100,000 Refrigerators, Freezers Recalled Including Maytag, Whirlpool and Amana
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recently announced that 112,000 Automatic Defrost Upright Freezers and All-Refrigerators are recalled in voluntary cooperation with W.C. Wood Company of Ottawa, Ohio. the firm below. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
According to the government agency, the defrost heater coil can become exposed inside the units, which poses a potential shock hazard to consumers. In some cases the exposed heater wire can also melt, or burn the unit’s interior plastic food liner.
The CPSC also said that the manufacturer has received 45 reports of incidents of the defrost heater coil becoming exposed. Nine of those incidents resulted in an electrical short. The others melted and burned the unit’s interior plastic liner. No injuries have been reported.
The recalled single door freezers and refrigerators are 15, 17 and 20-cubic foot Automatic Defrost Upright Freezers and 17-cubic foot Automatic Defrost All-Refrigerators that can be converted into freezers. They were sold under the brand names Amana, Crosley, Danby, Maytag, Whirlpool and Wood’s, which is written on the front of the unit. The manufacturer label with the model number and date of manufacture is located on the inside of the cabinet. A list of model numbers and dates of manufacture included in the recall is listed below.
Amana AFU1567*, AFU1767*, AFU2067* 200209
(September 2002) through 200402 (February 2004)
Crosley FFCR17*, WCF15*, WCF17*, WCF20*
Danby DUF1700*, DFF1708*
Maytag MQU1556*, MQU2057*
Whirlpool EV150NXM*, EV170NYL*, EV171NYM*, EV200NXK*,
EV201NXM*, EL7ATRRK*, EL7ATRRM*, EL7JWKLM*, EL7JWKRM*
Wood’s F15*, F17*, F20*, F42*, F47*, F55*, WFF15*,
WFF17*, WFF20*, RFA17*, RFC17*, R47F*
* there are additional letters or numbers following the model numbers above
The appliances were sold between September 2002 and February 2005 in the United States and Canada for between $400 and $1,000 each.
Sold at: Home improvement and appliance stores from September 2002 through February 2005 for between $400 and $1,000. Consumers are encouraged to contact W.C. Wood toll-free at (866) 493-3314 to arrange for a free in-home repair.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Mississippi AG Files Complaint Against Insurance Companies Over Katrina
Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood filed a complaint September 15 in Chancery Court in Hinds County, Mississippi. The complaint seeks to declare null void and unenforceable certain provisions contained in property casualty insurance properties that exclude coverage from Hurricane Katrina.
The Complaint states that the issuance of such policies violates the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act and seeks the Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order providing their issuance.
Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood filed a complaint September 15 in Chancery Court in Hinds County, Mississippi. The complaint seeks to declare null void and unenforceable certain provisions contained in property casualty insurance properties that exclude coverage from Hurricane Katrina.
The Complaint states that the issuance of such policies violates the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act and seeks the Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order providing their issuance.
Free Flood Car Check From CARFAX; More Than Half Million Cars Believed Damaged
Free Carfax Flood Checks (www.carfax.com/flood) are now available to help prevent consumers from unknowingly buying a flood-damaged car.
"Anyone buying or selling a used car needs to be aware of potential problems that may exist," says Larry Gamache, communications director at Carfax. "We're committed to providing our customers with the resources they need to protect themselves."
Carfax also has developed an advisory that identifies any vehicle last registered in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster area. The advisory will appear through the Flood Check and Carfax Vehicle History Report for applicable vehicles.
Current estimates are that 571,000 cars may have been destroyed following Hurricane Katrina and could be significantly higher because of Hurricane Rita. Over the coming months, Carfax will be working with law enforcement, state agencies and private companies to make sure all of these vehicles are properly branded.
Free Carfax Flood Checks (www.carfax.com/flood) are now available to help prevent consumers from unknowingly buying a flood-damaged car.
"Anyone buying or selling a used car needs to be aware of potential problems that may exist," says Larry Gamache, communications director at Carfax. "We're committed to providing our customers with the resources they need to protect themselves."
Carfax also has developed an advisory that identifies any vehicle last registered in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster area. The advisory will appear through the Flood Check and Carfax Vehicle History Report for applicable vehicles.
Current estimates are that 571,000 cars may have been destroyed following Hurricane Katrina and could be significantly higher because of Hurricane Rita. Over the coming months, Carfax will be working with law enforcement, state agencies and private companies to make sure all of these vehicles are properly branded.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
October Is National Cyber Security Month
The National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA) and The Department of Homeland Security today announced the launch of key programs and events to educate Internet users of all ages about safe online practices throughout October in observance of National Cyber Security Awareness Month.
National Cyber Security Awareness Month unites entities from federal, state and local government as well as the education and business communities, all of whom share a common goal to educate the public and provide tools to help them engage in safe online activity. The NCSA is recognized as a central clearinghouse for consumer education and information about online safety. The organization works closely with Homeland Security, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a variety of other public and private organizations to ensure that messages about online safety and security are accurate and consistent.
Throughout the month of October, NCSA and Homeland Security will work with key industry partners to spread the word about online safety by providing tips and resources and hosting special events designed specifically for home users, small businesses, and the education community. Specific activities include:
Distributing a national public service announcement entitled “Stop, Think, Click” which urges consumers to protect their valuable personal data through a variety of online best practices;
Sponsoring a variety of regional events, such as small business workshops and cyber security bootcamps, which will take consumer education to the grassroots level; and
Promoting cyber awareness initiatives among the education community via student assemblies, Webcasts and events at college campuses throughout the U.S.
“Cyber Security Awareness Month is an opportunity to raise awareness of the importance of cyber security and empower all Americans to protect themselves online and ensure that their computers are not used to attack others,” said Andy Purdy, acting director of the National Cyber Security Division at the Department of Homeland Security.
“We share a common goal with Homeland Security and our industry partners, to provide Americans with the tools and information they need to practice safe online behaviors during National Cyber Security Awareness Month and throughout the year,” said Ron Teixeira, Executive Director, National Cyber Security Alliance. “The scope and impact of existing and emerging online threats requires an ongoing partnership between government, businesses, schools, and consumers. Working together, we can make the Internet safer for everyone.”
For more information regarding National Cyber Security Awareness Month and to sign up for free cyber alerts please visit: www.staysafeonline.org.
The National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA) and The Department of Homeland Security today announced the launch of key programs and events to educate Internet users of all ages about safe online practices throughout October in observance of National Cyber Security Awareness Month.
National Cyber Security Awareness Month unites entities from federal, state and local government as well as the education and business communities, all of whom share a common goal to educate the public and provide tools to help them engage in safe online activity. The NCSA is recognized as a central clearinghouse for consumer education and information about online safety. The organization works closely with Homeland Security, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a variety of other public and private organizations to ensure that messages about online safety and security are accurate and consistent.
Throughout the month of October, NCSA and Homeland Security will work with key industry partners to spread the word about online safety by providing tips and resources and hosting special events designed specifically for home users, small businesses, and the education community. Specific activities include:
Distributing a national public service announcement entitled “Stop, Think, Click” which urges consumers to protect their valuable personal data through a variety of online best practices;
Sponsoring a variety of regional events, such as small business workshops and cyber security bootcamps, which will take consumer education to the grassroots level; and
Promoting cyber awareness initiatives among the education community via student assemblies, Webcasts and events at college campuses throughout the U.S.
“Cyber Security Awareness Month is an opportunity to raise awareness of the importance of cyber security and empower all Americans to protect themselves online and ensure that their computers are not used to attack others,” said Andy Purdy, acting director of the National Cyber Security Division at the Department of Homeland Security.
“We share a common goal with Homeland Security and our industry partners, to provide Americans with the tools and information they need to practice safe online behaviors during National Cyber Security Awareness Month and throughout the year,” said Ron Teixeira, Executive Director, National Cyber Security Alliance. “The scope and impact of existing and emerging online threats requires an ongoing partnership between government, businesses, schools, and consumers. Working together, we can make the Internet safer for everyone.”
For more information regarding National Cyber Security Awareness Month and to sign up for free cyber alerts please visit: www.staysafeonline.org.
Monday, September 26, 2005
NY Attorney General and AOL Settle Customer Service Dispute
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer last month announced an agreement that requires the nation’s leading internet service provider to reform its customer service procedures.
Under the agreement, America Online (AOL) will alter the incentives it offers to customer representatives who seek to persuade subscribers not to cancel their service.
"This agreement helps ensure that AOL will strive to keep its customers through quality service, not stealth retention programs," Spitzer said.
In response to approximately 300 consumer complaints, Spitzer’s office began an inquiry of AOL’s customer service policies. The investigation revealed that the company had an elaborate system for rewarding employees who purported to retain or "save" subscribers who had called to cancel their internet service. In many instances, such retention was done against subscribers’ wishes, or without their consent.
Under the system, consumer service personnel received bonuses worth tens of thousands of dollars if they could successfully dissuade or "save" half of the people who called to cancel service. For several years, AOL had instituted minimum retention or "save" percentages, which consumer representatives were expected to meet. These bonuses, and the minimum "save" rates accompanying them, had the effect of employees not honoring cancellations, or otherwise making cancellation unduly difficult for consumers.
Many consumers complained that AOL personnel ignored their demands to cancel service and stop billing.
The agreement requires AOL to:
• Eliminate any requirements that its customer service representatives maintain a minimum number of "saves" in order to earn a bonus;
• Record all service cancellation requests and verify action on the request through a third-party monitor;
• Provide refunds to all New York consumers who claim harm based on improper cancellation procedures, up to four months worth of service;
• Pay $1.25 million to the state in penalties and costs.
The claim form for New York consumers seeking refunds is available at Attorney General Spitzer’s web site http://www.oag.state.ny.us/internet/internet.html.
Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos applauded the decision. "We have had similar cases this year and last that the company resolved," Bounacos stated. "It is certainly appropriate for AOL staff to try to persuade customers to remain, but no means no and a consumer's cancelation request must be honored no matter what."
Bounacos stated that AOL's management had responded to Consumer Help Web complaints with offers of refunds and free service.
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer last month announced an agreement that requires the nation’s leading internet service provider to reform its customer service procedures.
Under the agreement, America Online (AOL) will alter the incentives it offers to customer representatives who seek to persuade subscribers not to cancel their service.
"This agreement helps ensure that AOL will strive to keep its customers through quality service, not stealth retention programs," Spitzer said.
In response to approximately 300 consumer complaints, Spitzer’s office began an inquiry of AOL’s customer service policies. The investigation revealed that the company had an elaborate system for rewarding employees who purported to retain or "save" subscribers who had called to cancel their internet service. In many instances, such retention was done against subscribers’ wishes, or without their consent.
Under the system, consumer service personnel received bonuses worth tens of thousands of dollars if they could successfully dissuade or "save" half of the people who called to cancel service. For several years, AOL had instituted minimum retention or "save" percentages, which consumer representatives were expected to meet. These bonuses, and the minimum "save" rates accompanying them, had the effect of employees not honoring cancellations, or otherwise making cancellation unduly difficult for consumers.
Many consumers complained that AOL personnel ignored their demands to cancel service and stop billing.
The agreement requires AOL to:
• Eliminate any requirements that its customer service representatives maintain a minimum number of "saves" in order to earn a bonus;
• Record all service cancellation requests and verify action on the request through a third-party monitor;
• Provide refunds to all New York consumers who claim harm based on improper cancellation procedures, up to four months worth of service;
• Pay $1.25 million to the state in penalties and costs.
The claim form for New York consumers seeking refunds is available at Attorney General Spitzer’s web site http://www.oag.state.ny.us/internet/internet.html.
Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos applauded the decision. "We have had similar cases this year and last that the company resolved," Bounacos stated. "It is certainly appropriate for AOL staff to try to persuade customers to remain, but no means no and a consumer's cancelation request must be honored no matter what."
Bounacos stated that AOL's management had responded to Consumer Help Web complaints with offers of refunds and free service.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Disney Bracelet Keyrings Recalled For High Lead Levels
Over 100,000 Disney Bracelet Keyrings have been recalled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and manufacturer Monogram International. The recall states that the bracelets contain high levels of lead, which can cause health problems in young children.
The items were sold nationwide at major retailers including Wal-Mart and Walgreen's for more than one year at a cost of $3.
Consumers are instructed to immediately take the keyring away from children and return it to the manufacturer for a full refund. Consumers can contact Monogram International at (800) 736-1941 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday to receive instructions for returning the keyrings.
Over 100,000 Disney Bracelet Keyrings have been recalled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and manufacturer Monogram International. The recall states that the bracelets contain high levels of lead, which can cause health problems in young children.
The items were sold nationwide at major retailers including Wal-Mart and Walgreen's for more than one year at a cost of $3.
Consumers are instructed to immediately take the keyring away from children and return it to the manufacturer for a full refund. Consumers can contact Monogram International at (800) 736-1941 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday to receive instructions for returning the keyrings.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Cox Ranks Highest in Customer Satisfaction among High-Speed Internet Providers; SBC Yahoo! Ranks Highest among Dial-Up Providers
Cox ranks highest in satisfying high-speed Internet customers, while SBC Yahoo! ranks highest among dial-up Internet providers, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2005 Internet Service Provider Residential Customer Satisfaction Study(sm) released yesterday.
Now in its eighth year, the study measures customer satisfaction with Internet service providers based on seven factors. They are: performance and reliability; cost of service; image; customer service/technical support; billing; e-mail services; and offerings and promotions.
Cox records the most improvement in the study, increasing 20 index points from 2004. Cox receives the highest ratings in the high-speed segment in performance and reliability and customer service. Following Cox in the rankings are Verizon, BellSouth and Bright House, respectively.
SBC Yahoo! receives particularly strong ratings from its dial-up customers in offerings and promotions and cost of service. SBC Yahoo! is followed in the rankings by AT&T Worldnet and EarthLink, respectively.
The study finds that dial-up accelerators are having a big impact on the number of hours dial-up users spend online. Overall Internet usage among dial-up customers has increased from 15.6 personal hours per week in 2004 to 17.8 in 2005. Among those using dial-up accelerators, Internet usage averages 19.9 hours—10 percent higher than broadband users, who average 18.1 hours per week. Customers using dial-up accelerators also report spending less on Internet service than the dial-up average—$19.35 per month compared to $20.04 for all dial-up users. Reflecting increasingly competitive pricing, high-speed users report spending less on average in 2005—$43.83 per month in 2005, down from $44.12 in 2004.
"Speed is the name of the game in the Internet world, and customers who use accelerators are more likely to switch to broadband products like DSL and cable modem down the road," said Steve Kirkeby, senior director of telecommunications research at J.D. Power and Associates. "With nearly one-third of dial-up users saying they intend to switch to a high-speed connection in the next six months, dial-up accelerator users are more likely to switch to their current providers’ high-speed product, retaining them as customers for the long term."
Although DSL subscribers are significantly more satisfied than cable modem users for a second consecutive year, cable modem providers are increasing market share at a faster pace than DSL. In 2005, cable modems account for 28 percent of Internet subscriptions—up from 24 percent in 2004. Sixteen percent of Internet service subscriptions are for DSL service—up just 1 percent from 2004. However, among the 32 percent of dial-up subscribers who say they will definitely or probably switch to high-speed in the next six months, 47 percent intend to go to DSL. Only 30 percent intend to switch to cable modem.
High-speed subscribers are more price sensitive than dial-up in deciding when and where to switch, whereas connection speed is much more important for dial-up than high-speed subscribers. The effects of discounted packaging of services are also evident, with this issue having factored into the decision of 62 percent of subscribers who switched to high-speed versus 39 percent to dial-up.
"Price competition among high-speed providers is increasingly prevalent," said Kirkeby. "Although service interruption is considered by more than one-half of high-speed service subscribers as important, price is the No.1 reason to switch. Long term, however, product performance will be the main reason they stay."
The 2005 ISP Residential Customer Satisfaction Study is based on responses from 6,313 residential customers of Internet service providers nationwide.
Cox ranks highest in satisfying high-speed Internet customers, while SBC Yahoo! ranks highest among dial-up Internet providers, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2005 Internet Service Provider Residential Customer Satisfaction Study(sm) released yesterday.
Now in its eighth year, the study measures customer satisfaction with Internet service providers based on seven factors. They are: performance and reliability; cost of service; image; customer service/technical support; billing; e-mail services; and offerings and promotions.
Cox records the most improvement in the study, increasing 20 index points from 2004. Cox receives the highest ratings in the high-speed segment in performance and reliability and customer service. Following Cox in the rankings are Verizon, BellSouth and Bright House, respectively.
SBC Yahoo! receives particularly strong ratings from its dial-up customers in offerings and promotions and cost of service. SBC Yahoo! is followed in the rankings by AT&T Worldnet and EarthLink, respectively.
The study finds that dial-up accelerators are having a big impact on the number of hours dial-up users spend online. Overall Internet usage among dial-up customers has increased from 15.6 personal hours per week in 2004 to 17.8 in 2005. Among those using dial-up accelerators, Internet usage averages 19.9 hours—10 percent higher than broadband users, who average 18.1 hours per week. Customers using dial-up accelerators also report spending less on Internet service than the dial-up average—$19.35 per month compared to $20.04 for all dial-up users. Reflecting increasingly competitive pricing, high-speed users report spending less on average in 2005—$43.83 per month in 2005, down from $44.12 in 2004.
"Speed is the name of the game in the Internet world, and customers who use accelerators are more likely to switch to broadband products like DSL and cable modem down the road," said Steve Kirkeby, senior director of telecommunications research at J.D. Power and Associates. "With nearly one-third of dial-up users saying they intend to switch to a high-speed connection in the next six months, dial-up accelerator users are more likely to switch to their current providers’ high-speed product, retaining them as customers for the long term."
Although DSL subscribers are significantly more satisfied than cable modem users for a second consecutive year, cable modem providers are increasing market share at a faster pace than DSL. In 2005, cable modems account for 28 percent of Internet subscriptions—up from 24 percent in 2004. Sixteen percent of Internet service subscriptions are for DSL service—up just 1 percent from 2004. However, among the 32 percent of dial-up subscribers who say they will definitely or probably switch to high-speed in the next six months, 47 percent intend to go to DSL. Only 30 percent intend to switch to cable modem.
High-speed subscribers are more price sensitive than dial-up in deciding when and where to switch, whereas connection speed is much more important for dial-up than high-speed subscribers. The effects of discounted packaging of services are also evident, with this issue having factored into the decision of 62 percent of subscribers who switched to high-speed versus 39 percent to dial-up.
"Price competition among high-speed providers is increasingly prevalent," said Kirkeby. "Although service interruption is considered by more than one-half of high-speed service subscribers as important, price is the No.1 reason to switch. Long term, however, product performance will be the main reason they stay."
The 2005 ISP Residential Customer Satisfaction Study is based on responses from 6,313 residential customers of Internet service providers nationwide.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Sierra Club Bashes Bush's Fuel Economy Standards; Consumers Will Pay More Organization Says
The Bush administration has announced plans that would weaken the nation’s most successful oil-savings law. Instead of making meaningful improvements in the fuel economy of America’s pickup trucks, SUVs, and other light trucks, the administration’s proposal creates new loopholes that will weaken Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. This will result in Americans paying more at the gas pump, deepening the country’s oil dependence, and exacerbating global warming.
"At a time when Americans are paying record prices for gas, the Bush administration has sided with its cronies in the auto industry and rejected real solutions," said Dan Becker, Director of Sierra Club's Global Warming Program. "This proposal gives automakers another excuse to not make the cars that people want - ones that use availability technology to save consumers money at the gas pump and cut pollution."
The new proposal would abandon the concept of a fleet wide fuel economy standard and create a new size-based system that would divide the current light truck fleet into six classes, with each class being determined by wheelbase (length) and track width (width). A size based system encourages automakers to build larger vehicles in order to qualify for weaker fuel economy standards, resulting in lower fleet wide fuel economy. In addition, the proposal extends existing loopholes in the CAFE law, such as exempting Hummers and other heavy vehicles over 8,500 pounds GVWR from meeting fuel economy standards.
Today’s proposed rulemaking would raise the fuel economy standards for light trucks - a vehicle category which includes pickup trucks and SUVs - by a trivial 1.8 miles per gallon over the 2008 to 2011 vehicle model years. At current rates, the administration's proposal will save less than six days worth oil. This proposal falls far short of the attainable improvements that can be reached with current technology. Unfortunately, the proposed gains in fuel economy are likely to be eliminated as a result of the radical overhaul of the current structure.
"Making our cars and trucks go farther on a gallon of gas is the biggest single step we can take to save money at the gas pump, cut oil dependence, and curb global warming," continued Becker.
The technology exists today to make all vehicles average 40 miles per gallon fleet wide within ten years. Taking this step would save the average driver $2,200 in fuel savings over the lifetime of their vehicle and save the United States more oil than we currently import from the entire Persian Gulf or could ever take out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, combined, curbing global warming, and strengthening national security.
PROPOSAL SPECIFICS
Raises current light truck standard of 22.2 miles per gallon (mpg) in model year 2007 to a projected fleet-wide fuel economy level of 24 mpg by model year 2011. However, as a result of the structural changes to the CAFE system, there is no guarantee that the light truck fleet fuel economy will reach this level.
Divides the current light truck fleet into six size based categories based upon wheelbase (length) and track width (width). The fuel economy levels expressed are for the 2011 model year:
- Less than 43 square feet: 28.4 mpg
- 43 square feet - 47 square feet: 27.1 mpg
- 47 square feet - 52 square feet: 24.5 mpg
- 52 square feet - 56.5 square feet: 23.3 mpg
- 56.5 square feet - 65 square feet: 21.9 mpg
- Greater than 65 square feet: 21.3 mpg
Today’s announcement fails to set fuel economy standards for vehicles between 8500 to 10,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) - like the Hummer H2, Ford Excursion, and some models of the Chevy Suburban - which are currently exempt from CAFE standards.
The Bush administration has announced plans that would weaken the nation’s most successful oil-savings law. Instead of making meaningful improvements in the fuel economy of America’s pickup trucks, SUVs, and other light trucks, the administration’s proposal creates new loopholes that will weaken Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. This will result in Americans paying more at the gas pump, deepening the country’s oil dependence, and exacerbating global warming.
"At a time when Americans are paying record prices for gas, the Bush administration has sided with its cronies in the auto industry and rejected real solutions," said Dan Becker, Director of Sierra Club's Global Warming Program. "This proposal gives automakers another excuse to not make the cars that people want - ones that use availability technology to save consumers money at the gas pump and cut pollution."
The new proposal would abandon the concept of a fleet wide fuel economy standard and create a new size-based system that would divide the current light truck fleet into six classes, with each class being determined by wheelbase (length) and track width (width). A size based system encourages automakers to build larger vehicles in order to qualify for weaker fuel economy standards, resulting in lower fleet wide fuel economy. In addition, the proposal extends existing loopholes in the CAFE law, such as exempting Hummers and other heavy vehicles over 8,500 pounds GVWR from meeting fuel economy standards.
Today’s proposed rulemaking would raise the fuel economy standards for light trucks - a vehicle category which includes pickup trucks and SUVs - by a trivial 1.8 miles per gallon over the 2008 to 2011 vehicle model years. At current rates, the administration's proposal will save less than six days worth oil. This proposal falls far short of the attainable improvements that can be reached with current technology. Unfortunately, the proposed gains in fuel economy are likely to be eliminated as a result of the radical overhaul of the current structure.
"Making our cars and trucks go farther on a gallon of gas is the biggest single step we can take to save money at the gas pump, cut oil dependence, and curb global warming," continued Becker.
The technology exists today to make all vehicles average 40 miles per gallon fleet wide within ten years. Taking this step would save the average driver $2,200 in fuel savings over the lifetime of their vehicle and save the United States more oil than we currently import from the entire Persian Gulf or could ever take out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, combined, curbing global warming, and strengthening national security.
PROPOSAL SPECIFICS
Raises current light truck standard of 22.2 miles per gallon (mpg) in model year 2007 to a projected fleet-wide fuel economy level of 24 mpg by model year 2011. However, as a result of the structural changes to the CAFE system, there is no guarantee that the light truck fleet fuel economy will reach this level.
Divides the current light truck fleet into six size based categories based upon wheelbase (length) and track width (width). The fuel economy levels expressed are for the 2011 model year:
- Less than 43 square feet: 28.4 mpg
- 43 square feet - 47 square feet: 27.1 mpg
- 47 square feet - 52 square feet: 24.5 mpg
- 52 square feet - 56.5 square feet: 23.3 mpg
- 56.5 square feet - 65 square feet: 21.9 mpg
- Greater than 65 square feet: 21.3 mpg
Today’s announcement fails to set fuel economy standards for vehicles between 8500 to 10,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) - like the Hummer H2, Ford Excursion, and some models of the Chevy Suburban - which are currently exempt from CAFE standards.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
All US Citizens Now Eligible For Free Credit Reports
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires each of the nationwide consumer reporting companies — Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion — to provide you with a free copy of your credit report, at your request, once every 12 months. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation's consumer protection agency, has prepared a brochure, Your Access to Free Credit Reports, explaining your rights under the FCRA and how to order a free annual credit report.
A credit report includes information on where you live, how you pay your bills, and whether you've been sued, arrested, or filed for bankruptcy. Nationwide consumer reporting companies sell the information in your report to creditors, insurers, employers, and other businesses that use it to evaluate your applications for credit, insurance, employment, or renting a home.
How do I order my free report?
You can order your free annual credit report online at annualcreditreport.com, by calling 1-877-322-8228, or by completing the Annual Credit Report Request Form and mailing it to: Annual Credit Report Request Service, P.O. Box 105281, Atlanta, GA 30348-5281.
When you order, you need to provide your name, address, Social Security number, and date of birth. To verify your identity, you may need to provide some information that only you would know, like the amount of your monthly mortgage payment.
A Warning About "Imposter" Sites
The FTC advises consumers who order their free annual credit reports online to be sure to correctly spell annualcreditreport.com, or link to it from the FTC's website to avoid being misdirected to other websites that offer supposedly free reports,but only with the purchase of other products. While consumers may be offered additional products or services while on the authorized website, they are not required to make a purchase to receive their free annual credit reports.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires each of the nationwide consumer reporting companies — Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion — to provide you with a free copy of your credit report, at your request, once every 12 months. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation's consumer protection agency, has prepared a brochure, Your Access to Free Credit Reports, explaining your rights under the FCRA and how to order a free annual credit report.
A credit report includes information on where you live, how you pay your bills, and whether you've been sued, arrested, or filed for bankruptcy. Nationwide consumer reporting companies sell the information in your report to creditors, insurers, employers, and other businesses that use it to evaluate your applications for credit, insurance, employment, or renting a home.
How do I order my free report?
You can order your free annual credit report online at annualcreditreport.com, by calling 1-877-322-8228, or by completing the Annual Credit Report Request Form and mailing it to: Annual Credit Report Request Service, P.O. Box 105281, Atlanta, GA 30348-5281.
When you order, you need to provide your name, address, Social Security number, and date of birth. To verify your identity, you may need to provide some information that only you would know, like the amount of your monthly mortgage payment.
A Warning About "Imposter" Sites
The FTC advises consumers who order their free annual credit reports online to be sure to correctly spell annualcreditreport.com, or link to it from the FTC's website to avoid being misdirected to other websites that offer supposedly free reports,but only with the purchase of other products. While consumers may be offered additional products or services while on the authorized website, they are not required to make a purchase to receive their free annual credit reports.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Consumer Help Web Publishes Checklist On Finding A Vioxx (or any!) Attorney
Since a south Texas jury awarded more than a quarter billion dollars to the widow of a man who died after using Merck's Vioxx medication, the trial lawyers have been circling the web. Sites pop up every day, looking for new parties whom lawyers can represent. Banding together a large group of plantiffs puts a firm in a powerful position with regard to the court system and makes the company more likely to try to strike a deal.
Some estimates are that over 7,500 suits are pending or have already been filed with Courts throughout the United States. "Merck may be vigorously defending itself, but the blood is in the water," said Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. "It is critical that consumers pick the right attorney if they intend to participate in legal proceedings."
C0nsumer Help Web, the Internet's leading consumer advocacy organization announced today a checklist to help consumers find the right legal representation if they are considering a Vioxx claim.
1. Ask your physician for a referral. Although every state "certifies" attorneys in different areas of expertise, your physician may know of an attorney whose practice involves healthcare-related cases.
2. Another resource to use is at FindLaw.com, which provides a list of self-reported information from law firms organized by city. That list is located at
3. Shop for an attorney based on the attorney's experience, proposed fees (especially any contingency fees in the event of a settlement) and referrals. Do not simply pick the first attorney who approaches you or one who offers a lower contingency fee without first investigating them.
4. Check with your local bar association to ensure there are no pending or previous complaints regarding your attorney. An interactive listing of local bar associations can be found for free on the web at http://www.abanet.org/barserv/stlobar.html
5. Once you have selected a lawyer, read everything carefully before you sign a document. Ask for "plain English" descriptions of any wording you do not understand. Once you are given that description, ask to have the description added to your Agreement as an addendum.
6. Make sure you understand who will be your contact in the attorney's firm. In many cases, the actual client contact will be with paralegals and associate attorneys. If you insist on regular meetings with the attorney signing an agrement with you, be prepared to write that requirement into the agreement. Also be prepared to pay extra for those meetings on a billable hour basis.
7. Understand what rights you are surrendering. In your Agreement, you may be assigning the attorney the opportunity to combine your case with others, sell or trade the case to another attorney or accept a settlement if a combined class votes to do so. That settlement's provisions will often allow for attorney's fees to be deducted from the initial amount. That means the attorneys are paid first.
8. Make sure your Agreement specifies what information or evidence you will need to provide and who will bear the costs of gathering that evidence.
9. Keep a written record of all conversations and correspondence with your attorney before, during and after signing an Agreement.
10. Inform your physician that you are now represented by legal counsel. You are not required to say anything, but doing so will help nurture trust and goodwill in your doctor-patient relationship.
Copyright 2005 Consumer Help Web, Inc. May be reprinted without permission provided attribution is made to www.consumerhelpweb.com
Since a south Texas jury awarded more than a quarter billion dollars to the widow of a man who died after using Merck's Vioxx medication, the trial lawyers have been circling the web. Sites pop up every day, looking for new parties whom lawyers can represent. Banding together a large group of plantiffs puts a firm in a powerful position with regard to the court system and makes the company more likely to try to strike a deal.
Some estimates are that over 7,500 suits are pending or have already been filed with Courts throughout the United States. "Merck may be vigorously defending itself, but the blood is in the water," said Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. "It is critical that consumers pick the right attorney if they intend to participate in legal proceedings."
C0nsumer Help Web, the Internet's leading consumer advocacy organization announced today a checklist to help consumers find the right legal representation if they are considering a Vioxx claim.
HOW TO PICK AN ATTORNEY TO PURSUE A VIOXX CLAIM
Author: ConsumerHelpWeb.com
List may be reprinted without notice by attribution to www.ConsumerHelpWeb.com
1. Ask your physician for a referral. Although every state "certifies" attorneys in different areas of expertise, your physician may know of an attorney whose practice involves healthcare-related cases.
2. Another resource to use is at FindLaw.com, which provides a list of self-reported information from law firms organized by city. That list is located at
3. Shop for an attorney based on the attorney's experience, proposed fees (especially any contingency fees in the event of a settlement) and referrals. Do not simply pick the first attorney who approaches you or one who offers a lower contingency fee without first investigating them.
4. Check with your local bar association to ensure there are no pending or previous complaints regarding your attorney. An interactive listing of local bar associations can be found for free on the web at http://www.abanet.org/barserv/stlobar.html
5. Once you have selected a lawyer, read everything carefully before you sign a document. Ask for "plain English" descriptions of any wording you do not understand. Once you are given that description, ask to have the description added to your Agreement as an addendum.
6. Make sure you understand who will be your contact in the attorney's firm. In many cases, the actual client contact will be with paralegals and associate attorneys. If you insist on regular meetings with the attorney signing an agrement with you, be prepared to write that requirement into the agreement. Also be prepared to pay extra for those meetings on a billable hour basis.
7. Understand what rights you are surrendering. In your Agreement, you may be assigning the attorney the opportunity to combine your case with others, sell or trade the case to another attorney or accept a settlement if a combined class votes to do so. That settlement's provisions will often allow for attorney's fees to be deducted from the initial amount. That means the attorneys are paid first.
8. Make sure your Agreement specifies what information or evidence you will need to provide and who will bear the costs of gathering that evidence.
9. Keep a written record of all conversations and correspondence with your attorney before, during and after signing an Agreement.
10. Inform your physician that you are now represented by legal counsel. You are not required to say anything, but doing so will help nurture trust and goodwill in your doctor-patient relationship.
Copyright 2005 Consumer Help Web, Inc. May be reprinted without permission provided attribution is made to www.consumerhelpweb.com
Friday, September 16, 2005
AOL Email Thief Goes To Prison Monday
Identity theft doesn’t pay, and that includes email addresses. That will be the message when Jason Smathers turns himself into authorities Monday to begin serving a 15 month jail sentence. Smathers was convicted last month of stealing more than 90 million email addresses from AOL and selling them to a spammer.
Smathers also may be required to repay AOL for its costs in dealing with spam created by his sale of the names as well as its costs in employee time spent conducting the investigation.
After cooperating with authorities, Smathers was sentenced to only 15 months in prison rather than the two years he could have received for the information theft.
Identity theft doesn’t pay, and that includes email addresses. That will be the message when Jason Smathers turns himself into authorities Monday to begin serving a 15 month jail sentence. Smathers was convicted last month of stealing more than 90 million email addresses from AOL and selling them to a spammer.
Smathers also may be required to repay AOL for its costs in dealing with spam created by his sale of the names as well as its costs in employee time spent conducting the investigation.
After cooperating with authorities, Smathers was sentenced to only 15 months in prison rather than the two years he could have received for the information theft.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Kraft No Longer Running Dairy-Weight Loss Advertising
Kraft Foods, Inc., has confirmed that it is no longer running advertisements suggesting that dairy products encourage weight loss. In response to Kraft’s statement, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has dropped Kraft from a lawsuit that called the advertisements deceptive.
In late June, PCRM filed suit against Kraft, General Mills, Dannon, McNeill Nutritionals, Lifeway Foods, the National Dairy Council, Dairy Management, Inc., and the International Dairy Foods Association charging that the heavily advertised claim that dairy products encourage weight loss is scientifically unsubstantiated. After the suit was filed, Kraft stated publicly and then confirmed in subsequent discussions with PCRM that it had no plans to restart them. Kraft, the only defendant who has entered into discussions with PCRM to date, is the first defendant dropped from the suit. The Illinois-based corporation—along with other major dairy associations and manufacturers—has been promoting increased dairy consumption as a weight-loss method since 2003.
One of Kraft’s ads featured a giant block of cheese engraved with the words “Burn More Fat,” and another featured an hourglass-shaped package of cheese. The company is updating language on its Web site related to dairy consumption and weight. The dairy industry’s campaign has come under increased scrutiny from other health advocates and researchers.
PCRM’s lawsuit maintains that scientific evidence contradicts the dairy industry’s weight-loss claims. The only studies that support the claims were conducted by Michael Zemel, Ph.D., an industry-funded researcher at the University of Tennessee. Since 1998, Zemel has accepted nearly $1.7 million in research grants from the National Dairy Council. He has also patented his weight-loss program; consequently, advertisers pay Zemel to use his so-called “calcium key” weight-loss program.
Other researchers have not been able to confirm Zemel’s findings. They have found that dairy products either have no effect on weight or cause weight gain.
Kraft Foods, Inc., has confirmed that it is no longer running advertisements suggesting that dairy products encourage weight loss. In response to Kraft’s statement, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has dropped Kraft from a lawsuit that called the advertisements deceptive.
In late June, PCRM filed suit against Kraft, General Mills, Dannon, McNeill Nutritionals, Lifeway Foods, the National Dairy Council, Dairy Management, Inc., and the International Dairy Foods Association charging that the heavily advertised claim that dairy products encourage weight loss is scientifically unsubstantiated. After the suit was filed, Kraft stated publicly and then confirmed in subsequent discussions with PCRM that it had no plans to restart them. Kraft, the only defendant who has entered into discussions with PCRM to date, is the first defendant dropped from the suit. The Illinois-based corporation—along with other major dairy associations and manufacturers—has been promoting increased dairy consumption as a weight-loss method since 2003.
One of Kraft’s ads featured a giant block of cheese engraved with the words “Burn More Fat,” and another featured an hourglass-shaped package of cheese. The company is updating language on its Web site related to dairy consumption and weight. The dairy industry’s campaign has come under increased scrutiny from other health advocates and researchers.
PCRM’s lawsuit maintains that scientific evidence contradicts the dairy industry’s weight-loss claims. The only studies that support the claims were conducted by Michael Zemel, Ph.D., an industry-funded researcher at the University of Tennessee. Since 1998, Zemel has accepted nearly $1.7 million in research grants from the National Dairy Council. He has also patented his weight-loss program; consequently, advertisers pay Zemel to use his so-called “calcium key” weight-loss program.
Other researchers have not been able to confirm Zemel’s findings. They have found that dairy products either have no effect on weight or cause weight gain.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
U.S. Wants Tougher Vehicle Roof Standards
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has proposed improvements to its current roof crush standard.
The proposed new standard would also extend roof strength requirements to all vehicles weighing up to 10,000 pounds. The current standard only applies to vehicles up to 6,000 pounds. Improved roof strength is one aspect of a comprehensive NHTSA plan to reduce deaths and injuries among belted occupants in rollover crashes.
NHTSA also is seeking comment on other aspects of its rollover protection strategy, including the possible use of improved safety belt technology to better hold a belted occupant in place during a rollover crash.
"It will take a comprehensive strategy to reduce the staggering number of rollover deaths on the nation’s highways", said NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey Runge, M.D. "Improving roof strength is an integral part of that plan".
The agency estimates that, among belted occupants, about 807 serious injuries and 596 fatalities annually are caused by contact with a collapsed roof during a rollover crash. About 10,000 people die annually in rollover crashes; approximately 60 percent are unbelted.
NHTSA estimates the new roof crush standard will annually prevent between 13 and 44 deaths and 500-800 injuries when fully implemented. The estimated cost per vehicle would be $11.81. The total average cost per year would be $88-$95 million.
The proposed new standard would require that a roof withstand an applied force equal to 2.5 times the vehicle weight while maintaining sufficient headroom for an average sized adult male. The current requirement is that the roof be able to withstand an applied force equal to 1.5 times the vehicle weight, with a limit of 5,000 pounds for cars.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has proposed improvements to its current roof crush standard.
The proposed new standard would also extend roof strength requirements to all vehicles weighing up to 10,000 pounds. The current standard only applies to vehicles up to 6,000 pounds. Improved roof strength is one aspect of a comprehensive NHTSA plan to reduce deaths and injuries among belted occupants in rollover crashes.
NHTSA also is seeking comment on other aspects of its rollover protection strategy, including the possible use of improved safety belt technology to better hold a belted occupant in place during a rollover crash.
"It will take a comprehensive strategy to reduce the staggering number of rollover deaths on the nation’s highways", said NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey Runge, M.D. "Improving roof strength is an integral part of that plan".
The agency estimates that, among belted occupants, about 807 serious injuries and 596 fatalities annually are caused by contact with a collapsed roof during a rollover crash. About 10,000 people die annually in rollover crashes; approximately 60 percent are unbelted.
NHTSA estimates the new roof crush standard will annually prevent between 13 and 44 deaths and 500-800 injuries when fully implemented. The estimated cost per vehicle would be $11.81. The total average cost per year would be $88-$95 million.
The proposed new standard would require that a roof withstand an applied force equal to 2.5 times the vehicle weight while maintaining sufficient headroom for an average sized adult male. The current requirement is that the roof be able to withstand an applied force equal to 1.5 times the vehicle weight, with a limit of 5,000 pounds for cars.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Illinois Supreme Court Reverses Decision, State Farm, Insurers Win Reprieve
Avery vs. State Farm is one of the most famous automotive lawsuits ever filed. The class action suit essentially claims that State Farm encouraged the use of third party "aftermarket" parts when repairing vehicles damaged in collisions.
After the plaintiffs won a stunning $1.2 billion verdict by claiming the parts were less safe than auto manufacturer's official parts, the company and industry associations swung into action. On August 18, their hard work carried the day when the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court not only found that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately show damages, but the Court also ruled 6-0 that the case should not have been certified as a class action.
The original $1.2 billion verdict was reduced once by a higher court after the initial verdict, but the reversal meant the end of a journey of more than six years for the participants. While some observers believe the case could signal the beginning of tort reform, consumer advocates were outraged.
"You can hold a typical aftermarket part in your hand and compare its weight and shape to the manufacturer's original part," said Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. "The aftermarket part made by an independent third party is usually lighter and doesn't fit as well. State Farm's assertion that they have saved consumers money is moot if they have also agreed to put non-standard parts on the vehicle. I am hopeful that this case will again have its day in court and be heard on its merits."
"Only one vote separated the key consumer issue from being a deadlock," Bounacos said. "That is too close for future consumers to ignore."
Avery vs. State Farm is one of the most famous automotive lawsuits ever filed. The class action suit essentially claims that State Farm encouraged the use of third party "aftermarket" parts when repairing vehicles damaged in collisions.
After the plaintiffs won a stunning $1.2 billion verdict by claiming the parts were less safe than auto manufacturer's official parts, the company and industry associations swung into action. On August 18, their hard work carried the day when the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court not only found that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately show damages, but the Court also ruled 6-0 that the case should not have been certified as a class action.
The original $1.2 billion verdict was reduced once by a higher court after the initial verdict, but the reversal meant the end of a journey of more than six years for the participants. While some observers believe the case could signal the beginning of tort reform, consumer advocates were outraged.
"You can hold a typical aftermarket part in your hand and compare its weight and shape to the manufacturer's original part," said Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. "The aftermarket part made by an independent third party is usually lighter and doesn't fit as well. State Farm's assertion that they have saved consumers money is moot if they have also agreed to put non-standard parts on the vehicle. I am hopeful that this case will again have its day in court and be heard on its merits."
"Only one vote separated the key consumer issue from being a deadlock," Bounacos said. "That is too close for future consumers to ignore."
Monday, September 12, 2005
Government Begins Restricting Purchase Of OTC Cold Medication To Fight Meth Labs
Oregon is leading the way in restricting sales of over-the-counter (OTC) cold remedies such as Sudafed and Nyquil because an ingredient used in those drugs can be used to manufacture the illegal drug meth.
Illegal drug labs extract pseudoephedrine from those medications and use it in the preparation of meth, the use of which has grown to epidemic proportions among the nation’s youth and is now consistently ranked as the #2 drug used by teenagers.
Oregon is not alone. Oklahoma has also joined the bandwagon and Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell announced today that he will seek restrictions on consumers’ ability to buy these previously unrestricted drugs. Rendell is proposing legislation that will require pharmacies to keep any medicine containing pseudoephedrine behind the counter and will require purchasers to show identification, sign a purchase log and limit their purchases to no more than 7.5 grams of pseudoephedrine per month (2.5 packs of cold medicine per month).
At the national level, U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) co-sponsored The Combat Meth Act and attached it to FY2006 Commerce, Justice Science Appropriations legislation. That bill is moving to conference committee and is expected to be amended before facing further votes.
“It’s unfortunate that these very innocuous and consumer-friendly drugs have had to suffer as a result of criminal activity,” said Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. “We support government crackdowns on illegal drugs, of course, but question whether the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater here. Not only could this bill harm consumers by making it more difficult to obtain legal medication, but shareholders and consumers who have invested in these companies may also suffer losses. It is unfortunate that the state legislatures and United States Senate can’t find a way to address this problem without onerous legislation.”
Oregon is leading the way in restricting sales of over-the-counter (OTC) cold remedies such as Sudafed and Nyquil because an ingredient used in those drugs can be used to manufacture the illegal drug meth.
Illegal drug labs extract pseudoephedrine from those medications and use it in the preparation of meth, the use of which has grown to epidemic proportions among the nation’s youth and is now consistently ranked as the #2 drug used by teenagers.
Oregon is not alone. Oklahoma has also joined the bandwagon and Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell announced today that he will seek restrictions on consumers’ ability to buy these previously unrestricted drugs. Rendell is proposing legislation that will require pharmacies to keep any medicine containing pseudoephedrine behind the counter and will require purchasers to show identification, sign a purchase log and limit their purchases to no more than 7.5 grams of pseudoephedrine per month (2.5 packs of cold medicine per month).
At the national level, U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) co-sponsored The Combat Meth Act and attached it to FY2006 Commerce, Justice Science Appropriations legislation. That bill is moving to conference committee and is expected to be amended before facing further votes.
“It’s unfortunate that these very innocuous and consumer-friendly drugs have had to suffer as a result of criminal activity,” said Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. “We support government crackdowns on illegal drugs, of course, but question whether the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater here. Not only could this bill harm consumers by making it more difficult to obtain legal medication, but shareholders and consumers who have invested in these companies may also suffer losses. It is unfortunate that the state legislatures and United States Senate can’t find a way to address this problem without onerous legislation.”
Friday, September 09, 2005
Experian Settles FTC Claim Of Deceptive Marketing
Consumerinfo.com, Inc., doing business as Experian Consumer Direct, has settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceptively marketed “free credit reports” by not adequately disclosing that consumers automatically would be signed up for a credit report monitoring service and charged $79.95 if they didn’t cancel within 30 days, in violation of federal law. The settlement requires Consumerinfo to pay redress to deceived consumers, bars deceptive and misleading claims about “free” offers, requires disclosure of terms and conditions of any “free” offers, and requires the defendant to give up $950,000 in ill-gotten gains.
According to the FTC complaint, the defendant drove consumers to their www.freecreditreport.com and www.consumerinfo.com Web sites with radio, television, e-mail and Internet ads that promised free credit reports and a bonus – free trials of a credit-monitoring service. Ads made claims such as:
FREE! FREE! FREE! Get Your FREE Credit Report Online in Seconds!!!!Click here to get a FREE copy of your online Credit Report Instantly!And that’s not all. . . along with your INSTANT credit report, we’ll giveyou 30 FREE days of the Credit Check Monitoring Service at no obligation.
Consumers were required to provide detailed personal information and a valid credit card account number to get their credit report. They were assured that, “Your card will not be charged during the free trial period. However, valid credit card information is required to establish your account.”
According to the FTC’s complaint, Consumerinfo’s advertising and Web sites failed to explain adequately that after the free trial period for the credit monitoring service expired, consumers automatically would be charged a $79.95 annual membership, unless they notified the defendant within 30 days to cancel the service. Consumerinfo billed the credit cards that it had told consumers were “required only to establish your account,” and, in some cases, automatically renewed memberships by re-billing consumers without notice. The FTC charged that the defendant’s failure to adequately disclose the automatic billing and to get consumers’ consent to bill their accounts violated federal law.
The complaint also alleges that Consumerinfo misled consumers about their association with the annual free credit report program for which U.S. consumers are eligible by federal law. A federal law enacted in December 2003, gives consumers the right to get one free credit report every 12 months from each of the three national consumer reporting companies. This program began in western states on December 1, 2004, and began covering all U.S. consumers September 1, 2005.
Consumers can get their free reports by phone, mail, or at one authorized Web site, www.annualcreditreport.com. The FTC complaint alleges that Consumerinfo deceptively advertised and promoted its “free reports” at its “freecreditreport.com” Web site, without disclosing that it was not associated with the official annual free credit report program.
“Consumers paid the price for ordering free credit reports from freecreditreport.com,” said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “It’s unfair and deceptive to promise consumers something for free and then trick them into paying for products they didn’t want in the first place.”
“Consumers also need to be alert about impostor sites – sites that misspell annualcreditreport.com or use sound alike names, but don’t link to the authorized site. We are sending letters to operators of more than 130 impostor sites to inform them that we know they are out there and that attempts to mislead consumers are illegal,” she said. The settlement is designed to assure that the defendant’s negative-option or “free” offers do not contain misrepresentations, and that they disclose all terms and conditions of the offers. The settlement establishes specific disclosure requirements in promotions for the defendant’s “free credit report” offer. Among other things, the defendant must clearly tell consumers that they will be charged unless they cancel within the trial period, and that the offer is not related to the free credit report program mandated by Congress.
The settlement requires redress for consumers who enrolled in Consumerinfo’s credit monitoring program between 2000 and 2003, canceled the monitoring service and received a partial refund or filed a complaint about the charges for the service. Consumers who qualify for a refund should receive a notice from Consumerinfo by email or first class mail within the next few months. The FTC staff has released answers to frequently asked questions available at www.ftc.gov/freereports to help Consumerinfo customers determine if they’re eligible for a refund. It also has established an information hotline for consumers to call for information on refunds. The phone number is (202) 326-3457.
In addition to the redress program, the settlement requires the defendant to pay $950,000 in ill-gotten gains to the Commission. The money may be used to provide consumer education.
The settlement also contains record-keeping and bookkeeping provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance with the order.
Consumerinfo.com, Inc., doing business as Experian Consumer Direct, has settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceptively marketed “free credit reports” by not adequately disclosing that consumers automatically would be signed up for a credit report monitoring service and charged $79.95 if they didn’t cancel within 30 days, in violation of federal law. The settlement requires Consumerinfo to pay redress to deceived consumers, bars deceptive and misleading claims about “free” offers, requires disclosure of terms and conditions of any “free” offers, and requires the defendant to give up $950,000 in ill-gotten gains.
According to the FTC complaint, the defendant drove consumers to their www.freecreditreport.com and www.consumerinfo.com Web sites with radio, television, e-mail and Internet ads that promised free credit reports and a bonus – free trials of a credit-monitoring service. Ads made claims such as:
FREE! FREE! FREE! Get Your FREE Credit Report Online in Seconds!!!!Click here to get a FREE copy of your online Credit Report Instantly!And that’s not all. . . along with your INSTANT credit report, we’ll giveyou 30 FREE days of the Credit Check Monitoring Service at no obligation.
Consumers were required to provide detailed personal information and a valid credit card account number to get their credit report. They were assured that, “Your card will not be charged during the free trial period. However, valid credit card information is required to establish your account.”
According to the FTC’s complaint, Consumerinfo’s advertising and Web sites failed to explain adequately that after the free trial period for the credit monitoring service expired, consumers automatically would be charged a $79.95 annual membership, unless they notified the defendant within 30 days to cancel the service. Consumerinfo billed the credit cards that it had told consumers were “required only to establish your account,” and, in some cases, automatically renewed memberships by re-billing consumers without notice. The FTC charged that the defendant’s failure to adequately disclose the automatic billing and to get consumers’ consent to bill their accounts violated federal law.
The complaint also alleges that Consumerinfo misled consumers about their association with the annual free credit report program for which U.S. consumers are eligible by federal law. A federal law enacted in December 2003, gives consumers the right to get one free credit report every 12 months from each of the three national consumer reporting companies. This program began in western states on December 1, 2004, and began covering all U.S. consumers September 1, 2005.
Consumers can get their free reports by phone, mail, or at one authorized Web site, www.annualcreditreport.com. The FTC complaint alleges that Consumerinfo deceptively advertised and promoted its “free reports” at its “freecreditreport.com” Web site, without disclosing that it was not associated with the official annual free credit report program.
“Consumers paid the price for ordering free credit reports from freecreditreport.com,” said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “It’s unfair and deceptive to promise consumers something for free and then trick them into paying for products they didn’t want in the first place.”
“Consumers also need to be alert about impostor sites – sites that misspell annualcreditreport.com or use sound alike names, but don’t link to the authorized site. We are sending letters to operators of more than 130 impostor sites to inform them that we know they are out there and that attempts to mislead consumers are illegal,” she said. The settlement is designed to assure that the defendant’s negative-option or “free” offers do not contain misrepresentations, and that they disclose all terms and conditions of the offers. The settlement establishes specific disclosure requirements in promotions for the defendant’s “free credit report” offer. Among other things, the defendant must clearly tell consumers that they will be charged unless they cancel within the trial period, and that the offer is not related to the free credit report program mandated by Congress.
The settlement requires redress for consumers who enrolled in Consumerinfo’s credit monitoring program between 2000 and 2003, canceled the monitoring service and received a partial refund or filed a complaint about the charges for the service. Consumers who qualify for a refund should receive a notice from Consumerinfo by email or first class mail within the next few months. The FTC staff has released answers to frequently asked questions available at www.ftc.gov/freereports to help Consumerinfo customers determine if they’re eligible for a refund. It also has established an information hotline for consumers to call for information on refunds. The phone number is (202) 326-3457.
In addition to the redress program, the settlement requires the defendant to pay $950,000 in ill-gotten gains to the Commission. The money may be used to provide consumer education.
The settlement also contains record-keeping and bookkeeping provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance with the order.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Levine Guilty Of Using SniperMail To Steal Information
Scott Levine, owner of SniperMail, was found guilty of using his company's access to information services company Acxiom to steal more than 1.6 billion records about U.S. consumers.
Prosecutors said the case, heard in U.S. District Court in Little Rock, was the largest computer theft case ever tried. One way in which the case was unique is that Levine and his employees did not use illegal methods to gain access to the data. Instead, they took data that was left unprotected by the company.
Acxiom did not issue a statement regarding the verdict, but multiple media sources have quoted company representatives as stating that there is no evidence that consumers have suffered as a result of the data breach.
Consumer Help Web, in partnership with Apple Federal Credit Union, has published an article on avoiding credit card thieves at:
http://www.consumerhelpweb.com/finance/apple/creditthieves.htm
Scott Levine, owner of SniperMail, was found guilty of using his company's access to information services company Acxiom to steal more than 1.6 billion records about U.S. consumers.
Prosecutors said the case, heard in U.S. District Court in Little Rock, was the largest computer theft case ever tried. One way in which the case was unique is that Levine and his employees did not use illegal methods to gain access to the data. Instead, they took data that was left unprotected by the company.
Acxiom did not issue a statement regarding the verdict, but multiple media sources have quoted company representatives as stating that there is no evidence that consumers have suffered as a result of the data breach.
Consumer Help Web, in partnership with Apple Federal Credit Union, has published an article on avoiding credit card thieves at:
http://www.consumerhelpweb.com/finance/apple/creditthieves.htm
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Advertising.com and SpyBlast Software Settle FTC Charges
Advertising.com., Inc., now a subsidiary of America Online, Inc., has agreed to settle FTC charges that it violated federal law by offering free security software, but failing to disclose adequately that adware was bundled with that software. The settlement will require that the company clearly and prominently disclose adware bundled with software advertised to enhance security or privacy.
“This company offered SpyBlast, a free security program to protect against hackers,” said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “But consumers who downloaded SpyBlast also downloaded a form of software that followed their electronic comings and goings and force-fed them pop-up ads.”
The FTC complaint charged that Advertising.com, Inc., and its co-founder, John Ferber, distributed ads stating that because a consumer’s computer was broadcasting an Internet IP address, it was at risk from hackers. Consumers who clicked on one of the ads were shown an Active X “security warning” installation box, with a hyperlink describing SpyBlast as “Personal Computer Security and Protection Software from unauthorized users” and telling them, “once you agree to the License Terms and Privacy policy - click YES to continue.” The hyperlink did not indicate the nature and significance of the terms of the licensing agreement – namely that adware would be installed on their computers. Consumers were not required to read the agreement before installing the software. If consumers had read the agreement, they might have seen a statement saying that by accepting the software, they agreed to receive marketing messages, including pop-up ads, based on their Internet browsing habits.
According to the complaint, the SpyBlast software was bundled with a software program that collected information about consumers, including the URLs of pages they visited, that was used to send them advertisements.
The complaint charges that in representing that SpyBlast is an Internet security program, the respondents did not adequately disclose that SpyBlast included adware that caused consumers
to receive pop-up ads. It alleges that the presence of the bundled adware would be material to consumers deciding whether to install SpyBlast, and, therefore, that the failure to disclose it adequately was deceptive.
The proposed consent order prohibits the respondents from making any representations about the performance, benefits, efficacy, or features of SpyBlast or any of their other programs promoted as security or privacy software, unless they clearly and conspicuously disclose that consumers who install the program will receive advertisements, if that is the case. The settlement also requires that the respondents comply with standard record-keeping and other provisions to allow the Commission to monitor compliance with the order. The proposed consent order does not cover America Online, Inc., the parent company of respondent Advertising.com, Inc.
The accompanying analysis to aid public comment notes that this complaint, “applies general Commission law on deception. The application of this law in an online context was illustrated in a 2000 FTC staff guidance document, Dot Com Disclosures: Information About Online Advertising, which is available at:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/dotcom/index.pdf."
The analysis also states: “The proposed order is designed specifically to address the facts of the case at hand. However, the limitation in the proposed order to respondents' software programs whose principal function is to enhance security or privacy should not be read more broadly to suggest that the requirement for clear and prominent disclosure is necessarily limited to those situations. Moreover, the problem here was not the security software that Advertising.com disseminated with its adware. Instead, it was the respondents’ practice of downloading software onto users’ computers, without adequate notice and consent, that generated repeated pop-up ads as the computer users surfed the Web.”
Advertising.com., Inc., now a subsidiary of America Online, Inc., has agreed to settle FTC charges that it violated federal law by offering free security software, but failing to disclose adequately that adware was bundled with that software. The settlement will require that the company clearly and prominently disclose adware bundled with software advertised to enhance security or privacy.
“This company offered SpyBlast, a free security program to protect against hackers,” said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “But consumers who downloaded SpyBlast also downloaded a form of software that followed their electronic comings and goings and force-fed them pop-up ads.”
The FTC complaint charged that Advertising.com, Inc., and its co-founder, John Ferber, distributed ads stating that because a consumer’s computer was broadcasting an Internet IP address, it was at risk from hackers. Consumers who clicked on one of the ads were shown an Active X “security warning” installation box, with a hyperlink describing SpyBlast as “Personal Computer Security and Protection Software from unauthorized users” and telling them, “once you agree to the License Terms and Privacy policy - click YES to continue.” The hyperlink did not indicate the nature and significance of the terms of the licensing agreement – namely that adware would be installed on their computers. Consumers were not required to read the agreement before installing the software. If consumers had read the agreement, they might have seen a statement saying that by accepting the software, they agreed to receive marketing messages, including pop-up ads, based on their Internet browsing habits.
According to the complaint, the SpyBlast software was bundled with a software program that collected information about consumers, including the URLs of pages they visited, that was used to send them advertisements.
The complaint charges that in representing that SpyBlast is an Internet security program, the respondents did not adequately disclose that SpyBlast included adware that caused consumers
to receive pop-up ads. It alleges that the presence of the bundled adware would be material to consumers deciding whether to install SpyBlast, and, therefore, that the failure to disclose it adequately was deceptive.
The proposed consent order prohibits the respondents from making any representations about the performance, benefits, efficacy, or features of SpyBlast or any of their other programs promoted as security or privacy software, unless they clearly and conspicuously disclose that consumers who install the program will receive advertisements, if that is the case. The settlement also requires that the respondents comply with standard record-keeping and other provisions to allow the Commission to monitor compliance with the order. The proposed consent order does not cover America Online, Inc., the parent company of respondent Advertising.com, Inc.
The accompanying analysis to aid public comment notes that this complaint, “applies general Commission law on deception. The application of this law in an online context was illustrated in a 2000 FTC staff guidance document, Dot Com Disclosures: Information About Online Advertising, which is available at:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/dotcom/index.pdf."
The analysis also states: “The proposed order is designed specifically to address the facts of the case at hand. However, the limitation in the proposed order to respondents' software programs whose principal function is to enhance security or privacy should not be read more broadly to suggest that the requirement for clear and prominent disclosure is necessarily limited to those situations. Moreover, the problem here was not the security software that Advertising.com disseminated with its adware. Instead, it was the respondents’ practice of downloading software onto users’ computers, without adequate notice and consent, that generated repeated pop-up ads as the computer users surfed the Web.”
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Auto Leasing On New York Menu Again
After President Bush signed a federal highway bill last month, New Yorkers began seeing a new benefit -- auto leasing returning to their state.
Mercedes Benz was among the first of the auto manufacturers to annouce they would start leasing operations in New York again. That is because the highway bill bans vicarious liability, a law that holds a leasing company liable for a driver's negligence.
"This antiquated law has hurt the retail auto industry, and we are pleased that Congress has put an end to it," said Greater New York Auto Dealer Association President Mark Schienberg.
Schienberg's organization estimated that vicarious liability had cost New York consumers $280 million in excess costs since 2003 because auto manufacturers were unwilling to assume responsibility for vehicles they are not required to assume in other states.
After President Bush signed a federal highway bill last month, New Yorkers began seeing a new benefit -- auto leasing returning to their state.
Mercedes Benz was among the first of the auto manufacturers to annouce they would start leasing operations in New York again. That is because the highway bill bans vicarious liability, a law that holds a leasing company liable for a driver's negligence.
"This antiquated law has hurt the retail auto industry, and we are pleased that Congress has put an end to it," said Greater New York Auto Dealer Association President Mark Schienberg.
Schienberg's organization estimated that vicarious liability had cost New York consumers $280 million in excess costs since 2003 because auto manufacturers were unwilling to assume responsibility for vehicles they are not required to assume in other states.
Friday, September 02, 2005
IRS Bows To Pressure, Keeps Taxpayer Centers Open
After a chorus of dissent from employees, the media and advocacy organizations, the Internal Revenue Service has agreed to keep all of its 400 Taxpayer Assistance Centers open.
The walk-in centers, which provide free tax assistance to consumers, would have reduced the number of centers to just over 330. The agency originally argued that more taxpayers were seeking information in other venues, especially online. After massive pressure, however, the agency and crediting a congressional appropriation, the agency agreed to keep the centers open.
“I appreciate the actions the Congress has taken thus far in securing more resources for the IRS, and particularly that the Senate Appropriations Committee has fully funded the President’s request,” IRS Commissioner Mark Everson said.
The president of the union representing IRS employees, Collen M. Kelley, praised the decision, saying, “This decision reverses a plan that clearly would have been counter-productive,” Kelley said.
A list of the IRS' Taxpayer Assistance Centers is published on the agency's website.
After a chorus of dissent from employees, the media and advocacy organizations, the Internal Revenue Service has agreed to keep all of its 400 Taxpayer Assistance Centers open.
The walk-in centers, which provide free tax assistance to consumers, would have reduced the number of centers to just over 330. The agency originally argued that more taxpayers were seeking information in other venues, especially online. After massive pressure, however, the agency and crediting a congressional appropriation, the agency agreed to keep the centers open.
“I appreciate the actions the Congress has taken thus far in securing more resources for the IRS, and particularly that the Senate Appropriations Committee has fully funded the President’s request,” IRS Commissioner Mark Everson said.
The president of the union representing IRS employees, Collen M. Kelley, praised the decision, saying, “This decision reverses a plan that clearly would have been counter-productive,” Kelley said.
A list of the IRS' Taxpayer Assistance Centers is published on the agency's website.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Sony Settles Suit That Misled Consumers About Movies
Sony Corporation has paid $1.5 million to settle a class action lawuit alleging that it misled investors.
The suit's complaint was that Sony had fabricated quotes from multiple movie releases in 2001 and used those quotes in advertising. While savvy consumers take commercial testimonials with the proverbial grain of salt, too many examples of companies using deceptive advertising exist to let a high profile incident smear the landscape.
There were several things wrong with the suit, not the least of which is the settlement amount being ridiculously low. Ultimately, Sony's advertising deliberately misled consumers. Even if consumers have been trained to discount movie critic (and book critic and other media critic) claims, substantial penalties should be levied when an organization breaches public trust by deliberately advertising falsehoods.
Sony's settlement ultimately is bad news for consumers. While it is true that a media giant has 'fessed up to wrongdoing, the company that generates multiple billions of dollars in annual revenue paid a fine of just $1.5 million. That figure represents about 9 minutes of revenue for the giant corporation. Such a paltry amount means that consumers are on their own with regard to advertising claims. Some are apparently worth more than others, and while no one is suggesting that attending a bad movie is worth more than a couple of hours and $20 or $30 in actual costs, the message against consumers was loud and clear.
Lie to consumers and your company could end up paying minutes worth of its annual revenues too.
Sony Corporation has paid $1.5 million to settle a class action lawuit alleging that it misled investors.
The suit's complaint was that Sony had fabricated quotes from multiple movie releases in 2001 and used those quotes in advertising. While savvy consumers take commercial testimonials with the proverbial grain of salt, too many examples of companies using deceptive advertising exist to let a high profile incident smear the landscape.
There were several things wrong with the suit, not the least of which is the settlement amount being ridiculously low. Ultimately, Sony's advertising deliberately misled consumers. Even if consumers have been trained to discount movie critic (and book critic and other media critic) claims, substantial penalties should be levied when an organization breaches public trust by deliberately advertising falsehoods.
Sony's settlement ultimately is bad news for consumers. While it is true that a media giant has 'fessed up to wrongdoing, the company that generates multiple billions of dollars in annual revenue paid a fine of just $1.5 million. That figure represents about 9 minutes of revenue for the giant corporation. Such a paltry amount means that consumers are on their own with regard to advertising claims. Some are apparently worth more than others, and while no one is suggesting that attending a bad movie is worth more than a couple of hours and $20 or $30 in actual costs, the message against consumers was loud and clear.
Lie to consumers and your company could end up paying minutes worth of its annual revenues too.
