Reports: Takata CEO Will Offer To Resign Tomorrow

After 25 million vehicles containing its airbags have been recalled, tomorrow the Japanese auto parts supplier Takata will present its business plans to its carmaker clients. According to company sources, CEO Shigehisa Takada and other top executives will offer to resign from the company. Theres no successor in place ready to take over if the automakers do ask him to resign.

As you may be able to guess from his surname, Shigehisa Takada is running his family business: the supplier was founded by his grandfather in 1933. (If you’re curious about the spelling variation, it’s probably for reasons similar to why the Toyoda family calls their company Toyota.) He has spent his career with the company, and took over as CEO in 2013, long after problematic airbags were being sold to clients.

The company commissioned tests from the Fraunhofer Institute, a research organization in Germany, to determine the cause of the airbag failure, and those are due in the next few weeks. Some early results showed that the shrapnel-flinging issue may be due to improperly installed inflators, which would put blame for the failure on Takata. If so, that could leave the supplier responsible for the collective repair bill for 25 million cars and trucks worldwide, not the automakers.

Takata to offer CEO exit over air bag safety scandal – sources [Reuters]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

President Obama Signs Bill That Will Require Child-Resistant Packaging For Liquid Nicotine

Whether you’re an enthusiast or a detractor of e-cigarettes, everyone agrees that it’s a bad idea for children to drink flavored, nicotine-laden liquid. That’s why safety advocates applauded President Obama’s signing of the Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act today, a law that will require refill containers for liquid nicotine products to have child-resistant packaging. E-liquid without nicotine and vaping systems that use sealed cartridges would not be included.

In the National Law Review, three attorneys with expertise in consumer protection and e-cigarette industry regulations speculate that the job of regulating these containers–but not the liquid that goes inside them–would fall to the Consumer Products Safety Commission.

Yes, there are always exceptions to the idea that a package is “child-resistant.” The CPSC’s test protocols state that a package has to keep 80% of children tested stumped for five minutes.

There were 3,067 calls to poison control centers about e-liquid consumed or splashed on skin in 2015, and about half of the calls involve children. In 2014, a toddler died after consuming a liquid nicotine product.

Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of our parent organization, Consumer Reports, worked with the Consumer Federation of America and Kids in Danger to explain the potential dangers of liquid nicotine products to lawmakers.

In a joint statement, the three groups said:

We commend the President and Congress for working together to enact this law. The liquid nicotine used for e-cigarettes and similar products is highly toxic, and just one teaspoon can be fatal for a toddler. Requiring liquid nicotine containers to be child-resistant is an important first step to address the safety hazards of these products. We look forward to working collaboratively to implement this new law and take other necessary steps to keep kids safe.

“Requiring child-resistant caps on e-liquid products is a reasonable regulation, and is already the law in fifteen states,” Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, said in a statement. Child-resistant packaging is also a requirement of manufacturers that belong to the American E-Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association, a trade group.

CPSC Likely to Gain New Authority Over Some Nicotine-Containing E-Liquid Packages [National Law Review]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

San Francisco Wants High-Rise Verizon And Visa Ads Come Down Before Super Bowl

With visitors coming to town for a high-profile sporting event next week, two high-rise buildings in San Francisco sold exterior ad space to Verizon and to Visa. There’s a problem, though: the ads, which are 15 and seven stories high respectively, are illegal, and the city wants them to come down before the Super Bowl.

The owner of the building with the 15-story Verizon ad, meanwhile, has 30 days to take the ad down. Since the point of having such an ad is for it to be visible to visitors and even TV viewers during the game

City Attorney Dennis Herrera called the ads “illegal and a public nuisance,” violating long-standing laws against such advertisements in San Francisco. “They’re an embarrassment to our city. They should be removed immediately and voluntarily, and my office is exploring our legal options to compel their removal if necessary,” he said to the San Francisco Chroncile. It’s one thing to promote a business on the building that houses that business, but selling billboards is legally distinct.

This isn’t like the photobombing accusations against Wells Fargo in Minneapolis, where the Vikings claimed that the bank’s signage on its own building much too legible in camera footage of U.S. Bank Stadium.

In San Francisco, the buildings sold space to advertisers Verizon and Visa, but through a series of apparent “misunderstandings,” the ads that went up were illegal. Temporary signage honoring a special event is okay with the city, and sometimes signage with the names of sponsors of that event are allowed, but in this case the billboards are too big and apparently don’t honor the Super Bowl enough.

S.F.: Huge building ads for Verizon, Visa must come down [SFGate]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Lawsuits Claim DraftKings, FanDuel Profited Off College Athletes Without Authorization

When you place a bet on a football game, you’re just gambling on the outcome of a competition between two teams, each with dozens of players on their roster. But when you play fantasy football, you’re effectively using each player in your lineup like an individual game piece in a contest to beat another fantasy team. And a pair of new lawsuits allege that DraftKings and FanDuel are breaking the law by profiting off college athletes who have become unwitting pawns in other player’s games.

The complaints [DraftKings PDF; FanDuel PDF], both filed yesterday in a federal court in Illinois by former Northern Illinois University running back Akeem Daniels, allege that the two daily fantasy sports [DFS] sites unjustly enriched themselves on the backs of Daniels and other amateur athletes.

“Through a comprehensive advertising campaign and in its daily fantasy college football and basketball contests, [DraftKings and FanDuel] routinely use the names and likenesses of these college players to promote Defendant’s commercial enterprise, amassing millions of dollars in revenues from entry fees, without the athletes’ authorization,” reads the lawsuit.

While Daniels’ personal interest in this lawsuit involves his time as a football player, the complaint also takes issue with the sites’ use of college basketball players in their daily fantasy contests.

There are a lot of similarities between this suit and a recent case brought by former college athletes against the NCAA and video game giant EA, which used images and stats for college players in its NCAA-themed series of games. EA ultimately settled with the players, and the court ultimately sided with the players.

One possibly important difference between these cases is that the NCAA video games used stats and apparent likenesses of real players but not their actual identities. On DraftKings and FanDuel, you’re not playing with a fictional character based heavily on a real athlete; your team is made up of the actual athletes playing in real-life games.

When a player enters a DFS contest, they are given virtual currency to spend on “salaries” for real-life athletes (who are not allowed to receive actual salaries). Fantasy players must come in under the salary cap set by the site, which also determines the worth of each available athlete on any given day. There are also numerous experts who opine on whether a player is worth investing in for the day.

“To induce people to buy into the games, Defendant also promotes the success customers will have if they follow Defendant’s recommendations, again using players’ names and likenesses in the marketing, without permission,” reads the complaint.

Additionally, these college players’ names and likeness are being used in advertising and marketing, without their permission and without any compensation.

Daniels contends that the sites’ use of college players has harmed them by “putting them in an unwanted state of fear and concern of the risk of being contacted by speculators who have a financial interest” in their in-game performance. In short, he’s saying that players are worried about being pressured into cheating, game-fixing, or point-shaving.

“By creating a class of millions of speculators in the U.S. whose financial fortunes in the Defendant’s virtual stock market rise and fall in direct proportion with the [athletes’] endeavors, Defendant has immeasurably altered the college football and basketball environment,” reads the complaint.

The lawsuit, which seeks to represent at least 2,000 college athletes, alleges violations of the Lanham Act’s prohibition against false endorsement; Massachusetts state law (for DraftKings), and New York state law (for FanDuel) forbidding unauthorized likeness; and unjust enrichment.

It asks the court for unspecified damages, and for “disgorgement of all gross profits earned by Defendant from its operation of its daily fantasy sports contests using Plaintiff’s and Class members’ names and/or likenesses.”

We’ve reached to both DraftKings and FanDuel for comment and will update if we hear anything back.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

McDonald’s Apologizes For Giving People Fried Air Instead Of Mozzarella Sticks

Facing the righteous indignation of customers demanding mozzarella sticks that actually contain cheese, McDonald’s is doing a dairy apology dance, saying that cheese must have somehow escaped its breaded casing.

Though it can’t go back in time and rescue each customer’s mouth from meeting a cheeseless fate, McDonald’s offered a mea culpa on Thursday.

“We are aware of a low volume of guest concerns about our Mozzarella Cheese Sticks,” a spokeswoman said in an emailed statement to the Chicago Tribune. As it turns out, cooking is tricky.

“In these instances, we believe the cheese melted out during the baking process in our kitchens and shouldn’t have been served,” the spokeswoman said. “We apologize to any customers who may have been affected. We are working to fix this in our restaurants.”

Consumerist did reach out to McDonald’s yesterday to ask for more details on the cooking process, but we have not received a response.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

T-Mobile Adds Amazon Video To Binge On, Claims Users Are Streaming Twice As Much

Three months after launching its Binge On streaming streaming video program, which doesn’t count content from certain partners against a customers’ monthly data allotment, T-Mobile has made new deals with Amazon and others to include their content. Additionally, the company claims that Binge On has doubled the amount of video its customers are watching.

T-Mobile announced today that it’s adding support for Amazon Video, Fox News, Univision NOW, and WWE Network to the roster of services included in Binge On. According to T-Mo, that brings the number of included streamers to more than 40. Others already on the list include Netflix, Hulu, HBO Now, Sling TV, and more.

The company says its “revolutionary” video service is “fundamentally” changing the way millions of customers watch video.

“In less than three months since launch, T-Mobile customers on qualifying data plans are already watching more than twice the video than before from the free services with Binge On,” the company says in its announcement. Which makes sense — if you don’t have to worry about getting charged for going over your data plan, you’re more likely to watch stuff when you aren’t on a WiFi connection.

T-Mobile goes on to say that “one major video service,” which is included in the Binge On plan, has seen a 79% increase in daily viewers. Another unnamed yet “major video service” that isn’t one of the free services under the plan is still reaping benefits, T-Mobile claims, as customers have watched 33% more hours than before, “thanks to Binge On optimization providing up to 3x more video from their data plan.”

To qualify for unlimited access to Binge On, customers must first subscribe to a plan that offers at least 3GB of data. If you’re on a cheaper plan you can access those optimized streams, but you’ll use up part of your monthly data allowance in the process.

Additionally, when customers choose to use Binge On, they agree to let T-Mobile downgrade the quality of their video stream — not just for participating content providers, but for all streaming video.

This has not gone over well with YouTube, which has labeled the program as “throttling,” indicating that it may possibly run afoul of the FCC’s recently enacted “net neutrality” rules that prohibit broadband providers (even mobile data carriers) from actively slowing down content based on its source.

T-Mobile has aggressively defended this allegation, saying it is only optimizing streaming feeds to better perform on mobile. When the Electronic Frontier Foundation questioned how T-Mobile was doing this, T-Mo CEO John Legere fired back on Twitter, asking the non-profit consumer advocates “Who the f*ck are you anyway EFF? Why are you stirring up so much trouble and who pays you?” Legere later apologized for the profane response.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Quiksilver Creditors Come To Agreement, Keep Surf Brand Going

Back in September, “action sports company” Quiksilver USA filed for bankruptcy protection, planning to reorganize and make its retail presence even more action-packed. After months of arguing over the value of the company, with creditors claiming that the company is worth $144 million more than it claims. Finally, the two sides have come to an agreement, and the bankruptcy will be settled.

Quiksilver USA is the only part of the company affected, since its Asia/Pacific and European branches are separate companies that did not go on acquisition sprees in recent years. The company’s brands include Quiksilver, Roxy, and DC Shoes. A decade ago, the company bought the ski outfitter Rossignol, later selling it at a significant loss.

Junior creditors in this bankruptcy include Quiksilver store landlords and lenders that provided the company with unsecured credit. The fundamental disagreement about how much the company is worth meant that the creditors would head to court without deciding how much those junior creditors were owed.

One rumor is that the brand’s new owner, Oaktree Capital Management LP, plans to merge Quiksilver with a competing surf gear company with Australian roots, Billabong. Reorganizing the company and taking it private cut the company’s $826 million debt down to $300, and its biggest senior creditor, Oaktree, will own or acquire the rest of the company.

Quiksilver Said to Be Near Bankruptcy Deal With Junior Creditors [Bloomberg]
Quiksilver to go private after emerging from bankruptcy [Sydney Morning Herald]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist