Cigarette Lighters, Breast Milk Cleared To Fly
The Transportation Security Administration is about to make moms and smokers happy again.
This week, the government agency charged with protecting the nation's air travel, lifts its two year old ban on carrying cigarette lighters aboard flights. Breast milk, long a contentious issue because mothers were limited to 3.4 ounces, can now also be carried aboard even if a child is not present.
In addition to the public complaints against the breast milk prohibition, the TSA reports that it was confiscating about a half million cigarette lighters each month. The agency had banned lighters from flights, which are non-smoking, because of an attempted terrorist attack in 2001. What remains unclear is why TSA took more than three years to implement the short-lived ban.
All other carry-on restrictions, including the infamous 3 ounces of liquids or gels, remain in effect when the rules change August 4.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Thomas Railroad Toy Made In China Recalled, Will Cost Up To $8 Million
More than a million toys based on a popular kid series have been recalled after the company and Consumer Product Safety Commission determined that the exteriors were decorated with lead-based paint.
RC2 Corporation reported no children were injured after playing with the toys made in China. The company said the recall could cost up to $8 million and pledged to implement strict quality control measures.
The recall involves wooden vehicles, buildings and other train set components for young children listed in the chart below. The front of the packaging has the logo “Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway” on the upper left-hand corner. A manufacturing code may be located on the bottom of the product or inside the battery cover. Toys marked with codes containing “WJ” or “AZ” are not included in this recall.
Consumers who have one of the affected toys can call RC2 toll-free at (866) 725-4407 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Thursday and between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m. CT Friday.
More than a million toys based on a popular kid series have been recalled after the company and Consumer Product Safety Commission determined that the exteriors were decorated with lead-based paint.RC2 Corporation reported no children were injured after playing with the toys made in China. The company said the recall could cost up to $8 million and pledged to implement strict quality control measures.
The recall involves wooden vehicles, buildings and other train set components for young children listed in the chart below. The front of the packaging has the logo “Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway” on the upper left-hand corner. A manufacturing code may be located on the bottom of the product or inside the battery cover. Toys marked with codes containing “WJ” or “AZ” are not included in this recall.
Consumers who have one of the affected toys can call RC2 toll-free at (866) 725-4407 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Thursday and between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m. CT Friday.
Labels: China, CPSC, RC2, recall, safety, Thomas
Military Personnel Data Again In The Open
A year after the General Services Administration contracted with a Massachusetts credit monitoring firm to protect military families against data breaches, another government contractor is reporting that it lost personal information about service personnel.
SAIC, an $8 billion defense contractor headquartered in San Diego, announced last week that as many as a half million health records related to military personnel and their families may be in the open. The company later revised that number upwards by 60% and said up to 870,000 people could be affected.
SAIC was processing health information for the Department of Homeland Security, the Army, Navy and Air Force when it reported its second breach in three years. The records were allegedly placed on the Internet but not secured and were also reportedly transmitted on the Internet without encryption.
The company's management is doing its best to distance its processes from the breach, reporting that "a number" of employees have been placed on "administrative leave". Compounding the issue is that the Air Force allegedly notified SAIC of the issue rather than the company's own quality assurance measures detecting a problem.
SAIC has hired Kroll, Inc, a "data recovery" and "risk management" firm with offices throughout the country, to help military personnel and their families mitigate any identity theft issues.
A year after the General Services Administration contracted with a Massachusetts credit monitoring firm to protect military families against data breaches, another government contractor is reporting that it lost personal information about service personnel.
SAIC, an $8 billion defense contractor headquartered in San Diego, announced last week that as many as a half million health records related to military personnel and their families may be in the open. The company later revised that number upwards by 60% and said up to 870,000 people could be affected.
SAIC was processing health information for the Department of Homeland Security, the Army, Navy and Air Force when it reported its second breach in three years. The records were allegedly placed on the Internet but not secured and were also reportedly transmitted on the Internet without encryption.
The company's management is doing its best to distance its processes from the breach, reporting that "a number" of employees have been placed on "administrative leave". Compounding the issue is that the Air Force allegedly notified SAIC of the issue rather than the company's own quality assurance measures detecting a problem.
SAIC has hired Kroll, Inc, a "data recovery" and "risk management" firm with offices throughout the country, to help military personnel and their families mitigate any identity theft issues.
Labels: data breach, Kroll, military, SAIC
Friday, July 27, 2007
Ceramic Heaters Could Be Fire Hazard
Lasko, a ceramic heater manufacturer, has recalled more than one million units after it disclosed to the government that the heater's electric cord can overheat and cause a fire.
The company said that it had received 28 reports of failed power cords and several reports of "minor property damage", but no consumers have been injured.
The heaters involved in this recall were all manufactured in 2005. Model numbers included in the recall are: 5132, 5345, 5362, 5364, 5420, 5532, 5534 and 5566. Model numbers are located on the bottom of the unit or at the rear of the base of the heaters.
Stop using the heater and contact Lasko toll-fee at 800-984-3311 with questions.
Lasko, a ceramic heater manufacturer, has recalled more than one million units after it disclosed to the government that the heater's electric cord can overheat and cause a fire.
The company said that it had received 28 reports of failed power cords and several reports of "minor property damage", but no consumers have been injured.
The heaters involved in this recall were all manufactured in 2005. Model numbers included in the recall are: 5132, 5345, 5362, 5364, 5420, 5532, 5534 and 5566. Model numbers are located on the bottom of the unit or at the rear of the base of the heaters.
Stop using the heater and contact Lasko toll-fee at 800-984-3311 with questions.
Labels: CPSC, heater, Lasko, recall, safety
FTC Shutters Telemarketer Selling Buyer, Travel Clubs
The Federal Trade Commission has stopped a Largo, Florida-based telemarketing scheme operated by Suntasia Marketing, Inc that it called "massive".
Suntasia used at least fifteen different business names to defraud consumers across the United States out of tens, and perhaps hundreds, of millions of dollars, the agency said. According to the FTC, when Suntasia’s telemarketers called consumers to offer supposedly “free” trial memberships in discount buyers and travel clubs, they deceived consumers into divulging their bank account information and later charged consumers without authorization for a series of negative option programs. With a negative option agreement, a company takes a consumer’s silence or failure to cancel as acceptance of the offer, and permission to bill them.
“The essence of this massive telemarketing scam was simple: trick people into giving out their checking account numbers, send them a brochure on a travel and buyers club, take money out of their bank accounts for as long as possible, and make it very difficult to cancel and get a refund,” said C. Steven Baker, Director of the FTC’s Midwest Region.
Consumers complained in near-record numbers about Suntasia’s practices. In total, the FTC collected and reviewed more than 5,000 formal consumer complaints against Suntasia that were submitted to various law enforcement agencies and the Better Business Bureau.
According to the FTC’s complaint, telemarketers typically began their sales pitch by indicating that they were calling in regard to the “banking account” of their “valued customers,” to make consumers believe that Suntasia was affiliated with their banks. The telemarketers explained that the consumers had been chosen to receive a series of “free gifts,” typically a combination of either “$100 in gas coupons,” “$400 in airlines savings vouchers,” or “two free nights of hotel accommodations.” Consumers were told that they could keep these gifts even if they ultimately canceled Suntasia’s negative option program. These gifts turned out to be laden with undisclosed conditions and restrictions that rendered them effectively worthless. Also, the FTC alleges that the defendants honored the “gift” vouchers only if consumers maintained enrollment in their programs, despite the telemarketers’ promises.
After offering the “free gifts,” Suntasia telemarketers quickly attempted to obtain consumers’ account numbers. They indicated that they needed to “verify” this information to confirm consumers’ eligibility to receive the gifts. Having already pretended to be affiliated with consumers’ banks, the telemarketers now purported to already possess consumers’ bank account numbers. They read consumers their publicly available bank routing numbers, and then asked consumers to “verify” the remainder of the account number from the bottom of a check. According to the FTC, many consumers disclosed their account numbers because they believed they were simply verifying information that the telemarketers already had. The FTC also alleges that consumers frequently thought their account number was being “verified” solely to confirm their eligibility to receive the free gifts, not to authorize any future charges to their accounts.
According to the FTC’s court documents, after consumers divulged their bank account number, the telemarketers quickly began recording a “verification,” asking consumers to repeat the account number they had just “provided.” At the end of the recording, Suntasia telemarketers quickly offered consumers two additional negative option programs, commonly referred to as “upsells.” The FTC alleges, however, that these “upsell” offers were presented in such a way that consumers did not realize they were being asked to authorize the purchase of additional products and services.
The FTC maintains that Suntasia never disclosed key information about its negative option programs. For instance, the telemarketers did not tell consumers the date that Suntasia’s charges would be debited from their accounts, or the telephone numbers consumers must call to cancel to avoid being charged. Nor did Suntasia tell consumers that they would be required to call three separate telephone numbers to cancel the initial program and the two “upsells.”
If Suntasia telemarketers did discuss the length of the free trial period, they represented that this period would begin only once consumers received program materials in the mail. The FTC alleges that Suntasia actually started consumers’ free trial periods on the date of the sales call, however, meaning that consumers often had little, if any, time to cancel Suntasia’s programs without being charged. According to the FTC’s complaint, some consumers did not receive any program mailings from Suntasia and thus had no opportunity to cancel before they were charged. In many instances, these consumers received their first notice of the trial memberships when the defendants began charging them. In other instances, consumers received the program mailings only a day or two before their accounts were to be charged. Suntasia did not provide any consumers with the free trial period that was promised in their telemarketing calls.
The package consumers received in the mail also disclosed, for the first time, the telephone number that consumers must call to cancel. Prior to receiving this package, consumers had no way to contact Suntasia to cancel or to ask questions. The FTC alleges that in some instances, Suntasia proceeded to charge the accounts of even those consumers who canceled its programs. In addition, if consumers successfully canceled one program, they were not told that they still may be charged for two other programs, or that they must call different telephone numbers to cancel each of those programs.
The FTC alleges that the defendants misrepresented their affiliation with consumers’ banks or other third parties, that they already had consumers’ account numbers, the starting point and length of the free trial period, that they would honor consumers’ cancellation requests, that consumers may easily cancel their participation in a program, and that consumers are entitled to keep and to use the promised free gifts even if they ultimately cancel the negative option program. The FTC also alleges that the defendants failed to disclose, or to disclose adequately, the following: that the consumer’s account would be charged unless the consumer takes affirmative action to avoid the charge, that consumer’s checking account information would be used to debit their bank accounts, the cost of the programs, the dates the consumers’ account would be charged, the dates that the trial period begins and ends, the specific steps consumers must take in order to cancel, including that consumers must cancel each of the programs by calling a separate telephone number, and the conditions and restrictions on the “free gift” vouchers that severely limit their value and usefulness.
The FTC also alleges that the defendants debited funds from consumers’ accounts without their express verifiable authorization and express informed consent, and that they did not clearly and conspicuously disclose that the purpose of their call was to sell goods or services and the nature of those goods or services, as required by the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The defendants also allegedly illegally purchased leads containing consumers’ unencrypted bank account numbers for use in telemarketing.
A Tampa court entered a temporary restraining order halting the allegedly deceptive scheme, freezing the assets of all defendants, and appointing a temporary receiver over the scheme’s corporate participants. According to the FTC, the scheme is run by nine interrelated companies that employ more than 700 people. The defendants charged are: FTN Promotions, Inc., doing business as Suntasia Inc., Suntasia Marketing, Inc., and Capital Vacations; Guardian Marketing Services Corp, doing business as Guardian Escrow Service; Strategia Marketing, LLC; Co-Compliance, LLC; JPW Consultants, Inc., doing business as Freedom Gold, Variety!, Credit Life, and Freedom Ring ULD; Travel Agents Direct, LLC, doing business as Travel Agents Go Direct, Florida Direct, and Lucid Long Distance; Agent’s Travel Network, Inc., doing business as Florida Passport; Bay Pines Travel, Inc.; Suntasia Properties, Inc.; Byron W. Wolf; Roy A. Eliasson; Alfred H. Wolf; Donald L. Booth; Jeffrey P. Wolf; and John Louis Smith II.
The Federal Trade Commission has stopped a Largo, Florida-based telemarketing scheme operated by Suntasia Marketing, Inc that it called "massive".
Suntasia used at least fifteen different business names to defraud consumers across the United States out of tens, and perhaps hundreds, of millions of dollars, the agency said. According to the FTC, when Suntasia’s telemarketers called consumers to offer supposedly “free” trial memberships in discount buyers and travel clubs, they deceived consumers into divulging their bank account information and later charged consumers without authorization for a series of negative option programs. With a negative option agreement, a company takes a consumer’s silence or failure to cancel as acceptance of the offer, and permission to bill them.
“The essence of this massive telemarketing scam was simple: trick people into giving out their checking account numbers, send them a brochure on a travel and buyers club, take money out of their bank accounts for as long as possible, and make it very difficult to cancel and get a refund,” said C. Steven Baker, Director of the FTC’s Midwest Region.
Consumers complained in near-record numbers about Suntasia’s practices. In total, the FTC collected and reviewed more than 5,000 formal consumer complaints against Suntasia that were submitted to various law enforcement agencies and the Better Business Bureau.
According to the FTC’s complaint, telemarketers typically began their sales pitch by indicating that they were calling in regard to the “banking account” of their “valued customers,” to make consumers believe that Suntasia was affiliated with their banks. The telemarketers explained that the consumers had been chosen to receive a series of “free gifts,” typically a combination of either “$100 in gas coupons,” “$400 in airlines savings vouchers,” or “two free nights of hotel accommodations.” Consumers were told that they could keep these gifts even if they ultimately canceled Suntasia’s negative option program. These gifts turned out to be laden with undisclosed conditions and restrictions that rendered them effectively worthless. Also, the FTC alleges that the defendants honored the “gift” vouchers only if consumers maintained enrollment in their programs, despite the telemarketers’ promises.
After offering the “free gifts,” Suntasia telemarketers quickly attempted to obtain consumers’ account numbers. They indicated that they needed to “verify” this information to confirm consumers’ eligibility to receive the gifts. Having already pretended to be affiliated with consumers’ banks, the telemarketers now purported to already possess consumers’ bank account numbers. They read consumers their publicly available bank routing numbers, and then asked consumers to “verify” the remainder of the account number from the bottom of a check. According to the FTC, many consumers disclosed their account numbers because they believed they were simply verifying information that the telemarketers already had. The FTC also alleges that consumers frequently thought their account number was being “verified” solely to confirm their eligibility to receive the free gifts, not to authorize any future charges to their accounts.
According to the FTC’s court documents, after consumers divulged their bank account number, the telemarketers quickly began recording a “verification,” asking consumers to repeat the account number they had just “provided.” At the end of the recording, Suntasia telemarketers quickly offered consumers two additional negative option programs, commonly referred to as “upsells.” The FTC alleges, however, that these “upsell” offers were presented in such a way that consumers did not realize they were being asked to authorize the purchase of additional products and services.
The FTC maintains that Suntasia never disclosed key information about its negative option programs. For instance, the telemarketers did not tell consumers the date that Suntasia’s charges would be debited from their accounts, or the telephone numbers consumers must call to cancel to avoid being charged. Nor did Suntasia tell consumers that they would be required to call three separate telephone numbers to cancel the initial program and the two “upsells.”
If Suntasia telemarketers did discuss the length of the free trial period, they represented that this period would begin only once consumers received program materials in the mail. The FTC alleges that Suntasia actually started consumers’ free trial periods on the date of the sales call, however, meaning that consumers often had little, if any, time to cancel Suntasia’s programs without being charged. According to the FTC’s complaint, some consumers did not receive any program mailings from Suntasia and thus had no opportunity to cancel before they were charged. In many instances, these consumers received their first notice of the trial memberships when the defendants began charging them. In other instances, consumers received the program mailings only a day or two before their accounts were to be charged. Suntasia did not provide any consumers with the free trial period that was promised in their telemarketing calls.
The package consumers received in the mail also disclosed, for the first time, the telephone number that consumers must call to cancel. Prior to receiving this package, consumers had no way to contact Suntasia to cancel or to ask questions. The FTC alleges that in some instances, Suntasia proceeded to charge the accounts of even those consumers who canceled its programs. In addition, if consumers successfully canceled one program, they were not told that they still may be charged for two other programs, or that they must call different telephone numbers to cancel each of those programs.
The FTC alleges that the defendants misrepresented their affiliation with consumers’ banks or other third parties, that they already had consumers’ account numbers, the starting point and length of the free trial period, that they would honor consumers’ cancellation requests, that consumers may easily cancel their participation in a program, and that consumers are entitled to keep and to use the promised free gifts even if they ultimately cancel the negative option program. The FTC also alleges that the defendants failed to disclose, or to disclose adequately, the following: that the consumer’s account would be charged unless the consumer takes affirmative action to avoid the charge, that consumer’s checking account information would be used to debit their bank accounts, the cost of the programs, the dates the consumers’ account would be charged, the dates that the trial period begins and ends, the specific steps consumers must take in order to cancel, including that consumers must cancel each of the programs by calling a separate telephone number, and the conditions and restrictions on the “free gift” vouchers that severely limit their value and usefulness.
The FTC also alleges that the defendants debited funds from consumers’ accounts without their express verifiable authorization and express informed consent, and that they did not clearly and conspicuously disclose that the purpose of their call was to sell goods or services and the nature of those goods or services, as required by the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The defendants also allegedly illegally purchased leads containing consumers’ unencrypted bank account numbers for use in telemarketing.
A Tampa court entered a temporary restraining order halting the allegedly deceptive scheme, freezing the assets of all defendants, and appointing a temporary receiver over the scheme’s corporate participants. According to the FTC, the scheme is run by nine interrelated companies that employ more than 700 people. The defendants charged are: FTN Promotions, Inc., doing business as Suntasia Inc., Suntasia Marketing, Inc., and Capital Vacations; Guardian Marketing Services Corp, doing business as Guardian Escrow Service; Strategia Marketing, LLC; Co-Compliance, LLC; JPW Consultants, Inc., doing business as Freedom Gold, Variety!, Credit Life, and Freedom Ring ULD; Travel Agents Direct, LLC, doing business as Travel Agents Go Direct, Florida Direct, and Lucid Long Distance; Agent’s Travel Network, Inc., doing business as Florida Passport; Bay Pines Travel, Inc.; Suntasia Properties, Inc.; Byron W. Wolf; Roy A. Eliasson; Alfred H. Wolf; Donald L. Booth; Jeffrey P. Wolf; and John Louis Smith II.
Labels: FTC, scam, Suntasia, telemarketing
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Pier 1 Recalls More Glassware
Following on the heels of its May recall of glassware, Pier 1 Imports is recalling more glassware. The retailer and the United States Consumer Product Safety Safety Commission say its Blue/Green Dual Glassware can unexpectedly break. The company said that it had received 21 reports of injures and broadened the recall as a result.
Consumers can return the glassware to the nearest retail location or call toll-free (800) 245-4595.
This is the second major recall for Pier 1 in less than a year. In fall 2006, the company recalled several thousand television stands after it said it learned of the death of a Canadian child who apparently was hit by a television that fell from one of the stands.
Following on the heels of its May recall of glassware, Pier 1 Imports is recalling more glassware. The retailer and the United States Consumer Product Safety Safety Commission say its Blue/Green Dual Glassware can unexpectedly break. The company said that it had received 21 reports of injures and broadened the recall as a result.
Consumers can return the glassware to the nearest retail location or call toll-free (800) 245-4595.
This is the second major recall for Pier 1 in less than a year. In fall 2006, the company recalled several thousand television stands after it said it learned of the death of a Canadian child who apparently was hit by a television that fell from one of the stands.
Labels: glassware, Pier 1 Imports, recall, safety
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
AOL Changing Refund Policy Amidst Complaints, Past Customers May Be Due Refunds
The Consumer Help Web customer from Colorado was no different than the handful of consumers who had contacted the complaint resolution company before. AOL was unresponsive to his complaints about account handling and was charging him for money he said he didn't owe.
Consumer Help Web was able to get an Executive Response Team member to work with the consumer, but even then there were difficulties in an adequate resolution. "Our experience was that AOL changed from ignoring customer complaints to stonewalling them," said Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. "Their retention program was legendary in its zeal to keep customer accounts. That wasn't a good thing for consumers or for AOL."
Now the Virginia based company with ties to Google and Time Warner has agreed with a consortium of states to change its cancellation policies. Without admitting any wrongdoing, AOL says it will now offer consumers the opportunity to cancel online instead of by telephone or in writing. The company also agreed to refund consumers who can prove they were charged the company's monthly service fee after requesting a cancellation. AOL also agreed to pay $3 million to reimburse the states for their expenses in pursuing the matter.
"This represents the largest change to AOL's policies in a very long time," Bounacos said. "If they follow through as they have said, consumers will have won a major victory."
The Consumer Help Web customer from Colorado was no different than the handful of consumers who had contacted the complaint resolution company before. AOL was unresponsive to his complaints about account handling and was charging him for money he said he didn't owe.
Consumer Help Web was able to get an Executive Response Team member to work with the consumer, but even then there were difficulties in an adequate resolution. "Our experience was that AOL changed from ignoring customer complaints to stonewalling them," said Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. "Their retention program was legendary in its zeal to keep customer accounts. That wasn't a good thing for consumers or for AOL."
Now the Virginia based company with ties to Google and Time Warner has agreed with a consortium of states to change its cancellation policies. Without admitting any wrongdoing, AOL says it will now offer consumers the opportunity to cancel online instead of by telephone or in writing. The company also agreed to refund consumers who can prove they were charged the company's monthly service fee after requesting a cancellation. AOL also agreed to pay $3 million to reimburse the states for their expenses in pursuing the matter.
"This represents the largest change to AOL's policies in a very long time," Bounacos said. "If they follow through as they have said, consumers will have won a major victory."
Labels: AOL
Monday, July 23, 2007
FDA, USDA Expand Botulism Warning To 90 Products
Two government agencies responsible for consumer food safety in the United States have expanded the warnings issued last week about products manufactured at Castleberry Food Company.
"Do not take this issue lightly or ignore it if you don't own products with Castleberry on the label," said Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. "The company also produces supermarket branded foods for huge chains like Kroger, Piggly Wiggly and Meijer."
The Food and Drug Administration reported that four people are hospitalized in serious condition after eating food traced back to the Augusta, Georgia subsidiary of privately-held Bumble Bee Foods.
Consumers should check the product lists at the links below and immediately dispose of any products they own by double-bagging the product in plastic and putting it in a non-recyclable trash container.
The FDA web information listing products, impact and disposal instructions and the USDA web information on meat products should be considered the authoritative source of information for this massive recall and healthy safety issue.
Two government agencies responsible for consumer food safety in the United States have expanded the warnings issued last week about products manufactured at Castleberry Food Company.
"Do not take this issue lightly or ignore it if you don't own products with Castleberry on the label," said Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. "The company also produces supermarket branded foods for huge chains like Kroger, Piggly Wiggly and Meijer."
The Food and Drug Administration reported that four people are hospitalized in serious condition after eating food traced back to the Augusta, Georgia subsidiary of privately-held Bumble Bee Foods.
Consumers should check the product lists at the links below and immediately dispose of any products they own by double-bagging the product in plastic and putting it in a non-recyclable trash container.
The FDA web information listing products, impact and disposal instructions and the USDA web information on meat products should be considered the authoritative source of information for this massive recall and healthy safety issue.
Labels: botulism, Castleberry, FDA, food, USDA
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Yahoo Closing Bill Paying Service
Yahoo, beginning to apparently make moves without former head Terry Semel, is dumping its bill paying service in September.
The service, Yahoo Bill Pay, was 8 years old -- making it one of the site's and the Internet's oldest services. The currently reported date the service will close is September 14, 2007.
The closure appears to be the first house cleaning done by founder Jerry Yang and top lieutenant Susan Decker. At the time of its introduction, consumers could choose from standalone bill-paying services that charged a monthly fee or hope their financial institution offered the service. That buildout did not occur for years, however, and even when it did, one of the proprietary services was often the private-labeled backend.
What does this mean for consumers? Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos says most financial institutions now offer the service for free. "If you can't find the service at your own bank or credit union, companies like Quicken-maker Intuit, are happy to sell your their service. But consumers should shop hard because online banking, including bill payment is quickly becoming a staple throughout the nation. It not only benefits the consumer by centralizing their data, but helps businesses improve their cash flow, which hopefully results in lowered or stable prices," Bounacos said.
Yahoo, beginning to apparently make moves without former head Terry Semel, is dumping its bill paying service in September.
The service, Yahoo Bill Pay, was 8 years old -- making it one of the site's and the Internet's oldest services. The currently reported date the service will close is September 14, 2007.
The closure appears to be the first house cleaning done by founder Jerry Yang and top lieutenant Susan Decker. At the time of its introduction, consumers could choose from standalone bill-paying services that charged a monthly fee or hope their financial institution offered the service. That buildout did not occur for years, however, and even when it did, one of the proprietary services was often the private-labeled backend.
What does this mean for consumers? Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos says most financial institutions now offer the service for free. "If you can't find the service at your own bank or credit union, companies like Quicken-maker Intuit, are happy to sell your their service. But consumers should shop hard because online banking, including bill payment is quickly becoming a staple throughout the nation. It not only benefits the consumer by centralizing their data, but helps businesses improve their cash flow, which hopefully results in lowered or stable prices," Bounacos said.
Labels: BillPay, online banking, Yahoo
Monday, July 16, 2007
FDA Confirms Salmonella Outbreak Link To Snack
Recall Started June 28
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today confirmed that a strain of Salmonella Wandsworth bacteria found in Veggie Booty snack food is responsible for the disease outbreak that occurred between March and June 2007.
Veggie Booty is marketed by Robert’s American Gourmet, of Sea Cliff, N.Y.
FDA continues to advise consumers not to eat any Veggie Booty and to throw away product they have. FDA also advises consumers not to eat Super Veggie Tings Crunchy Corn Sticks, and to throw out any supplies they have, because this product also may be contaminated.
No illnesses have been associated with any other Robert's American Gourmet products.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has identified 60 children from 19 states who have become ill. Six children were hospitalized. There are no reported deaths. States reporting illnesses include: California (seven cases), Colorado (five), Connecticut (two), Georgia (one), Illinois (one), Indiana (one), Massachusetts (four), Minnesota (two), New Hampshire (two), New Jersey (two), New York (15), Oregon (one), Pennsylvania (four), Tennessee (one), Texas (two), Virginia (one), Vermont (three), Washington (four), and Wisconsin (two).
FDA, the States, and CDC are continuing the investigation. Preliminary testing suggests that the seasoning mix used in Veggie Booty may be the source of the contamination.
Veggie Booty is sold in a flexible plastic foil bag in four ounce, one ounce and one-half ounce packages. Some gift baskets available for purchase on the internet include Veggie Booty or Super Veggie Tings Crunchy Corn Sticks.
Robert’s American Gourmet ceased distributing Veggie Booty and began recalling the product on June 28. The company has also voluntarily recalled all lots and sizes of Super Veggie Tings Crunchy Corn Sticks snack food because the same potentially contaminated seasoning may have been used in making that product, too. In addition, the manufacturer of Veggie Booty and other products for Robert’s has ceased production until this investigation is complete.
Recall Started June 28The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today confirmed that a strain of Salmonella Wandsworth bacteria found in Veggie Booty snack food is responsible for the disease outbreak that occurred between March and June 2007.
Veggie Booty is marketed by Robert’s American Gourmet, of Sea Cliff, N.Y.
FDA continues to advise consumers not to eat any Veggie Booty and to throw away product they have. FDA also advises consumers not to eat Super Veggie Tings Crunchy Corn Sticks, and to throw out any supplies they have, because this product also may be contaminated.
No illnesses have been associated with any other Robert's American Gourmet products.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has identified 60 children from 19 states who have become ill. Six children were hospitalized. There are no reported deaths. States reporting illnesses include: California (seven cases), Colorado (five), Connecticut (two), Georgia (one), Illinois (one), Indiana (one), Massachusetts (four), Minnesota (two), New Hampshire (two), New Jersey (two), New York (15), Oregon (one), Pennsylvania (four), Tennessee (one), Texas (two), Virginia (one), Vermont (three), Washington (four), and Wisconsin (two).
FDA, the States, and CDC are continuing the investigation. Preliminary testing suggests that the seasoning mix used in Veggie Booty may be the source of the contamination.
Veggie Booty is sold in a flexible plastic foil bag in four ounce, one ounce and one-half ounce packages. Some gift baskets available for purchase on the internet include Veggie Booty or Super Veggie Tings Crunchy Corn Sticks.
Robert’s American Gourmet ceased distributing Veggie Booty and began recalling the product on June 28. The company has also voluntarily recalled all lots and sizes of Super Veggie Tings Crunchy Corn Sticks snack food because the same potentially contaminated seasoning may have been used in making that product, too. In addition, the manufacturer of Veggie Booty and other products for Robert’s has ceased production until this investigation is complete.
Labels: FDA, food, recall, salmonella, Veggie Booty
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Press 1 For Customer Service If You Dare
SprintNextel, long a laggard in multiple service quality studies including an analysis of Consumer Help Web's records, has pushed the envelope for treating customers with contempt again.
The Virginia-based wireless giant announced that customers who had called the company's customer service department dozens of times in a month would have their account terminated. Consumer advocates throughout the country were quick to criticize the company's action.
"The cost of doing business is that most of your customers never call you, but the ones who do should be treated like kings and queens because of the valuable intelligence they give you about your company," said Consumer Help Web president Joan Bounacos.
The consumer advocate said that her company had compelled recent settlements from the company, one for a Maryland consumer for $1,817 several months ago and another for $591 for a Virginia consumer at the end of last year. Bounacos said the consumer resolution specialists had not yet been contacted about joining others in demanding that SprintNextel compensate consumers for canceling their accounts.
"The irony is that SprintNextel is quick enough to trap a consumer who wants to leave by pointing out their contract hasn't expired. They clearly don't subscribe to the first call resolution mantra most organizations practice, and their financial metrics and loss of federal opportunities show that other communities beyond consumer advocates are not happy with the company's action," she added.
SprintNextel, long a laggard in multiple service quality studies including an analysis of Consumer Help Web's records, has pushed the envelope for treating customers with contempt again.
The Virginia-based wireless giant announced that customers who had called the company's customer service department dozens of times in a month would have their account terminated. Consumer advocates throughout the country were quick to criticize the company's action.
"The cost of doing business is that most of your customers never call you, but the ones who do should be treated like kings and queens because of the valuable intelligence they give you about your company," said Consumer Help Web president Joan Bounacos.
The consumer advocate said that her company had compelled recent settlements from the company, one for a Maryland consumer for $1,817 several months ago and another for $591 for a Virginia consumer at the end of last year. Bounacos said the consumer resolution specialists had not yet been contacted about joining others in demanding that SprintNextel compensate consumers for canceling their accounts.
"The irony is that SprintNextel is quick enough to trap a consumer who wants to leave by pointing out their contract hasn't expired. They clearly don't subscribe to the first call resolution mantra most organizations practice, and their financial metrics and loss of federal opportunities show that other communities beyond consumer advocates are not happy with the company's action," she added.
Labels: customer satisfaction, SprintNextel, wireless
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Data Thief Sentenced To 5 Years, Offered To Sell Info To Federal Agent For 70 Cents Each
What is the street value of your personal information, enough data to steal your identity? For 28 year old Binyamin Schwartz of Oak Park, Michigan, about 70 cents ought to do it.
Schwartz, a software developer, told authorities that he was working as a contractor for Sentry Insurance in Wisconsin when he stole data for more than 100,000 individuals containing names, dates of birth, social security numbers and other information. Schwartz offered to sell 36,000 of the records to an undercover federal agent for $25,000. After traveling from Michigan to Tennessee, where the agent was located, Schwartz was taken into custody.
Yesterday Schwartz was sentenced to 5 years in prison and ordered to make more than half a million dollars in restitution to the insurance company. Information about 70 people had been released when Schwartz was taken into custody.
His story poses an ominous backdrop for another contract employee at another organization. On July 3, a database programmer working as a contractor for Fidelity National Information Services accessed and sold data about more than 2 million individuals. Company representatives claim that the data so far has been used for marketing purposes rather than theft, but has notified the individuals whose data was breached.
What is the street value of your personal information, enough data to steal your identity? For 28 year old Binyamin Schwartz of Oak Park, Michigan, about 70 cents ought to do it.
Schwartz, a software developer, told authorities that he was working as a contractor for Sentry Insurance in Wisconsin when he stole data for more than 100,000 individuals containing names, dates of birth, social security numbers and other information. Schwartz offered to sell 36,000 of the records to an undercover federal agent for $25,000. After traveling from Michigan to Tennessee, where the agent was located, Schwartz was taken into custody.
Yesterday Schwartz was sentenced to 5 years in prison and ordered to make more than half a million dollars in restitution to the insurance company. Information about 70 people had been released when Schwartz was taken into custody.
His story poses an ominous backdrop for another contract employee at another organization. On July 3, a database programmer working as a contractor for Fidelity National Information Services accessed and sold data about more than 2 million individuals. Company representatives claim that the data so far has been used for marketing purposes rather than theft, but has notified the individuals whose data was breached.
Labels: identity theft
450,000 Chinese Tires Being Recalled, But How?
Foreign Tire Service of New Jersey has been working with the federal government's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding a recall of nearly half a million tires manufactured in China.
The company imported and sold tires between mid-2002 and mid-2006 under the names Westlake, Compass and YKS.
The company has been working with the agency for far too long on a recall plan, and consumers still do not have appropriate protection. Modern Tire Dealer has constructed a timeline with all of the cringe-inducing details, but ultimately the company has been in involved in discussions with the manufacturer, dealing with lawsuits and addressing NHTSA.
Meanwhile, days and weeks continue to go by with consumers using potentially dangerous tires, putting not just them at hazard, but anyone in their vehicle's path. Although a recall plan is supposed to start next week, Consumer Help Web urges consumers who purchased these tires to contact the seller. While the seller might claim to hold no liability, enough calls for an immediate and recall plan can also come from the inside. Consumers should also ask their mechanic to check their tires for safety, again acknowledging that the mechanic cannot certify that a defective tire won't malfunction, only that it hasn't started to yet.
If all tires were sold, we might be facing up to 100,000 vehicles on our roads with defective tires. That is approximately 1 out of every thousand cars you pass. How many cars did you pass on the road yesterday and will you pass today?
Foreign Tire Service of New Jersey has been working with the federal government's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding a recall of nearly half a million tires manufactured in China.
The company imported and sold tires between mid-2002 and mid-2006 under the names Westlake, Compass and YKS.
The company has been working with the agency for far too long on a recall plan, and consumers still do not have appropriate protection. Modern Tire Dealer has constructed a timeline with all of the cringe-inducing details, but ultimately the company has been in involved in discussions with the manufacturer, dealing with lawsuits and addressing NHTSA.
Meanwhile, days and weeks continue to go by with consumers using potentially dangerous tires, putting not just them at hazard, but anyone in their vehicle's path. Although a recall plan is supposed to start next week, Consumer Help Web urges consumers who purchased these tires to contact the seller. While the seller might claim to hold no liability, enough calls for an immediate and recall plan can also come from the inside. Consumers should also ask their mechanic to check their tires for safety, again acknowledging that the mechanic cannot certify that a defective tire won't malfunction, only that it hasn't started to yet.
If all tires were sold, we might be facing up to 100,000 vehicles on our roads with defective tires. That is approximately 1 out of every thousand cars you pass. How many cars did you pass on the road yesterday and will you pass today?
Labels: Chinese tires, Foreign Tire Service, NHTSA
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Consumer Email Slightly Shielded
Consumers would do well to remember the name Steven Warshak.
Based on a district court's ruling that the government appealed in the 6th Circuit and lost, consumers should expect that their email is not available even in a criminal investigation unless the consumer has "...prior notice and an opportunity to be heard" regarding a motion.
The Court's ruling, based on emails requested from two ISPs, Nuvox and Yahoo (functioning as an ISP in this case because it stored email), essentially states that email can't be retrieved on an investigative basis such as a search warrant, but that notice must be given to the other side, as in a subpoena. This allows the consumer to retain counsel and challenge the release of the email.
It is important to note that this ruling is only precedent -- it is not a law. It is also important to note that consumers should not expect similar protections for their work email. Multiple decisions over the years have defined email stored in an employee's email account as the employer's property. Because of this, employers do not need permission to monitor, copy, review or use email in the workplace.
Now that the 6th Circuit has said that consumer email is protected until ordered released by a subpoena, the email has roughly the same protections as postal mail. This makes sense to us because the intent of the communication is the same, and only the medium is different.
We believe the next big challenge will occur at the intersection of a consumer accessing their personal email from a workplace computer. Such instances have previously been considered part of the employer/employee relationship. One wonders, however, if a challenge based on Warshak might provoke change.
Consumers would do well to remember the name Steven Warshak.
Based on a district court's ruling that the government appealed in the 6th Circuit and lost, consumers should expect that their email is not available even in a criminal investigation unless the consumer has "...prior notice and an opportunity to be heard" regarding a motion.
The Court's ruling, based on emails requested from two ISPs, Nuvox and Yahoo (functioning as an ISP in this case because it stored email), essentially states that email can't be retrieved on an investigative basis such as a search warrant, but that notice must be given to the other side, as in a subpoena. This allows the consumer to retain counsel and challenge the release of the email.
It is important to note that this ruling is only precedent -- it is not a law. It is also important to note that consumers should not expect similar protections for their work email. Multiple decisions over the years have defined email stored in an employee's email account as the employer's property. Because of this, employers do not need permission to monitor, copy, review or use email in the workplace.
Now that the 6th Circuit has said that consumer email is protected until ordered released by a subpoena, the email has roughly the same protections as postal mail. This makes sense to us because the intent of the communication is the same, and only the medium is different.
We believe the next big challenge will occur at the intersection of a consumer accessing their personal email from a workplace computer. Such instances have previously been considered part of the employer/employee relationship. One wonders, however, if a challenge based on Warshak might provoke change.
Labels: 6th Circuit, email, privacy, Warshak
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Choose High Definition Video Carefully, Warns Consumer Help Web
Consumers barraged by new video and television terminology and technology have quickly learned one key issue: there are no rules.
"We're in the days of Betamax and VHS wars again," warns Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. "This is a no win situation for consumers even though pundits think that Blu-Ray will win. Until there is a standard, either side can win, and cost those who spend on the other technology more money in equipment and the actual media," the consumer advocate said.
The two new competing formats are called Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Many Hollywood studios had sided with Blu-Ray, with most citing a better technology. Their case was bolstered when video retail giant Blockbuster announced it would expand its Blu-Ray inventory.
Complicating the issue is the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Buried in that law is a requirement that television stations stop analog, "over the air" broadcasts by February, 2009. "Consumers are adapting to high definition video like they did to CD," Bounacos said. "Only this time, when it comes time to choose a player, they must choose a more expensive universal player that plays all 3 video types or choose wisely. Even with lowered prices, that is a gamble consumers shouldn't be forced to make."t
Consumers barraged by new video and television terminology and technology have quickly learned one key issue: there are no rules.
"We're in the days of Betamax and VHS wars again," warns Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. "This is a no win situation for consumers even though pundits think that Blu-Ray will win. Until there is a standard, either side can win, and cost those who spend on the other technology more money in equipment and the actual media," the consumer advocate said.
The two new competing formats are called Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Many Hollywood studios had sided with Blu-Ray, with most citing a better technology. Their case was bolstered when video retail giant Blockbuster announced it would expand its Blu-Ray inventory.
Complicating the issue is the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Buried in that law is a requirement that television stations stop analog, "over the air" broadcasts by February, 2009. "Consumers are adapting to high definition video like they did to CD," Bounacos said. "Only this time, when it comes time to choose a player, they must choose a more expensive universal player that plays all 3 video types or choose wisely. Even with lowered prices, that is a gamble consumers shouldn't be forced to make."t
Labels: Blu-Ray, high definition, television
Monday, July 02, 2007
Air Wars Over Who Strands More, But Consumer Help Web Publishes Official Data
Fur, empty peanut bags and soda cans have been flying around airline cabins after a group of American Airline passengers reportedly formed a special interest group to lobby for airline passenger rights after being stranded on the airline. Commercial aviation groups have fought back, and the rhetoric has been heated on both sides.
As the U.S. Independence Day holiday approaches on July 4, here is the important data you need to know if you're flying:
* Expect security to be heightened after terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow.
* Don't worry about getting back in to the United States given the well-publicized passport delays if you are going to Canada, Mexico or the islands. Do worry if the country to which you are traveling requires a passport. The State Department made an announcement about this weeks ago.
* The biggie has to do with liquids. Everyone will be in line. Everyone will be tired and/or excited. Don't hold the security line up. Here is the definitive word on liquids and other carry-on items:
The following rules apply to all liquids, gels, and aerosols carried through security checkpoints.
1. All liquids, gels and aerosols must be in three-ounce or smaller containers. Larger containers that are half-full or toothpaste tubes rolled up are not allowed. Each container must be three ounces or smaller.
2. All liquids, gels and aerosols must be placed in a single, quart-size, zip-top, clear plastic bag. Gallon size bags or bags that are not zip-top such as fold-over sandwich bags are not allowed. Each traveler can use only one, quart-size, zip-top, clear plastic bag.
3. Each traveler must remove their quart-sized plastic, zip-top bag from their carry-on and place it in a bin or on the conveyor belt for X-ray screening. X-raying separately will allow TSA security officers to more easily examine the declared items.
There are exceptions for baby formula, breast milk, and other essential liquids, gels, and aerosols, including prescription and over-the-counter medicines.
TSA calls this policy 3-1-1, and they don't mean Nick Hexum. Check out the rest of the rules before you leave for the airport.
If you're driving, you may be familiar with AAA's famous gas price survey. The auto club now has an even better tool -- a database of 85,000 filling stations that lets you find the least expensive fuel options. Use it, and put the extra scratch in your pocket for a sparkler.
Fur, empty peanut bags and soda cans have been flying around airline cabins after a group of American Airline passengers reportedly formed a special interest group to lobby for airline passenger rights after being stranded on the airline. Commercial aviation groups have fought back, and the rhetoric has been heated on both sides.As the U.S. Independence Day holiday approaches on July 4, here is the important data you need to know if you're flying:
* Expect security to be heightened after terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow.
* Don't worry about getting back in to the United States given the well-publicized passport delays if you are going to Canada, Mexico or the islands. Do worry if the country to which you are traveling requires a passport. The State Department made an announcement about this weeks ago.
* The biggie has to do with liquids. Everyone will be in line. Everyone will be tired and/or excited. Don't hold the security line up. Here is the definitive word on liquids and other carry-on items:
The following rules apply to all liquids, gels, and aerosols carried through security checkpoints.
1. All liquids, gels and aerosols must be in three-ounce or smaller containers. Larger containers that are half-full or toothpaste tubes rolled up are not allowed. Each container must be three ounces or smaller.
2. All liquids, gels and aerosols must be placed in a single, quart-size, zip-top, clear plastic bag. Gallon size bags or bags that are not zip-top such as fold-over sandwich bags are not allowed. Each traveler can use only one, quart-size, zip-top, clear plastic bag.
3. Each traveler must remove their quart-sized plastic, zip-top bag from their carry-on and place it in a bin or on the conveyor belt for X-ray screening. X-raying separately will allow TSA security officers to more easily examine the declared items.
There are exceptions for baby formula, breast milk, and other essential liquids, gels, and aerosols, including prescription and over-the-counter medicines.
TSA calls this policy 3-1-1, and they don't mean Nick Hexum. Check out the rest of the rules before you leave for the airport.
If you're driving, you may be familiar with AAA's famous gas price survey. The auto club now has an even better tool -- a database of 85,000 filling stations that lets you find the least expensive fuel options. Use it, and put the extra scratch in your pocket for a sparkler.
Labels: AAA, airline, FAA, gas prices, travel, TSA
Counterfeit Colgate Continues Appearances On Shelves. How To Pick Safe Toothpaste
Officials, retailers and manufacturer's reps continue to acknowledge that counterfeit versions of Colgate toothpaste continue to be found on North American retail shelves.
The company's officials say that consumers should be on the lookout for misspelled words on the labeling, as well as the area of origin. The counterfeit toothpaste comes from South Africa, rather than labeled as coming from New York, the company official said.
Officials appear to be battling two issues: bacteria in some toothpaste that apparently originated in Africa and the presence of a poisonous chemical in other toothpaste that has been found in several states, including Virginia and Michigan.
The FDA is cautioning all consumers to read the labeling carefully. Colgate-Palmolive has published an image of what properly labeled toothpaste should look like. The company also said consumers could identify safe toothpaste in these ways:
* The words “Distr. by Colgate-Palmolive, New York, NY 10022” appear in the lower right-hand corner of a panel on the box.
* In the white box that contains the UPC bar code, genuine Colgate products for sale in the U.S. begin with the code number 35000.
Safety will take some vigilance, but there appears to be no reason for consumers who use Colgate to stop doing so provided they take proper precautions
Officials, retailers and manufacturer's reps continue to acknowledge that counterfeit versions of Colgate toothpaste continue to be found on North American retail shelves.
The company's officials say that consumers should be on the lookout for misspelled words on the labeling, as well as the area of origin. The counterfeit toothpaste comes from South Africa, rather than labeled as coming from New York, the company official said.
Officials appear to be battling two issues: bacteria in some toothpaste that apparently originated in Africa and the presence of a poisonous chemical in other toothpaste that has been found in several states, including Virginia and Michigan.
The FDA is cautioning all consumers to read the labeling carefully. Colgate-Palmolive has published an image of what properly labeled toothpaste should look like. The company also said consumers could identify safe toothpaste in these ways:
* The words “Distr. by Colgate-Palmolive, New York, NY 10022” appear in the lower right-hand corner of a panel on the box.
* In the white box that contains the UPC bar code, genuine Colgate products for sale in the U.S. begin with the code number 35000.
Safety will take some vigilance, but there appears to be no reason for consumers who use Colgate to stop doing so provided they take proper precautions
Labels: Colgate, recall, safety, toothpaste
