Customer Service Advisory: POLA and POLB Marine Terminal Gates Closed on Thursday, July 10, 2014 at 5 p.m.
PierPass Inc. / http://www.pierpass.org/news/customer-service-advisory-pola-and-polb-marine-terminal-gates-closed-on-thursday-july-10-2014-at-5-p-m/
The PierPass Inc. has been notified that the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) will observe a stop work meeting for union business Thursday, July 10, 2014 starting at 5 p.m. As a result, no marine terminal gates at the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach will operate between the hours of 5:00 p.m. on July 10 through 3:00 a.m. on July 11. There will be no OffPeak shift Thursday night.
Please check with other individual terminals for substitute or alternative gates.
This labor shutdown falls under Rule 5 of the Marine Terminal Operator Schedule No. 1, which is available at:
https://www.pierpass-tmf.org/Documents/Marine_Terminal_Schedule.pdf
CBP Seizes Counterfeit World Cup Apparel in Puerto Rico
U.S. Customs & Border Protection / http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/2014-07-01-000000/cbp-seizes-counterfeit-world-cup-apparel-puerto-rico
With a high demand for the 2014 FIFA World Cup related apparel, some dishonest vendors sought to capitalize on the event’s popularity, infringing on various trademark holder’s rights and revenues.
On Tuesday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) San Juan Field Operations officers seized a consignment of counterfeit soccer team delegation uniforms. The shipment arriving from Hong Kong to the San Juan Air Cargo facility, contained boxes of soccer t-shirts and shorts that were destined to an address in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
“The trade in these illegitimate goods is associated with smuggling and other criminal activities, and often funds criminal enterprises”, stated Area Port Director Juan Hurtado. “Protecting intellectual property rights (IPR) remains a CBP priority.”
Further inspection revealed that the uniforms of the fake Brazilian, Italian and Argentinian national teams violated the IPRs of Puma, Adidas and Nike.
CBP protects businesses and consumers every day through an aggressive IPR enforcement program. CBP targets and seizes imports of counterfeit and pirated goods and enforces exclusion orders on patent-infringing and other IPR goods.
During FY 2013, CBP field operations conducted more than 164 seizures related to IPR violations, with a domestic value of approximately $1.9 million.
Trade in counterfeit and pirated goods threatens America’s innovation economy, the competitiveness of our businesses, the livelihoods of U.S. workers, the economic security of our country, and in some cases, the health and safety of consumers.
The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center) is one of the U.S. government's key weapons in the fight against criminal counterfeiting and piracy.
Working in close coordination with the Department of Justice Task Force on Intellectual Property, the IPR Center harnesses the tactical expertise of its 21 member agencies to share information, develop initiatives, coordinate enforcement actions and conduct investigations related to intellectual property theft. Through this strategic interagency partnership, the IPR Center protects the health and safety of the American consumer and the U.S. economy.
FDA IMPORT/EXPORT ALERTS
U.S. Food & Drug Administration / http://www.fws.gov/le/public-bulletin.html
Subject: Five Foreign Species of Sturgeon Listed as Endangered - July 1, 2014
Subject: Filing Changes Affecting Import and Export of all Lionfish Species - June 17, 2014
Port Offers Discounts to Attract Cargo, Clean Air
Port of Long Beach / http://www.polb.com/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1311&TargetID=7
‘Free parking’ for pollution-cutting ships, cash for new business
The Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners has given preliminary approval to two incentives that officials expect will bring additional cargo to the Port while also encouraging the use of air pollution-reducing shore power and on-dock rail.
The incentives are designed to help the Port compete with other West Coast ports that have already cut fees to grow their business. By encouraging the use of shore power or another approved system for cutting at-berth ship emissions, and by bringing more cargo via on-dock rail, the Long Beach programs seek to increase trade while also reducing air pollution.
In one incentive, the Port will waive "dockage" charges payable to the Port of Long Beach – essentially giving free parking – for cargo ships that both slow down near the Port and plug into shore power or use another approved pollution-cutting technology at berth. The Vessel Dockage Waiver Program augments other Port and state programs that require and encourage slow-steaming and shore power.
Also given preliminary approval was a $5-per-container unit incentive that shipping lines can earn for each new loaded container they bring through Long Beach. The requirement is that each container must travel inland by “on-dock rail,” which helps to eliminate truck trips on local roadways by rail-hauling the containers from the wharf.
“We are really in competition with Vancouver, with Prince Rupert, with Lazaro Cardenas, where costs are much lower than San Pedro Bay,” said Board of Harbor Commissioners President Doug Drummond, referencing seaports in Canada and Mexico. “These incentives are important because they have to do with increasing cargo for our Port and are hitting at a time when cargo across the board is increasing.”
The Board of Harbor Commissioners is scheduled to consider the incentives for final approval at its meeting June 23.
The Vessel Dockage Waiver Program requires the vessel operator to slow down within 40 nautical miles of the Port. The vessel operator is also required then to use shore power at berth or a certified alternative. By waiving the dockage fees in such cases, the Port will forgo an estimated $3.3 million to $4.9 million a year. But the measure is expected to attract additional cargo to Long Beach, and help to offset the costs with an increase in revenue from other fees. The incentive builds upon a Port program in which most ships reduce speeds near Port and a state program where at least half of all ships must use shore power or an equivalent at berth.
The Incremental On-Dock Intermodal Incentive Program will pay $5 per loaded 20-foot-equivalent container unit for new cargo above the 2013 baseline level that is also rail-hauled either out of, or into, the Port. If vessels bring an additional 20 percent more cargo over two years, it would generate an additional $22 million in revenue for the Port.
L’Oréal Settles FTC Charges Alleging Deceptive Advertising for Anti-Aging Cosmetics
Federal Trade Commission / http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/06/loreal-settles-ftc-charges-alleging-deceptive-advertising-anti
L’Oréal Settles FTC Charges Alleging Deceptive Advertising for Anti-Aging Cosmetics
Cosmetics company L’Oréal USA, Inc. has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges of deceptive advertising about its Lancôme Génifique and L’Oréal Paris Youth Code skincare products. According to the FTC’s complaint, L’Oréal made false and unsubstantiated claims that its Génifique and Youth Code products provided anti-aging benefits by targeting users’ genes.
“It would be nice if cosmetics could alter our genes and turn back time,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “But L’Oréal couldn’t support these claims.”
In national advertising campaigns that encompassed print, radio, television, Internet, and social media outlets, L’Oréal claimed that its Génifique products were “clinically proven” to “boost genes’ activity and stimulate the production of youth proteinsthat would cause “visibly younger skin in just 7 days,” and would provide results to specific percentages of users.
Similarly, for its Youth Code products, L’Oréal touted – in both English- and Spanish-language advertisements – the “new era of skincare: gene science,” and that consumers could “crack the code to younger acting skin.”
Charging as much as $132 per container, L’Oréal has sold Génifique nationwide since February 2009 at Lancôme counters in department stores and at beauty specialty stores. The company has sold Youth Code, which costs up to $25 per container at major retail stores across the United States, since November 2010.
Under the proposed administrative settlement, L’Oréal is prohibited from claiming that any Lancôme brand or L’Oréal Paris brand facial skincare product targets or boosts the activity of genes to make skin look or act younger, or respond five times faster to aggressors like stress, fatigue, and aging, unless the company has competent and reliable scientific evidence substantiating such claims. The settlement also prohibits claims that certain Lancôme brand and L’Oréal Paris brand products affect genes unless the claims are supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. Finally, L’Oréal is prohibited from making claims about these products that misrepresent the results of any test or study.
The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment was 4-0-1, with Commissioner McSweeny not participating.
The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through July 30, 2014, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in “Supplementary Information” section of the Federal Register notice. Comments should be submitted electronically using the form at this link. Instructions for submitting comments in paper form are listed in the “Accessibility” portion of the form.
NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.
FTC Alleges T-Mobile Crammed Bogus Charges onto Customers’ Phone Bills
Federal Trade Commission / http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/07/ftc-alleges-t-mobile-crammed-bogus-charges-customers-phone-bills
T-Mobile Was Aware For Years that Charges Were Not Authorized by its Customers
Call-in lines, which are for media only, will open 15 minutes prior to the start of the call. Jessica Rich and FTC staff will be available to take questions from the media about the case.
In a complaint filed today, the Federal Trade Commission is charging mobile phone service provider T-Mobile USA, Inc., with making hundreds of millions of dollars by placing charges on mobile phone bills for purported “premium” SMS subscriptions that, in many cases, were bogus charges that were never authorized by its customers.
The FTC alleges that T-Mobile received anywhere from 35 to 40 percent of the total amount charged to consumers for subscriptions for content such as flirting tips, horoscope information or celebrity gossip that typically cost $9.99 per month. According to the FTC’s complaint, T-Mobile in some cases continued to bill its customers for these services offered by scammers years after becoming aware of signs that the charges were fraudulent.
“It’s wrong for a company like T-Mobile to profit from scams against its customers when there were clear warning signs the charges it was imposing were fraudulent,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “The FTC’s goal is to ensure that T-Mobile repays all its customers for these crammed charges.”
In a process known as “third-party billing,” a phone company places charges on a consumer’s bill for services offered by another company, often receiving a substantial percentage of the amount charged. When the charges are placed on the bill without the consumer’s authorization, it is known as “cramming.”
The FTC’s complaint alleges that in some cases, T-Mobile was charging consumers for services that had refund rates of up to 40 percent in a single month. The FTC has alleged that because such a large number of people were seeking refunds, it was an obvious sign to T-Mobile that the charges were never authorized by its customers. As the complaint notes, the refund rate likely significantly understates the percentage of consumers who were crammed. The complaint also states that internal company documents show that T-Mobile had received a high number of consumer complaints at least as early as 2012.
The FTC has made significant efforts to end mobile cramming. In the last year, in addition to holding a public workshop on mobile cramming, the Commission has filed several lawsuits against alleged mobile cramming operations Jesta Digital, Wise Media, and Tatto Inc. According to today’s complaint, T-Mobile billed its customers for the services of these FTC defendants as well as an operation sued by the Texas Attorney General.
The complaint against T-Mobile alleges that the company’s billing practices made it difficult for consumers to detect that they were being charged, much less by whom. When consumers viewed a summary of their T-Mobile bill online, according to the complaint, it did not show consumers that they were being charged by a third party, or that the charge was part of a recurring subscription. The heading under which the charges would be listed, “Premium Services,” could only be seen after clicking on a separate heading called “Use Charges.” Even after clicking, though, consumers still could not see the individual charges.
The complaint also alleges that T-Mobile’s full phone bills, which can be longer than 50 pages, made it nearly impossible for consumers to find and understand third-party subscription charges. After looking past a “Summary” section as well as an “Account Service Detail” section, both of which described “Usage Charges” but did not itemize those charges, a consumer might then reach the section labeled “Premium Services,” where the crammed items would be listed.
According to the complaint, the information would be listed there in an abbreviated form, such as “8888906150BrnStorm23918,” that did not explain that the charge was for a recurring third-party subscription supposedly authorized by the consumer. In addition, the complaint notes that consumers who use pre-paid calling plans do not receive monthly bills, and as a result the subscription fee was debited from their pre-paid account without their knowledge.
When consumers were able to determine they were being charged for services they hadn’t ordered, the complaint alleges that T-Mobile in many cases failed to provide consumers with full refunds. Indeed, the FTC charged that T-Mobile refused refunds to some customers, offering only partial refunds of two months’ worth of the charges to others, and in other cases instructed consumers to seek refunds directly from the scammers – without providing accurate contact information to do so.
The complaint also notes that in some cases, T-Mobile claimed that consumers had authorized the charges despite having no proof of consumers doing so.
The FTC’s complaint seeks a court order to permanently prevent T-Mobile from engaging in mobile cramming and to obtain refunds for consumers and disgorgement of T-Mobile’s ill-gotten gains.
The FTC thanks the Federal Communications Commission and its Enforcement Bureau for their invaluable assistance with and close cooperation and coordination in this matter.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.