FTC Collects $3.5 Million From TeleCheck For Failing To Investigate Disputes Or Correct Errors

One of the nation’s largest check authorization service companies is going to be cutting a rather large check to settle charges made by the Federal Trade Commission.

TeleCheck, Inc., along with its associated debt-collection entity, TRS Recovery Services, Inc., agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle charges of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the FTC announced Thursday.

The Houston-based company compiles consumers’ personal information and uses it to help retailers determine whether or not to accept a consumers’ check. TeleCheck is the reason that sometimes your check is accepted at Best Buy (and many other retailers) and why it’s randomly rejected at the same store the next day.

The FCRA gives consumers whose checks are denied based on information provided by TeleCheck the right to dispute that information and have TeleCheck investigate and correct any inaccuracies. However, the FTC complaint alleges that TeleCheck violated several aspects of the FCRA, including:

• not following proper dispute procedures – refusing to investigate disputes;


• failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of information provided to merchant clients;


• failure to promptly correct errors on consumers’ reports.

TRS, which handles consumer debt taken on by TeleCheck and provides information about consumers, allegedly violated the FTC’s Furnisher Rule, which requires entities to ensure accuracy and integrity of the information provided to consumer reporting agencies.

In addition to paying $3.5 million, TeleCheck and TRS must alter business practices to comply with the requirements of the FCRA and the Furnisher Rule in the future.

The case is part of an initiative by the FTC to target the practices of data brokers. Last August, the FTC charged similar violations and penalty amounts against Certegy Check Services, Inc., another check authorization company.

The FTC provides helpful information to businesses on the Furnisher Rule and what they should know about consumer reports.

TeleCheck to Pay $3.5 Million for Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations [Federal Trade Commission]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

95% Of ATMs Are Still Using Windows XP. No, Really

(bcbeatty)

Who is still using Windows XP, an operating system which is now twelve years old? Other than “everyone’s mom,” the real answer might not be as obvious: the nation’s network of automated teller machines. ATMs all contain computers, of course. Computers are susceptible to malware. Systems running Windows XP may be more susceptible to malware after April 8 of this year, when Microsoft finally ends support and security patches for XP.

Don’t worry: it’s unlikely that the machines will start setting your savings account on fire anytime soon. Yet it boggles the mind to learn that 95% of ATMs in the world run on Windows XP. Still. That number won’t decrease very much after the deadline: one expert told Bloomberg Businessweek that maybe 15% would be upgraded by the deadline.

That’s not as wacky as it sounds: companies can literally buy more time, since they can pay for extended support directly from Microsoft for computers that still run XP. J.P. Morgan Chase chose to do this, and will upgrade their machines to Windows 7 sometime next year.

Some computers will be exempt, since they run a version of the operating system, Windows XP Embedded, that’s less susceptible to viruses and also will still have Microsoft’s support until 2016.

The good news for consumers in all this? Well, maybe not good news for everyone, but upgrading from Windows XP means better support for touchscreen inputs. We might see more sophisticated

ATMs Face Deadline to Upgrade From Windows XP

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Man Suing Unilever After Toothpaste Failed To Help Him Attract All The Single Ladies

Can’t get a date with any pretty singles after seven years of flashing your best and brightest smile? Maybe it’s not your personality or your antique doll collection hanging out on your bed. One man blames his string of dating strikeouts on Close-Up toothpaste’s failure to attract women, and is suing the product’s manufacturers as a result.

Yes, this is a real thing that is actually happening, according to various reports, including one from AZCentral.com.

The 26-year-old man filed the lawsuit against Unilever Nigeria Limited, saying its ads for the toothpaste — which show women getting all hot and bothered after a dude brushes his teeth — are deceptive and false. Because he’s still single, despite using Close-up for seven years.

In his suit he claims “no girl ever agreed to even go out for a tea or coffee with me, even though I’m sure they could smell my breath. I always brush my teeth with so much close up gel to make sure the girls get turned on by my fresh breath as they usually show on TV.”

As evidence in the case, he’s submitting all of his tubes of toothpaste — the used, the half-used and those he has yet to use — as evidence.

The lonely life he’s living due to lack of help from the toothpaste has left him feeling “cheated” and in a state of “mental anguish.”

A word of advice for this fella? Maybe try cruising through dentists’ waiting rooms? Toothy grins usually go over well there.

Lawsuit: Toothpaste didn’t get me any women [AZCentral.com]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Do Snowboarders Have A Constitutional Right To Ski Slopes?

(Eric Arnold)

Only three ski resorts in the U.S. have outright prohibitions on snowboarding, and only one of them — Alta Ski Area in Utah — is located on public land controlled by the U.S. Forest Service. According to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Alta and the USFS, the resort’s ban on snowboards violates the Constitution.

The complaint [PDF] filed yesterday in a U.S. District Court in Utah by four snowboarders and a local nonprofit group, alleges that Alta’s no-snowboarding policy is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that the government shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Specifically, they believe that this rule against snowboarding prohibits the “use and enjoyment of the public land on which Alta operates, unlawfully discriminates against snowboarders, and denies snowboarders equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The plaintiffs claim that the ban, which was put into place in the mid-1980s was born out of “animus held by Alta’s ownership, management, and

customers towards the type of people they believed to be ‘snowboarders,’” and that the resort and the USFS continue to enforce this ban “as a consequence of this animus towards snowboarders.”

By enforcing the ban, the lawsuit alleges Alta and USFS are effectively creating two, unequal classes of people — those who ski and those who snowboard. One class is given full access to the Alta slopes while the other is persona non grata.

“Discrimination without any rational basis perpetuates inequality by creating, fostering, and encouraging skier-versus-snowboarder attitudes that are hostile and divisive in a world where skiers and snowboarders, as a general matter, share the mountains, including those on all other public land, in harmony and without issue,” reads the complaint.

The suit asks the court to order Alta to lift then ban and enjoin the resort from putting a similar prohibition in place in the future.

As some have pointed out, one could argue that the snowboarders, as people, are not forbidden from using the slopes at Alta. It’s the act of snowboarding that is forbidden. Could they make the same argument if a skating rink on public land had a “no speed skating” policy? The question is really — at which point does a rule against an activity become discriminatory toward an entire class of people?

We’re not lawyers so we’ll refrain from rendering judgement. But feel free to do so yourself in the following poll:

Snowboarders Sue Alta Ski Area [Outside]

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow If You Sign Up For Consumerist’s Newsletter

When you’re stuck with a day that’s gray and lonely, just stick up your chin and grin and then also sign up for Consumerist’s newsletter. See, because then not only will the sun come out tomorrow (probably, no guarantees, etc.), but you’ll also have a fresh email from Consumerist in your inbox as well.

Here’s how it works: If you sign up, we won’t sell or rent your email and we’ll all burst into songs from hit Broadway musicals each time we send you a newsletter, which is every Friday.

Fill out the form below or OR CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE .

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Smartphones Get More Advanced, But Most American’s Still Just Use Them For Pictures

(Ninja M.)

I’ll admit it, sometimes my phone gets the best of me. Apparently, I’m not alone. Smartphones are getting smarter, while we consumers are just getting more confused.

With technology innovators constantly one-upping each other with the latest and greatest, it’s not surprising that every generation – even those born with phones in their hands – are falling behind.

The Washington Post reports that 62% of Americans’ own a smartphone, but fewer than 5% use them for things such as showing movie or plane tickets – a more advanced service. However, 81% of smartphone owners use the device to send text messages – that’s something right?

A recent Gallup poll highlights the gap between younger and older smartphone users. Smartphone use among the younger generation, ages 18-29, is fairly commonplace – 88%, while only 25% of older adults, those ages 65 and older, use smartphones.

Trouble using smartphones isn’t just your grandma’s problem anymore. The Post illustrates the shift in technology usability by showcasing several people who have been outwitted by their smartphones.

A 41-year-old woman just couldn’t figure out how to take a selfie. Because she couldn’t get the camera turned around, she constantly took photos of objects. Finally, a good samaritan showed her the way.

Or take the case of a 52-year-old woman in Alexandra, VA who couldn’t silence her husband’s “Galaxy Whatever” phone. She eventually tried hiding the phone in the kitchen so she could get some sleep.

So with CES recently under our belt we have so much to look forward to – 4K TVs, Glasses-Free 3D, an internet-connected smart baby onesie (What?!) – oh, and a lot more questions for tech support.

Smartphones get more sophisticated, but their owners do not [The Washington Post]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Avoid Shoplifting After Faking Your Death To Avoid Shoplifting Charge

(smcgee)

Here’s a tip: if you’re going to fake your own death to beat a shoplifting charge, remember that’s a big step. Don’t jeopardize your hard work by shoplifting again at a different department store and getting arrested. A woman in Nashville allegedly did just that, and is now accused of stealing from Dillard’s after faking her death to get out of a shoplifting charge at Macy’s. She did not try the controversial “Dawn of the Dead” defense. [USA Today]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Home Depot Worker Swoops In To Save Falling Baby

So imagine you’re working at the store one day when out of the corner of your eye you see a baby about to fall to the floor from atop a shopping cart. Would you be fast enough to save the day?

A Home Depot employee in Anchorage, AK, has become a bit of an Internet hero in recent days after his brother uploaded the above video showing his on-the-job actions that saved a customer’s baby from plunging to the store floor.

KTUU-TV reports that the employee will be nominated for the Home Depot Angel Award, given out for exceptional acts of heroism.

“It’s pretty self-evident what happened in the video,” a company rep tells KTUU. “We’re just excited that this happened and excited for him.”

Below is one of the many slowed-down versions of the video that shows just how close the baby came to falling to the floor.

In December, an airport security guard in Poland also made headlines for his swift actions that saved a baby from colliding with the ground.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Sprint Launches Yet Another Early Upgrade Program, This Time With No Monthly Discount

(Maulleigh)

Only days after Sprint pulled the plug on its 4-month-old One Up early upgrade program, the wireless company is unveiling yet another promotion aimed at people just feel compelled to constantly upgrade their devices. This time, however, Sprint has basically removed the main reason for signing up.

See, the one real redeeming value of the now-dead One-Up program was that members received a $15/month discount. That made sense because members were paying full price for their new phones, meaning they shouldn’t have to pay the full monthly rate that subscribers with Sprint-subsidized devices pay.

Both T-Mobile and AT&T have recently changed their pricing so that customers who own their phones outright, or are members of early upgrade programs that require them to ultimately pay full price for those phones, pay less for service.

But the new Sprint Easy Pay program offers no such discount. You still pay the full monthly rate for your phone service.

Under Easy Pay, you make a down-payment on the full price of a new phone and the rest of the sticker price is spread out over 24 months. The difference between Easy Pay and the other programs is that there is technically no waiting period before cashing in on your upgrade. That said, you’ll need to pay the remaining balance on the phone.

So it’s not really an early upgrade program so much as it is a program that lets you space out your payments until you’re ready to pay the whole sticker price.

Another minor concession is that when you eventually pay the full tab on that old device, Sprint will let you then trade it in. If you can still get a few hundred dollars for that device, then maybe it’s a decent deal, but you won’t know until it’s actually time to trade that phone in.

One big caveat to Easy Pay is that Sprint is listing it as a “limited time” program, which is incredibly vague. So I reached out to Sprint for some sort of clarification.

“This is a limited time offer and there has been no set time to discontinue,” replied a Sprint rep. “It’s similar to many other special offers in the marketplace. So, we encourage customers to take advantage sooner rather than later.”

Considering how quickly Sprint pulled the rug out from under One-Up, we’d encourage people to really think twice before signing up for Easy Pay.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Curious Which Mobile Phone Bills Are Highest? Survey Says: Verizon!

(AJENT.MSG)

Ever wonder how your phone bill stacks up against the average? Sometimes it’s hard to know if you’re actually getting a decent deal, or if you’re being suckered into something ridiculous. Thanks to some newly published survey data, now you can see how your own bill compares to everyone else’s.

Ars Technica has a handy chart up showing the average monthly cost of using any of the big four mobile carriers.

Verizon sits right at the top, with the highest average monthly bill. The cheapest of the big four? T-Mobile. The survey had just under 1900 respondents, included both individual and family plans, and is all-inclusive of taxes and fees.

That said, “most expensive” and “cheapest” are highly relative here. Verizon’s $148 is not exactly astronomically above Sprint’s $144, AT&T’s $141, or even T-Mobile’s $120.

So if T-Mobile will, on average, save you $216 a year, why does it still have the smallest subscriber base? Everyone has their reasons, and most of them fit in with the companies’ popular reputations. Verizon and AT&T subscribers both cited network coverage and network quality as their top reasons for staying with their carrier. Consumers’ most-stated reasons for choosing both Sprint and T-Mobile were unlimited data plans and lower prices.

The good news? Those monthly bills may be getting cheaper across the board. The previous installation of the quarterly survey had Verizon’s average bill at $153, AT&T’s at $147, Sprint’s at $143, and T-Mobile’s at $133.

Analysts have surmised that T-Mobile’s new price structures were keeping the market competitive. Two data points, from the third and fourth quarters of 2013, aren’t quite enough to form a definitive pattern yet. But perhaps consumers will indeed be lucky enough to find the pressure for lower wireless prices continuing into 2014.

Verizon leads top wireless carriers in bill size, at $148 a month [Ars Technica]

by Kate Cox via Consumerist