February 8, 2012

Posts Comments

You are here: Home / Archives for Target

Target, RiteAid, And Publix Change Policies To Cripple Extreme Couponers

July 6, 2011 By admin

In the past few weeks, three big stores have changed their coupon policies in ways to curb some of the more lucrative coupon tactics. It appears to be fallout over noob extreme couponers inspired by the TLC show Extreme Couponing, who are ruining the game for everyone else.

Target – As we told you a couple of weeks ago, only one BOGO (buy one get one) coupon per purchase. This eliminates “rolling over” where you could combine BOGO offers and rack up a chain of free goods.

RiteAID – Same as above, plus people can only use four of the same coupon. Managers can also choose to limit quantities further if the store is running out.

Publix – Only one manufacturer’s and one store coupon can be used on a single item.

Extreme Couponing: Now Extremely Prohibited [SmartMoney via @tvdeegan]

The Consumerist

Filed Under: Consumer Economic News Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Regulator Steps Up Efforts Against Scams That Target Financially-Strapped Consumers

March 5, 2011 By admin

The Federal Trade Commission today stepped up its ongoing campaign against scammers who falsely promise guaranteed jobs and opportunities to “be your own boss” to consumers who are struggling with unemployment and diminished incomes as a consequence of the economic downturn.

“Operation Empty Promises,” a multi-agency law enforcement initiative today announced more than 90 enforcement actions, including three new FTC cases and developments in seven other matters, 48 criminal actions by the Department of Justice (many of which involved the assistance of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service), seven additional civil actions by the Postal Inspection Service, and 28 actions by state law enforcement agencies in Alaska, California, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

In a press conference at the FTC, David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, was joined by Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice; Greg Campbell, Deputy Chief Inspector of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service; North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper; and a California consumer who had bought into a program to start his own Internet business.

“The victims of these frauds are our neighbors – people who are trying to make an honest living,” said David C. Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Under pressure to make ends meet, they risked their limited financial resources in response to the promise of a job, an income – a chance at a profitable home-based business. But these turned out to be empty promises – and the people who counted on them ended up with high levels of frustration and even higher levels of debt.”

The FTC has updated consumer education materials to help consumers avoid falling victim to these scams. Screen shots from the websites of some of the operators charged in this law enforcement sweep, as well as video footage of FTC Consumer Protection Director Vladeck and FTC attorney Daniel Hanks, are also available at ftc.gov/bizopps or youtube.com/FTCvideos.

Operation Empty Promises: FTC Law Enforcement Actions

The FTC today announced three new law enforcement actions and developments in seven other matters.

Ivy Capital Inc. and 29 co-defendants* allegedly have taken more than million from people who paid thousands of dollars believing Ivy Capital would help them develop their own Internet businesses and earn up to ,000 per month. According to the FTC’s complaint, Ivy Capital’s telemarketers asked consumers how much credit they had on their credit cards and then talked them into using a substantial portion of their available credit to purchase a business coaching program. But the promised products and services were worthless, the complaint alleged. Ivy Capital’s “expert” coaches lacked the promised knowledge and experience, its website-building software programs did not work properly, and the lawyers and accountants the defendants said would provide assistance were nonexistent. Consumers paid up to ,000 for a business coaching program and related products and services but got very little in return.

As alleged in the FTC’s complaint, Ivy Capital’s telemarketers called people who responded to e-mail and advertising about work-at-home or Internet business opportunities from companies such as Jennifer Johnson’s Home Job Placement Program and Brent Austin’s Automated Wealth System. The ads originated from fictional companies Ivy Capital created to generate sales leads – potential customers’ names and phone numbers – for its operation. The complaint further alleged that in calls that could last for more than an hour, Ivy Capital’s telemarketers used high-pressure sales and promised consumers they could make thousands of dollars a week working just 5 to 10 hours. Shortly after signing up for the program, consumers received sales calls from companies affiliated with Ivy Capital offering additional business services, including access to credit, expert tax advice, and other services that could cost thousands of dollars in addition to the original fee. Ivy Capital offered a refund program that, in practice, made it difficult for people to get their money back if they cancelled. According to the FTC complaint, some consumers who repeatedly complained to state and federal agencies were offered refunds, but only if they agreed not to publicly disparage the defendants and kept their refunds confidential.

The Ivy Capital defendants allegedly misrepresented their program’s earning potential, misrepresented the goods and services they would provide, and failed to fully disclose and honor their refund policy, in violation of the FTC Act. They allegedly misrepresented their services, failed to fully disclose their refund policy, called telephone numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, and did not pay the fee for accessing the Registry, in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. On February 22, 2011, the FTC obtained an order that temporarily halted Ivy Capital’s unlawful practices, froze assets, and appointed a receiver to take control of the corporate defendants.

National Sales Group, Anthony J. Newton, Jeremy S. Cooley, and I Life Marketing LLC, also doing business as Executive Sales Network and Certified Sales Jobs, allegedly made false claims to consumers about employment opportunities. According to the FTC’s complaint, they advertised nonexistent sales jobs with good pay and benefits on CareerBuilder.com and other online job boards, and their telemarketers falsely told consumers the company recruited for Fortune 1000 employers and had a unique ability to get them interviewed and hired. The FTC alleged that the defendants charged fees they said covered background checks and other services, and often overcharged, taking from consumers who had agreed to pay or . They also charged some consumers recurring fees of .71 or more per month without their consent. According to other documents filed in court, the operation has generated more than 17,000 complaints to law enforcement agencies, online forums, and job boards – CareerBuilder.com dropped the company from its website due to complaints – and defrauded consumers of at least million.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On February 22, 2011, the court temporarily halted the company’s deceptive practices, froze the defendants’ assets, and put the company into receivership. The FTC acknowledges the assistance of the Santa Barbara Police Department, Better Business Bureau of the Tri-Counties, the California Attorney General’s Office, and CareerBuilder.com.

Business Recovery Services LLC and Brian Hessler allegedly telemarketed products and services they falsely claimed would help consumers recover money they had lost to business opportunity and work-at-home operations, selling hundreds of variations of do-it-yourself kits tailored to particular schemes and priced up to 9. The FTC alleged that they violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule by misrepresenting the nature and effectiveness of their services, and accepting advance payments from consumers for recovering money lost in previous telemarketing transactions without waiting seven business days for the consumers to receive the recovered money, as required by the Rule. According to other documents filed in court, consumers lost an estimated total of .5 million in this scheme.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to refer the complaint for civil penalties to the Department of Justice was 5-0. The Department of Justice filed the complaint on behalf of the Commission in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in order to bring a permanent halt to these practices. The Department of Justice is also requesting that the court issue a preliminary order to stop the defendants from taking advance fees from consumers for the duration of the case.

Other FTC Cases

In addition to the new cases the FTC is announcing today, the FTC is announcing the shutdown of one operation, and settlements or final court orders to permanently stop six other scams. These actions collectively impose monetary judgments totaling more than million.

Darling Angel Pin Creations Inc., Shelly R. Olson, and Judith C. Mendez allegedly claimed in online and newspaper ads that consumers who bought a starter kit could earn up to 0 per week assembling angel pins, with no experience, special tools, or sewing skills required. Consumers paid up to to get started and sometimes paid hundreds of dollars more for supplies. They could not make any money until the company approved one of their pins, but nearly all pins were rejected regardless of quality. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants made false and baseless claims in violation of the FTC Act.

The FTC has obtained a default order against Darling Angel Pin Creations, Inc., that imposes a .5 million judgment against the company, and has also agreed to settlements with both Olson and Mendez. The proposed settlement orders would ban Olson and Mendez from selling work-at-home opportunities and prohibit them from misrepresenting any good or service and making claims about the benefits of products without substantiation. The proposed settlement orders would impose a .5 million judgment that, according to other documents filed in court, reflects the total amount lost by consumers. The judgment would be suspended when Mendez has paid ,000 and surrendered the funds in an IRA account, and when Olson has surrendered all funds in her bank accounts. The full judgment would become due immediately if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the proposed consent judgments was 5-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.

Global U.S. Resources, also doing business as American Publishing, American Publications, American Power Publications, ESM Group, and East Shore Marketing Group; and Louis Salatto allegedly misrepresented the earnings potential of their envelope-stuffing operation – one that claims you can earn money by putting circulars into envelopes. According to the FTC’s complaint, consumers who paid a “refundable” fee, typically , did not receive the promised income ranging from ,200 to ,400 per week. Consumers typically received either nothing or a pamphlet listing other bogus work-at-home opportunities and instructions for marketing them. Those who sought refunds were typically unable to reach anyone at the company and could get refunds only by complaining to a Better Business Bureau or a law enforcement agency.

The court ordered the defendants to pay a .2 million judgment that, according to other documents filed in court, reflects the total amount of money lost by more than 50,000 consumers, and banned them from selling work-at-home opportunities. The order also prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting any good or service, and from selling or otherwise benefitting from customers’ personal information, and requires them to properly dispose of customers’ personal information within 30 days. The default order was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The FTC acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Office of Attorney General in Connecticut, and the Better Business Bureau serving Connecticut.

U.S. Work Alliance, Inc., doing business as Exam Services; Tyler Franklin Long; and Brenda Long allegedly falsely represented an affiliation with the U.S. Postal Service and claimed postal jobs were available in areas where their ads appeared, in violation of the FTC Act. According to the FTC’s complaint, they also falsely claimed that consumers who used their materials would be more likely to pass the postal exam than others, and that those who passed would be hired. After a trial, the court entered an order requiring U.S. Work Alliance and Tyler Long to pay a .6 million judgment that, according to other documents filed in court, reflects the total amount of money lost by consumers. The court order bans the defendants from marketing employment services and prohibits them from making any misrepresentations in advertising their affiliation with or endorsement by any entity, the total cost of services, and the terms of any refund policy. They also are barred from selling or otherwise benefitting from customers’ information, and they must properly dispose of it within 30 days. Brenda Long previously agreed to a consent order, and the claims against her were resolved. The order was entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Preferred Platinum Services Network, LLC, also doing business as Home Based Associate Program, The Postcard Processing Program, and PPSN LLC, and its owners, Philip D. Pestrichello, and Rosalie Florie, allegedly marketed and sold, for a supposed one-time fee, a fraudulent work-at-home opportunity promising consumers they could earn for each postcard they labeled. According to the FTC’s complaint, no consumer earned the promised income, and few, if any, received any income at all. In addition, the defendants did not disclose that each additional batch of postcards would cost consumers an extra fee. The FTC alleged that consumers who tried to cancel their membership or requested a refund were denied. An order entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey imposes on the defendants a .3 million judgment that, according to other documents filed in court, reflects the amount consumers lost, and bans Pestrichello and Florie from selling work-at-home opportunities. The default order also prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting any good or service and from selling or otherwise benefitting from customers’ personal information, which they must properly dispose of within 30 days.

This case was brought with assistance from the U. S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York; the Newark, New Jersey Division of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service; the Office of the Attorney General of New Jersey; the Ocean County Department of Consumer Affairs; and the Better Business Bureau of New Jersey. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York brought criminal charges against Pestrichello and Florie for mail fraud. In December 2010, a federal judge sentenced Pestrichello to 97 months in prison and three years supervised release, and ordered the forfeiture of million and restitution of ,000. The U.S. Attorney entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with Florie.

Abili-Staff Ltd., Equitron LLC, Pamela Jean Barthuly, and Jorg Wilhelm Becker allegedly sold work-at-home opportunities online, promising that, in exchange for a fee of up to .99, consumers would have unlimited, password-protected access to more than 1,000 job listings and get a full refund if they did not get a job. They claimed to be “scam free” and “legitimate,” but according to the FTC’s complaint, Abili-Staff blocked customers from accessing its website before their membership expired, and exaggerated the number of jobs listed. Customers who tried to get a refund got a run-around from the company instead. Under a court order, the defendants are banned from selling work-at-home opportunities and prohibited from misrepresenting any good or service. They also are barred from selling or otherwise benefitting from customers’ personal information, and they must properly dispose of it within 30 days. They will pay about 0,000 of a .6 million judgment, the balance of which is suspended due to their inability to pay. The full judgment will be imposed immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. According to other documents filed in court, an estimated 75,000 consumers lost a total of more than million in this scheme. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the consent judgment was 5-0. The consent judgment was entered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division.

Entertainment Work, Inc., which also operated as Resource Publishing Co. and Resource Publishing of Delaware, and its owners, Jason Arthur Barnes and Racquelle Hart Barnes, allegedly sold trial memberships through a website by falsely telling consumers it listed local jobs as “extras” in movies and television. According to the FTC’s complaint, the website in fact mainly listed jobs that were either out-of-date, unrelated to work as an “extra,” or not local to the consumer. The company also allegedly failed to disclose that consumers would have to pay an extra fee or undertake a burdensome cancellation process to avoid an automatic extension of their trial membership that would cost an extra .

Under the settlement agreement, the defendants are banned from marketing employment products or services and prohibited from making misleading claims when advertising or selling any good or service. They also are barred from selling or otherwise benefitting from customers’ personal information, and they must properly dispose of it within 30 days. In addition, they must make appropriate disclosures when selling products through “negative option” transactions, in which the seller interprets consumers’ silence or inaction as permission to charge them. The settlement imposes a judgment of .4 million, which reflects the amount consumers paid Entertainment Work. The judgment has been suspended in part based on the defendants’ inability to pay the full amount. The full judgment will be imposed if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the consent judgment was 5-0. The judgment was entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

La Asociacion Nacional de Trabajo, also known as L.A.N.D.T., allegedly placed Spanish-language advertising throughout the country and told people who called them that, for a fee of about , they could begin earning up to ,000 per week by working at home assembling products such as keychains. In response to an inquiry by the FTC staff, the company ceased all advertising and sales of its products.

*Ivy Capital Inc. defendants – The defendants are Kyle G. Kirschbaum, John H. Harrison, Steven E. Lyman, Benjamin E. Hoskins, Christopher M. Zelig, Steven J. Sonnenberg, James G. Hanchett, Joshua F. Wickman, Ivy Capital Inc., Fortune Learning System LLC, Fortune Learning LLC, Vianet Inc., Enrich Wealth Group LLC, Business Development Division LLC, Nevada Corporate Division Inc., Nevada Corporate Division LLC, Credit Repair Division Inc., Credit Repair Division LLC, Tax Planning Division LLC, Zyzac Commerce Solutions Inc., 3 Day MBA LLC, The Shipper LLC, doing business as Wholesalematch.com, Global Finance Group LLC and Virtual Profit LLC, Dream Financial, ICI Development Inc., Ivy Capital LLC, Logic Solutions LLC, Oxford Debt Holdings LLC, Revsynergy LLC, and Sell It Vizions LLC. The relief defendants are Cherrytree Holdings LLC, Oxford Financial LLC, S&T Time LLC, Virtucon LLC, Curva LLC, Mowab Inc., Kierston Kirschbaum, Melyna Harrison, Tracy Lyman, and Leanne Hoskins.

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. The consent orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. A consent order is subject to court approval and has the force of law when signed by the District Court judge.

Click these links for information about business opportunities, job scams, federal and postal job scams, work-at-home schemes, and envelope-stuffing rip-offs.

SOURCE: FTC 

Case Information

Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff v. Ivy Capital, Inc.; Fortune Learning System, LLC; Fortune Learning, LLC, Vianet, Inc.; Enrich Wealth Group, LLC; Business Development Division, LLC; Nevada Corporate Division, Inc.; Corporate Credit Division, LLC; Credit Repair Division, LLC; Tax Planning Division, LLC; Zyzac Commerce Solutions, Inc.; The Shipper, LLC, also doing business as Wholesalematch.com; 3 Day MBA, LLC; Global Finance Group, LLC; Virtual Profit, LLC; Dream Financial; ICI Development, Inc.; Ivy Capital, LLC; Logic Solutions, LLC; Oxford Debt Holdings, LLC, Revsynergy, LLC; Sell It Vizions, LLC; Kyle G. Kirschbaum, Individually and as an Officer of Defendants Ivy Capital, Inc., Vianet, Inc., ICI Development, Inc., Oxford Debt Holdings, LLC, and Sell It Vizions, LLC; John H. Harrison, Individually and as an Officer of Defendants Ivy Capital, Inc., Fortune Learning System, LLC, Vianet, Inc., Business Development Division, LLC, Corporate Credit Division, LLC, Credit Repair Division, LLC, Tax Planning Division, LLC, 3 Day MBA, LLC, ICI Development , Inc., Logic Solutions, LLC, Oxford Debt Holdings, LLC, Revsynergy, LLC, and Sell It Vizions, LLC; Steven E. Lyman, Individually and as an Officer of Defendants Ivy Capital, Inc., Vianet, Inc., ICI Development, Inc., Logic Solutions, LLC, Oxford Debt Holdings, LLC, Sell It Vizions, LLC, and Virtual Profit, LLC; Benjamin E. Hoskins, Individually and as an Officer of Defendants Dream Financial, Logic Solutions, LLC, Oxford Debt Holdings, LLC, Sell It Vizions, LLC, and Global Finance Group, LLC; Christopher M. Zelig, Individually and as an Officer of Defendant Zyzac Commerce Solutions, Inc.; Steven J. Sonnenberg, Individually and as a Manager of Defendants Fortune Learning , LLC and The Shipper, LLC, also doing business as Wholesalematch.com; James G. Hanchett, Individually and as a Manager of Defendant Fortune Learning, LLC; and Joshua F. Wickman, Individually and as an Owner of Defendant Enrich Wealth Group, LLC, Defendants; and Cherrytree Holdings, LLC; Oxford Financial, LLC; S&T Time, LLC; and Virtucon, LLC; Curva, LLC; Mowab, Inc., Kierston Kirschbaum; Melyna Harrison; Tracy Lyman; and Leanne Hoskins, Relief Defendants
(United States District Court District of Nevada)
Case No. 2:11-cv-00283-JCM-GWF
File No. 1023218

Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. National Sales Group, I Life Marketing LLC, also doing business as Executive Sales Network and Certified Sales Jobs, Anthony J. Newton, and Jeremy S. Cooley, Defendants
(United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division)
Case No. 11-cv-01230
File No. 10232246

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Business Recovery Services, LLC, and Brian Hessler, Individually, and as Owner, Officer, or Manager of Business Recovery Services, LLC, Defendants
(United States District Court for the District of Arizona)
Case No. 2-11-cv-00390-JAT
File No. 1123009

FTC v. Darling Angel Pin Creations, Inc., a Florida corporation, also doing business as Angel Pin Creations; Shelly R. Olson, individually and as an officer of Darling Angel Pin Creations, Inc.; and Judith C. Mendez, individually and as an officer of Darling Angel Pin Creations, Inc.
(United States District Court For the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division)
Civil 8:10-cv-00335-JSM-TGW
FTC File No.   092 3191

Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Global U.S. Resources, also doing business as American Publishing, American Publications, American Power Publications, ESM Group, and East Shore Marketing Group, and Louis Salatto, individually and as an officer of Global U.S. Resources, Defendants
(United States District Court For the District of Connecticut)
Case No. 310CV01457
FTC File No. 102 3162

Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Work Alliance, Inc., a Nevada corporation doing business as Exam Services, Tyler Franklin Long, individually, and as an owner, officer director or manager of above-listed corporation, and Brenda Long, individually, and as owner, officer director or manager of above-listed corporation, Defendants
(United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division)
Civil Action No.: 1:08-cv-2053-WSD;
FTC File No.: 072 3232

FTC v. Preferred Platinum Services Network, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, also doing business as Home Based Associate Program, The Postcard Processing Program, and PPSN, LLC, Rosalie Florie, individually and as the managing member of Preferred Platinum Services Network LLC, and Philip D. Pestrichello, individually.
(United States District Court District of New Jersey)
Civil Action No. 10-CV-538
FTC File No. 092 3213

Federal Trade Commission v. Abili-Staff, Ltd., a limited partnership also d/b/a moneyfromhome.com, moneyfromhome.net, and jobsformoms.com; Equitron, LLC, a limited liability company; Pamela Jean Barthuly, individually and as an officer of Equitron, LLC; and Jorg Wilhelm Becker, individually and as a member of Equitron, LLC, Defendants.
(United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division)
Civil Action No.: 5:10-cv-00088-OLG
FTC File No. 092 3196

FTC v. Resource Publishing Co., a corporation, also d/b/a Entertainment Work, Inc., and Resource Publishing Co. of Delaware, Jason Arthur Barnes, individually and as an officer of Resource Publishing Co., and Racquelle Hart Barnes, individually and as an officer of Resource Publishing Co.
(United States District Court Southern District of Florida)
Civil Action No. 01-CV-80191
FTC File No. 102 3007

La Asociacion National de Trabajo (L.A.N.D.T.) (Closing Letter)

Operation Empty Promises: U.S. Dept. of Justice & U.S. Postal Inspection Service Actions

Operation Empty Promises: State Actions

spacer

Ivy Capital Screen Shots:

  • Exhibit A
  • Exhibit B
  • Exhibit C
  • Exhibit D

L.A.N.D.T Screen Shots:

  • Exhibit A
  • Exhibit B
  • Exhibit C

NSG Screen Shots and Audio:

  • Exhibit A
  • Exhibit B
  • Exhibit C
  • Exhibit D
  • Exhibit E (Audio)

FMD Consumer Blog

Filed Under: Consumer Economic News Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Housebuilders to win reduced carbon target for homes

August 30, 2010 By admin

Green color in lake near Wizard Island, Crater Lake National Park, Oregon
green

Image by Martin LaBar
The colors are as they were. The green is probably from some sort of mineral.

• Government to water down 2016 ‘zero carbon’ target for new homes
• Environmentalists call the move a ‘travesty’

One of the UK’s most radical environmental policies – requiring all new homes from 2016 to be “zero carbon” – is set to be scaled back amid pressure from the housebuilding industry.

Builders claim the proposals would be too expensive and impossible to implement for many flats, and would result in a slump in the rate of homes built. Now tThe Guardian has learned that the government is ready to water down the target, a move environmentalists have said would be a “travesty”.

A “zero carbon home” requires a 150% reduction in carbon emissions, a target which includes emissions from household appliances, heating and lighting. The plan was to achieve these savings from improved energy efficiency and on-site renewables.

Housebuilders argued this was too ambitious and agreed a compromise where only 70% of the reduction would be on-site. The rest would be achieved by housebuilders paying £4,500 a house into a community energy fund, to finance small renewable energy projects or energy-efficiency measures.

Now housebuilders say even this is too ambitious. The Home Builders’ Federation says buyers would not be prepared to pay the 20% premium for a home. The Zero Carbon Hub, set up to co-ordinate policy, has begun final testing of the target and will make recommendations to ministers this year.

But the Guardian has learned that policymakers and senior figures at Communities and Local Government accept the target is too high and more emissions will have to be “offset”.

Simon McWhirter, homes spokesman from charity WWF, said: “David Cameron said this would be the greenest government ever but we are already seeing a potential weakening of one of the most progressive environmental policies which would be a travesty.”

Housing minister Grant Shapps said: “We need to set a realistic benchmark for carbon emissions in building regulations which also takes account of costs.”

  • Construction industry
  • Carbon emissions
  • Carbon offsetting
  • House prices
  • Ethical and green living
  • Emissions trading
Tim Webb


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Environment: Ethical and green living | guardian.co.uk

Filed Under: Consumer Economic News Tagged With: , , , ,

It’s Never Too Late To Haggle, Even At Target

August 10, 2010 By admin

Abusive Delay is Now Abusive Consumer
consumer

Image by Dead Air
Abusive Delay (who has since changed his name to Abusive Consumer) performed live on What’s This Called? on KPSU, Saturday, May 2nd, 2009.

For the next week, you can still download the program as an MP3 or play the audio stream HERE!

Kyle just emailed us a recap of his successful haggling adventure at Target this past weekend. If you’re afraid to try haggling at a big chain store, check out his story for an example of how to make it pleasant for all parties involved; the goal is to approach it as a negotiation where everyone wins, not as a zero-sum competition.

This weekend I found I was in desperate need of four dining room chairs for game night. Running short on time (and cash) I went to Target to see if they had anything I could use. I picked out two black wooden chairs and had a sales associate grab two more from the back for me.

I found that nearly all the chairs had scratches and one of them had a substantial crack in one of the supports. I asked a manager if she “could give me any sort of consideration…” for the defects. She politely told me that Target policy was to return and destroy defective furniture, and she didn’t think she could offer me any discount.

I told her it would be a shame to destroy a chair rather than sell it, pointed out that I was purchasing four of them, and mentioned I still had enough time to shop around if I needed.

We went to the customer service manager, who agreed to give me 13% off the entire order! I spent an extra .00 on paint and wood glue, and now I have four perfect chairs in my dining room!

The Consumerist

Filed Under: Consumer Economic News Tagged With: , , , , ,

Why Target And Best Buy’s Support Of Anti-Gay Bigots Is Going To Change The Way You Shop Forever

August 9, 2010 By admin

Electronics Companies, Retailers Team to Simplify Green Electronics Purchasing for Consumers
consumer

Image by kevindooley
This is the project I am leading…
===

TEMPE, Ariz., Jan 21, 2010 /PRNewswire/ –

The Sustainability Consortium, along with leaders in the manufacturing and sales of consumer electronics, today announced plans to establish a system, including social and environmental considerations, to help consumers identify "green" electronics. The Sustainability Consortium is co-administered by Arizona State University and the University of Arkansas.

Working with Best Buy, Dell, HP, Intel, Toshiba, and Walmart, the consortium will research and publish findings on the lifecycle environmental and social impacts of electronic products. These findings will be used to support efforts to identify products as sustainable or "green." This type of information is designed to reduce consumer confusion and help standardize product claims.

"Customers tell us they want to purchase electronics that have a minimal impact on our planet. This is an effort to help them do that using a common methodology that manufacturers across the industry participate in," said Scott O’Connell, environmental strategist, Dell. "This is about making it easy for customers to determine what’s ‘green’ and what’s not, and we’d like to have the whole industry involved."

In developing the criteria, the consortium will consider the impacts electronics have on those who build, use and dispose of them, as well as their environmental impacts throughout their lifecycle. It also is investigating how to collaborate with standards and programs with which consumers are already familiar, such as EPEAT(R) (the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool) and ENERGY STAR(R), and standards set forth by the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition.

"Developing additional detailed information on the lifecycle impacts of electronics will not only help our customers make educated buying decisions, but assist companies to make clear, pointed product sustainability claims," said Engelina Jaspers, vice president of environmental sustainability, HP. "Reaching uniformity in communicating sustainability claims will be a decision made in the name of consistency, transparency, and simplicity and will benefit all involved."

The consortium will release initial results of its work in the third quarter of 2010. "Our initial work is focused on criteria for laptops, desktops and monitors," said Dr. Kevin Dooley of the Sustainability Consortium and a professor in the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. "We plan to expand the project to a broader set of electronic goods later in the year, when additional manufacturers and suppliers will be recruited to the project."

"Best Buy recognizes that we have an obligation to provide customers with products and solutions that help them move toward an increasingly sustainable future," said Mary Capozzi, senior director of corporate responsibility, Best Buy. "As we make it easier for customers to choose more sustainable products, demand for them will increase and provide manufacturers with an incentive to make products that are more environmentally and socially responsible."

Target gave 0,000. Best Buy chipped in 0,000. Companies supporting politicians or their political action committees isn’t new. A quarter-million dollars for Minnesota Forward—a group that supports anti-gay rights candidates like Tom Emmer—might seem like a gay rights issue, but it’s so much more. It represents the next frontier in consumer activism and a world where every purchase acts as a political statement. Join us inside as we explain.

What Is Minnesota Forward And Who The Hell Is Tom Emmer?

Tom Emmer is a candidate to be Minnesota’s next governor. He’s an ultra-conservative with an agenda. Everyone, of course, is entitled to their political views. His include allowing pharmacists to refuse contraception to whomever they want, shuttering the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, and supporting a group that encourages the execution of homosexuals. He thinks taxes are evil and wants them cut them like an emo hipster with a Swiss Army knife.

Minnesota Forward—actually, let’s just stop there for a moment. Isn’t Minnesota Forward a great name? We can all get behind going forward, right? Breathe it in, hear how wonderful it sounds: Paid For By Minnesota Forward. Ahhhh. Nobody but communists and terrorists could oppose a group with a name like that!

Minnesota Forward is actually a Minnesota Chamber of Commerce production, a political action committee established for the sole purpose of raking in corporate donations. It’s been a wild success so far, collecting 0,000 from just four corporations, including Target and Best Buy. Minnesota Forward supports Tom Emmer and his anti-gay platform, and has already started airing ads promoting his campaign.

Ok, Corporations Donated Money. Doesn’t That Happen All The Time?

This is different. Back in the good old days, corporations couldn’t spend money on behalf of candidates. If Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel thought Tom Emmer was good for Target, he had two options: donate directly to Emmer, or as Target’s CEO, establish a political action committee (PAC). Steinhafel did exactly that. He, along with Target’s CEO, CFO, CMO, and their executive vice presidents, all individually contributed tens of thousands of dollars to anti-gay candidates like Emmer. Those, however, were individual donations, and so we really don’t care about them.

We also don’t really care about the money from Target’s political action committee (PAC), the Target Citizens Political Forum. PACs were the vehicle corporations used to spend money on elections, which sounds an awful like what is happening now, but isn’t. The difference is in the funding. Corporations weren’t allowed to donate directly from their corporate treasury to PACs. Instead, the corporation’s employees needed to donate money to the PAC as individuals. That meant a few thousand dollars from the CEO and the other board members, and anyone else who trusted the corporation to represent its interests. The PAC was limited by whatever money it could collect—that Target had millions in its corporate treasury meant nothing if they could only collect thousands from their employees. From those limited funds, the PAC could then donate to candidates and make independent expenditures.

That too, is what happened. Besides making their own contributions as individuals, Target’s executive officers also contributed to Target’s PAC, which then gave money to anti-gay candidates and to anti-gay ballot measures like Proposition 8. All of the money, though, was donated by people in their capacity as individuals.

The Supreme Court didn’t like this system one bit and tossed it out in a case called Citizen’s United. The reasoning behind the decision is technical, but it boils down to this: corporations, like people, have a right to speech, and because money is speech, limitations on corporate spending are unconstitutional. As a result, corporations are now free to promote their views by making unlimited independent contributions that flow directly from their corporate treasuries.

So now, Steinhafel’s ability to spend isn’t limited by his ability to collect contributions from his individual employees. Instead, as the CEO of Target, he can use his corporation’s treasury to spend as much corporate money as he wants to support whoever or whatever he wants. That’s how Best Buy and Target were able to give 0,000 from their corporate treasuries to a group with a shadowy name that supports anti-gay bigots.

What’s Wrong With Corporations Promoting Their Views?

Minnesota Forward, Target, and Best Buy are all trying to defend their contributions to Emmer by arguing that they are really only interested in economic issues. Target bluntly explains that they support candidates who “seek to advance policies aligned with our business objectives.” Best Buy cloaks their support in more general terms, claiming their interest is limited to “jobs and economic issues.” What does that really mean?

Corporations have transparent but uniform policy goals: less regulation and lower corporate taxes. Corporations don’t want the government telling them how long they can hold passengers hostage on the tarmac. They think the freedom to contract means a freedom to impose early termination fees and the freedom not to disclose of any of their fees at all. Corporations see government as an obstacle, which is partly why they established their own private judiciary. As for taxes, lower corporate taxes mean higher corporate profits. They can’t lose! But don’t kid yourself, government finance is a zero-sum game. If corporations like Target and Best Buy pay less, people like you and me need to pay more.

When you look at the states that have enacted the sort of economic agenda that businesses crave, they happen to be the same states that offer absolutely no state-level protection for gay rights; less regulation means less protection for all consumers. Target and Best Buy’s blind support for economic issues makes it impossible for them to truly support social issues. Target has tried to paper over the donation by issuing a forest’s worth of apologies and pointing to its treatment of GBLT workers. But what’s the meaning of Target’s support if their candidates actively work to eviscerate the very protections Target claims to promote?

Where Do I Fit In?

Target has apologized for its donation, but they haven’t yet asked for their money back. Best Buy hasn’t even apologized. You can bet that every CEO with a political agenda is watching to see what happens next. If this goes away without a murmur, why wouldn’t they uncork their corporate treasuries to promote their views, too?

This politicization of corporate treasuries means that your individual economic purchasing decisions will soon make an even clearer social and political statement than they already do. You won’t even need to look at someone’s book collection when you can instead ask where they bought their bookshelves.The stores you patronize will turn your money into speech. As consumers, you need to ask whether their donations speak for you.

This means that boycotts, usually reserved for extreme offenses, are now on the table as a suddenly normal method of political speech. If you don’t want to support anti-gay bigots, less consumer protection, and higher personal taxes, do not give your money to Target or Best Buy.

But let’s not kid ourselves. If you don’t buy your DVD player at Best Buy, where will you buy it? Is Radio Shack all that different from Best Buy; Verizon different from AT&T; HSBC different from Bank of America? If one corporation donates to candidates who want to raise your personal taxes and strip away consumer protections, do we really expect better of the other? They can try to differentiate themselves in the market, but if they decide to enter the political sphere, they are likely to support the same agenda. Call it the price of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of free speech.

So what can you really do? Well, we hear New Zealand is a lovely country.

Tom Emmer, Minnesota’s Last Sovereign Individual [The Awl] (Abe Sauer at The Awl did truly phenomenal reporting and it’s worth reading his coverage in its entirety.)
Why Target Supports Tom Emmer [The Awl]
Target CEO Chooses “Business” over Gay Rights [The Awl]
Your Civil Rights Sausage Is Made in Minnesota [The Awl]
Target Doesn’t Support Gay Equality Because It Never Did [The Awl]

The Consumerist

Filed Under: Consumer Economic News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Powered by Yahoo! Answers