Wednesday, 8 June 2016

Aeropostale Wants To Reorganize, Main Lender Thinks That’s Adorable

In recent months, we’ve shared with you the bankruptcy saga of Sports Authority, a sporting goods chain that was deep in debt, filed for bankruptcy protection, and planned to re-emerge as a smaller and reorganized retailer, but couldn’t make it work, ultimately selling its remaining stores to liquidators. Teen clothing retailer Aeropostale seems to be headed down a similar path, with its biggest lender pressuring the chain to get ready to auction its stores instead of reorganizing.

You may remember Aeropostale’s battle against Sycamore Partners, a lender that happens to own one of the company’s biggest suppliers. The retailer says that Sycamore intentionally pushed it into bankruptcy by demanding up front payment for merchandise.

Aeropostale is preparing plans for liquidating the company, which would involve selling stores either to another company that would keep them alive, or (more likely) liquidators that would sell off inventory and fixtures, then close the chain. Aeropostale claims that its factory-store (outlet) sales are great and that reorganization is a realistic course.

This is all time-sensitive, since from lender Sycamore’s point of view, it would be best to either hand stores off to a new owner as the back-to-school season begins. From the point of view of Aeropostale’s leadership, it’s the other way around: back-to-school season will bring in piles of cash that the chain can use to reorganize.

The retailer and the lender will have a nice chat about tthis during a hearing over bankruptcy funding in court tomorrow. Aeropostale’s plans for reorganization and for liquidation are due in July.

Aéropostale Battles Sycamore for Shot at Turnaround [Wall Street Journal]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Tide’s Answer To Slumping Sales? Use More Detergent Pods!

While shiny, candy-colored detergent pods have poisoned many thousands of kids who mistake them for toys or treats, they’ve been success for detergent brand Tide and its parent company Procter & Gamble. So is it a coincidence that Tide’s new recommendation that customers use as many as three pods per load comes amid an overall sales slump in the detergent category?

The Wall Street Journal reports that sales of liquid detergent are down nearly 9% since pods first hit the market in 2012, and powdered detergent has dropped by nearly a third. Those decreases have both been offset to some degree by the 140% growth in pod sales, but pods still only make up about 15% of the market. Thus, overall detergent sales are down around 5% during the pod era.

So how is a company like P&G going to make up for the lost sales? Apparently by convincing people that they need to use more detergent to get their clothes clean.

Recent Tide ads feature users holding two pods at a time, and the company is now recommending that pod users deploy three pods for their largest load, making Tide the only company to do so (for now).

Screen Shot 2016-06-08 at 5.05.12 PM

P&G tells the Journal that this is just a response to customer feedback; that customers are using larger machines and cramming more into them.

However, some competitors disagree.

“It’s clearly a way to boost sales,” said John Replogle, says the CEO of Seventh Generation, which is launching its own pods later this year.

When pods were introduced, they were advertised as a way to avoid the waste of liquid and powdered detergents, with their imprecise measurements. The idea was that a single load would require a single pod, but most brands now recommend up to two at a time for large loads.

One big problem — aside from all the various safety concerns — is that these pods already cost significantly more per “dose” than their counterparts.

Say a Tide pod costs you $.25 on average. The equivalent in liquid detergent will only run you $.19. Yes, that’s only six cents, but when you start doubling or tripling up — and then multiplying by all the loads you’ll wash over the course of a year — that’s a significant price difference.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Store Fitting Rooms Are Terrible And Make Everyone Feel Terrible

Do you like to take an armful of clothing items, bring them three at a time into the fitting room, put them on, look at yourself in the mirror under harsh fluorescent lights, and make a quick judgement in the store? Most people don’t appreciate this experience, which is one of the reasons why people are shopping online as much as they can. However, the return rate for clothes purchases is the same in stores and online. Why is that?

Yes, that’s actually true: we learned from Marketwatch that data from Body Labs, a company that studies how human bodies move and are shaped, shows that people return 22% of clothes purchased in stores, but 23% of clothes purchased online. That shouldn’t be the case, since stores that sell clothes generally have fitting rooms: people might change their minds later on, but things getting returned because they don’t fit shouldn’t happen. In theory.

The problem is that people aren’t actually using fitting rooms: the same data shows that 46% of shoppers surveyed said that they “hate” trying on clothes in a fitting room. That leaves stores with a big incentive to make the experience better. Returns are expensive, since they often don’t just end up back on the store shelf.

People might buy multiple clothing items, try them on in a leisurely fashion at home, and then return them because they don’t want to fuss with the fitting room. Another possibility is that people try things on, then try to apply the same sizing information to other items in the same store, or even other brands. That doesn’t work.

What does work? A retail strategist at Kurt Salmon suggests something very simple to Marketwatch: if a store can’t spare the staff to have someone sitting in the fitting room full-time, at least make a button available so customers can page for help when they need it.

Customers hate fitting rooms — and clothing retailers are paying the price [Marketwatch]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Adidas Misspells “Colombia” In Soccer Ads, Gets Sent Back To 3rd Grade Geography

Someone at Adidas must have been snoozing during the South American geography lesson in elementary school, because how else could you explain the company splashing “Columbia” all over ads featuring the Colombian soccer team?

See, Colombia is a country in South America, while Columbia is a university, a district, a city in Missouri, and a sportswear company (among other things).

Adidas, headquartered in Germany, found itself in the crosshairs for mixing the two words up for a recent campaign for the Copa Americana soccer (or football, if you’re the rest of the world) tournament. The ads showed Colombian soccer players in their new home team Adidas jerseys, all ready to kick the ball around, with the word “COLUMBIA” plastered on the bottom.

Many fans were ready to kick the ball into Adidas’ face instead, as many expressed outrage over the spelling mistake on Twitter:

Including one Twitter user who posted a full-page open letter to Adidas, reading in part:

“In a world where ignorance is infamous when it comes to the acknowledgement of third world countries, it is unbeknownst to me why the correct spelling of COLOMBIA is so difficult to comprehend for the general public,” she wrote. “However, it is even more infuriating to see a MULTI-BILLION dollar company, as Adidas, misspell the national campaign of the country’s team they are trying to promote and drive revenue from their name.”

According to Remezcla, the company also made the mistake on its website, which has since been corrected.

The company apologized in a statement, saying it’s in the process of fixing the ads. Adidas has made the team’s uniforms since 2011.

“We value our partnership with the Colombian Football Federation and apologize for our mistake,” the statement reads. “We removed these graphics and are quickly installing new versions today.”


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

What Happened? Amazon Removes Half Of The Streaming Video I Bought

By now, most of us are aware that videos come and go from Amazon’s streaming offerings; that a movie available on Prime this month may be gone the next. There are even caveats in the Amazon terms of service that videos you purchase from Amazon may vanish from your online library — and there’s nothing you can do about it. What you don’t expect is for half of a video you buy to suddenly disappear without explanation.

For months, Consumerist reader Rick and his 3-year-old enjoyed the digital double feature of How the Grinch Stole Christmas and Horton Hears a Who!. When watched online, the two classic animated Dr. Seuss tales were part of the same single stream; Grinch comes first, immediately followed by Horton, and some bonus features for a total running time of about 80 minutes.

Then last week, they went to watch the video only to have it end abruptly after the Grinch credits rolled:

grinchgif

Additionally, as you might notice in the looped GIF above, the Amazon screen that shows up after the video ends is only for the Grinch, not for the double feature that had actually been purchased.

Rick likened it to buying a full CD off iTunes only to have Apple decide at some later date to remove half the songs, “Or if you bought a short story collection on Amazon Kindle, and half of the stories were removed.”

His attempts to get a solution from Amazon were frustrating. On Twitter, the company’s response bots told him to call customer service, where no one could explain what was going on.

“He says that it could be a ‘technicality’ or that it’s possible that the content may have changed, but that it should not have changed for me since I already purchased it,” writes Rick.

Customer service first promised to have someone call him back within a few hours. That subsequently changed to “within a couple of days.”

We were finally able to get someone at Amazon HQ to look into Rick’s case, and we’re happy to report that his video has been restored and Rick got a $10 credit from the site.

“Horton and the bonus features are back, and the video is back to the 1 hour, 18 minutes that it should be,” he tells Consumerist. “The toddler will be thrilled.”

So What Happened?

This is the big mystery. In emails to Consumerist, a rep for Amazon would only say that the problem “was something that needed to be corrected on our end for that specific title.” We’ve asked if it was a technical issue or a licensing mix-up of some sort, but have yet to hear a response.

A technical glitch is possible but seems unlikely, given that the title of the video also reverted to just the Grinch.

As for the possibility of a licensing issue, there is some confusion at Amazon. The company rep tells Consumerist that once a video is purchased, it will remain forever in that user’s digital library, but that’s not what the fine print says.

The Amazon video terms of service says that while purchased video content “will generally continue to be available to you,” there is the potential it might become unavailable for “content provider licensing restrictions.” In such a case, “Amazon will not be liable to you if Purchased Digital Content becomes unavailable for further download or streaming.”

Screen Shot 2016-06-08 at 3.01.07 PM

Amazon does allow users to download purchased videos, but not onto computers — only onto compatible phones and tablets. Downloading onto your phone may result in just getting the standard definition version of the video, so if you later want to watch it on your TV, be prepared for blurry ugliness. Additionally, that downloaded content is still protected by Amazon’s rights management software, meaning the only way to watch it would be through the Amazon apps on those devices.

So downloading is a way to make sure you always have access to the video you purchase, but it’s also incredibly limited.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

NHTSA: Self-Driving Cars Need To Be Twice As Safe In Order To Reduce Traffic Deaths

Proponents of self-driving vehicles claim the new technology will decrease the number of crashes occurring on the roadways, thereby reducing the number of driver and pedestrian deaths. But for that to happen, regulators say the new industry must take significant steps to improve autonomous vehicle safety. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration head Mark Rosekind announced at a conference on Wednesday that in order for automakers to reduce the 38,000 deaths on roadways each year they would need to increase safety of their autonomous vehicles, Bloomberg reports.

“I’d actually like to throw the gauntlet down,” Rosekind said. “We need to start with two times better. We need to set a higher bar if we expect safety to actually be a benefit here.”

While NHTSA, which is expected to release a framework for regulations for self-driving vehicles next month, believes that automated driving will eventually become a lifesaver, it’s not there yet. However, Rosekind didn’t offer any specifics on how the agency could improve safety.

“It’s a 747 crashing every week for a year, that’s what the losses are on our highways,” he said of the 38,300 deaths in 2015 (up from 32,675 in 2014). “And that is unacceptable.”

Rosekind said that the upcoming rules aim to provide “new tools and authorities to really help advance if not accelerate getting these new technologies on the road safely.”

While he didn’t specify what the rule framework would include, he did say that the agency won’t bar states from crafting their own rules for regulating self-driving cars, the Wall Street Journal reports.

“What the states actually implement is their call,” he said “We will have no say in what that states want to do.”

U.S. Auto Regulator Says Self-Driving Cars Must Be Twice as Safe [Bloomberg]
NHTSA Won’t Block States from Setting Their Own Rules on Self-Driving Cars [The Wall Street Journal]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

NY Attorney General: TWC “Has Earned The Miserable Reputation It Enjoys Among Consumers”

Last fall, the New York Attorney General launched an investigation to find out the answer to one big question: are New Yorkers actually getting anything like the internet speeds their providers claim, and that they pay for? The investigation is still underway, but early results say that from one provider at least, the answer is a big fat “no.”

Preliminary results say that there’s a reason that Time Warner Cable is still so widely hated by its New York customers: their service does actually stink. But of course, the company was recently acquired, and is now well on its way to becoming Charter Spectrum service, and not TWC at all.

So that’s why Attorney General Eric Scnheiderman’s office today issued a letter to Charter all about Time Warner Cable’s crappy service, and the hope that it will improve pronto.

The letter, penned by long-time internet advocate Tim Wu, now serving as a special advisor for the AG’s office, spares no words before taking TWC to task.

“We write now to underscore our hope and expectation that [the takeover] announcement reflects more than mere rebranding,” the letter begins, “and signals your intent to substantially improve the reliability, performance, and speed of the Internet delivered to customers.”

Wu then calls the initial results of the investigation “troubling,” saying that it appears TWC has “been failing to take adequate or necessary steps to keep pace with the demand of [their] consumers.”

Customers are experiencing degraded performance when streaming video-on-demand through services like Netflix or losing connections to online gaming as a result, the letter continues.

But it’s not just that the advertised speeds are dropping out — it’s that consumers aren’t physically able to get them at all. “It appears that TWC has been advertising its WiFi in ways that defy the technology’s technical capabilities,” Wu writes, “and has been provisioning some of its customers with equipment that simply cannot achieve the higher bandwidths the company has sold to them.”

The letter also calls TWC’s performance in its crowdsourced speed-tests of NYC residents “abysmal,” saying that not only did they not meet their marketing, but they also performed worse than the city’s other broadband providers.

“In short,” Wu concludes, “what we have seen in our investigation so far suggests that Time Warner Cable has earned the miserable reputation it enjoys among consumers.”

Still, it’s not all gloom and doom: the missive ends with hope. “You promised to ‘redefine what a cable company can be,'” Wu writes. “We hope your company will take the opportunity to work with NYAG to clean up Time Warner Cable’s act and deliver the quality Internet service New Yorkers deserve and have long been promised.”

[via the Wall Street Journal]


by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Target Asks Suppliers To Pay More For Sales And Promos

Target has a lot of merchandise sitting around, and they want some help getting it out of stores and into shoppers’ carts. Who are they asking to help? Suppliers say that the discount retailer is asking them to take on more of the costs of marketing products, which cuts into their own profit margins and is an expense that suppliers hadn’t counted on.

Even though Target’s idea of what the word “sale” means is sometimes a little shaky, they still generally work like other retailers do, putting items on sale or offering deals like two-for-$5 when they want to sell more of something. If they’re stuck with an item, it goes on clearance, and that’s exactly what the company reportedly wants to avoid this quarter.

While the company wouldn’t discuss the situation with Reuters, the wire service talked to “a dozen” suppliers, which understandably didn’t want to be identified.

“They want to get this unsold stock out of their stores in the next three months,” a representative of one unnamed supplier told Reuters, noting that the retailer “is not leaving a lot of room for negotiation.”

Suppliers normally budget between 10% and 30% of the cost of an item on store promotions, depending on what the item is. Paper towels might be at the lower end of that scale, while clothing would be at the higher end. Sources told Reuters that Target is asking them to add an extra 3-5% to that figure.

Target charges suppliers more to help offload unsold inventory [Reuters]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

UPS Survey: Online Shopping Has Surpassed In-Store Buying For The First Time

While there are no doubt innumerable studies, surveys, and reports on the habits of modern shoppers, at least one survey says that consumers are buying stuff online more than they are in stores, for the first time ever.

This might not come as a shock to some, the kinds of people who would sooner order toilet paper on Amazon than put on shoes to run out to the corner store, but it’s the first time in UPS’ five years of conducting the annual survey that online shopping edged out in-store purchasing habits.

UPS and comScore surveyed 5,000 online shoppers who made at least two online purchases in a three-month period (excluding groceries) and found that they made 51% of their purchases on the web, compared with 48% in 2015, and 47% in 2014.

A lot of that is on-the-go shopping, or at least, not everyone is sitting in front of a computer: 44% of smartphone users said they bought something on their device, an increase from 41% a year ago.

Only 20% of shoppers’ purchases were made by going to a store, browsing, and buying, which is down from 22% in 2015. A full 42% said they search and buy online exclusively, and the rest said they combined both online and in-store shopping and browsing.

This news is likely to add to the pressure traditional retailers have been feeling to catch up to the e-commerce trend, as they face off against industry giant Amazon — which accounted for an estimated 60% of total U.S. online sales growth alone, The Wall Street Journal notes.

“There’s going to be severe continued pressure on department stores because traffic is going to peel away from that channel towards Amazon,” one retail analyst told The WSJ.

It’s not going to get better, either, as 17% of consumers plan to shop less in store, in favor of buying on electronic devices. There is one bright spot for retailers who still have shoppers coming in, UPS points out, if they can figure out how to pull it off.

“We know shoppers use their smartphones while in-store, so if retailers can tie together mobile messaging with valuable features in their apps, this can be a winning combination,” said Louis DeJianne, UPS director for retail and consumer products.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Nature Made Vitamins Recalled Over Salmonella, Staph Contamination Concerns

Some people believe that taking a daily vitamin can improve their health and boost their immune systems. What they probably don’t envision when popping one of those pills or gummies is becoming ill. For that reason, Pharmavite is recalling several varieties of its popular Nature Made vitamins that may be contaminated with salmonella or staph. 

Pharmavite recalled the Nature Made products sold nationwide on Tuesday following the discovery that the gummies were not properly tested for certain contaminations and could contain salmonella or Staphylococcus aureus.

Salmonella and staphylococcus aureus are both bacteria tied to food poisoning — salmonella is associated with fever, diarrhea and abdominal cramps. Staphylococcus aureus, often shortened to staph, can cause blisters and boils in addition to infections in the bloodstream, bone tissue and joints.

“We are initiating this recall out of an abundance of caution to protect public health,” the company said. “Pharmavite has identified the cause of the error, is taking the matter very seriously and has implemented corrective actions to rectify the issue.”

The company says it is “working closely” with the Food and Drug Administration to remove products from store shelves and notify customers and distributors.

The following products are being recalled:

Screen Shot 2016-06-08 at 12.33.52 PM

In addition to recalling products for possible salmonella and staph contamination, Pharmavite says it will also pull some lots of other Nature Made products “out of an abundance of caution.”

Those products include:

Screen Shot 2016-06-08 at 12.42.49 PM


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Netflix Binge Scale Reveals Which Shows Turn Us Into Unmoving Couch Potatoes

We’ve all got them, those shows that have the power to keep us glued to our couches, in front of a screen, watching each and every episode available until it feels like nothing else exists. Netflix knows it too, and has released a new Binge Scale that it says reveals which programs we’re most likely to sacrifice our social lives to.

Because not every show lends itself to plopping down in front of the TV for hours upon hours of watching until you’ve finished it all, Netflix released new numbers on the way we watch, putting content on a scale that ranges from “shows to savor” to “shows to devour.”

For example, shows like Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead were often taken down in true binge style, while viewers dawdled longer over shows like Homeland and House of Cards. Those customers who do decide to watch an entire TV season finish it on average in just a week, watching a little more than two hours per day.

To accomplish this, Netflix examined global viewing of more than 100 serialized TV series across more than 190 countries between October 2015 and May 2016. The research looked at member completion of the first season for all series, and only included data for accounts that fully completed the season. None of those, “I’m not done with season three of House of Cards yet” slowpokes counted here.

It then organized series against that binge benchmark — finishing an entire season in a week when you put your mind to it — and found that interesting patterns emerged, “ranging from high energy narratives that are devoured to thought-provoking dramas that are savored.”

Netflix goes on to break it down by genre within the “Savor” and “Devour” categories, listing the most popular Irreverent Comedies, Historical Dramas, and whathaveyou.

“As The Binge Scale indicates, the viewing experience of a series can range from the emotional to the thought-provoking,” said Cindy Holland, Vice President of Original Content at Netflix, who went on to mention two Netflix original series, naturally. “Netflix helps you to find a series to binge no matter your mood or occasion, and the freedom to watch that series at your own pace — whether that’s to appreciate the drama of Bloodline or power through Orange is the New Black.”

This isn’t the first time Netflix has dipped into the binge-watching pool for information about how we watch what we watch: last year the company revealed that it knows the exact moment when you get hooked on a show, and start that quick ascent into binge madness.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Court Slams Brakes On San Francisco’s Mandatory Warnings On Soda Ads

Only a few weeks ago, a federal court refused to halt a new San Francisco ordinance requiring soda companies to place warnings on all their ads in they city, but today that same court decided to grant a temporary injunction preventing the rule from kicking in while the beverage industry appeals its case.

For those coming late to this story, last summer San Francisco’s city council decided that ads for soda and other sugary drinks contain warnings about the potential health problems — obesity, tooth decay, diabetes — associated with eating too much sugar.

The ordinance, which mandates that the warning must occupy 20% of the space in an ad, was scheduled to go into effect July 25, but a lawsuit filed by the American Beverage Association, the California Retailers Association, and the California State Outdoor Advertising Association, has been challenging the rule, claiming it violates the First Amendment.

In seeking an injunction to prevent the ordinance from being enforced, the plaintiffs argued that the warning will be so significant that it will itself be the focus of the ad, and that the remaining space in the ad would not suffice to counter the warning.

However, the judge in the case was not won over by this line of argument, pointing out that the warning was text only and unlikely to detract from the pictorial portion of the ads, which he believed leaves ample space for the advertisers to advertise.

“Not only is 80% of the space available, Plaintiffs have shown that they have employed pithy advertising on how to achieve balanced diets and lifestyles,” explained the judge in shooting down their injunction request in May.

The court denied that injunction because the judge concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to ultimately succeed. So why did he agree this morning to grant the injunction while the plaintiffs file their appeal?

In explaining his decision [PDF], the judge writes that he still believes he ruled correctly on the injunction request, but acknowledges that some of the issues at the core of this case have yet to be decided by the appellate court, like whether the government can compel a warning or disclosure when the government interest doesn’t involve a matter of consumer deception, but one of public health and safety.

The judge also mentioned a possible concern over the mandated size of the warning as somethign that the appeals court might need to resolve.

Because he expects the appeals court to quickly review and resolve the appeal, the judge also didn’t see the harm in granting the injunction even though he’d just recently denied it.

The city had argued that the injunction pending appeal should be denied because the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction request had been denied, and that the plaintiffs “must make an ‘even stronger showing’ that they will succeed on the merits than they did in their preliminary injunction motion.”

However, the judge counters that this would mean that “a party who is denied a preliminary injunction … could never get an injunction from the district court pending appeal.”

Obviously, the American Beverage Association is pleased with today’s ruling.

“Granting our motion for an injunction pending appellate review means that this discriminatory ordinance will not go into effect next month,” reads a statement from the ABA. “We continue to believe that the City of San Francisco’s mandate violates the constitutional rights of a select group. It unfairly discriminates against one particular category of products, based on one ingredient found in many other products.”

The case now moves on to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

FDA Issues Warning That Misuse, Abuse Of Imodium Can Cause Heart Issues

Following reports that some opioid addicts are taking potentially lethal doses of over-the-counter anti-diarrhea medication, the Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning about the dangers of abuse and misuse of these seemingly innocuous products.

The FDA warning explains that taking higher than recommended doses of the common over-the-counter and prescription diarrhea medicine loperamide loperamide — the active ingredient in Imodium and similar store-brand versions — can cause serious heart problems that can lead to death.

Loperamide is an opioid, but it has a very difficult time passing through the blood-brain barrier, meaning that people who take the drug as directed don’t experience any of the effects usually associated with opioids. In order for loperamide to have that effect on the central nervous system, someone has to take significantly more of the drug than recommended.

But doing so, the FDA warns could cause serious and long-lasting side effects, including death.

“The risk of these serious heart problems, including abnormal heart rhythms, may also be increased when high doses of loperamide are taken with several kinds of medicines that interact with loperamide,” the agency states.

The majority of reported serious heart problems linked to anti-diarrhea medication, the FDA says, occurred in individuals who were intentionally misusing and abusing high doses of loperamide in attempts to self-treat opioid withdrawal symptoms or to achieve a feeling of euphoria.

Since loperamide was first approved in 1976, the FDA says it has received reports of 48 cases of serious heart problems associated with use of the drug. More than half of the cases occurred in the past five years.

Twenty-two of the 48 cases reported that the patients were abusing high doses of loperamide, and 17 cases reported that the patients were taking loperamide to treat diarrhea.

The most frequent cardiac events were fainting, cardiac arrest, or a mixture of the two.

While the agency notes that the number of cases could be significantly higher — as the current tally only includes only those submitted to FDA — 31 of these cases resulted in hospitalizations and 10 patients died.

Nine of the deaths were due to ingestion of large amounts of loperamide, and there was one sudden cardiac death after the patient ingested an unknown amount of loperamide, according to the FDA.

To make matters worse, the FDA found that in many cases, standard antiarrhythmic medications were ineffective and only electrical pacing resulted in control of the arrhythmias.

“The serious heart problems occurred mostly in patients who were taking doses that were much higher than recommended,” the FDA reports. “In other cases, patients were taking the recommended dose of loperamide, but they were also taking interacting medicines, causing an increase in loperamide levels.”

Based on these cases, and those referenced in medical literature, the FDA concludes that individuals are taking significantly high doses of loperamide in situations of both misuse and abuse.

“We continue to evaluate this safety issue and will determine if additional FDA actions are needed,” the agency says in its warning.

In the meantime, the FDA is warning health care professionals to be aware that use of higher than recommended doses of loperamide can result in serious cardiac adverse events. If loperamide toxicity is suspected, promptly discontinue the drug and start necessary therapy.

Professionals are also urged to advise patients taking loperamide to follow the dosing recommendations on the label, and warn of the serious side effects the medication can have.

The FDA’s warning comes just weeks after The Annals of Emergency Medicine recently looked at the cases of two fatalities involving loperamide abuse.

Those cases involved a 24-year-old man who was using loperamide to self-manage his opioid withdrawal, and a 39-yer-old man who had switched to using anti-diarrheal medication instead of a buprenorphine therapy.

The report urges doctors who see certain symptoms in emergency cases to ask patients about possible loperamide abuse, and to report cases of loperamide toxicity to the FDA’s MedWatch database.

The authors of that paper also called for regulation limiting sales of loperamide — similar to the restrictions on sale of pseudoephedrine and dextromethorphan — in an effort to rein in unchecked abuse of the drug.

 


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Human-Carrying Drone Taxi Gets Approval For Testing In Nevada

Flying cars might not yet be within our reach, but there are companies out there working on technology that would let drones ferry around human passengers like flying taxis, so at least that’s something.

A Chinese company called EHang has made a deal with the Nevada Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED) that will allow it to develop a testing program for its autonomous taxi drone (h/t The Verge).

The company wants to test its EHang184, which can carry one person at at ime, at the state’s Federal Aviation Administration-approved UAV test site. It still has to receive actual FAA approval to do so, and Nevada officials have offered to help EHang submit the results to the FAA for that further permission.

The prototype is over four feet tall and has eight propellers, and can carry a single passenger for 23 minutes at 60 mph. It’s still unclear whether the drone will carry a passenger during tests, however.

There’s no override function in the prototype, so if something goes wrong, the user can’t take control. In the event of a malfunction, the drone is designed to land in the nearest available area.

“I personally look forward to the day when drone taxis are part of Nevada’s transportation system,” the institute’s business development director, Mark Barker, told local the Las Vegas Review Journal earlier this week.

EHang says it testing should begin at the FAA-approved site at some point this year.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Evenflo Car Seat That Reminds Driver Child Is In Car Is Promising, Not Perfect Yet

Technology can’t solve all of our problems, but maybe there’s a technological solution that can help with a tragedy that has affected parents of all walks of life: leaving small children in hot cars to overheat and die. The happens to an average of 38 kids every year, and car seat maker Evenflo responded to safety advocates by making a seat and harness that integrates with your car’s electronics.

Before you insist that this could never happen to you because you’re a good parent, review the Pulitzer-Prize-winning article on the subject from the Washington Post that explains the mechanism in our brains that leads a few dozen parents every year to leave their children to die in hot cars. If you have a brain, a child, and a car, it could happen.

The way to prevent it from happening is to create external reminders, like leaving your purse or work badge in the backseat with the child, or by adding reminders to child safety seats, which is what Evenflo is trying to do. They created a child car seat meant to prevent this problem, which uses a wireless sensor and your car’s electronics to set off alerts.

Naturally, our seat-testing colleagues down the hall at Consumer Reports bought Evenflo’s new seat with what they’re calling “SensorSafe,” and tested its safety features and the new system to prevent kids from being left behind. The idea behind the system is simple: by making sensors and reminders part of the electronics of the car and the seat buckle itself, the driver doesn’t need to remember to activate anything.

The clip only works with certain Evenflo seats and with cars that are model year 2008 or newer, and some hybrid cars will need a different receiver plug for the vehicle end of the system. The system will make your car chime once the ignition is off if the buckle is still fastened, or if the buckle comes unfastened while the car is moving.

(Evenflo)

Consumer Reports tested the clip with a variety of cars, and did find a problem: it didn’t connect consistently with vehicles from Acura, Dodge, Kia, Land Rover, Mazda, and Subaru in their test fleet. (Remember, the end of the system that’s attached to the child with the buckle is wireless.)

When they let Evenflo know about this, the company was able to replicate it with some car brands and not with others. They’re working on an “enhancement” to the system, but noted that “it is extremely unlikely that a consumer will experience any integration challenges similar to those in the Consumer Reports testing.” The obvious solution: test the seat before you make it part of your everyday routine. Try driving around with the buckle fastened but without your child in the car.

Evenflo SensorSafe Car Seat Alerts Parents to Presence of Child Still in the Car [Consumer Reports]

FURTHER READING:
Fatal Distraction: Forgetting a Child in the Backseat of a Car Is a Horrifying Mistake. Is It a Crime? [Washington Post]
Yes, You Could Forget Your Kid in the Car—I Did [Time]


by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Macy’s Worker Tricked Alarm Company Into Helping Him Steal $69K Worth Of Perfume

A man hired to keep thieves from stealing from a New York Macy’s was allegedly doing the pilfering himself, making off with more than $69,000 worth of perfume. 

Police officials in Long Island arrested the loss prevention officer on Monday, charging him with grand larceny, PIX-11 reports (warning: link contains video that autoplays).

According to county police officers, the 24-year-old employee, who had worked at the store for two years, used an elaborate scheme to get his hands on the designer perfumes, moisturizers, and lotions.

The man would allegedly call the fire alarm company to disable the alarm so he could get boxes of the perfume to his car.

In all, the police say the man pulled the stunt five times over a three-day period last month, taking about 1,000 bottles of fragrance, moisturizer, and lotion.

The employee was eventually caught through a combination of surveillance videos and help from other Macy’s workers.

“Historically, fragrances like this can get up to $0.50 on the dollar on the black market. So if it’s $69,000 just think half of that would be some kind of profit for him,” a police detective tells PIX-11, noting that none of the perfume has been found yet.

A spokesperson for Macy’s said in a statement that the company is “vigilant in protecting its assets and prosecuting those who participate in illegal activities. As this is a police matter, we cannot provide any further details or comment at this time.”

Macy’s worker accused of stealing $69,000 worth of perfume [PIX-11]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Atlanta Braves Selling Tickets For As Low As $2.60/Game. What’s The Catch?

As a lifelong Phillies fan, especially one whose formative years were spent watching the Atlanta Braves repeatedly mow down the rest of the National League for the better part of two decades, it’s not without some joy that I revel in the fact that the last-place Braves have had to resort to rock-bottom pricing to get fans in seats. At the same time, as someone who cares about protecting consumers, I have to point out the fine print in this bargain.

The Braves, who are in the final year of play at Atlanta’s Turner Field before moving out to their new SunTrust Park digs in the suburbs, are now offering “Monthly Passes” for $39 to convince deal-minded Braves fans to come out to see a team with a current home record of 6-23.

It works like this: You pay the monthly fee and get access to all the home games for that month. There aren’t any assigned seats, but with Turner Field frequently at less than one-third capacity, you won’t be stuck in standing room.

On game day, you’ll get a text alert telling you where your assigned seat is. You accept your seats and get your scannable tickets through the MLB Ballpark app.

As AJC.com points out, the $39/month price means tickets are as cheap as $2.60/game, a fraction of the regular ticket price. So what’s the catch?

There’s nothing terribly evil about the deal, but there are a few things to keep in mind before signing up for the Monthly Pass:

1. Auto-Renewal: Atlanta and other teams — including my currently lackluster Phillies — have offered monthly passes before, but it’s usually only a one-off thing. For example, here in Philadelphia, it’s only for home games in the month of June.

The new Braves pass will continue through the rest of this season, and subscriptions will auto-renew each month through September unless you cancel. However, the team says is will send out an email before each monthly renewal, instructing subscribers on how they can cancel.

2. No Prorating: The $39/month price is not flexible. If you sign up for a pass mid-month, you won’t get a reduced rate.

So, for example, say you don’t subscribe until June 16. You’ll still pay the $39, but you’ll only get a maximum of nine games, as opposed to the 15 games for someone who takes advantage of the full pass.

While that raises your per-game average price to $4.33, that’s still nothing compared to a regular ticket price.

And remember, that while the tickets might be discounted, food and drinks are still the same price, so attending 5-6 games in a row can really add up, even if you’re basically getting in for free.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

New Balance A Few Steps From Its Dream Of U.S.-Made Footwear Requirement For Military

It’s been a long time coming, but New Balance’s marathon efforts to get the Pentagon to require military members to buy only shoes made in America may finally be paying off.

Here’s some background info: New Balance wants the Pentagon to change its current rules, which currently lets each service division choose how to buy running shoes.

Army and Air Force recruits get a stipend to buy their own footwear from any company they want, while the Navy requires recruits to only buy New Balance, which assembles its shoes in the U.S. New Balance wants every part of the military to be like the Navy, and has been lobbying the Pentagon, along with the American shoe industry, to change the rules for years.

New Balance points to a 1941 statute called the Berry Amendment, which requires the Pentagon to buy its food, clothing and other items from U.S. producers.

Included in part of a massive new defense bill the U.S. Senate is debating this week is a provision that would require the Pentagon to bring its footwear policy in line with the Berry Amendment (h/t Bloomberg). That’s a win for New Balance, and a loss for companies like Nike, which manufactures its shoes overseas.

The House already passed a version of this bill with an identical provision. The White House is opposed to the provision, saying in a statement [PDF] that “[b]ecause it is likely that only one company could benefit disproportionately from such DOD purchasing requirements, this provision essentially serves as preferential arrangement for a particular company.”

Nike is also against the provision, naturally, as it would mean getting edged out of the military market.

“As a U.S. company with 26,000 employees across the country, Nike believes our servicemen and women should continue to have access to the best possible athletic footwear to fit their foot type and to meet their training needs,” a Nike spokesman told Bloomberg.

There would be competition for New Balance, says Congresswoman Niki Tsongas, a Democrat from New Balance’s home state of Massachusetts who introduced the legislation in the House. She wrote in a Boston Globe piece this week that the provision wouldn’t bestow preferential treatment on New Balance, because companies like Saucony and Wolverine could step up to the plate and compete, and that it’s “reasonable to expect that new recruits would have a variety of high quality options to choose from.”

Sen. John McCain, who leads the Senate Armed Services Committee, voted against the buy-American provision in committee. He’s planning to introduce an amendment this week that would strike the running shoes language from the bill, a congressional aide told the Sun Herald. If that effort fails, the final bill including the requirement will likely end up on President Barack Obama’s desk.


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Lexus Owners Say Update Bricked Cars’ Navigation Systems

Just like your phone or computer, your web-connected car needs to get the occasional software update. Most of these system tweaks happen quietly without too much interruption to your life, but occasionally one goes wrong and you end up with a Lexus with navigation and infotainment systems that can’t be used because they are stuck in a reboot loop.

Lexus says it is working “around the clock” to find a solution for a satellite communication issue after many owners of vehicles with Lexus’ Enform system with navigation said the head units for their systems stopped working.

In an email to vehicle owners, the car company says it is aware that many Lexus vehicles are suffering from a glitch likely related to the release of a system upgrade.

“Lexus is presently investigating this problem,” the email, shown on Twitter, states. “It is possible that the problem is being caused by satellite communications can could be remediated by remote resolution.”

Owners began posting about the issue on Twitter and other social media sites on Tuesday, noting that their dashboard screens spontaneously reset themselves, rendering the navigation and infotainment systems unusable.

Videos of the glitch show the navigation systems of several Lexus vehicles starting, changing to a blank purple screen, and then restarting the process.

A spokesperson for Lexus tells Bloomberg that the problem may have been caused by a faulty application, but that the company hasn’t determined whether the vehicle will have to be returned to dealers to be fixed.

While Lexus says it is working on finding a solution for the glitch, some owners Tweeted that they were able to fix the issue by disconnecting their battery to force a reset of the system or visiting a dealership. Some claim these fixes are just temporary.

Lexus Seeks Fix for Software Glitch in Navigation System [Bloomberg]


by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Court: Delta Air Lines Doesn’t Have To Ship Rhino Trophy If It Doesn’t Want To

It’s up to you whether or not you want to spend $350,000 to hunt and kill an endangered black rhinoceros, but if you do, it doesn’t mean Delta Air Lines is obligated to ship it home for you.

U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn said the plaintiffs, including a Texan who paid $350,000 to kill the endangered animal in Africa and a Dallas-based safari company, can’t sue Delta for refusing to ship his prize home. It can ship whatever it wants to, the judge ruled, as long as it applies that rule to all passengers across the board.

Lynn said the plaintiffs “misappl[y] the equal protection” common law principle that allows common carriers to refuse to ship items, Courthouse News reports.

“Delta’s policy bans its shipment of Big Five trophies. Obviously, it does not ban the hunting of Big Five game,” the judge wrote in her opinion. “Such hunters are free to ship allowed cargo with Delta, including trophies of other game. Although, because Plaintiffs are hunters or other parties who benefit from the hunting of the Big Five, Delta’s ban negatively affects them, that impact does not mean Delta’s decision is unlawful or actionable.”

The man received a permit from Namibia’s Ministry of Environment and Tourism to kill the rhino in January 2014. Despite an outcry from animal rights groups, he killed the rhino four months later.

He filed a lawsuit against Delta in October 2015, after Delta implemented a ban on shipping Big Five trophies in response to the controversy over a Minnesota dentist killing a beloved lion named Cecil in Zimbabwe. The “Big Five” animals include lions, leopards, elephants, rhinoceros, and buffaloes.

He accused Delta of robbing “wildlife habitat of its economic value, encouraging habitat conversion to agriculture, grazing, and industry, and undercutting range states’ tried-and-true conservation strategy.” The ban “jeopardizes the benefits of tourist hunting and its centrality to conservation” in Africa, he claimed.

Delta sought dismissal in January 2016, saying it was an absurdity” for the plaintiffs to claim it has to carry Big Five trophies if it’s carrying other trophies.

“If it were true, an airline that accepted hunting shotguns as checked baggage would also have to accept AK-47s and grenade launchers,” Delta’s dismissal motion stated. “Not surprisingly, the case law rejects this position.”

The judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim of tortious interference — a claim for damages against a defendant who wrongfully interferes with the plaintiff’s contractual or business relationship — on Monday, along with the rest of the case entirely.

“Although plaintiffs correctly conclude that claims arising out of defamatory conduct would not usually relate to an airline’s service, plaintiffs’ tortious interference claim in this case does relate to Delta’s services,” the opinion states. “There is, in fact, no defamatory statement alleged. Delta merely altered the scope of its services by refusing to transport a designated kind of commodity — Big Five trophies. It never said the hunting or transport of such species was unlawful.”

Delta Airlines Need Not Transport Rhino Trophy [Courthouse News]


by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Axl Rose Fails At Scrubbing Internet Of Unflattering Photos

We all have photos where we don’t look our best (for some of us, that would be most photos), but we can’t go around claiming we own the copyright to photos just because we don’t like the way we look. Guns n Roses singer Axl Rose is learning this lesson, along with a little something about the Streisand Effect, with his failed attempt to scrub the internet of the so-called “fat Axl” pics.

TorrentFreak was first to report that Axl, through a service called Web Sheriff, has sent nearly a dozen copyright takedown notices to Google alone, seeking to have remove images from a number of Blogspot sites.

The complaints all allege that the photos — originally taken during a Jan. 2010 concert in Canada, by a photographer for the Winnipeg Free Press — have all been published without Axl’s permission, and that “no permission has been granted to publish the copyright image so we cannot direct you to an authorized example of it,” even though they were clearly used in the Winnipeg Free Press.

Web Sheriff contends, in a statement to TorrentFreak, that authorized photographers at Axl Rose concerts sign releases specifying and limiting the use of the photos, and transferring copyright ownership of the photos to Axl’s “relevant service company.”

TorrentFreak tracked down the original photographer who says he has no idea whether he signed any sort of document; after all, the show was more than six years ago.

Web Sheriff counters that there may be other issues involved with the commercial use of photos taken at a Guns n Roses show. However, that is not the same as simply claiming ownership of these images.

The takedown notices were sent on May 31, but Google has yet to take any action to scrub the allegedly offending images. Web Sheriff would likely need to provide specific proof that the Free Press photographer did indeed sign over the copyright to Axl.

This is not to say that the sites aren’t violating copyright by using these photos; just that the copyright belongs to someone else — likely the photographer or the Free Press — who hasn’t sought to have them removed.

[via AP]


by Chris Morran via Consumerist