H&R Block Sued Over Tax Loans
Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed a lawsuit against H&R Block alleging the tax preparation giant has violated 15 state and federal laws in marketing and providing high-cost refund anticipation loans (RALs) mainly to low-income families.
“Millions of Californians have placed their trust in H&R Block, and unfortunately H&R Block has repaid them by violating that trust,” said Lockyer. “In marketing and selling these expensive loans, H&R Block has profited greatly, but deceived consumers, violated their privacy rights and taken money from California families who can least afford it. This lawsuit seeks to hold the company accountable for unlawful business practices, prevent future violations and compensate victims.”
The complaint asks the court to require the defendants to pay restitution to harmed consumers, plus at least $20 million in civil penalties. The complaint does not specify the total restitution amount, but Lockyer estimated the maximum could reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The defendants include H&R Block, Inc. and the following subsidiaries of the Kansas City, Missouri-based firm: H&R Block Services, Inc.; H&R Block Enterprises, Inc.; H&R Block Tax Services, Inc.; Block Financial Corporation; and HRB Royalty, Inc.
The complaint alleges the H&R Block defendants have violated 15 state and federal laws that regulate debt collection practices and contracts, and prohibit false or deceptive advertising, unfair business practices, and unauthorized use or sharing of individuals’ tax return information.
As described in the complaint, RALs are loans provided to taxpayers, secured by their expected refund. Internal Revenue Service rules prohibit H&R Block from providing the loans itself, so it contracts with banks for that purpose. H&R Block, however, provides clients the loan applications, fills out the applications, sends the applications to the banks, and distributes the loan checks to customers.
In a typical case, the program works like this: A customer comes into an H&R Block branch office. A “tax professional” calculates the customer’s taxes and determines they are owed a refund. The customer signs up for a RAL. If the bank approves the application, H&R Block ultimately provides the customer a check – not for the full tax refund amount, but for the estimated refund, minus loan fees, tax preparation fees and other charges. Depending on the amount of refund, those fees can force customers to pay the equivalent of annual interest exceeding 500 percent, according to the complaint.
Since 2001, the complaint alleges, Californians have bought more than 1.5 million RALs from H&R Block, “generating tens of millions of dollars in income for Block.” H&R Block has received a “substantial portion of the loan fees,” according to the complaint, and has purchased up to 49.9 percent of the loans. To illustrate how H&R Block’s RAL program targets low-income families, the complaint notes recipients of the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) comprise 70 percent of the company’s customers for RALs and similar products, even though EITC recipients account for just 17 percent of all taxpayers. The federal government established the EITC to benefit low-income workers and their families.
H&R Block holds itself out as a tax preparer and adviser that consumers can trust. But to maximize its RAL revenue, the complaint alleges, H&R Block has failed to adequately inform customers they can keep more of their income throughout the year and not have to wait for a refund at tax time.
Additionally, H&R Block’s marketing of RALs has been deceptive in a number of ways, according to the complaint. Advertisements have portrayed RALs as a “refund” or “instant money,” and falsely told consumers that RAL recipients get “cash, cold, green, in your hand, out the door.” In reality, the complaint alleges, the refund is a loan, the cash is a check, and the check is for substantially less than the refund, after the loan fees and other charges are deducted.
Further, according to the complaint, H&R Block frequently has steered customers to companies that charge fees to cash RAL checks, with H&R Block getting a kickback on a portion of those fees. H&R Block has failed to adequately disclose these arrangements to consumers, the complaint alleges.
H&R Block also participates with banks and other entities in a deceptive debt collection scheme under the banner of its RAL program, the complaint alleges. RAL customers are liable for paying fees and paying back the borrowed money if their anticipated refund does not materialize, for whatever reason. When a customer allegedly owes that debt, H&R Block still will sell them a new RAL when they come to H&R Block in a subsequent year to get their taxes prepared. H&R Block does not adequately tell such customers about any alleged debts, or that when they sign the new RAL application, they agree to automatic debt collection – including collection on alleged RAL-related debts from other tax preparers or banks. These applications are denied, and the customer’s anticipated refund is used to pay off the debt, plus a fee. “Therefore, Block clients who are claimed to owe debt from a prior year are led to expect a loan, but instead find themselves in a collection proceeding,” the complaint alleges.
Additionally, according to the complaint, H&R Block has used and shared customers’ tax-return information without clients’ written consent, in violation of state and federal law. H&R Block has illegally shared customers’ information, and unlawfully used clients’ tax return information for marketing RALs, home mortgages and other financial products, and to collect debts, the complaint alleges.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Monday, February 27, 2006
IRS Has $2 Billion for People Who Have Not Filed a 2002 Tax Return
Unclaimed refunds totaling more than $2 billion are awaiting about 1.7 million people who failed to file a federal income tax return for 2002, the Internal Revenue Service announced last week. However, in order to collect the money, a return for 2002 must be filed with an IRS office no later than April 17, 2006.
The IRS estimates that half of those who could claim refunds would receive more than $570. In some cases, individuals had taxes withheld from their wages, or made payments against their taxes out of self-employed earnings, but had too little income to require filing a tax return. Some taxpayers may also be eligible for the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit.
“We want people to get the refunds they're entitled to,” said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. “We urge taxpayers to double-check their records before the April 17th deadline. Taxpayers can’t get a refund if they don’t file a tax return.”
In cases where a return was not filed, the law provides most taxpayers with a three-year window of opportunity for claiming a refund. If no return is filed to claim the refund within three years, the money becomes property of the U.S. Treasury. For 2002 returns, the window closes on April 17, 2006. The law requires that the return be properly addressed, postmarked and mailed by that date. There is no penalty assessed by the IRS for filing a late return qualifying for a refund.
The IRS reminds taxpayers seeking a 2002 refund that their checks will be held if they have not filed tax returns for 2003 or 2004. In addition, the refund will be applied to any amounts still owed to the IRS and may be used to satisfy unpaid child support or past due federal debts such as student loans.
By failing to file a return, individuals stand to lose more than refunds of taxes withheld or paid during 2002. Many low-income workers may not have claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Although eligible taxpayers may get a refund when their EITC is more than what they owe in tax, those who file returns more than three years late would be able only to apply it toward the taxes they owe (if any). They would not be able to receive a refund if the credit exceeded their tax.
Generally, individuals qualified for the EITC if in 2002 they earned less than $33,178 and had more than one qualifying child living with them, earned less than $29,201 with one qualifying child, or earned less than $11,060 and had no qualifying child.
Unclaimed refunds totaling more than $2 billion are awaiting about 1.7 million people who failed to file a federal income tax return for 2002, the Internal Revenue Service announced last week. However, in order to collect the money, a return for 2002 must be filed with an IRS office no later than April 17, 2006.
The IRS estimates that half of those who could claim refunds would receive more than $570. In some cases, individuals had taxes withheld from their wages, or made payments against their taxes out of self-employed earnings, but had too little income to require filing a tax return. Some taxpayers may also be eligible for the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit.
“We want people to get the refunds they're entitled to,” said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. “We urge taxpayers to double-check their records before the April 17th deadline. Taxpayers can’t get a refund if they don’t file a tax return.”
In cases where a return was not filed, the law provides most taxpayers with a three-year window of opportunity for claiming a refund. If no return is filed to claim the refund within three years, the money becomes property of the U.S. Treasury. For 2002 returns, the window closes on April 17, 2006. The law requires that the return be properly addressed, postmarked and mailed by that date. There is no penalty assessed by the IRS for filing a late return qualifying for a refund.
The IRS reminds taxpayers seeking a 2002 refund that their checks will be held if they have not filed tax returns for 2003 or 2004. In addition, the refund will be applied to any amounts still owed to the IRS and may be used to satisfy unpaid child support or past due federal debts such as student loans.
By failing to file a return, individuals stand to lose more than refunds of taxes withheld or paid during 2002. Many low-income workers may not have claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Although eligible taxpayers may get a refund when their EITC is more than what they owe in tax, those who file returns more than three years late would be able only to apply it toward the taxes they owe (if any). They would not be able to receive a refund if the credit exceeded their tax.
Generally, individuals qualified for the EITC if in 2002 they earned less than $33,178 and had more than one qualifying child living with them, earned less than $29,201 with one qualifying child, or earned less than $11,060 and had no qualifying child.
Friday, February 24, 2006
FTC Puts Business Directory Scam out of Business
A Canadian defendant and his business are permanently banned from selling business directories and listings in those directories to U.S. consumers. To settle the Federal Trade Commission charges they were fraudulently telemarketing directories and listings, the defendant and his mother, another director of the business, will also forfeit all rights to uncashed checks they received because of their scheme. The FTC will be able to return to U.S. consumers those checks that have been seized from the defendants’ U.S. mailboxes, worth more than $36,000.
In addition to the settlement with the two individuals, the FTC has been granted a default judgment against the business, which includes a $908,710 judgment. Both the settlement and the default judgment have been entered by the judge.
The FTC charged Kelly Nguyen, founder and president of the Victoria, British Columbia-based American Business Solutions (ABS), and his mother, Minh Tam Vo, another director of ABS, and several related Canadian companies and their principals with deceptively marketing business directories to U.S. consumers through unsolicited phone calls. According to the FTC, the defendants misled businesses and organizations into believing that someone in their organization previously authorized the purchase of the directory and the listing. The complaint alleged the defendants then mailed invoices to these businesses and organizations, typically billing them between $249 and $459 for the directory and the listing. After receiving these invoices, the FTC alleged, many individuals realized that no one from their organization ordered a directory listing. In many instances, according to the complaint, when organizations refused to pay the invoices, they were referred to the defendants’ in-house collection company, which harassed them with frequent telephone calls, dunning notices, and threats to initiate legal action and damage credit ratings.
In addition to releasing their rights to uncashed checks, Nguyen and Vo are prohibited from attempting to collect any payments for business directories or listings in these directories. They also are barred from making the kinds of misrepresentations alleged in the Commission’s complaint or misrepresenting any material fact about a good or service, or the terms, conditions, and limitations of any refund or guarantee policy. Also, they must make certain additional disclosures regarding the nature of the solicitation in any outbound telemarketing calls. Further, if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial status to the FTC, they will have to pay $908,710, which represents the total amount of consumer injury in this case.
The FTC's case against the remaining defendants – Global Management Solutions; Commutel Marketing, also doing business as Marketing USA; Ty Nguyen; Cory Kornelson; Byron Steczko; and Phong Anh Vo -- continues.
A Canadian defendant and his business are permanently banned from selling business directories and listings in those directories to U.S. consumers. To settle the Federal Trade Commission charges they were fraudulently telemarketing directories and listings, the defendant and his mother, another director of the business, will also forfeit all rights to uncashed checks they received because of their scheme. The FTC will be able to return to U.S. consumers those checks that have been seized from the defendants’ U.S. mailboxes, worth more than $36,000.
In addition to the settlement with the two individuals, the FTC has been granted a default judgment against the business, which includes a $908,710 judgment. Both the settlement and the default judgment have been entered by the judge.
The FTC charged Kelly Nguyen, founder and president of the Victoria, British Columbia-based American Business Solutions (ABS), and his mother, Minh Tam Vo, another director of ABS, and several related Canadian companies and their principals with deceptively marketing business directories to U.S. consumers through unsolicited phone calls. According to the FTC, the defendants misled businesses and organizations into believing that someone in their organization previously authorized the purchase of the directory and the listing. The complaint alleged the defendants then mailed invoices to these businesses and organizations, typically billing them between $249 and $459 for the directory and the listing. After receiving these invoices, the FTC alleged, many individuals realized that no one from their organization ordered a directory listing. In many instances, according to the complaint, when organizations refused to pay the invoices, they were referred to the defendants’ in-house collection company, which harassed them with frequent telephone calls, dunning notices, and threats to initiate legal action and damage credit ratings.
In addition to releasing their rights to uncashed checks, Nguyen and Vo are prohibited from attempting to collect any payments for business directories or listings in these directories. They also are barred from making the kinds of misrepresentations alleged in the Commission’s complaint or misrepresenting any material fact about a good or service, or the terms, conditions, and limitations of any refund or guarantee policy. Also, they must make certain additional disclosures regarding the nature of the solicitation in any outbound telemarketing calls. Further, if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial status to the FTC, they will have to pay $908,710, which represents the total amount of consumer injury in this case.
The FTC's case against the remaining defendants – Global Management Solutions; Commutel Marketing, also doing business as Marketing USA; Ty Nguyen; Cory Kornelson; Byron Steczko; and Phong Anh Vo -- continues.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Guidant Exec Reportedly Knew Of Problems
According to a law firm web site quoting the Associated Press, Guidant executive Fred McCoy admitted that the company had not received FDA approval before fixing a problem with the company's Ventak Prizm 2 Model 1861.
Consumer Help Web has reported on the organization's continuing problems throughout the latest round of recalls and warnings. If you have a Guidant device installed, please talk with your physician.
According to a law firm web site quoting the Associated Press, Guidant executive Fred McCoy admitted that the company had not received FDA approval before fixing a problem with the company's Ventak Prizm 2 Model 1861.
Consumer Help Web has reported on the organization's continuing problems throughout the latest round of recalls and warnings. If you have a Guidant device installed, please talk with your physician.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Consumer Prices Keep Rising, Year Over Year Increase is 3.6%
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.2 percent in February, before seasonal adjustment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported last week. The February level of 198.7 (1982-84=100) was 3.6 percent higher than in February 2005.
The agency reported that energy prices, which had risen 5% in January actually declined in February. Energy price increases still have risen 20% over the past 12 months and are the biggest gainer among items tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Other items contributing to the increase are transportation costs (5.8% for the year) and medical care (4% for the year).
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.2 percent in February, before seasonal adjustment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported last week. The February level of 198.7 (1982-84=100) was 3.6 percent higher than in February 2005.
The agency reported that energy prices, which had risen 5% in January actually declined in February. Energy price increases still have risen 20% over the past 12 months and are the biggest gainer among items tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Other items contributing to the increase are transportation costs (5.8% for the year) and medical care (4% for the year).
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Google Continues Hanging Tough Against Government Access To Search Data
Despite apparent compliance from multiple search engines, Google appears to be the one search company challenging a United States Department of Justice subpoena for its records. Citing privacy concerns for its user base, Google vowed to fight the release of the data in court.
The case will be heard in a federal district court in San Jose, near Google's headquarters, on Monday.
Despite apparent compliance from multiple search engines, Google appears to be the one search company challenging a United States Department of Justice subpoena for its records. Citing privacy concerns for its user base, Google vowed to fight the release of the data in court.
The case will be heard in a federal district court in San Jose, near Google's headquarters, on Monday.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Markey Consumer Data Bill Referred To Committee
The Eliminate Warehousing of Consumer Data bill introduced February 8 in the House of Representatives has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Consumer Help Web reported on the bill in February 8th's post, applauding its spirit but calling it overly broad.
The Eliminate Warehousing of Consumer Data bill introduced February 8 in the House of Representatives has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Consumer Help Web reported on the bill in February 8th's post, applauding its spirit but calling it overly broad.
Friday, February 17, 2006
NC Forces National Auto Dealer Group To Change Sales Practices
The Charlotte Observer and other North Carolina media outlets are reporting that Sonic Automotive, one of the nation's largest automotive dealer groups, has reached an agreement with the state to change its sales disclosure practices throughout the state.
Sonic employees were reportedly engaged in selling after-market accessories to consumers. Sonic, the target of a major NBC expose, reached the agreement with Attorney General Roy Cooper according to the newspaper. Neither Cooper's office nor the dealership would comment on the agreement, which is due to begin this summer.
The dealer group is comprised of dozens of dealership locations in multiple states and generated $7.8 billion in revenue and $91 million in profit during 2005. Sonic has agreed to pay nearly $1 million in refunds as part of its settlement.
The Charlotte Observer and other North Carolina media outlets are reporting that Sonic Automotive, one of the nation's largest automotive dealer groups, has reached an agreement with the state to change its sales disclosure practices throughout the state.
Sonic employees were reportedly engaged in selling after-market accessories to consumers. Sonic, the target of a major NBC expose, reached the agreement with Attorney General Roy Cooper according to the newspaper. Neither Cooper's office nor the dealership would comment on the agreement, which is due to begin this summer.
The dealer group is comprised of dozens of dealership locations in multiple states and generated $7.8 billion in revenue and $91 million in profit during 2005. Sonic has agreed to pay nearly $1 million in refunds as part of its settlement.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Bass Cat, Correct Craft, Cobalt, Grady-White, Manitou, Regal and Sea Ray Rank Highest In J.D. Power Study
Bass Cat, Correct Craft, Cobalt, Grady-White, Manitou, Regal and Sea Ray rank highest in customer satisfaction in seven boat segments included in the J.D. Power and Associates 2006 Boat Competitive Information StudySM released today.
The study, now in its fifth year, measures owner satisfaction with new boats among 78 boat brands in seven segments: ski/wakeboard, fiberglass bass boats, small runabouts (16 to 19 feet), large runabouts (20 to 29 feet), coastal fishing (17 to 28 feet), pontoons and express cruisers (24 to 33 feet). Overall customer satisfaction index scores are based on performance in nine categories: cabin; engine; ride/handling; helm/instrument panel; design/styling; sound system; maintenance; water sports; and fishing.
The study finds that as expectations among new-boat owners increase, overall customer satisfaction has declined in five of seven boat segments. All of the boat segments decline in product satisfaction, with the exception of large runabouts and express cruisers, which improve slightly from 2005. However, a positive trend with dealer performance continues as customers rate their experiences higher than in past years.
“This is the first dip in product satisfaction that we’ve seen in five years,” said Eric Sorensen, director of the marine practice. “This drop is driven in part by an increase in the number of reported problems per boat. In particular, we see a substantial decline in quality in the pontoon and bass boat segments. On a positive note, it appears some of the industry initiatives to improve dealer satisfaction are working, with trending continue to improve over the past four years. The dealership is a crucial component of the boat manufacturer’s success. However, fewer than one-half of the dealers are offering their customers a test ride, which is a simple way to improve overall sales and product satisfaction.”
While marine sales and service is improving, it still lags substantially behind other industries, including automotive. One of the reasons is a frequent inability to fix the boat right the first time it is brought to the dealer for service. The study finds that service is done correctly just 77 percent of the time. Customers who get their boats fixed right the first time are 60 percent more satisfied with their dealers and boats overall.
While the industry is making efforts to grow boating, there has actually been a decline in the percentage of first-time buyers, falling from 28 percent of all respondents in 2003 to 26 percent in 2006.
“We are seeing a lot of success in the ski/wakeboard segment in attracting new boaters, while pontoons have declined substantially in this area,” said Sorensen.
Six boat brands have been added to the study for 2006: Sailfish, Parker and Sea Boss are included in the coastal fishing segment; Champion in the bass boat segment; and Sunchaser and Bentley in the pontoon segment.
Bass boat segment
For a second consecutive year, Bass Cat ranks highest in the bass boat segment. Bass Cat also receives the highest index score in the study. Ranger, Champion and Triton, respectively, follow Bass Cat in the segment rankings. Bass Cat, Ranger and Champion all receive a boost from using high-technology, high-horsepower engines.
Coastal fishing segment (17 to 28 feet)
Grady-White ranks highest in the coastal fishing segment for a fifth consecutive time, receiving the highest segment ratings in the areas of engine and ride/handling, as well as sales satisfaction. Following Grady-White in the rankings are Triton, Parker, Scout and Sailfish, respectively.
Express cruiser segment (24 to 33 feet)
With particularly high ratings in product quality, owner loyalty and dealer sales and service, Sea Ray ranks highest among express cruiser boats for a fourth consecutive time. Regal, with substantial gains from 2005, and Rinker follow Sea Ray in the rankings, respectively.
Pontoon segmentWith significant year-over-year gains in customer satisfaction, Manitou receives its first award, ranking highest in the pontoon boat segment. Bennington, Premier, Harris FloteBote and Aqua Patio, respectively, follow Manitou in the rankings.
Small runabout segment (16 to 19 feet)
Regal ranks highest in the small runabout boat segment with the strongest performance yet seen in this segment, improving substantially in satisfaction and quality from 2005. Four Winns, Crownline, Sea Ray and Glastron, respectively, follow Regal in the segment rankings.
Large runabout segment (20 to 29 feet)Cobalt ranks highest in the large runabout segment for a fifth consecutive time. Cobalt leads the segment by a wide margin, receiving the highest ratings in all seven feature categories. Regal, Crownline, Sea Ray and Chaparral, respectively, follow Cobalt.
Ski/wakeboard segment
Correct Craft ranks highest in the ski/wakeboard segment for a fourth consecutive time, receiving the highest ratings in five of seven feature categories. Correct Craft is followed in the segment rankings by MasterCraft, which records considerable improvements in overall satisfaction from 2005.
The 2006 Boat Competitive Information Study is based on responses from 12,255 owners who registered a new boat between June 2004 and May 2005.
Bass Cat, Correct Craft, Cobalt, Grady-White, Manitou, Regal and Sea Ray rank highest in customer satisfaction in seven boat segments included in the J.D. Power and Associates 2006 Boat Competitive Information StudySM released today.
The study, now in its fifth year, measures owner satisfaction with new boats among 78 boat brands in seven segments: ski/wakeboard, fiberglass bass boats, small runabouts (16 to 19 feet), large runabouts (20 to 29 feet), coastal fishing (17 to 28 feet), pontoons and express cruisers (24 to 33 feet). Overall customer satisfaction index scores are based on performance in nine categories: cabin; engine; ride/handling; helm/instrument panel; design/styling; sound system; maintenance; water sports; and fishing.
The study finds that as expectations among new-boat owners increase, overall customer satisfaction has declined in five of seven boat segments. All of the boat segments decline in product satisfaction, with the exception of large runabouts and express cruisers, which improve slightly from 2005. However, a positive trend with dealer performance continues as customers rate their experiences higher than in past years.
“This is the first dip in product satisfaction that we’ve seen in five years,” said Eric Sorensen, director of the marine practice. “This drop is driven in part by an increase in the number of reported problems per boat. In particular, we see a substantial decline in quality in the pontoon and bass boat segments. On a positive note, it appears some of the industry initiatives to improve dealer satisfaction are working, with trending continue to improve over the past four years. The dealership is a crucial component of the boat manufacturer’s success. However, fewer than one-half of the dealers are offering their customers a test ride, which is a simple way to improve overall sales and product satisfaction.”
While marine sales and service is improving, it still lags substantially behind other industries, including automotive. One of the reasons is a frequent inability to fix the boat right the first time it is brought to the dealer for service. The study finds that service is done correctly just 77 percent of the time. Customers who get their boats fixed right the first time are 60 percent more satisfied with their dealers and boats overall.
While the industry is making efforts to grow boating, there has actually been a decline in the percentage of first-time buyers, falling from 28 percent of all respondents in 2003 to 26 percent in 2006.
“We are seeing a lot of success in the ski/wakeboard segment in attracting new boaters, while pontoons have declined substantially in this area,” said Sorensen.
Six boat brands have been added to the study for 2006: Sailfish, Parker and Sea Boss are included in the coastal fishing segment; Champion in the bass boat segment; and Sunchaser and Bentley in the pontoon segment.
Bass boat segment
For a second consecutive year, Bass Cat ranks highest in the bass boat segment. Bass Cat also receives the highest index score in the study. Ranger, Champion and Triton, respectively, follow Bass Cat in the segment rankings. Bass Cat, Ranger and Champion all receive a boost from using high-technology, high-horsepower engines.
Coastal fishing segment (17 to 28 feet)
Grady-White ranks highest in the coastal fishing segment for a fifth consecutive time, receiving the highest segment ratings in the areas of engine and ride/handling, as well as sales satisfaction. Following Grady-White in the rankings are Triton, Parker, Scout and Sailfish, respectively.
Express cruiser segment (24 to 33 feet)
With particularly high ratings in product quality, owner loyalty and dealer sales and service, Sea Ray ranks highest among express cruiser boats for a fourth consecutive time. Regal, with substantial gains from 2005, and Rinker follow Sea Ray in the rankings, respectively.
Pontoon segmentWith significant year-over-year gains in customer satisfaction, Manitou receives its first award, ranking highest in the pontoon boat segment. Bennington, Premier, Harris FloteBote and Aqua Patio, respectively, follow Manitou in the rankings.
Small runabout segment (16 to 19 feet)
Regal ranks highest in the small runabout boat segment with the strongest performance yet seen in this segment, improving substantially in satisfaction and quality from 2005. Four Winns, Crownline, Sea Ray and Glastron, respectively, follow Regal in the segment rankings.
Large runabout segment (20 to 29 feet)Cobalt ranks highest in the large runabout segment for a fifth consecutive time. Cobalt leads the segment by a wide margin, receiving the highest ratings in all seven feature categories. Regal, Crownline, Sea Ray and Chaparral, respectively, follow Cobalt.
Ski/wakeboard segment
Correct Craft ranks highest in the ski/wakeboard segment for a fourth consecutive time, receiving the highest ratings in five of seven feature categories. Correct Craft is followed in the segment rankings by MasterCraft, which records considerable improvements in overall satisfaction from 2005.
The 2006 Boat Competitive Information Study is based on responses from 12,255 owners who registered a new boat between June 2004 and May 2005.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
50,000 Sewing Machines Recalled
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission and VSM Sewing have recalled more than 50,000 sewing machines. The government agency says that the sewing machines pose a potential fire hazard and states that it has received three reports of minor damage caused by electrical arcing.
The machines were sold in the U.S. for a 5 year period beginning in 1999 for between $5,500 and $6,000. The Husqvarna Viking Designer I sewing and embroidering machines have white plastic exterior and contain the words “Husqvarna Viking” and “Designer I.” The recall involves units with serial number, which are located on the bottom of the machine, in the following ranges:
Starts with 0, ends with 0 or 6
Starts with 1, ends with 9
Starts with 2, ends with 3
Starts with 3, ends with 1
Starts with 4, ends with 2
Starts with 5, ends with 0, 1, 3, 4 or 9
Starts with 6, ends with 1, 3 or 4
Starts with 7, ends with 1, 2 or 4
Starts with 8, ends with 2 or 4
Starts with 9, ends with 1 or 5
Consumers should stop using these sewing machines, and return them to the dealer where purchased for a free repair. For more information, contact Husqvarna Viking at (800) 446-2333 between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission and VSM Sewing have recalled more than 50,000 sewing machines. The government agency says that the sewing machines pose a potential fire hazard and states that it has received three reports of minor damage caused by electrical arcing.
The machines were sold in the U.S. for a 5 year period beginning in 1999 for between $5,500 and $6,000. The Husqvarna Viking Designer I sewing and embroidering machines have white plastic exterior and contain the words “Husqvarna Viking” and “Designer I.” The recall involves units with serial number, which are located on the bottom of the machine, in the following ranges:
Starts with 0, ends with 0 or 6
Starts with 1, ends with 9
Starts with 2, ends with 3
Starts with 3, ends with 1
Starts with 4, ends with 2
Starts with 5, ends with 0, 1, 3, 4 or 9
Starts with 6, ends with 1, 3 or 4
Starts with 7, ends with 1, 2 or 4
Starts with 8, ends with 2 or 4
Starts with 9, ends with 1 or 5
Consumers should stop using these sewing machines, and return them to the dealer where purchased for a free repair. For more information, contact Husqvarna Viking at (800) 446-2333 between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
US, Israel Sign Letter To Collaborate About Safety Issues
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced today the signing of a Statement of Intent (SOI) with Israel’s government to improve the safety of consumer products traded between the United States and Israel.
CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton and Grisha Doitch, the Director of the Israel Administration of Standardization (IAS) in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor, signed the agreement.
The agreement calls for an exchange of information on consumer product safety, cooperation to prevent injuries from hazardous consumer products, the development of training programs dealing with consumer product safety, and an exchange of officials, experts and professionals to carry out consumer safety programs.
“Israel is an important trading partner,” said Stratton. “This agreement will help the U.S. and Israel take meaningful steps toward improving the safety of consumer products traded between both countries so we can identify dangerous products faster, save lives and prevent injuries.”
“This collaborative agreement underscores our commitment to improving the safety of consumer products,” said Grisha Doitch, Director of the IAS. “It is the beginning of a long and
mutually beneficial relationship with the United States that will protect consumers.”
CPSC also has signed agreements with Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, the European Commission, India, Mexico and Taiwan to improve the safety of consumer products.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced today the signing of a Statement of Intent (SOI) with Israel’s government to improve the safety of consumer products traded between the United States and Israel.
CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton and Grisha Doitch, the Director of the Israel Administration of Standardization (IAS) in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor, signed the agreement.
The agreement calls for an exchange of information on consumer product safety, cooperation to prevent injuries from hazardous consumer products, the development of training programs dealing with consumer product safety, and an exchange of officials, experts and professionals to carry out consumer safety programs.
“Israel is an important trading partner,” said Stratton. “This agreement will help the U.S. and Israel take meaningful steps toward improving the safety of consumer products traded between both countries so we can identify dangerous products faster, save lives and prevent injuries.”
“This collaborative agreement underscores our commitment to improving the safety of consumer products,” said Grisha Doitch, Director of the IAS. “It is the beginning of a long and
mutually beneficial relationship with the United States that will protect consumers.”
CPSC also has signed agreements with Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, the European Commission, India, Mexico and Taiwan to improve the safety of consumer products.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Texas Doctors’ IPA Agrees to Settle Price Fixing Charges
A physicians’ independent practice association (IPA) in Texas has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it engaged in unlawful collective bargaining to set fees its members would accept from health insurance plans and advised its members against dealing individually with plans. The Commission charged that both practices resulted in higher medical costs for consumers. The consent order settling the FTC’s charges will prohibit the IPA from engaging in such anticompetitive conduct in the future.
The FTC’s complaint alleges that Health Care Alliance of Laredo, LC (HAL), a multi-specialty IPA with about 80 physician members, restrained competition among the members in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. HAL claimed it employed a “messenger model” process to negotiate contracts. If properly orchestrated, a messenger model process does not restrain competition. HAL engaged in collective bargaining, however, and did nothing that might justify its challenged conduct.
“Physicians need to be wary of any organization that tells them it can bargain with health plans to increase payments to its members because it follows a ‘messenger model’ approach,” said Jeffrey Schmidt, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition.
“A messenger approach is a way to facilitate the flow of information between health plans and doctors, not a means of gaining bargaining leverage. Collective price negotiations are entirely inconsistent with a properly conducted messenger arrangement. As this case shows, physician organizations will not avoid price fixing charges when they send contract offers to their members after negotiating to get the price the group wants,” Schmidt said.
The FTC’s complaint alleges that in 2003, HAL negotiated fees with two health plans that were trying to contract individually with Laredo area physicians. HAL urged its members not to sign individual contracts with at least one of these plans, noting that collective bargaining would yield higher fees for its members. By negotiating collectively, HAL was able to negotiate reimbursement rates that were 30 percent higher than the individual contract offers from one of the plans and 20 percent to 90 percent higher than the contract offers from the other plan.
The complaint alleges that HAL orchestrated the boycott of a third health plan that refused to negotiate with HAL, advising its members not to sign individual contracts. A year after the health plan began soliciting physicians for its network, only 10 HAL members had signed contracts with it, even though many non-HAL members in Laredo had accepted its individual contract rates.
The FTC also charged HAL with orchestrating collective price negotiations with several other health care payors during a seven-year period, making proposals and counter-proposals and accepting or rejecting offers, without transmitting offers to its members until its board approved the negotiated prices.
The Commission’s proposed consent order is designed to remedy the effects of the alleged conduct and prevent its recurrence. It would prohibit HAL from entering into or facilitating agreements between or among physicians: (1) to negotiate with payors on any physician’s behalf; (2) to deal, refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal with any payor; (3) to designate the terms upon which any physician deals or is willing to deal with any payors; or (4) not to deal individually with any payor, or to deal with any payor only through any arrangement involving HAL. The order permits HAL to operate or participate in legitimate joint ventures that might benefit consumers.
The Commission vote to accept the consent order subject to public comment was 5-0. The Commission is accepting public comment on the order for 30 days, until March 15, after which it will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20580.
NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000.
A physicians’ independent practice association (IPA) in Texas has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it engaged in unlawful collective bargaining to set fees its members would accept from health insurance plans and advised its members against dealing individually with plans. The Commission charged that both practices resulted in higher medical costs for consumers. The consent order settling the FTC’s charges will prohibit the IPA from engaging in such anticompetitive conduct in the future.
The FTC’s complaint alleges that Health Care Alliance of Laredo, LC (HAL), a multi-specialty IPA with about 80 physician members, restrained competition among the members in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. HAL claimed it employed a “messenger model” process to negotiate contracts. If properly orchestrated, a messenger model process does not restrain competition. HAL engaged in collective bargaining, however, and did nothing that might justify its challenged conduct.
“Physicians need to be wary of any organization that tells them it can bargain with health plans to increase payments to its members because it follows a ‘messenger model’ approach,” said Jeffrey Schmidt, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition.
“A messenger approach is a way to facilitate the flow of information between health plans and doctors, not a means of gaining bargaining leverage. Collective price negotiations are entirely inconsistent with a properly conducted messenger arrangement. As this case shows, physician organizations will not avoid price fixing charges when they send contract offers to their members after negotiating to get the price the group wants,” Schmidt said.
The FTC’s complaint alleges that in 2003, HAL negotiated fees with two health plans that were trying to contract individually with Laredo area physicians. HAL urged its members not to sign individual contracts with at least one of these plans, noting that collective bargaining would yield higher fees for its members. By negotiating collectively, HAL was able to negotiate reimbursement rates that were 30 percent higher than the individual contract offers from one of the plans and 20 percent to 90 percent higher than the contract offers from the other plan.
The complaint alleges that HAL orchestrated the boycott of a third health plan that refused to negotiate with HAL, advising its members not to sign individual contracts. A year after the health plan began soliciting physicians for its network, only 10 HAL members had signed contracts with it, even though many non-HAL members in Laredo had accepted its individual contract rates.
The FTC also charged HAL with orchestrating collective price negotiations with several other health care payors during a seven-year period, making proposals and counter-proposals and accepting or rejecting offers, without transmitting offers to its members until its board approved the negotiated prices.
The Commission’s proposed consent order is designed to remedy the effects of the alleged conduct and prevent its recurrence. It would prohibit HAL from entering into or facilitating agreements between or among physicians: (1) to negotiate with payors on any physician’s behalf; (2) to deal, refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal with any payor; (3) to designate the terms upon which any physician deals or is willing to deal with any payors; or (4) not to deal individually with any payor, or to deal with any payor only through any arrangement involving HAL. The order permits HAL to operate or participate in legitimate joint ventures that might benefit consumers.
The Commission vote to accept the consent order subject to public comment was 5-0. The Commission is accepting public comment on the order for 30 days, until March 15, after which it will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20580.
NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000.
Friday, February 10, 2006
FCC Continues Claiming Benefits Of A La Carte Program Choices, Criticizes Consulting Firm
The Media Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today issued a Further Report on the Packaging and Sale of Video Programming Services to the Public (the “Further Report”) on the issue of an “a la carte” model for delivery of video services. The Further Report finds consumers could be better off under a la carte and explores several a la carte options that could provide substantial benefits to subscribers by increasing their choices in purchasing programming.
The Further Report reexamines the conclusions and underlying assumptions of the earlier Media Bureau report on a la carte submitted to Congress in November 2004 (“2004 Report”). In particular, the Further Report describes a number of errors in the Booz Allen Hamilton (“Booz Allen”) Study that the Media Bureau relied upon to support the conclusion of the earlier report that a la carte is not economical. The Further Report finds that the 2004 report also relied upon unrealistic assumptions and presented biased analysis in concluding that a la carte “would not produce the desired result of lower MVPD rates for most pay-television households.”
The Further Report identifies mistaken calculations in the Booz Allen Study, which was originally submitted by the cable industry for Commission consideration. Booz Allen itself acknowledges the errors, which other economists also have confirmed. The Further Report explains that the Booz Allen Study failed to net out the cost of broadcast stations when calculating the average cost per cable channel under a la carte. As a result, the Booz Allen Study overstated the average price per cable channel by more than 50 percent.
The Booz Allen Study significantly underestimated the number of programming channels that a subscriber could enjoy under a la carte while still achieving savings compared to the subscriber’s current multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”) fees. Indeed, correcting for this mathematical error, consumers’ bills decreased by anywhere from 3 to 13 percent in three out of the four scenarios considered in the Booz Allen Study.
In addition, the Further Report notes that, through the use of questionable assumptions, the Booz Allen Study may have further overestimated the costs of a la carte. The Booz Allen Study (accepted in the Media Bureau’s 2004 report) assumed that a shift to a la carte would cause consumers to watch nearly 25 percent less television, or over two fewer hours of television per day. The Further Report finds that there is no reason to believe that viewers would watch less video programming than they do today simply because they could choose the channels they find most interesting.
Finally, the 2004 report fails to mention that the Booz Allen Study shows that, even with the math error noted above, if a la carte were only implemented on digital cable systems with appropriate set top boxes in place, then a la carte could result in a 1.97 percent decrease in consumers’ bills.
The report can be found online at www.fcc.gov/mb.
The Media Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today issued a Further Report on the Packaging and Sale of Video Programming Services to the Public (the “Further Report”) on the issue of an “a la carte” model for delivery of video services. The Further Report finds consumers could be better off under a la carte and explores several a la carte options that could provide substantial benefits to subscribers by increasing their choices in purchasing programming.
The Further Report reexamines the conclusions and underlying assumptions of the earlier Media Bureau report on a la carte submitted to Congress in November 2004 (“2004 Report”). In particular, the Further Report describes a number of errors in the Booz Allen Hamilton (“Booz Allen”) Study that the Media Bureau relied upon to support the conclusion of the earlier report that a la carte is not economical. The Further Report finds that the 2004 report also relied upon unrealistic assumptions and presented biased analysis in concluding that a la carte “would not produce the desired result of lower MVPD rates for most pay-television households.”
The Further Report identifies mistaken calculations in the Booz Allen Study, which was originally submitted by the cable industry for Commission consideration. Booz Allen itself acknowledges the errors, which other economists also have confirmed. The Further Report explains that the Booz Allen Study failed to net out the cost of broadcast stations when calculating the average cost per cable channel under a la carte. As a result, the Booz Allen Study overstated the average price per cable channel by more than 50 percent.
The Booz Allen Study significantly underestimated the number of programming channels that a subscriber could enjoy under a la carte while still achieving savings compared to the subscriber’s current multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”) fees. Indeed, correcting for this mathematical error, consumers’ bills decreased by anywhere from 3 to 13 percent in three out of the four scenarios considered in the Booz Allen Study.
In addition, the Further Report notes that, through the use of questionable assumptions, the Booz Allen Study may have further overestimated the costs of a la carte. The Booz Allen Study (accepted in the Media Bureau’s 2004 report) assumed that a shift to a la carte would cause consumers to watch nearly 25 percent less television, or over two fewer hours of television per day. The Further Report finds that there is no reason to believe that viewers would watch less video programming than they do today simply because they could choose the channels they find most interesting.
Finally, the 2004 report fails to mention that the Booz Allen Study shows that, even with the math error noted above, if a la carte were only implemented on digital cable systems with appropriate set top boxes in place, then a la carte could result in a 1.97 percent decrease in consumers’ bills.
The report can be found online at www.fcc.gov/mb.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
FTC Tells Senate Committee It Is Invesitgating Sale Of Consumer Phone Data
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Product Safety, and Insurance February 8 that the agency is currently investigating companies that offer consumer telephone records for sale, and plans to pursue the investigations vigorously. Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection told the committee, “Companies that engage in pretexting – the practice of obtaining personal information, such as telephone records, under false pretenses – not only violate the law, but they undermine consumers’ confidence in the marketplace and in the security of their sensitive data.”
“While pretexting to acquire telephone records has recently become more prevalent, the practice of pretexting is not new,” the testimony states. “The Commission has a history of combating pretexting.” The first FTC law enforcement action targeting operators who used false pretenses to gather financial information occurred in 1999. The company offered to provide consumers’ financial records for a fee. The agency alleged the company’s employees obtained the records from financial institutions by posing as the consumer whose records it was seeking. The Commission charged that the practice was unfair and deceptive and violated the FTC Act, the testimony says.
Following passage of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act (GLBA), which specifically prohibits pretexting of customer data from financial institutions, the agency launched Operation Detect Pretext in 2001. “Operation Detect Pretext combined a broad monitoring program, the widespread dissemination of industry warning notices, consumer education, and aggressive law enforcement.” It followed up the first phase of Operation Detect Pretext with a trio of law enforcement actions against information brokers. “Because the anti-pretexting provisions of the GLBA provide for criminal penalties, the Commission also may refer pretexters to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, as appropriate. One such individual recently pled guilty to one count of pretexting under the GLBA,” the testimony states.
According to the testimony, an entire industry of companies offering to provide purchasers with the cellular and land line phone records of third parties has developed. The testimony notes that the agency could bring law enforcement actions against telephone record pretexters for deceptive or unfair practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act and that the FTC is currently investigating companies that appear to be engaged in telephone pretexting.
“Protecting the privacy of consumers’ data requires a multi-faceted approach: coordinated law enforcement by government agencies as well as action by the telephone carriers, outreach to educate consumers and industry, and improved security by record holders are essential for any meaningful response to this assault on consumers’ privacy,” the testimony says.
“The Commission has been at the forefront of efforts to safeguard consumer information and is committed to continuing our work in this area,” the testimony says.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Product Safety, and Insurance February 8 that the agency is currently investigating companies that offer consumer telephone records for sale, and plans to pursue the investigations vigorously. Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection told the committee, “Companies that engage in pretexting – the practice of obtaining personal information, such as telephone records, under false pretenses – not only violate the law, but they undermine consumers’ confidence in the marketplace and in the security of their sensitive data.”
“While pretexting to acquire telephone records has recently become more prevalent, the practice of pretexting is not new,” the testimony states. “The Commission has a history of combating pretexting.” The first FTC law enforcement action targeting operators who used false pretenses to gather financial information occurred in 1999. The company offered to provide consumers’ financial records for a fee. The agency alleged the company’s employees obtained the records from financial institutions by posing as the consumer whose records it was seeking. The Commission charged that the practice was unfair and deceptive and violated the FTC Act, the testimony says.
Following passage of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act (GLBA), which specifically prohibits pretexting of customer data from financial institutions, the agency launched Operation Detect Pretext in 2001. “Operation Detect Pretext combined a broad monitoring program, the widespread dissemination of industry warning notices, consumer education, and aggressive law enforcement.” It followed up the first phase of Operation Detect Pretext with a trio of law enforcement actions against information brokers. “Because the anti-pretexting provisions of the GLBA provide for criminal penalties, the Commission also may refer pretexters to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, as appropriate. One such individual recently pled guilty to one count of pretexting under the GLBA,” the testimony states.
According to the testimony, an entire industry of companies offering to provide purchasers with the cellular and land line phone records of third parties has developed. The testimony notes that the agency could bring law enforcement actions against telephone record pretexters for deceptive or unfair practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act and that the FTC is currently investigating companies that appear to be engaged in telephone pretexting.
“Protecting the privacy of consumers’ data requires a multi-faceted approach: coordinated law enforcement by government agencies as well as action by the telephone carriers, outreach to educate consumers and industry, and improved security by record holders are essential for any meaningful response to this assault on consumers’ privacy,” the testimony says.
“The Commission has been at the forefront of efforts to safeguard consumer information and is committed to continuing our work in this area,” the testimony says.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Markey's Consumer Warehousing Act Overly Broad
To little fanfare, Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) today a bill titled the "ELIMINATE WAREHOUSING OF CONSUMER INTERNET DATA ACT OF 2006".
Markey addressed the growing issue of identity theft and fraud by suggesting that the FTC act as a public guardian and force companies to destroy their consumer records after the appropriate transaction time is completed. The Congressional Record quotes Markey as saying, "...companies that gather personal information that can identify individual consumers should cease to store such information after it is no longer necessary to render service to such consumers or to conduct any legitimate business practice."
Representative Markey, whose staff runs one of the House's most technology-friendly web sites, likened the destruction of this data to the same destruction cable companies must undergo regarding viewers' data.
"Destroying data isn't the answer to data security," said Consumer Help Web president Joan Bounacos. "Representative Markey's zeal to protect Americans is commedable, but consumer data over time helps companies become more efficient by identifying trends at the individual and group level. That data mining helps companies keep costs lower for consumers. One could argue that a company would always have a need for this data and the bill itself would just clutter the legal system and burden an already overworked Federal Trade Commission."
Consumer Help Web supports additional security requirements for both industry and consumers and continues to work with both types of entities to help combat identity theft and fraud.
To little fanfare, Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) today a bill titled the "ELIMINATE WAREHOUSING OF CONSUMER INTERNET DATA ACT OF 2006".
Markey addressed the growing issue of identity theft and fraud by suggesting that the FTC act as a public guardian and force companies to destroy their consumer records after the appropriate transaction time is completed. The Congressional Record quotes Markey as saying, "...companies that gather personal information that can identify individual consumers should cease to store such information after it is no longer necessary to render service to such consumers or to conduct any legitimate business practice."
Representative Markey, whose staff runs one of the House's most technology-friendly web sites, likened the destruction of this data to the same destruction cable companies must undergo regarding viewers' data.
"Destroying data isn't the answer to data security," said Consumer Help Web president Joan Bounacos. "Representative Markey's zeal to protect Americans is commedable, but consumer data over time helps companies become more efficient by identifying trends at the individual and group level. That data mining helps companies keep costs lower for consumers. One could argue that a company would always have a need for this data and the bill itself would just clutter the legal system and burden an already overworked Federal Trade Commission."
Consumer Help Web supports additional security requirements for both industry and consumers and continues to work with both types of entities to help combat identity theft and fraud.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Thousands of Sunroom Glass Windows Recalled
The following product safety recall was voluntarily conducted by the firm in cooperation with the CPSC.
Approximately 6,000 glass and skylights made by the following:
The following product safety recall was voluntarily conducted by the firm in cooperation with the CPSC.Approximately 6,000 glass and skylights made by the following:
- Cardinal IG Company of Eden Prairie, Minn. manufactured the reflective glass units
- Four Seasons Solar Products, LLC, of Holbrook, N.Y., through its dealers and franchisees, sold and constructed sunrooms that used these glass units.
According to the U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission, sunlight reflecting off of certain sunroom roof glass and skylights onto adjacent cedar shingles or cedar shakes could pose a fire hazard. Cardinal IG and Four Seasons are aware of four fires that could be attributed to this scenario. There are no reported injuries. The damage ranged from minor damage to shingles and underlying sheathing to incidents that caused some structural damage to roofs and walls.
The repair program involves only the roof glass in sunrooms (including skylights installed as part of the sunroom) that reflect sunlight onto nearby cedar shingles or cedar shakes. It involves reflective Code 77 roof insulating glass units. It includes new sunrooms sold from 1996 through 2002, but possibly constructed later, and those sunrooms, regardless of when built, that had roof glass or skylights replaced with Code 77 glass from 1996 to 2005. These were sold through Franchisees and Four Seasons retail stores in the United States and Puerto Rico from January 1996 through October 2005.
Owners of Four Seasons Sunrooms described above should call the toll free number to determine if their units are affected and if so, to obtain a free repair. Cardinal IG and Four Seasons working together will repair the roof glass through installation of a capillary tube. The repair can be completed from the exterior of the sunroom except for certain types of skylights. There is no need to replace the glass. Consumers should call the Consumer Response Center at (800) 385-9988 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday and between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT on Saturdays.
Monday, February 06, 2006
FTC Charges Sellers of Avlimil, Rogisen, And Other Dietary Supplements
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed charges against marketers selling dietary supplements, including Avlimil and Rogisen. According to the complaint, the defendants have been offering consumers “free” samples of their dietary supplements, and then enrolling them in a program that automatically shipped them more pills and billed them for those shipments, even though most consumers never agreed to participate in the program. The FTC also charged that two of the products, which were marketed as treatments for female sexual dysfunction (Avlimil) and night vision problems (Rogisen), do not live up to the advertising claims.
The defendants, Steve Warshak and his companies, have marketed and sold more than a dozen dietary supplements – including Avlimil, Rogisen, and Enzyte – that they claimed offered a variety of health benefits, including treating male and female sexual dysfunction, improving sleep, fighting fatigue, aiding weight loss, and improving skin, night vision, and heart health, among other benefits. They offered “free” samples through radio, television, and print ads and through the Internet, inviting consumers to contact them. The ads have run on cable television networks, including ESPN, Comedy Central, Oxygen, Soap Net, and Lifetime, and in magazines such as Forbes, Playboy, Cosmopolitan, Oprah, Better Homes and Gardens, Psychology Today, and Redbook.
The FTC charged that after consumers provided credit or debit card information to pay the $4.50 shipping and handling fee for the “free” samples, the defendants used that information to bill the consumers for future shipments that they sent automatically. The defendants enrolled consumers in the continuity program and automatically billed them on a recurring basis without obtaining the consumers’ express, informed consent and without disclosing the terms and conditions of the plan, according to the FTC complaint. In addition, they did not obtain written authorization for recurring debits. Then, the defendants often made the process to cancel the shipments very difficult. Consumers attempting to cancel often encountered busy telephone lines, Web sites that did not work, and were put on hold indefinitely. Many consumers who were able to reach a company representative were nevertheless denied refunds.
For one of their dietary supplements, Avlimil, the FTC charged that the defendants made false and unsubstantiated claims. Avlimil was advertised to treat female sexual dysfunction and provide female sexual enhancement. In their advertising, the defendants cited a clinical study that allegedly proved Alvlimil was safe and effective. In fact, according to the complaint, Avlimil’s ingredients differ substantially from the ingredients in the product actually tested in the clinical study featured in the Avlimil advertisements, and defendants made unsubstantiated claims about the product’s efficacy. The FTC also charged that the defendants made unsubstantiated claims that another dietary supplement, Rogisen, improves night vision.
The complaint names Steve Warshak, Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, Inc., LifeKey, Inc., Warner Health Care, Inc., and Wagner Nutraceuticals, Inc. as defendants. The complaint also names Carri Warshak, Harriet Warshak, and Paul Kellogg as relief defendants – individuals who are not accused of wrongdoing, but have allegedly received ill-gotten gains and do not have a legitimate claim to them.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed on January 30, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. The case will be decided by the court.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed charges against marketers selling dietary supplements, including Avlimil and Rogisen. According to the complaint, the defendants have been offering consumers “free” samples of their dietary supplements, and then enrolling them in a program that automatically shipped them more pills and billed them for those shipments, even though most consumers never agreed to participate in the program. The FTC also charged that two of the products, which were marketed as treatments for female sexual dysfunction (Avlimil) and night vision problems (Rogisen), do not live up to the advertising claims.
The defendants, Steve Warshak and his companies, have marketed and sold more than a dozen dietary supplements – including Avlimil, Rogisen, and Enzyte – that they claimed offered a variety of health benefits, including treating male and female sexual dysfunction, improving sleep, fighting fatigue, aiding weight loss, and improving skin, night vision, and heart health, among other benefits. They offered “free” samples through radio, television, and print ads and through the Internet, inviting consumers to contact them. The ads have run on cable television networks, including ESPN, Comedy Central, Oxygen, Soap Net, and Lifetime, and in magazines such as Forbes, Playboy, Cosmopolitan, Oprah, Better Homes and Gardens, Psychology Today, and Redbook.
The FTC charged that after consumers provided credit or debit card information to pay the $4.50 shipping and handling fee for the “free” samples, the defendants used that information to bill the consumers for future shipments that they sent automatically. The defendants enrolled consumers in the continuity program and automatically billed them on a recurring basis without obtaining the consumers’ express, informed consent and without disclosing the terms and conditions of the plan, according to the FTC complaint. In addition, they did not obtain written authorization for recurring debits. Then, the defendants often made the process to cancel the shipments very difficult. Consumers attempting to cancel often encountered busy telephone lines, Web sites that did not work, and were put on hold indefinitely. Many consumers who were able to reach a company representative were nevertheless denied refunds.
For one of their dietary supplements, Avlimil, the FTC charged that the defendants made false and unsubstantiated claims. Avlimil was advertised to treat female sexual dysfunction and provide female sexual enhancement. In their advertising, the defendants cited a clinical study that allegedly proved Alvlimil was safe and effective. In fact, according to the complaint, Avlimil’s ingredients differ substantially from the ingredients in the product actually tested in the clinical study featured in the Avlimil advertisements, and defendants made unsubstantiated claims about the product’s efficacy. The FTC also charged that the defendants made unsubstantiated claims that another dietary supplement, Rogisen, improves night vision.
The complaint names Steve Warshak, Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, Inc., LifeKey, Inc., Warner Health Care, Inc., and Wagner Nutraceuticals, Inc. as defendants. The complaint also names Carri Warshak, Harriet Warshak, and Paul Kellogg as relief defendants – individuals who are not accused of wrongdoing, but have allegedly received ill-gotten gains and do not have a legitimate claim to them.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed on January 30, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. The case will be decided by the court.
Friday, February 03, 2006
FTC, Postal Service Snare Credit Repair Scammers
The Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), and eight state law enforcement agencies today announced a crackdown on 20 operations that deceptively claim they can remove negative information from consumers’ credit reports – even if that information is accurate and timely.
“Credit repair schemes are a big problem for consumers,” said Eileen Harrington, Deputy Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Credit repair promoters generally charge hundreds of dollars, but don’t deliver on their claims. The fact is, they can’t. No one can legally remove accurate and timely information from your credit report.”
The FTC began coordinating “Project Credit Despair” last year in response to thousands of consumer complaints, which it shared with the USPIS, the State of Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions, and other state law enforcement agencies. The cases involved companies throughout the nation, many of which promised to remove accurate and timely information from consumers’ credit reports, and typically charged hundreds of dollars in advance for the service.
According to the FTC, Bad Credit B Gone, LLC and its principal, Joseph A. Graziola III, made promises such as “the credit you always dreamed of!” and “If we fail to remove any negative credit from your reports, we’ll give you a refund plus $100.” Referring to “charge-offs, collections, tax liens, bankruptcies, repossessions, student loans, child support, late payments, and judgments,” they claimed, “On average, 80 percent of the derogatory information is deleted off your credit report within . . . three months.” The Philadelphia-based company charged $500 per individual and $700 per couple for its services, half of which was due up-front.
The FTC charged Bad Credit B Gone with violating the FTC Act by making false or misleading statements, such as claiming they can improve most consumers’ credit reports substantially and permanently by removing negative information that is accurate and not obsolete. The defendants also allegedly violated the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) by requiring advance payment for credit repair services and by making false or misleading statements. The FTC is seeking to bar them permanently from further violations, to require them to return money to consumers, and to give up their ill-gotten gains.
“We have two goals with this announcement,” Harrington said. “One is very specific. It is to stop Bad Credit B Gone’s deceptive practices, and force them to return their ill-gotten gains to consumers. The other is broad. It is to put other credit repair firms on notice that we are on the beat, and it is to alert consumers that there is absolutely no reason to pay for credit repair – ever. Despite their claims, there is nothing that any credit repair firm can do for you for a fee that you cannot do for yourself at little or no cost.”
The Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), and eight state law enforcement agencies today announced a crackdown on 20 operations that deceptively claim they can remove negative information from consumers’ credit reports – even if that information is accurate and timely.
“Credit repair schemes are a big problem for consumers,” said Eileen Harrington, Deputy Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Credit repair promoters generally charge hundreds of dollars, but don’t deliver on their claims. The fact is, they can’t. No one can legally remove accurate and timely information from your credit report.”
The FTC began coordinating “Project Credit Despair” last year in response to thousands of consumer complaints, which it shared with the USPIS, the State of Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions, and other state law enforcement agencies. The cases involved companies throughout the nation, many of which promised to remove accurate and timely information from consumers’ credit reports, and typically charged hundreds of dollars in advance for the service.
According to the FTC, Bad Credit B Gone, LLC and its principal, Joseph A. Graziola III, made promises such as “the credit you always dreamed of!” and “If we fail to remove any negative credit from your reports, we’ll give you a refund plus $100.” Referring to “charge-offs, collections, tax liens, bankruptcies, repossessions, student loans, child support, late payments, and judgments,” they claimed, “On average, 80 percent of the derogatory information is deleted off your credit report within . . . three months.” The Philadelphia-based company charged $500 per individual and $700 per couple for its services, half of which was due up-front.
The FTC charged Bad Credit B Gone with violating the FTC Act by making false or misleading statements, such as claiming they can improve most consumers’ credit reports substantially and permanently by removing negative information that is accurate and not obsolete. The defendants also allegedly violated the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) by requiring advance payment for credit repair services and by making false or misleading statements. The FTC is seeking to bar them permanently from further violations, to require them to return money to consumers, and to give up their ill-gotten gains.
“We have two goals with this announcement,” Harrington said. “One is very specific. It is to stop Bad Credit B Gone’s deceptive practices, and force them to return their ill-gotten gains to consumers. The other is broad. It is to put other credit repair firms on notice that we are on the beat, and it is to alert consumers that there is absolutely no reason to pay for credit repair – ever. Despite their claims, there is nothing that any credit repair firm can do for you for a fee that you cannot do for yourself at little or no cost.”
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Calif AG Fines Credit Repair Company
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer today announced MyPerfectCredit (MPC) will pay $150,000 in civil penalties and provide restitution to consumers to resolve allegations that the credit repair company engaged in false advertising and unfair business practices.
“MyPerfectCredit deceived customers by falsely telling them the company did not have to comply with laws that protect consumers of credit repair services, and then routinely violated those laws,” said Lockyer. “This settlement will penalize the violations, compensate victims and ensure MyPerfectCredit obeys the law in the future.”
Lockyer today filed the settlement, and a lawsuit the settlement resolves, in San Diego County Superior Court. The court quickly entered a judgment approving the settlement. Aside from MPC, other defendants covered by the lawsuit and settlement include PathwayData, Inc., which does business under the MPC name, and Pathway owner David Coulter.
The settlement requires the defendants to provide restitution to customers who have filed complaints against MPC, and any consumer who files a complaint against the company within 90 days from today. To date, more than 300 consumers in California and other states have filed complaints against MPC. Additionally, aside from the $150,000 in civil penalties, the defendants will pay $6,000 to cover the state’s costs of investigating the case.
MPC operated an online credit repair service. A California law called the Credit Services Act (Act) required MPC to register with the Attorney General’s Office before providing credit repair services to consumers. MPC violated the Act, the complaint alleges, by operating its business from December 2003 to December 2005 without registering with Lockyer’s office. Then, in marketing its credit repair services, MPC falsely told the public it did not have to comply with the Act, according to the complaint.
MPC advertised on the Internet that it could help consumers correct alleged errors on their credit reports. The company told consumers who responded to the ads that MPC would obtain their credit reports from the three major reporting agencies, then forward them electronically to the consumers. Consumers then would have a limited time to determine which negative information on the report they wanted MPC to challenge with the credit reporting agencies.
If consumers did not specify within five days which information should be disputed, MPC frequently challenged all negative information on credit reports, then charged consumers a fee for each challenge on each report, the complaint alleges. MPC charged either $4.95 or $6.95 per challenge. This practice violated a provision of the Act that prohibits credit repair companies from challenging information on credit reports without consumers’ knowledge, the complaint alleges.
MPC also violated the Act’s requirements that credit repair companies provide consumers certain disclosures and written contracts with specific provisions to protect customers.
Additionally, according to the complaint, MPC purchased a portfolio of customers from ClearCredit, a credit repair firm that Lockyer successfully sued in 2003 for violating the Act. Via email, MPC informed ClearCredit customers they automatically would be transferred to MPC’s program unless they opted out within a few days. ClearCredit customers who did not respond were automatically transferred to MPC’s program and charged a monthly fee, even though MPC did not verify the ClearCredit customers had received the email notification. If ClearCredit customers did not pay the monthly fee, MPC employed collection agencies to get the money.
The settlement prohibits MPC from further violating the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
Consumers who wish to file complaints against MPC to become eligible to receive restitution should send their complaints to:
Complaints should include substantiation for any restitution the consumer seeks.
The MPC case is the fifth brought by Lockyer in the last three years against credit repair and debt management operations. Prior successful lawsuits, in addition to the ClearCredit case, included actions against Housing Assistance Services, Inc., Briggs & Baker, Integrated Credit Solutions, Inc. and Lighthouse Credit Foundation.
Lockyer warned consumers to be wary of businesses which boast they can repair credit. “If negative information on a credit report is current and accurate, it cannot be removed regardless of how many disputes a credit repair business lodges,” he said.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer today announced MyPerfectCredit (MPC) will pay $150,000 in civil penalties and provide restitution to consumers to resolve allegations that the credit repair company engaged in false advertising and unfair business practices.
“MyPerfectCredit deceived customers by falsely telling them the company did not have to comply with laws that protect consumers of credit repair services, and then routinely violated those laws,” said Lockyer. “This settlement will penalize the violations, compensate victims and ensure MyPerfectCredit obeys the law in the future.”
Lockyer today filed the settlement, and a lawsuit the settlement resolves, in San Diego County Superior Court. The court quickly entered a judgment approving the settlement. Aside from MPC, other defendants covered by the lawsuit and settlement include PathwayData, Inc., which does business under the MPC name, and Pathway owner David Coulter.
The settlement requires the defendants to provide restitution to customers who have filed complaints against MPC, and any consumer who files a complaint against the company within 90 days from today. To date, more than 300 consumers in California and other states have filed complaints against MPC. Additionally, aside from the $150,000 in civil penalties, the defendants will pay $6,000 to cover the state’s costs of investigating the case.
MPC operated an online credit repair service. A California law called the Credit Services Act (Act) required MPC to register with the Attorney General’s Office before providing credit repair services to consumers. MPC violated the Act, the complaint alleges, by operating its business from December 2003 to December 2005 without registering with Lockyer’s office. Then, in marketing its credit repair services, MPC falsely told the public it did not have to comply with the Act, according to the complaint.
MPC advertised on the Internet that it could help consumers correct alleged errors on their credit reports. The company told consumers who responded to the ads that MPC would obtain their credit reports from the three major reporting agencies, then forward them electronically to the consumers. Consumers then would have a limited time to determine which negative information on the report they wanted MPC to challenge with the credit reporting agencies.
If consumers did not specify within five days which information should be disputed, MPC frequently challenged all negative information on credit reports, then charged consumers a fee for each challenge on each report, the complaint alleges. MPC charged either $4.95 or $6.95 per challenge. This practice violated a provision of the Act that prohibits credit repair companies from challenging information on credit reports without consumers’ knowledge, the complaint alleges.
MPC also violated the Act’s requirements that credit repair companies provide consumers certain disclosures and written contracts with specific provisions to protect customers.
Additionally, according to the complaint, MPC purchased a portfolio of customers from ClearCredit, a credit repair firm that Lockyer successfully sued in 2003 for violating the Act. Via email, MPC informed ClearCredit customers they automatically would be transferred to MPC’s program unless they opted out within a few days. ClearCredit customers who did not respond were automatically transferred to MPC’s program and charged a monthly fee, even though MPC did not verify the ClearCredit customers had received the email notification. If ClearCredit customers did not pay the monthly fee, MPC employed collection agencies to get the money.
The settlement prohibits MPC from further violating the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
Consumers who wish to file complaints against MPC to become eligible to receive restitution should send their complaints to:
Gayle Welle
Consumer Protection Assistant
Office of the Attorney General
110 West A Street, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
Complaints should include substantiation for any restitution the consumer seeks.
The MPC case is the fifth brought by Lockyer in the last three years against credit repair and debt management operations. Prior successful lawsuits, in addition to the ClearCredit case, included actions against Housing Assistance Services, Inc., Briggs & Baker, Integrated Credit Solutions, Inc. and Lighthouse Credit Foundation.
Lockyer warned consumers to be wary of businesses which boast they can repair credit. “If negative information on a credit report is current and accurate, it cannot be removed regardless of how many disputes a credit repair business lodges,” he said.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Privacy Group Sues AT&T, US Allowed To Review Huge Database
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T Tuesday, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications.
The NSA program came to light in December, when the New York Times reported that the president had authorized the agency to intercept telephone and Internet communications inside the United States without the authorization of any court. Over the ensuing weeks, it became clear that the NSA program has been intercepting and analyzing millions of Americans' communications, with the help of the country's largest phone and Internet companies.
Reporting has also indicated that those same companies—and AT&T specifically—have given the NSA direct access to their vast databases of communications records, including information about whom their customers have phoned or emailed with in the past. And yet little has been accomplished by this illegal spying: recent reports have shown that the data from this wholesale surveillance has done little more than waste FBI resources on dead leads.
"The NSA program is apparently the biggest fishing expedition ever devised, scanning millions of ordinary Americans' phone calls and emails for 'suspicious' patterns, and it's the collaboration of US telecom companies like AT&T that makes it possible," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "When the government defends spying on Americans by saying, 'If you're talking to terrorists we want to know about it,' that's not even close to the whole story."
In the lawsuit, EFF alleges that AT&T, in addition to allowing the NSA direct access to the phone and Internet communications passing over its network, has given the government unfettered access to its over 300 terabyte "Daytona" database of caller information—one of the largest databases in the world.
"AT&T's customers reasonably expect that their communications are private and have long trusted AT&T to follow the law and protect that privacy. Unfortunately, AT&T has betrayed that trust," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien. "At the NSA's request, AT&T eviscerated the legal safeguards required by Congress and the courts with a keystroke."
By opening its network and databases to unrestricted spying by the government, EFF alleges that AT&T has violated the privacy of AT&T customers and the people they call and email, as well as broken longstanding communications privacy laws.
While other organizations are suing the government directly, EFF is seeking to protect Americans' privacy by stopping the collaboration of AT&T with the illegal NSA spying program and making it economically impossible for AT&T to continue to give its customers' information to the government.
"Congress has set up strong laws protecting the privacy of your communications, strictly limiting when telephone and Internet companies can subject your phone calls to government scrutiny," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "The companies that have betrayed their customers' trust by illegally handing the NSA direct access to their networks and databases must be brought to account. AT&T needs to put a sign on its door that reads, 'Come Back With a Warrant.'"
In the suit filed Tuesday, EFF is representing the class of all AT&T customers nationwide. EFF is seeking an injunction to stop AT&T participation in the illegal NSA program, as well as billions of dollars in damages for violation of federal privacy laws
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T Tuesday, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications.
The NSA program came to light in December, when the New York Times reported that the president had authorized the agency to intercept telephone and Internet communications inside the United States without the authorization of any court. Over the ensuing weeks, it became clear that the NSA program has been intercepting and analyzing millions of Americans' communications, with the help of the country's largest phone and Internet companies.
Reporting has also indicated that those same companies—and AT&T specifically—have given the NSA direct access to their vast databases of communications records, including information about whom their customers have phoned or emailed with in the past. And yet little has been accomplished by this illegal spying: recent reports have shown that the data from this wholesale surveillance has done little more than waste FBI resources on dead leads.
"The NSA program is apparently the biggest fishing expedition ever devised, scanning millions of ordinary Americans' phone calls and emails for 'suspicious' patterns, and it's the collaboration of US telecom companies like AT&T that makes it possible," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "When the government defends spying on Americans by saying, 'If you're talking to terrorists we want to know about it,' that's not even close to the whole story."
In the lawsuit, EFF alleges that AT&T, in addition to allowing the NSA direct access to the phone and Internet communications passing over its network, has given the government unfettered access to its over 300 terabyte "Daytona" database of caller information—one of the largest databases in the world.
"AT&T's customers reasonably expect that their communications are private and have long trusted AT&T to follow the law and protect that privacy. Unfortunately, AT&T has betrayed that trust," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien. "At the NSA's request, AT&T eviscerated the legal safeguards required by Congress and the courts with a keystroke."
By opening its network and databases to unrestricted spying by the government, EFF alleges that AT&T has violated the privacy of AT&T customers and the people they call and email, as well as broken longstanding communications privacy laws.
While other organizations are suing the government directly, EFF is seeking to protect Americans' privacy by stopping the collaboration of AT&T with the illegal NSA spying program and making it economically impossible for AT&T to continue to give its customers' information to the government.
"Congress has set up strong laws protecting the privacy of your communications, strictly limiting when telephone and Internet companies can subject your phone calls to government scrutiny," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "The companies that have betrayed their customers' trust by illegally handing the NSA direct access to their networks and databases must be brought to account. AT&T needs to put a sign on its door that reads, 'Come Back With a Warrant.'"
In the suit filed Tuesday, EFF is representing the class of all AT&T customers nationwide. EFF is seeking an injunction to stop AT&T participation in the illegal NSA program, as well as billions of dollars in damages for violation of federal privacy laws
