Current Events in January 2006

As Ford unveils its turnaround plan, it might want to turn around and examine a problem it's left in the dust: Ford F-series trucks built between 1999 and 2004 have a nasty habit -- they spit. Spark plugs, that is.

For years, consumers have complained about their trucks blowing spark plugs out of the aluminum cylinder head, leaving a hole in the head and rendering the $30,000 vehicle useless, often on the side of the road, until repaired.

Ford has never conceded that there's a problem.

Ford, facing a deepening financial crisis, is announcing a "comprehensive restructuring plan" today, a plan that will include plant closings and layoffs, as well as a "new look" for its minivans. Likely absent from this grand strategy is any plan to stand behind its products.

As they have been doing for years, Ford owners are snorting, spitting and suing. So far this month, more than a dozen have reported the F-series blown-spark-plug problem to ConsumerAffairs.com, adding their names to a list of hundreds who've reported similar incidents with Ford F-series trucks or SUVs.

Ashlee of Arizona was driving her 2001 Ford Expedition when a spark plug blew out.

"I thought I was the only one with this problem and then the second mechanic I took my vehicle to showed me all the complaints about this happening to other people that have the same motor in their vehicles," she wrote.

"Unbelievable" is Ashlees description of her experience with a Ford truck product.

A Reputation Wrecked

The mighty F-series once enjoyed a reputation as solid work trucks that were dependable and capable of almost any task.

Ford truck owners, however, continue to tell ConsumerAffairs.com that the V-10 and 5.4 liter Triton V-8 are so poorly designed that the spark plug in the number three cylinder of both engines can -- and often does -- blow right out of its socket.

Some Ford truck owners have experienced the problem more than once. Some have replaced the expensive all-aluminum cylinder head only to have the plug blow out again down the road. Others have had the same problem in more than one vehicle.

"I have a 1999 F-150 and just blew a second spark plug on December 31, 2005 while traveling to Nevada," Paul wrote. "I was shocked to learn that my truck will cost $2,800 per head."

Ford refuses to stand behind the product, even when the owner has purchased the expensive extended warranty. Ford insists the problem is with the spark plug and says that spark plugs are not covered by the extended warranty.

Todd heard that explanation from his Ford dealer in Ohio.

"The local Ford dealer told me that there is no problem with the design and my extended warranty does not cover spark plugs so it would cost me $3,850 to put a new head in," Todd wrote. "What I do not understand is the fact that the spark plug did not break, it blew out of my engine! How is that not covered?"

Groovy? Not Quite

Mechanics who have worked on Ford engines damaged by blown spark plugs say there are too few threads machined into the number three cylinder spark plug hole inside the aluminum cylinder head.

The mechanics report that there are sometimes as few as three revolutions of grooves and that is probably not enough to hold the plugs when they are under stress.

"I have a 2000 Ford F-150 5.4 Triton with approx 85,000 miles on it," John wrote us from California. "It has launched a spark plug from the right rear cylinder and there are no threads left."

Ford dealerships are charging between $2,000 and $5,000 to repair the damage caused by the blown spark plug, according to consumer information and complaints.

Despite a petition detailing the issue, federal regulators at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have declined to address the problem.

Other than to deny the warranty claims, Ford has no comment on the issue either.

A federally mandated recall would have devastating financial implications for Ford because 17 million SUVs, pickups, Crown Victorias and Mustangs are potentially involved.

Recalling the vehicles to fix the cylinder heads would generate the largest, most labor intensive and perhaps most expensive recall in automotive history.

Blowing Away Customers

On the other hand, American automakers are steadily losing market share to Asian brands, at least partly because U.S.-made vehicles are no longer regarded as being as sturdy and reliable as their Japanese competitors.

Similarly, American automakers are steadily acquiring a reputation for stonewalling consumers who run into expensive problems with their U.S.-made cars and trucks. Ford, in particular, has steadfastly refused to fix a lengthy string of calamitous problems, including:

• The 3.8L V-6 Engine Used in the Windstar and other models, this all-aluminum engine tended to blow its head gasket every 60,000 miles or so. Ford finally issued an extended warranty to some owners but squeaked out of a class action suit that would most likely have resulted in a more stringent settlement.

• Flaming Fords For years, Ford ignored the tendency of the F-150 and similar models to spontaneously burst into flames while parked with the engine off. Finally, in 2005, it issued a recall, although parts shortages have slowed its completion.

• Crown Victoria Fires Police departments nationwide complained, filed suit and looked for alternatives to the popular but explosive Crown Vic. Ford insists that putting the gas tank behind the axle isn't dangerous but try telling that to those who've been killed or seriously burned when their cars exploded after being rear-ended.

Can Ford really afford to ignore problems and mistreat its faithful customers in this manner? Slick advertising campaigns and promises of green machines to come may not be enough to overcome the wrath and unending fury of consumers who have been hung out to dry by products they consider defective and a corporate response that amounts to a curt dismissal.

Ford's North American car and truck business is already bleeding money. Even though the company showed an overall profit, Ford lost $1.4 billion in North America before taxes during the first nine months of 2005.

The financial downside of such a vast recall along with the labor-intensive nature of the necessary repair suggest Ford will fight long and hard before admitting a manufacturing or design flaw has anything to do with the long list of blown number three cylinder spark plugs.

On the other hand, the reason Ford is losing money is not that it spends too much to build vehicles and fulfill its warranty commitments. It is losing money because it is not selling enough vehicles to cover its fixed costs.

Last week's R. L. Polk & Co. Loyalty Survey found Toyota bumping Ford from the #1 spot, ending Ford's nine-year reign.

Large manufacturing plants must operate close to or at capacity to be profitable. Most auto executives would agree that what Ford needs to become profitable is to sell more cars and trucks -- not to further alienate what remains of its customer base by making its consumers pay the tab for Ford's oversights.

When it announces its "turnaround" plan today, Ford is likely to announce a "new direction" for its sluggish minivan lineup.

The company's expected to move away from the traditional minivan look, characterized by sliding doors and a truck platform, and pursue a design similar to the car-like Fairlane concept wagon that it revealed at the Detroit auto show last year, Automotive News reported.

Ameriquest, the nation's largest sub-prime lender, has agreed to pay $325 million to settle a 49-state investigation. The company agreed to pay $295 million in consumer restitution and reform its business practices.

The agreement ranks as the second-largest predatory lending settlement in history, right behind the $484 million agreement reached between most states and Household Finance Corporation in 2002.

President Bush last year nominated Ameriquest founder Roland Arnall as the next ambassador to the Netherlands.

Arnall and his wife, who live on a 10-acre estate in the Holmby Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles, contributed $5 million to a pro-Bush committee in 2003 and chipped in $1 million for Bush's second inauguration party, The Los Angeles Times reported.

"Our economic system cannot function properly unless businesses treat consumers fairly and honestly," said California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who announced the settlement.

"Unfortunately, our investigation found that Ameriquest's prior lending practices too often violated those principles and harmed families. This settlement provides a good measure of justice by compensating victims of these previous practices and helping to ensure there are no victims in the future," Lockyer said.

Today's development culminates more than two years of investigation by the attorneys general, state lending regulators and local prosecutors, and more than one year of settlement negotiations.

Law enforcement officials and regulators received hundreds of complaints from Ameriquest customers across the country. The ensuing investigation uncovered widespread consumer protection problems in areas governed by the settlement.

The alleged improper practices included: inadequate disclosure of prepayment penalties, discount points and other loan terms; unsolicited refinancing offers, without adequate disclosure of prepayment penalties; improperly influencing and accepting inflated appraisals; and misrepresentations regarding consumers' credit ratings, and the availability and cost of future refinance loans.

In addition to the $295 million for consumer restitution, the settlement requires Ameriquest to pay $30 million to the settling states to cover their costs, and to fund consumer education and enforcement programs.

Of the $295 million in restitution, $175 million will go to eligible customers who obtained mortgages from January 1, 1999 through April 1, 2003, the date Ameriquest changed its loan pricing practices to eliminate some elements that misled consumers. Consumers' payments from the $175 million will be based on a formula set by the settling states and be distributed through a nationwide claims process.

Another $120 million in restitution will be allocated to the settling states based on the percentage of total Ameriquest loans, measured in dollars, held by consumers in each state.

The second restitution pot of $120 million will compensate Ameriquest customers who obtained mortgages between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2005. Each settling state will determine which customers in its jurisdiction are eligible to receive money from this restitution fund.

The states can use some of their share of the $120 million to provide additional compensation to Ameriquest customers who receive payments from the $175 million pot.

Each state's exact share of restitution funds has not been determined. But California will receive the largest portion because, at 108,031 loans valued at $23.3 billion, it had the highest Ameriquest loan volume in the nation from 1999-2005.

Future Practices

The settlement also aims to protect future Ameriquest customers through provisions that mandate wide-ranging reforms of the lender's business practices. For example, the settlement requires full, clear disclosure regarding interest rates, discount points, prepayment penalties and other loan or refinancing terms.

Another major reform overhauls Ameriquest's appraisal practices. These provisions remove branch offices and sales personnel from the appraiser selection process, institute an automated system to choose appraisers from panels created in each state, limit Ameriquest's ability to get second opinions on appraisals, require Ameriquest to audit appraisers' work, and prohibit Ameriquest employees from influencing appraisals.

Ameriquest, founded by Arnall as Long Beach Savings in 1979, has faced off with consumer activists, regulators and private litigants in a series of disputes over its lending practices dating to 1996. The company has paid millions of dollars in restitution and for borrower education, and it has adopted a series of "best practices" improvements to its operating policies.

Here's another reason to think twice about plopping down thousands of dollars for a plasma-screen TV: those pesky network logos could cause screen burn-in under certain conditions, at least according to an irate group of consumers in Australia.

Aussie views complain that those long days of cricket and tennis coverage on Channels 7 and 9 are leaving the stations' logos burned into expensive receivers long after the games have ended.

Viewers are threatening legal action against the stations, saying their delicate screens have been ruined by the stations' negligence.

The stations haven't had much to say about the problem so far, although a Seven spokesman was quoted as saying that turning down the contrast could help avoid the problem.

Australia's Daily Telegraph quoted avid sports fan Wayne Spiers, who said he bought a $3,000 plasma screen on Christmas Eve. It now bears Nine's logo in the right-hand corner, a legacy of the Boxing Day games, which his family watched on and off for five days.

Spiers said a day of tennis-watching last week resulted in a matching Channel 7 logo.

Madigan filed the complaint against 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc., d/b/a locatecell.com, celltolls.com, datafind.org and peoplesearchamerica.com. The company is located in Tamarac, Florida.

Madigan, who subpoenaed locatecell.com approximately two weeks ago, sued the defendants under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

"This entire enterprise is an outrageous invasion of personal privacy that could put lives in danger," Madigan said. "The possibility of harm from this 'service' to victims of domestic violence and law enforcement is enormous. As Attorney General, I will do everything in my power to stop this abuse."

Madigan's complaint alleges that 1st Source made misrepresentations to telecommunications companies to obtain phone records by calling companies and posing as the customers, agents or employees of the company; made misrepresentations to telecommunication companies online by posing as consumers to gain unauthorized access to online accounts; sold phone records illegally obtained; and misrepresented to consumers via the Web sites that they had legally obtained the call records.

Madigan said the defendants only need to be provided with a third party's cell phone or land line telephone number to achieve their goal of obtaining the cell phone records. In fact, some of the sites offer a discount if the customer includes the consumer's name and address along with the cell or land line number.

Using this information, defendants will provide up to 100 outgoing calls with dates within the most recent billing cycle. Defendants will also provide incoming calls if possible. Some Web sites have options to purchase additional information such as call times and duration.

The defendants can use the information they provide in a number of ways: defendants can offer a reverse look up service for both cell and land line numbers; a customer can look at the outgoing calls provided by defendants and then have the defendants turn that phone number into a name and address: both land line and cell phone reverse look up tools are available for free on the Internet.

Recent Examples

In filing her complaint, Madigan cited recent examples of cell phone record abuse.

On January 6, 2006, a Chicago police official used locatecell.com to obtain the call records on an undercover narcotics telephone number and received accurate call records within four hours of the request.

In a separate incident in California on September 8, 2005, according to a Cingular affidavit filed in its litigation against 1st Source, during an undercover buy, defendants or their agents posed as an employee/agent of Cingular and as a customer of Cingular to induce Cingular's customer service representative to provide them with the call records of the targeted consumer.

In her complaint, Madigan also noted the "come-on" nature of the advertising for the data broker service, including Web sites that stated, "No data returned, No Charge for the Search;" "RESULTS WITHIN 1 TO 4 HOURS!! No Hit No Charge!" and "Reverse Cell Phone Number to Name and Address."

The complaint seeks to prohibit the defendants from operating in Illinois and seeks civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Movieland.com is shaping up as the latest skirmish in the battle between adware sites and Web surfers over who has control of your computer. The company denies its critics' charges that it stealthily implants intrusive software on consumers' computers.

Movieland's Web site claims to offer legal downloads of movies, music and other files right to your desktop. But its critics say what it really offers are annoying adware and invasive pop-up windows that can't be removed without manually tampering with your machine's registry, a treacherous undertaking.

The Movieland site offers a three-day "free trial" download for viewers wanting to test the software. According to the company's terms of service, unless you cancel the service during the three-day period, the company will bill you $29.95 a month.

But Web surfers who say they have never visited the Movieland site or downloaded the software report that they found the company's pop-up windows on their machines anyway, often after downloading another free utility or screensaver elsewhere.

"I am receiving pop-up video from movieland.com that tell me I'm 'legally obligated to pay, now that your free trial is up' and I never ordered anything from the Website," said Michael of Wheeling, W.V., in an October 2005 complaint to ConsumerAffairs.com

"This video overrides all other functions on my computer until it is finished and the reminder keeps coming back every day," he said.

The pop-up windows repeatedly admonish the user that they are violating the terms of service agreement with Movieland, and advise that they need to pay money in order to stop the pop-ups from appearing. A link is provided to offer the consumer's credit card information.

Such was the situation facing ConsumerAffairs.com reader B. Armstrong of Modesto, Calif., who downloaded Movieland but denied using it during the trial period.

"[T]hey install ... many 'cookies' during the 'free, no-obligation test period' that prevent you from terminating your service without 'their electronic CS approval'," Armstrong said.

"There is no phone to call, no cities listed, no support per se, just every 10 minutes an irritating popup with a video woman that comes on to tell you that you've breached their contract and that owe them money. Once again...nothing was ever downloaded and I wasn't a customer."

The company disputes Armstrong's version of events.

"It is impossible to receive our payment reminders (an anti-fraud mechanism) without intentionally downloading our software. We are happy to provide you with screen captures of each and every step of the download process," the company said in an email from an unnamed company representative. No screen captures had been provided as of this writing, however.

"There is no adware utility that 'automatically inserts itself.' Our software is downloaded manually by they (sic) consumer through several intentional steps. Each step has a default setting to 'cancel.' Further, there are no extrinsic programs (adware or otherwise) bundled with our software," the company's statement said.

Nevertheless, consumers complain that, once on a user's computer, the software is very difficult to get rid of. The company disputes that. "The Movieland software is not 'very difficult to get rid of' it can be removed through add/delete programs," the company said.

A Not Uncommon Problem

So apparently pervasive is the problem that companies are buying advertisements to offer removal remedies.

"Remove Movieland Now" is the headline on a paid advertisement that sometimes appears atop Google searches on the word "Movieland." The advertisement from PareToLogic.com offers a program called XoftSpy, which claims to remove adware, spyware and pests.

"Annoyed with Nag Popups?" reads another Google ad, this one placed by SoftwareVictoria.com. "Movieland's nagware is on the rise," the company's home page says.

A Yahoo search on the term "Movieland" produces a list of other suggested search terms, beginning with "remove Movieland" and "uninstall Movieland." "Remove Movieland Adware Now" reads a Yahoo advertisement from WhichAdRemover.com.

There are also several do-it-yourself solutions to be found on the Web.

Readers of spyware fighter Mike Healan's SpywareInfo.com forums pieced together some viable solutions for getting rid of Movieland without destroying your computer.

Wyoming Internet service provider Visionary Communications has a detailed series of instructions for getting rid of the Movieland pop-ups.

The do-it-yourself sites and the advertisements for paid removal services lend credence to complainants' claims that the software is difficult to remove, as does the company's own Web site.

According to Movieland's "Customer Service" page, a user who wants to uninstall MediaPipe has to enter his computer's registry to procure the "Customer ID" number.

Manually editing the registry can cause difficulties in the computer's everyday operation, and most experts advise users not to tamper with the registry without specific instructions or experience.

Movieland's Terms of Service state: "Uninstalling the MediaPipe software will not cancel you out of your trial offer." The company insists the payment reminders are legitimate.

"The payment reminders issue ONLY if a consumer exceeds the free trial period and are stopped immediately upon receipt of payment. The payment reminders are an anti-fraud mechanism and in full compliance with state and federal law," the company's anonymous statement said.

MediaPipe

Movieland's download service is powered by MediaPipe, a utility that automatically inserts itself onto a user's machine when the user clicks on a Movieland-supported link.

MediaPipe has become so notorious among privacy advocates that companies with similar names have posted disclaimers stating that they aren't related to it.

The MediaPipeLine video production company posted a message saying that "Movieland.com is perpetuating a scam of putting an installer on pornographic and [hacker] sites that [tricks the user] into installing the application on their systems."

SourceForge, a software development company which makes a Mac OS X program called MediaPipe, carries a prominent statement at the top of its homepage, reading: "We are not affiliated with Movieland (and have nothing to do with them!)."

As far as Movieland itself, the site's parent company is advertised as both Digital Enterprises and Integrated Enteprises, reportedly based in southern California. The company's statement did not include any information on the company's headquarters or officers.

Not Forthcoming

When contacted last week by ConsumerAffairs.com for comments on why their programs were causing users so much trouble, Movieland claimed it would only address the matter with customers.

A person who identified herself as Andrea, a customer service representative, said, "You need to be a customer and have a customer ID to get help from customer service."

And of course, in order to get a customer ID, a user has to download the service and agree to the terms and conditions, including the regular monthly charges.

Most experts agree that the best way to avoid problems with adware sites is to not download any free services onto your computer without verifying they're legitimate first.

Most importantly, never give out your credit card information through adware pop-ups, as the odds are better than good that you're being taken for a ride.

As Visionary's John Wiltbank said, "Movieland is spyware. In other words, it's a bad program that you should get rid of."

In its unsigned statement objecting to ConsumerAffairs.com's reports, Movieland concluded:

We require you to retract or remove this article immediately. We remain hopeful that this matter can be resolved without filing suit against you for libel, tortious interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of California Civil Code Section 17200.

Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist has issued a consumer alert cautioning consumers against buying used vehicles that may have been flood-damaged by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.

As many as 600,000 vehicles throughout Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida may have been affected by the storms and are now being shipped to other states by auto wholesalers.

A flooded car is the personal property of the owner and it is not illegal to sell it, but both the buyer and the seller should be aware that the car has been flooded.

Some sellers may try to scam the buyer by concealing the car's water damage, and the buyer would end up with a car that has serious problems caused by the floodwater.

"Citizens should be extra careful when buying an automobile, especially a used car," said Crist. "By concealing the damage, unethical individuals can pass a car off as a good bargain, when in fact it is nothing more than a water-soaked lemon. If a deal seems too good to be true, it probably is."

Safety is one of the primary concerns when buying a flood-damaged car. An unsuspecting buyer could be stuck with a car that does not function properly and could place them and their loved ones in serious danger.

Common problems with flood cars include engines, anti-lock brake systems and airbag systems that may malfunction, ruined electrical components and mold and mildew throughout the air conditioner and heating systems.

Several services are available for consumers and auto dealers to check Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) to help determine if a particular vehicle has a flood-damage record.

The National Insurance Crime Bureau has compiled a database of vehicles affected by the hurricanes, which can be searched by the public free of charge. The database is available at www.nicb.org.

In addition, Carfax is helping protect unsuspecting buyers by making all of its flood information available to consumers and dealers free of charge at www.carfax.com/flood.

Crist said consumers and dealers should be wary of someone trying to sell a car for well below the retail value. One obvious sign is a moldy smell from the seats and carpeting, although determined rip-off artists can conceal this through new carpeting and interior components. Sand, silt and salt under the carpeting is another indication that the car may be a flood car.

Buyers should also check the engine compartment, trunk, and inner doors for silt and be aware of any electrical problems that recur or change on a daily basis.

The Dodge Ram 1500 SLT with a 5.7-liter engine got the worst mileage: 11 miles per gallon.

Consumer Reports engineers run vehicles through a series of tests to determine real-world fuel economy numbers for city, highway, and overall fuel consumption. Those numbers can help the consumer determine which vehicle may best suit his or her needs, and household budget.

"Fuel costs for a full-size pickup truck or sport-utility vehicle can easily cost you thousands of dollars per year," said Consumer Reports' Automotive Editor Rik Paul.

"Fuel costs need to be factored in by new-car buyers along with such other key factors as the vehicle's purchase price, performance, safety, insurance cost, and predicted reliability."

Consumers Reports' best and worst in fuel economy lists are based on overall miles-per-gallon (mpg) performance in CR's real world fuel economy tests. The best and worst vehicles selected are the most notable standouts from each vehicle category.

Here's a quick look at the best and worst in each category from among all the vehicles CR has tested based on overall mpg ratings:

Small SUVs

Best:
• Ford Escape Hybrid, 26 mpg;
• Honda CR-V EX, 21 mpg;
• Subaru Forester 2.5X, 21 mpg.
Worst:
• Jeep Wrangler Unlimited (6- cyl.), 14 mpg;
• Jeep Liberty Sport (V6), 15 mpg;
• Kia Sorento EX (V6), 15 mpg.

Midsized SUVs

Best:
• Lexus RX400h, 23 mpg;
• Toyota Highlander Hybrid Limited, 22 mpg;
• Nissan Murano SL, 19 mpg.
Worst:
• Chevrolet TrailBlazer EXT LT (V6), 13 mpg;
• Land Rover LR3 SE (V8), 13 mpg;
• Hummer H3, 14 mpg.

Large SUVs

Best:
• CR's testing results showed no vehicles with unusually good ratings for fuel economy in this category.
Worst:
• Dodge Durango Limited (5.7), 12 mpg;
• Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer, 12 mpg;
• Chevrolet Suburban LT, 13 mpg.

Pickups

Best:
• Subaru Baja (4-cyl.), 20 mpg;
• Toyota Tacoma (V6), 17 mpg;
• Chevrolet Colorado LS (5-cyl.), 16 mpg.
Worst:
• Dodge Ram 1500 SLT (5.7), 11 mpg;
• Dodge Ram 1500 SLT (4.7), 12 mpg;
• Chevrolet Avalanche (5.3), 13 mpg.

Wagons & Hatchbacks

Best:
• Toyota Prius, 44 mpg;
• Scion xB (AT), 30 mpg;
• Pontiac Vibe (FWD), 27 mpg.
Worst:
• Volvo XC70, 18 mpg;
• Dodge Magnum SXT (V6), 19 mpg;
• Mazda6 s (V6), 19 mpg.

Minivans

Best:
• Honda Odyssey EX, 19 mpg;
• Mazda MPV LX, 19 mpg;
• Toyota Sienna XLE, 19 mpg.
Worst:
• CR's testing results showed no vehicles with unusually poor ratings for fuel economy in this category. >/p>

The Test

Consumer Reports' overall fuel economy results are calculated by an equally weighted average of city, highway and one-day trip mpg ratings.

CR's city mpg tests are stop-and-go driving simulations, which have 18 stops, a total of 4 minutes of idle time, and speeds up to 40 mph. CR's highway mpg tests are run on a section of highway near CR's testing facility.

Two testers make eight 5-mile runs at a constant 65 mph. The tests are run in both directions to limit the effects of wind and grade differences. CR's one-day trip test represents a mixed driving cycle.

Five different engineers drive vehicles back-to-back on the same day over a 31-mile route that includes 26 percent freeway, 11 percent highway, and 63 percent stop-and go-driving conditions.

The state of New York has reached a settlement with The New Faces Development Center, which was cited for making deceptive, and exaggerated claims about the services it provided to aspiring models and actors.

Under the settlement, New Faces will pay the state $75,000 in penalties and $2,000 in costs, and up to $500,000 in restitution to aggrieved consumers.

New Faces, based in Hicksville, claimed that it provided talent management services including industry placement and training, and that it was highly selective in scouting, screening and reviewing young people for potential as models and actors.

However, New Faces is not a modeling agency and rarely obtained modeling or acting employment for its clients.

It principally provided photographic services and for an additional fee, posted photographic images on its website, Gigacomps.com, presumably to promote its clients to industry professionals.

"This company appealed to the desires of children, teenagers and young adults to become 'stars.' Parents believed New Faces' misrepresentations that their children would have lucrative futures as working models or actors," Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said. "Model and acting development centers and photo studios should only promise what they can actually deliver."

New Faces' "talent scouts" are accused of approaching consumers, usually children, teenagers and young adults, in public places such as the Roosevelt Field shopping mall, Jones Beach and concert halls.

The scouts led youngsters to believe that they had been scouted because they have a "look" that made them likely to succeed as models and actors. They were told that they would incur no costs and should contact a "Director" at New Faces to schedule an evaluation.

According to the allegations, those who met with a director were led to believe that only a few of those interviewed were actually offered an opportunity with the company, that they must sign a "photo shoot agreement" that same day, and pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars to get started.

In truth, New Faces was not highly selective about whom it scouted or signed to photo shoot agreements. New Faces sometimes even extracted additional money from its clients by directing them for additional services to its affiliated companies, including Gigacomps.com, Vanique and Nijah Productions.

Prior to the settlement, the Attorney General's Office, the Better Business Bureau and the Nassau County Department of Consumer Affairs had received approximately 55 complaints against New Faces.

New Faces also has agreed make changes to its business practices and to comply fully with New York State Law. The company will retain relevant records for inspection by the Attorney General's office.

An article in the New England Journal of Medicine is throwing a scare into allergists who treat patients with latex allergy.

The article recounts the experience of a female dentist who was allergic to latex. When she wore latex gloves, she developed a rash and trouble breathing. Then she started having trouble in restaurants.

The dentist would eat a restaurant selection that hadn't caused her trouble at home and unexpectedly develop a severe allergic reaction.

Was it the food or the latex gloves the food handler wore? Researchers determined it was the gloves.

Researchers gave the dentist untouched orange juice and orange juice stirred by a latex-gloved finger. She developed a serious allergic reaction including trouble breathing from the juice stirred by the single latex-clad finger.

Conclusion: A lot of unsuspecting people may have a reaction to a tiny amount of latex in a setting that wouldn't normally provide any clues that danger was lurking.

The problem is pretty easy to diagnose: if you touch an eraser, a bicycle handle or a latex glove and have an allergic reaction or if you react positively to a skin or blood test, you're at risk of a serious reaction.

Patient and doctor need to carefully consider the problem in settings that you wouldn't normally suspect.

Konica Minolta, a major player for decades in camera and photo technology, has announced it's getting out of the camera business. The company said it is a victim of the fast-developing trend of digital photography.

"In today's era of digital cameras, where image sensor technologies such as CCD is indispensable, it became difficult to timely provide competitive products even with our top optical, mechanical and electronics technologies," the company said in a statement.

Konica Minolta produced Japan's first photographic paper in 1903, and Japan's first color film in 1940. In 1984, it introduced the world's first compact washless photofinishing system known as a minilab system. The minilabs contributed to the expansion of worldwide photographic market by making photos closer to consumers and amazingly shortening delivery time.

But not short enough.

The company concedes it was caught off guard by the surge in digital photography that shrank the market for traditional silver-halide photography services and products. Its profits plunged in recent years, to the point that company officials decided last November to restructure the company.

Konica Minolta will transfer its camera business to Sony, which will use some of the company's lens and mechanical technologies in its line of digital cameras. The company will withdraw from both the film and digital camera business effective March 31.

Company officials said they hoped to salvage the photo business by scaling it back, but concluded that profits are just drying up too quickly.

"For color film and color paper, while considering our customer needs, we will step-by-step reduce product lineup and cease our color film and color paper production by the end of fiscal year ending March 31, 2007," the company said.

Konica Minolta will shutter its minilab business later this year. Another firm, Noritsu Koki Co., Ltd., will provide maintenance and customer services, the company added.

A telemarketing operation selling tooth-whitening kits and weight-loss patches will pay $463,000 in consumer redress and $11,000 in civil penalties to settle Federal Trade Commission charges.

The FTC charged that the defendants promised "free" samples of the tooth whitening kits, then debited consumers' accounts without their authorization. The FTC further alleged that the defendants made false and unsubstantiated claims about their weight-loss patches and called consumers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.

The FTC's amended complaint included seven counts of law violations against defendants Conversion Marketing, Inc. and Adam Tyler MacDonald.

According to the FTC, the defendants falsely represented that consumers would get free samples of the Fast White tooth whitening kit, but instead enrolled them in programs where consumers would continue to receive monthly shipments. The defendants then billed consumers without their express, informed consent.

The FTC also charged the defendants with making false and unsubstantiated claims that their weight-loss patches, Pounds Off Patch and Carbs Off Patch, cause substantial weight loss: in all users; when applied to skin; and by blocking the absorption of carbohydrates.

The Commission has referred a second complaint to the Department of Justice for filing, charging that the defendants called numbers listed on the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry, abandoned calls placed to consumers, and did not pay the required annual fee to access numbers on the Registry.

To settle the charges in the complaint filed by the FTC, the defendants are prohibited from misrepresenting any material fact in connection with the sale of a product or service, including: that consumers can obtain a free product or service; that products or services are offered at no obligation; the existence, amount, or manner of assessment of any charge; the length of any trial period; the terms of any refund program; that defendants do or do not possess consumers' billing information; or that consumers agreed to a purchase.

Also, the defendants must clearly and conspicuously disclose all fees, costs, cancellation terms, material conditions, limitations, and refund terms, and the material terms of any negative option offer before they ask consumers to disclose billing information. Before submitting billing information for payment, the defendants must have the express, informed consent of the consumers.

The settlement prohibits the weight-loss misrepresentations alleged in the Commission's complaint as well as violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The settlement contains a $979,204 judgment, which is suspended based on inability to pay, except for $463,000.

To settle charges in the Do Not Call complaint, the defendants are prohibited from calling consumers who have placed their numbers on the DNC Registry or who placed themselves on the defendants' company-specific DNC list.

They also are prohibited from abandoning telemarketing calls and from calling a telephone number in any area code without first paying the DNC access fee. The settlement, which has been referred to the Department of Justice for filing, contains a $580,056 civil penalty, which is suspended except for $11,000.

Officials at the Internet security firm Sophos say they have intercepted a sudden burst of spam emails, purportedly from a Sergeant Richard Murphy of the "Military Engineering Unit" in Iraq.

In a variation of whats known as the standard 419 scam, the email promises the recipients mountains of cash if they turn over bank account information, and pay some "processing" fees along the way.

"We have about $15 Million US dollars that we want to move out of the country. My colleagues and I need a good partner, someone we can trust. This is a risk free and legal business (oil money)," the message reads.

In years past, anyone with an email account could count of getting regular correspondence from a Nigerian "prince," whose family had been deposed in a coup and who was desperately trying to smuggle the family loot to the U.S. Security experts say scammers simply "freshen" their approaches from time to time, and often follow the headlines.

The French research group INSERM conducted the study, looking at 280 children who had recently been diagnosed with leukemia. Their mothers were interviewed on a number of subjects, including any use of insecticidal shampoos, as well as the use of pesticides and fungicides in the home and garden.

Based on responses to the interview questions, scientists said they can conclude that using insecticidal shampoos could almost double the risk of developing leukemia. They also found the risk of developing the disease was almost twice as likely in children whose mothers said they had used insecticides in the home while pregnant and after birth.

The research did not specify any of the lice shampoo brands used by the children, but cited ingredients such as malathion, pyrethroid and lindane which are often in such products.

Leukemia is a malignant disease of the bone marrow and blood. It is characterized by the uncontrolled accumulation of blood cells. The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society estimates there were nearly 35,000 new cases of leukemia in the United States in 2005. Most cases occur in older adults, with more than half of all cases occurring after age 67.

When people are using wireless networks found in public places such as shops and cyber cafes, attackers can mimic the characteristics of the legitimate wireless network. As a result, hotspot users can unknowingly connect to the attacker's computer (sometimes referred to as an "Evil Twin") instead of the intended wireless network.

Madigan said that attackers operating Evil Twins can hijack data, such as passwords and credit card information, and deploy malicious computer codes. Evil Twins even can control which Web site appears when the user accesses the Internet, often mimicking the user's intended Web site to capture their private information.

"An 'Evil Twin' can rob a computer user of personal and financial information instead of providing a safe connection to the Internet," Madigan said. "By taking precautions, wireless hotspot users can decrease their chances of having a run-in with an Evil Twin."

Madigan recommended that wireless network users exercise caution and provided the following list of precautionary steps to help users avoid becoming victims of wireless network attacks:

• Disable your laptop's wireless card unless you are planning to use it;

• If you decide to use a public wireless connection, ask the provider for the exact name of its wireless network (also called a "SSID"). Be cautious of similarly named wireless networks, especially those using network names indicating that access is free when a public provider in the same location requires a service fee;

• Do not configure your computer to auto-connect to a non-preferred wireless access point;

• Avoid sending sensitive information when using a wireless network;

• Use a personal firewall, keep your software and operating system updated and turn off file sharing;

• Use hotspot providers that provide secure encrypted connections and a list of trusted hotspot locations. If you are not sure whether a wireless connection is secure, assume you are using an "open" hotspot and that as a result, all of your communications to and from the wireless network can be monitored;

• If you must use an open hotspot for sensitive communication (e.g., reading email, making online purchases, etc.) make sure the Web site you are using supports SSL or other types of secure connections. A padlock symbol appears in Web browsers when users communicate with a secure Web site; and

• Be aware of your environment. Crowded public hotspots increase your risk of being a victim of a wireless attack. Additionally, try to prevent other people around you from reading sensitive information appearing on your computer screen.

Emagrece Sim Dietary Supplement, also known as the Brazilian Diet Pill and Herbathin Dietary Supplement may contain several active ingredients, including controlled substances, found in prescription drugs that could lead to serious side effects or injury.

Both products are made in Brazil by Fitoterapicos (also spelled Fytoterapicos) and Phytotherm Sim.

Consumers are advised not to use the Emagrece Sim and Herbathin products and to return them to the suppliers. There may be other manufacturers or suppliers of imported Emagrece Sim and Herbathin, and consumers should exercise caution in using any of these imported products.

"There are dangers to consumers who purchase diet pills that contain drugs of unknown origin and quality," said Dr. Steven Galson, Director of FDAs Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "These products are not approved by FDA and if people experience side effects, it is difficult to trace problems and for physicians to treat them."

Emagrece Sim and Herbathin are labeled as "dietary supplements", but they contain prescription drugs, including several controlled substances that, if not used properly as prescribed by a physician, can be harmful.

They contain chlordiazepoxide HCl (the active ingredient in Librium), and fluoxetine HCl (the active ingredient in Prozac).

Chlordiazepoxide HCl (Librium) is used to relieve anxiety and to control the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. It may be habit forming, and can cause drowsiness and dizziness and impair the ability to drive.

Fluoxetine HCl (Prozac) is an anti-depressant medication used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, and bulimia. It has been linked to several serious drug interactions and certain serious adverse events, including suicidal thinking and behaviors in pediatric patients, anxiety and insomnia, and abnormal bleeding.

These drugs should only be taken by patients who are under the supervision of a health care provider.

Emagrece Sim and Herbathin were also found to contain Fenproporex, a stimulant that is not approved for marketing in the United States.

Fenproporex is converted in the body to amphetamine, and as a result has been noted to show up in urinalysis as a positive test for amphetamines.

Emagrece Sim and Herbathin are sold in packages containing one bottle of Formula 1 capsules and one bottle of Formula 2 capsules. Both products are available in five levels (Levels 1-5), and the product labels instruct consumers to begin with Level 1 and continue to the higher levels until they lose the desired amount of weight.

Emagrece Sim also has a "Weight Stabilizer" package containing Formula 1 and Formula 2 capsules, to be used after the desired weight loss has been achieved.

The products are offered for sale on the Internet. They are also imported and distributed by Emagrece Sim Laboratories, Inc., Miami, FL., and Herbathin, Inc. (dba EMIEX Corp), Miami, Florida.

Online scams are being created on a daily basis. They usually promise something that sounds too good to be true. Regardless, consumer advocates say people keep spending money on them without getting any results as promised by the promoters.

The demand for running a home business is also growing exponentially. Everyday entrepreneurs keep searching through Google, Yahoo, and MSN for of ideas, and opportunities.

But how can consumers avoid thef Internet scams? Scam investigators say most people are victims of their own greediness and that's what makes the scam artists successful with selling their information.

There are simple steps consumers can take to protect themselves from being cheated.

• Always do research on the website or business opportunity you want to participate in.

• Do a search on Google for the domain name and include words: scam, review

• Contact the website owner and evaluate the way he handles you as a customer.

Following the steps above should decrease the chance of people being cheated out of their money for worthless home business idea.

At this week's MacWorld expo, Apple proudly unveiled version 6.0.2 of iTunes, which it simply claimed "includes stability and performance improvements over iTunes 6.0.1."

Among these supposed improvements is the Apple iTunes MiniStore -- a localized "recommendation" engine that looks at what you listen to and then suggests additional songs and artists you might like. The MiniStore arrives turned on by default without asking a user's permission first.

What Apple didn't point out in all its hoopla over the new version is that the MiniStore not only makes recommendations but also automatically transmits your listening information over the Internet back to the Apple Mothership.

What Apple does with this information is unknown.

The company says it is not collecting data on its users -- at least not yet. But Apple has not disclosed what steps, if any, it is taking to prevent disclosure or leakage of the information to third parties.

The news follows the recent Sony BMG DRM fiasco, a part of which included an undisclosed "phone home" feature of its own.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) condemned Apple's listener-tracking as "part of a dangerous trend EFF has been witnessing in the digital music space market."

"When companies like Apple and Sony BMG start adjusting or installing software to micro-monitor our personal and private actions, even under the rubric of convenience, it is just one short stop down the road toward attempting to condition and control our behavior," EFF said.

EFF said the data collection would not be so objectionable if it were no so surreptitious.

"Allowing users to upload information voluntarily and expressly with adequate privacy protections is pro-user; surreptitiously siphoning it into a remote database without any privacy guarantees is not. It's time for Apple to pick a side of the line and walk it," EFF said in a statement.

EFF noted that users can turn off the Apple MiniStore by hitting Shift- Command-M, or choose Edit: Hide MiniStore. "EFF recommends that iTunes users do so until Apple at least comes clean about its MiniStore data practices," it said.

The latest example of this new ruse is a "phishing" email, claiming to be from Chase Bank. This phony email warns Chase customers that someone tried to access their bank account from a "foreign" Internet address.

"This bogus email instructs consumers to correct the situation by linking to a website where, in fact, they can become ID theft victims," said Teresa A. Santiago, Chairman and Executive Director of the CPB. "ID thieves are using every trick in the book to fool people into disclosing passwords, bank account numbers and other personal information."

Any Chase customer who has responded to this or similar emails should send an email to Chase's fraud investigators at abuse@chase.com.

Chase is also warning consumers about this and similar email scams, saying the bank does not send threatening emails or messages asking for personal information.

Santiago said consumers should ignore emails claiming to be a warning or security alert about a bank account, EBay account or any other account. Legitimate companies do not send these kinds of warnings via email, the Chairperson said.

"Identity Theft has become a multi-billion-dollar business. Consumers shouldn't contribute to the problem by blindly handing over personal financial information to scam artists. Consumers can't prevent all forms of Identity Theft, but they can protect themselves from 'phishing' scams like this one. Hit the 'delete' button," said Santiago.

Here is the text of a typical phony email:

Dear Chase & Co. Member

For the User Agreement, Section 9, we may immediately issue a warning, temporarily suspend, indefinitely suspend or terminate your membership and refuse to provide our services to you if we believe that your actions may cause financial loss or legal liability for you, our users or us.

Our terms and conditions you agreed to state that your service must always be under your control or those you designate all times. We have noticed some unusual activity related to your service that indicates that other parties may have access and or control of your informations in your service.

We recently noticed one or more attempts to log in to your Chase Account, service from a foreign IP adress. If you recently accessed your service while traveling, the unusual log in attempts may have been initiated by you. However, if you did not initiate the logins, please visit Chase homepage as soon as possible to restore your account status.

The login attempt was made from:

ISP host : c-64-154-34-134.hsfgd1.il.comcast.net

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, and appreciate your assistance in helping us maintain the integrity of the entire system. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Please do not reply to this e-mail. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered.

To restore your account status click the link below: