ELBLOGDEFORMACION

How Did Woman Who Died in 2008 Vote In 2010 Election?

house We’ve been following the story out of Michigan of the woman who disappeared into her own house for more than five years, with no one noticing her absence because all of her bills were on auto-pay. As investigators try to figure out what happened to her, they’ve found another mystery: she appears to have voted in 2010, even though the evidence shows that she died in 2008.

Hold your Chicago jokes. The most obvious answer is that someone made a clerical error, but investigators haven’t ruled out more sinister possibilities. The woman probably didn’t show up at the polls herself, though. Experts pointed out to the Detroit Free Press that people who don’t vote often are more likely to show up during a presidential campaign year, not for a gubernatorial election, which 2010 was in Michigan. The deceased had registered to vote locally in 2006, but records show that she didn’t make it to the polls until 2010, two years after her presumed death.

The last time that the woman was seen in public was in October 2008, when she received a traffic ticket for not carrying proof of insurance. Her car’s tags were last renewed in 2008, and neighbors and colleagues don’t report seeing her after that. She missed a court hearing regarding that ticket in January 2009.

There was still gasoline in the tank of her Jeep, and while the keys were in the ignition, they were in the “off” position and the key partially pulled out. The woman was found in the backseat of the Jeep, with her body mummified due to the lack of air circulation.

That said, the body still hasn’t been definitively identified as the homeowner, a former Chrysler employee named Pia Farrenkopf. Authorities are still looking for old dental records for comparison with the body found in her Jeep. The body shows no signs of trauma or anything suspicious. Her sister, who lives in Boston, told the media that she suspects foul play, but the siblings clearly weren’t very close.

The ranch house itself is being treated as a biohazard, infested with black mold after years of neglect.

New mystery in Pontiac: How could mummified body vote in 2010? [Detroit Free Press]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Apple Pushes Record Labels To Offer Exclusive iTunes Content, Block Initial Streaming

(afagen)

While Apple is still trying to fight its loss in last year’s e-book price-fixing lawsuit, a new report claims the electronics giant is making controversial waves in the music industry by pushing record companies to make Apple the exclusive venue for new releases.

Apple is pressuring major record companies and individual artists to offer new releases exclusively through the iTune store as a way for the company to bolster sales it may be losing to streaming services, the Los Angeles Time reports.

If record companies oblige, new content would initially be blocked from availability on streaming devices, such as Spotify and Beats Music, in order to create a reserved period of time for digital purchasing. A similar window has been imposed in the film industry for home viewing.

While Apple’s iTunes makes up 80% of all download sales in the U.S., a move by consumers to streaming services has led to a decline in digital song and album sales for the company.

According to data from Nielsen SoundScan, song downloads were down 12% during the first eight weeks of 2014 compared to a year prior, and digital album sales were down 13% for the same time period.

Additionally, nearly 48% of smartphone owners use their device to listen to streaming music, while only 42% used the device to download music. For it’s part, Apple debuted it’s own streaming service, iTunes Radio, last year.

Despite a decrease in music downloads some record executives say the push for exclusive content isn’t new for Apple.

“I’ve never had anyone [at Apple] say streaming is killing our business,” an executive who handles bands such as No Doubt and Trent Reznor tells the LA Times. “They’ve been very specific for 10 years about wanting extra content — just like Best Buy, Wal-Mart and Target. They’re very aggressive about trying to do something that will differentiate them from everybody else.”

In December, Apple reminded the industry it knows how to spur sales when Beyonce released her newest album exclusively on iTunes. The album became the fastest selling in the digital store.

Just last week, Kid Cudi released a new album exclusively for download on iTunes and other digital retailers. His album debuted at No. 4 on Billboard’s Top 200 album charts and sold 87,000 units.

Still, some industry insiders say the digital music market is evolving and Apple appears to be scrambling to retain a competitive edge.

“These are really changing times, and I think everybody’s going to be trying different things, whether it’s iTunes, Spotify or the labels,” a music manager says. “It’s kind of up for grabs.”

Apple is asking record labels for exclusive iTunes releases [Los Angeles Times]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Science Tries To Prove That Confident Consumers Are More Likely To Switch Brands

Say you’re faced with making a decision between multiple brands or change service providers. Your willingness to seek variety, or make a change — even if it requires additional effort — may be tied to how confident and empowered you feel at that moment.

A new study published in the Journal of Consumer Research looks at how a consumer’s personal sense of empowerment impacts their desire to seek out something new and deal with the hassles of making changes.

“[P]lacing consumers in a high state of power leads to a greater propensity to engage in product/brand switching,” write the researchers from Hong Kong Polytechnic University and the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University.

The researchers undertook numerous experiments to test their hypotheses. For example, one experiment asked a group off 100 students to first recall times where they felt either powerful or powerless. They were then presented with the situation of moving into a new apartment and being given the option of either sticking with the current Internet service provider or finding out more about a second ISP.

“We found that participants with a high state of power (46.6%) were more likely to consider switching to another brand in the form of seeking out additional information than participants primed with low power (28.4%),” reads the paper.

A later experiment with a different set of subjects changed the scenario to test consumers’ willingness to deal with hassles as it relates to personal notions of power.

One group of subjects was told they had moved into a new apartment and could stick with their current ISP just by making a quick phone call. They could also change to a new ISP, but that would require downloading and printing an installation form, signing it, and then faxing or mailing back to the new company. While most subjects chose to stick with the current provider, those who identified as feeling empowered were 1.5 times more likely to switch ISPs, in spite of the extra effort required.

Meanwhile, a second group of test subjects were given the opposite of that situation — keeping the current ISP would require going through all the downloading/signing/returning of forms, but switching was just a phone call away. Not surprisingly, most subjects said they would switch, but those who said they felt highly empowered were more likely to deal with the pain of maintaining their current service.

The authors say this particular experiment “demonstrated that it is not that high power leads to a preference for switching per se, but that it leads to a preference for action, which typically facilitates switching.”

Another experiment once again started by putting people in mindsets of high/low power, then gave them some party planning obligations.

Subjects were asked to pick from a variety of ice cream flavors for a series of three upcoming parties. In one scenario, the subjects were told that whatever flavors they picked would then be used for all three events. The results found virtually no difference between high and low levels of empowerment.

However, a second scenario involved giving the subjects the ability to change the ice cream varieties from event to event. In that case, the highly empowered subjects made choices that allowed for a wider variety than those selected by subjects identified with low levels of empowerment.

“Many companies have succeeded by empowering consumers,” write the researchers, citing ad campaigns from companies like the Old Spice commercial featuring Brian Urlacher. “Thus, a brand deciding to target other consumers to switch might follow these examples by focusing on the empowered consumer.”

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

How To Not Suck… At Going To Small Claims Court

There are times when you can’t convince a business to do the right thing. Or a dispute with your neighbor won’t come to a close. Or, well, stuff happens. When you try to reach an agreement with another party but you just can’t work it out, you might choose to let a judge decide.

In that spirit: Hear ye! Hear ye! Here’s how to not suck at your day in small claims court.

Plan For the Worst First

When you make a purchase or sign on for a service, you never expect for things to go wrong. But they do.

Enter the journal. Or the notebook. Or any place of permanence you can keep and maintain detailed records of all your contact with a company.

You need a place to keep a log of all your contact with a company — and scribbling on a receipt isn’t good enough. Instead, you should take copious notes.

If you have to make a call to the company on any dissatisfaction, write it down. Maybe you’ll only need to make one call and your issue will be resolved, but it’s very possible you’ll have a dispute that goes on for months, or longer.

Log the date and time you call, who you talked to and what they suggested to you, or promised to you. If the CSR was rude, that’s not really important (however annoying). What matters is the good old who, what, where, why and how of it all.

Every detail and fact counts.

If you ever need to take the company to court, you can use this log as evidence — and as a reminder to you — of how everything went down.

Pick the right court

If your dispute with a company can’t be solved amicably, court may be your only option.

You just need to pick the right one.

If you don’t file in the correct court, you could face delays, and you don’t want that. For example, some small claims courts only allow a certain dollar figure to be disputed. If the amount you say you’re owed is more, you may need to file in a superior court.

To see what your state allows, check Nolo.com’s handy list of the limits of courts in different states.

The Paperwork

Every court has its own set of paperwork that needs to be completed before you go before a judge. Read the directions. Take your time. And do it right, otherwise it will be bounced back to you and you’ll have to start from scratch.

Know Your Case

Think of your time before the judge as an oral exam. Know your facts. Stick to the facts. Be brief, and be organized.

And don’t expect the person you’ve taken to court to make it easy for you (like this guy). Be prepared to offer a counter-argument if the person or business you’re suing presents allegations against you.

Present Yourself

It’s not a fashion show, and you won’t be expected to look like a $500 per hour attorney, but show the court some respect. Business-wear is best. Business casual comes in second. But really, if you’re fighting for your money, you can leave the jeans, sneakers and concert t-shirts at home, right?

And please, be sure to show up on time, lest you want to be glitter-bombed like a Lohan.

Remember The Evidence

Make sure to bring copies of all relevant documents. This would include contracts, your journal of contact with the company, cancelled checks, photos of damage or items that are in dispute, and if the actual item in dispute isn’t too large, bring it.

Also think about bringing witnesses. We don’t mean your grandma or your first grade teacher who are willing to vouch for you personally, but think about bringing anyone who physically saw or experienced the situation that brought you to court in the first place.

And it helps to know what your witnesses will say before they say it.

Watch, and then Practice

Small claims court isn’t like anything you’ve seen on television. It’s not Judge Judy, and it sure as heck isn’t Law & Order. And it’s certainly not A Few Good Men.

You’ll be lucky if you get 10 minutes to tell your tale, so drama will be kept to a minimum.

Spend a few hours at the court where you plan to present your argument. You’ll get a feel for what the judge expects and how the courtroom is run. It will make you much more comfortable when it’s your day.

Before your date, practice your argument in front of friends or family. Have them ask you the kinds of pointed questions a judge is likely to ask, and then you can present your side.

Remember to stick to the facts and not your feelings. And practice makes perfect, for sure.

If You Win

Don’t expect your adversary to whip out a checkbook and pay what the judge says he should.

You’ll have a judgment against the company or individual, but collecting is a whole other story. Ah yes, a future HTNS…

And we couldn’t post this story without sharing this one:

Thanks to reader Sandy Lundy of The Legal Consumer for suggesting this story!

Have a topic you’d like to see covered in How To Not Suck? Or maybe you’re an expert who would like to share your insight with Consumerist readers? Send us a note at notsuck@consumerist.com.

You can read Karin Price Mueller’s stories for The Star-Ledger at NJ.com, follow her on Facebook, and on Twitter @kpmueller.

DISCLAIMER: Any websites, services, retailers, or brands mentioned in the story above are only intended as some of many options available to consumers, and do not constitute an endorsement by Consumerist, Consumerist Media LLC (CML) or its staff. Per Consumerist’s No Commercial Use Policy, such information may not be used by others in advertising or to promote a company’s product or service. In addition, this policy precludes any commercial use of any of CML’s published information in any form, or of the names of Consumers Union®, Consumer Media, Consumer Reports®, The Consumerist, consumerist.com or any other of CU or CML’s publications or services without CU or CML’s express written permission.

by Karin Price Mueller via Consumerist

Snuggle Up With A Giant Chicken Drumstick

Drumstick3orig_1024x1024 We’re not sure why you would want to snuggle up with a giant pillow shaped like a chicken leg. If that’s a longtime dream of yours, it might as well be a super-realistic one, though, right? that’s why the company Beloved offers this stunning, hyper-realistic pillow shaped like an enormous chicken leg for all of your combined nap/snacktime needs. [Beloved via Foodbeast]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Woman Accused Of Biting Off Fellow Shopper’s Finger Over Mall Parking Space

(ABC 6)

We always thought mall parking lots were asphalt jungles in more of a “It’s tough out there to find a parking spot” kind of way. Not an actual predator vs. prey, “I will bite off your finger if you take my spot” kind of way. On that note, guess what terrifying thing happened in a mall parking lot in New Jersey?

Yes, one woman is accusing her fellow shopper of biting off her finger during a dispute over a parking spot in a crowded mall lot, reports ABC 6.

The victim says she had just parked after circling the lot multiple times to find a spot on Saturday, pulling into one finally when she saw a car pull in and then out of a spot, then leave. She says two women then approached her car, one of them using some choice words.

“As soon as I got out of the car she started calling me all types of B-words,” the woman said of the suspect. “She got this close to my face, her nose touched my nose. She was yelling and screaming then she hit me in the face,” she claims.

She says she put her hands up in defense of her face — which is when one of the women bit her finger and nearly severed it — as she “proceeded to chomp.” We’ll leave the rest of the description there because that’s just enough for now.

The victim was taken to the hospital and released Monday afternoon. Police are now looking for the two women, saying they fled into the parking lot after the incident.

“This is an aggravated assault. There is a female here who was planning on going out to dinner with a friend, the next thing she’s hospitalized for a couple days with the possibility of having part of her finger amputated,” said a police rep.

As for whether or not her finger can be saved, the victim says she’ll know within the week if that’s possible.

“Otherwise they are going to have to amputate,” she said.

Search underway for suspects in finger-biting attack in Cherry Hill Mall parking lot [ABC 6]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Swatch Sues Target, Claims Retailer Copied Designs

zebra Last week, Swatch filed a federal lawsuit accusing discount retailer Target of stealing its designs. Wait…Swatch is still a thing? Plastic watches are still a thing? Target sells plastic watches? This ’80s revival really has gone too far.

Target is accused of making what Swatch calls “inferior” copies of its colorful plastic watches, including the zebra watches pictured in this post. By selling Swatch-like watches, the company claims that Target is “unfairly competing” with the Swiss company, while selling “inferior” watches that might cause consumer confusion in the vast, vast American marketplace for zebra-striped plastic wristwatches.

Swatch sues Target, claims it copied watch designs [Reuters]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

CVS Being Investigated After 37,000 Pain Pills Go Missing

(Eric Spiegel)

The shelves of pharmacies are full of pills, tablets, capsules, and liquids that are worth a lot of money, especially to addicts. So when more than 37,000 prescription pain pills vanish from handful of CVS stores, the authorities get involved.

The L.A. Times’ David Lazarus reports that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the California Board of Pharmacy are investigating the disappearance of prescription pain meds from four stores in California.

The DEA served the stores with warrants almost a year ago after learning about prescription drugs like Vicodin that were not present and accounted for.

The company now faces up to 2,973 separate violations of the federal Controlled Substances Act because its records don’t match the actual inventory of the drugs in question. CVS could be forced to pay upwards of $29 million in penalties for these possible violations.

A rep for the U.S. Attorney’s office tells Lazarus that CVS has yet to respond to a letter sent last month detailing all of the alleged shortages.

The DEA investigation has been going on since 2012, when a DEA investigator learned of missing hydrocodone pills from a store near Sacramento. A pharmacy worker at the store eventually admitted to her employers that she had stolen some 20,000 pills.

Checking the temperature of other stores in the region, the investigator looked through the records of other CVS stores in the area and found 16,000 pills missing from one CVS; 11,000 from another and two additional stores with around 5,000 missing pills each.

A rep for the drugstore chain tells the Times that the purpose of the ongoing DEA investigations is “assuring compliance with state and federal requirements for administrative record keeping related to invoices and inventory for controlled substances.”

Last year, Walgreens agreed to pay $80 million following a DEA investigation into larger-than-usual orders for prescription painkillers from certain Florida distribution centers and stores.

Subsequently released documents showed that some stores had dramatically increased their orders on painkillers like oxycodone, and that the DEA believed store management was ignoring that prescriptions were being filled to consumers with questionable motives, including some customers who had been previously arrested at these locations for drug offenses.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Drunken Groom’s Fight With Bride Forces Emergency Landing On The Way To Honeymoon

(guynamedjames)

Ah, romance is in the air! Or it might’ve been if the groom hadn’t allegedly gotten drunk and fought with the bride on their way to the the honeymoon, forcing a Delta Air Lines plane to make an emergency landing. Sounds like the honeymoon was over before it ever got a chance to start.

According to authorities, the flight was headed from Atlanta to Costa Rica, but instead was forced to stop and land on Grand Cayman island, reports Reuters. Officials say the man got into a drunken disagreement with his new wife on the plane, and the man was escorted from the flight after it landed.

He was held on a charge of drunk and disorderly conduct by the local police and could be facing more charges under international air law.

A spokeswoman for Delta confirmed that a “disruptive customer” was the impetus for the plane’s diverted route.

“The flight landed without incident and the customer was met by local authorities,” she added.

The bride reportedly stayed on the plane for the rest of the flight to San Jose, Costa Rica, so let’s hope she at least has a relaxing trip.

You can follow MBQ on Twitter if you’re not that cranky guy who doesn’t like social media promotion, apparently, even when it’s encouraged by an employer: @marybethquirk

Drunken groom fights with bride on jet, forces emergency landing [Reuters]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Google Sued Over Kids’ In-App Currency Purchases

The plaintiff in the case claims her minor son made $66 worth of in-game currency purchases during the 30-minute window after she used her password to download the $.99 Marvel Run Jump Smash game on her Samsung Galaxy tablet.

While the folks at Apple have already settled civil and regulatory complaints about in-app purchase policies that allowed children to run up huge bills on their parents’ accounts, the Google Play store has only recently come under scrutiny for its allegedly lax controls. Now, a mom in New York has filed a potential class action against the Internet giant, claiming its policies encourage kids to waste their parents’ money.

The suit [PDF] was filed last week in a federal court in San Francisco by a mother who says that one of her young boys ran up $65.95 in in-app purchases while playing the game Marvel Run Jump Smash on her Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 tablet.

“Prior to the purchase of an App, Google requires account holders to enter their password,” reads the complaint. “However, once the account holder enters the password, he or she (or… his or her minor child) could make purchases for up to 30 minutes without re-entering the password. Thus, a parent could enter his or her password to permit a child to download a free gaming App, and then allow the child to download and play the game. What Google did not tell parents, however, is that their child was then able to purchase Game Currency for 30 minutes without any supervision, oversight or authorization.”

And this is what the plaintiff claims happened in February, when she purchased the Marvel Run Jump Smash game app from the Google Play store, only to find out via a subsequent e-mail that her son had purchased $65.95 worth of “Crystals,” an in-game currency that can be bought in bundles. The mom contends that these purchases were made within the 30-minute window during which the user does not have to re-enter his/her password.

The suit points to Apple’s change in policy, following a Federal Trade Commission investigation that resulted in $32 million worth of refunds to customers. Apple had previously had a 15-minute window during which in-game currency could be purchased without a password, but it has since altered that policy to require a password for each purchase.

Also at issue are the very nature of games that allow for in-app currency purchases. Because Google makes it so easy for users to make these in-game purchases, the plaintiff argues that games and apps are being created primarily for the purpose of enticing consumers to spend money on things like in-game currency.

“Such games, by design, are highly addictive,” reads the complaint. “Google entices the child with a free or inexpensive (e.g., $0.99) download of a gaming platform that then offers the sale of irresistible Game Currency in order to enjoy the game as it was designed to be ‘played.’ Within seconds of “playing” the game, one is led to a screen that sells virtual currency, so that the ‘player’ can ‘build’ things or ‘have’ other virtual things.”

The suit alleges that Google is targeting children and “inducing them to purchase, without the knowledge or authorization of their parents.”

Plaintiffs claim that each purchase made via these apps constitutes an acceptance of Google’s terms of service, and thus a binding contract. However, they contend that under California law, parents have the right to disaffirm certain contracts agreed to by minors.

The complaint also accuses Google of violating that California Consumers Legal Remedies Act by marketing apps as free while allegedly intending “to induce from minors the purchase of Game Currency.”

The company is additionally accused of unjust enrichment for, according to the complaint, knowingly accepting money from in-app purchases made by minors.

The plaintiff seeks class action status for the complaint, along with unspecified damages.

[via GigaOm]

by Chris Morran via Consumerist