Unilever acquires Tazo tea brand from Starbucks for $384 million

Along with releasing their always-anticipated annual holiday cup, Starbucks made another announcement this week as well. The coffee mega-giant is selling their Tazo tea brand to Unilever for $384 million as they say they will be focusing on Teavana as their sole tea brand. The sale includes all recipes, intellectual property and inventory.

Tazo, founded in 1994, was sold to Starbucks just five years later for $8.1 million. The brand is primarily sold in grocery stores. Consumers can buy Tazo as a packaged tea, K-Cup pod or in bottled-form.

Tuesday’s announcement was made as Starbucks released their fourth-quarter results and 2017 financial results. The final numbers came in much lower than Wall Street expected and the markets showed it. Starbucks’ fourth-quarter revenue came in at $5.7 billion. Experts were projecting to see at least $5.8 billion in revenue from the company.

Store sales also lagged behind. The company reported a two percent growth in its global comparable store sales. This number too came in lower than estimated; the Consensus Metrix projected a 3.2 percent growth in that sector.

Although the net income for the quarter also slipped, the outlook wasn’t all that bleak. Starbucks reported a five percent growth in full-year revenue at $22.4 billion.

The sale is perhaps not that surprising, after all, Starbucks announced back in July that it would be closing all 379 brick-and-mortar stores for its other tea brand, Teavana. However, closing down shop for Teavana may have more to do with the changes in how consumers shop than sales. In fact, Starbucks announced that sales for their tea category continue to grow.

“The tea category in Starbucks stores continues to grow double-digits globally,” the company’s announcement read. “With Starbucks well on its way to building the Teavana business to over $3 billion over the next five years.”

Over the past year, Starbucks has sold over $1.6 billion worth of Teavana product in stores. They’ve also launched bottled, ready-to-drink Teavana tea through a partnership with Anheuser-Busch InBev. Next year, the company plans to start selling packaged Teavana teas as well.

In the next five years, Starbucks plans to grow their Teavana line into a $3 billion business.

Kevin Johnson, president and chief executive officer at Starbucks, underscored the importance of Starbucks’ tea category and impressed the company’s desire to focus solely on Teavana.

“Over the past five years, we have established Teavana as our primary global brand focused on the premium tea segment. With our growth strategy for premium tea exclusively focused on Teavana, we are pleased to transition our Tazo business to Unilever,” Johnson had to say about the sale.

And Starbucks should be pleased. As Forbes puts it, the nearly $400 million sale to Unilever “marks a more than 47-times return on investment.”

Unilever is already home to many well-known food and drink brands, like Ben & Jerry’s, Lipton, Pure Leaf, Klondike, Breyer’s and much more. The UK-based consumer products behemoth’s leadership claims that, in addition to beefing up the company’s existing tea brands, the acquisition is targeted at millennials.

“With its strong appeal to millennials, Tazo is a perfect strategic fit for our US portfolio that includes exciting new brands such as Seventh Generation, Dollar Shave Club and Sir Kensington’s,” Kees Kruythoff, president of Unilever North America, commented on the news. “Tazo’s solid position in the fast-growing specialty tea segment, coupled with Unilever’s tea expertise, presents a fantastic growth opportunity.”

The announcement this week follows Unilever’s acquisition of the organic herbal tea brand Pukka Herbs back in September.

Longer commutes are making workers feel lonelier than ever

Commuting sucks and new research proves it. A study conducted by the University of the West of England, “Commuting and Wellbeing,” suggests that long commutes are having a negative impact on workers’ mental health and job satisfaction.

The study, which was sponsored by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council, was conducted between February 2016 and August 2017. The researchers used data taken from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS), which has been surveying adults from 40,000 households across the UK since 2009. For “Commuting and Wellbeing,” researchers focused on six years of data, from 2009/10 to 2015/16.

According to the project summary, the researchers were principally interested in the change, over the selected timeframe, of workers’ commuting behaviors and how it may have impacted their general wellbeing. Wellbeing is defined as “the extent to which people’s lives are going well and is most often measured subjectively.”

Business Insider reports that in England, the average commute time has raised over the past 20 years, from 48 to 60 minutes. One in seven UK commuters will spend a minimum of two hours daily commuting to work. In the US, commute times are slightly shorter, averaging at around 50 minutes round-trip.

It isn’t that surprising then that researchers found, in the UK at least, that each additional minute of commuting time reduces not just leisure time, but job satisfaction as well. Those added minutes add strain and stress, negatively impacting workers’ mental health.

Note though that not all commuters are created equal, according to the study at least. Those who opt to bike or walk to work report higher job satisfaction than their bus and train riding peers.

Dr. Kiron Chatterjee, the principal investigator for the study and an associate professor of travel behavior, concluded that just adding 20 minutes to a worker’s commute can result in the same negative impact on job satisfaction as receiving a 19 percent pay cut.

Even though spending extra time on the train is not appealing to anyone, Chatterjee points out that many will still opt to do so if it means that a higher paycheck is the result. A higher-paying job, even with a longer commute, still seems to improve job satisfaction.

“This raises interesting questions over whether the additional income associated with longer commutes fully compensates for the negative aspects of the journey to work,” Chatterjee remarked via Business Insider.

What’s even worse than the strain commuting puts on our mental health? Well, according to Lydia Smith with Quartz Media, it’s also making us lonelier than ever.

“Millennials,” Smith writes, “are often maligned as entitled, work-shy snowflakes unwilling to go the extra mile for their professions.” However, this is probably not all that true; in fact, research points to the opposite.

Smith points out that a lethal combination of stagnant wages and rising house costs, which is the trend in not just the UK but elsewhere as well, are pushing young people further away from their jobs. Smith herself went through a period where she was traveling nearly 200-miles each week to get to work. The UK’s Trades Union Congress also believes that a “lack of investment in roads and railways” has also added to workers travel times.

This problem of getting priced out of locations close to work and increased commuting times is felt most acutely by a younger demographic, those aged from 20 to 35. Young Brits within this age range often spend about a third of their post-tax income on rent.

Young Brits and young Americans alike are suffering, in part, due to the aftermath of the 2008 Great Recession. According to a 2016 Resolution Foundation report conducted in the UK, young Brits are the first generation to earn less than their parents. Their American peers fare no better. A 2015 US Census unraveled that young Americans are earning $2,000 less on average than their parents did at the same age.

As a result, a younger generation is facing higher costs of living, lower wages (which leads to less disposable income) and longer commutes. The Netflix-and-chill generation is going out to socialize less and spending more times on social media to fill the void.

The downside is that spending more time on social media actually makes people feel lonelier. In fact, a University of Pittsburgh study discovered that young people between the ages of 19 and 32 who spend more than two hours a day on social media are actually twice as likely to feel socially isolated, or lonely. Even Robert Putnam, a political scientist at Harvard, suggests that a long commute is one of the most substantial predictors of loneliness.

Considering that more and more people are being subjected to longer commutes to work, it might be about time that employers start offering telecommute positions or work-from-home scenarios as the new norm.

If a more flexible work schedule isn’t the option for you, try to make the most of your commute by meditating, listening to a podcast or reading a book.  

Featured image via Pixabay

Bidding war for Amazon’s second headquarters is underway, here’s who’s on top

The bidding war for Amazon’s second headquarters began on Monday, and several cities have already submitted their proposals. New Jersey has submitted a bid for their city of Newark, offering up what could potentially be the greatest financial incentive for Amazon—$7 billion in tax breaks.

Just last month, Amazon announced a competition to source a location for their second headquarters. Dubbing it “HQ2,” Amazon is looking to spend up to $5 billion building the new hub, which will run in tandem with the Seattle-headquarters. The city lucky enough to land the gig would gain 50,000 jobs with an average salary of $100,000.

On the surface, Newark, NJ would appear to have everything Amazon is looking for. In the suburbs of New York City, Newark benefits from an extensive network of public transportation and even has its own airport. There are 60,000 students studying in six colleges and universities across Newark. This, combined with the proximity to other large metropolises like New York City and Philadelphia, means HQ2 would have an extensive talent network to pool from for future employees. Newark has some prime office space available for development, as well as more affordable housing than New York City or Jersey City.

Monday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced their bid for HQ2. According to Fortune, the proposed $7 billion in tax breaks is broken down between state and city incentives.

The state has estimated that HQ2 could bring a potential $9 billion to the economy. As such, New Jersey is offering $5 billion in tax incentives over the next 10 years, but not before the 50,000 jobs are added. The city of Newark has also proposed a tax incentive, offering $1 billion in local property tax breaks and $1 billion worth of waived wage taxes for Amazon’s HQ2 employees over the next 20 years.

Amazon is allowing cities to submit their proposals through October 19.

Nearby Philadelphia is also reported to be ranked high on Amazon’s list of prospects. The city of brotherly love also proposed a tempting financial incentive, offering 10 years of property tax abatement. However, Fortune stipulates that it is “unclear” what, definitively, Amazon will gain from the plan.

Moody’s Analytics, a subsidiary of Moody’s Corp. providing economic and capital markets analysis, released a shortlist of cities they expect to be at the top of Amazon’s list. Coming in on top was Austin, TX. Austin was followed by Atlanta, Philadelphia, Rochester, Pittsburgh, New York City and the surrounding metro area, Miami, Portland, Boston and Salt Lake City.

The study first evaluated cities based on their adherence to Amazon’s laundry list of requirements for their new location. It also chose cities based on other economic factors. Other factors included: business environment, human capital, cost, quality of life and transportation.

One city that was absent from Moody Analytics’ list was Chicago, who submitted their proposal on Monday. Although Chicago’s announcement of their eligibility on Monday lacked details, Mayor Rahm Emanuel did release a statement.

“Chicago offers unparalleled potential for future growth for businesses of all sizes and is the ideal place for Amazon to build its HQ2,” the mayor’s statement read. “This bid will demonstrate to Amazon that Chicago has the talent, transportation and technology to help the company as it reaches new heights and continues to thrive for generations to come.”

Other cities have proposed to Amazon before submitting a formal bid. Kansas City’s mayor went on a reviewing spree on Amazon products. Georgia offered up a sizable amount of land totaling to a grand 345 acres; they even said they would name the site after the company, giving birth to the new city of Amazon, GA. A company in Tucson sent Amazon a 21-foot saguaro cactus to their Seattle headquarters.

Although amusing, the LA Times points out that such strategies to catch Amazon’s attention probably won’t amount to much. After all, the retail giant’s detailed seven-page request mostly highlighted financial incentives. Such incentives could materialize in the form of land, tax credits, relocation grants, workforce grants and fee reductions. These would be critical for Amazon, considering such incentives would allow the company to build a new “mega-campus” and offset “ongoing operational costs.”

Oh, and that 21-foot saguaro cactus? Amazon tweeted that they couldn’t accept the gift, “even really cool ones.” It was donated to Tucson’s Desert Museum. Better luck next time, Tuscon.

Featured image via Flickr/Robert Scoble

Nike losing teens in footrace with Adidas, analysts say

The investment bank and asset management firm Piper Jaffray released the findings of their latest biannual “Taking Stock with Teens” Survey, MarketWatch reports, and apparently, Nike is losing touch with teenagers. Instead, the demographic seems to be spending more with Adidas and Amazon.

Before you throw out your swoosh-covered sweats and socks, Nike (NKE) still holds court as the top clothing and footwear brand. The survey does relay that the sportswear giant is among the top brands that experienced the largest declines. Other household names that suffered sharp declines include: Ralph Lauren (RL); Steve Madden (SHOO); Ugg, (DECK); Fossil (FOSL); and Michael Kors (KORS).

Under Armour (UAA)  also took a hit from the survey, with teen males ranking it as the No. 1 brand classified as “old.” According to CNBC, Under Armour only got one vote among upper-income females as a brand favorite. Nike vs. Adidas aside, it actually seems as though the entire athleisure trend is beginning to lose favor with the teenage demographic. Only a third of teens chose athletic apparel as their preferred fashion pick, down 40 percent from last year. The overall trend moved towards festival fashion.

Piper Jaffray polled 6,100 teens across 44 states for the survey. The average participant’s age was 16; the average household income was $66,100.

After examining the results, analysts were most surprised by Nike’s decline compared to Adidas’ (ADS) surge in popularity. Adidas “doubled its mindshare,” going from 2 percent to 4 percent. Even with their rise, Adidas didn’t fully offset Nike’s losses.

“Overall, larger brands are ceding share for small brands,” Piper Jaffray analysts noted.

Analysts highlighted brands like Vans (VFC) and Supreme as rising in popularity.

Other familiar names ranked highly in the survey as well. Starbucks’ (SBUX) siren call resounded with teens from upper-income households (average yearly income of $101,000) as their top restaurant; it also ranked first among teens from median income households, those bringing in $55,000. Netflix (NFLX) chilled at the top for daily video consumption. Snapchat was the fan favorite for top social media platform. Turns out that teens don’t diverge much from their grownup counterparts when shopping, picking Amazon (AMZN) as their online retailer of choice.

One reason why Amazon has consistently ranked as teen’s favorite site for the past three years could simply be that the company knows their customer base well. Recognizing the opportunity to turn teen shoppers into lifelong customers, Amazon just announced that teens between 13 and 17 years old can now shop on their site with a personal login. Parents or guardians will receive an email or text with order details. Parents can then either approve the purchase or even set limits on their child’s spending.

Christian Magoon, CEO of Amplify ETFs, pointed out that Amazon’s strategy to capture a younger demographic was good for the company’s longevity, considering entire households can now be raised using Amazon smart home products.

“Younger generations rebel against things that are static,” Magoon highlighted, reasoning that other retailers should take notes from Amazon’s strategy.

“Amazon continues to innovate and grow,” he continued. “We’re not at peak Amazon. People are still excited about what’s next.”

Overall though, teen spending is down 4 percent compared to last year, CNBC reports. Teen spending accounts for 7 percent of the country’s retail sales, amounting to nearly $830 billion yearly.

Google to counter Amazon’s Echo Show with smart screen device, sources say

Google is rumored to have a new smart device in the works, TechCrunch reports. The tabletop smart screen for the home will serve as the competitor for Amazon’s Echo Show, which has been on the market since June 2017. If true, such a device would keep Google in the smart home market race with Amazon and Facebook.

The rumors follow Amazon’s announcement Thursday of a cast of new Echos. The company now has a total of seven Amazon Echo devices to choose from. With Amazon covering all the bases in the home, and essentially ruling the current smart home market, it’s about time Google expanded from Google Home into other smart home products.

TechCrunch gathered their information from two confirmed sources, one of which received the intel from a current Google employee. TechCrunch learned that the new Google smart screen has been dubbed “Manhattan” internally. It is unclear if this will be the final launch name for the device.

As far as size goes, it appears to be measuring up with the Echo Show, with a screen around 7 inches. One source told TechCrunch that Google previously played around with much larger sizes for the smart home screen, some designs as large as television screens. For now, the plans seem to have honed in on the smaller, tabletop screen.

Manhattan will offer Youtube, Google Assistant, Google Photos and video calling. It will also be able to act as your home’s “smart hub,” connecting with other smart home devices like Nest.

The original launch date was planned for mid-year 2018. Sources report that there is “internal pressure” to get the launch date moved up after Amazon’s Echo Show. With October and the end of 2017 just around the corner, it’s probably safe to assume that the release date will remain some time in 2018. As TechCrunch points out, “establishing smart hub partnerships” and “exploring the possibility of service partnerships with Best Buy Geek Squad and Enjoy for home installation,” the many moving parts surrounding the launch for Manhattan seem to ensure a 2018 launch.

Sources told TechCrunch that Manhattan will run on a version of Android. This will ensure flexibility for third-parties to build apps for it.

What remains unclear is the final price for such a device or even the final look. As the Amazon Echo Show retails for $230, it’s possible Google’s competing device will come out at a similar price range.

Earlier this week Google removed Youtube from Amazon’s Echo Show without any warnings for current Echo Show owners. Critics claim the removal was strategic, as Youtube will be available on Manhattan. With Youtube capabilities on offer, Manhattan owners would be able to stream music videos from Youtube or watch live cable channels on Youtube TV.

It’s too soon to tell if this would give Manhattan enough of an edge to topple the Echo Show. Many disagree with such a prospect. Fast Company has said that once the mystery device finally arrives on the market, assuming it will, “Amazon will already be a step ahead with its second-generation Echo speaker and new devices like the Echo Spot.”

With a biting finish, Fast Company challenges Google’s ingenuity, claiming that Google should stop “lifting ideas” from Amazon and start bringing to market fresh perspectives of their own making.

McDonald’s will serve antibiotic-free chicken worldwide

McDonald’s announced yesterday, Aug. 23, that it would begin the process of removing human antibiotics in their chickens worldwide starting in 2018. Currently, McDonald’s only sells antibiotic-free chicken in the America’s. The announcement will bring the fast-food giant into a global effort to “battle dangerous superbugs,” according to Reuters.

The company’s target is antibiotics that are defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “highest priority critically important antimicrobials” (HPCIAs) to human medicine. Reuters points out that the plan to phase out antibiotics is still “not as strict as the company’s policy for the United States.” In the US, chicken suppliers have been providing McDonald’s with chickens “raised without antibiotics deemed important to human health” for over a year.

This move will surely have health activists everywhere cheering, as they have been working to get Big Food to stop using human antibiotics in meat for years. Grub Street reminds us of activists’ efforts, citing their “staging a shareholder’s revolt against McDonald’s and publicly shaming In-N-Out.”

Although their plans will roll out in 2018, some suppliers will have up to January 2027 to comply with the new standard.

With the New Year, chickens in Brazil, Canada, Japan, South Korea, the United States and Europe will all be raised without HPCIAs. The only exception will be Europe, where the company will use Colistin, “a last resort antibiotic,” when necessary.

Suppliers in Australia and Russia will stop using HPCIAs by the end of 2019. European suppliers will also be required to stop the use of Colistin at this time.

The rest of the markets will follow, complying with the new rules by January 2027.

Per Reuters, McDonald’s told a “ group of consumer and environmental organizations on Aug. 17 that 74 percent of its global chicken sales will conform to this policy as of January 2018.”

Along with the production of antibiotic-free chicken, McDonald’s hopes to propel similar plans forward for antibiotic-free beef. As part of yesterday’s announcement, the company said they are “working on” further plans to get rid of human antibiotics for beef, pork, dairy cows, and egg-laying hens.

Uber settles with FTC, agrees to 20-years of audits

Uber capitulated to a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) early this week, agreeing to submit to two decades worth of audits.

The San Francisco-based company will need to implement a privacy program and submit to audits every 2 years for the next 20 years, reports ET Tech. The settlement follows an intense probe from US regulators concerned that Uber has “failed to protect the personal information of drivers and passengers and deceived the public about efforts to prevent snooping by its employees.”

The agreed terms are to ensure the company meets certain FTC requirements.

ET Tech reports the FTC Acting Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen had the following to say in regards to the settlement with Uber: “Our order requires a culture of privacy sensitivity for Uber. It’s going to make them take privacy into account every day.”

Uber’s privacy woes with the government began in 2014. The FTC first began its probe into Uber three years ago after media reports unveiled “God View.” Uber employees used “God View” to monitor their customers’ real-time locations after using the app to hail a ride.

Uber was quick to defend itself after the media firestorm that “God View” unleashed. In 2015, the company claimed it had a “strict policy prohibiting employees from accessing rider and driver data,” ET Tech continues. However, Ben Rossen, an FTC staff attorney, has revealed that in fact, Uber only enforced their claimed “strict policy” for around eight months.

The FTC conducted a separate probe during the same year that “God View” was discovered by the media, investigating a data breach in May of 2014. During the breach, more than 100,000 names and license numbers of Uber’s drivers were stolen.

In response to their investigation of the data breach, the FTC said that Uber “did not take reasonable, low-cost measures that could have helped the company prevent the breach.” One example the agency put forward was that Uber “allowed its engineers and programmers to use a single key that gave them full administrative access to all the data.”

Uber’s current settlement with the FTC is just the company’s latest attempt to move forward after continuing setbacks. For much of 2017, the company has been consumed with sexual harassment allegations, a lawsuit over its autonomous-car designs, and a wave of top executives leaving the company, including the CEO Travis Kalanick. Oh, and an investor lawsuit filed against that same departed CEO as in-fighting between a divided board of directors and angered shareholders increases.

Ohlhausen, who presided over the settlement with Uber, said, “Uber failed consumers in two key ways: first by misrepresenting the extent to which it monitored its employees’ access to personal information about users and drivers, and second by misrepresenting that it took reasonable steps to secure that data,” BBC News reports.

Google to face lawsuit over gender pay gap

Google is once again making headlines this week due to a familiar issue in Silicon Valley—the gender pay gap. At least 70 current and former female employees are expected to file a class-action lawsuit against the tech giant with the help of a San Francisco employment law firm, Altshuler Berzon LLP.

James Finberg, the civil rights lawyer and Altshuler Berzon LLP partner spearheading the class action suit, told Forbes that several dozen women came forward in just “a matter of weeks” after the firm posted both Facebook and LinkedIn notices “seeking women currently or formerly employed at Google for possible inclusion in a planned class-action lawsuit alleging gender pay discrimination.”

Since this week’s firing of Google employee James Damore, the suit has gained more fire and Finberg expects to go public “a lot earlier than [they’d] hoped or expected.”

This class-action lawsuit follows closely on the heels of a similar suit filed against Google earlier this year by the United States Department of Labor (DOL) citing evidence of an “extreme” gender pay gap within the tech company. Finberg told Forbes the current suit will draw evidence from the DOL analysis, whose evidence was taken from a collection of 21,000 employee salaries at Google’s headquarters.

Some of the concerns women are sharing, according to Finberg, are that women are being channeled into ‘softer’ jobs that are compensated less than, say, coding is and that women’s prior wages were used to create their Google salary.

If the latter were to be true, Finberg comments, “That’s institutionalizing gender discrimination, and it’s against California law.”

Although the year may be 2017, and you can’t seem to walk down a street without bumping into a feminist, women continue to earn less than their male counterparts in the workplace. Despite a certain Google employee’s claim that the gender pay gap is a myth, the data proves otherwise.

According to a report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2015, women earn an average of $0.80 for every $1 men do. The report broke this down by age as well, indicating that younger women have a narrower pay gap than older women do. This gap tends to be wider for older women, as they faced bigger gaps when starting their careers than younger women do, hurting their long-term earnings.

That $0.20 wage gap adds up at the end of the day, costing women a loss of around $10,470 each year, according to a report published by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) in March this year. For a white, 20 year-old-woman just starting her career today, that loss over a 40-year period adds up to a grand total of $418,800. If that same woman’s male counterpart were to retire at age 60, it would take her another 10 years (retiring at 70), to close that gap. The same NWLC report notes that this situation is compounded even more for women of color. Depending on the state she lives in, a woman of color might have to work past the age of 100 in order to bridge the gap to her white male counterpart.

Finberg and Altshuler Berzon LLP intend to move forward with the class-action suit “within the next few weeks.” It looks like stories about Google and the gender pay gap will be gracing headlines throughout all of 2017.

ASOS to build $40 million warehouse in Atlanta, GA

ASOS, a British online fashion and beauty store, released a statement announcing plans to build a new warehouse in the United States on Tuesday, August 8, Business Insider reports.

The giant e-commerce fulfillment center will be located in Union City, near Atlanta, GA and will cost the company an initial investment of $40 million to build. The Union City warehouse will be half the size of ASOS’ main warehouse in Barnsley, England and large enough to house 10 million clothing and accessory items.

This plan is to help fuel US sales growth, which makes up 12 percent of ASOS’ total global sales.

In the company statement as released on the London Stock Exchange, the new center will “significantly enhance ASOS’ US customer proposition providing more cost effective, faster and more flexible delivery options.”

ASOS’ CEO, Nick Beighton, commented on the occasion, saying he believed the move to be a “major step forward” and “demonstrates the opportunity we believe lies ahead in [the US] market.”

According to Beighton, in the current financial year, the US market has “delivered 39 percent constant currency growth in the first six months,” with the financial year ending in Aug. 2016 seeing sales of almost $233 million.

ASOS brands itself as the premier fashion destination for 20-somethings, providing fast-fashion to millennials worldwide. ASOS sells and creates fashion and fashion-related content. They sell over 85,000 products both branded and own-label.

Nicola Thompson, ASOS’ global trading director, had the following to say about the company to Racked in May:

“We are the largest fashion label without a store, and that is because of the sheer volume of what we can offer. Shoppers come to us because they know there will be a product offering unlike any other. We have amazing combinations, and an unlimited amount of popular brands, and that is really a unique positioning within the market.”

ASOS has suffered allegations of exploitative contracts with their UK warehouses. This piece published by BBC News in Oct. 2016 details some of the accusations and the scrutiny ASOS endured from British MPs and campaigners.

To see ASOS by the numbers, check out this slideshow by Refinery29.