vendredi 28 octobre 2016

BMW Recalls 136K Vehicles Over Stalling Issues

You can’t go anywhere — or at least get far — if the engine in your car stalls. For that reason, BMW recalled more than 135,000 vehicles that could contain a wiring issue. 

The recall, announced this week, involves 136,188 5-Series, X5, 6-Series, and X6 vehicles from model years 2007 through 2012.

According to a notice [PDF] posted with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, wiring to fuel pumps inside the gas tank may not have been properly crimped.

If this is the case, the wires could come loose and melt a connector, causing a gas leak. That can stop the fuel pump from working and make engines stall. Over time, this condition could cause the fuel pump to become inoperative.

BMW says it became aware of the issue back in 2011 through customer complaints involving fuel odor. The carmaker performed an analysis and concluded that the issue would also be detected by the evaporative fuel tank leak diagnostic system.

Three years later, in Sept. 2014, as a result of increasing warranty claims, BMW issued an extended warranty program involving the fuel delivery module of affected vehicles.

Between June and Oct. 2016, BMW reevaluated the warranty information that indicated the issue was still prevalent. At that point, the company decided to conduct a voluntary recall.

In all, the recall covers the following models:
2007-2011 X5 3.0si, X5 4.8i, X5 M, X5 xDrive30i, X5 xDrive35i, X5 xDrive48i and X5 xDrive50i, 2008-2011 X6 x Drive35i, X6 xDrive50i and X6 M; 2010-2011 X6 ActiveHybrid, 535i xDrive Gran Turismo, 535i Gran Turismo, 550i xDrive Gran Turismo and 550i Gran Turismo; and 2011-2012 528i, 535i, 535i xDrive, 550i and 550i xDrive and 2012 535i ActiveHybrid, 640i Convertible, 650i Convertible, 650i xDrive Convertible, 650i Coupe and 650i Coupe xDrive.

So far, the company says it is not aware of any crashes or injuries related to the issue. BMW will notify owners beginning in December, and dealers will replace the fuel pump module.



Soylent Stops Sale Of Meal-Replacement Powder After Customers Report Becoming Ill

Earlier this month, meal replacement startup Soylent announced that it would voluntarily stop selling its new-to-market Soylent nutrition bar after receiving reports from customers who became ill after consuming the snack. Now, the company says it will expand that action to include certain meal-replacement powder after receiving similar issues. 

Soylent announced on Thursday that it would stop the sale of Powder 1.6 — which is designed to be mixed with water and consumed instead of solid food — and advised customers who have shown sensitivity to the product to discard whatever is left.

The move was made after an “aggressive” investigation to uncover why people were having negative experiences after eating Soylent Food Bars. The investigation included “product testing, an exhaustive industry search, and discussions with many of our suppliers,” the company said in a blog post. “Our tests all came back negative for food pathogens, toxins or outside contamination.”

At that point, the company says it began to shift its focus to whether any one ingredient could be triggering a food intolerance, noting that such an issue would explain why not all customers had become ill after eating the products.

During the review, the company says it noticed that a handful of consumers — less than 0.1%, according to Soylent — who consumed Powder 1.6 over the past several months reported stomach-related symptoms that were consistent with what Bar customers described.

Previously, customers shared their experiences on Soylent’s own forum and a Soylent subreddit describing becoming violently ill after consuming the snack bars.

In one post a customer describes experiencing intense vomiting about three to four hours after eating a Food Bar.

“The vomiting lasted several hours. I think it was probably the worst vomiting episode I ever experienced. I did not experience diarrhea,” the customer wrote on the subreddit.

Another user said he became “so nauseous” he had to puke and followed that episode with diarrhea.

Because Soylent did not find similar complaints in its Powder 1.5 product, the company believes a possible connection between the Powder 1.6 and Food Bar could come down to the only ingredient specific to both products.

While the company plans to continue to look into the matter further and share its findings with the Food and Drug Administration, it wants to “err on the side of caution” by stopping sales of Powder 1.6 and advising customers not to use it if they have experience stomach discomfort.

Soylent says it will reformulate the Bar and Powder products to remove the common ingredient, with new products expected to be available in early 2017.

So far, the company says it has not heard any complaints related to its Soylent Drink or Coffiest products.

“We value our customers’ safety and satisfaction with our products above all else and we apologize again to any customer who had a bad experience,” the company said.

[via Business Insider]



Report: Defense Department Overpaid $54 Million For EpiPens

It looks like taxpayers didn’t just overpay for EpiPens purchased through Medicaid. According to a new report, the Department of Defense has been paying almost full retail price for the expensive emergency allergy treatment.

This is according to a Reuters analysis of available data, which found that many of the EpiPens paid for by the DoD were purchased at retail pharmacies instead of military facilities or by mail order. That means the DoD’s deep discount on the drug did not apply.

When EpiPens were purchased at retail stores, Reuters says the DoD paid an average price that was up to three times higher than the discounted rate for buying the drug at a military facility. That wouldn’t be that much of a problem if it were only a small number of patients buying EpiPens at the higher price, but Reuters reports that nearly half of these drugs were bought at retail.

Between the drug’s soaring price hikes and the increased demand for EpiPen, DoD annual spending on the allergy treatment jumped from $9 million in 2008 to $57 million in 2015.

Reuters estimates that the DoD paid $54 million during those years for EpiPens that could have been purchased for significantly less money.

The drug’s maker, Mylan, tells Reuters that it’s talking to the Pentagon about extending the DoD’s discount to purchases made at retail pharmacies.

The DoD’s EpiPen situation appears to be different than the hundreds of millions of dollars overpaid for the drug by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). That dispute involved the proper classification of EpiPen in the Medicaid rebate program.

Under that program, generic or multiple-source drugs pay a smaller rebate rate to Medicaid compared to the rebates paid for patent-protected drugs or medications with no competition. For decades, EpiPen was categorized as a multiple-source drug, meaning Mylan (and the companies that previously owned the EpiPen brand) were paying the lower rebate rate.

CMS recently concluded that the drug had been mis-categorized, meaning the government had lost out on hundreds of millions of dollars in rebates from Mylan. Almost immediately after CMS revealed this overpayment, Mylan says it agreed to a $465 million settlement with the Justice Department — a settlement the DOJ has yet to discuss publicly.

EpiPen may soon get lower-price competition, both from a generic version of the drug it plans to release on its own and from Sanofi’s Auvi-Q epinephrine injector. That drug was recalled from the market in Oct. 2015 over concerns about inaccurate dosing, but is slated to return in 2017.



Amazon Contractor Agrees To Pay Drivers $100K In Phantom Lunch Breaks

What if your employer deducted lunch breaks from your time sheet, but you weren’t allowed to actually take any time for lunch? That’s what New York’s attorney general says happened to employees of Cornucopia Logistics, a contractor that handles deliveries for Amazon and for its grocery delivery service in New York City. The company has settled with the state, and will pay affected workers and former workers $100,000 in back wages for the practice.

Amazon Fresh, the grocery service, recently expanded to more cities and announced a change to its pricing structure that makes paying for the delivery service more manageable. Using contractors means that Amazon isn’t directly responsible for their working conditions, and isn’t directly implicated, but the drivers in this case were making deliveries for Amazon.

“Delivery workers travel all hours of the day and night and through all kinds of weather to meet tight time frames,” AG Eric Schneiderman, who has heard all of your Spider-Man jokes before, said in a statement. “They deserve to have a proper lunch break, and when they don’t, they certainly must be properly compensated for all of their work.”

Indeed, everyone should be compensated for their work fairly, and delivering food while not being allowed meal breaks must be a special kind of workplace misery.

Amazon delivery contractor settles on New York back wages [Reuters]



New Rules Aim To Make It Easier For Students To Seek Financial, Legal Relief From Failed Colleges

In the last few years, multiple for-profit college chains have closed with little or no warning given to their students, while others remain on the brink of closure. And many of the for-profit schools that remain bar wronged students from ever suing the college in a court of law. Today, the Department of Education finalized the massive overhaul of its “Borrower Defense” rules in an effort to make it easier for students to hold colleges financially and legally responsible for their actions.

The final regulations [PDF] aim to protect student borrowers against misleading and predatory practices by postsecondary institutions and clarify a process for loan forgiveness in cases of institutional misconduct.

The Dept. of Education and advocates began working on revisions to the Borrower Defense rules shortly after Corinthian Colleges Inc — the operator of Heald College, Everest University, and WyoTech – closed in 2014.

At the time the schools closed, Borrower Defense applications had been a rare occurrence, thus the standards and processes involved were not exactly clear.

The finalized rules set forth more specific benchmarks for situations where students would be eligible for loan relief. The final regulations include key provisions that aim to protect the rights of borrowers and hold institutions accountable by:

• Giving borrowers access to consistent, clear, fair, and transparent processes to file claims;
• Empowering the Secretary of Education to provide debt relief to borrowers without requiring individual applications in instances of widespread misrepresentations;
• Protecting taxpayers by ensuring that financially troubled institutions provide the government with protection against the risks they create and that institutions whose actions lead to discharges of Federal student loans are held responsible;
• Helping students make more informed decisions by requiring proprietary schools with poor loan repayment outcomes to include a plain-language warning in their advertising and promotional materials;
• Ensuring affected borrowers have information about loan discharge when schools close and access to an automated process;
•Banning schools from inducing students to sign pre-dispute arbitration agreements that waive their rights to go to court and bring class action lawsuits based on borrower defense claims.

Borrower Relief

The finalized rules provide for a streamlined timeframe and process for students to receive loan discharges when their school closes. Under the new guidelines, this option becomes available to currently or recently enrolled students when a school shuts its doors.

Students who receive a closed school discharge have no further obligation to repay their Direct Loans, Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program loans (which include Stafford and PLUS loans), or Perkins Loans.

The finalized rules include a measure for early implementation of automatic closed school discharges.

Specifically, students who attended a school that closed on or after Nov. 1, 2013 and didn’t enroll in another Title IV participating institution within three years. will receive a loan discharge.

The final regulations also makes it clear that the Department will determine in a “reasonable and practicable way the appropriate relief for a borrower defense claim, taking into account any educational benefit received.”

As for Pell Grant eligibility, the Dept. of Education announced plans to restore semesters of grant eligibility for students who were unable to complete their programs because their institution closed.

The rule could make a significant difference for students who rely on grants to cover education costs. Currently there is a maximum Pell Grant lifetime eligibility of 12 semester. Once a student has used their allotted lifetime Pell Grant eligibility, it’s gone, even if the school they attended later closes or is later found to have defrauded students with false job placement rates or other misleading tactics.

Forced Arbitration

The finalized rules also address forced pre-dispute arbitration clauses in students’ enrollment agreements. These clauses generally bar students from bringing any legal action against the school in a court of law, or joining together with other wronged students in a class action.

Instead, each student would have to go it alone through private arbitration, where damages may be limited, no legal precedents are set, and where the arbitrator’s decision can not be appealed to the legal system even when an error is made that could have resulted in a different outcome.

Additionally, many arbitration hearings include nondisclosure agreements for all parties, meaning that even if a student prevails in demonstrating the school screwed up, the world will not know.

As we’ve previously reported, these clauses are virtually unheard of outside of the for-profit education industry. Still, some schools have taken steps to dial back the requirements after increased scrutiny over the tactics: University of Phoenix recently announced that its new owners are doing away with the clauses starting July 1, while the non-profit that acquired a number of Corinthian’s locations likewise did away with them.

Under Friday’s finalized rules, the Dept. of Education bans all pre-dispute arbitration agreements for all Direct Loan borrowers when it comes to disputes related to the educational services provided or the making of Direct Loans, regardless of whether such clauses are a condition of enrollment.

The rules also end “day-in-court denials,” that blocked students from ever taking a school to court. Specifically, the provision allows students to agree to arbitration of their claims, but only after the actual dispute arises.

Finally, the rules prohibit schools from placing in their enrollment agreements restrictions that silence students from voicing their concerns to authorities.

“The Department is concerned that some schools require students to first pursue an internal process before contacting accreditors and regulators about potential violations of the law,” the provision states. “The final regulations bar this practice, while also providing more transparency on the outcomes of arbitration by requiring schools to notify the Secretary when arbitration and judicial claims are filed and the decisions and awards issued in arbitration and in court proceedings.”

Pauline Abernathy of The Institute for College Access & Success says her organization is still reviewing the new rules, but that she believes they “will help ensure that students at closed schools know their options and that their loans are automatically discharged if they do not continue their studies. Both students and taxpayers will be better protected because the riskiest schools will have to warn students and put money aside to help cover the cost if their students’ loans are discharged.”



Cox Customers In Florida, Georgia Now Have To Pay Up For Hitting Data Caps

Cox Communications upped it’s data cap to 1 TB per month recently, joining the club with peers AT&T and Comcast. The silver lining was that at the time, only one city’s subscribers had to pay up if they hit the limit. But too bad, so sad: the pool of people who have to cough up cash for using extra data is spreading now, too.

The change was spotted by Multichannel News. Cox updated their FAQ on Monday, to include all of Florida and Georgia, along with Cleveland, in the group of subscribers now subject to overage fees.

There’s a grace period in place for the next two billing cycles, a Cox representative told Multichannel News. That two-month grace period before overage fees kick in stats on Nov. 21.

After the two months run out (so, in January 2017), customers who exceed 1 TB of data use in a given month will be subject to fees of $10 for each additional 50 GB. That’s billed in blocks, so even if you go over by less than 1 GB you’re still on hook the $10 for the whole 50 and may as well use it up too.

Cox sends customers data alerts when they’re at the 85%, 100%, and 125% usage points.

The company says it notified customers in the affected service areas of the change on Tuesday, Oct. 25.



Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds

Here are five of the best photos that readers added to the Consumerist Flickr Pool in the last week, picked for usability in a Consumerist post or for just plain neatness.

吉姆 Jim Hofman
Skip Nyegard
Joachim Rayos
Xavier J. Peg

Want to see your pictures on our site? Our Flickr pool is the place where Consumerist readers upload photos for possible use in future Consumerist posts. Just be a registered Flickr user, go here, and click “Join Group?” up on the top right. Choose your best photos, then click “send to group” on the individual images you want to add to the pool.