25 Tons Of Edible Peanut Butter Dumped In Landfill After Dispute Between Plant And Costco


Yesterday we told you that Sunland Foods Inc., the peanut butter plant behind the Great Peanut Butter Recall of 2012, was being sold at a bankruptcy auction. Sure, you could say that makes the company the big loser in peanut-gate. But today we learned the real losers are all the lovers of the creamy, nutty food. Why? Because the company is dumping 950,000 jars of safe, edible peanut butter into a New Mexico landfill following a dispute with Costco.

The massive peanut butter dump was initiated after Costco Wholesale refused to take shipment of the product and declined requests to let it be donated to food banks, repackaged or sold to brokers who provide foot to institutions like prisons, NPR reports.


The peanut butter was made from $2.8 million worth of Valencia peanuts owned by Costco. After testing the product, Costco agreed to a court order authorizing the Sunland bankruptcy trustee to sell the retailer the peanut butter.


However, after receiving eight loads of the product Costco determined it could not sell the jars because of leaky peanut oil.


While both companies agreed there was no health or safety issue with the peanut butter, Costco said it would not agree to any arrangement other than destruction.


And so, 25 tons of the peanut butter, valued at $2.6 million, is being hauled to the Curry County landfill in Clovis, NM, where it will be covered in dirt.


Before closing, Sunland produced peanut butter under a number of labels for retailers like Costco, Kroger and Trader Joe’s.


The plant was originally shut down by the Food & Drug Administration for eight months in 2012 after it was linked to 41 salmonella cases in 20 states.


FDA investigators found salmonella bacteria at 28 sites in the plant, and contaminated samples of various nut butters. Inspectors also found unclean equipment and employees handling products improperly. Uncovered peanuts were left outside to collect rain and bird poop.


After a short reopening the plant closed for good in October 2013 when the company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.


Currently there are two companies vying for the Sunland plant: Hampton Farms of North Carolina, and Golden Boy Foods of Canada.


Hampton Farms won the original bidding last week, and it appeared that the bankruptcy court was just about to approve the $20 million sale on Wednesday morning when Golden Boy Foods called in with a $25 million offer. Hampton Farms then raised their bid to $25.1 million, but has made it clear that they believe the court should go by the results of the original bidding.


Cases of Edible Peanut Butter Dumped After Bankruptcy Dispute [NPR}




by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Driver-Licenses.org Is Not Where You Renew Your Driver License

Here’s the thing with modern Web browsers: they cater to our innate laziness by making the address bar dual-use. You can type a URL in, or you can type a search term. If you do that while trying to renew your driver’s license online, you may run into trouble.


The problem comes when we apply this across the board, feeding Web addresses into search engines or only visiting our favorite sites by typing “Consumerist” or “Facebook” into Google. Reader John discovered why this can be problematic when he recently tried to follow instructions and renew his driver’s license online.


“I recently received my renewal notice from the state,” he writes to Consumerist, “and in big bold letters on the outside of the envelope, it says ‘RENEW ONLINE! http://ift.tt/1gynVA7; Neat. He typed in that address to check it out…only he somehow entered the URL as a Bing search instead or a plain old address in the address bar.


Here’s what he saw:


image001-1


“The first site listed does NOT in fact renew your license on line at all,” grumbles John. “Nor does it offer you any real assistance in doing so. It bills you $16 or so to send you a “guide” that will only repeat the free instructions that were already enclosed in your notice.”


Of course, the reason why the paid site is the first one listed is that they’re paying Bing for that primo placement, even before the real DMV.


At least this page goes to some lengths to let everyone know that they are totally not the DMV. When I visited, I got this huge popup across my screen:


attention


There’s another problem, though, which may be specific to Maryland: pay attention to whether you can renew your license online at all. While all drivers receive the same envelope with the Web address emblazoned on the outside, people over 40 in Maryland have to renew in person in order to take an eye exam.


Bypass the search engines and try just writing out whole Web addresses. Tell your less Internet-savvy friends and relatives to do the same. It’s fun, and saves you from weird situations like this one.




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Fraudulent WEBLEARN Charges Possibly Linked To Earlier “$9.84″ Scam

blsscam We recently told you about a rash of low-value fraudulent charges attributed to a mysterious company called “WEBLEARN” popping up on credit and debit card statements. Since then, we’ve heard from hundreds of people who’ve been hit with these charges and while we still don’t know where the scammers got the purloined card numbers, the identity of the scammers is now less of a mystery.


Sorting through the mountain of e-mails we received from affected consumers, it’s hard to find any trends. The purchases are appearing on both debit and credit cards; some people have actually had multiple card accounts compromised. While the larger banks are the most frequently represented in the reports from readers, that’s to be expected just because of their large numbers of customers, and we’ve heard from readers whose accounts were held by small local banks and credit unions. And as reported originally, the dollar amounts vary, from as low as $8 to highs of around $15.


None of the banks we spoke to were willing to go on the record about the scheme, but several sources at large national banks confirmed to Consumerist that their fraud departments are aware of the fraudulent transactions and are proactively making efforts to prevent the charges from coming through while they continue to investigate.


One source tells Consumerist that the scammers were able to trick legitimate card-processing companies into believing these purchases were on the up-and-up, and that the banks and credit card issuers are now trying to head off the transactions at the processor level. Of course, some are still coming through, as we continue to receive new reports from readers who are seeing new WEBLEARN charges show up on their accounts.


While we and others have had no luck getting through to the phone numbers listed on the WEBLEARN transaction information, some readers say they were actually successful in getting a “customer service” person on the line.


One reader, who was told by the rep that she had apparently been signed up for some sort of monthly online subscription, asked the rep what her company does.


“She said the company helps collect monies for bigger companies for online services,” writes the reader, who says the woman she spoke to promised to cancel her subscription and have her money refunded within a few days. “The whole thing was very shady and I hope I will see the money but I’m not holding my breath.”


Even if you get through to the company and they promise to refund the money, you need to contact your bank and/or credit card company. Don’t rely on scam artists, or even those companies working for scam artists, to give you your money back. Your bank or card issuer can and most likely will issue you a near-immediate credit for the transaction while it investigates. Also, it’s important that victims of the scam alert their banks and card providers so that these companies are aware of the full scope of the crime.


SO WHO IS DOING THIS?

A source at a major national bank tells Consumerist that there is a “strong investigative link” tying the perpetrators of the WEBLEARN scheme to the operators of the so-called $9.84 scam that was exposed earlier this year.


Back in January, cybersecurity expert Brian Krebs pulled back the curtains on that scam, which similarly dinged a large number of bank accounts with small-dollar transactions in the hopes of going unnoticed, tracing back the fraudulent purchases to a group of affiliated websites that were pushing bogus $9.84 transactions through a Malta-based card-processing company.


A VP for that processing company told Krebs that it had severed ties with the scammers, but judging from what we’ve heard from bank sources, it looks like the criminals have just moved on to duping new processors into allowing these fake purchases to go through.


WHAT YOU NEED TO DO

Since we don’t know the source of the stolen card numbers — multiple victims have insisted they were not a part of any of the more notable retail hacks, and some insisted that they had not used compromised cards in months — we can’t say something like “If you were part of XYZ data breach, you should proactively get a new debit/credit card number before you’re hit with fraudulent charges.”


But what we can say is…


1. Be vigilant about checking your debit and credit card statements

Yes, it’s annoying and time-consuming (and depending on how little you have in your bank account and/or how much you owe to a credit card company, it might be depressing), but checking your statements a couple of times a week is the best way to catch these things before it’s too late. The longer these transactions go unnoticed, the harder it is for investigators to do their job, and the harder it is to make your case that it’s fraud.


2. Be mindful of all transactions, not just WEBLEARN

When looking at your statements, don’t just look at the company names for obvious scams. Look at the names and the dollar amounts and make sure each transaction on your card makes sense to you. The $9.84 scam used multiple names but the same amount, while the WEBLEARN scam is using different dollar amounts but the same company name. Previous scams have used company names that look a lot like businesses you might spend money at in order to fly under the radar.


3. Call your bank or credit card company immediately

We made this point above, but it’s worth repeating. Even if you get through to someone who promises to refund your money, you need to contact your bank and/or credit card issuer so they can investigate. Likewise, if you’re unsure of a transaction on one of your cards, the bank can usually provide more information that will help you determine whether or not some strange-looking purchase is legitimate or not. After all, something that looks like it’s coming from a company you’ve never heard of might be a legit purchase in the unfamiliar name of a holding company or franchisee.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Walmart Slaps Visa With $5B Lawsuit For Allegedly Fixing Card Swipe Fees


Thought retailers were done fighting credit card companies over those credit and debit card swipe fees? You thought wrong! Or not wrong, because no one can predict the future, but Walmart is steamed up and suing mad at Visa, alleging in a new lawsuit that the card company set ridiculously high card swipe fees.

Walmart opted out of a $5.7 billion class action settlement approved by a federal judge in December between merchants, Visa and MasterCard over swipe fees charged to merchants when customers pay with debit or credit cards. Target and Amazon also opted out of the monetary part of the settlement in order to seek their own damages.


This fresh lawsuit was filed this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, where Walmart’s headquarters is based, reports Reuters, and Visa has yet to comment on it.


Part of the problem centered on a part of the settlement that would’ve held anyone agreeing with it from suing Visa and MasterCard in the future over the rules disputed in the case, or anything similar that could crop up along the line.


Walmart wants damages for price fixing that it claims took place between January 1, 2004 and November 27, 2012, saying Visa and other banks colluded to set high fees for card swiping, rubbing out any competition and essentially forcing retailers to accept the fees or potentially have to pass them on as surcharges to customers.


“The anticompetitive conduct of Visa and the banks forced Wal-Mart to raise retail prices paid by its customers and/or reduce retail services provided to its customers as a means of offsetting some of the artificially inflated interchange fees,” Walmart says in court documents. “As a result, Wal-Mart’s retail sales were below what they would have been otherwise.”


Walmart is staying mum on its plans to possibly file a similar suit against MasterCard, but it would seem likely that it will, considering past litigation.


Wal-Mart sues Visa for $5 billion over card swipe fees [Reuters]


Follow MBQ on Twitter where there are no fees for doing so: @marybethquirk




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds

Here are ten of the best photos that readers added to the Consumerist Flickr Pool in the last week, picked for usability in a Consumerist post or for just plain neatness.












Our Flickr Pool is the place where Consumerist readers upload photos for possible use in future Consumerist posts. Want to see your pictures on our site? Just be a registered Flickr user, go here, and click “Join Group?” up on the top right. Choose your best photos, then click “send to group” on the individual images you want to add to the pool.




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Could A Merger Between DirecTV And Dish Be On The Horizon?

DirecTV_dish Last month, in the wake of the news that Comcast would try to gobble up Time Warner Cable, billionaire Dish Network co-founder and Chairman Charlie Ergen asked a reasonable question: If the two biggest terrestrial cable companies could merge, why couldn’t the two largest satellite TV services? Now it looks like Ergen may once again be trying to make that marriage a reality.


Bloomberg News reports that Ergen has already personally reached out to DirecTV CEO Mike White (who is, sadly, not the Mike White who starred in Chuck & Buck) to discuss the possibility of combining their two companies.


Back in 2002, when Dish was still under the EchoStar umbrella, Ergen actually attempted to acquire DirecTV, but the deal fell apart when it became clear that regulators would not let it happen. According to Bloomberg, that is still the major concern of White, who seems to think that the FCC and Justice Dept. would have hard time signing off on a merger that would result in a company with even more customers than a combined Comcast/TWC.


Of course, there are arguments to be made for and against this possible melding of the satellite biggies.


FACTORS WORKING AGAINST THE MERGER

Combining DirecTV and Dish would result in a combined customer base of somewhere around 35 million, which would make it by far the largest pay-TV provider in the country. That would bring with it, a number of concerns about the control that such a company could exert, both in terms of rates charged to customers and licensing agreements with networks and cable channels.


Additionally, the satellite TV industry isn’t exactly flooded with competitors in its current state. Removing either Dish or DirecTV from the market leaves only one company. A combined DirecTV or Dish might need to divest itself of customers and technology in order to spin off a competitor, just to keep up the illusion of competition.


ARGUMENTS FOR COMBINING THE TWO COMPANIES

If the Comcast/TWC deal is approved, one could make the case that the creation of a competitor of similar size would be needed to balance out Comcast’s newfound negotiating power. Rather than a bulked-up Comcast being the de facto determiner for the fees paid to content providers, there would be two large companies that could compete against each other for better deals and improved programming. Of course, if both mega-companies just demand the highest fees possible, we’re all screwed.


Another thing to consider is the survival of satellite TV as a competitor to cable. Right now, Dish and DirecTV each have healthy pay-TV subscriber numbers, but what they don’t have are the Internet-only customers that the cable companies are accruing, because they either don’t provide similar broadband service or, in the case of Dish, haven’t been able to convince consumers to switch to satellite-based broadband.


This means that even though Dish and DirecTV are both making more of their content available online — especially Dish, with DVRs that allow remote viewing — they ultimately rely on their competition to provide the pipelines for that service to their customers.


A combined Dish/DirecTV would have enough subscribers and realize substantial savings that it would be able to stay afloat as a pay-TV provider for quite some time. It may also give the merged company enough capital to invest in a truly competitive broadband service that could reach its customer base.


The biggest long-term concern about the Comcast/TWC deal is what it would mean for consumers’ access to the Internet, as that is both the future of all content delivery and the main source of competition to pay-TV providers. We’re not saying the merger of the two satellite companies would be a good thing, but the only way it could probably make the idea palatable to regulators would be if they could show that a combined DirecTV/Dish would ultimately result in something that provides a competitor to broadband access or is the long sought-after solution for providing quality data connections to consumers in rural areas.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Fandango, Credit Karma Apps Allegedly Put Consumers’ Personal Information At Risk

These are the Fandango puppets. Good thing they don't have personal information to put at risk.

These are the Fandango puppets. Good thing they don’t have personal information to put at risk.



Pop quiz time! What do Fandango and Credit Karma have in common? Yes, they both have really catchy (or annoying) advertisements. But that’s not the answer we were looking for. Give up? Okay, here it is: both companies allegedly deceived millions of consumers and put their personal information at risk. We never said it was a good thing to have in common.

The Federal Trade Commission announced Friday that the two companies settled charges that they misrepresented the security of their mobile apps and failed to secure the transmission of millions of consumers’ personal information.


The FTC alleged that, despite their security promises, Fandango and Credit Karma failed to take reasonable steps to secure their mobile apps.


According to the FTC complaints, Fandango and Credit Karma disabled a critical default process, known as SSL certificate validation, which would have verified that the apps’ communications were secure.


By overriding the validation process, Fandango undermined the security of ticket purchases made through its iOS app, exposing consumers’ credit card information, as well as consumer email addresses and passwords.


Similarly, Credit Karma’s iOS and Android apps disabled validation process exposed consumers’ Social Security numbers, names, dates of birth, home address, phone numbers, email addresses and passwords, credit scores and other credit report details, such as account balances.


According to the FTC, both companies could have easily prevented the vulnerability by performing adequate security reviews of their apps.


“Consumers are increasingly using mobile apps for sensitive transactions. Yet research suggests that many companies, like Fandango and Credit Karma, have failed to properly implement SSL encryption,” FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez says in a news release. “Our cases against Fandango and Credit Karma should remind app developers of the need to make data security central to how they design their apps.”


Under the settlements Fandango and Credit Karma must establish comprehensive security programs designed to address security risks during the development of their applications and undergo independent security assessments every other year for the next 20 years.


The companies are also prohibited from misrepresenting the level of privacy or security of their products and services.


Fandango, Credit Karma Settle FTC Charges that They Deceived Consumers By Failing to Securely Transmit Sensitive Personal Information [Federal Trade Commission]




by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Lululemon’s New CEO Admits: “We Let Down Our Guest A Little”

(m01229)

(m01229)



Nothing gets a company really thinking about its past customer slights like disappointing sales numbers, huh? After Lululemon’s quarterly same store sales took a dip for the first time since 2009, its new CEO says the brand has a bit of work to do restoring customers’ faith.

CEO Laurent Potdevin is on the job in the aftermath of that whole “Bend Over To See If Your Pants Are Too See-Through And Maybe It’s Your Fault For Wearing The Wrong Size, Fatty” thing.


He’s busy cleaning up messes made by former CEO Christine Day after she resigned, and is also working on smoothing things over after comments from the recently departed (from the company, not this mortal coil) founder Chip Wilson. He’s the one who made sure to mention that the “rubbing of the thighs” might not make the pants right for some bodies.


Potdevin told CNBC that Lululemon has at this point “let down our guest a little” by failing to innovate the product, which could also be translated as, “messing up that Luon fabric really ticked people off and maybe kept them from buying stuff.”


“When a brand gets an attack, there’s a defensiveness that can look like arrogance, but there’s no arrogance here,” said Potdevin, formerly of TOMS Shoes. “We’re working with humility and a focus on being inclusive.”


Wait, you mean you think everyone should be able to wear super expensive black yoga pants? What an interesting idea.


“Lululemon lost its voice and it stopped sharing what it stands for and how it gives back to the community—we’re working on changing that,” he added.


We ‘let down our guest a little’: Lululemon CEO [CNBC]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

McDonald’s Giving Away Free Coffee For Two Weeks

BjlHWKfCYAADAFs In an effort to combat recently launched breakfast efforts at Taco Bell and others, as well as trying to score some positive publicity amid months of negative news and lawsuits regarding its labor practices, McDonald’s is acting like Ebenezer Scrooge on Christmas morning, gifting free coffee with a smile for two weeks starting Monday.


The fast food mega-chain announced this morning that from March 31 through April 13, people can stop by participating McDonald’s during breakfast hours for a free small McCafe coffee.


Notice that we emphasized the word “participating,” as most McDonald’s are franchisee-owned, meaning it’s up to the individual owners as to whether or not they will participate.


Every time a major fast food chain with a large number of franchisees does one of these freebie offers, we’re inundated with e-mails from readers whose local franchise says they are not taking part, or which puts bizarre restrictions on the promotion. Given the sheer number of McDonald’s restaurants and the attitudes of some franchisees, we won’t be surprised if we start hearing about customers who are denied their free coffees.


One place there will be gratis caffeine is at the “Make Friends with McCafe” sampling events the chain will be holding at various high traffic locations and transportation hubs in certain cities. Free McCafes will be handed out to commuters at these events, where people will also get “treated” to things like live musical performances, or “spontaneous comedy experiences.”


I’d be tempted to go to the one here in Philadelphia at Suburban Station next week, but I hate mornings, don’t drink coffee, and can think of few things more unpleasant than being in a crowded transportation hub listening to the caterwauling of some local singer/songwriter or being hassled by a hacky comedian, so I’ll probably just remain bleary-eyed here in the Consumerist bat cave with my traditional IV drip of rain water, listening to the soothing grooves of my bootleg recordings of Tuvan throat singing.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Guía para creación y puesta en marcha de una empresa #emprendedores #entrepreneurship

Hola:


Una Guía para creación y puesta en marcha de una empresa.


Un saludo




Archivado en: Emprendedores Tagged: Emprendedores



from TICs y Formación http://ift.tt/1hgUjad

via Alfredo Vela Posteado por www.bscformacion.com