Car Industry Controversies and Consumer Issues

A former employee at Tesla has filed a lawsuit against the company, claiming it knowingly sold cars with defects. He is also seeking legal status as a whistleblower and claims he was dismissed in retaliation.

Adam Williams, who was a Tesla regional manager in New Jersey beginning in late 2011, claims cars that had suffered serious damage requiring extensive repair were sold to consumers as used or demonstrator cars. His suit was filed under New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA).

Tesla categorically dismissed the charges. In a statement to the media, the company said there is no merit to the lawsuit, also noting that Tesla ranks highest in customer satisfaction of any car brand.

In his suit, Williams said he reported what he saw to his superiors, who not only failed to act but began demoting him. He said he began as a regional manager but ended up as a “mobile manager.” Tesla said Williams was terminated in 2017 for “performance reasons.”

Williams' lawsuit says he was terminated for reporting illegal activities by his employer and seeks protections under the state's CEPA whistleblower protections.

Fewer protections

As recently as this week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to expand protection for employees who report illegal activities by their employers. The court held that claims must be taken directly to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in order to earn protection.

The normally divided court ruled unanimously in reversing a lower court ruling against Digital Realty Trust, which fired an employee who alleged illegal activity but reported it internally and not to the SEC.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the opinion for the court, said the financial reform legislation known as Dodd Frank offers no protection to whistleblowers who only report allegations of wrongdoing within the company.

In his lawsuit against Tesla, Williams argues that the state law gives him protection as a whistleblower and doesn’t require him to have taken his case to the SEC.

A Tesla Model S slammed into the back of a firetruck on I-405 in Culver City, California this week.

No one was hurt, but the accident is being investigated by a team from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The feds are involved because the car was reportedly in autopilot mode at the time of the crash.

According to Culver City firefighters, who Tweeted a picture and information from the scene, the firetruck was parked on the shoulder of the freeway while its crew worked an accident. The fire department estimates the car was traveling 65 miles per hour when it plowed into the truck.

With the auto and tech industries moving at full speed toward development of autonomous cars, every accident involving this technology is getting extra scrutiny. And this is not the first time a Tesla on autopilot has been involved in a mishap.

2016 crash in Florida

On May 7, 2016, a fatal crash in Florida involving a Tesla on autopilot triggered a federal investigation to see what role the technology might have played in the accident. A year later, NHTSA issued a report holding the driver at fault, noting that the autopilot feature is not intended to pilot the vehicle without the driver's full participation.

That's a point Wired Magazine makes in the wake of this most recent accident. It says consumers are confusing autopilot -- now available on some models of Cadillac, Volvo, Audi, and Nissan, as well as Tesla -- with autonomous driving technology. It says the two are very different.

"We’re not there yet, and a growing body of evidence shows that these partially autonomous systems are lulling drivers into a false sense of security," the tech publication notes.

Keep hands on the wheel

Tesla has repeatedly told drivers that they must remain fully attentive and keep their hands on the steering wheel at all times when operating the vehicle. It says the autopilot feature is not designed to steer the vehicle around objects that might block the roadway, as autonomous technology would.

There have also been a few minor accidents involving fully autonomous cars being tested on public highways. However, the human driver of the other vehicle was found to be at fault in nearly every case.

Despite accidents that get national news coverage, AAA says its latest survey of drivers shows a growing acceptance of technology that takes over the driving chores.

“Americans are starting to feel more comfortable with the idea of self-driving vehicles,” AAA Automotive Engineering and Industry Relations Director Greg Brannon said. “Compared to just a year ago, AAA found that 20 million more U.S. drivers would trust a self-driving vehicle to take them for a ride."

A few days ago, we reported that Americans are still not buckling up when they sit in the back seat. Now, a lawsuit blames the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for not requiring a warning system in cars similar to the one that reminds front-seat passengers to buckle up, as it was supposed to do under legislation signed by President Obama in July 2012. 

The non-profit groups Center for Auto Safety and Kids and Cars Inc., say nearly 1,000 people are killed annually in the rear seats of U.S. passenger vehicles because they do not buckle up, and proper belt usage would lower the risk of death by 44 percent.

“To have to bring a lawsuit in federal court to compel NHTSA to simply write a regulation required by law – one that is widely recognized as having significant lifesaving potential – is, to use a word, sad,” said Jason Levine, the new Executive Director of the Center for Auto Safety.

“Instead of fulfilling its job as an expert safety agency on behalf of all consumers, NHTSA has spent five years hitting the snooze button. Hopefully, this action spurs a sense of urgency for something so non-controversial,” Levine said.

28% don't buckle up

The lawsuit follows a recent report from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) that Levine said confirmed the need for such a warning system.

IIHS found up to 28% of adults surveyed admitted to not wearing their seat belt in the rear seat all the time, and of those, 4 out of 5 say that when they take short trips or travel by taxi or ride-hailing service they frequently do not wear a seat belt. The same report noted that unrestrained passengers in the rear-seat were almost 8 times as likely to sustain a serious injury in a crash as restrained rear seat occupants.

Many of those responding to the survey said they feel safer in the back seat. Others said they just found the belts uncomfortable or inconvenient. But safety advocates say that's a potentially fatal error.

“The importance of seat belts in saving lives is indisputable. This is one area where the government, auto industry, and safety groups are in complete agreement. Everything possible should be done to ensure that all passengers are correctly restrained all the time; on every ride,” said KidsAndCars.org, founder and president, Janette Fennell. "It’s time for NHTSA to stop stalling and the auto industry to begin installing."

One possible reason U.S. gasoline demand has nearly flatlined in recent months is the increasing number of electric and hybrid vehicles on the road.

Despite the fact that gasoline prices remain relatively low, it seems each day brings new deliveries of a new electric vehicle. Last week it was the much-hyped Tesla Model 3. This week it's Honda's new electric, the Clarity.

Honda has begun delivering the 2017 Clarity sedan at select dealerships in Oregon and California, with an introductory lease costing $269 a month for 36 months. Honda says that price reflects the federal tax credit and requires a little over $2,000 at signing. It's a fairly low-mileage lease, however, limited to just 20,000 miles per year.

Honda says the Clarity sedan runs on a 161-horsepower electric motor producing 221 pounds per foot of torque, drawing power from a 25.5 killowatt lithium-ion battery pack. The company says the car can be fully charged in just over three hours at 240 volts. Using the SAE Combined Charging System, it can rev up to an 80% charge in just 30 minutes.

The car has an EPA fuel economy rating of 126/103/114 MPGe (city/highway/combined) and has a range of 89 miles on a full charge. Honda plans to have a series of alternative-fueled Clarity models. The Clarity Fuel Cell came out last December and the Clarity Plug-in Hybrid will launch before the end of this year.

Sales have risen

Sales figures suggest electric vehicles have finally captured consumers' attention, at least on a global basis. After being non-existent for years, the International Energy Agency reported that new registrations of electric cars hit a record last year, with over 750,000 sold worldwide. Previously, it was thought low gasoline prices were putting a damper on sales.

At the same time, the average transaction price (ATP) for electric vehicles is going down, making them more affordable. According to Kelley Blue Book (KBB), the ATP for electric vehicles in July was $37,976, down 6.8% from July 2016

The ATP for hybrid and alternative energy cars also declined in July, but not nearly as much. KBB shows the year-over-year decline of 0.2%, at $26,034.

Defying President Trump, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted Friday to keep the state’s clean car regulations in place, reducing smog-forming emissions and other air pollutants from cars and passenger trucks.

The move is seen as an open challenge to the Trump Administration, which is expected to loosen Obama Era regulations that govern most of the nation. But California's stiffer rules are followed by 12 other states, including New York and Pennsylvania. 

With the additional states, California's rules cover 130 million people and more than a third of the auto market, in effect making California's clean air rules the de facto national standard since it's not economically feasiable for automakers to buid two versions of every car.

It's possible the Trump Administration will challenge California's action and argue that federal rules pre-empt state-imposed standards, but existing law appears to be heavily on California's side. Under the Clean Air Act, California has longstanding authority to set vehicle emission standards that are tailored to its needs — and can be more protective than federal standards.

"Vital protections"

Environmentalists were quick to praise California's action. 

“We strongly support California’s decision to maintain its protective clean car standards and to move forward in providing vital additional clean air protections over the long-term. Today’s vote means Californians will make forward progress in providing cleaner, safer air for our families and communities,” said Quentin Foster, Environmental Defense Fund’s California Climate director.

In a prepared statement, CARB said the vote was "based on extensive technical analysis showing the standards are being achieved at a fraction of the estimated costs."   

Experts who testified  before CARB noted that the array of pollutants from cars are one of the single largest threats to human health for millions of Californians. Pollution from cars and trucks contributes to smog and climate change. Vehicle pollution is linked to increased asthma attacks, an increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer, and more premature deaths.

The Environmental Protection Agency also found, after an extensive and rigorous mid-term review, that the national Clean Car standards should stay as adopted. However, last week the Trump Administration announced that it would reopen that review, which could lead to weakening the standards.

In spite of Uber's recent clash with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) over its driverless cars, the state appears ready to embrace the idea that cars don't need anyone behind the wheel.

Or even a wheel, for that matter.

The California DMV has come up with new regulations that would move autonomous vehicles from the testing phase to actually selling them to consumers and businesses.

The proposals are just that -- nothing has been approved. DMV says there will be a 45-day public comment period and the department will hold public hearings. The first hearings will be held on April 25 in Sacramento.

"Current law requires the department, upon application and payment of fees, to register vehicles that are being operated in the state," DMV said in the proposal.

As Wired Magazine notes in its coverage of the issue, there is no "driver's test," such as a human must pass before getting behind the wheel. The companies registering the autonomous vehicles simply "certify" that the vehicles have been tested and are ready to roll.

How is this going to work?

Drivers should probably ask themselves how comfortable they will be sharing the road with vehicles piloted only by a computer. Many safety advocates believe driverless cars will be much safer than those driven by humans, who increasingly plow into things because they are distracted.

Driverless cars are certain to be sharing the road with vehicles driven by people for many years because they are likely to be very expensive, outside the price range that the average consumer can afford. No one has really talked much about how the this mix of human and computer operated vehicles is going to work.

When Uber lauched a test of driverless vehicles in San Francisco last year, the California DMV ordered them off the road because the company had not applied for a permit. The state said Uber had to offer proof that it is financially sound, has qualified drivers, and guarantee that it will report collisions and other information to state regulators.

Rather than argue with the state, Uber moved its test of driverless vehicles to neighboring Arizona. It is also testing driverless cars in Pittsburgh.

It was just yesterday that General Motors announced with much fanfare that its Chevrolet Cruze diesel had been certified by the Environmental Protection Agency as achieving a 52 miles per gallon rating on the highway.

But in a ruling today, U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington upheld claims brought by Cruze diesel owners who claim the vehicles use a "defeat device" to evade emissions regulations, allowing the suit to move forward. General Motors was quick to deny the allegations.

“These claims are baseless and we will vigorously defend ourselves. GM believes the Chevrolet Cruze turbo diesel complies with all U.S. EPA and CARB emissions regulations," the company said in a statement.

“We are very pleased that Judge Ludington has sustained the claims for thousands of consumers who unknowingly bought or leased polluting vehicles, and we look forward to continuing our vigorous efforts to recover benefit-of-the-bargain damages for these injured consumers,” said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman, representing Cruze owners in the suit

Visions of VW

The suit conjures up visions of the nightmarish Volkswagen "clean diesel" scandal that would end up forcing the company to spend more than $20 billion to buy back VW, Audi, and Porsche diesels that used deceptive software to help the cars pass emission tests. 

The VW scandal focused attention on the health risks of diesel exhaust, which includes harmful paritculate matter blamed for emphysema, lung cancer, and other diseases.

An MIT study found that dirty diesels will cause at least 60 U.S.deaths, possibly twice that many if the recall drags on for years, and in 2012, the World Health Organization classified diesel engine exhaust as carcinogenic to humans and also found a "positive association" between diesel exhaust and development of bladder cancer.

But GM has insisted its diesels will deliver the peppy performance and impressive fuel economy VW owners loved without the excessive emissions. 

GM powertrain chief Dan Nicholson said last October that there are a lot of "diesel-loyal people who are looking for a brand." 

The Cruze comes as close as any American car to the VW Golf, which was the company's most popular diesel model. The 1.6-liter diesel was developed in Turin, Italy, where it is called the "whisper diesel" because it runs so quietly. 

The lawsuit says the Cruze comes close to the Golf in more ways than one.

Defeat device

“Diesel emissions fraud didn’t stop with Volkswagen or Mercedes – GM has proven that it too placed greed and profits ahead of thousands of owners who paid premium prices for what they thought were clean diesel cars,” Berman added.

According to the lawsuit, the defeat device installed in Chevy Cruze models results in significantly higher emissions when the vehicle is in use compared to when it is being tested in laboratory conditions. The lawsuit states that GM marketed the Cruze diesel as “a clean diesel” that had emissions below U.S. environmental standards and charged an additional $2,000 or more compared to the gasoline model, but misled the public and sought to evade emissions testing.

Self-driving car technologies are becoming a hot market for automakers, with many major players trying to be the first to bring new systems to the public. Many innovators closely guard their work from competitors, and employees are typically restricted from publicizing their company’s secrets.

However, Tesla says that one of its former employees breached his contract with the automaker in order to set up his own autonomous driving company. The company is suing Sterling Anderson, formerly the Director of Autopilot Programs at Tesla, for allegedly downloading confidential information about the company’s Autopilot program, destroying evidence, and trying to poach former co-workers.

“This dispute arises out of the efforts of Sterling Anderson, a former non-technical program manager of Tesla’s Autopilot team, to violate his contractual and other obligations to Tesla by attempting to recruit at least a dozen Tesla engineers, taking Tesla’s confidential and proprietary information, and doctoring and destroying evidence in an effort to cover his tracks – all for the benefit of a competing venture he launched while still a Tesla employee,” the suit states.

“Get-rick-quick environment”

Anderson worked at Tesla for just over a year before being dismissed on January 4. He is accused of trying to poach around a dozen Tesla employees, despite having signed a non-soliciting agreement in his contract. Additionally, the company claims Anderson stole “hundreds of gigabytes” of important information to his laptop, all while wiping his iPhone data and erasing and doctoring files to cover his tracks.

With that information, Tesla says that Anderson created his own self-driving company with partner Christopher Urmson, called Aurora Innovation, in order to benefit from a “get-rick-quick environment” that has been created by automakers. The suit points to other similar ventures such as Cruise Automation and Otto, which both benefitted greatly when companies snatched them up.

“Small teams of programmers with little more than demoware have been bought for as much as a billion dollars. Cruise Automation, a 40-person firm, was purchased by General Motors in July 2016 for nearly $1 billion. In August 2016, Uber acquired Otto, another self-driving startup that had been founded only seven months earlier, in a deal worth more than $680 million,” the suit said.

Fear of competition?

Tesla is seeking damages for losses it incurred due to Anderson’s alleged actions, punitive damages for the “malicious” nature of the alleged acts, and injunctions against Aurora Innovation pending verification that the company is using Tesla’s proprietary technology.

In response, Aurora stated that the suit “reveals both a startling paranoia and an unhealthy fear of competition” from Tesla.

“This abuse of the legal system is a malicious attempt to stifle a competitor and destroy personal reputations. Aurora looks forward to disproving these false allegations in court and to building a successful self-driving business,” the company said in a statement.

Tesla filed its suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara on Thursday morning.

When Tesla Motors finally shipped out its long-awaited Model X in 2015, three years after unveiling the all-electric sport utility vehicle, reviewers noted that the Model X is extremely fast, going from  0 to 60 mph in 3.2 seconds. The Model X, wrote the site Car and Driver, is possibly the "greenest—and fastest—way to tote up to 7 people over hill and dale."

But now the futuristic vehicle is being hit with the same complaints that have plagued traditional car manufacturers in recent years. In a government complaint database and now a lawsuit, drivers allege that their Tesla vehicles suddenly sped out of control, the phenomenon known as sudden unintended acceleration.

Korean actor files lawsuit seeking $5 million

Ji Chang Son, a South Korean actor and celebrity now living in Irvine, California, was driving his Model X home on September 10, 2016. His son sat in the passenger's seat. The elder Son turned left into his parking garage, and as he did, the vehicle  “spontaneously began to accelerate at full power,” says a lawsuit he filed on December 30.

The suit describes a crash so powerful that the car tore through the interior wall of Son's garage. His SUV reached the living room and the two men were trapped, pinned inside by wooden support beams that had fallen down from the impact. Photographs that Son posted on his own Facebook page show his Model X post-crash, sitting in a hole it had torn through the garage wall. The vehicle’s Falcon Wing door is open on the passenger’s side.

Son’s lawsuit says that immediately after the crash, smoke flooded the interior of the car. The younger Son, identified as K.M.S in court filings, crawled out through a window and then helped his father escape the vehicle. The suit is seeking $5 million in damages.

Tesla blames driver error

A Tesla spokesman declined to give an interview, but the company has been sending all inquiring reporters a statement that accuses Son of both accidentally stepping on the gas pedal and then using his celebrity status to threaten the company.

After a lengthy company investigation, the Tesla spokesman says via email statement that  “...the evidence, including data from the car, conclusively shows that the crash was the result of Mr. Son pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Before filing his class action against Tesla, Mr. Son had threatened to use his celebrity status in Korea to hurt Tesla unless we agreed to make a financial payment and acknowledge that the vehicle accelerated on its own. However, the evidence clearly shows the vehicle was not at fault. Our policy is to stand by the evidence and not to give in to ultimatums."

Tesla is of course one of several carmakers to have been hit with claims of sudden acceleration. The owner of a 2015 Hyundai Tucson, for instance, told ConsumerAffairs a similar story  in November. Like Son, motorist Barbara Gardener was trying to park her car when she said it suddenly accelerated into a wall.

"I know for sure that I didn't have my foot on the accelerator,” Gardener said, though Hyundai similarly blamed driver error for the crash. Toyota, in the highest-profile example, was ordered by the United States Department of Justice to pay out $1.4 billion for failing to disclose what the feds described as  “floor-mat entrapment” and “sticky pedal” defects possibly linked to sudden acceleration. But federal regulators continue to blame driver error for the approximately 16,000 car crashes in which sudden acceleration is sited as a factor.

Other possible SUA crashes

Son’s attorney dug up eight other complaints, all in the publicly available National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) complaint database, similarly claiming that Tesla’s Model X vehicles suddenly accelerated. In each complaint, reprinted in the lawsuit, the motorists say that they were attempting to park when their cars spontaneously sped forward.  

“OUR 5 DAY OLD TESLA X WHILE ENTERING A PARKING STALL SUDDENLY AND UNEXPECTEDLY ACCELERATED AT HIGH SPEED ON ITS OWN CLIMBING OVER GRASS AND CRASHED INTO A BUILDING,” says a complaint from Anaheim, California made on June 7, 2016. “THE AIRBAGS DEPLOYED AND MY WIFE'S ARMS HAVE BURN MARKS AS A CONSEQUENCE.”

Son’s suit notes that only 16,000 Tesla Model X vehicles have been sold in the United States, arguing based on those numbers that the Model X is therefore much more prone to sudden unintended acceleration than other vehicles.

"Computer on Wheels"

Automotive reviewers have lavished the Model X with high praise for its speed, but they have also complained about possible, though minor, software glitches, particularly in the vehicle’s signature Falcon Wing doors.

“The Falcon Wing doors take five and a half seconds to open—six to close—and occasionally the sensors halt their progress, even when there’s nothing in the way,” wrote Car and Driver. “For as smart as these doors are, it turns out that even semisentient doors with echolocation are pretty dumb.”

Consumer Reports’ automotive reviewer told the Washington Post that the Model X has "so many overly complicated features: the front doors are power automated, the middle-row seats are on power sliders... All those things add up in a way that can bring the platform down.” Tesla has since introduced newer software that they say cause the doors to open and close 1.6 seconds faster.

Son’s lawsuit alleges that the potential software glitches are part of a much larger problem affecting the safety of Tesla’s vehicles. The actor and his attorney point to Tesla founder Elon Musk’s own description of the Tesla Model S as being a "computer on wheels.”

“As even casual computer users know,” Son’s suit says “even the most sophisticated and successful computer companies in history, such as Microsoft and Apple, regularly release computers and software with bugs, glitches, and unanticipated problem that cause their computers to unexpectedly crash, malfunction, or work differently than intended. These bugs have serious consequences for users of traditional computer products. But for a computer that controls a 5,000 pound machine that can explosively accelerate from a standstill to 60 miles per hour in under 3 seconds, the consequences of a computer glitch can be catastrophic.”

The new lawsuit comes as Tesla is leading a major push in the tech industry for self-driving car technology. Motorist Joshua Brown was driving the Tesla Model S in May and had placed his car in the so-called auto-pilot mode. With his car driving itself, sensors failed to detect an 18-wheel truck and trailer on the highway, the company disclosed to the public in July. Brown was killed as a result. His death was the first and only linked to self-driving technology to date.

Model x Lawsuit by Amy Cranks on Scribd

A California family blames Apple for the death of their young daughter in a traffic accident that a lawsuit says was caused by a driver who was using FaceTime on his iPhone 6.

James and Bethany Modisette were driving with their two daughters on I-35 just north of Dallas two years ago when traffic slowed suddenly and a driver who admitted he was on FaceTime plowed into them. James and his daughter, Moriah, 5, were trapped in the car. Moriah later died of her injuries.

The lawsuit claims Apple is responsible for Moriah's death because of its failure to use an alternative FaceTime design which it had already patented. The alternative design "locks out" drivers in a moving vehicle and could have prevented the accident, the suit argues, according to a Courthouse News Service report. 

“Defendant Apple Inc. has had the technology to prevent these events, and the Modisettes’ injuries, specifically since at least Dec. 12, 2008, when it filed an application with the U.S. Patent Office for a ‘driver handheld computing device lock-out,” the family says in the complaint.

Specifically, the family says Apple possessed the capability to use GPS tracking to gauge the speed of a vehicle in which a user was traveling and shut down FaceTime, but that its failure to include this technology was a significant factor in the crash that injured the Modisette family.

The suit was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court last Friday. 

Is it true that if you don't take your car to the dealer for service your warranty will be voided? The answer is a resounding "No" as BMW has just been reminded. 

The automaker has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that its MINI Division violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act by telling consumers that BMW would void their warranty unless they used MINI parts and MINI dealers to perform maintenance and repair work.

The FTC had alleged that BMW, through its MINI Division, violated a provision in the Warranty Act that prohibits companies from requiring that consumers – in order to maintain their warranties – use specific brands of parts or specified service centers (unless the part or service is provided to the consumer without charge).

“It’s against the law for a dealer to refuse to honor a warranty just because someone else did maintenance or repairs on the car,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “As a result of this order, BMW will change its practices and give MINI owners information about their rights.”

No laughing matter

Warranty coverage is no laughing matter for MINI Cooper owners. The little cars are great fun and get excellent gas mileage but they do tend to have more than their share of problems.

"I have owned a 2008 MINI Copper S since 2009. I have had some fun driving it around but like others I regret buying it. The cost of ownership for this car is very high. If you take it in to the dealer expect to pay at least $1,000 every time," said John of Durham, N.C., in a ConsumerAffairs review.

"Bought my 2009 Cooper S new in Kelowna. This is by far the most fun vehicle to drive - love it. Has had a few issues mind you," said Rita of Kelowna, BC, as she launched into her list: 

New timing chain at 76000Km. New engine at 82000Km. New Turbo at 120000Km. New fuel pump - new high pressure pump - excessive carbon build up requiring walnut blasting on more than one occasion ( $1000 each time not covered under warranty). The list goes on. Its now parked since the timing chain has failed yet again and the dealership wants another $4500 to repair it. So far this vehicle including extended warranties and repairs - not including general maintenance such as oil changes etc - has cost me a staggering $55000! This does not include parts and labour covered under warranty.

Rocio of Los Angeles sums up his MINI relationship in a review captioned "So cute, yet so bad."

"I've had my 2009 MINI Cooper since, well, 2009. It was the car that I test drove on the lot, and I fell in love with it at first sight. All was great, until it wasn't. Started having problems at around the 2 year mark. Since it was still under warranty, some stuff was covered. But once the warranty was out, I had to pay out of pocket which was REALLY pricey," Rocio said. "Finally after 5 years, I was able to find a good, honest, MINI-expert mechanic who told me my MINI would need a refill of oil every three gas fill ups! He said my model MINI burns oil every couple hundred miles."

Rocio's mechanic is right. MINIs, at least the ones we know, do tend to burn oil, as do several other German cars we can think of. 

For what it's worth, the author has owned four MINI Coopers and has found Avus Autosport in Glendale, Calif., to be the type of mechanic Rocio wishes he'd found years ago. 

The state of California has filed a $1.5 million lawsuit against European Health Concepts, one of several companies promoting the supposed health benefits of magnetic mattress pads, which in fact have no proven effects on health.

The legal complaint, filed by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, demands that company promoters immediately cease their fraudulent business practices. The action comes as the direct result of a joint investigation by the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the Attorney General.

"Florida-based European Health Concepts pitched high-priced 'therapeutic' magnetic mattress pads to predominantly elderly folks at local sales seminars across California. Invitations to the 'Free Dinner' sales events were mailed to seniors, enticing them to 'Relieve Pain' and 'Get Healthy and Stay Healthy," Lockyer said.

The Department of Consumer Affairs, Attorney General and other consumer agencies have received hundreds of complaints in the last year from consumers who paid $800 or more for "discounted" magnetic pads -- from European Health Concepts and several other similar companies. Consumers had difficulty returning the pads for promised money-back guarantees.

The consumer protection action filed today by the Attorney General in Sacramento County Superior Court seeks restitution for victims, over one million dollars in civil penalties, additional penalties of $500,000 for transactions involving senior citizens, and an injunction against European Health Concepts ordering the company to cease fraudulent business practices. The action also names the company's president, Kevin Todd, and various managers and sales agents as defendants.

According to the complaint, European Health Concepts unlawfully claimed its mattresses had a positive effect on various diseases including lupus, sciatica, herniated discs, asthma, bronchitis, cataracts, chronic fatigue syndrome, colitis, diverticulitis, heart disease, and numerous other medical conditions.

The legal action also accuses the company of:

• Failing to get its mattress pads and cushions approved as new devices as required by law.
• Falsely claiming to manufacture the pads.
• Falsely stating or implying that various celebrities and sports figures had benefited from magnetic mattress pads, including actors Anthony Hopkins and Dick Van Dyke, former Miami Dolphins quarterback Dan Marino, and professional golfer Jim Colbert. In fact, none of the celebrities ever used the pads, according to the complaint.
• Soliciting senior citizens for the sales seminars and then failing to give them the required three day notice of their right to cancel the contract, as required for sales made outside a company's regular business location.
• Unlawfully offering phony price discounts that were actually regular prices.
• Failing to give timely refunds to dissatisfied consumers, despite a 100% satisfaction guarantee, or failing to issue refunds until after a government agency's intervention.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned consumers to beware of any medicinal claims about the mattresses and notes that it is illegal for companies to claim any health benefits for unproven devices.

European Concepts is located in West Palm Beach, FL. Company president Kevin Todd said recently that the company has changed its marketing brochure and he believes it is now in compliance with FDA regulations.

The new version, however, still features customer testimonials about a variety of improved health conditions, such as one from a man who said, "I have also experienced relief from joint pain."

Consumers can contact the Department of Consumers Affairs at 1-800-952-5210 for assistance or visit the department's Web site: www.dca.ca.gov. Consumers can also contact the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit at 1-800-952-5225, or visit the Office of the Attorney General online at www.ag.ca.gov.