Business

With 'Prime Day' ahead, here's what to do about porch pirates

Published

6 months ago

July 15, 2024

With 'Prime Day' ahead, here's what to do about porch pirates

Amazon’s annual sale starts Tuesday, which means even more impulsive purchases will be packaged and dropped onto porches across the state this week.

Some of those parcels won’t make it into the buyer’s home, however. That’s because package theft is commonplace in California, as well as the rest of the United States.

According to estimates compiled by Capital One, 119 million packages were stolen in 2023 — a big number, although it represents only about 0.5% of the 21.7 billion shipments in the U.S. that year.

With Americans receiving multiple packages per week on average, the odds eventually catch up to many consumers. According to Security.com, 44% of those surveyed last year said they’d had a package stolen at some point.

In California, one out of five people have at least one package stolen every year, Capital One estimated. That makes them a bit more likely to be victimized than other Americans, but their average loss — $40 — is lower than the typical loss for all U.S. consumers, which Security.com put at roughly $50.

The best defense against package theft is also the least practical one: Be at your door when the delivery person arrives. Short of that, Amazon and other delivery services offer options that are more secure than your porch.

If you do fall victim to package theft, you have a number of different routes to a refund. None of them are guaranteed, however.

Here are answers to some common questions about porch piracy and tips for how to avoid it.

If my package is stolen, how do I get a refund?

Under normal circumstances, no one is legally obligated to cover your losses to porch pirates. One exception would be when the delivery company is responsible for the loss — for example, when the package is stolen by the driver or delivered to the wrong address.

Some retailers will refund your money to keep you happy, and you may be able to wrangle a refund from the delivery company, especially if the package had been insured. Whatever route you take, you’ll have to jump through some hoops.

Step 1 is determining that the package has actually been delivered. You can (and should) enroll in services from the U.S. Postal Service, UPS and FedEx that let you to track all the packages they’re delivering to your home. In many cases, the services can send you a text as soon as your package arrives.

Be forewarned that the notifications are not 100% accurate; drivers will occasional mark a package delivered prematurely, then bring it to your doorstep a day or two later. Amazon advises people to wait two days before concluding that the “delivered” package has definitely been delivered — and taken.

Don’t assume that a package has been stolen just because it’s not at your front door. Different drivers use different techniques to deter porch pirates, so make sure to look around your property in case the driver found a drop-off spot that was easy to reach but out of sight.

Step 2 is filing a police report. You probably won’t get the “Law & Order” treatment of your lost item; you’re filing a report mainly to create a public record (and because some sellers require it), not to launch an investigation.

Step 3 is contacting the seller. If you ordered from Amazon, the seller often turns out to be a third party selling through Amazon’s Marketplace. How the seller responds will vary. Some will file a claim with the delivery company for the insured value of the package, then use the proceeds to make a refund. Others may simply tell you that it’s your problem to solve.

Amazon has a reputation for making refunds when items are stolen after Amazon delivers them, especially when the items are from third-party sellers covered by the company’s “A-to-z Guarantee.” But there’s no blanket promise of refunds.

“While the vast majority of deliveries make it to customers without issue, we recognize package theft is a reality all delivery companies contend with, especially during busy times of year,” said Montana MacLachlan, an Amazon spokesperson. “We encourage anyone who’s been a victim of theft to report the crime to law enforcement and notify Amazon’s Customer Service team so we can provide any assistance possible.”

If Step 3 fails, Step 4 is filing a claim with the company that delivered the package — you can do so through its website, and you typically have to file it within 60 days of the scheduled delivery date. You’ll need to provide a receipt, invoice or other proof of the item’s value.

Although FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies pledge to investigate claims, they don’t promise refunds. Packages are routinely insured for up to $100 by FedEx and UPS unless the shipper pays for more insurance, so even if your claim is approved, whether you recover the full value could depend on whether the shipper bought extra insurance. Also, if UPS approves a claim, it typically pays the shipper, not you, so you’ll have to rely on the shipper to reimburse you for your loss.

Your homeowner’s or renter’s insurance covers stolen packages, but chances are your deductible is greater than the value of the sweater or Instant Pot taken from your porch. If you paid for the item with a credit card, you may have a better option: Visa, Mastercard and American Express all offer a form of insurance that covers theft losses, with limits on the types of items and amount of loss covered. You can submit a claim through the relevant card’s website.

How do I prevent my packages from being stolen?

Delivery companies offer a number of ways to protect your deliveries. The most straightforward (but least convenient) one is having your package delivered to one of the company’s retail outlets or partners, then picking it up from there.

Amazon has self-service lockers at thousands of retailers, groceries, pharmacies and convenience stores across the country. You can search for one near you on Amazon’s website.

UPS allows users of its My Choice service to have all their deliveries made to a nearby UPS Store outlet or retail partner at no extra charge. If they want to change the delivery of just one package, UPS charges a $6 fee unless the customer has a My Choice Premium membership, which costs $20 a year. To select an alternative location, sign into your My Choice account and follow the prompts under Delivery Preferences. To pick up a package there, you’ll need to present an ID that shows an address that matches the one on the shipping label.

FedEx offers to hold your packages for up to seven days at one of its retail partners, including FedEx Office locations, Walgreens, Office Depot and Dollar General. You can search for a location on the FedEx website.

For no additional charge, you can arrange for all of your deliveries to go to an alternative location, or just set them one at a time. You’ll pick the package up by showing a government-issued photo ID and proof of address, or you can provide a QR code to someone else so they can pick it up for you.

To get started on the FedEx site, either log into you FedEx Delivery Manager account or enter the tracking number for the package you’re expecting.

Alternatively, all three of those companies allow you to redirect a package to a neighbor you know will be home to receive the delivery. They also allow you to specify potentially safer spots on your property or in your building for packages to be dropped off. And if you’re away on vacation, UPS and FedEx allows you to delay your deliveries for one to two weeks.

Amazon offers another option in certain parts of the country if you’re enrolled in Amazon Prime and have an internet-connected garage door opener: Its drivers can deliver packages inside your garage. Going this route, however, requires you to give Amazon the ability to open your garage, which will be encoded into the label on your package for one-time use. It’s a leap of faith, although the company says it has a number of safeguards, such as verifying “the driver, package and package location via multi-step authentication before granting them temporary, one-time access to your garage.”

When ordering something online, try to have the shipper require a signature for delivery. You won’t be given that option often, though; it’s typically used to protect expensive items, such as laptop computers.

Some security consultants recommend installing a security camera or a doorbell with a built-in webcam, which can record porch thieves in the act. That may help you obtain a refund from the shipper; whether it will drive off thieves is another story. One study found that security cameras had a “modest but significant effect” on crime rates, leading to a roughly 13% decrease. But there’s not a lot of data from published studies that suggest doorbell cameras deter porch pirates.

Some less conventional solutions have found their way onto the market as well.

Parcel Vault sells a kit that can put a package door in your wall so packages can be dropped inside your home (it also sells full-size doors with built-in package doors). And Package Guard sells a Frisbee-sized, internet-connected device that you place on your porch to receive packages; it sends you an alert when deliveries are placed on it, and it emits a loud alarm if they are removed without your authorization.

Business

In Los Angeles, Hotels Become a Refuge for Fire Evacuees

Published

3 hours ago

January 10, 2025

Press Room

In Los Angeles, Hotels Become a Refuge for Fire Evacuees

The lobby of Shutters on the Beach, the luxury oceanfront hotel in Santa Monica that is usually abuzz with tourists and entertainment professionals, had by Thursday transformed into a refuge for Los Angeles residents displaced by the raging wildfires that have ripped through thousands of acres and leveled entire neighborhoods to ash.

In the middle of one table sat something that has probably never been in the lobby of Shutters before: a portable plastic goldfish tank. “It’s my daughter’s,” said Kevin Fossee, 48. Mr. Fossee and his wife, Olivia Barth, 45, had evacuated to the hotel on Tuesday evening shortly after the fire in the Los Angeles Pacific Palisades area flared up near their home in Malibu.

Suddenly, an evacuation alert came in. Every phone in the lobby wailed at once, scaring young children who began to cry inconsolably. People put away their phones a second later when they realized it was a false alarm.

Similar scenes have been unfolding across other Los Angeles hotels as the fires spread and the number of people under evacuation orders soars above 100,000. IHG, which includes the Intercontinental, Regent and Holiday Inn chains, said 19 of its hotels across the Los Angeles and Pasadena areas were accommodating evacuees.

The Palisades fire, which has been raging since Tuesday and has become the most destructive in the history of Los Angeles, struck neighborhoods filled with mansions owned by the wealthy, as well as the homes of middle-class families who have owned them for generations. Now they all need places to stay.

Many evacuees turned to a Palisades WhatsApp group that in just a few days has grown from a few hundred to over 1,000 members. Photos, news, tips on where to evacuate, hotel discount codes and pet policies were being posted with increasing rapidity as the fires spread.

At the midcentury modern Beverly Hilton hotel, which looms over the lawns and gardens of Beverly Hills, seven miles and a world away from the ash-strewed Pacific Palisades, parking ran out on Wednesday as evacuees piled in. Guests had to park in another lot a mile south and take a shuttle back.

In the lobby of the hotel, which regularly hosts glamorous events like the recent Golden Globe Awards, guests in workout clothes wrestled with children, pets and hastily packed roll-aboards.

Many of the guests were already familiar with each other from their neighborhoods, and there was a resigned intimacy as they traded stories. “You can tell right away if someone is a fire evacuee by whether they are wearing sweats or have a dog with them,” said Sasha Young, 34, a photographer. “Everyone I’ve spoken with says the same thing: We didn’t take enough.”

The Hotel June, a boutique hotel with a 1950s hipster vibe a mile north of Los Angeles International Airport, was offering evacuees rooms for $125 per night.

“We were heading home to the Palisades from the airport when we found out about the evacuations,” said Julia Morandi, 73, a retired science educator who lives in the Palisades Highlands neighborhood. “When we checked in, they could see we were stressed, so the manager gave us drinks tickets and told us, ‘We take care of our neighbors.’”

Hotels are also assisting tourists caught up in the chaos, helping them make arrangements to fly home (as of Friday, the airport was operating normally) and waiving cancellation fees. A spokeswoman for Shutters said its guests included domestic and international tourists, but on Thursday, few could be spotted among the displaced Angelenos. The heated outdoor pool that overlooks the ocean and is usually surrounded by sunbathers was completely deserted because of the dangerous air quality.

“I think I’m one of the only tourists here,” said Pavel Francouz, 34, a hockey scout who came to Los Angeles from the Czech Republic for a meeting on Tuesday before the fires ignited.

“It’s weird to be a tourist,” he said, describing the eerily empty beaches and the hotel lobby packed with crying children, families, dogs and suitcases. “I can’t imagine what it would feel like to be these people,” he said, adding, “I’m ready to go home.”

Follow New York Times Travel on Instagram and sign up for our weekly Travel Dispatch newsletter to get expert tips on traveling smarter and inspiration for your next vacation. Dreaming up a future getaway or just armchair traveling? Check out our 52 Places to Go in 2025.

Business

Downtown Los Angeles Macy's is among 150 locations to close

Published

5 hours ago

January 10, 2025

Press Room

Downtown Los Angeles Macy's is among 150 locations to close

The downtown Los Angeles Macy’s department store, situated on 7th Street and a cornerstone of retail in the area, will shut down as the company prepares to close 150 underperforming locations in an effort to revamp and modernize its business.

The iconic retail center announced this week the first 66 closures, including nine in California spanning from Sacramento to San Diego. Stores will also close in Florida, New York and Georgia, among other states. The closures are part of a broader company strategy to bolster sustainability and profitability.

Macy’s is not alone in its plan to slim down and rejuvenate sales. The retailer Kohl’s announced on Friday that it would close 27 poor performing stores by April, including 10 in California and one in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Westchester. Kohl’s will also shut down its San Bernardino e-commerce distribution center in May.

“Kohl’s continues to believe in the health and strength of its profitable store base” and will have more than 1,100 stores remaining after the closures, the company said in a statement.

Macy’s announced its plan last February to end operations at roughly 30% of its stores by 2027, following disappointing quarterly results that included a $71-million loss and nearly 2% decline in sales. The company will invest in its remaining 350 stores, which have the potential to “generate more meaningful value,” according to a release.

“We are closing underproductive Macy’s stores to allow us to focus our resources and prioritize investments in our go-forward stores, where customers are already responding positively to better product offerings and elevated service,” Chief Executive Tony Spring said in a statement. “Closing any store is never easy.”

Macy’s brick-and-mortar locations also faced a setback in January 2024, when the company announced the closures of five stores, including the location at Simi Valley Town Center. At the same time, Macy’s said it would layoff 3.5% of its workforce, equal to about 2,350 jobs.

Farther north, Walgreens announced this week that it would shutter 12 stores across San Francisco due to “increased regulatory and reimbursement pressures,” CBS News reported.

Business

The justices are expected to rule quickly in the case.

Published

13 hours ago

January 10, 2025

Press Room

The justices are expected to rule quickly in the case.

When the Supreme Court hears arguments on Friday over whether protecting national security requires TikTok to be sold or closed, the justices will be working in the shadow of three First Amendment precedents, all influenced by the climate of their times and by how much the justices trusted the government.

During the Cold War and in the Vietnam era, the court refused to credit the government’s assertions that national security required limiting what newspapers could publish and what Americans could read. More recently, though, the court deferred to Congress’s judgment that combating terrorism justified making some kinds of speech a crime.

The court will most likely act quickly, as TikTok faces a Jan. 19 deadline under a law enacted in April by bipartisan majorities. The law’s sponsors said the app’s parent company, ByteDance, is controlled by China and could use it to harvest Americans’ private data and to spread covert disinformation.

The court’s decision will determine the fate of a powerful and pervasive cultural phenomenon that uses a sophisticated algorithm to feed a personalized array of short videos to its 170 million users in the United States. For many of them, and particularly younger ones, TikTok has become a leading source of information and entertainment.

As in earlier cases pitting national security against free speech, the core question for the justices is whether the government’s judgments about the threat TikTok is said to pose are sufficient to overcome the nation’s commitment to free speech.

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, told the justices that he “is second to none in his appreciation and protection of the First Amendment’s right to free speech.” But he urged them to uphold the law.

“The right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment does not apply to a corporate agent of the Chinese Communist Party,” Mr. McConnell wrote.

Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said that stance reflected a fundamental misunderstanding.

“It is not the government’s role to tell us which ideas are worth listening to,” he said. “It’s not the government’s role to cleanse the marketplace of ideas or information that the government disagrees with.”

The Supreme Court’s last major decision in a clash between national security and free speech was in 2010, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. It concerned a law that made it a crime to provide even benign assistance in the form of speech to groups said to engage in terrorism.

One plaintiff, for instance, said he wanted to help the Kurdistan Workers’ Party find peaceful ways to protect the rights of Kurds in Turkey and to bring their claims to the attention of international bodies.

When the case was argued, Elena Kagan, then the U.S. solicitor general, said courts should defer to the government’s assessments of national security threats.

“The ability of Congress and of the executive branch to regulate the relationships between Americans and foreign governments or foreign organizations has long been acknowledged by this court,” she said. (She joined the court six months later.)

The court ruled for the government by a 6-to-3 vote, accepting its expertise even after ruling that the law was subject to strict scrutiny, the most demanding form of judicial review.

“The government, when seeking to prevent imminent harms in the context of international affairs and national security, is not required to conclusively link all the pieces in the puzzle before we grant weight to its empirical conclusions,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.

Elena Kagan was the U.S. solicitor general the last time a major decision in a clash between national security and free speech came up in a Supreme Court case, in 2010.Credit…Luke Sharrett/The New York Times

In its Supreme Court briefs defending the law banning TikTok, the Biden administration repeatedly cited the 2010 decision.

“Congress and the executive branch determined that ByteDance’s ownership and control of TikTok pose an unacceptable threat to national security because that relationship could permit a foreign adversary government to collect intelligence on and manipulate the content received by TikTok’s American users,” Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general, wrote, “even if those harms had not yet materialized.”

Many federal laws, she added, limit foreign ownership of companies in sensitive fields, including broadcasting, banking, nuclear facilities, undersea cables, air carriers, dams and reservoirs.

While the court led by Chief Justice Roberts was willing to defer to the government, earlier courts were more skeptical. In 1965, during the Cold War, the court struck down a law requiring people who wanted to receive foreign mail that the government said was “communist political propaganda” to say so in writing.

That decision, Lamont v. Postmaster General, had several distinctive features. It was unanimous. It was the first time the court had ever held a federal law unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s free expression clauses.

It was the first Supreme Court opinion to feature the phrase “the marketplace of ideas.” And it was the first Supreme Court decision to recognize a constitutional right to receive information.

That last idea figures in the TikTok case. “When controversies have arisen,” a brief for users of the app said, “the court has protected Americans’ right to hear foreign-influenced ideas, allowing Congress at most to require labeling of the ideas’ origin.”

Indeed, a supporting brief from the Knight First Amendment Institute said, the law banning TikTok is far more aggressive than the one limiting access to communist propaganda. “While the law in Lamont burdened Americans’ access to specific speech from abroad,” the brief said, “the act prohibits it entirely.”

Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham, said that was the wrong analysis. “Imposing foreign ownership restrictions on communications platforms is several steps removed from free speech concerns,” she wrote in a brief supporting the government, “because the regulations are wholly concerned with the firms’ ownership, not the firms’ conduct, technology or content.”

Six years after the case on mailed propaganda, the Supreme Court again rejected the invocation of national security to justify limiting speech, ruling that the Nixon administration could not stop The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a secret history of the Vietnam War. The court did so in the face of government warnings that publishing would imperil intelligence agents and peace talks.

“The word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment,” Justice Hugo Black wrote in a concurring opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union told the justices that the law banning TikTok “is even more sweeping” than the prior restraint sought by the government in the Pentagon Papers case.

“The government has not merely forbidden particular communications or speakers on TikTok based on their content; it has banned an entire platform,” the brief said. “It is as though, in Pentagon Papers, the lower court had shut down The New York Times entirely.”

Mr. Jaffer of the Knight Institute said the key precedents point in differing directions.

“People say, well, the court routinely defers to the government in national security cases, and there is obviously some truth to that,” he said. “But in the sphere of First Amendment rights, the record is a lot more complicated.”