JPMorgan Chase To Pay $4.6M For Allegedly Failing To Ensure It Furnished Accurate Customer Information

When opening a checking account, a bank will review a customer’s past banking history supplied from their previous financial institution. JPMorgan Chase allegedly failed to ensure this information was accurate and often left customers in the dark about why their applications were denied or who to contact to dispute these findings. For this, the company will pay a $4.6 million fine. 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced today that an investigation found Chase violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to have adequate policies in place regarding the accuracy of information it reported about consumers’ checking account behavior.

The Ohio-based banking giant furnishes information about its checking accounts to nationwide specialty consumer reporting companies. This information is then used by other banks to screen potential customers based on their prior checking account behavior, including whether an account was closed due to an unpaid negative balance or due to suspected fraudulent activity.

Because Chase allegedly didn’t have proper processes in place to ensure this information was correct, it’s possible that consumers were wrongly denied the ability to open accounts. Additionally, if applicants did not receive the proper information on who furnished the data or why their applications were denied, they were unable remedy the situation.

Not Following The Rules

According to the complaint, Chase failed to establish and implement reasonable policies and procedures for reporting information about consumers’ deposit accounts.

Without adequate policies and procedures, the CFPB claims, there is a risk that a financial institution may report inaccurate information about consumers’ checking account history.

When a customer feels that reported information is inaccurate they can dispute the report with the company who supplied it. These companies, which would include Chase, are required to provide consumers with the results of the investigation into the disputes.

In Chase’s case, the CFPB alleges that from July 2010 to Dec. 2014, the company failed to provide this service to thousands of customers.

Additionally, the CFPB claims that between Oct. 2014 and Feb. 2015 Chase sent denial notices to about 17,500 checking account applicants.

These notices, however, allegedly failed to include the name and contact information of the nationwide specialty consumer reporting company that supplied the information upon which Chase’s denial was based, a requirement when sending such denial notifications.

Fixing The Issues

Under the CFPB’s consent order [PDF] resolving the issues, Chase must pay a $4.6 million penalty to the Bureau’s Civil Penalty Fund.

The bank, which did not admit wrongdoing, must also implement reasonable policies and procedures regarding the accuracy of information on consumers’ checking account behavior, inform customers of dispute outcomes, and provide customers with the information of consumer reporting companies providing data used to screen checking account applicants.

“Since identifying the issues three years ago, we significantly improved our procedures for sharing information with agencies,” a rep for Chase told Consumerist.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

NASA Is Hiring A Planetary Protection Officer And No This Is Not A Joke

Look, guys. I don’t know for sure whether or not aliens exist. But I do know that if they come after us, I want someone in charge of protecting the planet from harm. NASA wants that too, so they’re hiring a Planetary Protection Officer tasked with keeping us safe from outerspace threats.

Specifically, whoever is hired for the position of Planetary Protection Officer will work in the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance for Planetary Protection, which is concerned with “the avoidance of organic-constituent and biological contamination in human and robotic space exploration.”

Simply put: NASA doesn’t want anyone — human or robot — on a space mission bringing back something they shouldn’t, intentionally or unintentionally, or spreading that stuff around elsewhere in the solar system.

NASA’s policies regarding planetary protection are applicable to all space flight missions that are “intended to return to Earth and its biosphere with samples from extraterrestrial targets of exploration.”

To that end, the PPO is responsible for things like leading NASA’s planetary protection capability, maintenance of planetary protection policies, and oversight of their implementation by NASA’s space flight missions.

While the listing notes that “Frequent travel may be required,” it does not indicate whether that travel will be at lightspeed.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Wells Fargo Subpoenaed Over Alleged Insurance Scheme That Resulted In 25,000 Vehicle Repossessions

Less than a week after a report alleged, and Wells Fargo admitted, to charging its auto loan customers for unnecessary and unwanted insurance, the bank has been subpoenaed by New York state banking and insurance regulators over the matter. 

Reuters reports that the New York Department of Financial Services sent subpoenas to two of Wells Fargo’s banking units today in order to determine just how long the bank was aware of the unwanted insurance charges and the steps it has taken to resolve the issues.

The NYDFS subpoenas — sent to Wells and its insurance division — also requested loan contracts between the bank and New York borrowers, as well as agreements between the financial institution, auto dealers, and insurers.

The subpoena gave Wells Fargo until Aug. 22 to provide NYDFS with requested information. National General Insurance, the underwriter of the Wells Fargo’s policies in question, was also subpoenaed by NYDFS.

Consumerist has reached out to NYDFS for copies of the subpoenas and Wells Fargo for comment on the requests. We’ll update this post if we hear back.

The Alleged Scheme

For those unfamiliar, The New York Times broke news of the 60-page report that alleged that Wells Fargo charged more than 800,000 borrowers for unwanted or unneeded Collateral Protection Insurance, eventually leading to the repossession of more than 25,000 vehicles.

The insurance, which the bank required on auto loans beginning in 2006, was automatically added to customers’ tabs through Wells Fargo’s Dealer Services unit.

When a customer came to Wells Fargo for an auto loan their information was sent to National General. While the company was supposed to check to see if the customer already had insurance, that didn’t always happen, the report states.

Instead, a new insurance policy — often more expensive than the auto insurance customers had already acquired — would be added to the borrower’s account.

Of those pushed into the coverage, the report notes that 274,000 Wells Fargo customers were unable to pay for the insurance, eventually entering delinquency.

The delinquencies and repossessions were a consequence of the way Wells Fargo charged for the insurance, the report states. In some cases, customers who agreed to have their monthly loan payments deducted from their bank account automatically weren’t notified that the insurance payment would be added to that amount. As a result, some accounts could become overdrawn.

Making It Right

Wells Fargo admitted last week that it was aware of the issue, and had been for nearly a year. The company said that it initiated a review of the CPI program and related third-party vendor practices back in July 2016, discontinuing the CPI program in Sept. 2016.

However, it had not addressed the issue publicly until last week. At that point, Wells Fargo said it would refund customers who were financially harmed by CPI policies issued between 2012 and 2017.

“We take full responsibility for our failure to appropriately manage the CPI program and are extremely sorry for any harm this caused our customers, who expect and deserve better from us,” Franklin Codel, head of Wells Fargo Consumer Lending, said in a statement.

Wells Fargo notes that while it has been providing CPI-related refunds to some customers, beginning next month it will send letters and refunds checks to customers who are due additional payments.

The bank said it identified approximately 570,000 customers who may have been impacted by the scheme. In all, approximately $64 million in cash remediation will be sent to customers in the coming months, along with $16 million of account adjustments, for a total of approximately $80 million in remediation.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

‘Certified Angus Beef’ Brand Ground Chuck Recalled For Potential Styrofoam Pieces

People don’t want fillers in their ground beef, and they especially don’t want fillers that are not, strictly speaking, food. That’s why 4,922 pounds of ground beef have been recalled: The processor discovered that it may have chunks of the extruded polystyrene (what we commonly refer to as “styrofoam”) mixed in with the beef.

What you should look for: The recalled products are 2-pound packages of 80% lean/20% fat ground chuck. They were packaged by JBS USA in North Carolina and distributed from North Carolina, but could have ended up at any of the many retailers that sell Certified Angus Beef brand products.

Look for a production date of 7/15/17 and a case code of 541640. They’ll be marked with USDA establishment number 34176.

What you should do: Don’t eat the beef. You can return the items to the store where they were purchased, or call JBS at (970) 506-7717 if you find this particular beef package in your freezer.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture didn’t distribute a list of retail stores where this ground beef was sold because styro-bits aren’t considered an actual danger to consumers. They’re annoying and shouldn’t be there, but consuming them won’t hurt your teeth or digestive tract.

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Uniqlo Wants To Sell Shirts In Airport Vending Machines

Splashed by a cab in the rain at the airport? Hit by a bit of projectile vomit unleashed by your offspring? Uniqlo will sell you a shirt out of a vending machine at the airport.

The retailer, owned by The Fast Retailing Co., will install 10 clothing vending machines over the next month or so in airports and malls near New York City, Houston, Oakland, CA, and other U.S. locations, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Shoppers will be able to choose from lightweight down jackets and heat-retaining shirts in various colors and sizes. The products can be returned in a store or by mail if you aren’t satisfied.

Uniqlo is trying to lure new customers in the U.S., and operating a vending machine costs a lot less than opening a new store.

Plus, you can put them in places where people may find themselves in need of clothing, like when their bags go missing after a flight.

“We’re trying to understand where we can be more successful without making a big commitment,” Marisol Tamaro, Uniqlo’s U.S. marketing chief, explained to the WSJ.

Vending machines in airports are nothing new: You can buy makeup or electronics before you board the plane, in case you are going to meet Tom Hanks in Seattle but you forgot your mascara and your ear buds, and you want to look nice/listen to romantic music on the way.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

New York AG Says States Will Do “Whatever We Have To” To Make Sure Obamacare Subsidies Continue

A federal appeals court recently allowed a coalition of more than a dozen states to intervene in a long-running lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of billions of dollars in federal subsidy payments to insurance providers. But regardless of what happens in that case, President Trump has repeatedly dangled the threat that he could pull the plug on those payments at any time. The states coalition says it is preparing for that possibility and is ready to take the White House to court if necessary.

For those who aren’t familiar, the Affordable Care Act provides for the federal government to make significant monthly payments to insurers who participate in the individual health insurance exchanges. These cost-sharing subsidies — which could total around $7 billion this year — are intended to keep out-of-pocket expenses, like co-pays and deductibles, low, particularly for Americans making between 100% and 250% of the federal poverty line.

In addition to the now three-year-old legal challenge brought by House Republicans, who accuse President Obama of overstepping his authority in allowing these subsidies, the Trump administration has repeatedly, and publicly, reminded the insurance industry that it can cut off these payments, which the President has dubbed “bailouts,” whenever it chooses.

Most recently, after the Senate failed to pass any Obamacare repeal or replacement legislation, President Trump Tweeted that, “If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!”

This morning, Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney did little to walk back that threat, telling CNN that “We said from the very beginning that we would look at [subsidies] on a month-by-month basis… That has not changed.”

Whatever one thinks of the subsidies, there is no argument that ending the payments — while still requiring insurers to cover a large variety of essential health benefits and not allowing them to charge higher premiums, or deny policies, to Americans with pre-existing conditions — would likely have devastating results. It’s largely expected that insurers would raise premiums by at least 20% and many providers would leave the individual market entirely.

This afternoon, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is leading the multi-state coalition intervening in the lawsuit over these subsidies, said the same states will do “whatever we have to” to make sure the subsidies continue.

“If the Trump administration attempts to stop payments, we will challenge them in court,” explained Schneiderman.

Mulvaney and Trump have repeatedly made the claim that the White House has the authority to cut off the ACA subsidy firehose whenever it wants. However, Schneiderman counters that this doesn’t seem to be the opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Last night, in its order granting the states’ request to intervene in the subsidy lawsuit, the appeals panel cast some doubt on the administration’s ability to turn the payments on and off, calling it a “debated legal question,” rather than an established fact.

So if Trump does move to stop the payments, would the states be able to seek an injunction as part of the pending lawsuit, or would they have to file a separate action?

Schneiderman said that all “depends on the exact nature of the action” taken by the Trump administration. The President’s statements on the topic, particularly on social media, have been “all over the place” according to Schneiderman, so it’s a little hard to predict how and when the White House might make a move. “We have to tailor our response depending on the exact nature of the attack.”

As the New York AG pointed out, a decision to end these insurance subsidies would likely result in legal challenges from a variety of interested parties who could be injured by the collapse of the individual market: states, insurance companies, healthcare providers, consumers.

“He’s not gonna get away with this without a challenge,” said Schneiderman, “and there may be multiple challenges in multiple courts.”

The subsidies are likely to be a big part of any bipartisan discussion that occurs in Congress about reforming the current healthcare law.

“The first bill that we should consider is how to stabilize the market,” said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of the three GOP votes against the latest repeal-and-replace efforts. “That is a key component to ensure that those payments continue to be made to benefit low-income Americans.”

The Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee has already scheduled a hearing on Sept. 4 on what must be done to stabilize the currently volatile individual market.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Qatar Airways Giving Up On Plan To Buy Large Chunk Of American Airlines

A few weeks after Qatar Airways let it be known that it was interested in purchasing about a 10% share in American Airlines, the carrier has decided to give up its pursuit.

The airline said in a statement that after further review, it has “taken the decision not to proceed with its proposed passive financial investment in American Airlines,” noting that the plan “no longer meets our objectives.”

“Qatar Airways will continue to investigate alternative investment opportunities in the United States of America and elsewhere that do meet our objectives.”

Though Qatar noted that it took “into account the latest public disclosure of American Airlines” in making this decision, it’s unclear what it means by that, exactly.

American weighed in on the news today in its own, saying it respects Qatar’s decision “not to proceed with its proposed investment.”

“This in no way changes the course for American,” the company said. “Our 120,000 team members remain energized and focused on taking care of those who entrust us with their travel needs. We couldn’t be more excited to keep our focus on that mission.”

Executives at American have expressed concern over Qatar Airways’ power in the airline industry in the past, after it used its geographical position on the Persian Gulf to build a transfer hub for rich long-haul passengers traveling the world.

Back in June when Qatar sent its intended an notice that it was interested, American’s CEO Doug Parker told employees that the company wasn’t “particularly excited” about the outreach, noting that “we find it puzzling given our extremely public stance on the illegal subsidies that Qatar, Emirates and Etihad have all received over the years from their governments.”

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Super Nintendo Classic Consoles Are Coming, Will Be Available For Pre-Order

If you want to get your hands on a Super Nintendo Classic and party like it’s 1994, you might be able to lock yours down before Sept. 29. The palm-sized mini devices will be available for shoppers to scramble over online and in stores then, but Nintendo has also announced that there will be some available for preorders. No, no, for real this time.

You can’t blame fans for thinking this is all a lie, since the cascade of preorders that were placed and then canceled with Walmart when the retailer accidentally opened up preorders due to a system glitch.

The game company simply announced on its Facebook page that preorders “will be made available for pre-order by various retailers late this month.”

Will Walmart be banned from making preorders because of its mistake last week? Where should we look to find them? Will retailers limit the number of devices that each customer can buy to prevent resellers from buying them up?

There have been no hints from Nintendo, but let’s hope that the answer to at least some of these questions is “yes.” Like last year’s NES Classic, the device will be available through the holiday season, and then gone.

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Historic Home Available For $10 — But You Have To Move It Elsewhere Yourself

Does the idea of owning a historic home for the bargain price of just $10 sound good to you? If so, you better get the heavy machinery ready because you’ll have to move it off the property.

The real estate group that purchased the property that’s home to the historic Lewis Estates house in Montclair, NJ, is going to subdivide it so it can build eight new houses, reports Montclair Local. The house is estimated to be worth about $1.3 million.

The house was built in 1906 and was once occupied by acclaimed athlete Aubrey Lewis, the first African American to be captain of a sports team at Notre Dame and one of the first black FBI agents.

The new owner will be required to move the 3,900-square-foot house to within a quarter mile of where it sits now, with an Aug. 31 deadline for the contract of that sale. Not only that, but the buyer will be responsible for fixing the house before the move — for example: removing lead paint and asbestos, if any — and for all costs of the move.

Despite the fact that the seller will contribute up to $10,000 toward the moving costs, it’s a pricy proposition that could keep prospective buyers away:

“All I can say is it’s a very expensive proposition,” the real estate agent selling the home told CBS New York, estimating that it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars just to move.

“In addition to moving it the cost of any kind of repairs and renovation required that it be done to historic guidelines,” she noted. “That tends to be real expensive.”

Preservationists with the Montclair Historic Preservation Commission are worried that the high relocation cost will stymie buyers, and that the home will end up being torn down because the township’s council and planning board didn’t designate it for historic preservation.

“That house, it’s a shame,” one member told the Montclair Local. “The HPC did everything we could to preserve the house and even tried to make the developer’s plan to be incumbent on him retaining the house as part of the property. … Without those protections put into place, the owner of the home is entitled to do whatever he wishes.”

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Determined To Get It Right, McDonald’s Testing Chicken Tenders Again

More than two years after McDonald’s brought back its Chicken Select tenders for a limited time, the Golden Arches is once again trying its hand at the chicken meal, this time with a crispy buttermilk version. 

AL.com reports that McDonald’s began testing its new buttermilk crispy chicken tenders at restaurants in the Birmingham, AL, area Monday, five months after running a similar test in North Carolina.

McDonald’s has a long history of testing and then pulling chicken tenders. Back in Feb. 2015 the fast food giant indicated that it would be willing to bring back Chicken Selects after a two-year hiatus; it changed its mind just a few months later.

But the new tenders differ from the fast food giant’s previous reiteration, Chicken Select tenders. The revamped meal takes a page from McDonald’s buttermilk crispy chicken sandwich. The 100% white meat tenders are seasoned and battered before frying.

A Birmingham-area franchisee says his restaurants began offering the tenders late last week and they’ve proven popular so far.

“All of my restaurants have been selling out of their allotment each day, so that’s a good thing.” Jason Black told AL.com.

Black notes that he expects the test to go well, as customers liked the buttermilk crispy sandwich that the tenders are modeled after. It appears that customers are onboard with test redux.

mcdonald's got chicken tenders now and they so good

— gaychey (@imxchey) July 31, 2017

i found a mcdonald's with chicken tendersit's been foreverrrr

— dajahhh…✨ (@luhhdayyy) July 30, 2017

When McDonald's bought back the Chicken Selects and called them "Crispy Tenders"

— king gotti (@_donielle) July 28, 2017

McDonald's brought back chicken tenders………which is why you will always have a place in my heart I love you @McDonalds

— Orlando (@WonderBoy_93) July 28, 2017

Consumerist has reached out to McDonald’s about the test and whether the tenders will see a national rollout in the future. We’ll update this post if we hear back.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Airlines Have To Track Damaged Bags, But Not Damaged Wheelchairs — And A Veterans Group Is Suing Over It

You can track how an airline handles missing or damaged luggage, so shouldn’t you be able to find the data about how carriers deal with wheelchairs? A new rule that would mandate airlines to report information on wheelchairs and scooters in the same way they track other luggage has now been delayed, prompting a group of veterans to sue the Department of Transportation.

DOT published a rule [PDF] in Nov. 2016 that said airlines operating in the U.S. would have to begin reporting when they lost or damaged mobility devices, with a compliance deadline of Jan. 1, 2018. But then in March, DOT pushed that date back to Jan. 1, 2019.

This week, Paralyzed Veterans of America sued [PDF] over the delay, claiming that the administration had rolled back the rule without seeking input from people with disabilities.

“The sole stated rationale for this delay was two letters and an email received from airline companies citing a purported regulatory freeze by the Administration and unspecified ‘challenges’ meeting the 2018 compliance date,” the lawsuit reads. “The airlines in their correspondence did not specify any specific challenges encountered. DOT did not seek any public comment, and the new final rule is bereft of any explanation for how DOT determined that a delay in the compliance date was warranted or whether and how it assessed the delay’s impact on air travelers with disabilities.”

The complaint claims that delaying the rule will harm thousands of paralyzed veterans and “countless other Americans with mobility impairments.” Mishandling of wheelchairs and scooters is a “significant impediment” to air travel for people who rely on such services, the suit says: The prospect of loss, damage, or delay of these devices could lead to widespread reluctance to travel by air.

Once the wheelchair rule is in effect, it would ensure that travelers would know which airlines are more likely to mishandle their assistive devices and incentivize airlines to handle devices properly, the lawsuit says.

“Wheelchairs are not a luxury. It’s just like having your legs end up in one city when you land in another, if you can imagine that,” said the group’s president, David Zurfluh, in a statement. “Wheelchairs replace functionality and provide independence. Having your only means of leaving the plane get lost or damaged is demoralizing.”

He adds that people with disabilities pay the same prices for travel, “so their experience should be as dignified and as comfortable as everyone else’s. This is especially true for those whose missing limbs and paralysis were the result of military service.”

Along with its complaint, the group filed a motion to reinstate the rule’s original effective date.

A DOT spokesperson told Consumerist the agency doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Critics Say New Anti-Trafficking Bill Could “Jeopardize Bedrock Principles” Of Social Media

A new Senate bill with rare bipartisan support seeks to curb online sex trafficking, but some critics of the legislation say the bill is so broadly written that it could open up legal floodgates that could expose social media networks Facebook and Twitter and popular reader-edited sites like reddit to prosecution for content published by users.

Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio introduced the bill [PDF] — the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 — earlier this week. The legislation is the result of a two-year Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations inquiry into online sex trafficking, and in particular into sites like Backpage.com that have profited from ads for escorts and similar services.

What has some — including the internet’s biggest content companies — concerned isn’t the goal of the legislation, but the way it goes about trying to combat trafficking.

Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act is an incredibly important law to any website that allows the public to upload content, whether it’s comments on stories, social media updates, or videos on YouTube. What Sec. 230 does is provide a shield to those websites against liability for the stupid things users publish.

So if someone goes on reddit and posts an entire copyrighted script for a TV show, the producers of that show can’t just sue reddit for copyright violation. More appropriate to the issue of the Portman bill, if an escort uses Instagram to market their services, you’d currently have a difficult time holding Instagram accountable because it didn’t publish that content.

What the Portman bill does is amend Sec. 230 to clarify that this “safe harbor” provision can’t be used to inhibit the criminal prosecution or civil enforcement of state and federal trafficking laws.

Additionally, the proposed legislation seeks to expand the definition of who could be held responsible for trafficking under the federal child trafficking statute.

If passed, it’s possible that state attorneys general or federal prosecutors could then bring charges against websites and social media networks that host trafficking-related content, even if those sites did not publish it and even if they have policies prohibiting such content. Also, victims of sex trafficking could be allowed to bring civil cases against these sites.

Which explains why the Internet Association — a trade group whose members include Amazon, Facebook, Google, reddit, Twitter, and Yelp — has expressed concern about what this bill could mean for future of the internet.

While agreeing that “Sex trafficking is abhorrent and illegal,” the IA calls Portman’s bill “overly broad” and “counterproductive in the fight to combat human trafficking.”

“While not the intention of the bill, it would create a new wave of frivolous and unpredictable actions against legitimate companies rather than addressing underlying criminal behavior,” explains the IA, adding that the bill “jeopardizes bedrock principles of a free and open internet, with serious economic and speech implications well beyond its intended scope.”

Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon echoed many of these concerns, saying in a statement on Tuesday that the bill “takes a wrecking ball” to the solid foundation established by Sec. 230.

“This bill is so broad, there would be virtually no way for companies to avoid endless lawsuits, no matter how actively they police their platform,” says the senator. “It would create a perverse incentive, discouraging companies interested in investing in new tools for identifying illegal activity on their services.”

In a statement sent to Consumerist, the Electronic Frontier described Portman’s proposal as “profoundly misguided response to a horrifying and real problem.”

“The bill claims to combat sex trafficking, but it would do nothing to support victims or to punish sex traffickers,” argues EFF. “What it would do instead is jeopardize crucial protections for free speech online, costing American jobs and chilling innovation.”

Last year, California charged the CEO of Backpage with conspiracy to commit pimping and pimping a minor under the age of 16 because of escort ads placed on the website.

The court ultimately dismissed the charges, finding that Sec. 230 did indeed shield the company and its executives from liability for content they did not publish.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Teen Allegedly Groped By Fellow United Airlines Traveler

When sending a child on a cross-country trip unaccompanied, parents will likely be worried until they receive a call that their child has arrived safely. But a Washington family never imagined that call would include news that their teen daughter had allegedly been groped by a fellow passenger. 

Yet, that’s exactly what happened last week on a United Airlines flight from Seattle to Newark Liberty Airport in New Jersey, according to a federal complaint.

The federal complaint [PDF] details the disturbing July 23 incident in which the 16-year-old girl recalls sleeping in a window seat on the flight only to be awakened when a stranger placed his hand on her thigh.

According to the complaint, the man quickly removed his hand and the girl fell back to sleep. During this time, the man allegedly put his hand on the girl’s groin and inner thigh area, and began rubbing the victim through her clothing.

The man also allegedly tried to put his other hand inside the girl’s pants, the complaint states, adding that the girl was startled awake and the man removed his hand.

The teen then informed a flight attendant of the issue and was moved to another seat. After landing in Newark, the girl called her parents, the Washington Post reports.

Despite being implicated in a crime, the family’s lawyer tells the Post that the man was able to leave the airport.

FBI took over the criminal investigation, as it has jurisdiction on incidents occurring during air travel. Investigators identified the man via a flight manifest, and the teen picked out the 28-year-old passenger through photo lineup.

The man was then arrested and charged with knowingly engaging in sexual contact with a minor female, the Post notes, adding that he was later released on bond and placed on electronic monitoring.

A rep for the Federal Aviation Administration tells the Post that the agency has policies on how to deal with incidents on planes, including physical assault or the threatening of physical assault any individual on board an aircraft. However, it is up to law enforcement to determine what to do with a person accused of a crime.

It’s unclear if United Airlines flight crew members contacted police about the incident or why the man was allowed to leave the airport.

A rep for United tells the Post that the airline is aware of the incident.

“The safety and security of our customers is our top priority. We take these allegations seriously and continue to work closely with the proper authorities as part of their review,” the rep said.

Consumerist has reached out to United for additional comment on the incident. We’ll update this post if we hear back.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

There Are Six FDA Inspectors For 3,000,000 Shipments Of Imported Cosmetics Per Year

Every year, there are three million shipments of cosmetic products that pass through U.S. ports and onto our store shelves. The problem is that there are only six inspectors for all of those shipments, which means that .3% of them are ever inspected. Products like tattoo ink that goes under the skin and lipstick that could be ingested fall under “cosmetics,” and products could be dangerous.

“The appearance of contamination”

The most common reasons why a product might not pass inspection, in the rare case that it is inspected, are labeling, color additives that aren’t legal in this country, or “the appearance of contamination with filth or other contaminants.”

Most cosmetics that we import come from Canada and France, but imports from China are increasing. According to a letter [PDF] from FDA Deputy Commissioner Anna K. Abram to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, imports of cosmetics products from China have increased 79% over the last five years.

Relative risk

The FDA chooses products to actually inspect according to their individual risk, flagging certain high-risk product types like kohl eyeliners, which tend to contain high levels of metal, and skin-lightening creams, which should be sold as drugs in the United States.

“By a large margin, imports from China were identified with these concerns,” Abrams wrote, referring to issues with color additives and contaminated products. While 20% of products that are inspected have problems, only products or manufacturers that may have problems are flagged for inspection.

Since so few products overall are inspected, this probably doesn’t apply across the entire market for imported cosmetic products. With so few inspectors relative to the number of products coming in, we don’t know.

The New York Times notes that under President Trump’s proposed federal budget, there would be fewer inspectors of imported cosmetic products, not more.

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Bill Seeks To Make Marijuana Legal On The Federal Level

While there are five states in the U.S. that have legalized recreational marijuana and about 29 others (including D.C.) that allow it for medical purposes, weed is still illegal in the eyes of the federal government. One lawmaker is trying to change that with a new bill that would legalize the drug nationwide.

Sen. Cory Booker (NJ) introduced a bill [PDF] on Tuesday that would amend the Controlled Substances Act that would drop the federal prohibition on marijuana. Beyond that, it would also encourage states that haven’t yet to legalize it.

The war on drugs

Booker discussed his reasons for the bill in an announcement on Facebook Live, saying that the government’s war on drugs has split up families, incarcerated too many Americans, and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars in the process.

“For decades, the failed War on Drugs has locked up millions of nonviolent drug offenders — especially for marijuana-related offenses — at an incredible cost of lost human potential, torn apart families and communities, and taxpayer dollars,” Booker said.

When it comes to nonviolent drug use like marijuana, Booker notes that African-Americans are “arrested four times more so than someone who is white.”

Legalizing marijuana could do a lot to address those issues, Booker says, noting that states that have done so have seen a decrease in violent crime, increases in revenue, and police forces that can focus their time, energy, and resources on serious crime.

“They’re actually seeing positive things coming out of that experience,” Booker said, adding that he believes the federal government should get out of “the illegal marijuana business.”

He adds that he disagrees with Attorney General Jeff Sessions who wants to crack down on marijuana, calling his efforts “outrageous and unacceptable.”

So what would the bill would do?

Here’s what happens if the bill becomes law:

1.Removes marijuana from the list of controlled substances. This would make marijuana no longer illegal in the eyes of the federal government. That would make it a lot easier for marijuana businesses to use banking services, for example, without fear of running afoul of federal laws.

2. Expunges people who have been convicted for use and possession of marijuana. These kinds of charges follow people for life, Booker notes, making it difficult for them to do things most people take for granted: Opening a new business, qualifying for public housing, getting a new job, or even voting.

For people who are in prison now on marijuana charges, this would would give them an avenue to appeal, and possibly get their sentences reduced, says Booker.

3. Creates incentive for states to change their laws. Booker says because many states enforce marijuana laws in ways that punish poor people and that have a “wildly disproportionate effect on communities of color,” this bill would encourage states to stop enforcing the law in “such an unjust manner.”

“We believe states should be moving in the same way to legalize marijuana, to end racial disparities in the enforcement of marijuana laws, and frankly, to end the disproportionate targeting of poor people,” Booker said.

4. Creates a community reinvestment fund. These kinds of funds would help communities that have been disproportionately affected by marijuana laws by allowing them to apply for funds that would help with job training, reentry services, and expenses related to expungement of conviction. It would also invest in community resources like public libraries, community centers, and programs dedicated to youth.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Teen Jumps From Emergency Exit Of Plane After Landing In San Francisco

That’s one illegal and dangerous way to exit a plane: A teenager flying from Panama City to San Francisco International Airport on Copa Airlines ditched the traditional deplaning method of waiting for others to exit through the front door and instead opened an over-wing emergency door, slid down the wing of the plane, and jumped to the tarmac.

NBC Bay Area reports that the 17-year-old boy, who was traveling alone, pulled the stunt just minutes after the plane landed at SFO on Tuesday afternoon.

Once the teen was on the ground, a nearby construction crew was able to hold him until police arrived and the passenger was arrested.

A spokesperson for the airport says that the teen — who was not injured in the incident — appeared to be in emotional distress during the flight and that his actions in leaving the plane were so quick, that other passengers didn’t have time to react.

Witnesses agreed, noting that they were shocked when he jumped out of the door.

“It was as if he was, like, flying out, like, it was really fast,” one woman told NBC Bay Area.

A spokesperson for Copa Airlines says a crew member for the quickly blocked the door and the plane made its way to the gate where other passengers exited normally.

The airport rep notes that the indecent did not impact other flights or close the runway.

The teen isn’t the only unruly flyer  — or employee — to go for the wrong exit door:

June 2017 — A Southwest Airlines flight was diverted after a passenger tried to open the exit door in mid-air.

Nov. 2016 — United Airlines passenger in Houston opened the plane’s door and hopped out while the plane taxied.

Sept. 2016 — A Kentucky man was banned from flying on commercial airlines last year after he got into an altercation that ended with him trying to exit from an open door that wasn’t connected to the jet bridge.

April 2016 — A United Airlines flight attendant deployed a plane’s slide after it had landed at the same airport, rode it down, and walked away from her job.

Nov. 2015 — An intoxicated British Airways passenger tried to pry open the door mid-flight.

Sept. 2015 — A KLM Airlines passenger apparently thought the airplane’s door was the bathroom and tried to open it at 30,000 feet.

Sept. 2014 — A Virgin America passenger reportedly masturbated in flight and then went for the exit door.

Aug. 2010 — JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater became infamous after he cursed out a passenger and then used the plane’s emergency slide to exit the plane and run away.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

5 Questions To Ask Before Using A Peer-To-Peer Mobile Payment App

Appeals Court Will Let States Defend Obamacare Subsidies That White House Likely Won’t

A federal appeals court has granted a request from 16 attorneys general to allow them to intervene in a long-running legal challenge to billions of dollars in federal subsidies provided by the Affordable Care Act.

These subsidies — totaling around $7 billion this year alone — are provided to insurance companies on the individual market to reduce policyholders’ out-of-pocket costs like co-payments and deductibles. In 2014, Republican-controlled House of Representatives sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over these subsidies, arguing that Congress had not properly authorized these payments.

The federal court judge agreed in July 2016, but allowed the subsidies to continue pending approval. The case has effectively been on hold since Donald Trump stepped into the Oval Office.

In addition to its vocal support of legislative efforts to undo the Affordable Care Act, the Trump administration has repeatedly threatened to halt these subsidies to insurance companies. Both the President and several conservative lawmakers have referred to the payments as a “bailout” for insurers.

The insurance industry has maintained that uncertainty about these subsidies — Will the House lawsuit prevail? Will the White House pull the plug? — has contributed to higher premiums, and that cutting the payments while keeping the Affordable Care Act’s coverage requirements would result in even higher rates and additional insurers fleeing the individual market.

Given the administration’s open distaste for the subsidies, several states have argued that the White House will not put up an adequate (if any) defense to the House legal challenge. That’s why the attorneys general for 15 states and D.C. filed their motion to intervene, hoping to be named a party to the lawsuit and allowing them to, if needed, defend the subsidies.

Late on Tuesday, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted that motion [PDF], finding that the states have standing to intervene because they demonstrated they “would suffer concrete injury” if the House succeeded in gutting the payments, which could lead “directly and imminently to an increase in insurance prices,” and therefore a significant uptick in the number of uninsured in these states.

Of course, the states have faced this potential risk for several years. What makes things different now — and one of the reasons the court granted the motion to intervene — is the question of whether the Trump administration, through the Department of Health and Human Services, would represent the states’ interests.

“Indeed, the Department nowhere argues in its intervention papers that it will adequately protect the States’ interests or even continue to prosecute the appeal,” notes the appeals court. “Such equivocation about whether the Department will continue to appeal the adverse ruling of the district court or will otherwise protect the intervenors’ interests constitutes at least the requisite minimal showing that the Department’s representation of the States’ interest may be inadequate.”

“It’s disturbingly clear that President Trump and his administration are willing to treat them as political pawns,” said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is leading the state coalition with California’s Xavier Becerra, “but this coalition of attorneys general stands ready to defend these vital subsidies and the quality, affordable health care they ensure for millions of families across the country.”

In addition to New York and California, the other states intervening in the lawsuit are Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

For now, the appeal remains on hold, with parties still meeting every 90 days to chit-chat. Meanwhile, insurance rates continue to climb.

Insurers are currently going through the process of setting individual plan rates for 2018. The GOP fell short of passing a legislative repeal of the Affordable Care Act, but the lack of certainty about the future appears to still be pushing rates higher.

Today, Covered California — the state’s healthcare exchange — issued proposed increases for next years, and patients who remain on their individual plan through the marketplace will see an average premium increase of around 12.5%. Those who shop around may be able to find lower premiums. Some in the state may have no choice but to look for new insurance, as Anthem, one of the nation’s largest insurers, is pulling out of several areas in California.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist