United Airlines, Orbitz Ask Court To Stop Site From Selling “Hidden City” Tickets

Recent Skiplagged listings for flights that don’t end in Chicago, but go through Chicago.

I live in Philadelphia and if I want to visit a friend in Chicago for a weekend, it will cost me several hundred dollars for a round-trip ticket on U.S. Airways. For significantly less money, I could book what’s known as a “hidden city” ticket from Philadelphia to Orlando via Chicago, and then just get off the plane when it stops in Chicago. Most airlines ban the practice, but there’s not much they can do to stop it. They can, however, sue to stop a website from promoting and booking these verboten fares.

Skiplagged.com is a site that lists and is supposed to allow you to book hidden city fares (though all of our attempts to reserve tickets failed), and is now the subject of a lawsuit [PDF] filed in federal court by both United Airlines and travel-booking service Orbitz.

The plaintiffs accuse Skiplagged and its owner of “intentionally and maliciously” interfering with withe their business by “promoting prohibited forms of travel” and inducing “breach of Orbitz Worldwide’s travel agency contracts with commercial airlines and of United’s customer contractual relationships.”

Most airlines forbid passengers from booking travel to somewhere other than their intended destination. Additionally, the deals that travel agents and booking services make with airlines generally include a ban on knowingly allowing a customer to purchase a hidden city fare.

The plaintiffs claim that Skiplagged and its owner are aware of this prohibition and still not only advertised the fares but also then directed users to the United and Orbitz websites to purchase the tickets.

The airline and the travel site claim that this direct-linking to their online booking portals falsely gave the impression that the plaintiffs were affiliated with Skiplagged.

“To the average internet user of Skiplagged, the transition from the Skiplagged site to Orbitz’s website is seamless and strongly suggests an affiliation or identity between Skiplagged and Orbitz that does not exist,” reads the complaint. “By creating a website that operates in much the same manner as an online travel agency, and by linking that site to Orbitz’s site, [the defendant] is attempting to confuse and mislead the public into believing that his website, and the “hidden city” ticketing it employs, is done with the approval (if not the outright authorization and sponsorship) of Orbitz and the airlines.”

Orbitz claims that the Skiplagged owner “expressly agreed not to engage in this conduct when he entered into an affiliate agreement with Orbitz, LLC in early 2013.” That agreement has subsequently been terminated. Additionally, the complaint claims that the defendant “has taken steps to try to hide from Orbitz and United his continued bad conduct and breach of his promises to stop.”

United says that when it demanded that all of its trademarks and content be deleted from the site, Skiplagged initially responded that it would do so. But instead, according to the complaint, Skiplagged replaced United’s name with a “Flight Censored” label, and a note reading “Sorry for the inconvenience, but United Airlines says we can’t show you this information.”

Additionally, United claims that Skiplagged continued to list the airline’s flights, but with slightly altered departure times so that the content was not identical to that published on the United site.

Among the violations alleged by the plaintiffs are violation of the Lanham Act’s prohibition against false affiliation, tortious interference, breach of contract, and misappropriation. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and asking the court to issue an injunction blocking Skiplagged from listing and offering hidden city fares.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Asian-American Sephora Customers With Closed Accounts File Discrimination Lawsuit

(littleyiye)

A few weeks ago, we shared with you the claims of some loyal Sephora customers who found that their accounts for placing online orders had been shut down. While Sephora claimed that account shutdowns were aimed at people buying large amounts of makeup to re-sell, customers complained that the only thing the company looked at was whether a given customer had a Chinese surname. Now customers living in the United States whose accounts were closed are filing a class action suit against the company.

The four lead plaintiffs in this lawsuit are women of Chinese descent and Sephora shoppers who live in New York, Ohio, and Pennyslvania. We know that the Sephora.com site crashed on November 6, the company later blamed the failure on “high levels of bulk buys for reselling purposes in North America and other countries.” What this lawsuit alleges is what many customers claimed in makeup forums and posts to Sephora’s social media pages: that accounts targeted for shutdown were were under names or e-mail addresses that “appeared to signify Chinese/Asian race/ethnicity/national origin/descent regardless of the web domain used” and/or e-mail accounts on Asian-based sites such as qq.com, 126.com, or 163.com. Their complaint (PDF download) provides examples of customers other than the four named plaintiffs who had similar issues, and claims that whether a customer had an Asian-sounding name was the only piece of criteria that Sephora used in deciding which accounts to deactivate during the site crash crisis.

The attorneys attempt to tie the account deactivations to recent high-profile “shop and frisk” cases in New York City department stores like Macy’s and Barneys, which required both stores to promise not to assume that all people of color in their stores are criminals, train staff in how to do loss prevention work without blatant racial profiling, and to pay six-figure settlements to the state of New York. They open the complaint by saying:

Despite significant media coverage of so-called “shop and frisk” cases––where companies have been accused of discriminating against minority customers while shopping in retail stores––Sephora has brazenly taken this practice to the Internet.

One of the named plaintiffs shared an e-mail that she received from an account with the name “Gray markets” that explained that her account was one of many that was deactivated “in order to optimize product availability for the majority of our clients, as well as ensure that consumers are not subject to increased prices or products that are not being handled or stored properly.” Well, nobody likes melted lipsticks, but this customer claims that she was not a re-seller. The e-mail from Sephora continued:

At this time, we are not reactivating any blocked accounts.

Thank you for respecting our business decision.

The four Sephora customers and their attorneys seek to turn this case into a nationwide class action, and damages to punish Sephora for what they consider to be a violation of their civil rights.

We checked with Sephora whether they have any further comments on the allegations of ethnic profiling in account deactivations.

Xiao, et al v. Sephora, USA, Inc., et al [PDF]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Jury Orders AutoZone To Pay Former Employee $185M For Pregnancy Discrimination

(AutoZone)

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Pregnancy Discrimination Act forbids companies from discriminating against employees based on pregnancy when it comes to any aspect of employment including hiring, firing, promotions and demotions. So when a former employee accused AutoZone of illegally demoting and then firing her after she became pregnant, the woman sued the company. And this week a California jury ruled in her favor, ordering the auto parts retailer to pay her $185 million.

The Los Angeles Times reports that a federal jury found that AutoZone unlawfully demoted and fired the employee who complained she was demoted and fired from a San Diego County store just because she was pregnant.

The woman claimed the company began to treat her differently after she told a district manager in 2005 that she had become pregnant.

During her discussion with the district manager, the woman claims he told her “Congratulations…I guess. I feel sorry for you.”

Shortly after the encounter, the woman says the company began complaining about her performance and demoted her from a management position.

When she filed a lawsuit challenging the demotion in 2006, she says the company fired her.

The L.A. Times reports that AutoZone’s lawyers argued at trial that the woman was fired for misplacing $400 in cash, not because she was with child.

However, the loss prevention officer who handled the misplaced cash investigation testified that the woman was never suspected of wrongdoing and she believed the company was targeting the former employee.

The jury’s award of $185 million in punitive damages comes in addition to $872,000 in compensatory damages the jury awarded the woman last week.

Officials with AutoZone tell the Times they plan to appeal the decision.

Jury awards $185 million to ex-AutoZone worker demoted after pregnancy [The Los Angeles Times]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

We Guess Public Relations Barbie Can’t Use Email Any Better Than Computer Engineer Barbie

Barbie is stymied by this email thing.

Yesterday we found out that Computer Engineer Barbie has no idea what computer engineering is, and can’t write code for a game she’s designing without men to do it for her, much less email or reboot her computer successfully. We reached out to Mattel’s media relations team to comment on the book all about Barbie’s brush with a computer virus and subsequent saving by her guy friends, but it would seem the PR team also has trouble using email. Better ask Steven and Brian for help.

Thus far Mattel has remained silent on the recent outrage over I Can Be A Computer Engineer, a book that people have been complaining about in the Amazon reviews for the title since January. Consumerist has yet to get a reply to our inquiry yesterday, and it doesn’t appear that Mattel has issued a public statement or comment on the controversy.

This, despite a renewed and steady flow of complaints in the reviews on Amazon. There are currently 97 one-star reviews, eight five-star reviews (at least one of which appears to be sarcastic) and only a few other ratings in between:

Content communicates the opposite of what the title promises

This review is for Barbie I can be a computer engineer; How did Mattel fail so badly at creating this book? Clearly parents who have a genuine interest in getting their daughters involved in STEM would purchase a book with this title. Problem is, it communicates the exact opposite of what the title promises to little girls. Mattel- if you wanted to contribute positively to the women in STEM movement you should have at least done your research. A BASIC test group perhaps? Speak to a woman software engineer perhaps?

Small girls can code!

My daughter who is 9 can program with Scratch (the puppy and blocks that are mentioned in the book), and finish her video game with no male help. This book is awful, please do not buy it for girls (or boys).

I am very glad this book was NOT available when I was younger, just imagine where I’d be then.

As an awesome computer engineering female, I find this book insulting and rediculously terrible. There is no way the content actually came from anyone who knew anything about computer engineering – and literally any woman who was actually a computer engineer could have come up with an inspiring message or at least a decent storyline. This probably does more harm than good – I can’t believe someone released this.

Sexist rant tells girls they CANNOT be Computer Engineers

I can’t believe anyone would think this is appropriate for children. This is nothing but a tasteless way for the author to discourage girls from learning how to be self sufficient people and rely on boys instead.

Barbie is supposed to be a computer engineer and yet she seems to know less about computers than my mom (no offense, Mom). She wants to design a game, but doesn’t seem to understand really basic things, like virus protection.

Don’t waste your money or your time on this POS

the computer engineer book is not just bad – it is harmful

if you show the so-called computer engineer book to your daughter, or son, be sure to point out that it is ridiculous. one of the first things she does is say she needs some boys to do her coding – that she can NOT be a computer engineer. it doesn’t improve. she is not portrayed as a competent computer user much less a computer engineer. i recommend you NOT buy it at all but if you are in a bookshop, and see it, tell the manager that all copies should be taken from the shelves and sent back to the publisher.

Great gift idea for the holidays

Great gift idea for the holidays! Little girls now know to think only of cute puppies, colored blocks, and asking for help from the boys. And little boys will churn out the next WoW and buy up San Francisco. Thanks so much, Amazon, for carrying such strong products!

Fanfic? Please?

Please.. please tell me this is an unlicensed and the author is about to get a knock on their door from Mattel’s lawyers to have a little word with the person about copyright infringement and harming their brand.

Poison for the soul

This book is pure poison for the mind of any child. Barbie herself would be enraged that her corporate overseers have misrepresented her capabilities and motivations. Mattel should be ashamed to have betrayed their own ward.

Gross.

This book is bad primarily because it is inexcusably sexist (it is extremely clear that the sexism was purposefully written in, not overlooked by accident).

As if that weren’t bad enough, it’s also laughably technically inaccurate.

We’ll let you know if PR Barbie figures out how to use email.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Comcast Hits Man With $2,789 Fee For Moving To Area Not Served By Comcast

When a Tennessee graphic designer decided to move an hour away, Comcast originally told him that he could move his business-class service and even set up an appointment for installation. But when the Comcast installer never showed up, the company finally told the man that (A) his new address wasn’t served by Comcast and (B) he owes the company nearly $3,000 in early termination fees.

“I was just blown away,” the man tells Nashville’s WSMV-TV about the $2,789 in fees from Comcast. “That’s way too much money for somebody like me to be able to pay.”

Comcast told him that he was in a 3-year contract for his business broadband service, and per the business-class terms of service [PDF] he owed a fee equal to 75% of the amount he would have eventually paid over the balance of the contract.

“They kept telling me the same thing,” he recalls. “‘You’re under contract, that’s what the contract says.’”

The former Comcast customer, who said he’d never had any problem with the company until this incident, says he understands that there’s an early termination fee for those who cancel service, but he wasn’t attempting to get out of his contract. He’d tried to relocate his service and he’d been told that Comcast could install service at his new address.

“I didn’t think that was fair, to pay an early termination fee, because I wanted to keep their service,” he explains. “And due to them not offering it in my area, I feel like I was being punished because they don’t offer the service here.”

A rep for Comcast confirmed the early termination fee to WSMV but said there were extenuating circumstances in this case and that the fee is being waived.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Starburst Introduces Christmas-Themed Jellybeans For Some Reason

Here at Consumerist, we’re fascinated with holiday mashups: items that we associate with one holiday re-purposed for another, usually for marketing reasons. Items like pumpkin spice egg nog and Independence Day candy corn exist because the makers of candy corn and egg nog want to expand these festive treats out to other holidays. Now let’s welcome Christmas jelly beans to the holiday mashup fold.

Christmas jelly beans? Yes, Christmas jelly beans. Starburst brand jelly beans are very tasty, we admit, but we have some trepidation about expanding jelly beans to non-Easter holidays. When the Easter candy is out on display before Christmas in some stores, why are we even bothering to have special foods for different holidays at all? Let’s have Halloween baskets and go around to our neighbors’ houses demanding candy on Valentine’s Day, too.

Spotted On Shelves – 11/19/2014 [The Impulsive Buy]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

JetBlue Adding Checked Bag Fees, Cutting Down On Legroom

(Boss Meg)

One of the last remaining airlines holding out against fees for checked bags has fallen prey to the siren song of money: JetBlue, which had persisted in offering a complimentary checked bag even as other airlines tacked fees on, announced three new “bundled” fare options for fliers, with the cheapest fare now requiring an extra fee to check a bag. That, and it’s stuffing more seats into plane cabins, which means less legroom for you.

In a press release today detailing the company’s plans for getting investors bigger returns, JetBlue says the three new options will roll out in the first half of 2015.

“The first of these will be designed for customers who do not plan to check a bag, while the latter two will offer one and two free checked bags, respectively, along with other attractive benefits, including additional TrueBlue points and increased flexibility,” the press release says.

It’s unclear at this point how much that fee will be to check a bag if you buy a fare in the first bundled option, but it’s happening, nonetheless.

Another revenue-boosting effort? An Airbus A320 “Cabin Refresh,” as JetBlue calls it, which means using “lighter, more comfortable seats” with larger seatback screens with more power ports. These new seats will allow the company to increase the number of seats it can fit on planes. More seats = more knees up against those seats, as legroom gets more precious.

Despite this, JetBlue claims it will continue “to offer the most legroom in coach.”

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Nielsen To Finally Peel Back Curtain On What’s Actually Popular On Netflix, Amazon

Sure, there’s a “Popular On Netflix” category on the streaming service, but are those actually the most-watched Netflix videos? For years, only Netflix has known how many of its users were watching which videos — and the company has not been eager to share that information. But the folks at Nielsen reportedly are going to start collecting ratings data for Netflix and Amazon videos, pulling back that curtain of secrecy.

This is according to the Wall Street Journal, which reports that the Nielsen streaming ratings will begin next month. Since it won’t have access to data directly from Netflix, Nielsen will sample audio content of streamed movies and shows to determine which titles are being watched.

The ratings won’t initially be made public, and content companies will — at first — only be able to see data for their own shows and movies. Eventually, Nielsen will make ratings for more content available to its subscribers, meaning the numbers will inevitably make its way to the rest of us.

While ratings data may hold some curiosity for Netflix users, the folks with the most interest in the Nielsen numbers would be the content companies that license their videos to Netflix.

Many studios license their content in bundles to services like Netflix and Amazon Prime, so if the Nielsen ratings show that a certain show is particularly popular, the studio could use this info to get a higher fee for all of its content when it comes time to renew the license.

Likewise, people associated with popular shows — actors, producers, writers, directors — might be able to make a case for a better deal from the studio.

Of course, if a show isn’t popular on Netflix — or if the data shows that Netflix users have wide-ranging interests and that individual pieces of content aren’t as important as the entirety of the library — the ratings wouldn’t be of much use to the content companies.

The data could also be used to compare what’s popular online vs. what works on pay-TV, and whether or not streaming services are cannibalizing viewership on cable.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

NHTSA Pushes For National Recall Of Takata Airbags

(I Am Rob)

In the past year, nearly 10 million vehicles have been recalled in areas of high humidity – generally the southern United States – related to defective Takata-produced airbags. That number could increase significantly now that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has urged the Japanese auto parts maker and car manufacturers to expand the recall to cover the entire United States.

On Tuesday, NHTSA called for a national recall of vehicles with certain driver’s side frontal airbags made by Takata.

Officials with the agency say the decision to call for an expanded recall was based on NHTSA’s evaluation of a recent driver’s side airbag failure in a vehicle outside the current regional recall area.

Reuters reports the incident involved a 2007 Ford Mustang in North Carolina. Investigators with NHTSA say that all other incidents of Takata airbag ruptures have occurred in areas of the regional recall.

Regulators believe that issues with the airbags have been caused by the presence of moisture, which led automakers to initiate recalls in areas of high humidity such as southern Florida, along the Gulf Coast, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Saipan and American Samoa.

Based on the new information, unless Takata and the ten manufacturers that use its airbags quickly agree to the national recall, NHTSA officials say they will use the full extent of the agency’s statutory powers to ensure vehicles that use the same or similar airbags inflators are recalled.

As part of NHTSA ongoing investigation into the defective airbags, the agency issued a General Order to Takata and all 10 vehicle manufacturers – BMW, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota – requiring them to file, under oath, a detailed report and produce all related documents about completed, ongoing or planned testing of Takata inflators outside the current regional recall area.

“The agency is demanding this information to compel Takata and the affected industry to be frank with not only NHTSA, but the American public, as to what testing and additional steps they have done and plan to do to control and mitigate the risk associated with Takata’s defective inflators,” a statement from NHTSA reads.

Reuters reports that officials with Honda, Ford, Mazda, and Chrysler have said they would continue to cooperate with NHTSA and plan to evaluate their call for a national recall.

However, each company stopped short os saying they would expand bend the current set of cars they are fixing. Reuters reports that BMW’s initial recall was already of national scope.

A spokesperson for Takata tells Reuters that the company will cooperate with regulators and automakers if a national recall is required, but that of the “almost 1,000 passenger and driver inflators from outside the high humidity areas that have been evaluated to date, none have ruptured.”

“Takata is concerned that a national recall could potentially divert replacement air bags from where they’re needed, putting lives at risk,” the company said in a statement.

In addition to the request for documents and an expanded recall, NHTSA issued a Special Order to Takata – the second regarding the defective airbags – asking the company to provide documents and detailed information related to the propellant used in the inflators.

It was previously reported that Takata uses an unusual chemical explosive – ammonium nitrate – for the chemical’s ability to make airbags inflate in a matter of milliseconds. Since then the company notified NHTSA of a change in its chemical compound.

Officials with NHTSA say they want to analyze the information received from Takata regarding the chemical to determine if its composition may be the cause or a contributing factor to the airbag inflator ruptures.

Legislators who previously criticized NHTSA for their allowance of regional recalls and called for a criminal investigation into Takata say the new push is welcomed, but may not be large enough in scope.

Senators Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Ed Markey of Massachusetts tell Reuters that NHTSA’s call should also include replacement of passenger side airbags, as well as the driver’s side airbags.

Earlier this month the lawmakers called on the Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation into Takata after news revealed the company secretly tested airbags four years before the first recall was announced.

“Reports that Takata concealed and destroyed test results revealing fatal air bag defects, along with other evidence that the company was aware of these deadly problems, clearly require a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice,” Blumenthal and Markey say in a news release. “If the reports are true, the company must be held accountable for the horrific deaths and injuries that its wrongdoing caused. These allegations are credible and shocking — plainly warranting a prompt and aggressive criminal probe.”

Legislators will have their chance to grill Takata executives and officials from several car manufacturers during a U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing tomorrow afternoon.

USDOT Calls for National Recall of Defective Takata Driver Side Air Bags [NHTSA]

U.S. auto regulator seeks nationwide recall of Takata air bags [Reuters]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Police Searching For Lane Bryant Shopper Accused Of Letting Her Dog Urinate On Store’s Clothes

(JeepersMedia)

There are bad consumers, and then there are shoppers who allow their dogs to do their bathroom business inside the store. And we’re not talking a little “oops” of a light sprinkle, but New Jersey police say one Lane Bryant shopper let her little pet pee on $2,000 worth of store merchandise.

Police are looking for a 35-year-old suspect who’s accused of allegedly allowing her pooch to tinkle on 14 dresses and 11 pairs of pants at a Lane Bryant store, reports the Smoking Gun.

Investigators say the woman and her dog entered the store on Monday afternoon, whereupon the canine went about urinating on the clothing, which totaled about $2,000 in soiled products.

That wasn’t cool with store personnel, who reportedly asked the woman to leave the store. She “became belligerent and refused,” the police report says, so workers called 9-1-1.

But before officers could nab the suspect, she drove off, running several red lights while police followed her. Cops called off the chase upon encountering a wet roadway, concerned that the chase could turn out dangerous for others.

The suspect was identified through her license plate and a physical description, and is now wanted on counts of eluding police and obstruction.

New Jersey Cops Hunt Woman Who Let Her Dog Urinate On $2000 Worth Of Clothing In Lane Bryant Store [The Smoking Gun]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist