Credit Bureau Blocking
Claim:  The four major U.S. credit bureaus will be allowed to share your private information with anyone who requests it as of 1 July 2003 unless you specifically request them not to. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Just wanted to let everyone know who hasn't already heard, the four major credit bureaus in the US. will be allowed, starting July 1, to release your credit info, mailing addresses, phone numbers etc. to anyone who requests it. If you would like to 'opt out' of this release of info, you can call 1-888-567-8688. It only takes a couple of minutes to do, and you can take care of anyone else in the household while making only one call, you'll just need to know their social security number. Be sure to listen closely, the first opt out is only for two years, make sure you wait until they prompt you to press '3' on your keypad to opt out for good. Origins:  There is truth in the issue which seems to be uppermost in the minds of most of those who receive this message  that is, whether the phone number provided above is valid for the stated purpose or whether it's some sort of information-collecting scam.  The phone number listed (1-888-5OPTOUT) is indeed legitimate; it is a shared number set up with the cooperation of the Associated Credit Bureaus to establish a single point of contact for consumers to call to request that all four major U.S. credit bureaus (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union, and Novus/Innovis) remove their information from the marketing lists and pre-approved credit offer lists sold to third parties.  Yes, they automated system will ask you to enter your phone number, Social Security number, and other personal information, because it needs that information to locate your record.  If you are uncomfortable supplying this information to an automated system, you will have to call each of the four major credit bureaus individually and speak to real people at each one of them, a cumbersone and time-consuming ' process. However, it is not true that consumers must call this number before 1 July 2004, nor is it true that recent legislation allows credit bureaus to share private information with "anyone who requests it."  This misinformation has been circulating since 2001, and the same message keeps getting get dusted off and sent around every year with an updated deadline.  (In fact, if you call the number listed above, the first option you're presented is to listen to a message explaining why the e-mail quoted above is false.) Contrary to the text of the dire warning quoted above, credit bureaus cannot sell your non-public personal information (e.g., Social Security number, employment history, bank account information) to "anyone who requests it."  Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1997, businesses seeking to obtain personal information from credit bureaus must have a "permissible purpose" in order to access credit reports.  (Permissible purposes include checking the backgrounds of persons to determine their creditworthiness before selling or renting property to them, extending them loans or credit, or considering them for employment.)  This restriction remains in force, it did not change on 1 July 2001, and it still applies whether or not you call the number listed above.    Credit bureaus can, however, create lists containing the names, addresses, and phone numbers of consumers with good credit and sell them to telemarketers and direct-mail marketers.  (Names, addresses, and phone numbers are not considered "non-public personal information" because they may be obtained from a variety of publicly-accessible sources, such as phone directories.) Consumers may call the 1-888-5OPTOUT number to request that all four major credit bureaus not include their information on these marketing lists.  There is no deadline for this process  consumers may call the number at any time. What did change back in 2001 was that due to the implementation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act) the banking, insurance, and securities industries were allowed to operate under the same corporate affiliation.  (This act set aside legislation passed during the Depression era, which had created legal barriers to prevent mergers between banks, insurance companies, brokerage firms, and other financial institutions.)   Because of consumers' concerns that new financial conglomerates allowed under this legislation might pool their resources to compile huge databases of sensitive customer information and share them with third parties, Congress added a provision to the act requiring that all financial service companies send privacy notices providing a "reasonable opportunity" for their customers to opt out of this information-sharing by 1 July 2001.  (These notices had to provide consumers with details about all the kinds of information the companies collected about them and how they used that information.)  The 1 July 2001 deadline applied only to the sending of notification to customers by financial institutions, and it had nothing to do with credit bureaus.  Some key points of this "opt-out" process are:  Unlike credit bureaus, financial institutions can share your private information with third parties by default.  In order to stop this sharing, you must specifically invoke your "opt-out" privileges to request that they not do it.  Privacy notices had to be sent to customers by 1 July 2001, but there is no deadline by which customers must respond.  Your right to "opt out" of the information-sharing process is ongoing and may be invoked at any time.  Most importantly, you must contact every financial institution with which you do business to completely "opt out" of the information-sharing process.  The phone number given in the message quoted above (1-888-5OPTOUT) applies only to credit bureaus. Calling this number will not affect the ability of any banks, insurance companies, credit card companies, brokerage firms, or any other financial institutions with which you do (or have done) business from sharing your information. The bottom line is that laws regarding the selling of personal information by financial institutions have become more stringent recently, not less.  The changes may not have made the laws as stringent as we'd like them to be, but at least they're a step in the right direction, not the scare stories these messages make them out to be. Additional information:        Consumer Credit File Privacy: The Real Deal   (Federal Trade Commission)        Protecting Financial Privacy   (Privacy Rights Clearinghouse)        E-mail Sends Wrong Message   (Associated Credit Bureaus)   Last updated:  3 December 2007    Sources:   Buggs, Shannon.  "Don't Be Fooled on Privacy Issue."   The Houston Chronicle.  16 July 2001  (Business; p. 1).     O'Harrow Jr., Robert.  "Credit Firm Told to Stop Selling Data."   The Washington Post.  17 April 2001  (p. E1).     Yip, Pamela.  "Now Is Time for Consumers to Opt out of Sharing Financial Data."   Associated Press.  9 June 2001.     Newsweek.  "Money Notes."   2 July 2001.
On Nov. 29, 2020, a Facebook page purporting to represent Costco, a chain of membership-only warehouse stores, posted a message offering a free grocery box to anyone who shared and commented on their post. The message was purportedly written by Costco's CEO Craig Jelinek (whose name was misspelled "Jelinekand" in this scam Facebook post due to a typo): message My name is Craig Jelinekand I'm the CEO of Costco Inc. To celebrate our 35th Birthday, Every single person who shaes and comments in the next 24hrs will get one of these Christmas Food Box delivered straight to their door on Monday 30th November. Each Food box contains groceries worth of $250 and a $35 Costco voucher. Make sure you validate your entry. Limit 1 Food box per person.   This message was not posted on Costco's official page and it was not written by the company's CEO. This is a scam that was shared by an imposter Facebook page. A nearly identical version of this scam (with Aldi swapped in for Costco) was also shared on social media in November 2020.  Costco has not commented on this scam offer yet, but Aldi posted a message to Facebook alerting their customers about the scam: Facebook Hey ALDI fans! Looks like another Facebook scam is making its way around. We can confirm it is a scam and the page has no affiliation with ALDI. We're sorry for any confusion this may have caused!We have been working with Facebook since yesterday to get the page taken down, but we'd love your help! Please share this post to help us spread the word and always be sure to look for the blue check mark by our name for authenticity! One indication that this "free Costco grocery box" offer is a scam is that it did not originate on Costco's Facebook page. Rather, this message was shared to a page called "Costco US," whereas Costco's real page is called "Costco." Here's a screenshot of the real page (left) that has a verified symbol and the fake page (right), which does not.  Costco   Social media users could have also clicked the "Page Transparency" button on Facebook to unearth some more details about this fake page. In this case, the page transparency button reveals that the scam "Costco US" page was created on Nov. 29, the same day that this "free grocery box" scam started to circulate. It would be unusual, to say the least, for Costco to start an entirely new page (one that its shoppers do not know about) in order to host a giveaway.    A reverse image search on the included photos also shows that this page is not on the up-and-up. The image supposedly showing "free Costco grocery boxes" is actually several years old and did not originally show boxes adorned with the "Costco" logo. The original image (below) shows plain cardboard boxes. The scammers inserted a digital version of the Costco logo in order to make it seem like the store was truly giving away boxes of groceries. A similar scam involving the grocery store Aldi also used a doctored version of this image: several years old similar scam   The best way to tell that this offer is a scam, however, is to ask yourself a simple question: Does it seem too good to be true?  This type of scam is commonplace on social media. A fraudulent page (in this case a fake Costco page) posts an especially appealing offer (free grocery boxes) and then asks social media users to like, share, or comment on the post. This ensures that the scam message will spread to as many people as possible, which gives the fraudsters a better chance of success. "Success," in this case, is people being tricked into parting with personal information, such as email addresses, passwords, or credit card numbers.  We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers The Trump administration has cited China's trade relationship with North Korea as a key lever to deter the regime from producing a nuclear missile capable of striking the U.S. We must all do our share, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told the U.N. Security Council April 28. But China, accounting for 90 percent of North Korean trade, China alone has economic leverage over Pyongyang that is unique, and its role is therefore particularly important. Tillersons remarks, which included a call for fresheconomic sanctions, came at a time of heightened tensions between the United States and North Korea. As aU.S. Navy strike groupsteamed toward the Korean Peninsula -- where28,500 American troopsstationed in South Korea are on alert following thelatest provocationsfrom Pyongyang -- President Donald Trump on April 27warnedof a possible major conflict if diplomatic efforts fail. Weve previouslylooked atTrumps claim about the degree of control Beijing wields over Pyongyang. With Tillerson citing Chinese-North Korean trade relations as a vital diplomatic pressure point, we decided to explore how much China accounts for North Koreas overall trade with the outside world. Finding accurate data for the secretive regime is a bit tricky since no North Korean equivalent of Trade.gov with troves of trade data exists, as Pyongyang treats this information as a state secret. But so-called mirror statistics, an accounting of data reconstructed from other countries reports, offer a workaround, albeit a flawed one, since the statistics dont capture some transactions. The available data tell a story of growing dependence on Chinese trade over roughly the past two decades as economic sanctions levied by the UN and individual countries, as well as other factors, have seen North Koreas trade with other partners fall drastically. In 2000, China, South Korea and Japan each accounted for about a fifth of the regime's overall trade, with the rest of the world making up the remaining roughly two-fifths. Since then, Chinas slice of the pie has more than quadrupled, according to Stephan Haggard, professor of Korea-Pacific Studies at the University of California-San Diego. As sanctions have reduced South Korean and Japanese trade basically to nothing, trade has naturally become focused more on China, Haggard said. The rest of the world has not picked up the slack. Marcus Noland of the Peterson Institute for International Economics agreed that Chinas current position as an outsize trade partner of North Korea is largely a function of Pyongyangs strained relations with its neighbor to the south -- but he noted this could change if political winds shift. The reason that the percentage is so high is that South Korea, which was North Koreas second largest trade partner, imposed sanctions and trade between the two countries is virtually nil, Noland said. If South Korea were to resume trade relations (as it might in the next administration) Chinas share of North Korean trade would fall, but China would still be the countrys principal trade partner. Bilateral disputes led to Tokyo imposing sanctions that went even further than UN restrictions, said Haggard, who noted that the commercial risk associated with North Korea and its poor record on honoring property rights have also dissuaded potential trade partners. As South Korean and Japanese trade with Pyongyang fell, Chinas economy boomed, fueling increased trade with North Korea -- a relationship unfettered by bilateral sanctions, as Beijing has traditionally viewed the regime as an ally. China has also been accused of being less compliant with UN sanctions than other countries. As a result of these factors, the consensus among experts we spoke to is that China now accounts for roughly 90 percent of North Korean trade. Source: Stephan Haggard, professor of Korea-Pacific Studies at the University of California-San Diego. UNSCR refers to United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Yes, China accounts for more than 90 percent of North Koreas recorded trade, Noland said. They are the primary supplier of oil and the marginal supplier of grain. If China wanted to, it could bring North Korea to its knees. It has the economic leverage, but has been unwilling to use it, perhaps because it fears destabilizing the regime, he added. Our ruling Tillerson said, China account(s) for 90 percent of North Korean trade. Chinas role as an outsize trade partner of North Korea is a relatively new development. Since 2000, trade with the rest of the world has dropped off, as Chinese trade has risen. While the ratio is subject to change based on political factors, China now accounts for around 90 percent of North Korean trade. We rate Tillersons statement True. On June 14, 2021, Portugal soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo sat down for a news conference to discuss his team's upcoming match against Hungary in the 2020 UEFA European Football Championship. Before Ronaldo took questions, he took the two Coca-Cola bottles that were left out for him, moved them out of frame to the side of the table, then held up a bottle of water and said, "Agua." Coca-Cola  As this video went viral, a number of outlets reported that Ronaldo's Coca-Cola snub had cost the company billions of dollars. The exact cost of the snub varied from outlet to outlet, but the general claim was that it cost Coca-Cola between $4 and $5 billion. Here's an excerpt from The Guardian's report: The Guardian's report Cristiano Ronaldo snub wipes billions off Coca-Colas market value Cristiano Ronaldos removal of two Coca-Cola bottles during a press conference at the European Championship has coincided with a $4bn fall in the share price of the drinks company. The Portugal captain is a renowned health fanatic and made it clear what he thinks of the carbonated soft drink. The 36-year-old shifted the bottles of Coca-Cola away from him during a press conference in Budapest on Monday in the prelude to his countrys Group F game against Hungary. [...] Coca-Cola is one of the official sponsors of Euro 2020. The companys share price dropped from $56.10 to $55.22 almost immediately after Ronaldos gesture, a 1.6% dip. The market value of Coca-Cola went from $242bn to $238bn  a drop of $4bn. While Coca-Cola's stock truly fell after this news conference, there was no indication that this drop was entirely (or even in part) caused by Ronaldo's preference for water. In fact, Coca-Cola's stock was already falling by the time that Ronaldo snubbed Coke products in favor of water. Coca-Cola's stock price closed on Friday, June 11, at $56.16. At 9:30 a.m. shortly after the market opened again on Monday, the company's stock had fallen to $55.35. Ronaldo's news conference hadn't even started by this time. After Ronaldo's news conference (held at 3:45 p.m. Central European Time (or 9:45 am CST according to Sportico), Coca-Cola's stock briefly rose and then dropped again. Coca-Cola's stock price closed even started   It's certainly possible that Ronaldo's endorsements (or disapproval) of Coke products could temporarily influence the stock market, but a few other facts should be noted. For one, while a $4 billion stock drop may sound like an absolutely devastating turn of events, this really isn't a major story for Coca-Cola. The company has seen a number of similar drops and rises over the last year, and those changes had nothing to do with Ronaldo. As of this writing, Coca-Cola's stock is up about 15% from where it was at this time last year:   Furthermore, Coca-Cola's stock is not based purely on sales of their most well-known product, Coke. While Ronaldo may prefer water to soda, Coca-Cola has a large portfolio that includes a variety of products, including the water brand Dasani. Claim:  A provision of "Obamacare" health care legislation creates a 3.8% Medicare tax on real estate transactions.  OF AND  INFORMATION:    Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% tax on all home sales.  Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% transaction tax on profits over the capital gains threshold. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2010] 3.8% tax on real estate transactions Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are subject to a 3.8% "Sales Tax"? You can thank Nancy, Harry & Barack (and your local Congressmen) for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, this will be a $15,200 tax. Remember Obamas battle cry  take from the workers and give to the drones. TAX ON HOME SALES Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are "rich" for only one day  the day they sell their house and buy a new one.   Origins:  One of the provisions in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed in conjunction with the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care legislation calls for high-income households to be subject to a new 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income starting in 2013: HR 4872 The PPACA creates a new Code Section 1411, which will generally impose a 3.8 percent tax on the lesser of "net investment income" or the excess of modified adjusted gross income over a "threshold amount" (generally, $250,000 for taxpayers filing a joint return, $125,000 for married taxpayers filing a separate return and $200,000 in all other cases). Net investment income generally means the excess of (i) interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, income from passive activities, income from trading financial instruments and commodities, and gain from the disposition of certain non-business property, over (ii) allowable deductions properly allocable to such income. In determining the amount of net investment income, special rules apply with respect to dispositions of equity interests in certain partnerships and S corporations, and to distributions from certain qualified plans. This additional tax applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. This is a complicated section of a complicated piece of legislation, and the 3.8% Medicare tax has been frequently misreported as amounting to a 3.8% "sales tax" on all real estate transactions.  This is incorrect: the Medicare tax is not a sales tax, nor does it apply to all real estate transactions; it is a tax on investment income (income which may or not derive from the sale of property) only for persons who earn more than the amounts specified in the bill. First of all, the Medicare tax will be imposed only on individuals with an income above $200,000 and couples with a joint income more than $250,000, a figure which currently excludes about 97% of all U.S. households.  Second, the tax will not be assessed on every house sale, but only on real estate transactions that produce profits over a specified dollar amount.  As Sara Orrange, Government affairs director of the Spokane Association of Realtors noted in response to a repetition of the "sales tax" rumor in the Spokane Spokesman-Review: response In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold. Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made. This tax is aimed at so-called "high earners"  if you do not fall into that category you will not pay any extra taxes upon the sale of your home. For example, let's assume that a couple with an income of $325,000 bought a house in 2004 for $300,000 and resold it in 2013 for $850,000, thus producing a $550,000 profit.  Since U.S. law allows a couple to exclude from their gross incomeprofits of up to $500,000 from the sale of their principal residence, the taxable gain from this sale would be $50,000 (i.e., a $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion), and the couple's taxable income would now be $375,000 (i.e., the original $325,000 plus the $50,000 of taxable profit from their home sale).   The 3.8% Medicare tax would now apply to whichever of the following dollar figures is the lesser: exclude  a)  The amount by which the couple's taxable income now exceeds the $250,000 income threshold level.  b)  The amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home. In case (a), the dollar figure  would be the couple's taxable income ($375,000) minus the income threshold level ($250,000), or $125,000. In case (b), the dollar figure would be amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home, which, as detailed above, was $50,000 (i.e., $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion).   The second dollar amount is the lesser of the two, and therefore the couple would have to pay an additional tax of 3.8 percent of $50,000, which would amount to $1,900.  (If the hypothetical couple had realized less than a $500,000 profit on the sale of their residence, none of that gain would be subject to the 3.8% tax.) The referenced tax is therefore not a tax on all real estate sales; it is an investment income tax which could result in a very small percentage of home sellers paying additional taxes on home sales profits over a designated threshold amount.   In short, if you're a "high earner" and you sell your home at a substantial profit, you might be required to pay an additional 3.8% tax. However, given that only about 3% of U.S. households have incomes that exceed the specified income threshold amount, the existing home sale capital gains exclusion on a principal residence ($250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for couples) still stands, and the national median existing-home price in January 2012 was only $154,700 , the Medicare tax will likely affect only a very small percentage of home sellers when it is implemented in 2013. median Additional information:      The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples  The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples Last updated:  15 March 2012    Sahadi, Jeanne.  "Medicare Tax Hikes: What the Rich Will Pay."   CNNMoney.com.  25 March 2010. In December 2023, one of the most common examples of the Mandela Effect saw renewed online attention thanks in part to a TikTok video on the topic: that the Fruit of the Loom company logo once contained a cornucopia. The Mandela Effect is generally defined as a "collective misremembering" in which large numbers of people share the same false belief.  video generally defined @dimelifting #mandelaeffect #storytime #fypppp #greenscreen  original sound - Nicole  The TikTok video in question concludes that there has been a massive coverup at the corporate level. The video's creator decries the effect the alleged obfuscation has had on the general public. The cornucopia removal and coverup is "one of the greatest marketing ploys in history," she argued, "but at what cost?" Fervent belief in a Fruit of the Loom cornucopia is not uncommon. A post on Quora captures this viewpoint: post I have a strong opinion about the Fruit of the Loom logo and whether it had a cornucopia or not. I remember seeing a cornucopia in the logo when I was a kid, and I learned what it was from my school. A cornucopia is a horn-shaped basket that is filled with fruits and vegetables, and it symbolizes abundance and prosperity. I think the cornucopia made sense for the Fruit of the Loom brand because it showed that they had a variety of quality products. An image of the purported logo is often shared in defense of this claim: purported logo  However, that is a fabrication, not the actual Fruit of the Loom logo. The perception of a cornucopia goes back decades. For example, a 1994 piece in a local Florida paper about the actor, Samuel Wright, who played Sebastian the Crab in "The Little Mermaid" and who also appeared in Fruit of the Loom commercials, repeated the assertion that the logo contained a cornucopia in print: 1994 piece For 19 years, Wright made anywhere from 120-140 television commercials for Fruit of the Loom underwear. And he didn't even wear Fruit of the Looms. He wore skimpy bikini briefs. "My wife is European," he says from a hotel room in Tampa. "She said (cotton underwear) made me look like an old man." Anyhow, Fruit of the Loom's logo was initially a cornucopia swollen with an apple, green grapes, purple grapes, and their green leaves. Wright was the purple grape cluster. And he had to pretend Fruit of the Looms never found them that were great. While the existence of these commercials is factual, one cannot help but note that nobody played a cornucopia in the actual commercial series referenced in this article: these commercials  The company has, as well, officially weighed in on the claim. On June 26, 2023, the company tweeted an image from a USA Today crossword puzzle that included the clue "Fruit of the ____ (company that does not, in fact, have a cornucopia in its logo)." It noted that the "Mandela Effect is real," but that the cornucopia claims were false: tweeted The Mandela Effect is real, the cornucopia in our logo is not ? pic.twitter.com/qoiuvemsIy pic.twitter.com/qoiuvemsIy  Fruit of the Loom (@FruitOfTheLoom) June 26, 2023 June 26, 2023  The Fruit of the Loom logo has always contained an apple, green grapes, purple grapes, and leaves. Snopes searched archived newspaper advertisements from every decade from the 1910s to the 2020s and could not locate a single one with a cornucopia: Snopes searched newspaper advertisements every decade from the 1910s to the 2020s   (Snopes.com) In rebuttal to these facts, at least two major lines of purported evidence have been proffered. In broad terms, these arguments boil down to the claim that there are photographs that show Fruit of the Loom shirts with a logo that includes a cornucopia, and that legal filings related to its trademark describe that company's logo as including a cornucopia. The December TikTok video focused on the former claim. The legal argument is popular on Reddit.  video on Reddit While Snopes has no definitive explanation for the purported photographic evidence, we find its use as proof for an official cornucopia logo weak. Of the hundreds of emails received by Snopes, only two discrete images showing shirts with a cornucopia logo have been produced. Both images are allegedly taken from shirts found in thrift stores.  Most examples sent to Snopes appear to have their origins in a June 2023 post (above) that went viral in the r/funny subreddit, among other places. The only other example (below) stems from the aforementioned TikTok video: June 2023 post TikTok video  The provenance of these photos is unknown, and as a result their utility as evidence is limited. Two shirts on their own do not disprove the mountain of evidence attesting to the lack of cornucopia in the company's official logo. The legal argument presented to Snopes, also proffered on Reddit, is that, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Fruit of the Loom itself described its trademark as containing a cornucopia. on Reddit This misconception stems from the fact that at least one trademark registration document apparently filed by Fruit of the Loom used what is known as design search code 05.09.14 to describe the trademark  indicating an image with "Baskets of fruit; Containers of fruit; [or] Cornucopia (horn of plenty)." Reddit posts posit that this document has some legal bearing in the world of intellectual property law. registration document First, this is not the case. The primary goal of these search codes, according to the USPTO, is to identify the most "significant" visual design elements as an aid for prospective applications to search for similar trademarks. While Snopes has no insight into the legal decisions made by Fruit of the Loom in the 1970s, the 05.09.14 example contained in the USPTO database classification manual does share some visual similarity with the Fruit of the Loom logo at issue: significant  Second, and more to the point, this document is irrelevant. Filed in 1973, the corporate contact was listed as an office in Manhattan. The application itself was rejected by the USPTO. Whatever this document is, it does not represent the active Fruit of the Loom trademark application. The USPTO challenged the cornucopia-containing application in 1980, apparently rejecting it on clerical grounds. The application was officially canceled in 1988.  an office apparently rejecting canceled The active trademark registration, filed in 1981, lists Fruit of the Loom's Kentucky office as its contact and, crucially, does not use database search code 05.09.14. Instead, codes for several other non-cornucopia visual elements are included: active trademark Kentucky office 05.03.08 - More than one leaf, including scattered leaves, bunches of leaves not attached to branches 05.03.25 - Leaf, single; Other leaves 05.09.02 - Grapes 05.09.05 - Apples 05.09.06 - Avocados; Fruits with pits (apricots, peaches, plums, olives and the like) 26.03.02 - Ovals, plain single line; Plain single line ovals Because the document cited in support of the legal argument that Fruit of the Loom's logo once contained a cornucopia is a failed application that was replaced, or superseded, by an application that contained no descriptors of a cornucopia or cornucopia-related images, it also fails as evidence in support of a cornu-cover-up. Because no verified image of a Fruit of the Loom containing a cornucopia exists in print, and because the company has officially stated that its logo has never contained a cornucopia, we rate the claim as  1987 Fruit of the Loom "The Unbustables" TV Commercial. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5fH3ebtFtI. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Did One of the Old Fruit of the Loom Logos Include a Cornucopia?" Quora, https://www.quora.com/Did-one-of-the-old-Fruit-of-the-Loom-logos-include-a-cornucopia. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Fruit of the Loom Detergent Logo 1979." Newspapers.Com, 25 Apr. 1979, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-kokomo-tribune-fruit-of-the-loom-det/127691447/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo, 1926." Newspapers.Com, 3 Aug. 1926, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-bridgeport-telegram-fruit-of-the-loo/127688561/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 1940." Newspapers.Com, 25 Apr. 1940, https://www.newspapers.com/article/intelligencer-journal-fruit-of-the-loom/127688834/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 1951." Newspapers.Com, 23 Apr. 1951, https://www.newspapers.com/article/lancaster-new-era-fruit-of-the-loom-logo/127689672/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 1966." Newspapers.Com, 5 June 1966, https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune-fruit-of-the-loom-logo-1/127690881/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 1987." Newspapers.Com, 2 Aug. 1987, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-marion-star-fruit-of-the-loom-logo-1/127691698/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo, 1996." Newspapers.Com, 15 Sept. 1996, https://www.newspapers.com/article/springfield-news-sun-fruit-of-the-loom-l/127692161/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 2008." Newspapers.Com, 10 Aug. 2008, https://www.newspapers.com/article/green-bay-press-gazette-fruit-of-the-loo/127692306/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 2011." Newspapers.Com, 16 Jan. 2011, https://www.newspapers.com/article/palladium-item-fruit-of-the-loom-logo-20/127692582/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 2020." Newspapers.Com, 10 Mar. 2020, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-park-city-daily-news-fruit-of-the-lo/127692838/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo in 1917." Newspapers.Com, 26 Aug. 1917, https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-fruit-of-the-loom-log/127688395/. "Underwear Character Is Still A-Peeling." Newspapers.Com, 14 Oct. 1994, https://www.newspapers.com/article/florida-today-underwear-character-is-sti/127697411/. 15 U.S. Code  1052 - Trademarks Registrable on Principal Register; Concurrent Registration. LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1052. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. 15 U.S. Code  1068 - Action of Director in Interference, Opposition, and Proceedings for Concurrent Use Registration or for Cancellation. LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1068. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. Design Search Codes. https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/design-search-codes. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. FAQs. Fruit of the Loom, Inc., https://www.fotlinc.com/our-company/faqs/. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. Trademark Status & Document Retrieval. https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=73006089&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. ---. https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=73317339&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. USPTO. FRUIT OF THE LOOM - Fruit Of The Loom, Inc. Trademark Registration. USPTO.Report, https://uspto.report/TM/73006089. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release?  Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial."    Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015]   There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or some similar wording. This is about the speech of Nick Hanauer, apparently a Seattle venture capitalist. The language of this sensational claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the claim. Is it true? What is the source of the rumour?   Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a spate of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual:  Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating claiming that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive (to rich people) nature. On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known (and widely reported upon) protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street): article Occupy Wall Street TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer  the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com  to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic  specifically, Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials told Hanauer initially they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as described as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. But in 2015, many social media users continued to assert Hanauer's talk was banned: Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer  Rich People Dont Create Jobs (VIDEO) #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48 #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48  Hannah Kennison (@HannahKennison1) July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015   Nick Hanauer on His Banned TED Talk & Why the Middle Class are the Job Creators https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ  Jonathan Goodman (@GoodmanJonathan) July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015   if you are interested in #economics, then it is worth listeningBanned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer 'Rich people don't... https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g #economics https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g  Mudassar Bashir (@mb62020) June 15, 2015 June 15, 2015   Nick Hanauer too politically controversial: rich people dont create jobs, consumers do - via Reese Jones https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz  VritTV (@Verite_TV) June 11, 2015 June 11, 2015   In late May 2012 a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during the course of which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson on why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted.     The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. asked shuttered version Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk is explicitly attacking what he calls an article of faith for Republicans. He criticizes Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings  some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one [uncensored] TED Talk video in 2011. video Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Nick Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a coverup. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." titled While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality) his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated:  27July 2015 Originally published: 27July 2015 On 7 August 2016, the web site The American Mirror published an article reporting that Hillary Clinton's "health condition" should be a "major issue" of the 2016 presidential race, along with two photographs purportedly showing Clinton being helped up a flight of stairs:  SHOCK PHOTO: Multiple staffers help unstable Hillary up stairs The questionable health condition of Hillary Clinton should be a major issue of the 2016 campaign. The latest evidence comes in the form of Clinton being helped up a set of stairs by multiple individuals outside what appears to be a home. The photographs received wider attention when they were shared by conservative commentator Matt Drudge on Twitter:  Other pro-Donald Trump web pages paired the above-displayed photographs with images of Donald Trump ascending stairs with ease: images Donald Trump on his way the presidency of the United States. Donald Trump on his way the presidency of the United States.  While the above-displayed photographs are real, they are not the "latest evidence" of Clinton's alleged poor health, nor are they by themselves indicative of any significant health problems. The photographs were originally published in February 2016, more than five months before they started circulating on various right-wing web sites. When Getty Images published their photograph, it was accompanied with a caption explaining that it depicted Clinton being assisted as she had just slipped while walked up stairs in South Carolina: slipped Democratic Presidential candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton slips as she walks up the stairs into the non-profit SC Strong, a 2 year residential facility that helps former felons, substance abusers, and homeless move into self-sufficiency February 24, 2016 in North Charleston. The South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary is held on February 27. Although these photographs were offered as "proof" that Clinton is in such poor health that she needs constant accompaniment while ascending stairs, several photographs of the Democratic presidential nominee ascending and descending stairs without help from anyone are not difficult to find: several photographs ascending descending Claim:A total of 351 mass shootings took place in the U.S. during the first 334 days of 2015. [dot-mixture][/dot-mixture] Example: [Collected via Twitter, November2015]  Origins: On 2 December 2015, several publications reporting on a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, included a stat from the web site ShootingTracker.com about the number of mass shootings that had taken place in the U.S. so far in the calendar year 2015: several publications ShootingTracker.com The Post found that there had been 351 shootings in the 334 days of 2015. Wednesday's incident in California marks the 352nd mass shooting in the nation. For comparison, 2014 saw 336 mass shootings in the United States, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which the Post used in its report. Wednesday's shooting at the Inland Regional Center also comes just one day after the facility held its annual holiday party. The claim that there were 351 mass shootings in the first 334 days of 2015 hinges on the definition of mass shooting. While it might seem like a simple task to define "mass shooting," there really is no agreed upon definition. A 2013 congressional research service report defined a mass shooting as an incident involving four or more gun related deaths: report There is no broadly agreed-to, specific conceptualization of this issue, so this report uses its own definition for public mass shootings. These are incidents occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths  not including the shooter(s)  and gunmen who select victims somewhat indiscriminately. The violence in these cases is not a means to an endthe gunmen do not pursue criminal profit or kill in the name of terrorist ideologies, for example. A 2014 study on mass shootings used the same criterion (four or more deaths), and the FBI employed the same standard in 2005 to define "mass murder." study standard ShootingTracker.com, however, is based upon a different definition of mass shooting, one that (in keeping with the literal meaning of "shooting") is based upon the total number of people shot (i.e., wounded or killed by gunfire) in a single incident rather than solely the number of victims killed: definition The old FBI definition of Mass Murder (not even the most recent one) is four or more people murdered in one event. It is only logical that a Mass Shooting is four or more people shot in one event. Here at the Mass Shooting Tracker, we count the number of people shot rather than the number people killed because, "shooting" means "people shot". Brock Weller, one of the people responsible for maintaining the crowdsourced web site ShootingTracker.com, elaborated on thereason to use four people shot instead of four people killed as the primary criterion for defining an event as a "mass shooting": ShootingTracker.com "The goal is to stop minimizing these acts of violence," Wellerexplains.The site's authors point to a 2012 shooting in which one person was killed and 18 people were wounded at a nightclub. Because only one person died, it was not considered a mass shooting. This June, 10 people were shot at a block party on a basketball court in Detroit; the next day, 11 were wounded when two people opened fire with a shotgun at a block party in West Philadelphia. Neither were widely referred to as mass shootings. "Arguing that 18 people shot during one event is not a mass shooting is absurd," the Tracker's founders write. Medical advancements have helped save lives that would have otherwise been lost, a fact Weller believes the gun lobby benefits from. "Those gunshot victims are still just as shot and will never be the same," hesays. ShootingTracker.com's definition of a mass shooting isn't "wrong" (as we noted previously, there is no universal criterion for what defines a mass shooting), but it may be misunderstood, as many people interpret the term "mass shooting" to mean an incident that results in multiple deaths. It should also be noted that GunViolenceArchive.org, another web site that tracks shootings across the United States, arrived at a slightly lower number of massshootings, 310, over the same time period. Mark Bryant, the executive director of GVA, explained that discrepancy comes from two factors: GVA relies ona dedicated staff of 14 researchers instead of crowd sourcing, and they employ a slightly different definition for mass shootings: GunViolenceArchive.org First, we do not rely on crowdsourcing which causes misreads and duplication. We have a staff of 14 researchers which go through 1500 media, police, coroner and aggregate sites every day. We put eyeballs on each incident to determine its qualifications, not just number. Second, we have a slightly different counting. We use the derived FBI definition of "Four or more shot and/or killed, not including the shooter at the same general time and location." From that we logically separate the victims from the perpetrator. Mass Shooting Tracker includes the perp as a victim when they are shot or killed. [Image Via GunViolenceArchive.org] GunViolenceArchive.org  Last updated: 4 December 2015 Originally published: 2December 2015 Claim:   President Obama has limited churches to offering twice-monthly services.  Example: [Collected via Twitter, April 2015] Is this true about Obama? Is he really making people go to church two times a month instead of four times? Wtf  Origins:   On 8 April 2015, the News Examiner web site published an article reporting that President Obama had limited churches to offering twice-monthly services in order to ensure Americans worked harder: article At a press conference today, President Barack Obama announced he would be implementing a new law changing the current monthly 4-Week church services down to 2 times a month. Obama says during these rough economic times it crucial to take drastic measures so Americans can work harder and pray less. These effects are to take place May 1st of this year and analyst expect this move to increase the economy by more than 40%. Americans tend to work hard and pray harder. I'm asking them to make these changes for the good of the country during these hard times. If things don't work out within 6 months we can always switch back to the old way, but for now, lets give this a solid shot and see where it takes us. These are crucial times my friends and we must stick together as a country if we are going to succeed. If you have any questions about President Obama's new 2-week church schedule that will be taking place May 1st a hotline has been set up to answer all your questions at (785) 273-0325. President Obama could not have made any such announcement, as he has no authority to limit church services, and any attempt to do so would be an obvious violation of the First Amendment's protections of religious freedom.  The referenced article was a just another hoax from the News Examiner, a fake news site started by Paul Horner, the former lead writer for the similarly fake National Report web site, after Facebook implemented a crackdown on the posting of hoax articles that virtually destroyed the latter site's reach.   crackdown Previous hoaxes from the same site include the false claim that the world's first head transplant was successfully performed in South Africa in April 2015.  head transplant The "hotline" phone number provided in the article is actually that of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church.   Last updated:  14 April 2015 One of the most iconic masks to feature prominently in movie history is that worn by the crazed killer character of Michael Myers in the Halloween franchise of slasher films, the first installment of which was released in 1978. But according to rumor, this frightful face originated with a character from a very different series and medium: Captain Kirk and television's Star Trek.   The 1978 horror film Halloween was produced on a very limited budget, and director John Carpenter didn't have funds for creating a custom mask. Carpenter told the Hollywood Reporter in a 2015 interview that the movie's art director instead picked up a mask of Captain Kirk at a magic shop and applied a few alterations to it to create the iconic look of Michael Myers: interview There was a choice we had to make, because we didnt have any money to make a mask. So the art director went up to Bert Wheeler's magic shop on Hollywood Boulevard, which was right up the street from our offices, and he got two masks. One was a clown mask, and one was a Captain Kirk mask. It was supposed to be Captain Kirk. It looked nothing like William Shatner, nothing like anybody, really. It was just a strange mask, which was perfect for us. So we spray-painted it, altered the eye holes and just did a couple things with the hair  and there you had it. I like to think it's Shatner, but it's not really. Similar versions of the story have been told by other members of the crew, including Rick Sternbach, who worked as illustrator/designer on Halloween 2, and William Shatner (who portrayed Captain Kirk) himself: Sternbach's story is of particular interest because he was one of the first to transition this movie legend into a movie fact: fact I was hired as an illustrator on Halloween 2 in 1981, working for production designer J. Michael Riva. In a supply cabinet at Pumpkin Pie Productions, we had one mask left from the original Halloween and no idea where to get any others for the sequel. It appeared that we'd need to go check out some of the toy stores and such, but I noticed that there was some wording molded into the neck area. There was a model number and [the words] "Don Post Studios." I made a call, read off the model number, and the word came back "it's our Captain Kirk mask." I asked if we could buy a number of them, and was told "We'll give you a box, just give us credit." With that, I turned the official dealings over to the higher-ups. Brush with greatness.