Group Petitions Target To Ban Guns Following Open-Carry Demonstrations

(Great Beyond)

A petition to ban guns at Target stores has garnered thousands of signatures after recent open-carry demonstrations at the retail stores.

Launched this week by gun advocate group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, the petition has recorded 10,000 signatures in an attempt to urge Target to ban firearms at its stores, The Los Angeles Times reports.

The movement began shortly after photos of gun rights activists toting firearms at Target stores began spreading through social media.

While Target has yet to comment specifically on the gun ban petition, a spokeswoman for the company says the retailer does not sell firearms and follows the state and federal laws regarding the open-carry of firearms.

Previous petitions filed after similar open-carry demonstrations have often resulted in statements from companies asking consumers to refrain from bringing firearms inside stores.

Last month, Chipotle announced that it would rather its customers didn’t bring firearms into their stores. Previously, the company abided by local laws regarding open carry and concealed carry in determining whether or not to allow guns into particular stores.

“However, because the display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers, we think it is time to make this request,” explains the statement, which does not appear to be an outright ban but a request from the company to its customers.

Back in 2013, Starbucks issued a similar statement, which also stopped short of actually banning the carrying of guns into the coffee shops. CEO Howard Schultz instead asked “that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas — even in states where ‘open carry’ is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.”

Target is petitioned to ban guns in its stores [The Los Angeles Times]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Antiques Roadshow: Keep Those Ivory Tusks At Home Because We Don’t Want To See’em

Rest easy, guy. (nids2012)

Bring PBS your piles of old buttons, your post-colonial mid-modern anti-establishment furniture (which could totally be a thing) and all the faded baseball cards you want. But Antiques Roadshow wants nothing to do with any ivory tusks, and will not perform any more appraisals of those items, the show announced this week.

Ivory has long been a contentious item, especially when it’s still in elephant tusk form, and as such, PBS says the show won’t show any tusks in new episodes or in segments it uses from older shows, reports the Associated Press.

The Wildlife Conservation Society sees this as a big win for elephants, saying the decision to ensure ivory tusks and their “assumed monetary value” aren’t glorified on TV.

lauded the decision as an important step in ensuring elephant ivory tusks and their “assumed monetary value” are not glorified on TV.

But if you’ve got other items that happen to include bits of ivory, like a piano or decorative objects, those will still be appraised on the show in an attempt to inform viewers about ivory and “the larger issues at hand.”

PBS: Ivory Tusks Are off ‘Antiques Roadshow’ [Associated Press]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Chick-fil-A Pay-It-Forward Chain In Florida Lasts For 36 Cars

(Mark Turnauckas)

Very few things other than kittens warm the cold, hard hearts of Consumerist editors like in-store pay-it-forward chains. You know, where each customer in a drive-thru line offers to pay the bill of the person behind them in line. This miffs some people, but most take it in the spirit of community and awesomeness with which it’s intended. It’s happened yet again, at a Chick-Fil-A in Florida.

The Tampa Tribune reports that the evening was a community-minded one at that restaurant to begin with: a portion of the evening’s receipts were donated to a local church youth group. One family with two kids in the youth group was waiting to buy their food when the mother felt inspired. She would say that it was God, but you could also call it the spirit of generosity, or the spirit of delicious fried chicken.

“It occurred to me to bless the person behind me by paying for his order, too,” she told the Tribune. This began a chain that lasted for 36 cars. Sure, it’s not the record-breaking chains that we’ve seen at coffee joints like Starbucks or Tim Hortons. Paying for a stranger’s dinner order, even a fast-food dinner, is a more expensive proposition than paying for a few coffees or donuts. Apparently, no one balked at that: one person whose order came to less than $5 paid for a whole family’s dinner.

“It makes me really, really happy to know that so many people had smiles on their faces,” the woman who started the chain told the Tampa Tribune. In the end, the youth group made $150 from the fundraising event as well.

Temple Terrace woman’s random act of kindness infectious [Tampa Tribune]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Sprint Reportedly Offers $32 Billion To Buy T-Mobile

Three years after T-Mobile was left at the altar by AT&T, the wireless company looks to have another suitor – Sprint Corp. According to a report by Reuters, company insiders say Sprint has agreed to pay $40 per share, or $32 billion, for T-Mobile.

If the deal, which still must gain the approval of U.S. regulators, goes through it would combine the third- and fourth-largest U.S. mobile network operators and create a formidable opponent for Verizon Wireless and AT&T.

Gaining the approval of the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice may be difficult for the two companies. Analysts tell Reuters that the agencies have expressed a desire to have at least two network operators competing against Verizon and AT&T.

The companies need to iron out a number of issues before the deal can move forward, including agreeing on an executive to run the combined company and settling on a termination fee if the proposed deal goes south.

According to Bloomberg, T-Mobile CEO John Legere is the leading candidate for the top spot, while Sprint CEO Dan Hesse has expressed that not being at the head of the table wouldn’t bother him.

Officials close to the deal tell Bloomberg that Japanese telecom giant SoftBank Corp., which owns 80% of Sprint, is seeking a $1 billion termination fee, while Deutsche Telekom, which owns 67% of T-Mobile is seeking closer to $3 billion.

Securing a high termination fee would be one way T-Mobile could protect itself if the deal takes the same unsuccessful path as the 2011 proposed AT&T merger.

In that failed deal, AT&T agreed to buy T-Mobile for $39 billion. However, AT&T withdrew from the deal after the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust called for regulators to block the merger, because it “because the deal would “likely cause substantial harm to competition and consumers.” And the FCC and DOJ did just that, saying they would both fight the merger.

This past January, the DOJ’s antitrust chief said the decision to block the merger in 2011 has only helped wireless customers, “competition in the wireless sector has flourished and consumers have benefitted.”

So, would the new proposed deal between Sprint and T-Mobile only serve to reverse the progress the DOJ touted? It’s a likely possibility.

Back in February, Consumerist broke down just why a merger between the two wireless companies might be logical but still bad for consumers.

T-Mobile and Sprint networks are not compatible, meaning that customers with single-band phones would not enjoy the benefits of a combined network, and that the company would need to spend even more to make this change.

So for any merger between the two companies would need to offer deep discounts and make large capital improvements in its network to be successful.

However, just last month Sprint chairman Masayoshi Son gave a speech that implied regulators should be happy to bless such a merger between the two companies, because it would mean valid competition for internet-controlling Comcast should that company acquire Time Warner Cable.

If Sprint does buy T-Mobile, the company would have more reach and resources with which to improve its network. However, that still wouldn’t be enough leverage to make mobile data a meaningful replacement solution for most consumers, since mobile broadband is known to be inconsistent and too slow for a reliable replacement.

Bloomberg reports that a deal could be announced in June or July.

Sprint, T-Mobile Said Near Price, Termination Fee Accord [Bloomberg]

Sprint agrees to pay about $32 billion to buy T-Mobile: source [Reuters]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Beastie Boys Want $2M From Monster For Copyright Infringement, Unauthorized Use Of Band’s Coolness

(sacco1989)

Listen, when someone’s got their own cool, it’s very bad manners to try to use some of that cool without asking permission first. Because clearly, we all own our personal coolness. Or at least we should, and that’s part of the reason the Beastie Boys are asking for $2 million from Monster for trying to benefit from that without permission.

The Beasties have been in court since last week claiming that Monster’s use of their music in its promotional materials constitutes copyright infringement, which they’ve now put a price tag on, reports Reuters. The band filed its lawsuit against Monster back in 2012.

The band’s lawyer said in closing arguments yesterday that the unauthorized use of the music in the 2012 video was “absolutely egregious,” and that Monster had hoped to benefit from how “cool” the band had become without their permission.

“They didn’t care if their employees were stealing from the Beastie Boys,” he said.

Monster has admitted infringement, but has claimed that it was all a big mistake, because an employee thought the company had permission to use the music. Ah, the old “It wasn’t me” defense.

despite that, Monster says the $2 million in damages and the argument that Monster made it seem like the Beastie Boys endorsed its drink were “contrary to common sense.”

“The plaintiffs try to take the undisputed evidence and spin some tale of an insidious corporate conspiracy,” Monster’s lawyer said, asking for jurors to hand down no more than $125,000 in damages.

This “theft of coolness” idea is surely going to set some kind of legal precedent, right? Because I’ve got some people on my list. You know who you are.

Beastie Boys seek $2 million from Monster for copyright infringement [Reuters]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Stephen Colbert Upset That Stephen Colbert Books Are Hard To Buy On Amazon

TV personality Stephen Colbert usually prides himself on unbiased reporting and sticking to the facts (at least the ones that matter to him), but now he’s taken the rare step of putting himself in the middle of the fight between Amazon and publishing biggie Hachette Book Group… mostly because it means his books sales are being affected.

The Colbert Report

Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,The Colbert Report on Facebook,Video Archive

On last night’s show, Colbert said that he generally loves Amazon — “The only place you can get shopping done in your underwear, at least since they closed Circuit City” — but that he’s now “Mad Prime” because the ongoing battle between the e-commerce giant and Hachette means that his books are unavailable or delayed.

“I just found out they are deterring customers from buying books by Stephen Colbert, and as any longtime viewer of this show knows, that’s me,” he explained.

“This is a big blow to my bottom line, because Amazon controls around 50% of all book sales — that’s right: 30 books a year!”

He also described the three-to-four week delays for shipments on many Hachette titles as “cruel.”

“If you ordered Hachette’s 21-Day Weight Loss, by the time it arrives, you’re still fat,” said Colbert.

As for Amazon’s suggestion to readers that they buy used books from the site’s third-party sellers, Colbert point out that this doesn’t do him any good because he gets no royalties from the sale of used books.

“Plus, you don’t want them,” he said. “Used books are the sluts of the literary world. Passed around from person to person, spreading their pages for anyone, getting cheaper and cheaper until eventually they end up in prison.”

Colbert also packed up a special parcel he’s sending to Amazon on behalf of himself, fellow Hachette authors JK Rowling and Malcolm “Explaino The Clown” Gladwell — containing two of his protruding middle fingers.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Actor Behind One Of Kia’s Dancing Hamsters Accused Of Working While Collecting Disability Payments

The alleged hamster scammer. Scamster?

For the state of California, a man dancing around with the head of a hamster in a Kia commercial is an unbelievable thing. Not because hamsters don’t drive cars or have the bodies of humans, but because if you’re claiming disability pay, you shouldn’t be able to be a dancing hamster and get paid for it.

The California Department of Insurance has accused one of the dancing hamster actors from those car commercials with fraud, claiming he was paid for work — including shooting at least one of those commercials — while he was collecting disability payments, reports the Los Angeles Times.

He also allegedly worked as backup dancer for various pop stars while raking in state workers’ compensation benefits, a spokeswoman for the agency said.

Back in June 2010 the hamster man said he was hit and hurt by a piece of ceiling that fell on him while he was dancing for a theatrical production company, and collected $51,000 over a year period as a result.

And there’s the rub — if you’re injured and collecting money for it, dancing like a hamster is out of the question. If you’re getting paid for it, of course.

“Fraudulently collecting disability benefits is not only illegal, it disrespects legitimately injured Californians who are unable to work,” said Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones.

It’s unclear how his partner in hamster dancing feels about the situation.

Kia dancing hamster accused of disability fraud [Los Angeles Times]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Spammers Take Advantage Of eBay Breach, Invade Etsy

(Dev.Arka)

When the usernames and passwords of a big, popular site like eBay are compromised, consequences can spread beyond the original site that was attacked. It’s possible that users of selling platforms Etsy and eBay use the same usernames and passwords on both sites, since security staff at Etsy say that they’ve noticed an uptick in spam and account hijackings since the recent eBay breach.

As far as the company knows, the main problem with hijacked accounts has been spammy messages sent to random users through Etsy’s internal messaging or “conversation” system. I received a series of these and flagged them as suspect immediately: on a site for handmade items, craft supplies, and vintage items, usually people don’t send ten links to the same weight loss supplement within a few minutes. Usually.

“We recognize that some Etsy members use the same usernames and passwords across multiple sites, and that they may have been victims of the recent attacks aimed at other websites,” Etsy explains in a blog post. “We currently believe that the uptick in convo spam that we are seeing is a direct result of usernames and passwords stolen in other attacks being used to sign in to some Etsy members’ accounts.”

Etsy’s advice to users is pretty much the same as every other site’s advice to us, before a breach or after one. Change your other passwords after a site that you use is breached. Use two-factor authentication when it’s available. Use complex passwords. Don’t use the same password on every site. Don’t click directly on links in messages from people you don’t recognize.

Security Update: Protecting Your Etsy Account [Etsy] (via eCommerceBytes)

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

New York City Back In Court Trying To Reinstate Ban On Big Sodas

(Great Beyond)

It seems like only yesterday that New Yorkers were living under the unsweetened thumb of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, because although there’s a new mayor in town, the old fight over restricting the sizes of soda and other sugary drinks continues onward.

Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration has taken up the Bloomie torch and yesterday urged New York’s highest court in Albany to reinstate the proposed ban on large sugary drinks (in servings over 16 ounces) served in restaurants and other public venues.

Bloomberg and gang pledged to continue the fight last October and yesterday de Blasio renewed that fight, saying he hopes the court will respect the city’s authority and expertise when it comes to fighting obesity, reports the Wall Street Journal.

“The city’s proposal to cap the size of sugary drinks responds to the alarming obesity and diabetes crisis” affecting the city’s minority groups, he said.

It sounds like it’s still anybody’s fight, with six of the seven judges asking both sides plenty of questions over 40 minutes, while one judge recused herself.

“Couldn’t you ban hamburgers altogether from New York City?” Jonthan Lippman, the court’s chief judge, asked.

The chief of the appeals division for the city said that slippery slope situation is hypothetical, but finally replied that the city would “take an appropriate step” if there was scientific evidence to back such a thing.

“Where do you draw the line?” Judge Lippman asked.

He replied that the proposed ban doesn’t outright do away with sugary drinks but instead is just about portion control. The smaller size is like “a warning label,” he said. “It’s designed to prompt a conscious choice by the consumer.”

The chief judge then took to questioning the opponents’ legal counsel, asking: “Why isn’t this within the scope of their power and why isn’t it reasonable?”

That attorney said laws like this should come from elected officials and not an appointed panel like the NYC Board of Health.

“What we didn’t have was the will of the people,” he said. “They can’t tell us how many cheeseburgers or French fries we can have,” he said.

It should take about four to six weeks for a decision to come down, but that timetable is just what typically happens. We could still be hearing about this ban for a good chunk of time… again.

New York City Soda-Ban Fate Weighed [Wall Street Journal]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

GM Admits Incompetence In Ignition Debacle, Denies Cover-Up

GM CEO Mary Barra testifying before Congress earlier this year.

This morning, General Motors CEO Mary Barra discussed the findings of the car maker’s internal report on an ignition switch defect that went without a recall for more than a decade and has resulted in at least 13 deaths. The company’s findings claim that while GM screwed up big-time, there was no attempt by executives to cover the problem up.

In a speech before GM employees at the company’s Tech Center in Warren, MI, on Thursday morning, Barra described the investigator’s report as “brutally tough” and “troubling” and confessed that there was a fundamental failure to meet customers’ needs.

Barra, who had been with GM for three decades before being elevated to the CEO position earlier this year, said that there were certain employees involved who exhibited a “pattern of incompetence and neglect” by failing to disclose relevant information, allowing the defect to go without a recall even after it was fixed in 2007.

“Experienced engineers, with responsibility for safety, didn’t understand that the airbags would not deploy if the ignition switch changed position,” said Barra.

However, the report claims that there was no conspiracy or cover-up orchestrated by GM executives that kept the recall of millions of vehicles from happening. Barra says that those with knowledge of the defect and the subsequent botched fix — which failed to update the part number, resulting in safe and defective ignition switches commingling in the GM inventory — made no effort to alert top GM officials of the problem.

As a result, 15 people have been fired from the car company.

“Some were removed because of what we consider misconduct or incompetence,” explained Barra. “Others have been relieved because they simply didn’t do enough: They didn’t take responsibility; didn’t act with any sense of urgency.”

Five other employees have been disciplined but not fired for their role in the debacle.

“With these moves, I feel we have addressed the personnel issues in this matter,” said the CEO.

The car company is launching a compensation program for those who were injured — and the families of those killed — in the crashes tied to the ignition defect. More details on that here.

“This is not just another business crisis for GM,” admitted Barra. “We aren’t simply going to fix this and move on. We are going to fix the failures in our system – that I promise… And we are going to do the right thing for the affected parties.”

by Chris Morran via Consumerist