Staples Launches Back-To-School Campaign Just As School Gets Out

(Morton Fox)

Staples, the big-box office and school-supplies superstore, isn’t messing around. Sure, the school year hasn’t even ended for the summer in all places in the company’s home state of Massachusetts, but that doesn’t matter. Nope. Staples wants your back-to-school business, and will price-match anyone, even Amazon, to get it.

The price-match guarantee specifically mentions Amazon, but no other online-only retailers. Their deal isn’t just a price match, but a 110% price match that begins this Sunday, June 29 for people who want to begin their back-to-school shopping early. That is, Staples will match prices, then knock 10% off the matched price.

The policy specifically mentions Amazon…but no other online retailers. Here’s the exact wording: “Staples will price match items sold and shipped by Amazon.com or any retailer who sells products in both retail stores and online under the same brand.” The deal also has the normal exclusions, such as not matching clearance or special event prices, and no price matches minus 10% on items like gift cards or app downloads.

The campaign starts this Sunday, June 29th. Yes, that means Staples is kicking off the back-to-school season the same week that many schools end classes or exams in New England.

Why even wait that long? Let’s just start the back-to-school sales for the following school year in the fall, as soon as the last notebooks and binders have been sold on clearance. No, wait, retailers need that space for Christmas decorations in early September, don’t they?

Staples Makes More Happen for Less with Back to School 110% Price Match Guarantee [Press Release]

Staples Starting Back-to-School Season Days Into Summer

PREVIOUSLY:

National Retail Federation Confirms Existence Of Back-To-School Creep

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Companies Settle Charges For Allegedly Scamming Millions With Work-From-Home Schemes

(Listener42)

If many work-from-home opportunities seem too good to be true, that’s because they probably are. And the Federal Trade Commission put an end to two companies that allegedly scammed millions of dollars from consumers by promising substantial income through home-based businesses.

The FTC announced Tuesday it settled two cases involving schemes that targeted consumers who hoped to succeed through home-based businesses.

One case, brought by the FTC and the New York and Florida Attorneys Generals, accused the operators of The Tax Club of selling services by allegedly falsely claiming they would help consumers succeed in their at-home businesses.

According to the FTC complaint, the company called consumers and falsely claimed to be affiliated with companies that consumers had already bought services or products from. The company’s telemarketers allegedly pitched business development services such as business coaching services, corporate formation services, and credit development services, falsely claiming the services were essential to the success of consumers’ businesses.

After the initial sale, the company allegedly called consumers numerous times to sell more “essential” services to the tune of several thousand dollars through a large initial fee and recurring smaller monthly membership payments.

Under the settlement with the FTC, The Tax Club operators must pay a fine of $15.6 million by surrendering assets. The company and its operators are banned from selling business coaching services and work-at-home opportunities in the future.

In a second settlement announced Tuesday, the American Business Builders resolved charges that it falsely sold a home-based business opportunity where consumers could earn income offering payment processing services, credit card terminals and merchant cash advances to small businesses.

According to the FTC complaint, the company allegedly falsely claimed that for a fee, ranging between $295 to $495, consumers could make substantial income by earning commissions on terminals sold or leased to merchants in the community.

The company also allegedly sold leads and promised to conduct telemarketing campaigns that would generate customers and income. Leads were sold for $10, with some consumers paying up to $40,000 without earning any income.

Under the settlement, the operators of American Business Builders must pay a fine of $5.4 million, which will be suspended upon surrender of bank accounts and real and personal property.

The operators and affiliated businesses are banned from misrepresenting that consumers are likely to earn money and misrepresenting any material fact about a product or service. The defendants also are barred from selling or otherwise benefitting from consumers’ personal information, and failing to properly dispose of customer information.

Tuesday’s settlements are part of the federal-state crackdown on scams that falsely promise jobs and opportunities to “be your own boss.”

Defendants Who Allegedly Took Millions from Consumers Trying to Launch Or Succeed in Home-Based Businesses Settle FTC Charges [Federal Trade Commission]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Zoo Bans Visitor Because It Isn’t A Good Idea To Climb Into The Lions’ Den Armed With Cookies

(WMC-TV)

While we’re unaware of any existing maxim that says lions can be tamed with a package of sweet treats, the Memphis Zoo is definitely against any plan involving visitors hopping enclosure barriers to offer up cookies to the big cats. That’s why the zoo has banned one woman, who allegedly climbed into the actual lions’ den while singing and bearing snacks.

It’s unclear if she was attempting some sort of big cat selfie, reports WMC-TV, but her fellow visitors contacted zoo security when they saw her jump over the barrier to enter the lion’s enclosure, reportedly while singing. The only thing between her and the cats? A bit of wire.

“[She was singing] some song that was telling how much she missed them. It was bizarre,” a witness told the station. “I’ve never seen someone singing to a lion. It was really loud.”

The zoo confirmed the incident, which was the second time she’s gotten in trouble for trying to feed the lions cookies.

“Last week she was noticed by our security staff throwing objects into the lion exhibit; at that time she was asked to leave the zoo,” a Memphis Zoo spokesperson said.

Not only is it dangerous for a human to be so close to the animals — whether they’re tamer than say, a wild lion or not — but cookies are not part of a lion’s daily diet.

As such, the singing cookie-bearer will have to find another way to connect with the animals: Her photo has been distributed at the zoo in case she defies officials and tries again.

“She was asked to leave the zoo permanently. She will not be granted access to the zoo anymore,” the spokesperson added.

Singing zoo visitor hops barrier to feed lions cookies [WMC-TV]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Sprint Also Launches Test-Drive Program, Sort Of

(Misfit Photographer)

Last week, T-Mobile was in the news not only because CEO John Legere compared the company’s two biggest competitors to rapists, but because they announced subsidy of data used when customers stream music and a program that lets prospective customers test out the network and an iPhone 5S for 7 days. Now Sprint is doing the same thing. Kind of.

It’s hard to argue that the T-Mobile program lets test-drivers use the phone for “free,” since the company puts a $700 hold on your credit card for the entire period that you’re running around with an iPhone, flirting with the company but still uncommitted.

Of course, if you get bored with T-Mobile, you can take that iPhone that you paid the full unsubsidized price for and take it to…well, there’s one other GSM carrier in this country, so that’s better than nothing. With Sprint’s test program, you’ll have to sign a contract before you test-drive, then go through the process of returning the phone if Sprint doesn’t work out for you.

Sprint has lost a lot of customers in the last decade over network quality concerns, even as they claim that the next-generation Spark network will be done later this year.

Of course, if regulators approve a possible merger of Sprint and T-Mobile, the two can team up and offer some kind of even more interesting test-drive program.

Sprint Is Next to Give Free Trial Periods a Shot [Wall Street Journal]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

American Airlines Tells Parents To Not Put Baby In Safety Seat Because It Will Delay Takeoff

(Adam Fagen)

I probably fly about as much as the average American adult, but even in my modest travels I’ve had some odd, seemingly nit-picky reasons for takeoff delays — a broken coffee machine, a toilet that didn’t have enough “blue juice” in the tank and had to be manually filled — that held up the flight for 30 minutes or more. But the crew of an American Airlines commuter plane recently determined that taking a minute to ensure the safety of a baby was less important than avoiding an FAA fine for a late departure.

Forbes contributor, former NTSB member and aviation safety consultant John Goglia has the story of a family that was recently traveling on an American Eagle flight from NYC to Columbus, OH.

The parents had paid for a separate seat for their 14-month-old son and had brought him onto the plane in an approved safety seat. The plane had already been sitting idle for about two hours when the cabin crew, making their final check before the long-delayed takeoff, noticed that the baby’s seat was not properly buckled in.

Rather than take the time to fix this easily resolved problem, the flight attendant told the parents that the baby needed to be held in one of their laps during takeoff — in spite of the fact that the FAA has stated that “the safest place for your child on an airplane is in a government-approved safety restraint system (CRS) or device, not on your lap,” and that “Your arms aren’t capable of holding your child securely, especially during unexpected turbulence.”

The child’s dad attempted to debate the issue but tells Goglia he was given the choice of “turning the plane around and being thrown off the plane, or holding our son during takeoff and landing.”

While a rep for AA took some issue with how the parents characterized the incident, she did confirm to Goglia that “properly securing the seat at that time would have been time consuming and delayed the flight’s departure.”

Since the flight had already been delayed for two hours, AA may have been at risk for a hefty fine that charges carriers several thousand dollars per passenger when a plane sits on the tarmac for more than three hours.

Still, even though securing a safety seat is slightly more time-consuming than putting a seat belt on yourself, it still wouldn’t have taken more than a few seconds to fix this problem.

“[H]as the pressure for on time departures so affected the airlines and crew that they would rather risk the safety of an infant by allowing him to fly unrestrained rather than take a few moments to ensure the security of the seat?” asks Goglia.

At the very least, this is a reminder for all parents traveling with children in safety seats to double-check the seat is secured before takeoff.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

At Walgreens, Nothing Says “Grilling Essentials” Like Colorful, Highly Flammable Feather Boas

You know exactly how this scenario plays out: You’re standing there in front of your backyard grill –whether it’s traditional charcoal or gas — hands empty, brain blank, just wondering what in the heck you need to get this thing going. Forget lighter fluid, propane or charcoal, tongs, mitts and grill scrapers. If only someone could tell you the answer…

Walgreens knows what’s really essential for a successful backyard grilling session: Brightly colored, highly flammable feather boas, of course.

You know, so any escaping sparks aren’t wasted on something as boring as the ground, and can instead ignite whatever those accessories favored by cabaret singers, bachelorette parties and fabulous people in general are made out of.

Consumerist reader Kevin snapped this photo of a Kingsford display festooned with a cascade of multi-color boas in a Chicago Walgreens, noting “Without a doubt.”

While we know the saying is “pain is beauty,” please don’t take that literally and for the love of all things flammable — like your skin — don’t wear a boa while cooking or near any kind of fire. You might look fantastic but it ain’t worth it.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Family Of Scarred Little Girl Denies That KFC Story Was A Hoax

The above update was posted late Monday night in response to a news report claiming the family’s story was a hoax to raise money.

Last week, KFC was doing a lot of apologizing after the family of a little girl with facial scars claimed their daughter had been told to leave a KFC eatery in Mississippi because she was making other customers uncomfortable. A new report now says that no such incident occurred but the girl’s family is sticking by their original account of how things happened.

A report in the Laurel, MS, Leader-Call dubs the story a “Kentucky Fried Hoax,” citing anonymous sources who claim that the little girl — who is recovering from a vicious dog attack — can not be found on in-store video footage from the day on which the incident allegedly occurred. The sources also say there is no record of any order being placed that matches what the girl’s grandmother claimed to have ordered at the KFC during their visit.

Workers at KFC also tell the paper that they have never and would never ask someone to leave because of some scars and bandages on their face; not just because it’s rude, but because the store is located near the hospital and gets a lot of traffic from customers coming and going from treatment.

“We’ve had people come in who were shot in the face,” one source is quoted as saying. “We’ve had them with tubes and wire sticking out. We never have asked anyone to leave. There is a physically challenged person working in the Woodrow Wilson location and one of the other [KFC] managers has a child with Tourette’s Syndrome.”

In addition to the $30,000 that KFC has pledged to help with the young girl’s medical bills, the outpouring of public sympathy has resulted in more than $100,000 in donations and gifts.

Late last night, the Facebook page set up for the young girl’s cause posted an update denying the claims made in the Leader-Call story:

I promise its not a hoax, I never thought any of this would blow up the way it has. The article circling the web calling this a hoax is untrue. The article it self say the investigation is not complete. It is not over until KFC releases a statement. The media outlet running this story is not connected with KFC. The family has not asked for anything, a attorney is handling all the media publicity for the family pro bono. Please do not believe untrue media. I have personally watched this family go without to provide for Victoria. They have not and would not do anything to hurt Victoria in any way.

KFC is not commenting on the Leader-Call story, other than to say that its investigation is still pending. The family’s attorney says they have not decided whether they will accept the restaurant chain’s $30,000 offer.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

California Court Rules That Large Retailers Don’t Have To Provide In-Store Defibrillators

(funky_abstract)

Sometimes having an automated external defibrillator (AED) on hand can make the difference between life and death, in the case of a cardiac emergency. But while one family sued Target for not having such a device around when a woman suffered a heart attack and died in a California store, the state’s highest court says large retailers are not required to carry defibrillators in case of a medical emergency.

The Supreme Court in California upheld lower courts’ decisions and ruled unanimously that retailers like Target don’t have to keep an AED inside the store, siding with Target in a wrongful death lawsuit a woman’s family brought against it after the woman died in a store in 2008, reports Reuters.

The family had pointed to a state health code statute requiring gyms and “health studios” to make AEDs available. But the court doesn’t think Target falls under that umbrella.

“We conclude that, under California law, Target’s common law duty of care to its customers does not include a duty to acquire and make available an AED for use in a medical emergency,” the six-judge panel wrote in an opinion on Monday.

The lawsuit alleged that Target had a common law duty to have first aid available for its customers, pointing out that Target itself sells AEDs on its site for $1,200.

“The inexpensive availability of AEDs and their ease of use with even minimal or no advance training have led to on-site CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) and AED assistance to now be an expected part of first aid response,” the family’s complaint said.

Target released a statement after the decision, writing that it’s pleased with the court’s decision and that “the safety and security of our guests and team members is our top priority.”

California’s top court says Target not required to carry in-store defibrillators [Reuters]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Target Now Offering Free Shipping On Orders Of $50 Or More

(Erik Gunther)

In an effort to cut out a bigger piece of the online retail pie, Target has announced that almost all Target.com orders that total at least $50 will qualify for free shipping.

The retailer had previously offered free shipping on select products, but the new policy applies to all but the largest and heaviest items available on the Target website.

The company says that shoppers had been confused by the old policy, as free shipping applied to some items but not all. Putting the $50 threshold in place is intended to make things more clear to visitors to Target.com.

Shoppers will still need to be mindful of the possibility of handling fees for certain items. For example, while smaller dining table sets don’t come with any additional charges, some sets — like this one — have handling fees that can tack on up to $60 to the price. And yet, this large, 7-piece outdoor dining set has no handling fee.

Likewise, this kid’s bed has no handling charge, while this much-cooler kid’s bed will cost an additional $40.

Most of the handling fees seem to involve furniture, which is about the largest thing you’ll buy at Target, since the store doesn’t really get into the full-size appliance business like some of its competition. TV shoppers will be happy to know that we couldn’t find a single TV in the Target.com selection that didn’t include free shipping.

The delivery window for Target.com orders is 3-5 business days. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune points out that this is faster than Walmart.com’s 6-9 day window for purchases that qualify for free shipping.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Senate To Finally Consider Bill To Make Cellphone Unlocking Legal Again

(Consumerist)

Four months after the House of Representatives passed a bill that would override the Librarian of Congress’s industry-backed decision to make it illegal for consumers to unlock cellphones and take them to other carriers, members of the U.S. Senate will finally get around to considering an identical piece of legislation, giving some hope that the bill might pass in our lifetime.

A quick recap for those who haven’t been paying attention. For years, it was completely legal for a consumer to unlock her phone, provided that she owned the device outright. Then in 2012, the Librarian of Congress, who has the sole authority to interpret (and reinterpret) the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ignored precedent and common sense, choosing instead to listen to the wireless industry, which argued that consumers never really own their phones because the software that operates them is not purchased by the user but licensed.

And so, in Jan. 2013, it became illegal for a consumer to unlock his phone without permission from his current wireless carrier. This led to an immediate backlash from consumers, consumer advocates, the FCC, members of Congress and the White House, which subsequently nudged the Commerce Dept. to nudge the FCC to get the wireless industry to voluntarily enact its own unlocking standards.

Shortly before the end of 2013, the wireless folks did just that, announcing a set of standards that would — hopefully — make it easier for consumers to unlock their devices without having to jump through too many hoops.

But those standards still put consumers in the position of being beholden to the wireless companies’ whims and timelines, as can be seen with Sprint’s tortoise-like pace for unlocking devices.

S.157 [PDF], the “Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act,” is identical to the bill that passed the House in February. Introduced in March by Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Sen. Chuck Grassley from Iowa, it repeals the Librarian of Congress’s ruling on the DMCA and replace it with the language that was there before change was made.

The bill will finally be discussed by the Senate Judiciary Committee at its meeting on Thursday. Given that Leahy is the Chair of that Committee and Grassley is the Ranking Member, we’re guessing the bill will squeak through committee and eventually be considered by the entire Senate.

“Consumers should be able to use their existing cellphones when they move their service to a new wireless provider,” said Leahy in a statement. “Our laws should not prohibit consumers from carrying their cellphones to a new network, and we should promote and protect competition in the wireless marketplace.”

“Empowering people with the freedom to use the carrier of their choice after complying with their original terms of service is the right thing to do,” added Grassley. “This bipartisan agreement is an important step forward in ensuring that there is competition in the industry and in safeguarding options for consumers as they look at new cellphone contracts.”

Our colleagues at Consumers Union agree.

“Restoring this right will save consumers money, give them greater choice, and help spur increased competition in both mobile phones and wireless service,” explained George Slover, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union. “Consumers should not be denied the right to extend the useful life of their mobile devices. Perfectly good mobile devices should not be arbitrarily consigned to gather dust in a drawer or rust in a landfill. When you buy a cellphone, you should be able to carry it over to another network.”

by Chris Morran via Consumerist