Would You Break Up With Someone For Having A Bad Credit Score?

There are a lot of personal things you might want to know about someone you date — relationship history, medical/psychological issues, allergies, political leanings, job prospects, any legal concerns just to name a few — but rarely do we look at a potential spouse and think, “I wonder if their credit score was wrecked by a $10,000 gallbladder surgery bill from when they were 21 and between jobs.”

As we head into wedding season, a pair of surveys shed light on how frequently we tend to ignore financial issues in the face of romance — even when we’re curious.

First up is the report from Bankrate, which found that 38% of adults said that knowing someone else’s credit score would have at least some impact on their interest in dating that person.

Among college graduates, that rate jumps up to 47% of people who would need to think about their relationship depending on the other person’s credit score. Conversely, it drops to 29% for people with up to a high school school diploma.

At the same time, more than one-third (34%) of respondents say they have never even checked their credit report, meaning a lot of consumers aren’t even curious about their own status.

It’s one thing to turn a blind eye to someone’s credit score when you’re just dating, but a new survey from Experian — the credit reporting agency, not Experianne, the company that whispers fascist writings into infants’ ears — found that 40% of newlyweds don’t know their spouse’s credit score.

While a credit score can be a metric of someone’s financial responsibility, the mystery of exactly how these scores are calculated — combined with the fact that damage from debt problems can linger for years, even after someone rights all of their accounts — may make this information misleading.

For example, someone with an otherwise pristine credit history can suddenly be slammed with a $50,000 bill for an unexpected surgery and subsequent hospital stay. If that person can’t pay that bill on time, their credit score may end up bruised and battered for years to come, even if they continue to pay all their other bills.

According to Experian, it’s not just credit scores that are going un-discussed by newlyweds. One-in-four newly married folks don’t even know how much their spouse earns, while a full one-third of respondents had no idea how much student debt their new bride or groom has brought along with them into the marriage.

Also, men are much more secretive about their spending. Nearly two-thirds (61%) of newlyweds who have kept purchases secret were males, and these men say they would spend $1,259 on average before telling their spouse about a purchase. For women, the threshold was significantly lower, saying they would spend an average of $383 before feeling like they had to tell their spouse.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Google Chrome Dethrones Internet Explorer To Become Most Popular Browser

If the technology world was a high school hallway, Google Chrome would be shoving past former prom queen Internet Explorer while wrinkling its nose like it smells something particularly offensive. That’s because Chrome is now the most popular browser, as it recently took home a larger share of the market than its rival for the first time.

Google Chrome snagged a 41.6% share of all desktop browser traffic in April, as tallied by web tracker Net Market Share, which is up from 39% in March (via CNET).

In that same month, Internet Explorer’s chunk of the market dropped to 41.3%, down from 43.4% percent. This is the first time Chrome has surged ahead of its rival for the top spot, in terms of Net Market Share.

Firefox follows far behind at third with 9.7%, then comes Safari with 4.9%, and Opera commanding a scant 1.89% share.

It’s particularly impressive when considering that IE comes bundled on all Windows machines, while most folks who want to use Google Chrome have to download and install it on their devices.

Again, this is just one group’s calculation of who’s on top — according to another web tracker called StatCounter, Chrome has been in the lead since 2012, with Firefox second, and IE third.

Internet Explorer’s share of the market pie will inevitably decrease as Microsoft keeps pushing users to switch to its new browser, Edge. Though there are still plenty of people using Internet Explorer 8, 9, and 10, Microsoft no longer offers support for those products.

Google Chrome sneaks past Internet Explorer to become top browser [CNET]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Hamilton Beach Grill Assembles Pretty Quick, Not As Quick As Promised

When a product advertises that you can assemble it in 10 minutes, should you take their word for it? Our wrench-wielding colleagues down the hall at Consumer Reports decided to test Hamilton Beach’s claim that a customer could assemble one of their gas grills in 10 minutes, equipped with only a screwdriver, but with the help of a friend. Their verdict? The grill doesn’t take as long to assemble as similar products, but it takes more than 10 minutes.

Right now, approximately 57% of you are quoting from this clip from The Simpsons, so let’s get that out of the way:

Consumer Reports bought two grills, then put together a test panel consisting of one employee who had never assembled a grill before (Dan DiClerico), and one assembles about 20 every year for the magazine’s tests (Rich Handel). That sounds fair, right?

Hamilton Beach’s clock starts after the assembler unpacks the parts, reads the manual, and watches a short instructional video. Those preliminaries took Dan 14 minutes, and took Rich 10 minutes. Their “official” times didn’t add up: the actual assembly took Dan 30 minutes, and it took Rich 18 minutes.

The same team assembled a similar size and type of gas grill from Walmart, which took Dan 78 minutes, and took Rich 44 minutes. Final verdict: while the grill took more than 10 minutes to put together, it took them less than half as long to assemble it as a similar grill. Anything that gets you to your burgers faster is good, right?

Hamilton Beach, for their part, maintains that the 10-minute figure is fair and accurate. In a statement, the company explained, in part: “We stand by the claim that the Hamilton Beach Quick Assembly Grill can be assembled in 10 minutes or less with a friend and a screwdriver, after unpacking and reading the instruction manual.”

If you’ve found this post because it took you at least three times that long to put your model 84341 grill together, we hope that the Consumer Reports test made you feel better.
Hamilton Beach Quick Assembly Grill Not as Quick as Company Says [Consumer Reports]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Congress May Finally Outlaw “Gag Clauses” That Block Customers From Writing Negative Reviews

Last December, it looked like federal lawmakers were getting serious about so-called “non-disparagement” or “gag” clauses in consumer contracts that forbid customers from saying anything negative about a purchase or transaction. The U.S. Senate quickly passed a bipartisan bill that would outlaw the practice, but the legislation has idled in the House since. However, a new, virtually identical bill may finally be evidence of movement on this issue.

Late last week, Reps. Leonard Lance (NJ) and Joe Kennedy (MA) introduced the Consumer Review Fairness Act [PDF], which appears to be the same bill — except for the slightly tweaked name — as the Consumer Review Freedom Act [PDF] that passed the Senate in mid-December without even being debated.

Regardless of the name, if it’s passed without significant revisions or pork-barrel add-ons, would give the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general the authority to take enforcement action against businesses that attempt to use these ethically questionable clauses to quiet consumers.

We’ve shown you a number of non-disparagement clauses in the past, most notoriously the one involving online retailer KlearGear, which failed in its attempt to slam a customer with a $3,500 penalty after she wrote a truthful-but-negative online review of her dealings with the company.

Then there were the clauses used by sketchy cellphone accessory sellers, wedding contractors, landlords, makers of weight-loss products, and pet-sitters.

“Consumers in the 21st century economy should be able to post, comment and Tweet their honest and accurate feedback without fear of retribution,” explains Rep. Lance in a statement. “Too many companies are burying non-disparagement clauses in fine print and going after consumers when they post negative feedback online.”

Congressman Kennedy says that, by eliminating non-disparagement clauses, the Consumer Review Fairness Act would “ensure companies can never retaliate against customers for simply expressing an opinion.”

In 2014, in response to the growing use of these anti-consumer, anti-free-expression clauses, California passed a law outlawing their use.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

FBI Looking For Guy Seen Sprinkling Mystery Liquid On Food At Michigan Whole Foods

If you’ve been walking around at Whole Foods in Ann Arbor, MI and sprinkling some kind of liquid on the food, the Federal Bureau of Investigation would like a word.

The man is suspected of attempting to contaminate food products from the hot food and salad bars at the store, reports MLive.com. An FBI spokesperson didn’t disclose which store he visited on April 24, but asked for the public’s help in identifying him.

“We do not know what the substance was,” she said. “The only thing that he was seen sprinkling the substance on was food.”

Whole Foods confirmed that an employee at one store saw the man pouring liquid on food bars, and alerted her superiors.

“Out of an abundance of caution, all salad and hot food bars were immediately closed down at the store, all food was thrown out and the store team thoroughly cleaned and sanitized all food stations, equipment and serving utensils before restocking with fresh items,” a spokesperson said.

Thus far, tests haven’t shown that the substance is harmful, but the FBI wouldn’t say “unequivocally” that it isn’t, either. Investigators say they need to speak more with the suspect before determining if he’ll face any charges.

FBI seeking ID of man sprinkling unknown liquid on food at Ann Arbor Whole Foods [MLive.com]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

6 Things People Are Talking About When They Talk About Lab-Grown Meat

If you’ve tuned into the lab-grown meat discussion whatsoever in the past few years, it could seem like it’s only a matter of time before we’re all dining on hot dogs, bacon, and burgers produced in a lab by scientists. We’re not quite at the point of casually shopping for these products alongside meat derived from animals, as there are still things the scientific community has to hash out before lab meat hits the market.

Scientists have claimed victories in recent years with things like a 2013 lab-grown burger experiment from the Netherlands, and a “cultured meat” — the term preferred by scientists for lab-produced meat — meatball introduced here in the U.S. in February.

Along with those advances comes a discussion about whether or not cultured meat is better for people than conventional meat, and whether making meat in a lab could have a positive impact on the environment or a negative one, as The Washington Post points out in a recent article. Here are a few things scientists and those in the lab-grown meat industry talk about when they talk about lab-grown meat:

1. Environmental impact

Is growing meat in a lab better for the environment than raising animals to slaughter? On the one hand, scientists cite a 2011 study that calculated that growing meat in labs would cut down on the land required to produce steaks, sausages and bacon by 99% percent and reduce the associated need for water by 90 percent. One pound of lab meat would produce less greenhouse-gas emissions than those produced by cows, pigs, and poultry.

On the other hand, cultured meat production isn’t so great when you take into account the generation of electricity and heat you need to grow cells in a lab, authors of a 2015 life-cycle analysis of potential cultured meat production in the United States point out.

It’s too soon to tell what environmental impacts of the first products will be, experts say, so we should keep researching them but prepare to manage the downsides.

2. No more dangerous bacteria or antibiotics in food

Cultured meats would be produced in sterile environments, which means they wouldn’t have any dangerous bacteria, proponents say, thus helping to prevent the spread of food-related infections in humans.

Skipping animals would also mean avoiding antibiotics they’ve consumed to help them fight disease and grow faster. Those antibiotics have been linked to antibiotic-resistant bacteria that is dangerous to humans.

3. It might help with that whole “carcinogenics in processed meats” thing

Remember when the World Health Organization linked processed meat like bacon and hot dogs to cancer? Though we don’t know exactly what it is about those products that could be cancer-causing, one suspect is heme iron, which is common in meat and is basically only found in meat. Producers of cultured meat say they can make beef and pork in the lab that is free of heme iron, and thus, perhaps cut down on the risk of cancer related to those products.

4. Less saturated fat = healthier meat

It could also be possible to remove or reduce saturated fat in lab-grown meat, and replace it with healthier omega-3 fatty acids, scientists say.

“Stem cells are, in principle, capable of making omega-3 fatty acids. If we can tap into that machinery of the cell, then we could make healthier hamburgers,” Dr. Mark Post, who is working on the fat content of lab-grown beef, tells The Post.

5. Certain preservatives may still be necessary

Nitrates and nitrites, other possibly carcinogenic compounds, might still be required to prevent things like hot dogs from losing their color. Post says that because cultured meats are sterile, however, they wouldn’t need as much nitrate to stay safe to eat.

6. It still has to taste good

Other chemicals can’t be done away with if you want it to taste good — namely heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAA) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which can cause DNA damage, the WHO’s report says, but which also are created as part of the Maillard reaction in the cooking process. That reaction is what gives cooked meat its brown color and tasty flavor. Take it away, and meat won’t taste like it was grilled.

There are other issues as well, all of which add up to trying to figure out a balancing act. Basically, there’s no way to have something that tastes exactly like meat that doesn’t also come with a few downsides for your health.

“We’re not there yet,” Uma Valeti, a co-founder and the chief executive officer of Memphis Meats, maker of the cultured meat meatball, told The Post, “but in just a few years, we expect to be selling protein-packed pork, beef and chicken that tastes identical to conventionally raised meat but that is cleaner, safer and all-around better than meat from animals grown on farms.”

Lab-grown meat is in your future, and it may be healthier than the real stuff [The Washington Post]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

BlueHippo Must Pay $14M For Continuing To Rip Off Customers

Seven years after federal regulators charged shady “no credit check” computer seller BlueHippo with contempt for allegedly violating a 2008 order by continuing to take money from customers without providing promised computers, the company has been ordered to pay $13.4 million. 

BlueHippo, which filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2009 after it could no longer pay its bills, previously agreed to a settlement in 2008 to pay $5 million and revamp its practices to settle allegations that it operated a deceptive computer financing scheme.

The computer layaway service was accused of enforcing an unfair “no refund” policy on consumers, and refusing to ship items in a timely fashion. When consumers tried to cancel, BlueHippo kept their “pre-payments.”

According to the FTC’s 2008 complaint [PDF], BlueHippo Funding, LLC and affiliate BlueHippo Capital, LLC offered to extend credit to consumers to finance purchases of personal computers and other consumer electronics with down payments of $99 to $124, and a year of weekly or bi-weekly payments ranging from $36 to $88.

BlueHippo promised to deliver the product once the consumer made 13 weekly payments. But most consumers did not receive the computers they ordered in the time promised, even after they had made 13 weeks of payments.

The Commission charged that BlueHippo’s marketing tactics were deceptive, and violated the FTC Act and other federal credit statutes.

Nearly two years after the company settled those allegations with the FTC, the regulator filed a contempt order [PDF] alleging BlueHippo continued to sign up customers as quickly as it had before the settlement.

Between April 2008 and July 2009, customers placed 62,673 orders for computers through BlueHippo.

However, like it had previously done, the company failed to provide either merchandise or store credit for 55,892 of the orders — totaling $14 million, as of July 24, 2009.

A hearing on the matter found that BlueHippo was in violation of its 2008 order, and the court awarded consumer redress of only $609,000.

The FTC appealed the redress award, and a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a new judgment [PDF] of $13.4 million against BlueHippo CEO Joseph Rensin.

“This scheme preyed on cash-strapped consumers looking for computers to improve their lives and the lives of their children,” Jessica Rich, the Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist