Current Events in June 2018

An onboard system detected no driver input in the seconds before a Tesla Model X crashed into a highway barrier in California, according to a preliminary report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NTSB).

The March 23 accident on Highway 101, near Mountain View, Calif., killed the driver, who was alone in the car.

The Tesla's sophisticated electronics allowed safety investigators to determine precisely what the vehicle was doing, and how it was being controlled, in the moments leading up to the crash. According to the data retrieved from the system, the driver of the 2017 Tesla Model X P100D was using Tesla's traffic-aware cruise control and autosteer lane-keeping assistance, also known as Autopilot.

As the car approached a paved “gore area” dividing the main travel lane of U.S. Highway 101 from the state Highway 85 exit ramp, it moved to the left and hit a previously damaged lane divider at 71 miles per hour. The system did not detect the driver's hands on the wheel in the seconds before the crash.

Cruise control set at 75 mph

According to NTSB, the car's cruise control was set on 75 mph, but the vehicle had slowed to 65 mph because the system detected another vehicle in front of it. Once the vehicle had pulled away, the car began accelerating, and was gaining speed as it hit the barrier and burst into flames.

Tesla warns drivers not to rely on Autopilot as an autonomous driving feature, saying both hands should be kept on the wheel at all times. In the days after the crash, Tesla earned a scolding from NTSB safety investigators when it unilaterally released preliminary data it retrieved from the car, showing that Autopilot was engaged, with the adaptive cruise control follow distance set to minimum.

Tesla has vigorously defended its cars in the wake of high profile accidents, which have come under closer scrutiny because of the vehicles' sophisticated control systems that the company says are being misused.

In addition to noting that the driver in the Mountain View crash did not have his hands on the wheel just before the crash, the NTSB report also found that he did not apply the brakes or take other evasive action.

A new lawsuit alleges that every generation of the Apple watch has a defect that results in the screens cracking, shattering, or detaching through no fault of the wearer, Patently Apple reports.

The suit, filed in California, contends that the company knew about the defect and tried to conceal it from consumers. The suit seeks $5 million in damages.

"Apple knew that the Watches were defective at or before the time it began selling them to the public," the complaint said. "Furthermore, consumers complained to Apple about the Defect almost immediately after Apple released the Series 0, Series 1, Series 2, and Series 3 Watches."

“Apple has actively concealed and failed to disclose the Defect to Plaintiff and Class members prior to, at, or after the time of purchase,” the complaint continued.

Plaintiff Kenneth Sciacca’s lawsuit claims the defect can begin to surface within days or weeks after the Apple Watch is purchased.

Consumer complaints common

Although complaints about screen problems on Apple Watches are common on Apple forums and in Apple’s stores, the company has persistently denied “any widespread issue” with Apple Watches, the lawsuit notes.

However, in April 2017, Apple announced warranty extension plans for certain versions of the Watch suffering from a swelling battery defect that caused some wearers’ screens to pop out.

When confronted with complaints of screen problems, Apple’s internal policy is to deny the existence of the defect and blame the user for “accidental damage,” then refuse to honor warranty coverage, the complaint claims.

The lawsuit alleges violations of both state and federal law and requests a jury trial and class certification. The suit follows another class action filed against Apple regarding the butterfly keyboard used in the MacBook Pro.

As a result of the highest fuel costs in the last decade, the country’s top airlines are preparing to raise prices on domestic flights, marking the fourth increase in ticket prices this year.

Major U.S. airlines are planning a $20 surcharge to each roundtrip ticket. The extra charge will be classified as a “fuel surcharge,” meaning consumers won’t see it on the initial posted ticket price whether they check online, over the phone, or through a travel agent.

“Consumers will pay more because of higher fuel costs,” said Henry Harteveldt, a travel analyst and founder of Atmosphere Research Group. “I think it will affect summer travel for people who have not booked their flights.”

According to a report by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, airline carriers used 1,434 billion gallons of gas in April this year. Though this was a 2.1 percent drop from March, gas prices climbed 4.5 percent to $2.08. Airlines spent nearly $3 billion on fuel this year, a number that rose 2.5 percent.

What it means for airlines

Overall earnings for the country’s publicly traded airlines continue to fall, as they’ve dropped 24 percent since the start of 2018. A spokesperson for the lobbying group Airlines for America noted that revenue for airlines has risen seven percent this year, while fuel prices have also gone up by nearly 10 percent.

Delta shared publicly this week that second-quarter earnings will be no higher than $1.75 per share, lower than the originally projected $2 per share. The move came just weeks after American Airlines, the country’s number one airline, lowered its projected forecast for the remainder of the second quarter.

This quarter alone, fuel prices rose 12 percent, and Delta noted it could take up to six months for fares to catch up.

Adam Hackel, an analyst at Imperial Capital, believes other airlines are likely to follow in Delta’s footsteps. “You’ll certainly see over the next week or two some more revisions as they get fuel fully priced in,” he noted.

Despite concerns, some airlines seem optimistic. While United Airlines boosted the lower end of its full-year earning target by $7, Allegiant Air said more efficient jets are helping them combat rising fuel prices. CEO Maurice Gallagher told shareholders that the airline is getting 44 percent more flight capacity from each gallon of gas.

“Given the benefit of better fuel metrics and operational reliability, we will be able (and have been so far) to increase our daily utilization, making our fleet more productive,” Gallagher said.

Southwest Airlines, which anticipated a drop in ticket sales following a fatal accident earlier this year, also reported revenue passenger miles (the industry’s gauge of demand) increased 4.2 percent this May to 11.7 billion. However, the company is still expecting a nearly three percent drop in operating revenue after that fatal accident.

What consumers should expect

In addition to higher fares, consumers should also expect fewer seats available per flight. While Delta is still in the early stages of deciding how many seats -- if any -- they’ll cut moving forward, the decision wouldn’t go into effect until after Labor Day. By reducing the number of seats on each flight, airlines are able to raise fares, should the demand remain.

Airlines won’t cut down on seats during the busy summer months, so consumers can expect things to be different by summer’s end.

“There’s still enough time for them to look at it after Labor Day, when you really hit a pretty dramatic off-peak period for this industry,” Hackel said. “The industry is still benefiting from strong travel demand.”

On Thursday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released it’s first in-depth look at non-traditional work in the United States since 2005. It found that traditional jobs still reign supreme.

For years, Americans have taken advantage of the rise of freelance work and the perks that come along with it -- such as a flexible schedule. This caused policymakers to worry that the traditional workplace, and the associated benefits, would disappear. Proponents and critics have continued to argue over the merits of this “gig economy,” despite an apparent lack of data.

Based on the survey’s results, only around 10 percent of Americans in 2017 were employed by what the government calls “alternative working arrangements.” This revised number is actually a decline from 2005, when 11 percent of workers worked in an occupation that’s part of the gig economy.

“I think everybody’s narrative got blown up,” said Michael R. Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

A look inside the survey

Despite what appears to be a drop off in alternative working arrangements, Strain noted various factors the survey didn’t take into consideration.

For starters, the government’s numbers don’t include people who do gig or freelance work to supplement traditional work. The survey also doesn’t consider those who participate in income-generating endeavors, such as renting their homes on Airbnb, which wouldn’t necessarily be considered work.

A survey done by the Federal Reserve in late May found that nearly one-third of Americans are performing some kind of gig work, either exclusively or in addition to traditional work.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ survey also didn’t factor in companies that subcontract work to employees. In those cases, those employees aren’t considered to be alternative workers, but they do earn less and receive smaller benefits.

“The questions on our standard surveys don’t probe into the nature of these arrangements,” said Katherine G. Abraham, a University of Maryland economist who served as commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics under Bill Clinton. “We’re not asking the right questions, and they’re hard to answer anyway.”

Abraham noted many employees tend to struggle to classify the work they do. She said that some Uber drivers might consider themselves employees of the company itself, though they are legally identified as independent contractors. However, she also mentioned that if alternative work was really on the rise, it would’ve shown up in this latest survey.

“The fact that our last data point on this was in 2005 makes it so hard to figure out what’s going on,” said Martha Gimbel, director of economic research for Indeed. “Measurement is important, and this is why it’s important to fund data analysis.”

The gig economy in recent news

Despite this latest survey finding a slight decline in alternative workers, a 2016 report from the Staffing Industry Analysts (SIA) found that employers spent $729 billion on contract workers in 2015, with 29 percent of all U.S. workers performing some kind of gig work that year.

Betterment -- a financial services company -- released a survey in May that showed how the gig economy could potentially change the look of retirement for many people.

Sixteen percent of survey participants said they would continue in the gig economy after a traditional retirement age. Additionally, many of these individuals find that working in the gig economy is a good way to supplement their income to save for retirement.

“One in five full-time giggers say they’ll continue to pick up incremental work as their main source of income following retirement,” the authors of the survey wrote. “Twelve percent of side-hustlers will keep a side job as their main source of income after retiring from their traditional nine-to-five.”

Also this May, Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Mark Pocan proposed legislation that they say would strengthen the middle class by severely limiting the gig economy. The lawmakers’ goal is to “restore workers’ rights to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions.”

As of right now, the bill is simply an idea for the future; it has garnered much support from various labor unions, but it is opposed by many Republicans.

Digital currency exchange Coinbase announced the acquisition of securities dealer Keystone Capital Corp., alternative investment platform Venovate Marketplace, Inc., and financial planning firm Digital Wealth on Thursday.

In making those moves, Coinbase set itself up to become a federally-regulated broker-dealer. If given the green light by the SEC, it will be the first cryptocurrency company approved to offer blockchain-based securities.

"Ultimately, we can envision a world where we may even work with regulators to tokenize existing types of securities, bringing to this space the benefits of cryptocurrency-based markets — like 24/7 trading, real-time settlement, and chain-of-title," wrote Asiff Hirji, President and COO of Coinbase.

"We believe this will democratize access to capital markets for companies and investors alike, lowering costs for all participants and bringing additional transparency and inclusion to the ecosystem."

Patience pays off

As far back as 2015, Coinbase has done its best to stay on the straight and narrow of the cryptocurrency path. Over the course of the last three years, the firm has benefitted from the support of digital currency investors in comments to the SEC, gained significant volume along the way, and is now considered the highest-volume cryptocurrency exchange in the United States.

Keeping on the good side of the SEC and the perception of crypto investors had its challenges, however. Earlier this  year, Coinbase fell prey to some technical glitches, but it was quick to respond to everyone’s satisfaction.

Fresh on the heels of the SEC’s appointment of a cryptocurrency czar and Congress’ seriousness about legitimizing digital currency, Coinbase’s announcement may be the all-clear signal digital currency proponents were looking for.

Lots to chew on

The crypto market is maturing quickly. Over a hundred crypto-focused hedge funds have been created in the last few months, and there’s now more than 800 mainstream and alternative cryptocurrencies for investors to consider.

As more experienced brokers and traders enter the space, Coinbase will have its hands full; but being the first platform in certainly has its advantages.

Coinbase certainly has the ways and means to put its money where its mouth is. In 2017, the six-year old company booked $1 billion in revenue and recently valued itself at close to $8 billion when it tendered an offer in a recent acquisition deal.

Facebook has revealed that a bug changed the default sharing settings of about 14 million users to “public” for four days last month.

The bug occured between May 18 and May 22, while Facebook was testing a new feature. In an official Newsroom post, Facebook said that it is currently notifying those affected and asking them to review the posts that they made between those dates.

"We recently found a bug that automatically suggested posting publicly when some people were creating their Facebook posts," said Erin Egan, Facebook's chief privacy officer.

"We have fixed this issue and starting today we are letting everyone affected know and asking them to review any posts they made during that time. To be clear, this bug did not impact anything people had posted before -- and they could still choose their audience just as they always have."

Transparency in handling issues

After the bug was discovered, Facebook said that it went so far as to change every post made by affected users during that window of time to private -- including posts possibly intended to be shared publicly.

“The problem has been fixed, and for anyone affected, we changed the audience back to what they’d been using before,” the company said.

Facebook said that notifying users of the bug is part of its new focus on transparency in the way it handles issues.

“We’ve heard loud and clear that we need to be more transparent about how we build our products and how those products use your data – including when things go wrong. And that is what we are doing here,” Facebook said.

For international travelers, picking the right airlines and passing through the most safe and efficient airports can help determine whether the trip is a success.

To guide travelers in the right direction, AirHelp, a flight compensatory company, has compiled a ranking of the best airlines and airports around the world, noting that both categories are getting better, mainly due to rising competition for the international travel dollar.

For 2018, Qatar Airways earns the top spot, followed by Lufthansa and Etihad Airways. Airlines are rated on quality of service, on-time performance, claim processing, and how consumers rate them in online forums.

Qatar Airways was credited with big improvements in on-time performance and claims the top spot processing, helping it to overtake Singapore Airlines, which dropped to fourth place among 72 airlines for 2018. Worldwide, Lufthansa, Etihad Airways, and South African Airways rounded out the top five.

U.S. airlines not highly ranked

No U.S.-based airline made the top 10. In fact, the highest ranking domestic carrier is American Airlines, which only earned 23rd place in the international rankings. United is the next highest, coming in at only 37th on the list.

AirHelp CEO and co-founder Henrik Zillmer says the rankings show that airlines putting passengers first do best in the annual ranking.

"For too long airlines have focused on cutting corners and costs without regard to the people they serve,” he said. “We're thrilled to see a positive shift in many airlines who are now putting passengers first, and when things do go wrong these airlines are holding themselves accountable by executing the rightfully owed claims quickly and without hassle."

Follow the leader

Zillmer said airlines can improve their rankings by following the example of those at the top of the list, such as Qatar Airways, which he said has held down one of the top three spots since 2015.

Airports appear to be another matter entirely. While Hamad International Airport, Athens International Airport, and Tokyo Haneda International Airport hold down the top three spots, Zillmer says most airports around have some catching up to do.

"It is clear there is a need for significant improvement, with overbooked flights and cancellations making national headlines month after month, and the consistent mistreatment of consumers," said Zillmer. "It is no wonder most airlines and airports received poor ratings on the AirHelp Score. It is more important than ever for consumers to fight for their air passenger rights."

To see how ConsumerAffairs readers rate airlines, click here.

With net neutrality rules slated to come to an end on Monday, Senate Democrats are urging House Speaker Paul Ryan to schedule a vote on the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that could preserve existing net neutrality rules.

In the letter, all 49 Senate Democrats called on Ryan to allow the House to vote on the bill.

"The rules that this resolution would restore were enacted by the FCC in 2015 to prevent broadband providers from blocking, slowing down, prioritizing, or otherwise unfairly discriminating against Internet traffic that flows across their networks," the letter said.

"Without these protections, broadband providers can decide what content gets through to consumers at what speeds and could use this power to discriminate against their competitors or other content."

Senate voted to save net neutrality

Last month, the Senate voted to overturn the FCC’s net neutrality ruling by a vote of 52 to 47. However, the vote in favor of the CRA was mostly symbolic. Both the House, which is comprised of a Republican majority, and President Donald Trump need to sign off on the CRA in order for it to take effect.

House Democrats will need the support of at least 25 Republicans in order to force a vote and pass the resolution. If passed, President Trump would need to provide final executive approval, which isn’t likely since he has said that he agrees with the FCC’s policy.

Although it may be a long shot, Democrats are still fighting.

"More than 170 representatives have already indicated their support for the same resolution in the House," advocacy group Demand Progress said. "Two hundred and eighteen signatures are needed in order to force the [Congressional Review Act] resolution to the floor, increasingly within reach following the bipartisan vote in the Senate."

Protecting the average consumer

Proponents of net neutrality have called the FCC’s decision “disastrous” for its potential impact on the average consumer and middle-class family.

“The internet should be kept free and open like our highways, accessible and affordable to every American, regardless of ability to pay,” Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said. “The repeal of net neutrality is not only a blow to the average consumer, but it is a blow to public schools, rural Americans, communities of color and small businesses.”

Senate Democrats expressed similar sentiments in their letter, which was sent on Thursday.

"It is incumbent on the House of Representatives to listen to the voices of consumers, including the millions of Americans who supported the FCC's 2015 net neutrality order, and keep the internet free and open for all," the letter said.

"It is essential that you take this step to protect middle-class families, consumers, farmers, communities of color, entrepreneur, and all who rely on the free and open internet.”

Mortgage rates have dropped for two weeks in a row, hitting the lowest level in seven weeks, according to Freddie Mac.

The decline in rates provides a small measure of relief for homebuyers, who have recently faced the twin challenges of both higher home prices and higher  mortgage interest rates.

Freddie Mac's Primary Market Mortgage Survey shows the average rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage dropped to 4.54 percent. That's down from 4.56 percent the previous week but up sharply from the 3.89 percent rate a year ago.

The average 15-year rate fell even more, from 4.06 percent to 4.01 percent. The five-year adjustable rate mortgage rate also fell, from 3.80 percent to 3.74 percent.

Homebuyers are taking advantage

“Homebuyers have taken advantage of the recent moderation in rates, which led to a 4 percent increase in purchase applications last week,” said Sam Khater, Freddie Mac’s chief economist.

“Although demand has remained steadfast against the backdrop of this year’s higher borrowing costs, it’s important to note that the growth rate of purchase loan balances has moderated so far this year – and particularly since March. This slowdown indicates that buyers are having difficulty stretching to keep up with the pace of home-price growth.”

Prices are rising because demand for homes – particularly lower-priced entry-level homes – exceeds supply. Higher interest rates make matters worse by increasing the amount of the monthly payment, eroding affordability for some would-be buyers.

The relief from rising rates – modest as it is – comes thanks to the bond market. With recent economic concerns in Italy. Brazil, and Turkey, foreign money has poured into U.S. Treasury bonds, seeking a safe haven. That has eased the yield on the 10-year Treasury bond, which is a key influence on mortgage rates.

The relief, however, may be temporary. In its Mortgage Rate Trend Index this week, Bankrate found a majority of industry panelists in its survey believe rates will rise over the next week or so. Only 23 percent predicted that mortgage rates would continue to fall.

Kia Motors America is recalling 507,587 model year 2010-2013 Kia Fortes & Forte Koups, model year 2011-2013 Kia Optimas, and model year 2011-2012 Kia Optima Hybrids & Sedonas.

The airbag control unit may short circuit, preventing the front airbags and seat belt pretensioners from deploying in the event of a crash.

If the front airbags and seat belt pretensioners are disabled, there is an increased risk of injury to the vehicle occupants in the event of a vehicle crash that necessitates deployment of these safety systems.

What to do

The remedy for this recall is still under development.

The recall is planned to begin on July 27, 2018.

Owners may contact Kia customer service at 1-800-333-4542. Kia's number for this recall is SC165.

As three of the country’s leading retail giants carrying everything from furniture to clothes and groceries, Costco, Target, and Walmart all have lowered their prices in recent months. As these companies look to keep prices low -- and customers in stores -- it’s evident that the price war in the grocery world has really taken off.

It was recently reported that Costco is using tax cuts to invest in lower prices for food, clothing, and home essentials, as well as higher wages for workers.

“Price is at the top of our list,” said Costco CFO Richard Galanti. “When prices are going down...we want to be the first ones going down.”

According to a recent Raymond James survey, from February through April, Walmart’s prices dropped nearly four percent. The decrease was led by cheaper Cheerios, Old Spice body wash, and Heinz ketchup. Moreover, Walmart’s prices on nationally-branded foods was found to be lower than Dollar General and Family Dollar.

“Price still matters,” said CEO Doug McMillon. “There are a lot of Americans out there counting every penny and dime.”

Walmart is currently the leader in the low price market, as they offer customers a price match guarantee on items they find in other stores for lower prices. It’s this competitive pricing that forces Walmart’s competitors to keep dropping prices further.

Target has been slowly decreasing prices since 2017. Chief Executive Brian Cornell has been working to guide the company through a $7 billion investment phase that involves cutting prices to increase sales. As of May, the company reported that the strategy was working.

“We believe that consumer perception of value at Target has not reflected how low our out-the-door prices are,” Cornell said.

The evolving grocery business

The driving forces behind falling prices is reported to be the immense pressure and competition these retailers are feeling from dollar stores, each other, and online retailers like Amazon. As grocery shopping starts to become a more technological experience for consumers, it’s hard for these stores to raise prices.

“Prices are more transparent than ever,” said Bill Duffy, an associate director for research at Gartner L2. “Shoppers can compare costs on Amazon, while Google product searches feature prices prominently.”

Another factor at play is Amazon’s recent purchase of Whole Foods. The deal was made official last June when Amazon acquired the grocery store chain for $13.7 billion, and many believe that under Amazon’s leadership, shopping for groceries is about to get a lot more advanced.

“This is an earthquake rattling through the the grocery sector as well as the retail world,” said Mark Hamrick, senior economic analyst at Bankrate.com. “We can only imagine the technological innovation that Amazon will bring to the purchasing experience for the consumer. Now, we can see in hindsight that its recent dithering around the brick-and-mortar experience, as an experiment, was only a rumbling of the seismic event in the offing.”

Since taking over, Amazon has lowered Whole Foods’ prices while also offering all Prime members 10 percent off all Whole Foods’ purchases in an effort to change the retailers’ reputation of being costly to consumers.

In addition to Amazon, German retailers Aldi and Lidl have positioned themselves at the top of the grocery store food chain thanks to heavy discounting and easy-to-navigate stores. The stores have changed the shopping game in Europe, and their business model of slashing prices and offering “while they last” promotions is helping to expand their growth even further in the U.S.

“We see hard discounters as more than just a new form of competition,” said Bill Bishop, chief architect of the consultancy Brick Meets Chick. “In fact, we think they’re going to be a major disruptor and source of change influence on the grocery industry.”

Meal kits changing the game

What was once reserved for doorstep delivery has now made its way into grocery stores across the nation. While HelloFresh (an Authorized Partner) is the most recent meal delivery kit to hit shelves, Blue Apron and Plated can also be found in retailers across the country.

As online grocery shopping becomes more commonplace, HelloFresh (an Authorized Partner) President Tobias Hartmann thinks the move to grocery stores will benefit both grocers and consumers alike.

“Our retail line reduces the pressure on grocers to create these meals themselves and easily integrates into growing areas of their business such as online grocery and delivery,” Hartmann said in a statement.

For more information on top grocery stores, visit ConsumerAffairs' Grocery Store guide here.

Early this week, San Francisco residents voted to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes and flavored vaping liquids. With 99 percent of precincts reporting on the vote, 68 percent voted in favor of the ban and 31 percent voted against it.

This has been a longstanding -- and expensive -- issue for the city of San Francisco in recent years, as tobacco company R.J. Reynolds contributed nearly $12 million against the proposition. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg also contributed more than $3 million in support of it.

“People really have a big dislike and big distrust for Big Tobacco companies and are not fooled by propaganda and tactics,” said Gil Duran, the spokesman for Campaign Yes on Proposition E.

A look into the debate

The legislation was largely supported by public health advocates who believe that flavored tobacco products are appealing to younger generations and could begin encouraging them to use tobacco. A number of public health organizations, including the American Association, American Cancer Society, and American Lung Association, supported the ban, citing their dedication toward protecting the health of the next generation.

“San Francisco’s youth are routinely bombarded with advertising for flavored tobacco and e-cigarettes every time they walk into a neighborhood convenience store,” the American Lung Association said in a statement. “It’s clear that these products with candy themes and colorful packaging are geared towards teens.”

“No amount of deceptive advertising will distract from the fact that candy flavors target kids,” echoed Melissa Welch, a spokesperson for the American Heart Association. “We believe the success of Proposition E will encourage other cities to follow suit and end the sale of candy-flavored tobacco before nicotine addiction claims a new generation of young people.”

However, not all of San Francisco’s residents were happy about the vote. Opponents fear the proposition could take business away from local convenience stores and could potentially become more wide-reaching than just San Francisco.

“Telling adults what they can and can’t do isn’t effective,” opponents stated in an argument to voters before the election, noting that California recently just raised the age to buy tobacco to 21.

“Big tobacco sees vaping as their future,” said Patrick Reynolds, executive director of the Foundation for a Smokefree America. “They are very afraid this is going to pass and if the voters make an informed decision to side with the health community, it will lead to hopefully a tidal wave of cities doing what SF did because the FDA did nothing. We will start to turn the tide against vaping.”

A wave of change

While the San Francisco vote is considered a win by many, the battle over e-cigarettes -- and the ban of flavored tobacco -- certainly isn’t a new one.

City Council members in nearby Oakland, CA decided to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products late last year, with the ban becoming effective mid-2018. Other Bay Area cities passed similar legislation, including Berkeley, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, and Santa Clara County.

Moreover, a recent study by researchers from six continents asked legislators to ban flavored versions of e-cigarettes, as well as corresponding advertisements. The group cited growing concerns over teen addiction and future health problems as the primary reasons for proposing legislation.

“Until recently, the risks of e-cigarettes and their rising popularity with children and adolescents were under-recognized or ignored,” said Dr. Thomas Ferkol, a professor at Washington State University. “Some people truly believe e-cigarettes could be used as a smoking cessation technique, but these products also are an entry to nicotine addiction and tobacco use in young people.”

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is facing more accusations that it lied about being the target of a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack that temporarily took down a comment section of its website, preventing people from voicing their opinion on net neutrality.

Last year, on May 7, comedian John Oliver asked viewers to submit comments to the FCC and speak out in support of net neutrality. However, the comment submission section wasn’t available at the time the program aired.

The FCC said it was because its system was hit by “multiple external distributed-denial-of-service (DDoS)” attacks due to an overwhelming amount of site traffic. Its claim was investigated by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), but no solid evidence or documentation to support the claim has been released.

Accused of misleading the media

This week, a report by Gizmodo revealed how David Bray -- the FCC’s chief information officer between 2013 and June 2017 who was responsible for maintaining the comment system -- pushed the narrative that the comments section was taken down due to a cyberattack.

The report was based on redacted emails received through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by American Oversight. It suggests that Bray tried to push the cyberattack narrative with claims that the public comment system had been the target of a similar attack in 2014. Bray even said former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler didn’t reveal this attack publicly “out of concerns of copycats.”

Coincidentally, both the 2014 and 2017 comment system outages occured right after Oliver used his HBO show to call on viewers to submit comments to the FCC in favor of saving net neutrality rules.

No evidence to support DDoS claim

According to Gizmodo, internal emails revealed that the “FCC conducted a quiet campaign to bolster its cyberattack story.”

“Internal emails reviewed by Gizmodo lay bare the agency’s efforts to counter rife speculation that senior officials manufactured a cyberattack, allegedly to explain away technical problems plaguing the FCC’s comment system amid its high-profile collection of public comments on a controversial and since-passed proposal to overturn federal net neutrality rules,” the report said.

“The FCC has been unwilling or unable to produce any evidence an attack occurred -- not to the reporters who’ve requested and even sued over it, and not to U.S. lawmakers who’ve demanded to see it. Instead, the agency conducted a quiet campaign to bolster its cyberattack story with the aid of friendly and easily duped reporters, by spreading word of an earlier cyberattack that never happened.”

Researchers doubt DDoS attack

Cybersecurity experts have expressed skepticism over the FCC’s claim that it was the target of a DDoS attack after Oliver’s program aired in May of last year.

“There don’t appear to be any indications of a DDoS attack in the sensors we use to monitor for such things,” John Bambenek, a threat intelligence manager at Fidelis Cybersecurity, said at the time. “It appears the issue with the FCC is less of a DDoS attack, traditionally defined, and more of an issue of crowdsourcing comments generated by John Oliver and Reddit.”

“There was no observed dark web chatter about such a DDoS before or after the event and no botnets that I’m monitoring received any commands ordering a DDoS on the FCC’s site,” said Jake Williams, CEO of cybersecurity firm Rendition InfoSec.

“This is a smoking gun”

Evan Greer, the deputy director of Fight for the Future, a consumer advocacy group focused on digital rights, described the emails as “a smoking gun.”

“The FCC lied to reporters, and to Congress, in order to obscure the fact that they utterly failed to maintain a legitimate public comment process, as they are legally required to do, in their net neutrality repeal proceeding. Overseeing the FCC is Congress’ job,” Greer wrote.

“Voters from across the political spectrum overwhelmingly oppose the gutting of net neutrality,” Greer continued. “No one wants their cable company controlling what they can see and do on the internet. Inaction is unacceptable. Any member of Congress who remains silent and fails to sign the discharge petition should prepare to face the Internet’s wrath come election time.”

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed suit on Tuesday hoping to shut down two robocall operations that were purportedly responsible for nearly half of all unauthorized robocalls. Regulators charge the companies of using the calls to hawk auto warranties, home security systems, credit cards, I.R.S. tax remedies, and more.

The FTC filed the charges on the basis of the agency’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), which considers any telemarketing robocall illegal.

In its lawsuit, the Commission focuses on TelWeb, a company it calls "a one-stop-shop for illegal telemarketers." TelWeb’s technology was so widespread in the telemarketing community that it was used to dial illegal calls at issue in at least eight other FTC lawsuits.

The FTC contends that, via TelWeb, more than one billion illegal robocalls were placed annually, with at least 64 million of the calls using "neighbor spoofing," a technique which fakes a person’s caller ID to make it look like the calls are coming from the consumer’s local area code.

Can you hear us now?

The volume of robocalls calls continues to grow. Robo-stopping app creator YouMail estimates robocalls reached 4.06 billion in May, a new record.

Complaints to federal regulators also continue to grow exponentially. According to the FTC, its Do Not Call List registered 4.5 million complaints about robocalls in 2017, up nearly 2 million from the year before.

The FTC’s lawsuit may be a response to consumers who want to see more in the agency’s line of defense. When  the FTC proposed new robocall rules this past February, a coalition of consumer groups claimed the agency’s rules don't go far enough. In comments filed with the FTC by the National Consumer Law Center, Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Action, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and Public Citizen, the groups argue that the proposed rule is already behind the curve.

Undaunted by naysayers, the FTC is moving forward aggressively, robo-slashing sword in hand. "This case shows that the FTC will keep using every tool it has to fight illegal robocalls," said Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Andrew Smith. "We will go after not only robocallers, but also companies -- like these -- who give robocallers the platform and tools to deceive the public and violate the law."

Late last month, the FBI urged consumers to reboot their internet routers to mitigate the risk of being exposed to a malware attack with ties to foreign cyber actors.

Called VPNFilter, the malware is "able to render small office and home office routers inoperable," the FBI stated. "The malware can potentially also collect information passing through the router."

It was first reported to have infected more than 500,000 consumer Wi-Fi devices. Now, Cisco Talos security researchers are saying that the malware is targeting more makes and models of devices than initially thought.

The new targets include ASUS, D-Link, Huawei, Ubiquiti, UPVEL, and ZTE. Up to 200,000 additional routers around the world are at risk of being infected; however, Cisco noted that its research showed none of its own network devices are affected.

The new research reveals that the malware can perform “man-in-the-middle” attacks, meaning it can be used for injecting malicious content into traffic that passes through an infected network device.

“Initially when we saw this we thought it was primarily made for offensive capabilities like routing attacks around the Internet,” Cisco Talos’ Craig Williams told Ars Technica. “But it appears [attackers] have completely evolved past that, and now not only does it allow them to do that, but they can manipulate everything going through the compromised device.”

“They can modify your bank account balance so that it looks normal while at the same time they’re siphoning off money and potentially PGP keys and things like that. They can manipulate everything going in and out of the device.”

Cisco Talos’s complete description of VPNFilter and its new capabilities can be viewed here.

Still operational

Rebooting a potentially infected router, as the FBI previously recommended, may have been enough to temporarily disrupt VPNFilter. However, Williams says that a reboot alone isn’t enough to fully remove the malware from infected devices.

"I'm concerned that the FBI gave people a false sense of security," Williams said. "VPNFilter is still operational. It infects even more devices than we initially thought, and its capabilities are far in excess of what we initially thought. People need to get it off their network."

In light of the new research, consumers with routers should perform a factory reset followed by a software update that could remove the device’s vulnerabilities to Stage 1 infection. Changing default passwords is also advised, as is disabling remote administration.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross confirmed to CNBC on Thursday that the Trump administration has struck a “definitive agreement” with Chinese telecom company ZTE involving a $1 billion fine and $400 million in escrow.

The news follows reports that ZTE had agreed in principle to the deal, which would end its seven-year ban on doing business with crucial U.S.-based suppliers including Qualcomm, Corning and Google.

In addition to the $1 billion penalty, the deal requires that the company change its board of directors and executive team within 30 days. The settlement also includes a U.S.-chosen compliance team.

"We are literally embedding a compliance department of our choosing into the company to monitor it going forward. They will pay for those people, but the people will report to the new chairman," Ross told CNBC.

Stringent settlement

The $400 million in escrow included in the deal is intended to cover any future violations.

"If they do violate it again, in addition to the billion dollars they are paying us up front, we had them put $400 million in escrow. The total deal is $1.4 billion. That money will be forfeited if they violate anything ... and we still retain the power to shut them down again," Ross said.

"This is a pretty strict settlement," Ross added. "The strictest and largest settlement fine that has ever been brought by the Commerce Department against any violator of export controls."

Ross said the settlement serves as a warning to other companies not to mess with U.S. trade policies.

"This should serve as a very good deterrent not only for them but for other potential bad actors," he said.

Critics cite national security threat

Lawmakers from both sides have pointed out that removing the ban could pose a potentially serious threat to national security. Before the deal had officially gone through, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer expressed his concern on Twitter.

“If these reports are true, @realDonaldTrump has put China, not the United States, first. By letting ZTE off the hook, the president who roared like a lion is governing like a lamb when it comes to China. Congress should move in a bipartisan fashion to block this deal right away,” Schumer tweeted.

In a statement on Thursday, Schumer said, "When it comes to China, despite [Trump's] tough talk, this deal with ZTE proves the president just shoots blanks."

A day after 11 members of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Advisory Board (CAB) questioned the agency's leadership under acting director Mick Mulvaney, CFPB dissolved the current board.

Kathleen Engel, a law professor at Suffolk University and a CAB member, told NPR that she and other board members had been fired. The agency, however, describes it differently. In a statement, it said it is “reconstituting” the CAB and other advisory groups into smaller units

“By both right-sizing its advisory councils and ramping up outreach to external groups, the Bureau will enhance its ability to hear from consumer, civil rights, and industry groups on a more regular basis,” the agency said.

The just-dismissed members of the CAB come largely from academic and community activist backgrounds, focusing largely on consumer issues. The CAB's mission, at least in the past, has been to help consumer groups have input into CFPB policy.

No secret

One of those groups, Allied Progress, charges that Mulvaney has made no secret of his dislike of the agency's role, voting to abolish it when he was a member of Congress. In an appearance before a House committee last month, Mulvaney suggested Congress take an active role in controlling the CFPB.

Karl Frisch, executive director of Allied Progress, charged Mulvaney dismissed the CAB because he doesn't want to hear from consumers.

“Rather than putting the years of knowledge and experience of this legally required Consumer Advisory Board to work on behalf of consumers, Mulvaney is thumbing his nose at the law,” Frisch said. “For someone who claims to be so passionate about following the statutes as written, when it comes to the CFPB, it seems he’s reading Cliffs Notes supplied by Wall Street.”

'Deep concern'

Earlier this week, 11 members of the CAB released a letter to Mulvaney, expressing their “deep concern” about the direction of the CFPB under his leadership.

“As the bureau unilaterally shifts its mission from one prioritizing consumer protection and upholding fair market practices to one focused on industry regulatory relief—we see families, once again, being left behind,” said Ann Baddour, who at the time was chair of the CAB.

Baddour and other members complained that under the current leadership, the bureau isn't holding regular meetings with the CAB, as called for under the Dodd Frank law. In its statement announcing changes to the CAB structure, the CFPB said “the bureau will continue to fulfill its statutory obligations” under the law.