Family Of Girl Burned By Hot Coffee At Denny’s Lands Reported $500,000 Settlement


Usually when you hear about a lawsuit involving hot coffee, the normal reaction is, “Well, yeah, coffee is hot, you should be careful when drinking it, silly consumer.” But in the case of a 14-month-old girl who was scalded at a Denny’s, her family said it was the server’s fault for putting the hot beverage close enough for the toddler to grab it. As such, they’ve settled with a New York Denny’s to the tune of $500,000.

The girl, now five, was with her family at the rest stop restaurant about 20 miles outside of Buffalo in June 2010, when she grabbed a hot cup of coffee and spilled it on herself, reports The Buffalo News.


She suffered first- and second-degree burns on her neck, chest and abdomen, prompting her parents to sue the restaurant’s owners. They claimed that the waitress was negligent in putting the coffee close enough for her to grab for it.


“Sometime after the family is seated, a cup of coffee is placed on the table, which the infant was able to grab and dump on herself,” the family said in court papers.


The case finally went to trial last month, but then an insurance carrier for the company that owned the now-closed Denny’s offered $500,000 to the family.


The final settlement approved by a magistrate judge is sealed, though it’s believed that it’s close to the previously disclosed $500,000 amount. The money should be welcome — the family says it will cost about $340,000 to take care of the girl’s medical costs for the rest of her life.


Family of girl scalded by Denny’s coffee wins $500,000 settlement [The Buffalo News]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Detergent Companies Are Unhappy With Our Efficient Washing Machines


High-efficiency washing machines, which use less water to clean your clothes, are an advance that most customers seem to like. Do you know who doesn’t like them, though? Detergent manufacturers. With traditional machines, consumers can dump any old amount of detergent in with our clothes, and it doesn’t matter. With a high efficiency machine, using too much detergent causes problems, so consumers are finally using the correct amount of detergent.

In a standard machine, excess detergent just rinses off, and you could use too much soap for decades without even realizing it. Apparently, many of us were.


We can’t have been over-pouring by that much, right? Apparently, we have. A market researcher tells Bloomberg Businessweek that detergent sales are down by 6.4% since 2009. That period also coincides with sales of machines with larger capacities than in the past, which means fewer loads overall and less soap used per load. High-efficiency machines started to catch on about a decade ago, and it took a little while for consumers to figure out how much soap to use.


What is Big Detergent’s solution to the problem? Better prices. All of the major brands, from Tide to Purex, are offering coupons, deals, and price cuts to coax customers back to their brands.


Laundry Detergent Makers Want More Suds [Bloomberg Businessweek]




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

FTC: Tech Support Representatives Pretended To Be From Microsoft, Facebook, Scammed $2.5M From Consumers


It makes sense that consumers with a lack of computer knowledge would seek services and assistance from well-known tech companies like Microsoft and Facebook. So it should come as little surprise that a shady company would use this information to dupe consumers out of millions by pretending to be from the popular tech firms selling support services and software.

The Federal Trade Commission announced today that at the agency’s request a federal court shut down a New York-based tech support scam business that allegedly tricked older consumers into paying nearly $2.5 million for technical support services they didn’t need and for software that was actually available for free.


According to the FTC complaint, Pairsys, Inc. often cold-called consumers selling services and support while pretending to be representatives for Microsoft or Facebook.


Additionally, the company purchased deceptive ads online that led consumers to believe they were calling the technical support line for legitimate companies.


Once consumers were on the line, they were presented with a high-pressure sales pitch that typically involved scammers asking for remote access to the individual’s computer in order to assess a supposed issue.


Once the representative had access to the consumer’s computer they would allegedly lead the consumer to believe that the computer’s operating system had been affected by viruses or malware. In many instances, it was implied that the computer was severely compromised and had to be “repaired” immediately.


Consumers were then allegedly pressured into paying $149 to $600 for bogus warranty programs and software that was freely available elsewhere.


According to the preliminary injunction approved by the court, Pairsys and its operators are prohibited from making misrepresentations to consumers about the company and whether or not viruses are present on their computers.


The FTC will continue to seek the permanent closure of the company and refunds for consumers.


At FTC’s Request, Court Shuts Down New York-Based Tech Support Scam Business [FTC]




by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Bakery That Never Used The Word “Cronut” Told To Stop Using The Word “Cronut”

From the cease-and-desist letter sent by Ansel's lawyer to the Reno bakery. (via Facebook)

From the cease-and-desist letter sent by Ansel’s lawyer to the Reno bakery. (via Facebook)



While NYC pastry chef Dominique Ansel may have trademarked the word “cronut” to describe the cross-breeding of a croissant and a donut, he’s certainly not the only person to have made or sold them. Now his lawyers are sending cease-and-desist notices to bakers to get them to stop calling their creations “cronuts,” even if they’ve never used the word on their menus.

Rounds Bakery of Reno, NV, says that it recently received a C&D notice from Ansel’s lawyers, telling it to stop selling its donut/croissant product as a “cronut.” Problem is, the folks at Rounds say they have never employed that trademarked term.


The owner of Rounds explains to the Reno Gazette-Journal that his bakery was aware of the trademark and that it “has been very diligent about not using the term Cronut. We refer to our product as a croissant donut in all our communications.”


He tells KOLO-TV that he can’t control how customers or others describe the pastries he sells.


“[T]he problem is everybody refers to them as cronuts and we can’t be responsible for what customers choose to call it,” says the owner.


The letter insists that Rounds “cease and desist with the use of the term ‘Cronut’ and any similar and substantially confusing derivation thereof in describing your food items.”


One could make the argument that calling his version a “croissant donut” is similar to the term “cronut,” but I’d contend that it’s not Rounds’ fault that Ansel’s trademarked term is so close to the actual words any layperson would use to describe the item. If I trademark “RubHose” as a brand of rubber hose, I don’t see how I could tell someone to stop selling a generic “rubber hose.”


Rounds has taken the offensive in this battle, mocking the C&D notice on Twitter with the hashtag #notacronut


















[via Eater]




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Trivial para primer ciclo de primaria





via Educación tecnológica http://ift.tt/1tjve5W www.bscformacion.com

Toddler Gets Stuck In Toy Claw Machine, Now Has Interesting Story To Tell At Every Party He Ever Goes To


If you think about it, as long as a child is successfully rescued from inside one of those claw toy machines, it’s kind of a win-win: You get to spend time in a box stuffed full of toys, and you’ll be set for life as an adult with a great icebreaker story to tell at parties about the one time you somehow climbed into a claw machine as a kid. That’s the tale a boy in Tennessee will have to tell for years to come, joining the club of every child’s dreams.

He also gets to add “saved by a bunch of firefighters” to the story, reports WBIR.com (warning: link has video that autoplays), after he managed to wiggle his way inside the toy machine at a coin laundromat this week.


His grandmother says she looked away from the 18-month-old for just a second to check a text message, and by the time she was done, the tot was on his way into the belly of the toy beast.


“All I could see was his feet. He had already crawled in,” she said. “I grabbed his feet and he kicked my hand and got in. Climbed up over the glass partition and sat down in the toys.”


She adds that he loves crawling into and onto everything he can, so she wasn’t that worried once he was ensconced among the plush toys. But she was concerned that he’d hurt himself if he tried to climb back out, as he’d have to climb over a cracked, broken plastic partition.


Firefighters managed to free him in just a few minutes, with the rescuers’ presence causing quite a bit of excitement for the little guy. They even let him pick a toy from the machine to keep.


Welcome to your future, kid. You’ll be telling the story of How I Climbed Inside A Toy Claw Machine When I Was A Kid at parties for years to come, and it’ll never get old. Because all of us secretly would’ve loved to be in there, too. Heck, it’s not even a secret, we’re all jealous.


Toddler climbs into toy machine, gets stuck [WBIR.com]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Brewery Battling Lucasfilm After Attempt To Trademark “Empire Strikes Bock” Beer


On the one hand, it was all a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. On the other hand, Lucasfilm owns the trademark on the Star Wars franchise and you better believe anyone creeping around those star systems is going to get a response. So when an upstate New York brewery started peddling “Empire’s Strike Bock” beer, Disney-owned Lucasfilm fired up the legal engines and is sueing the brewery right into hyperspace (too many Star Wars references? No such thing).

Because the second movie in the trilogy is called The Empire Strikes Back, Lucasfilm is none too pleased with the brewery, Empire, shilling its “Strikes Bock” beer, reports the New York Post, because of the difference of a few letters.


In addition, marketing materials for the beer feature a poster styled after the opening crawl of letters in the Star Wars movies, declaring “May the hops be with you,” so make no mistake, this beer wants you to think of Luke, Leia, Han and the rest of the gang.


empirestrikesbockposter


Lucasfilm filed a notice of opposition with the US Patent and Trademark Office earlier this month, noting the similarity in the beer’s name and the title of the 1980 film, as well as the fact that the brand sells its own beverages now and again.


It reads:



“Applicant’s EMPIRE STRIKES BOCK mark is virtually identical in sound, appearance and connotation to Lucasfilm’s THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK mark, differing by only one letter in the respective last words ‘BOCK’ and ‘BACK’ and the initial word ‘THE.’”


Lucasfilm has a long history of using such marks for food and beverages, including wine. The fact that consumers have been exposed to and accustomed to seeing Lucasfilm’s Star Wars film franchise marks in connection with food and beverages, including wine, increases the already existing likelihood of confusion.”



But a manager at the brewery says it’s all a misunderstanding, because the beer is really just “Strikes Bock,” and it happens to made by Empire, so it’s Empire’s “Strike Bock” beer. Oh.


“I don’t see why they would have any objection. It’s not like we’re using images of Star Wars on the bottle or on our Web site,” he told the NYP. “As a Star Wars fan boy, I’m a big dork. I’d love nothing more than to be the trilogy’s official beer, but I don’t think there’s any chance of people actually interpreting it that way.”


The brewery has been making the beer for seven years, so why is this fight just brewing now? It turns out Empire had reportedly filed for a trademark recently, stirring up some serious cosmic space dust in the process.


Lucasfilm sues brewery over Star Wars-inspired beer [New York Post]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

The Average Middle-Class American Only Has $20,000 Saved For Retirement


Consumers’ lack of savings for the future isn’t a new phenomena: Just two months ago we reported that one-in-three Americans have no retirement savings. Today we know a little more about just how much those other two have saved; and it isn’t nearly enough.

A new survey conducted by Harris Poll for Wells Fargo found that middle-class residents of the United States have a median of $20,000 put away for retirement, USA Today reports.


That figure falls well below the $250,000 most consumers estimate they’ll need to live on after retirement. In fact, 31% of the survey respondents don’t believe they’ll have enough savings to survive on in retirement.


About 50% of middle-class adults currently in their 50s say they plan to work until they are at least 80 years old because they won’t have enough saved for retirement.


Like previous studies, the Wells Fargo report – which surveyed 1,001 adults ages 25 to 75 – found that a third (34%) of working middle-class adults aren’t contributing anything to a 401(k), IRA or other retirement plan.


Of those consumers who are putting money away, the current savings is a median of just $125 per month.


The overall lack of savings likely stems from consumers’ decisions early in life to hold-off on saving for retirement. For years consumers have been saying there’s always next year, but that notion appears to be changing.


According to the report, more and more consumers are beginning to realize the importance of saving early on.


Of the survey respondents, nearly 72% say they should have start saving earlier, a significant increase for 65% who believed the same thing just a year ago.


To make up for lost savings, consumers said they would make sacrifices in the future such as cutting out indulgences like spa trips, eating out and putting off big purchases.


Middle-class adults have $20K saved for retirement [USA TOday]




by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds

Here are eight 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

Dear McDonald’s: If People Are Asking “What’s In Your Burger?” You’ve Already Lost

Unless you’ve completely managed to avoid live TV in the last week, you’ve probably seen the McDonald’s ad with footage from its public “question box,” where regular consumers ask the fast food company embarrassing questions. McDonald’s intends to use these ads as a platform for bringing the truth to the masses, but what it completely overlooks is that the real problem is the fact that people are asking these questions to begin with.


The longform version of the ad, shown above, includes questions that we can’t imagine people asking of any other major fast food company, like:


• “Does McDonald’s even sell real food?”


• “What’s in your chicken nuggets?”


• “What is really in your beef?”


• “What’s in your hamburger?”


and


• “I’ve read that there is horse meat in your food.”


McDonald’s, with the help of recently laid-off Mythbusters co-star Grant Imahara, is trying to answer these questions with interviews of McDonald’s staffers and behind-the-scenes footage at its food production facilities.


That’s all well and good, but it ultimately won’t do much to change people’s minds about McDonald’s.


McDonald’s loudest skeptics and critics aren’t going to be convinced they are mistaken because the company paid the robot-building guy from a basic cable show to appear in videos declaring that the rumors are untrue.


PREACHING TO THE UN-CONVERTIBLE


Like the decades-old false claim that Twinkies can sit on store shelves for years and will outlast a nuclear explosion, there are numerous myths and muddied facts about what’s in McDonald’s food. And just like the Twinkie tale, simply telling the public that it’s not true isn’t going to erase these stories from our cultural memory.


For example, there’s the often-told story of how McDonald’s burgers and fries contain some sort of chemical that prevents them from rotting. This isn’t true, and it’s been proven that any well-done, thin hamburger will likely also dry up and resist rot over time; or that even a McDonald’s burger kept in a moist, warm environment will eventually rot and mold over.


Yet people still occasionally trot out old Happy Meals that look vaguely edible years later, and they will continue to do so regardless of this ad campaign.


Likewise, people will continue to ask “What part of a chicken does the McNugget come from?” (or change that up by inserting “pig” and “McRib” in the appropriate places).


BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT


Folks only ask “What’s in your burger?” for one of two reasons — either because it’s so good they want to know the secret, or because they genuinely question whether or not they are eating beef.


It comes down to this: If people even think there’s a scintilla of truth to the rumors and stories they’ve heard — or if they know they won’t have those same questions if they go across the street to a competing eatery — they won’t be loyal McDonald’s customers.


And survey after survey shows that people don’t think very much of McDonald’s food or the service.


In the most recent survey from our colleagues at Consumer Reports, the taste of McDonald’s food came in dead last, not just among the 21 burger chains included, but of all 52 fast food chains in the entire survey, regardless of food category.


As CR noted in its write-up of those ratings, McDonald’s pledge that its burgers are free of “preservatives, fillers, extenders, and so-called pink slime” is “hardly a rousing endorsement.”


TIME FOR A CHANGE


And it’s not just the food; McDonald’s has brought up the rear of the American Customer Satisfaction Index scores for fast food restaurants for years.


At the same time, consumers have grown more aware, not just of things like carbs, sodium, and saturated fat, but of how easy it is to improve even a fast food burger with better ingredients. Some of McDonald’s national competition — most notably Wendy’s — has taken note of this, and there are any number of regional chains making quality burgers waiting in the wings to take McDonald’s customers away.


Perhaps McDonald’s can learn from Domino’s Pizza, which fell on its own sword in 2010 and publicly admitted that its pizza was not good. The company promised to do better and revamped its recipes.


Some didn’t like the new Domino’s, but the humility combined with these menu changes did work to help turn the company’s image around.


But McDonald’s needs to know that telling the public, “You’re all wrong and you shouldn’t believe what you hear or read,” isn’t going to win many people over, especially when the menu remains the same.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist