Current Events in July 2005

The news that the Transportation Security Administration violated the Privacy Act by collecting data on 250,000 Americans as part of a "study" for its new "Secure Flight" program is the latest in a string of incidents detailing how government agencies are using commercial data brokers to sidestep privacy laws, setting the stage for more problems in the future.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report to Congress stating that "a TSA contractor, acting on behalf of the agency, collected more than 100 million commercial data records containing personal information such as name, date of birth, and telephone number without informing the public."

Although the contractor is not identified in the GAO report or the TSA's admission that it collected the data after promising not to do so, the scandal bears a striking resemblance to the JetBlue incident, wherein the data clearinghouse Acxiom sold thousands of its data records to another TSA contractor in order to test the reliability of "CAPPS II," the predecessor to the "Secure Flight" screening system.

Several laws mandating the creation of nationwide requirements for issuing state driver's licenses may require the usage of commercial data brokers such as ChoicePoint and LexisNexis to effectively implement.

This has aroused concerns among privacy advocates and opponents of the "Real ID" Act who believe that entrusting such a complex enterprise to companies that have already proven incapable of protecting the data they collect may lead to even more instances of identity theft.

The "Real ID" Act was passed in May 2005, attached to a bill authorizing funding for U.S. forces in Iraq. The act requires state governments to establish "minimum security standards" for issuing or re-issuing driver's licenses, including verification of Social Security Numbers and birth certificates.

The law is an "unfunded mandate," meaning that states will have to come up with the money to implement the new procedures themselves, which may lead to private data screening agencies offering technology and information databases to aid in the law's enforcement.

The Senate passed the Transportation Security Improvement Act as part of an extensive highway spending bill, on May 17th. The bill includes language authorizing the TSA to mandate that state motor vehicle authorities conduct background checks as "stringent" as Federal background checks for commercial driver's licenses. The bill is currently being reconciled in joint Congressional committee.

Opponents of these provisions maintain that additional security requirements are not only burdensome to implement and unnecessarily invasive, but offer a dangerous opportunity for "information broker" companies to hoard even more data.

Timothy Sparapani, associate legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union ), told The Washington Post that he "worried about the government expanding their use of background checks."

Although none of the major commercial data brokers have publicly admitted to lobbying for these laws, they also have been embroiled in recent scandals and may be actively looking for more government business.

ChoicePoint's loss of over 100,000 individual records to identity thieves in February 2005 opened the door to a flood of reports of identity theft and data loss. LexisNexis lost 32,000 data records to thieves in March 2005.

Acxiom itself was ahead of the identity-theft curve, as its servers were hacked by employees not once, but twice - first in March 2003 and again in July 2004. Both times, millions of aggregated data records were stolen and put up for sale on the "gray market" of identity theft rings.

A group of patients who once took the antidepressant drug Prozac accuse the Food and Drug Administration of covering up the drugs dangerous side effects for 14 years. As a result, they say hundreds of people have become victims of murder and suicide.

Bonnie Leitsch, founder of "Prozac Survivors Support Group," and Dr. Ann Blake Tracy, founder of the International Coalition for Drug Awareness, are calling for immediate federal action to warn the public that antidepressants not only can induce suicide in adult patients -- but also acts of violence.

They point to 30-year-old Indiana mother Magdalena Lopez, who last week was charged with murdering her two young sons. Lopez, they maintain, had been taking an antidepressant.

In June, the FDA issued its second warning that adults taking antidepressants should be monitored for suicidal ideation and worsening depression. Leitsch says that it is unconscionable that new mothers are being prescribed drugs that have been known to induce psychosis, violence and suicide for more than a decade.

"In 1991, there was evidence of 500 deaths associated with antidepressants presented to an FDA Psychopharmacological Drugs Advisory Committee hearing investigating Prozac," Leitsch said.

"The failure to issue the warning has led to more suicides, homicides, school shooters and mothers killing their own children."

PSSG says it has the original film footage from the 1991 FDA hearings, where dozens of testimonies were given by family members of those who had either killed themselves, or loved ones, or individuals who had attempted suicide which they directly attributed to taking an antidepressant. The group has lined up a number of health professionals who support their position on Prozac and other antidepressants.

"These are extremely dangerous drugs that should have been banned, as similar drugs were in the past. Federal investigations into the violence-inducing effects of these drugs are long overdue," Tracy said.

Tracy has been an outspoken critic of SSRI antidepressant drugs and has testified as an expert witness in numerous court cases involving such drugs.

"The scientific evidence behind this has been out there for decades. All anyone ever had to do was read it," she says.

The group says Magdalena Lopez is not the only woman who has murdered her children while under the influence of antidepressants known to cause violence, psychosis, and suicide in adults. They provided details of several other cases:

• Annie Mae Haskew smothered her 10-week-old son in October of 2002. Before the murder she had been diagnosed with postpartum depression and had been taking antidepressants.
• Andrea Yates drowned her five children, aged 6 months to 7 years in the family bathtub on Nov. 22, 2004, while taking two antidepressants Effexor and Remeron, both had been given at maximum dose.
• Dena Schlosser killed her 10-month-old infant daughter in November 2004 by severing her baby's arms. She had been diagnosed with postpartum depression, hospitalized and prescribed psychiatric "medication for depression" before the crime.
• Mary Ellen Moffitt suffocated her 5-week-old daughter and herself July 26, 2004. Before this she had been diagnosed with postpartum depression and had been taking the antidepressant Paxil.
• Emiri Padron smothered her baby daughter in her crib on June 22, 2004 and then stabbed herself twice in the chest. Emiri was receiving psychiatric treatment before the incident and investigators found the antidepressant Zoloft in the apartment where the crime took place.
• Mine Ener used a kitchen knife to cut the throat of her 6-month-old daughter on Aug. 4, 2003, after being diagnosed with postpartum depression and taking "medication" for the condition.

Leitsch says that the FDA's claim that it could take a year to review the suicide adverse effects of antidepressant drugs is negligent.

"They must warn the public that not only can the drugs include suicide -- but heinous acts of violence -- mothers killing their own children, or children killing other children, she said.

Late last year FDA directed manufacturers to add a "black box" warning to the health professional labeling of all antidepressant medications to describe this risk of suicide in children, and emphasize the need for close monitoring of patients started on these medications. FDA has also determined that a Patient Medication Guide, which will be given to patients receiving the drugs to advise them of the risk and precautions that can be taken, is appropriate, and is in the process of developing one.

According to Lietsch, 36 million Americans are taking the antidepressant drugs.

There seems to be no limit to the methods by which people can gather information about one another via the Web. Whether it's purchasing records from an information broker like ChoicePoint, tracking someone down via posts on a Web site or blog, or using a public search engine like Google, your basic life details are an open book for anyone with smarts and a connection to the Internet.

Now there is ZabaSearch, a search engine that claims to offer any user a free background search on any individual in the United States.

Type in a person's name and you'll get their name, address, date of birth, and (as of this printing) nonfunctional links to a background check and "ZabaSearch" engine. The site has only been active since February of 2005, and is currently in the beta stages of development.

However, elsewhere on the page, you are offered a full background check on your subject, including 20-year address histories, bankruptcy and lien judgments, and family addresses, all for $22.95, or $7.95 each for multiple searches with a $35 "membership fee." And, according to ZabaSearch's publicity materials, all of this information is gathered from publicly available state and local databases, and is perfectly legal.

Is that true? How does this site get its information? For that matter, who created ZabaSearch and where did they come from?

"Not a Database"

ZabaSearch's founders, Robert Zakari and Nicholas Matzorkis, maintain that the site is safe because it's not a database where information is stored. Rather, they say, it's a search engine that parses available public database records for individual information.

In an interview with Wired Magazine, Zakari says that making ZabaSearch available to individuals levels the playing field.

"Personal information in the U.S. is a multibillion-dollar-a-year industry," he said. "It's just a question of who has access. You, or the people selling it to other companies to market things to you?"

One of the contentions regarding ZabaSearch is that its aggregated records are often inaccurate and out of date, a complaint that's also frequently leveled against information brokers and credit reporting agencies.

Beyond the loss of privacy, consumers can be harmed by sloppy information-gathering practices, such as being wrongly identified as a criminal in a background check. Matzorkis claims this is the fault of the public databases ZabaSearch compiles its information from, not the fault of the search engine or its owners.

"We are not society's caretakers," he states. "We are technologists and entrepreneurs."

In the entrepreneurial spirit, ZabaSearch offers a $100 "Find Anyone" service conducted by "professional skip trace" experts, and including "guaranteed access to ZabaSearch" through 2005.

What if you want to "opt out" of ZabaSearch? In order to remove your own information from the service, you have to physically mail the site owners and provide your name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, etc. Not only is this a time-consuming process, it can render you vulnerable to identity theft.

So who are Matzorkis and Zakari, and how is it that they claim authority to trade in individuals' information?

The Men Behind The Curtain

Nicholas Matzorkis and Robert Zakari have enjoyed a long partnership in technology businesses. Matzorkis formed the for-pay online search database US-Search.com in 1994, and was also connected to GlobalAgora, a joint business venture with Chinese shopping mall owners to provide the Chinese with Internet-phone-enabled shopping technology.

Curiously, despite the fanfare greeting the launch of the GlobalAgora venture in 2001, there are no public records of its success, or even an English-language Web site.

Matzorkis and Zakari's most recent business venture, PeopleData, offers a set of search tools (and a Web site) that are virtually identical to ZabaSearch. Although the PeopleData site redirects to ZabaSearch, I was able to access a mirror site that performs the same function as ZabaSearch - parsing of basic information and links to paid "premium" search services.

Although the owners have claimed that PeopleData serves a different purpose and clientele than its successor, a cursory viewing shows little difference between the two sites.

PeopleData's usage terms not only aggressively protect the site from any liability, but also state that, "Although most information is usually removed or blocked permanently, PeopleData does not guarantee that the information will not be available again in the future from other sources or PeopleData itself."

In other words, even if you remove your personal information, they might just restore it later.

Heaven's Gate

Zakari's and Matzorkis' first brush with the limelight came under much stranger circumstances. In 1997, when 39 members of the "Heaven's Gate" cult committed suicide in Santa Fe, California, Matzorkis and cult member Richard Ford were the first to discover the bodies and alert local authorities.

Zakari, a Pasadena-based lawyer, acted as Ford's counsel while he attempted to gain control of the multimedia company that owned Higher Source, the Heaven's Gate-supported Web design firm, which provided Matzorkis many employees for his Web businesses.

Both Matzorkis and Zakari have repeatedly denied being members of the Heaven's Gate organization or supporting them in any way, and have objected to their involvement with the cult being mentioned in articles about ZabaSearch.

The Best Defense

Anita Ramastry, a law professor and contributor to the Findlaw legal resource Web site, believes that while the increasing proliferation of "data dossiers" is potentially threatening, it is protected under the First Amendment.

Though the 1974 Privacy Act prohibits the government from collecting and aggregating information about individual citizens, it doesn't prevent private information sellers from collecting and selling this information back to the government, to other companies and individuals, or hoarding it for themselves.

In this respect, ZabaSearch is no different from established information brokers like ChoicePoint, LexisNexis and major credit reporting agencies -- it's just clumsier and more obvious.

So what can you do to protect yourself? The basic answer is to be much more careful and guarded with your information, and to immediately move to protect it any time it is used for actions you object to.

A more adventurous option is to use the same information-gathering resources that data resellers do, and use them to point out how dangerous it is that "information brokerages" are not better regulated.

For example, just by performing a simple search with Google and Yahoo, I found out that Nick Matzorkis was not only connected to the Heaven's Gate cult, but also violated his probation for an Ohio grand theft auto conviction in 1991.

I was also able to access public records of his contract with US-Search, including his compensation and duties. All of the references in this article were found with basic Web searching tools. Imagine what I could have found if I'd put some effort into it.

Until the state and federal governments enact stricter regulations on information trading, and data resellers face stronger penalties for letting info get into the hands of identity thieves, the best defense Americans have is a good offense - using the freedom of information to point out why no single company or authority should have control over it all.

I just spent a couple of days reading the complaints about lawn mowers on ConsumerAffairs.com, and frankly, I'm fuming. So let me rant a bit and then I'll get down to business on what you can do to protect yourself when shelling out the big bucks for a fancy new lawn mower.

Between Home Depot, Lowe's, Sears and the major manufacturers of all types of mowers -- self-propelled, push, riding and tractor-style -- there is no clear-cut way to know if you are getting what you pay for.

I recently bought a Toro from Home Depot, which has performed fine when I remember to put gas in it. But even running fine, a small stone took a big chunk out of the blade. Only a $20 replacement, but an inconvenience. I can't imagine the frustration owners who paid over $1000 for a riding mower must feel when shortly after their purchase, they find out:

1. The store doesn't carry replacement parts.
2. The manufacturer sold a discontinued reconditioned model and has no parts.
3. You have to physically haul the monster to a repair shop.
4. The warranty is useless and doesn't protect you at all from defects or offer any recourse.

Personally, I'd like to throttle the large "home improvement" stores sales associates on a regular basis, but I know their working conditions, and it's really not their fault. They are told what to say by Corporate, who, as in the case of appliances (see "They Don't Make Things The Way They Used To"), has bought the cheapest machine, shined it up and set the price for maximum profit.

Much like appliances that live up only to half their life expectancy, many machines and tools sold at the large chain stores are being made with outsourced materials while others are returns that have been re-painted, spiffed up and sold as new.

Globalization is a two-sided sword -- on one hand, it saves companies money so they can offer their products at competitive prices. On the other hand, the savings don't often get passed on to the consumer, and we end up with a cheap imitation of the original machine. So how do you know what you're getting? Would you knowingly buy a reconditioned machine for $1,200? Probably not.

Here are a few steps you might consider to avoid the lawn mower blues:

1. Hire a lawn service and save yourself the hassle and aggravation.

2. Look for a good, working USED one in your local paper - you'll save a ton of money as the seller is probably going to buy that bright green machine new at the local store and pay way too much for it. And if it breaks down after a year, donate it. You haven't spent that much on it, and now you know how it performs.

3. Browse the ConsumerAffairs.com Lawn & Garden section to see which models collect the most complaints.

4. Call several lawn services in the area and ask what machines they use and why, and where do they get them serviced? Talk to the guys at the lawn mower repair shop and see what they recommend.

What Kind?

How do you figure out just how much mower you really need? (This is not a car competition, gentlemen).

• For small yards that are level (not hilly or uneven), a push mower may be your best bet. However if you have any health problems (or exceptionally weak arms), you may want to look into the electric or even gas-powered mowers.

• For medium size yards (over 1/3 acre to 1/2 acre), self-propelled is the way to go.

• For yards larger than 1/2 acre, riding mowers are your best bet.

Assuming you buy a power mower of some kind, you can choose from gas or electric. Electric mowers are much quieter, much lighter and much kinder to the environment. The battery-powered variety are OK for smaller yards that aren't too dense. If you have a big yard or very dense grass, an battery mower may not be for you.

Most gas-powered mowers are now four-cycle, meaning you do not mix oil with the gasoline. Two-cycle engines are cheaper and many would say they're more reliable, but four-cycle engines pollute less. Be sure you know which kind you have. You will ruin your engine if you add oil to the gas in your four-cycle engine instead of putting it in the "add oil here" spout and you will ruin your two-cycle engine if you don't add oil to the gas.

Also consider:

1. Budget considerations. Bigger isn't better, if you have a smaller lawn or you're planning on moving in a year, you don't need to spend $2,000 on a riding mower.

2. Mulch or not to mulch? A good mulching mower makes leaves disappear in the Fall and that's a good thing! It also eliminates bagging your grass clippings. Bagging is a pain, and what do you do with the clippings? Throw them in the woods? That's not nice.

3. Layout of your yard. If it's hilly or very uneven, you will need a mower with some power behind it, so get a self-propelled mower with 5 or more horsepower.

4. Closely examine each option. Options can affect the price greatly. For instance, automatic transmissions can cost as much as $700 more than a clutch model.

5. Generally the bigger the engine the better it can cut denser material. If your lawn is dense you may want to consider a big engine. Riding lawn mowers can range anywhere from $1,000 to $7,000 or more. BUT you have to take into consideration whether or not you can maintain it, or would need to take it to a shop for problems - which now appear practically built-in.

Where to Buy

So, you've done your side-by-side comparisons, checked for recalled machines, picked out the mower you want, and are ready to buy. Where do you go? The chain stores or the dealers?

I suggest you first pick three models to consider and go to the manufacturer's website. There is usually a "Find a Distributor" link. Go there and call at least 3 distributors in your area. Why? Because this is what you are going to do next:

Call or visit the distributor and ask question after question after question, including:

1. Price
2. Is it new or reconditioned?
3. Warranty and extended warranties;
4. Availability of parts;
5. Repair services - on-site at your home, at the dealer or a retail repair shop?
6. Return policy - this is critical. Many people get a lemon and no matter who they take it to, it cannot be repaired. Will they take it back and give you a new one?

These questions can also be asked at the chain stores - most of the people that work there won't know the answers, but whatever they tell you, WRITE IT DOWN, get their name, date the note, and keep it, not that it will necessarily do you any good.

Following these steps can help to get the best machine for your needs and budget. But remember, they don't make anything like they did in your grandmother's day. Don't expect perfection and don't assume that spending more gets you the best machine.

Buy the simplest machine you can get by with. Everyone needs to walk more, so a good-quality self-propelled mower is probably better for you. It's certainly cheaper than a much more expensive riding mower or garden tractor.

Also, smaller and simpler machines are easier to be repair. You can probably do it yourself with a little practice. Don't be afraid to get your hands dirty. You can change the oil, replace the filter, put in a new spark plug and even replace the blade with little more than a wrench and a screwdriver.

Expect to do some legwork, but in the long run, you'll be better off for having done it. You be happily mowing to your heart's content, and making your neighbors jealous -- which is, after all, the whole purpose behind a great lawn!

The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) has filed suit in New York Supreme Court against three major wireless companies for pitching cell phones and services in deceptive advertisements that misled consumers.

The suit against Nextel Communications Inc., Sprint Spectrum L.P., and T-Mobile USA Inc. seeks maximum fines and compliance with New York City's landmark Consumer Protection Law.

"You can't promise a great deal in the headline and hide the true costs in the fine print," said DCA Acting Commissioner Jonathan Mintz. "If a cell phone company promises free long distance, consumers should get free long distance - period."

"Consumers rely on advertising as a shortcut through the often-confusing maze of wireless options" he said, "and the City's law provides protection to ensure those ads are truthful."

"While clamoring for competitive consumer attention, these major cell phone companies crossed the clear line between promotional gimmicks and deceptive advertising. It doesn't matter whether the business is selling cars, tax services, or cell phones, everyone has to follow the same rules," Mintz said.

The DCA also pursued claims against AT&T Wireless (since acquired by Cingular Wireless LLC), Cingular Wireless, and Verizon Wireless for deceptive advertising, but those companies settled and agreed to fully comply with the New York City Consumer Protection Law in their marketing.

Mintz noted, "Verizon led the industry in committing to comply with the Consumer Protection Law and settling claims, and we are pleased that others followed."

The DCA intensified monitoring the wireless industry advertisements in the fall of 2003 as part of a joint effort with the New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DoITT) to track industry practices and cell phone service citywide.

After months of monitoring company ads, and despite numerous discussions with company representatives to correct and clarify the ads, DCA found the companies to be in violation of city law.

According to Consumers Union, information obtained from the Federal Communications Commission shows complaints filed about wireless phone service increased nearly 38% from 2003 to 2004, with cell phone marketing nearing the top of the list, and billing problems receiving the most complaints.

The New York City Consumer Protection Law broadly defines deceptive and unfair trade practices, in part, by requiring the type size used in print ads to be clear and conspicuous to the reader. It prohibits practices that have the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers.

In its lawsuits the DCA charges:

• Nextel deceived consumers by advertising "ALL INCOMING CALLS ARE FREE" when in fact, a tiny, multi-line footnote at the bottom of the advertisement indicated "...an additional access charge of either $.10 per minute multiplied by the number of participants on the call...or a monthly flat fee," would be charged to the consumer if he or she signed up for the advertised calling plan.

• Nextel further deceived consumers by advertising "PLANS STARTING AT $10 PER MONTH," or "POWERFUL PHONES STARTING AT $24.99" without clearly describing different service plans or products, and without adequately disclosing either the highest price of the advertised plan, or an "average price," as required by law.

• Sprint deceived consumers by advertising "NATIONWIDE LONG DISTANCE INCLUDED. EVERY MINUTE, EVERY DAY" when in fact, a tiny, multi-line footnote at the bottom of the advertisement indicated a charge for long distance -- including the phrase "...an additional $0.25 per minute for long distance."

• Sprint further deceived consumers by advertising that "instant savings require in-store purchase and activation of a new line..." when a tiny footnote at the bottom of the advertisement stated "Requires in-store purchase and activation of two new lines of service on eligible plans."

• In the same ad, Sprint deceived consumers by advertising a "FREE" cell phone offer forcing consumers to look at the fine print footnote to find that in fact, the offer required "...a two-year Sprint PCS Advantage Agreement."

• T-Mobile deceived consumers by advertising "FREE LONG DISTANCE" and "FREE ROAMING" when in fact, a tiny, multi-line footnote at the bottom of the advertisement indicated, "Billing of roaming charges and minutes of use and services may be delayed" and "Call duration may be limited."

The decision by the California Air Resources Board is the first such regulation in the United States for heavy-duty trucks.

The California measure is likely to encourage the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to approve a similar rule.

There are an estimated 1 million to 1.5 million big-rig trucks traveling on California highways, each emitting more than 5 pounds of nitrogen oxide a day, the main ingredient of smog.

A diagnostic plan would cost approximately $130 per truck. The standards would be phased in for big-rig engines beginning in 2010 and fully implemented in the 2013 model year.

In Sweden, just one beer or glass of wine can land a driver in jail for up to six months.

So when Volvo asked the Swedish government to waive the country's strict drunken driving laws to allow its test drivers to imbibe on the job, people noticed.

Volvo is in the midst of testing a new technology designed to allow a car to take control of steering when a driver's reaction time is slowed because of intoxication or fatigue. The new safety system is still at the development stage and the company will not provide additional details other than to say its all about preventing accidents.

If the request is granted, it would be the first exception to Sweden's drunk driving laws, which are among the world's toughest, the Swedish national broadcaster SVT reported.

The company promises to only allow its drunk drivers to take the wheel on a Volvo test track near the west coast city of Gothenburg if the Swedish government grants permission.

The special track is also the location of a Ford Motor Co. safety development facility. Ford owns Volvo.

Sweden has one of the best road-safety records in the world in part because of its drunk driving laws. The laws apply to private and public roads.

According to Stockholm Traffic Police, the most drivers could drink without risking a heavy fine is one beer. Drivers caught well over the limit can be sent to prison.

If you're one of those unfortunate souls who've found unauthorized charges on your credit card from programs like AutoAdvantage - a "trial offer" that ends up being billed to your account repeatedly without your consent - then you may already be at least familiar with Trilegiant.

The Norwalk, Connecticut-based direct marketing firm has found itself the target of a lawsuit brought by the California Attorney General's office. The suit alleges that Trilegiant, along with Chase Bank, deceived hundreds of California consumers through fraudulent billing practices designed to confuse them into signing up for unwanted services.

Besides its "services," Trilegiant is heavily involved in the loyalty program industry, through its Trilegiant Loyalty Solutions division, based in Richmond, Virginia. The company's Web site boasts of selling its "Loyalty" as a product, with "25 billion [gift card] points redeemed since 2004 alone."

Trilegiant is an offshoot, subsidiary or affiliate (it's hard to tell which) of the Cendant corporation, a major player in the travel and real estate markets, and also involved in national security via the failed "CAPPS II" airline passenger identification system.

Travel offers, loyalty cards, airline fares - Trilegiant seems to be everywhere. And as is often the case, there is far too little in the way of public disclosure of what this company is actually doing with the information it collects.

What's In A Name?

Trilegiant, to the casual observer, is a straightforward enterprise with clearly obtainable business information, not to mention a very slick Web site. However, the company does or has done business under literally dozens of different names or promotions. Even tracing the links between Trilegiant and Cendant can bog the curious down in a mass of corporate doublespeak.

Trilegiant's direct marketing businesses include the aforementioned AutoAdvantage, GreatFun, IdentitySecure, and PrivacyGuard. (For a more complete list of Trilegiant's many aliases, visit ConsumerAffairs.com's Trilegiant complaint page.

The PrivacyGuard product is a suite of tools that consumers can ostensibly use to protect their credit, for a "low" monthly debit of $11.99. PrivacyGuard markets its solutions to numerous banks, institutions, and universities, while collecting subscribers' information to share among its many "preferred partners", many of which are also subsidiaries of Cendant.

In a properly ironic twist, Trilegiant hired con-man-turned-FBI consultant Frank Abagnale as its spokesman for PrivacyGuard.

Trilegiant is billed by Cendant's public relations department as a "successor" to its membership and marketing services, but it is still listed as a subsidiary or "branch" business on the main Cendant Web site. Press reports that discuss the Trilegiant/Cendant relationship variously characterize the companies as corporate parent and spinoff, independent business partners, or full-blown subsidiaries.

Cendant itself owns or has holdings in so many companies that it creates a dizzyingly vast web of partnerships to share information with. You can book a flight on Cheaptickets.com, rent your car from Budget, and stay at the Ramada Inn -- all Cendant brands or businesses, and all of which can leave customers open to targeted offers from the Cendant Marketing Group, which includes Progeny Marketing Solutions as well as Trilegiant.

In a 2004 press release from Progeny, Cendant reaffirmed its relationship with Trilegiant through "Cendant Marketing Group, a new entity to coordinate the activities of its two direct marketing units."

And what does Trilegiant do with your information once it's provided? That's where its "loyalty enhancement" programs come in.

Corporate Sin-ergy

Trilegiant takes great pride in its multiple methods of collecting consumer information for marketing and business purposes. Trilegiant's "Loyalty Marketing" division offers third-party solutions for businesses and retailers to build customer loyalty, including their "Discount Shopping" and "Buyer Reward" programs.

The company deliberately crafts marketing solutions for differing socioeconomic groups, ranging from the "sub-prime" (low-income) market to the most valuable "super-prime" (wealthy) customers. Interestingly, the company's marketing materials for their product line are exactly the same, making one wonder how it differentiates between customer groups when soliciting for new memberships.

Trilegiant's many partners include the major players in the credit and finance industry, such as J.P. Morgan Chase. Chase Bank prominently advertises several Trilegiant companies as "preferred services", including AutoAdvantage, ShoppersAdvantage and TravelersAdvantage.

In much smaller type at the bottom of each page, Chase states that "Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. is not affiliated with or responsible for Shoppers Advantage or Trilegiant Corporation."

Each of these membership clubs offers a two-month $1 trial of its services, after which the user will be billed at an annual rate of $89.99 unless they call in and cancel the service during the trial period. However, direct mail solicitations from Chase did not explicitly state these terms.

Instead, Chase customers received checks as "rewards" for their loyalty in the mail, along with solicitations for Trilegiant's discount services. Cashing the checks would automatically sign them up for a regular membership with these companies unless they called to cancel the membership within 30 days - none of which was very prominently explained in the direct mail solicitation.

This same principle was applied to Trilegiant's partnership with the Experian credit reporting agency. Formed in 2002, Experian and its subsidiary company, ConsumerInfo.com agreed to share their credit reports, for use with Trilegiant's PrivacyGuard product, as well as "maintenance and hosting of all credit-related Web sites for Trilegiant."

ConsumerInfo.com's sites, such as FreeCreditReport.com, are notorious for advertising "free" trials of services, only to bill buyers at a regular rate each month unless they call and cancel.

Flying High

Trilegiant's most audacious gambit involved combining an airplane security solution with gathering market information.

In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) came under intense scrutiny for its proposed "Computer-Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System", or CAPPS II.

The system was criticized for collecting an exhaustive amount of information on potential airline passengers via computerized reservation systems (CRS), which could then be stored or sold without any restriction. The CRS system designed as the backbone of CAPPS II came from a company called Galileo International, a subsidiary company of - you guessed it - Cendant, and partner to Trilegiant.

As privacy advocate Bill Scannell put it, "Galileo can sell or trade your dossier to whomever they wish," with the leading candidates being Cendant's many travel-related enterprises. After a massive public outcry, DHS scrapped the CAPPS II program, but has since pushed to implement a similar initiative called "Secured Flight."

As for Galileo, it recently renewed a partnership contract with World Travel Service to provide, as the press release puts it, "development of technology solutions and vendor relationships essential to our success."

Where, it must be asked, does the consumer fit into this tangled web of "vendor relationships?"

Trouble In Paradise ... and Connecticut

On July 12th, California's Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, filed suit against Chase Bank and Trilegiant for their "deceptive billing practices" relating to the bundled offers to Chase customers. Lockyer accused the companies of preying on the elderly and customers with limited grasp of English, in order to continue their "unsavory schemes."

About the same time, after 500 complaints to their office and a reputed two-year investigation (plus nearly 2000 complaints to the Connecticut Better Business Bureau), Connecticut's own Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, announced his office was launching its own lawsuit against the corporation in conjunction with the state's Department of Consumer Protection.

"Trilegiant uses 'Advantage' to name its clubs but the only real advantage goes to Trilegiant," Blumenthal said. "My office has intervened on behalf of hundreds of consumers, but Trilegiant persisted in its predatory enrollment practices over and over again. We're investigating involvement of other companies credit card issuers and national banks that may be knowingly aiding this scheme."

Trilegiant had already paid $400,000 to the state of Florida in March of 2005 to settle similar claims out of court, but its legal woes may be just beginning. Several law firms say they are compiling evidence to be used in class action lawsuits.

In a perhaps-not-unrelated development, Cendant has indicated that it plans to sell its marketing division (which handles Trilegiant and its "sibling", Progeny) "in order to focus on travel and real estate." Skeptics say this sounds similar to the many government and corporate executives who find themselves in dicey situations, then promptly resign to "spend more time with their families."

Whatever the true state of affairs, it would appear that Trilegiant's "loyalty solutions" do not extend to maintaining its troubled relationship with its corporate parent.

If the complex house of cards begins to wobble, there'll be few tears shed by consumers. As one ConsumerAffairs.com complainant put it: "[This is] a huge annoyance and [possible]credit card fraud. I want this corporation stopped. How many more people like me are out there and don't know that they are being scammed?"

The Food and Drug Administration said it is investigating recent "serious adverse events," including deaths, associated with Mifeprex, better known as RU-486, the so-called "abortion pill."

There are now four cases of deaths from infection from September 2003 to June 2005 following medical abortion with the drug, the FDA said.

"The FDA is committed to sharing emerging drug information with the public and we believe it is important to share with healthcare providers and patients the latest serious reports of infection associated with this drug that we have received," said Dr. Steven Galson, Acting Director of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

The FDA's warning highlighted the risk of sepsis or blood infection when undergoing medical abortion using the drug in a manner that is not consistent with the approved labeling.

The bacteria thought to have caused the fatal infection have been identified in two of the cases and the other two cases are under investigation by FDA along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, State and local health departments, and the manufacturer of Mifeprex.

Doctors are urged to have a higher level of suspicion for sepsis in their patients taking Mifeprex.

Previously, the FDA has received reports of serious bacterial infection, bleeding, ectopic pregnancies that have ruptured, and death. Those reports led to the revision of the black box labeling. Mifeprex was approved by the FDA in 2000.

The incident is "further evidence of the abortion industry's pursuit of a reckless path of destruction that leaves millions of victims dead in its wake," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "How many more women and preborn children must die before this lethal drug is taken off of the market?"

The popularity of different Integra models with thieves made Acura the most stolen make of 2004, followed by Hummer, Land Rover, Daewoo and Honda.

The top three vehicle segments with the highest rate of theft rates in 2004 were the full-size sport/utility Vehicles, such as the Cadillac Escalade; the upper midsize sedans, including the Integra; and the prestige luxury segment, such as Bentley and Mercedes Benz.

The top 10 list is rounded out by the 1991 GMC V2500 at No. 4, the 2002 Audi S4 at No. 5 and the 1992 Mercedes-Benz 600 at No. 10.

The theft data comes from CCC Information Services which tracks auto theft claims.

The experts think that a growing interest in street racing could be feeding the thieves demand for the Integra. The reason could also explain why the 2002 BMW M Roadster is the No. 2 car on the list, as well as why the 2004 Mercury Marauder comes in at No. 8.

"We cannot determine with absolute certainty the reason why thieves steal some vehicles over others, but we see trends in the data that provide interesting insight," said Carole Comstock, CCC's vice president of marketing and product management.

"For instance, our data suggests some cars are stolen for the value of their parts, which may explain why we often see a 'clustering' effect with same make and model vehicles from sequential model years."

Top 25 Cars Stolen in American Last Year

1. 1999 Acura Integra
2. 2002 BMW M Roadster
3. 1998 Acura Integra
4. 1991 GMC V2500
5. 2002 Audi S4
6. 1996 Acura Integra
7. 1995 Acura Inte

The Internal Revenue Service has revoked the tax-exempt status of four credit counseling groups and is continuing its investigation of several others accused of abusing their tax-exempt status, a senior IRS attorney said. She did not identify the organizations affected.

IRS attorney Debra Kawecki addressed members of the Association of Independent Consumer Credit Counseling Agencies, which held its annual meeting in Washington last week.

According to the IRS Web site, A Better Way Credit Counseling of Greenacres, Fla., and the National Center for Debt Elimination of North Huntingdon, Pa., no longer qualify to receive tax-deductible contributions, the Baltimore Sun reported. AmeriDebt, once a major credit counseling agency, is being liquidated in bankruptcy court and its founder, Andris Pukke, is being sued for $172 million by the Federal Trade Commission.

Kawecki was challenged by a lawyer who represents credit counseling firms. David Borinsky said the IRS should issue rules to give the agencies more guidance.

But Kawecki shot back that credit counseling is not rocket science and said rules weren't needed. "It's basic bread-and-butter tax-exempt law ... You help people, you don't hurt people," she said, according to The Washington Post.

Credit counseling became a growth industry in the 1990s, as scores of supposedly not-for-profit organizations were created, each claiming to help consumers manage their debt. But consumers and investigators say many of the agencies charged high fees, funneled money to for-profit affiliates and didn't provide the consumer education they promised.

The crackdown has taken on added urgency because of the new bankruptcy law which goes into effect in October. It requires that consumers undergo credit counseling with a government-approved not-for-profit before filing for bankruptcy.

The IRS has reportedly received about 40 applications from agencies hoping to qualify for tax-exempt status and so far has notified about half that they don't appear to qualify, a senior IRS attorney told a conference of credit counseling organizations.

Consumer advocates have criticized the IRS for being too lenient in granting tax-exempt status to credit counselors.

In April, IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson told a Senate committee that the IRS identified 60 credit counselors for examination. He added that the IRS revoked or proposed to revoke the tax-exempt status of counselors representing more than 20 percent of the industry's gross receipts.

Xenadrine EFX contains, among other ingredients, green tea extract, yerba mate, and bitter orange. A 120-tablet bottle a one-month supply retails for approximately $40. Since its introduction in 2002, Xenadrine EFXs sales have topped $160 million.

According to the FTC, promoters advertised Xenadrine EFX heavily in print and on TV, including in such publications as People, TV Guide, Cosmopolitan, Glamour, Lets Live, Mens Fitness, and Womens World. They also disseminated Spanish language ads for Xenadrine EFX.

The advertisements claimed that Xenadrine EFX causes rapid and substantial weight and fat loss, such weight loss without the need to diet or exercise, permanent or long-term weight loss, and is clinically proven to work. The ads relied heavily on testimonials from supposedly satisfied customers, some of whom claimed to have lost over 100 pounds.

The complaint names Robert Chinery, Jr., Tracy Chinery, and their company, RTC Research & Development, LLC, alleging that the New Jersey-based Chinery defendants made false and unsubstantiated claims for Xenadrine EFX, including that it was clinically proven to cause rapid and substantial weight loss and clinically proven to be more effective than leading ephedrine-based diet products.

According to the complaint, Robert Chinery commissioned several studies of Xenadrine EFX, none of which showed substantial weight loss. The complaint alleges that in one of these studies, subjects taking Xenadrine EFX lost an average of only 1.5 pounds over the 10-week study, while a control group taking a placebo lost an average of 2.5 pounds over the same period.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants falsely represented that persons appearing in the ads achieved the reported weight loss solely by using Xenadrine EFX. According to the FTC complaint, consumer endorsers, in fact, lost weight by engaging in rigorous diet and/or exercise programs. The complaint alleges that the defendants also failed to disclose that the endorsers were paid from $1,000 to $20,000 in connection with their testimonials.

Another company controlled by the Chinery defendants, Nutraquest, was not named in the complaint; it is currently in bankruptcy and facing numerous product liability, class action, and advertising claims relating to an ephedra product, Xenadrine RFA-1.

In addition, the Commission has accepted a consent agreement with another group of entities, Cytodyne, LLC, Evergood Products Corp., and Melvin Rich, all of New York. They have entered into an administrative settlement with the FTC.

The consent order requires the respondents to pay $100,000 to the FTC. It also prohibits the Rich respondents from claiming that Xenadrine EFX or any other substantially similar product causes rapid and substantial weight or fat loss and prohibits the claim that any weight-loss product causes rapid and substantial weight loss without diet or exercise.

The settlement further prohibits the respondents from claiming that any weight-loss product, dietary supplement, food, drug, or device causes weight or fat loss, causes permanent or long-term weight loss, or causes users to lose weight or fat without diet or exercise unless they have competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate the claims.

It also requires that the respondents have competent and reliable scientific evidence for any claims they make about the health benefits, performance, efficacy, safety, or side effects of any such product and prohibits them from misrepresenting any test, study, or research for any such product.

In addition, the settlement prohibits the respondents from misrepresenting the experience described in any user testimonials for any weight loss product, dietary supplement, food, drug or device. It requires the respondents to disclose any material connection including monetary payments between the endorser and the respondents or any person or entity involved in manufacturing, marketing, or selling the product.

Although adults seem to be turning to diet drinks, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says that the data show teenagers are actually consuming more high-calorie soft drinks than ever -- and fewer diet drinks than in years past -- despite growing concerns about obesity.

"Just as the soaring rates of obesity have shocked Americans, so should the increasing consumption by teenagers of one of the causes of obesity," CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson said. "What was once a rare treat in a small serving is now served up morning, noon, and night, virtually everywhere Americans happen to be. How did a solution of high-fructose corn syrup, water, and artificial flavors come to be the default beverage?"

In a petition filed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), CSPI asked the agency to require a series of rotating health notices on containers of all non-diet soft drinks-carbonated and non-carbonated-containing more than 13 grams of refined sugars per 12 ounces. (The typical 12-ounce beverage contains 40 grams.) CSPI said that those messages could include:

• The U.S. Government recommends that you drink less (non-diet) soda to help prevent weight gain, tooth decay, and other health problems.
• To help protect your waistline and your teeth, consider drinking diet sodas or water.
• Drinking soft drinks instead of milk or calcium-fortified beverages may increase your risk of brittle bones (osteoporosis).

CSPI also said that caffeinated drinks should bear a notice that reads "This drink contains x grams of caffeine, which is a mildly addictive stimulant drug. Not appropriate for children."

"It is obvious to physicians who treat obese children that the extra 200, 300, or 400 empty calories kids get from soft drinks contribute to weight gain," said Dr. Caroline M. Apovian, director of the Nutrition and Weight Management Center at Boston Medical Center. "If you want to stop the epidemic of childhood obesity, curbing soda consumption is the place to start. Health messages on labels would certainly help parents and teens be aware of the risks."

In 2004, soft drink companies produced 37 gallons of carbonated non-diet soda-providing about 60,000 empty calories-for every man, woman, and child in the United States, according to Liquid Candy, a CSPI report first issued in 1998 and just re-released in updated form.

As high as that is, industry data show that per capita production of carbonated soda has dropped 7 percent since 1998. And because many adults have switched to diet soda, production of non-diet soda has declined 12 percent-the biggest decrease ever.

Nevertheless, despite that decline in overall production, soda consumption in kids has increased from the 1970s to the 2000s, as have their rates of obesity. Obesity has doubled in kids, and tripled in teens. Though the correlation is striking, recent studies have provided even more direct evidence implicating increased soda consumption with weight gain.

CSPI's new data show that one out of every 10 boys consumes 66 ounces-equivalent to five and a half 12-ounce cans, or about 800 calories-per day. One out of every 20 boys consumes the equivalent of 7 cans per day, or about 1,000 calories. The amount of refined sugars that soda-drinking teens get from soda exceeds the government's recommendations for their sugar consumption from all foods.

"Soda is bad not only for what is provides kids, but for what it takes away," said Lucy Nolan, executive director of End Hunger Connecticut!. That group recently lobbied successfully for legislation banning soda and other junk foods from schools only to see it vetoed by Governor Jodi Rell.

"Hardly any kids are getting enough calcium, vitamins, fiber, vegetables, or fruit. The more soda you drink, the less of those you get. If school systems spent half as much time trying to get more fruits and vegetables into schools as they did trying to keep soda contracts, our kids would be much better off."

Overweight or obese teens are increasingly at risk for type-2 diabetes, once called "adult-onset" diabetes and once rare in kids. And the decreased calcium intake that may accompany increased soda consumption can put people, particularly women, at greater risk for broken bones and osteoporosis.

CSPI's petition is supported by groups including the American Dental Hygienists Association, the American Society of Bariatric Surgeons, the Consumer Federation of America and the National Center for Health Education.

It is also supported by leading scientists and nutrition experts, including Gladys Block of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health; George Bray of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University; Brian Burt of the University of Michigan School of Public Health; JoAnn Manson of Harvard Medical School; and Marion Nestle of New York University.

Besides health messages on labels, CSPI recommends requiring calorie labeling of beverages on chain restaurant menus and menu boards, and stopping soda sales in schools.

CSPI also says that states and local governments that levy small taxes on soda or other junk foods should consider earmarking those revenues for promoting health and fitness. A national 2-cent-per-can tax on soda would raise $3 billion annually-almost one thousand times as much money as the federal government spends promoting consumption of fruits and vegetables.

Cellphones emit electromagnetic radiation and their design requires them to be held close to the user's head. Scientists are concerned that childrens' skulls are thinner and their brains are still developing. Therefore, the risk of electromagnetic energy damaging their brains could be greater than the risk for adults.

A Canadian research team contributing to the project has access to the phone records of cancer patients -- including some children.

"And if we're looking at chronic diseases like cancer, because they are exposed at an earlier age, they have a greater opportunity for that effect to manifest itself," said Daniel Krewski, one of the Canadian researchers, who added there is no evidence so far that kids are at risk.

One reason for the growing concern is that the wireless industry is increasingly targeting children. Already on the market are Hello Kitty phones, offered jointly by Nokia and the character's creator, Sanrio. Mattel sells a Barbie-branded phone as part of its My Scene line targeting 8- to 14-year-old girls. Verizon Wireless has added Sesame Street and Nickelodeon clips to its V Cast wireless broadband service.

Most prominently, the Walt Disney Co. is teaming up with Sprint to offer wireless phone service with Disney-branded content. The new program, called Disney Mobile, will be offered next year and will target families and the growing number of kids with cellphones.

A Disney spokeswoman said the phones will offer Disney-branded "ring tones, graphics and information," but she gave few other details about the service.

Children have become a favorite new market for mobile services now that most adults - over 80 percent, by some counts - already own cellphones.

According to NOP World Technology, a consumer research firm based in Manhattan, 40 percent of kids aged 12 to 14 owned cell phones at the end of last year, up from just 13 percent in 2002.

There are ways to reduce the risk of brain damage, said a WHO spokesman.

"With respect to children, WHO recommends that children should use hands-free headsets," said Mike Repacholi.

While the risk may be slight, the WHO notes that the vast number of cellphone users means that even a slight risk can have a major impact on public health.

Cancer isn't the only focus of the WHO study, which will also look at conditions like memory loss and other decline in mental functioning. The study is also examining the questions of whether people can safely use cellphones while driving and how much they interfere with medical devices.

Consumer advocates urged caution, however, and said that carriers might not recognize the transfers.

Most cellular service providers, incluidng such major carriers as Cingular, Verizon, T-mobile and Nextel, require a 1-2 year cellular service agreement to activate their service. Cellular customers wanting to get out of their contract are now "stuck" in most cases, although a few states allow early termination in certain circumstances.

Celltradeusa.com says it provides a solution to this dilemma. It hopes to build a community for the 180 million current cell phone users in the US and Canada seeking more choice and flexibility. The service connects people that want to get out of their contract and matches them with deal-seeking customers that want to pick up a contract.

Celltradeusa.com does this by allowing its "Get Out" members to register for free, and provides an incentive system based on free phones, cash, and other "creative" barter arrangements to entice other people to take over contracts.

"If you've ever spoken with someone stuck in a cellular service contract with inadequate service, you quickly realize the value of the Get Out option. We also appeal to the deal seekers of the cellular world with the 'Get In option.' And the service provider gets the new satisfied customer, it's really a win-win for everybody," says Eric Wurtenberg, co-founder of Celltradeusa.com.

"It's a clever idea but consumers should be aware that their cell phone carrier may not recognize the swap," said ConsumerAffairs.com President James R. Hood. "If you read your cell phone contract, you will most likely find a clause that prohibits you from making any 'transfers and assigns.' Thus, your carrier would not be obligated to recognize a contract swap."

"Even if your carrier agrees to allow the swap, it will most likely come after you if the new customer falls behind in his or her payments," Hood warned.

The company responds:

Thank you for bringing awareness to your readers about our celltradeusa.com service. However, we would like to address a couple of issues that were in your consumer report.

1. Celltradeusa.com is a listings site that matches cell phone consumers together through our incentive based system. After we connect the consumer, the entire transfer process is conducted through the respective provider. There will be no delinquency issues because the provider will qualify the person transferring the contract responsibility before any trade is authorized. The Get Out person will be fully removed from the contract obligation after the trade (with the provider) is completed.

2. Transfer of responsibility is something that ALL the providers already offer to their customers. Celltradeusa.com expands on what the providers offer to their customers by offering a listings service that allows users to find matches they would have had a hard time finding without our service.

3. The actual process is not mandatory for ""swapping" or as we call "clean" swaps. The Get Out customer first finds someone who wants to take over the contract. After the provider qualifies that person, the Get In customer assumes the contract responsibility, and the Get Out customer does not have to take over anyone else's contract for the service to work. They can walk away to buy new, or if they'd like they can go through the process of becoming a Get In customer. Cell swapping is a possibility, but the majority of our transactions are not swaps. And ALL transfers are conducted through the respective provider. We rely on the provider to conduct the transfers that they already offer to their customers.

I hope this clears up some issues surrounding our service. I think our press release is party to blame and I will ensure that the release will expound the details more clearly. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best Regards,
Eric Wurtenberg
Co-founder
Celltradeusa.com

A study of of Australian drivers reports that the use of any cell phone, hands-free or otherwise, carries a four-fold higher risk of serious accidents. It's the latest in an accumulating body of evidence that finds cell phone user a major factor in highway accidents.

The study was conducted in Australia because American cell phone carriers refused to cooperate.

The increased risk was estimated by comparing phone use within 10 minutes before an actual crash occurred with use by the same driver during the prior week. Subjects were drivers treated in hospital emergency rooms for injuries suffered in crashes from April 2002 to July 2004.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study, "Role of cellular phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance," was published in the British Medical Journal.

"The main finding of a fourfold increase in injury crash risk was consistent across groups of drivers," said Anne McCartt, Institute vice president for research and an author of the study. "Male and female drivers experienced about the same increase in risk from using a phone. So did drivers older and younger than 30 and drivers using hand-held and hands-free phones."

Weather wasn't a factor in the crashes, almost 75 percent of which occurred in clear conditions. Eighty-nine percent of the crashes involved other vehicles. More than half of the injured drivers reported that their crashes occurred within 10 minutes of the start of the trip.

The study was conducted in the Western Australian city of Perth. The Institute first tried to conduct this research in the United States, but U.S. phone companies were unwilling to make customers' billing records available, even with permission from the drivers. Phone records could be obtained in Australia, and the researchers got a high rate of cooperation among drivers who had been in crashes.

Another reason for conducting the study in Australia was to estimate crash risk in a jurisdiction where hand-held phone use is banned. It has been illegal while driving in Western Australia since July 2001. Still one-third of the drivers said their calls had been placed on hand-held phones.

Hands-free versus hand-held

The results suggest that banning hand-held phone use won't necessarily enhance safety if drivers simply switch to hands-free phones. Injury crash risk didn't differ from one type of reported phone use to the other.

"This isn't intuitive. You'd think using a hands-free phone would be less distracting, so it wouldn't increase crash risk as much as using a hand-held phone. But we found that either phone type increased the risk," McCartt says. "This could be because the so-called hands-free phones that are in common use today aren't really hands-free. We didn't have sufficient data to compare the different types of hands-free phones, such as those that are fully voice activated."

Evidence of risk is mounting

The findings of the Institute study, based on the experience of about 500 drivers, are consistent with 1997 research that showed phone use was associated with a fourfold increase in the risk of a property damage crash. This Canadian study also used cell phone billing records to establish the increase in risk. The Institute's new study is the second to use phone records and the first to estimate whether and how much phone use increases the risk of an injury crash.

Taken together, the two studies confirm that the distractions associated with phone use contribute significantly to crashes.

Other studies have been published about cell phone use while driving, but most have been small-scale and have involved simulated or instrumented driving, not the actual experience of drivers on the road. When researchers have tried to assess the effects of phone use on real-world crashes, they usually have relied on police reports for information. But such reports aren't reliable because, without witnesses, police cannot determine whether a crash-involved driver was using a phone.

July 12, 2005
State officials are responding sharply to a study that suggests doctors are victims of price-gouging by insurance companies who continue to raise malpractice insurance premiums even as claims decline.

The data in the Annual Statements filed under oath with state insurance departments, which this Report discloses, call into question much of what the medical malpractice insurance industry has been saying publicly during the past several years, said Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon.

There is no excuse for malpractice insurers doubling their rates while their claims payments decrease.

According to the study, released by the Consumer Federation of America, Public Citizens Congress Watch and U.S. PIRG, medical malpractice insurance rates for doctors have skyrocketed in recent years even though claim payments are down.

The numbers underscore the need for much tougher, more aggressive oversight to prevent and punish profiteering, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. Federal and state regulators should thoroughly scrutinize recent rate increases and take appropriate corrective action.

Affordable medical malpractice insurance is critical to public health. Expensive insurance rates become a matter of life and death when they drive doctors out of business - as is happening in Connecticut and nationwide. Insurance company greed can be hazardous to our health.

Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Services Commissioner Linda A. Watters said she was "definitely disturbed" by the numbers in the report, which offers "evidence that doctors may be paying excessive premiums."

"In the market competition study that we recently issued, we considered loss ratios below 50 percent as patently excessive. If these carriers truly have loss ratios that that are this low and yet they are still increasing rates, one has to wonder if they're gouging, Watters said.

Remember your Grandmother's refrigerator? That comforting round shape in either pink or turquoise, or later avocado green or harvest gold, it ran until the cows came home - you may have even inherited it. In the old days, appliances actually lasted 15-20 years. So what changed?

Globalization of manufacturing, that's what. Over the past 15 or 20 years, appliance sales have been flat. But manufacturing costs have risen. Major manufacturers have realized that people don't care about manufacturing costs; they want a refrigerator or washer and dryer for a good price.

So, forced to cap their retail prices to consumers, they began making a $400 refrigerator out of lower-quality materials. In your Grandmother's day, a $400 refrigerator was the top of the line and LASTED 20 years. Today, despite what the manufacturers say, you can hope for maybe 5-10.

The lower-end machines today are constructed of lower-quality materials than similarly-priced machines 15 years ago. This is directly related to manufacturers buying parts from all over the world - and being unable to control the quality. They'd rather you buy a new appliance every 5-10 years than make one that lasts 20. While this has allowed manufacturers to cap retail prices for low-end machines over the years, it has also contributed to a degradation of quality.

You can still buy high-quality appliances but you'll pay a correspondingly higher price tag for them. As an example, top-end dishwashers go for around $900, washers around $1,100, and dryers for around $600, etc. But if you're considering having your existing machine repaired or replacing it with a low-end machine that is comparable in price with what you paid for your machine 10 to 15 years ago, you're comparing apples to oranges. Even on the labor of the repair. Repair people make more now than NASA scientists. (Had any plumbing done lately? Then you know what I mean).

You have few choices when shopping for a toaster oven or a stainless steel dishwasher - either pay the higher price and enjoy years of trouble-free use, or buy the lower-end model and throw it out the window every five years.

This is the "aggravation factor" and it figures into most appliance purchases. If you pay less for the appliance, then the delivery, installation and haul-away fees for your old appliance don't sting quite as much. And the manufacturers know this - in fact - they count on it.

I know, because I just went through this with my 5-year-old dryer. After trying to troubleshoot the problem myself - hey, I put a roof on my deck, how hard can this be? - I gave up in sweaty frustration and whipped out the Yellow Pages. I called several repair services, and by the time they added up the "come out to diagnose it" fees, possible problems and parts, and the labor to fix it, I said, "Nuts to that" and off I went to the closest home improvement store.

I picked out a similar dryer in my price range and bought it. All I had to do was sit back, sip a latte and wait for the delivery men to take out the "old" dryer and replace and install my new one - problem solved. Or is it? Could I have looked a little harder and tried to diagnose the problem myself, saving me the diagnostic fee? Maybe, but who has the time, let alone the expertise, to do that? Not me.

So how do you know when it's time to repair or replace that appliance?

1. Troubleshoot the problem first. Read your manual. Maybe it came unplugged, or tripped a safety switch or circuit breaker, or has some other simple problem that's easily repaired. Every appliance comes with an owner's manual, most of which have troubleshooting sections.

2. Can't find the answer in the manual? If the manual doesn't answer your questions, most manufacturers have a website. Check it out for repair tips.

3. Is the machine still under warranty? Knowing this can help you decide whether repair or replacement makes more economic sense as you work through the questions in the next step. If the appliance is still under warranty then the problem is covered.

4. Maybe you can repair it yourself. If you know the difference between a channel lock plier and a pipe cutter, you may tackle the job yourself - paying only for parts and donating your time and aggravation.

5. Can't repair it yourself? It might make economic sense to get a repairperson to look at it and get an estimate on repairs; if it's less than the new, sporty model you were looking, and worked fine before this problem, have a it repaired. You'll save in the long run. Usually, the estimate call fee is absorbed if you have the company repair the machine.

Life Expectancy - the Machine, not Yours

Based on data from several consumer and manufacturer sources, here are the typical longevity averages for the mid-to low-end machines given by manufacturers. The second chart is more realistic

Reasons to Replace

So, with all this information, how do you know whether to repair or replace? The rule of thumb is, if the repair is 50 percent of the cost of a new machine, go shopping. But keep in mind, you are not only going to pay for the machine - you'll have to figure in delivery, hauling the old one away, and installation. But here are some benefits:

• The new model is most likely rated an Energy-Star machine and highly efficient energy efficient. Does the new model have newer technology that you would like?
• Will a new model provide additional features that add convenience and flexibility? Will you use these features?
• Replacement parts may be hard to find. The older the appliance, the harder it is to find the parts. It is even hard to find parts for some newer models.
• Replacement parts are expensive. Consider what the part is costing in comparison with the age of the machine. For example, if you replace a major part in a 7-year-old appliance, remember that all the other parts are still 7 years old.
• Do you simply want a new appliance? If so, can you afford to purchase the appliance without wrecking the budget or going into too much debt (particularly high credit card or retail contract debt)?

Typical Repair Costs

It's not easy to come up with typical repair costs, as labor charges vary widely around the country. I did some digging in my area (North Carolina) and the figures below are what I came up with. The numbers in your area will probably vary, maybe considerably, so shop around before you make a decision.

• Appliance repair, $45-65 per hour plus parts
• Install a new dishwasher, $350-$550
• Install new range/oven combination, $400-$700
• Install disposal, $125-$175
• New refrigerator (average), $800-$1300
• Microwaves, $250-$450
• Washer/Dryer, $ 50-75 per hr plus parts.

(I laughed at the microwave repair cost, as you can get a great microwave at Walmart, Target or Kmart on sale under $100.)

If I were a repairperson, with my pay based on an hourly basis, I might not work as quickly and efficiently as I should. This is another thing to consider - also, this brings me to the most important part:

How Do I Know It Was Really Fixed?

You have probably seen the TV news' undercover coverage of scams - notably, appliance repair scams. Let me point out a few things if you missed it.

1. NEVER, EVER leave your repairperson alone. Stand over him/her like a parent and ask a LOT of questions. This bugs the tar out of them, but they get it that you are a watchful consumer and someone not to mess with.

2. Get everything in writing if you decide to repair the machine. This includes parts, taxes, the whole ball of wax.

3. Ask if they guarantee their work. For how long? Labor only or parts, too?

4. Be there when they repair it. Ask to see every part they replaced and why it needed replacing. If you have any gut feelings that you're being taken, stop the work and get the company on the phone.

5. Match the replaced part to the estimate. Did they include this part in the estimate? If not, ask why and if they try to wriggle out of an answer, tell them to get the company on the phone - NOW.

I hope this gives you some help when it comes to repairing or replacing major appliances. These are large purchases for most folks, so shop around with repair companies (get at least 3 quotes) and if you decide to buy, shop and ask what additional fees you have to pay.

Oh, one last thing: if you're buying a new appliance, make sure it will fit. Sizes are not as standard as you might think. Measure the space exactly. If your new refrigerator is 1/8 of an inch too wide, it won't fit no matter how hard you shove it.