exactly does the change mean for customers? Well, if you have a cell phone you’ll need to make sure you have enough available minutes before placing the call. And if you’re a landline user, you’ll be calling long-distance, which in some cases could cost more.

Despite putting more of those costs on consumers, the airline say it plans to pass on its $1.9 million saving to passengers, but didn’t specify how that would happen.

Some analysts say the move makes sense for the low-cost carrier, as many people have moved away from using traditional landlines in favor of wireless or VOiP calling plans that include long-distance calls at no extra charge.

“This is the airline saying: ‘Why should we pay for something a lot of people don’t care about anyway anymore?’ Of course, some people will care,” Seth Kaplan, Airline Weekly analyst tells the Post. “But the ultra-low-cost model, which they’re mostly adopting, is all about not accepting any costs unless those costs clearly drive revenue, and this is one where they probably had a hard time figuring out where it was translating to meaningful revenue.”

Still, others say eliminating the toll-free line could alienate some of the customers Frontier has courted in the past.

“If you’re trying to attract people who are budget conscious or on a limited income — they could be college students, lower income working people and elderly people — it’s sending a conflicting message that ‘we are the airline for you, but we’re not here for you when you need us’,” Stephanie Brooks, director of marketing of communications at University of Denver’s Daniels College of Business, tells the Post. “It’s a cost savings that on its face seems like a good idea, but it’s really going to hurt customers in the end.”

Frontier, of course, isn’t the first airline to do away with toll-free lines, other ultra low-cost carriers Spirit and Allegiant have previously ditched their 800 numbers.

Frontier Airlines eliminates toll-free customer service calls [The Denver Post]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Friday, July 17, 2015

Famous People Pressuring Costco To Stop Selling Eggs From Caged Hens

In an effort to get Costco to jump on the cage-free bandwagon, famous faces have been coming out against the practice of keeping hens confined, urging bulk retailer Costco to change its ways. Brad Pitt, Ryan Gosling and Bill Maher have all recently brought the issue to the attention of the public.

Last week, Maher penned a New York Times editorial titled “Free the Hens, Costco!”, in which he pointed out that the company had vowed in 2007 that it would change how it treats egg-producing hens… and it hasn’t.

“Multiple investigations into battery cages document animals with deteriorated spinal cords, some who have become paralyzed and then mummified in their cages,” Maher claims in the article. “Imagine cramming five cats or dogs into tiny cages, hundreds of thousands in each shed, for their entire lives. That would warrant cruelty charges, of course. But when the egg industry does it to hens, it’s considered business as usual.”

Meanwhile, Gosling and Pitt have been writing letters to the company, telling it that it’s time to change its ways. Last month Gosling sent a letter to Craig Jelinek, the chief executive officer of Costco Wholesale Corporation, which was posted by the Humane Society of the United States.

After describing video footage from the Humane Society’s undercover investigation that he says revealed the cruel conditions caged hens live in, Gosling accused Costco of deceiving its customers.

“Furthermore, it is appalling that Costco has been selling these eggs with deceptive labeling on cartons featuring graphics of birds living out in a green pasture,” he wrote. “You’re already eliminating cages for veal calves and pigs – don’t you feel that chickens also deserve the same mercy?”

Pitt was also in the mood to write, adding his voice to the hue and cry yesterday with a letter he wrote to Jelinek on behalf of Farm Sanctuary (an organization that advocates against the mistreatment of animals and factory farming, a group Maher also supported in his letter). He wrote about caged birds suffering atrophy of their muscles and bones from years of immobility.

“As you know, these birds producing eggs for your shelves are crammed five or more into cages that are not large enough for even one hen to spread her wings,” Pitt writes, according to the Associated Press.

Pitt and Maher both commended Costco for its other animal-welfare efforts, urging it to fulfill its pledge to uncage egg-producing hens.

“Nearly a decade ago, Costco indicated that its next step on this issue would be creating a timeline for getting those cages out of your egg supply, and yet today, you appear to have made no progress at all — even as you have set timelines for getting pigs and calves out of cages,” Pitt wrote, asking the company to set a timeline for ending its sale of the offending eggs.

In June, Costco noted that there are “vigorous debates about animal welfare and laying hens.”

“Some, such as the Humane Society, advocate that hens be ‘cage free,’ and not confined in cages. Some advocate that cages are safer for hens,” a statement read, acknowledging that it’s seen a bump in sales for organic/cage-free eggs in the last nine years.

The company has yet to specifically address any of the celebrities’ complaints directly, saying it is “committed to the ethical treatment of animals” and its code of ethics is part of the company mission statement.

Other food companies have been moving in the cage-free direction, with General Mills announcing recently that it will eventually only use eggs from cage-free hens in U.S. operations, and Dunkin’ Donuts said it’s considering a similar move. Back in 2012, Burger King promised it would stop using suppliers that caged pigs and hens.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Monday, July 20, 2015

McDonald’s Billboard Offers Free McFlurries For The Hot & Hungry

Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 3.48.27 PMEveryone likes to get free stuff, especially if that stuff happens to include food and drinks. Earlier this year companies began using “drinkable” billboards to dispense beverages to thirsty consumers. Now, McDonald’s has taken that idea and made it their own by giving away free McFlurries to pedestrians when the temperatures reach scorching levels.

Creativity Online reports that McDonald’s in the Netherlands created the dessert-distributing ad as a way to help consumers beat the summer heat earlier this month.

Unlike the Coca-Cola and Calsberg ads, the Golden Arches’ billboard didn’t actually dish out the ice cream treat, it just gave consumers the opportunity to score a free dessert later.

Danish ad agencies JCDecaux and TBWA/Neboko teamed up to create the gigantic heat-activated billboard to house 100 (empty) McFlurry cups at the Damrak in Amsterdam, Creativity Online reports.

When the temperature reached 38.6 degrees Celsius (about 101 degrees Fahrenheit), the billboard opened to allow pedestrians to grab a McFlurry cup. They could then take the dish to the nearest McDonald’s for a free dessert.

McDonald’s Billboard Dishes Out Free McFlurries When the Sun is Scorching [Creativity Online]
[H/T Mashable]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

After Two Reported Deaths, IKEA Offering Free Wall Anchoring Kit For 27M Dressers & Chests That May Tip Over

Two MALM 6-drawer chests included in the repair program.

Two MALM 6-drawer chests included in the repair program.

When kids are around furniture, there’s no guarantee that they’ll treat chairs, tables and dressers as such, and instead, might see them as fun things to climb. But scaling furniture that isn’t meant to be scaled could cause it to tip over and crush a young person — especially if it isn’t anchored to the wall. That danger is leading IKEA to offer a free wall anchoring kit for a total of about 27 million chests and dressers, after two deaths were reported from furniture that fell and crushed children underneath.

IKEA North America has announced a repair program in conjunction with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission that includes a free wall anchoring kit for their MALM 3- and 4-drawer chests and two styles of MALM 6-drawer chests, as well as other chests and dressers. These pieces of furniture might tip over, a hazard for any small people around, if they’re not securely anchored to the wall.

A MALM 3-drawer chest that must be anchored.

A MALM 3-drawer chest that must be anchored.

IKEA is advising consumers to immediately stop using all IKEA children’s chests and dressers taller than 23.5 inches and adult chests and dressers taller than 29.4 inches, unless they are securely anchored to the wall. All told, about seven million MALM chests and 20 million other IKEA chests and dressers are part of the nationwide repair program.

The company received two reports of children who died after MALM chests tipped over and crushed them. One incident included a two-year-old boy who died in February 2014 after a MALM 6-drawer chest tipped over and pinned him against his bed, killing him. In June 2014, a 23-month old boy died after he was trapped beneath a 3-drawer MALM chest that had tipped over. In both cases, the chests were not anchored to the wall.

IKEA and CPSC have received 14 reports of tip-over incidents involving the MALM chests, including four injuries.

IKEA and CPSC urge consumers to inspect their IKEA chests and dressers to make sure they’re securely anchored to the wall, or move any unanchored furniture into storage or other places where children can’t get at them, until they can be properly anchored.

The free kits include tip-over restraints, as well as complete wall anchoring hardware, instructions and warning labels to be affixed to the furniture. To receive a free kit, either go to IKEA, visit http://ift.tt/1Mog7RF, or call (888) 966-4532.

Tip-over incidents are a serious hazard for children, as CPSC data says a child dies every two weeks and a child is injured every 24 minutes in the U.S. from furniture or TVs falling over.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Monday, July 27, 2015

Wendy’s Finally Begins Testing Antibiotic-Free Chicken

(Photo: Consumerist)

(Photo: Consumerist)

More than a year after Chick fil-A began its transition away from drugged-up chickens, and months after McDonald’s announced its plans to eventually go the antibiotic-free route, Wendy’s — the one major burger chain with ads that tout its better, more natural ingredients — is finally dipping its toes into the no-antibiotics pool.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Wendy’s will begin the test this week of antibiotic-free chicken products in a few locations in Orlando; Gainesville, FL; Kansas City, MO; and Austin.

The company says the test is being done in response to rising customer demand for meat sourced from animals not raised on steady diets of low-dose antibiotics.

To run through it one more time. Many farmers feed their chickens, pigs, and cows continual, sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics, primarily because it encourages tissue growth. Unfortunately, this overuse of antibiotics has the unintended result of creating new, drug-resistant “super bugs” that require stronger antibiotics to fight.

Antibiotics sold for use on farm animals account for around 80% of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. In late 2013, the FDA asked drug makers to stop selling the drugs that were solely for growth-promotion, but since most livestock antibiotics were approved for both therapeutic and growth-promotion purposes, this really only required farmers to change the reason they purchased the drugs, not the amount they used.

Under increased pressure from doctors, scientists, public health advocates, and a growing number of consumers, several large companies are making the switch to drug-free, especially for chickens.

Both Perdue and Tyson have made commitments to drastically reducing the drugs given to their birds, while restaurant chains like Chipotle, Panera, Chick fil-A, McDonald’s (and hopefully Wendy’s) have helped nudge demand. A coalition of 50 different groups recently petitioned Subway in the hope of getting the company to source antibiotic-free meat.

A Wendy’s exec tells the Journal that the company’s decision to expand the test will depend on customers’ response.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Monday, July 6, 2015

TiVo Invokes Aereo’s Corporate Corpse To Market An “Exclusive” Deal That Costs $70 More Than No Deal At All


Aereo only operated for two years, and in that time the company commanded a small but loyal fan base. Customers in the cities where the streaming service operated enjoyed being able to capture, record, and stream local over-the-air broadcasts… until the company got shot down by the courts and went bankrupt. Now, another company is trying to fan those flames of affection for its own marketing — and the deal on offer is not good at all.

A former Aereo subscriber in Massachusetts received an e-mail today with the subject line “Aereo Bankruptcy Resolution.”

At first, she said, the Aereo-branded message looked like it was going to be just that: some kind of information about the bankruptcy process. Instead, though, it turned out just to be a thinly-veiled ad for TiVo. The e-mail (reprinted in full at the bottom of this post) urges former Aereo customers to jump on the TiVo Roamio OTA DVR as soon as possible.

Aereo shut down late last year, after losing their Supreme Court case and a handful of last-ditch efforts to keep the lights on. The company finally gave up and filed for bankruptcy in November, 2014.

When Aereo’s assets went on the auction block, TiVo snapped up the defunct company’s trademarks and subscriber lists. TiVo was pretty transparent about their plans for that data.

At the time, CEO Tim Rogers said that the acquisition “will enhance our ability to serve the growing segment of consumers who want access to both broadcast television and over the top content,” adding, “TiVo has found success in providing a more comprehensive offering and sophisticated user experience than any other player in the marketplace and we look forward to expanding on that success.”

In other words, TiVo planned to ply their wares selectively to former Aereo customers, and now that day has come. And the deal’s a doozy.

“With the court’s blessing,” the message our reader received says, “we’ve been granted permission to contact you because, like you, we feel there’s never been a better time to make the most of this free, over-the-air bounty.”

And what better way to make use of a free bounty than by paying TiVo $20 per month (with a two-year commitment) to access it?

The special deal for former Aereo subscribers is, unfortunately, very much the wrong kind of special. The standard subscription fee for the TiVo Roamio OTA is $15 per month plus $50 for the device. Over the course of two years, that works out to about $410.

Signing up through TiVo’s e-mailed promotional URL for the free device and a $20 monthly fee, on the other hand, will cost $480 over that same time span. In other words, taking this offer will cost users $70 more than ignoring it and just heading to a big box store or TiVo’s website directly.

Expanding success, TiVo: you’re doing it wrong.

aereo_tivo_letter

The full text reads:

Hello,
As a former Aereo customer, you’ve experienced firsthand the power and potential of over-the-air television. However, as a result of the Supreme Court’s Aereo ruling last year, these uncompressed, eye-popping HD signals and the free programming they deliver remain a largely untapped resource.

We’re working to change all that.

With the court’s blessing, we’ve been granted permission to contact you because, like you, we feel there’s never been a better time to make the most of this free, over-the-air bounty.

TiVo fought for the right to keep you informed on our progress, and we’re happy to inform you that our new TiVo Roamio™ OTA was conceived, developed and introduced for people just like you. This HD antenna DVR and streaming player in one brings two exciting worlds of content together in a single experience. You can also watch local TV wherever you are. We’ve set aside a small cache of these DVRs for former Aereo customers and want to offer it to you at an exclusive price, $19.99/mo. with a 2-year commitment. I encourage you to visit http://ift.tt/1EhXz0W to learn more while supplies last. Use promo code:ZH0Z016EU1

And thank you for helping us keep the Aereo dream alive.

Best regards,
Aereo Transition Officer

P.S. Don’t miss this opportunity. TiVo Roamio™ OTA was created with your needs in mind.


by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Monday, June 22, 2015

Apple Music Changes Its Tune, Will Pay Artists During 3-Month Free Trial

iphone6-3up-applemusic-features-pr-print-1Breaking news: It appears that musicians would like to be paid for their work. After Apple announced it’d be giving customers a free three-month trial of its new streaming Music service, artists and others who contribute to making music weren’t too pleased to find out they’d be receiving royalties of 70% of nothing for that time period. The company has now changed its tune, and says it will pay musicians after all.

Popular musician Taylor Swift wrote an open letter titled “To Apple, Love Taylor,” criticizing Apple’s decision to keep the purse strings tied during those first three months, and explaining why she’d be holding back her new album from the new streaming service.

“I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months,” Swift wrote. “I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company. ”

While recognizing that Apple is moving toward a model that pays artists for streaming, Swift notes that three months is a long time not to get paid — for anyone. She added that it wasn’t about her, as she can support herself and her team by playing live shows.

“This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success,” Swift wrote.

Her letter went viral, prompting Apple’s senior vice president of internet services and software Eddy Cue to announce on Twitter one day later that the company will pay artists during the free trial period.

“We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists,” Cue wrote on Twitter. “Love, Apple.”

He told Billboard the decision to pay artists came after reading Swift’s letter.

“When I woke up this morning and saw what Taylor had written, it really solidified that we needed a change,” Cue said. “And so that’s why we decide we will now pay artists during the trial period.”

He added that others were grumbling as well, citing “concern from a lot of artists” and saying it was “never our intent” to not pay people, but that Apple had planned to negotiate a higher royalty rate, which the company is going to stick with.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Disingenuous Shoplifting Suspects Claim They Misunderstood “Tax-Free Holiday” Concept

During back-to-school season, some municipalities have tax holidays, where sales tax isn’t charged on clothing purchases. Georgia is holding one right now, and some shoppers took advantage of the holiday to… pretend that they didn’t understand that the term doesn’t mean “grab everything you can and run out of the store.”

While that idea formed the basis for one of the greatest game shows of all time, it is not how a tax holiday actually works. Two women were caught: one was leaving a department store at Perimeter Mall wearing a pair of jeans under her sweatpants, and the other was in the store’s parking lot wearing what the police called “stolen merchandise.”

When confronted, the suspects claimed to have not picked up on the “Tax” part of the phrase, and said that they were under the impression that the store was holding a “Free Holiday,” where people could take anything they wanted and leave the store. This is not a thing that has ever actually happened. Even if it were, wouldn’t you take a cart full of jeans out the door with you, not a single pair concealed under the pants you came in with?

Police didn’t buy their story, and both women were arrested.

Alleged shoplifters say they heard ‘free holiday’ instead of ‘tax free’ [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Friday, August 21, 2015

3 Words that Will Change Your Entire Life, If You Let Them

3 Words that Will Change Your Entire Life, If You Let Them

3 Words that Will Change Your Entire Life, If You Let Them

3 Words that Will Change Your Entire Life, If You Let Them
How to Free Yourself from the Pain of High Expectations

How to Free Yourself from the Pain of High Expectations

How to Free Yourself from the Pain of High Expectations

This post has been generated by Page2RSS

from Tiny Buddha: Wisdom Quotes, Letting Go, Letting Happiness In http://ift.tt/1HZHD0t
via IFTTT

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Disingenuous Shoplifting Suspects Claim They Misunderstood “Tax-Free Holiday” Concept

During back-to-school season, some municipalities have tax holidays, where sales tax isn’t charged on clothing purchases. Georgia is holding one right now, and some shoppers took advantage of the holiday to… pretend that they didn’t understand that the term doesn’t mean “grab everything you can and run out of the store.”

While that idea formed the basis for one of the greatest game shows of all time, it is not how a tax holiday actually works. Two women were caught: one was leaving a department store at Perimeter Mall wearing a pair of jeans under her sweatpants, and the other was in the store’s parking lot wearing what the police called “stolen merchandise.”

When confronted, the suspects claimed to have not picked up on the “Tax” part of the phrase, and said that they were under the impression that the store was holding a “Free Holiday,” where people could take anything they wanted and leave the store. This is not a thing that has ever actually happened. Even if it were, wouldn’t you take a cart full of jeans out the door with you, not a single pair concealed under the pants you came in with?

Police didn’t buy their story, and both women were arrested.

Alleged shoplifters say they heard ‘free holiday’ instead of ‘tax free’ [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Comcast Improving Download Speeds For Free In Northeast, But Not For Everyone

With Comcast losing pay-TV subscribers in favor of streaming video services, the company is doing what it can to retain customers who not only ante up for TV and broadband, but also for home phone service.

Today, the company confirmed that some of its Mid-Atlantic and New England broadband customers will be getting free speed upgrades.

Comcast is trying to sweeten the pot to retain Triple Play (TV/Internet/Phone) customers, who account for about 45% of its subscriber base, by bumping some of them up from 25Mbps service to the new Performance Pro tier at 75 Mbps at no extra cost.

Note that the company’s press release only refers to “eligible Triple Play subscribers” but provides no further details on eligibility. A Comcast media rep we contacted didn’t provide specifics but said the company will soon be notifying those who are eligible.

As a customer-retention plan, it’s not a bad idea. Costs for carrying TV networks continue to increase while live-TV viewership is down, so as much as Comcast customers would love to see a price drop for their cable service, that’s unlikely. There’s not much you can do to make phone service more attractive; we’re amazed that so many people still pay for landline service. But one thing Comcast can do is improve data speeds.

Most of the affected customers currently don’t need 75 Mbps service and won’t suddenly run out to buy multiple 4K TV sets to take advantage of the faster speeds. It’s a lot like the recent spate of wireless companies giving away extra or free data to smartphone users. It’s a factor the company has control over and a benefit that most will not fully take advantage of.

If you’re an Internet-only customer with the higher-speed Blast tier of service, you’ll get a free downstream speed increase, taking you from the current 105 Mbps to 150 Mbps. Unlike the other no-cost increase, you don’t have to be a Triple Play subscriber.

The bad news is that Internet-only and Internet/TV-only Comcast subscribers with speed tiers lower than Blast will not yet see any speed increase, and why would the company go out of its way to retain these Internet-only customers when they are growing in number?

This is why increased competition in home broadband is needed. Comcast customers (and subscribers of most cable companies) have little choice for high-speed Internet service, so if they cut the pay-TV cord they are often still tethered to the pay-TV company by the Internet. With competition, Comcast would have to fight to keep the business of that defecting pay-TV customer.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Monday, June 22, 2015

SCOTUS Sides With California Farmer Who Refused To Pay Raisins Into The National Reserve

A few years back we heard the tale of a California farmer who was raisin’ a stink over the government’s insistence that he pay 1.2 million pounds of raisins into the national reserve without paying him for them. Today, the Supreme Court of the United States sided with him, saying the Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes personal property (movable property), just as when it takes real property (things like land).

Quick background: Around 2002, the farmer had refused to let the government take away 1.2 million pounds of raisins, under something called a “marketing order” that takes the raisins and dumps them into a national reserve. In this case it was Marketing Order 989, which was initiated as part of the New Deal as a way to keep demand for raisins high when prices decline.

The raisins that go into the reserve are then sold off by the Raisin Administrative Committee, which runs the reserve. These are raisins the farmers got nothing for, but that are then exported in noncompeting markets, given to charity or other purposes. It gets them off the open market and keeps the supply for commercial buyers low. That means you could be paying higher prices for raisins than you would if the farmers were allowed to sell all their crops off.

Farmers are supposed to get whatever’s left of the net proceeds RAC makes after deductions for the export subsidies and the Committee’s administrative expenses.

For their refusal to fork over the free raisins, the government ultimately fined the farmers about $480,000, the market value of the fruit, plus “an additional civil penalty of $200,000.”

In the opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority today [PDF], he explains the system and notes that during the years at issue in this case, the net proceeds from the RAC were less than the cost of producing the crop one year, and nothing at all the next. Which means the farmers basically got nothing.

“Growers generally ship their raisins to a raisin ‘handler,’ who physically separates the raisins due the Government (called ‘reserve raisins’), pays the growers only for the remainder (‘free-tonnage raisins’), and packs and sells the free-tonnage raisins,” Roberts wrote. “The Raisin [Administrative] Committee acquires title to the reserve raisins that have been set aside, and decides how to dispose of them in its discretion.”

The farmers in question produced some of the raisins at issue here themselves and acquired some from other producers, “paying those growers in full for all of their raisins, not just the free-tonnage portion.”

The decision today doesn’t invalidate marketing orders, which have been permitted for a while as a condition for selling in interstate commerce. But essentially, the government can’t make raisin growers give up their property without just compensation.

The court held that when the government “physically takes possession” of property, that constitutes a “per se taking,” instead of a regulatory one, so that just compensation is required, whether it’s personal property or real estate.

The court also rejected the United States Department of Agriculture’s argument that promising to share future proceeds from the sale of the reserve raisins was enough to meet that requirement of just compensation.

Though eight of the justices agreed on that (with Justice Sotomayor dissenting), when it came to deciding what “just compensation was,” the justice voted 5-4, with Justice Roberts concluding:

“The Government has already calculated the amount of just compensation in this case, when it fined the [the farmers] the fair market value of the raisins: $483,843.53,” he wrote, saying the government can’t go back on that valuation now. Instead of giving the farmers that amount, he says they should “simply be relieved of the obligation to pay the fine and associated civil penalty.”

All of the justices agreed, however, that “Raisins… are a healthy snack,” Roberts wrote in the part of the opinion joined by Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan.

“I could not agree more,” Sotomayor agreed in a footnote.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Monday, June 15, 2015

Apple Music Offers Musicians Royalties Of 70% Of Nothing During Free Trial

iPhone6-3Up-AppleMusic-Features-PR-PRINT-1Apple’s streaming music service is coming to a device near you at the end of this month, since it’s likely that there’s some kind of device with iTunes on it near you right now. Yet while Apple is promising musicians over 70% of the revenue from the service as royalties, that also means musicians will get around 70% of nothing for the first three months of Apple Music, since the service will be free to users.

Re/code reports that the royalty rate, which is divided between the publishers of songs and the owners of recordings, will vary according to customers’ geographic location: in the United States, it will be 71.5%, and averaging out slightly higher outside of the United States.

Apple will not have an ad-supported tier, as their main competitor Spotify does, which is part of the company’s sales pitch to music labels. They’re giving out slightly higher royalty rates to make up for the longer free trials, and making sure that music labels know that the service will be subscription-based only.

Will having their software on hundreds of millions of devices worldwide be enough to beat Spotify, which claims to have 20 million paying subscribers worldwide? We’ll find out at the end of September, when the first Apple Music free trials end.

Here’s What Happens to Your $10 After You Pay for a Month of Apple Music [Re/code]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist