ML sectoral trends
Shares of farm & farm inputs companies advanced 14%, while shares of petrochemicals and 
packaging companies advanced 13% each. Stocks of hotels, transport & logistics companies and lifestyle & leisure companies rose 1% each, while stocks of oil & gas companies closed 0.24% up. 

User

Urban Inflation

Combined inflation for urban and rural areas eased marginally to 7.80% in August 2014 from 7.96% in July 2014. Inflation in urban areas eased to 7.04% in August from 7.42% in July. Food inflation in urban areas eased marginally to 8.40% in August from 8.45% in July. Inflation for vegetables in urban areas declined significantly, to 7.68% in August from 11.38% in July. Inflation related to fuel & power declined marginally to 2.69% in August from 3.24% in July. Inflation for housing remained steady at around 8.50%. Inflation for clothing stayed at 7% and miscellaneous items declined marginally to 5% in August from 6% in July.

User

New California Law Says You Have a Right to Gripe

California becomes first state in the US to ban non-disparagement clauses. Similar federal proposal expected to follow

 

Score one for consumers with opinions. California has enacted legislation – the first state in the nation – that prohibits non-disparagement clauses aimed at preventing customers from writing negative reviews of a company. And Californian Congressman Eric Swalwell is set to propose similar federal legislation this week.


The new law prohibits a company from threatening or otherwise penalizing a consumer for making certain disparaging statements regarding the seller or its products or services and will slap companies with fines ranging from $2,500-$5,000 plus an additional $10,000 for violating it – in essence reversing an alarming trend of penalties washing over consumers.


In the past few years, consumers have reported being ensnarled in some outrageous non-disparagement clauses, including one that fined a couple $500 for every negative review of the venue posted by wedding guests.


In another example, a Utah couple – John and Jen Palmer– who refused to pay a $3,500 fine imposed by an online store, Kleargear.com, saw their credit downgraded after posting a negative review of the company when the products they ordered didn’t arrive.

 

However, a suit against Kleargear brought on the couple’s behalf by Public Citizen, a Washington D.C. based consumer advocacy group, yielded the couple a $306,750 judgment in their favor. The U.S. District Court in Utah held that:


KlearGear.com is liable to Plaintiffs for violating the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, for defamation, for intentional interference with prospective contractual relations, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress…


TINA.org reached out to Kleargear for comment but the company has not responded.
Jen Palmer told TINA.org that she hoped the judgment and passage of the California legislation would spur further legal protections for consumers.


“We’re very pleased that California was inspired by our situation and has taken the initiative to pass consumer protection legislation,’’ she said. “One of the things that John and I were hoping for in the process of our lawsuit, aside from clearing up his credit report, was that we could ensure nobody else would have to go through the nightmare we experienced. We knew early on that this fight would be for everyone else who might also be threatened by a company simply for posting a truthful but negative review about a transaction.”


Scott Michelman, staff attorney for Public Citizen Litigation Group, said the California law provides important protections.


The new law provides important protection for consumer speech by barring the use of non-disparagement clauses and giving both public and private actors a powerful tool to deter businesses that would bully consumers into silence.


However, the fight over consumer reviews continues as companies try to protect their reputations and consumers who want to voice their experience.


Yelp is fighting a legal action in Virginia seeking to compel it to reveal the identity of consumers who posted anonymous negative comments about a carpet cleaning company.

 

The company sued the consumers alleging defamation, which is not protected speech.

 

Yelp objected saying revealing the posters’ identities would violate their First Amendment rights to voice opinions anonymously. The Virginia Supreme Court is reviewing the case.

Courtesy: TruthInAdvertising.org

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)