Saturday, September 29, 2007
Gound Beef Recall Swells To 21 Million Pounds
Just as we were set to warn consumers about a mid-sized food recall, Topps Meat Company today announced that their
ground beef recall has affected millions of pounds of the food.
According to the company and federal government, more than 21 million pounds of ground beef are at risk for carrying a bad form of E. coli, a disease that impacts many but can cause death in children, the elderly or those with other health problems.
This ground beef already bears a U.S. Department of Agriculture brand. Do not eat this food.
The USDA division charged with monitoring this food said today that they are investigating more than two dozen illnesses in Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The frozen meat was produced on various dates between Sept. 25, 2006, and Sept. 25, 2007. The food was throughout the NY area and then to states throughout the East and Midwest. Each package bears the establishment number “Est. 9748” inside the USDA mark of inspection as well as a sell-by date between “SEP 25 07” and “SEP 25 08.”
Brand names include Topps, West Side, Shop Rite and Roma among others.
Call toll-free to 888-734-0451 with questions about the recall.
Labels: food, ground beef, recall, safety, Topps
Don't Be Stonewalled - Cases of The Week - September 29
Three of Consumer Help Web's cases this week underscore the need for consumer education throughout the country. Too often, the task is left to underfunded government agencies or the very businesses impacted (usually negatively) by well-informed consumers.
With that in mind, we selected three case studies this week where ordinary consumers like you or any of us were stonewalled by a company's representatives. The issue is not that the individual complaints were not heard, but that they were not heard by empowered decision makers.
We often talk with consumers who receive a response from a businessperson and grumble, "I don't like what they said, but I understand it." And understanding the business perspective is one of the steps in becoming a smart consumer. More important than that understanding, though, is how far and hard to escalate the matter. That escalation is our common theme this month.
The first case is a Washington, D.C. consumer who bought a Jeep at
Farrish of Fairfax. The dealership is a well-regarded one. Even
bbb.org, an organization that tries hard but is still an organization driven by business membership dues, notes that they have only received four complaints about the dealership in the last year. For a dealership of their size, that is a record to be proud of.
Unfortunately, our customer got stuck with a bad vehicle. Things happen. That is why there are managers and resolutions. But when George interviewed our client, he quickly learned that the sales team had buffered the company's management from the Jeep that kept experiencing mechanical difficulties. We learned that despite numerous unsuccessful repair attempts,
Farrish of Fairfax left this consumer with a huge potential lifetime value in the cold. Now the consumer has contacted us in a prelude to what could easily become regulatory or legal action.
While the sales team may have thought the problem would go away, the situation simply escalated. We always train consumers to state what they want as a resolution and ask one simple question:
After hearing what I want to resolve my complaint, are you empowered to take that action? If the person you are dealing with says they are, then don't compromise if you are correct. If not, then it makes great sense for everyone to move up the ladder.
Our second case was a consumer traveling on Continental Airlines. She told us that her luggage was broken on a vacation to Mexico. On the return trip, though, she arrived and the luggage didn't. The airline promised the luggage would arrive, but it didn't. When it finally did arrive, our customer was forced to return to the airport to get her bag, where she quickly discovered that her digital camera was missing. Worse, the pictures of her vacation were gone, presumably forever.
"They didn't even offer me an overnight kit," this consumer told us. But they should have, and likely would have, had they been pushed to do so. Even more important, the airline should have delivered the bag to this consumer rather than compelling her to return to the airport. As for this missing camera, a Continental employee reportedly told her that filling out a form was a waste of time. But that's the only way that Continental would have even filed a claim.
Knowing how far to push the empowered person is just as important as knowing who to push. This consumer did too much of the airline's work and is paying the price for it now.
The final case we selected this week was a lovely woman who bought her teenage son a Microsoft
Zune music player. The teen not only constantly used the player, but even downloaded songs form Microsoft rather than the ubiquitous Apple
iTunes store. When the family saw a dark splotch on the screen, they didn't immediately act. The area of the malfunctioning screen spread and soon, the music player stopped working.
The family called Microsoft, where a customer service representative reportedly told them that the
Zune player would not be covered under warranty because it was damaged by the user.
But how could a phone rep who never saw the device know that?Exactly. They couldn't and didn't. Instead, they stonewalled the consumer, but this consumer was smart enough to fight back.
When you're faced with a stonewalling customer service representative,
ask nicely for the name of that person's immediate supervisor. Then ask to be connected to that person. If the representative refuses or offers someone else, hold fast. Climb the corporate ladder until you speak with someone willing to take action.
We'll keep you all apprised of what happens with these consumers and the companies that stonewalled them.
Labels: consumer, Continental Airlines, customer service, Farrish, luggage, Microsoft, Zune
Now Own An iBrick Instead of An iPhone?
The good nerds at Slashdot.com
reminded the geek community today of AT&T's "legal policy" regarding service. Those terms include a nebulous provision for damaging the company's "name or reputation".
That's ugly enough for most consumers, but what really hits hard is this basic concept: AT&T and Apple colluded to harm an electronics device they no longer owned by creating software that would render the device inoperable.
Game over. If "do no evil" is
Google's mantra and supposed business guideline, perhaps "stop doing harm" should be the case for Apple and AT&T. Folks, you don't own the device. If you don't want it on your network, that's great. You can't sell someone a car, though, and tell them they can't work on it. Doing so might void the warranty, a risk informed consumers may choose to make. Working on your car, however, doesn't mean that someone comes to your house in the middle of the night and offers you an unmarked bag of sugar as a "fuel additive".
Yes, it's a fuel additive. Don't do it to your car. You will cause massive damage to the vehicle.
And that's what happened here. Had AT&T or Apple bothered to tell consumers, "Your download will disable your device if you have not followed the warranty guidelines," then I would be on their side. Instead, they turned
iPhones into
iBricks, destroying the carefully laid credibility Apple was slowly rebuilding.
At Consumer Help Web, we had made the choice to switch multiple machines from Dells to Macs. Apple's position in this matter has scuttled that idea. Now, we're wondering if
iTunes and
iPods are still in our future. That is what happens to companies who act in an imperious and harmful manner. Good luck, boys and girls. We hope
Pixar works out because your actions this week may have cost you the "nerd
influencer" demographic you needed for survival in the computer market. Good luck as a media company (and set aside a nice reserve for the class action suit)
Labels: Apple, ATT, iPhone, Slashdot
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Apple's Bad Week Continues
Perhaps the public relations damage was inevitable although Apple has risen to exalted status and fallen before. The iPod and its free iTunes software changed that. Apple was suddenly the darling of the tech sector's eye again. Emboldened by their success, the company mashed unlikely partners AT&T and Google into the iPhone.
Apple honcho Steve Jobs narrowly avoided a public relations crisis when he slashed prices only months after releasing the most hyped product of the decade. Quickly and decisively, he marched back to his consumers (none of whom deserved any special treatment) and proferred $100 credits. The move was sheer marketing genius, the kind that has landed Jobs a place in the history of the Information Age now being written. Even Amazon's announcement this week of a new store to compete directly with iTunes didn't seem to shake the customer even though Amazon is big enough and powerful enough to make the market a two company race.
But the whimsical Apple, your buddy with the iPod and the cool talking guy hawking Macs on television, turned vicious today. After a group of tinkerers, led by a recently graduated high school senior hacked into
their iPhones and found they could use it for other applications, they released the know-how to the world. Geeks, especially in the computer sector, are like that. These are the folks who skipped Tivo and DVRs, bought a $400 budget laptop and made their own.
And Apple hosed them today. With the release of a new set of firmware, programs that instruct the iPhone how to operate, Apple not only undid the damage to its AT&T partner, but rendered the consumer's phones unusuable
if they downloaded the firmware.
Writing at Ziff-Davis tonight,
Jason O'Grady says he has no intention of upgrading. He'll skip the new features to keep his choice of carriers alive. Over at
PC World, blogger
Melissa Perenson reminds consumers that Apple warned them this might happen. She is taking a wait-and-see approach, she says, but reports that the team responsible for hacking the iPhone in the past promises a "restoration hack" in the future -- perhaps as early as next week.
All of this begs the question: did Apple, the darling of the tech set, risk its credibility with the move? Will there be an iPod backlash in addition to what might every well be an iPhone firestorm?
And more important is this question: when consumers bought the iPhone they undoubtedly gave away too many rights, but once they owned the equipment, the device should have been free for them to use as they see fit. So besides lost credibility, we would not be surprised to see Apple challenged in court over destroying equipment owned by consumers.
Stop the phone from working at the iTunes music store? Sure
Stop the phone from working on AT&T's network? Absolutely. A no-brainer
Stop the phone from working at all? I'm lost on that one, and so, I think, is Apple for taking consumer choice away.
Labels: Apple, iPhone, iPod
More Child Recalls This Week - Add Playpens to Cribs
Again forgetting the recriminations for today, we ask that you please help spread the word about Kolcraft play yards, what you and your parents called "playpens".
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has already linked the death of a 10 month old boy to the units. The strap across the changing table apparently poses a strangulation effort.
As with the infamous Graco/Aspen crib recall, Kolcraft is sending consumers a kit to fix the strap and eliminate the danger. Pundits say that a similar style of recall was insufficient for the crib manufacturer.
Consumer Help Web understands the financial burden parents of a new child face. These are relatively expensive units that cost between $50 and $130.
If you have any doubt in your ability to properly fix the playpen, please dispose of it safely by dismantling it. Your child's safety is worth $130 or not having a playpen for a short period of time.
Reports are surfacing across the Internet that recalled goods are also surfacing at garage sales and even on eBay and other Internet auctions. "It's a natural and likely benign issue," said Consumer Help Web Chief Operating Officer George Bounacos. "If a parent doesn't learn about the recall and their child is not hurt, there is a booming unrecorded market in baby items passed among friends and relatives or sold at yard sales. Doing so is being a good consumer, but the buyer must research the item first."
The play yards recalled now were manufactured in China over a 6 year period. Kolcraft has received multiple reports of children rolling into unsafe positions in these units. The company says that consumers should immediately stop using the changing tables and rocking cradle and contact the firm. They should also immediately cut off and remove the existing changing table restraint strap. Consumers should always remove the raised changing table and cradle or bassinet before placing a child in a play yard.
For additional information, call Kolcraft at (888) 655-8484 anytime, or visit the firm’s web site at
www.kolcraft.com.
All of that is good advice, but we remain committed to our advice to parents. If you feel like the repair is beyond you, dismantle the unit so no one else uses it and buy something safer. Please don't guess.
Also please remember to pass the word about the
massive crib recall several days ago. Consumer Help Web will continue helping parents who face difficulties fulfilling the terms of this recall and waive our complaint resolution fee.
Labels: children, China, Kolcraft, play yard, playpen, safety
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
FTC Shapes Up CortiSlim While Consumers Gain Refunds
We wrote in January that the Federal Trade Commission was chasing what it called "fad science" and
filed four complaints against weight loss product manufacturers. ConsumerHelpWeb.com had already helped a consumer with a
complaint resolution against CortiSlim, one of those the FTC named, but the FTC wanted a broad sweep through the industry.
The federal agency has won against CortiSlim andCortiStress. Consumers will be refunded as part of this settlement, but as in all such cases, the amount of the resolution depends on how many consumers apply for refunds.
The deadline for applying for a refund is October 27, 2007 -- just one month away -- so be sure to pass this link to your friends and family who may have used CortiSlim or CortiStress. Consumers who purchased either product between August 1, 2003 and May 31, 2006 are eligible for a refund and can apply by downloading a claim form at
www.CortiSlimsettlement.com or by calling 1-800-560-6532 to receive a claim form by mail.
Labels: CortiSlim, CortiStress, FTC, refund
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Amazon Joins Music Download Fray
Only Apple and its ubiquitous iPod have managed to capture enough consumer attention and share of mind to legally sell music online. The service has many competitors, but none are close in size to the technology company. Even The Beatles eventually came around to the little iPod rectangle and its iTunes store.
Today, Amazon is the latest entrant into the music download business, and many analysts believe the leading web retailer is one of the few companies poised to give Apple a run for its money. The new service is called Amazon MP3, and what it lacks in scope (2 major music companies are still holdouts), the service makes up for in marketing muscle, reach and consumer presence.
"Amazon presents consumers with the choice they've waited for," said George Bounacos of Consumer Help Web. "By creating a service that also works on iPod, Amazon has already changed the marketplace by offering similar titles at 89 cents instead of iTunes' minimum of 99 cents." The difference is important, Bounacos said, because Apple's iTunes store has sold several billion songs worldwide. "Consumers might think that a dime isn't important, but several billion dimes is," he said.
Amazon's MP3 service is also getting positive reviews from early adopters. "
A real alternative to iTunes," wrote Michael Arrington of leading technology blog TechCrunch. Armstrong's review of the new service praised the music's quality and mentioned support for multiple systems, including Linux. Arrington also noted that the best-selling albums were priced low: no more than $8.99 each.
"That's what happens in a competitive marketplace," Bounacos said. "Consumers benefit because suddenly the average price isn't 99 cents, but somewhere in between. Competition is always a plus for consumers. The marketplace will now be able to decide the appropriate price, rather than the company with first mover advantage."
Labels: Amazon, Apple, iTunes, MP3, music
Saturday, September 22, 2007
"Why Did It Take Three Deaths? - *CRITICAL SAFETY RECALL FOR CRIBS*
If you have an infant or know anyone who does, you must pass this information along
today. Read this short piece, and get busy. Email it to your friends, and tell them to email their friends.
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission and a large crib manufacturer have issued an immediate recall of 1 million cribs.
Three children have died.
The cribs have the name Aspen and Graco.The Aspen crib models are: Aspen 3 in 1, Aspen 4 in 1, Nursery-In-A-Box, Crib N Changer Combo, Chelsea and Pooh 4 in 1.The Graco crib models are: Ultra 3 in 1, Ultra 4 in 1, Ultra 5 in 1, Whitney and the Trio.More model numbers are found on the envelope attached to the mattress or on the label on the crib's headboard. The model numbers are 4600, 4605, 4705, 5000, 8000, 8324, 8800, 8740, 8910, 8994, 8050, 8750, 8760 and 8896.
Call the manufacturer now at 888-593-9274 if you own one of these cribs.
We never condone sp@m or unsolicited email. Today we're asking you to write everyone in your address book. Send them to this story, and we'll also point them to the great non-profit
KidsInDanger.org. Their
press release about the recall is in a free PDF file here.
As consumer advocates, we'll work with others to deal with recriminations and blame later. Today, we make the children safe. Consumer Help Web is waiving its $29.99 fee for any person who owns one of these cribs and can not get satisfaction. Complete our
order form so we have the details, and skip the payment page. Those are being redirected to a special mailbox, and we will call you if you need help, but call the manufacturer first. They will be responsive. Let us know if they are not, and we will help you for free.
Labels: Aspen, baby, CPSC, crib, Graco, KidsinDanger.org, recall, safety
Thursday, September 20, 2007
I'm Too Fat For My Car
Well, maybe not me personally, by myself with a bag of Doritos and a Big Gulp perched on top of the
cupholder since it won't fit inside the darn thing. But me and a couple of friends? Well, despite our relative success in life and being bright folks, we just may be too fat for our cars.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration long ago set "gross vehicle weight limits". Those rules essentially told manufacturers not to reinforce the chassis with tin foil, for example, because if a vehicle claimed to support a number of adults, each adult would be assumed to weigh 150 pounds. So a four passenger vehicle must carry 600 pounds safely.
Guess what? That includes luggage too.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the 21st century. Cars, those death traps Ralph Nader wailed about, got safer and more reliable. And Americans got heavier and fatter.
The Centers for Disease Control has
data showing the average weight of the U.S. population going back to 2002. That study shows American men weighed an average of 190 pounds while American women weighed an average of 163 pounds. (The study also amusingly shows men's waist sizes as 39 inches, which is possible for taller guys, but we think some of those waist measurements were from the guys who wear their pants two inches below their waist.)
Think about the averages again. If 4 men are in a car, the old vehicle standards presumes they weigh 600 pounds. In reality, they weigh an average of 760 pounds. Four men from the old standard are the same weight as today's standard.
USA Today examined this issue and spoke with
auto manufacturers about overweight Americans exceeding their vehicle's weight limits. The manufacturers swear to the paper there is a safety limit involved because, as
USA Today points out, two 200 pound men aren't supposed to be cleared to ride in a Corvette or a
Miata. We believe the manufacturers are conservative just like they are when your vehicle's fuel gauge reads empty, and you know you can drive to the gas station.
What is most worrisome for us is the idea being bandied about now that
insurance companies may soon be rejecting claims for structural damage to a vehicle if the combined passenger weight exceeds the manufacturer's posted weight.
Let's be clear. This is bad for consumers, this is bad for the insurance industry and this is bad for manufacturers who point at the government regulations. But those regulations are a minimum, the insurance companies know better and all the regulation in the world isn't changing that 190 pound statistic.
This is not a blog calling for a referendum on national healthy policy regarding obesity. We do need to address that issue through better education and reinforcement of the message. Just as smoking rates declined, obesity can also decline. But the facts are these:
American men in 2002 weighed an average of 190 pounds, not 150.
American women in 2002 weighed an average of 163 pounds, not 150.
Ask yourself this question:
Are you weighing less today than you did five years ago? And then ask this question. Why can't two men of average weight (regardless of whether that weight is healthy, the number is the number) drive in a Corvette without the chance for an insurance company to claim the vehicle was improperly operated?
Labels: insurance, overweight, safety, vehicle
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
No, We Haven't Cured The Common Cold
Procter and Gamble is a marketing icon. The conglomerate has not only trained some of the best marketers of the last 50 years, but continues to innovate consumer products.
Sometimes that innovation can get the company in a little hot water.
Today is one such day. The Food and Drug Administration
sent a letter yesterday to P&G that essentially said the company's hand sanitizer for kids didn't exactly work as planned.
The letter, signed by FDA District Director Carol A. Heppe, acknowledged that an ingredient in
Vicks Early Defense called triclosan is certified for use as an "antimicrobial cleanser", the company's claims about it fighting cold "germs" (sic). Heppe went on to remind P&G President Alan Lafley that colds are caused by viruses and that no evidence existed suggesting that the company's product worked as claimed.
Yes, you can still catch a cold, but Mom said you could go in the pool after eating without waiting 30 minutes.
The agency is apparently reviewing the whole subject of topical cleansers. Meanwhile, the FDA has given Procter and Gamble's smart marketers until early October to start marketing their new hand sanitizer in a way that ensures consumers know what they are buying.
Labels: FDA, medical, Procter and Gamble, Vicks Early Defense
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Put The Spinach Down (Again)
Fresh veggies can't catch a break. Bagged salad mixes are back in the news after food giant Dole said that bagged salad green mixes available in the United States and Canada showed signs of E. coli contamination.
The company said that about 5,000 bags of its "Heart's Delight" salad mix was potentially at risk. The product was sold in 3 Canadian provinces and Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,and Tennessee. The Canadian government has cautioned its citizens about eating the potentially tainted food. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is in talks with the company to determine a course of action.
The "Hearts Delight" mix that is affected has a "best if used by" date of September 19. In a written statement,
Dole asked consumers not to eat the product and reminded them that produce should not be eaten beyond the "best date"; in other words, tomorrow.
More information is available from Dole at toll-free at 800-356-3111.
Labels: Dole, food, recall, safety
Monday, September 17, 2007
Buckle Up. The Friendly Skies Are Taking Your Miles
The airline frequent flier program has become a staple of American consumerism. The concept, which borrowed heavily from the trading stamps of a generation earlier, is designed with one single purpose: keep fliers brand loyal.
We admit that it has worked at Consumer Help Web. Our informal poll around here showed that at least two people have paid more to fly on "their" airline. How much more?
"Never more than $100," said George.
Fine, but how many times did you do that?
"A couple. Okay, maybe like five."
So our free spender, who paradoxically is our best researcher, spent about $500 just for the privilege of adding miles to his account. Why?
"I wanted to get my million miler status," he said, before sheepishly admitting that he was still less than halfway there.
Still, nearly 500,00 miles is big brand loyalty. An airline would seem to want to do anything to create that level of loyalty. That's why we don't understand
United's latest move.
In a letter to frequent fliers this month, the airline that flew out of bankruptcy protection announced that a mileage balance will be zeroed out if a customer has not earned or redeemed miles during an 18 month period.
We understand that managing the liability and the accounting of this golden goose program is expensive. What we don't understand is how an airline in an industry that is battered by poor service for the last 12 months can put the proverbial gun to consumers' heads.
The letter lists many ways a consumer can keep their miles active. They include using a United-branded affinity credit card or buying miles if they're not flying. The whole concept adds up to one thing: regularly use United or lose all of your miles.
In a paragraph we can only call
chutzpah, United rewarded consumers who stuck with the airlines when amenities died by writing this gem:
"This change preserves more seats for our most loyal customers, which is good news for you. Keep your account active, and you'll compete with fewer people for free* award travel on United*."
First, any sentence that purports to be a consumer benefit that has two footnotes should set off alarm bells. Second, was there something in the office coffee that day? Our translation of the legacy carrier's statement is this:
"Use our services more often or we'll eliminate the 'loyalty' premium we gave you."
See you around the friendly skies.
Labels: frequent flier, mileage, United Airlines
Friday, September 14, 2007
"We're Using Cheaper Parts": Dell Tech Support Rep
Dell remains a success story of the early Information Age. The innovative company disrupted the entire nascent PC market and gave consumers better choices, flexibility and pricing.
Then it got awfully big. Revenue continues growing, yet operating income is decreasing. That is called a shrinking margin, and investors hate that. Share in the company's stock hit 30 four years ago and kept climbing. The slide began in 2005 with increased competition and decreased customer satisfaction. Just a year ago, the stock slid under 20 for the first time in years. The board and Michael Dell himself have struggled to bring margins back to the healthy range where where investors will reward them.
But Consumer Help Web's team has noticed that Dell machines are more fragile than ever before. We're seeing a useful life on the budget model Inspiron of only one year. Integrated video on the motherboard caused one to be useless. Meanwhile, keys and displays are going bad on two others. In fact the latest model (an Inspiron 1501) had the keyboard replaced in August, and the DVD drive replaced in September. What happens when it is out of warranty in two months?
According to a transcript we have of a Dell support technician, the company's representatives are not even allowed to refer to a laptop by its colloquial name. Instead, they're to refer to the machines as "notebook computers" so that no one gets hurt or burned by putting the machine in their lap. The same rep said to us in chat mode that complaints were up because the company was using "cheaper parts". We didn't prompt her, but she knew who we were.
This should not come as news to subscribers. In 2003, web media giant CNet reported on
Dell's unsatisfactory ratings among business customers.
ComputerWorld reported the same results for consumers one year later. Topping things off was the never-shy
Forbes, which called Dell's satisfaction ratings a "deep dive"and predicted the stock slide that occurred.
Will the company recover?
Consumer Help Web received a satisfaction survey. We left strident comments and rated the entire process as a "1" on a scale of 10. We also invited Dell to contact us to try win us back from Lenovo and Apple. We'll let you know if that ever happens. Meanwhile,
caveat emptor. These are rough days for Dell, and consumers ultimately pay the price.
Labels: Dell
Friday, September 07, 2007
No Vioxx Class Action Says NJ Supreme Court
Merck's legal strategy surrounding claims against its
Vioxx medication appears to continue to be successful. The company chose to fight each claim individually. Now the New Jersey Supreme Court has refused to consolidate multiple filings as a class action, giving the big
pharma manufacturer another victory.
"Arguing each case individually is ideal for the company," says Consumer Help Web President Joan
Bounacos. "They can continue to address each plaintiff's issues individually, allow multiple juries to hear the facts and point to multiple successful defenses. The strategy will drag the company through courts for years, but is proving successful."
Consumer Help Web produced a
checklist for potential Vioxx plaintiffs nearly two years ago. "After the first verdict came in so high, we saw spikes in consumers lining up to file suit," Bounacos said. "Our goal was to ensure that consumers made smart choices when choosing their legal team."
Meanwhile, the New Jersey's court's order that all related cases be assigned to Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee remains in effect. Judge Higbee issued her first
case management order regarding Vioxx four years ago.
Labels: Carol Higbee, Merck, New Jersey, Vioxx
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Mattel's Barbie Joins Spongebob Squarepants, Dora On Recall List
Another month, another Mattel recall. And what a surprise. This one also has addresses safety issues with toys manufactured in China.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission said that that Mattel claimed no reports of injuries had occurred, but that parents and caregivers should immediately take the toys from children and contact Mattel for a replacement. The company has set up a toll-free hotline staffed around the clock at (888) 496-8330.
As the eBay season ramps up again, parents are especially cautioned to beware of toys being auctioned. A
Forbes report claimed that the business magazine had found recalled toys for sale without warnings on the popular auction site.
The toys affected by this recall are shown below.
| Product | Product Number | Date Code Number | Product Photo |
|---|
| Barbie® Dream Puppy House™ (lead paint on dog) | J9485 | 286-6JX through 365-6JX
or
001-7JX through 232-7JX
(product number and date code are marked on the bottom of the house) |  |
| Barbie® Dream Kitty Condo™ Playset (lead paint on cat) | J9486 | 286-6JX through 365-6JX
or
001-7JX through 232-7JX
(product number and date code are marked on the bottom of the house) |  |
| Barbie® Table and Chairs Kitchen Playset (lead paint on dog, chip platter, dinner plates) | K8606 | All
(product number is marked under the table) |  |
| Barbie® Bathtub and Toilet Playset (lead point on cat) | K8607 | All
(product number is marked under the tub) |  |
| Barbie® Futon and Table Living Room Playset (lead paint on cat) | K8608 | All
(product number is marked on the cushion label) |  |
| Barbie® Desk and Chair Bedroom Playset (lead paint on dog) | K8609 | All
(product number is marked under the desk) |  |
| Barbie® Couch & Table Living Room Playset (lead paint on purse) | K8613 | All
(product number is marked under the table) |  |
Labels: Barbie, CPSC, Mattel, recall, safety, toy
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
New Month, Same Housing Woes
After July's foreclosure rate surged 9% from June to July and almost doubled between July 2006 and July 2007, many expected August's market gyrations would follow. The Federal Reserve Bank eased the situation somewhat by attempting to control liquidity.
Now Congress is getting involved.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has told lending giant, Countrywide Financial, to stop compensating brokers more for adjustable mortgages. Schumer said at a press conference that 40% of borrowers in an adjustable rate mortgage could have qualified for conventional financing.
As usual when politics and consumers mix, the results are framed by the different perspectives.
Consumers took adjustable rate mortgages to lower their payments or qualify for homes they couldn't afford. The mortgage industry did not take advantage of the consumer. The consumer has taken advantage of a loophole that provided a year or three of monthly cash flow. Now with higher rates, those consumers who cannot afford their homes are going to have to take action. They will need to move or take second jobs or higher paying positions that involve other sacrifices.
Foreclosure should be the last possible resort. Banks and lenders did not cause the subprime crisis. Consumers did. While late night comedians joke about anyone qualifying for a mortgage, the same consumer truths were applicable in that market.
1) Understand the terms.
2) Don't overextend yourself if the worst case scenario you agreed to occurs.
Perhaps the second car has to be sold. Perhaps one of the children can't go to college this year or can only go part-time. By behaving as though a low rate mortgage is a right rather than a privilege earned by strong credit ratings, consumers who wanted it all are driving a financial crisis impacting those who had it all.
Consumer Help Web always reminds consumers to know their rights. Knowing their responsibilities is just as important.
Labels: Countrywide, financial, mortgage, sub-prime
