Current Events in March 2007

Auto industry executives went to Capitol Hill to tell members of Congress that mandating higher fuel economy standards alone will not produce a substantial decrease in oil consumption in the U.S.

Chrysler group CEO Tom LaSorda told the House Energy and Commerce Committee, "If all the new vehicles sold in the United States 10 years from now were hybrids or diesels fuel economy would improve by only 25 to 30 percent."

LaSorda and the heads of General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. all opposed calls to boost annual fuel economy standards by 4 percent, climbing to at least 34 miles per gallon by 2016.

Taking a harder line, General Motors Corp. chief Rick Wagoner charged that the corporate average fuel economy program has failed.

"CAFE has been particularly damaging to the domestic, full line manufacturers," Wagoner told the committee. "Many of the recent legislative proposals to increase CAFE requirements by 4 percent per year or more would be extraordinarily expensive and technically challenging to implement with little to show for actually reducing oil consumption or emissions," he said.

The executives are fighting efforts by the Democratic-led Congress to single out automakers as the only industry responsible for reducing carbon emissions to cut global warming. Nevertheless, gasoline demand accounts for nearly half of the average daily U.S. consumption of 20.9 million barrels of oil.

Presently an automaker's fleet of passenger cars must average 27.5 mpg. The mileage figure has not changed in 17 years. Other vehicles, including SUVs, pickups and light trucks must get 24.1 mpg by 2011 under changes imposed by regulators at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration last year.

Automakers prefer that any increase in fuel economy standards be administered by NHTSA regulators and not imposed by Congress as law.

The White House has proposed reducing domestic gasoline usage by 8.5 billion gallons or 5 percent by 2017. The plan calls for raising fuel economy standards by an average of 4 percent yearly beginning in September 2009 for passenger cars and September 2011 for light trucks.

The administration predicts that the changes would cost the auto industry $114 billion between 2010 and 2017. Domestic automakers would pay $85 billion of the expense because domestic vehicles trail imports in mileage performance.

Ford Motor Co. President and CEO Alan Mulally said the standards are not a silver bullet. We need government to be our partners not our adversaries," Mulally's told the committee. "Ford has long acknowledged the importance of climate change. Yes, we need more fuel efficient vehicles, but we also need lower carbon fuels and consumer incentives to adopt these fuels."

"The truth is that we must all accept that these are long-term challenges and that we are all part of the solution," Mulally said. "For too long each sector has wanted someone else to be the solution in order to pass the buck. This piecemeal approach will not work if we are serious about change."

An especially vigorous House panel grilled the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today, with Commerce Committee Chair John Dingell (D-MI) asserting that the FCC was "overstepping its authority" by imposing its video franchising rules on states and municipalities.

Referring to the FCC's recent order to states to streamline the approval of new video franchises, Dingell said that "[i]f reform of that regulatory structure is necessary, then it is Congress' prerogative to take such action as we have done before."

The FCC's rules make it easier for Verizon, At&T and other would-be competitors to get local cable TV franchises. At the same time, they limit the authority of states and municipalities to oversee the new entrants and protect consumers.

Under the new rules, local communities would have a time limit of six months to approve new entrants into a market for video, and 90 days for companies that already provide other services. The rules also free new franchises from requirements to "build out" new services to an entire community, meaning that new entrants could choose to serve only the more affluent sections of a city or region.

Critics of the rules say they were designed solely to benefit AT&T; and Verizon, with little regard for consumers or other players in the marketplace.

"[Franchise reform] is not the role of the FCC. The Commission chose to ignore the well-settled divisions of responsibilities, that is unwise," Dingell said.

At another point, FCC chairman Kevin Martin was asked by Telecommunications Subcommittee chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) why the commission did not investigate reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) had illegally acquired the phone records of Americans. Martin responded that the agency had been prevented from investigating due to "national security" concerns.

Markey said that Martin should expect to be a "frequent visitor" before the committee, and Dingell agreed, suggesting that the committee should hold oversight hearings of the FCC on a monthly basis.

Dingell's comments were typical of the increased scrutiny the Republican-led FCC is facing in a Democratic Congress, at a time when the FCC is involved in numerous issues ranging from public-interest rights for digital television to the possible reinstatement of caps on subscribers to cable companies. The FCC is planning to issue a new order codifying that cable companies cannot serve more than 30 percent of potential subscribers in the United States.

The order stems from a 1992 ruling to prevent mass consolidation of the cable industry and reduce subscriber choices. Cable companies such as Comcast and their lobbyists have challenged the 30-percent cap in recent months as unnecessary, given the proliferation of alternative entertainment services that provide video.

Cable companies also objected to the franchising decision, saying it represented a giveaway to their competitors in the telecom industry, and that they would negotiate for the streamlined rights as well.

Martin's friendliness towards telecom companies was demonstrated by his heavy push for the merger of AT&T; and BellSouth to form the country's largest telecom company. The merger was stalled over objections from Democratic Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps, but was passed after AT&T; agreed to support "net neutrality" for its basic Internet services -- a concession Martin opposed and intimated he would not enforce.

That stance drew criticism from Committee member Anna Eshoo (D-CA) during the hearing. Rep. Eshoo said it was "rather extraordinary" that Martin would state his intent to not enforce the net neutrality provision of the agreement. Martin insisted that he would do so.

Eshoo was particularly critical of Martin's style of running the FCC, claiming that companies had complained to her of Martin's "heavy-handed manner."

"I continue to hear complaints that the commission is unresponsive, insular and even capricious at times," she said.

The FCC has also been criticized for burying or suppressing reports that would contradict their political objectives.

During a push by Martin to enable greater consolidation and cross-ownership of local television stations, an FCC report surfaced that claimed local news stations benefited from local ownership. The report, commissioned by Martin's predecessor, Michael Powell, was ordered destroyed. Martin claimed he had never seen the report.

The FCC recently terminated another study that found wireless emergency 911 services did not work effectively for cellphones when called from inside buildings.

The report's author, Dale Hatfield, presented his findings to the FCC, but was told the study was being discontinued. That didn't satisfy Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), another Telecommunications Subcommittee member. Doyle said that Martin was "strangely silent" on the matter, which he found "puzzling," and promised to pursue it further.

The Federal Trade Commission is working to recover as much money as possible from scam artists who have placed more than $35 million in suspect and often outright bogus charges on consumers' phone bills.

Yesterday the FTC reached an agreement to settle with BSG Clearing Solutions, also known as Billing Concepts and ZPDI, for $1.9 million.

The suit seeks restitution for consumers who found mysterious and outrageously overpriced collect charges on their phone bills, placed by BSG, on behalf of its client and co-defendant in the case, Nationwide Connections, Inc.

Nationwide billed consumers for phony collect calls that were purportedly made to telephone lines dedicated to computers and fax machines, and to homes and businesses where no one was present, and some consumers caller ID logs had no record of collect calls for which they were billed, according to an FTC press release.

The charges, usually between $5 and $8, typically were buried in the back of consumers monthly phone bills.

BSG is the nation's largest phone bill aggregator, working with many of the nation's largest phone companies to place bills from sex hotlines and just about everything else onto consumers' bills.

Although many consumer advocates believe the aggregators and phone companies, such as Verizon, should be held liable, too, they are frequently overlooked by zealous attorneys who attack the originators of the false charges instead.

This case is all part of a larger effort by the FTC and originated in October 2007 when the agency settled with Nationwide and its ringleader, Willoughby Farr, said FTC assistant director Dan Salsburg.

Some customer funds have been recovered, Salsburg said. But the FTC is still trying to recover the vast majority of the $34.4 million Nationwide is accused of stealing from U.S. consumers. All of its operations have ceased.

Hundreds of complaints

ConsumerAffairs.com has received 458 complaints about BSG, most under the company name ZPDI. Although BSG comprises 85 percent of the market, the most notorious aggregator appears to be ILD Teleservices which has amassed 2,742 complaints in the ConsumerAffairs.com database.

Regardless of who is cramming the charges, the complaints all look the same.

I received my phone bill with a collect call from UNITEDKINGDM, wrote Tina of Sherwood, Ark. The bill shows "billed on behalf of FIBERLINK." Total charge is $12.86. I called ZPDI and they told me someone entered my info on a website and would not tell me anything else and refused to drop the charge.

BSG canceled its contract with Nationwide in 2005 according to a prepared statement from BSG's president, Greg Carter.

From the outset, BSG has maintained that it bears no responsibility for the fraudulent actions of the terminated customer (Nationwide) and that BSG was also a victim of Nationwides fraud, Carter said in the statement. Nonetheless, as the largest processor of and clearinghouse for Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) billing, BSG believes that it, the industry and the consumer are best served by BSG devoting its energies, going forward, in continuing to lead this industry in the elimination of unauthorized billing.

Although ConsumerAffairs.com has complaints about BSG from every year in the past eight years, Carter said the company works hard to curb cramming.

BSG is committed to a zero tolerance policy for cramming and other deceptive business practices, and over the years has been in the forefront of developing and implementing the billing industrys most stringent verification procedures, Carter continued. BSG has worked closely with federal and state regulators, and local exchange carriers to explore new methods to eliminate telecommunications fraud, and it is committed to continue and to strengthen these efforts in the future.

The next step in the FTC's battle against crammers is get yesterday's settlement approved by Florida courts, where BSG is based and then to go after Integretel, a much smaller version of BSG, which is blamed for helping to steal $4-$5 million from consumers.

Just days after the FTC filed its lawsuit against Integretel, the company filled for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Salsburg said that has slowed that case down but he's hopeful the tactic will not succeed.

ConsumerAffairs.com has received 24 complaints from consumers who believe Integretel ripped them off.

More Scam Alerts ...

By Mark Huffman
ConsumerAffairs.com

March 14, 2007
The Internet can be an unforgiving place. Make one small mistake typing in the address of the Web site you want to visit and you could end up someplace completely different.

The Internal Revenue Service is warning that some sites are apparently using similar addresses and a look similar to the official IRS site -- www.irs.gov -- to confuse taxpayers.

In a warning, the tax collection agency said it has noted the proliferation of Internet sites that contain some form of the Internal Revenue Service name or IRS acronym with a ".com," ".net," ".org" or other designation in the address instead of ".gov."

Since many of these sites also bear a striking resemblance to the real IRS site, taxpayers may be misled into thinking that the site they have accessed is indeed the official IRS government site. These sites are not the official IRS Web site and have no connection to the official IRS site or to the IRS.

"There is one legitimate IRS site: IRS.gov," said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. "Always check carefully and make sure you know what Web site you are using."

Because ".com," ".net" and ".org" are such common parts of Internet addresses, taxpayers may automatically or inadvertently type these extensions, instead of ".gov," into the address line of their Web browser when trying to find the genuine IRS Web site.

Following recent concerns that Internet sites may be causing confusion among taxpayers, the IRS said is working with the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration on this matter. TIGTA has authority to review issues protecting the integrity of tax administration, including impersonation of the IRS. The IRS and TIGTA are committed to ensuring that taxpayers are not misled.

Although the IRS Web site offers interactive features, the tax or private financial information that these features ask the taxpayer for is extremely limited. The IRS reminds consumers who access unfamiliar sites, or sites they have never dealt with before, that they should never reveal any personal or financial information, such as credit, bank account or PIN numbers, without verifying the validity of the site.

The IRS also reminds consumers to be alert to an on-going Internet scam in which consumers receive an e-mail informing them of a federal tax refund. The e-mail, which claims to be from the IRS, directs the consumer to a link -- often a Web site resembling the IRS Web site -- that requests personal and financial information, such as Social Security number and credit card information.

This scheme is an attempt to trick the e-mail recipients into disclosing their personal and financial data. The practice is called "phishing" for information.

The information fraudulently obtained is then used to steal the taxpayer's identity and financial assets. Generally, identity thieves use someone's personal data to steal his or her financial accounts, run up charges on the victim's existing credit cards, apply for new loans, credit cards, services or benefits in the victim's name and even file fraudulent tax returns.

Taxpayers who receive an unsolicited e-mail purporting to be from the IRS should never click on any links in the message, open any attachments or provide any personal or financial information to the sender.

More Scam Alerts ...

One month ago, 81-year-old Rosie Haskins danced at her great granddaughter's birthday party. Family members and doctors were baffled when Haskins died less than two weeks after that party -- until they found the partially eaten jar of Peter Pan peanut butter in her bedroom.

"She was a very lively person," Haskins' great granddaughter, Kimberly Dorsey, told ConsumerAffairs.com. "We have a very large family and she was our glue."

But on February 20, Haskins began to suffer intense vomiting and diarrhea, her daughter, Wendy Trusty said.

Her family assumed it was the flu and treated her with medicine for the diarrhea.

When the symptoms only got worse, Haskins finally went to her doctor, Liaqat Ali, on February 22. He said it was just diarrhea but that she was dehydrated and that with plenty of fluids, it should pass soon, Trusty said.

But the pain continued. Her family is not sure if she continued to eat from the jar of Peter Pan in her room, but Trusty said she definitely was not eating anything else.

Two days later, an ambulance rushed Haskins to Maryland General Hospital after the stomach pains increased and she felt tightness in her chest.

"They ran tests and found nothing," Trusty said.

On February 26 Haskins died. Doctors could not provide an explanation.

"Her doctor told us 'maybe her heart just failed,'" Trusty said.

Either way, the family found their explanation while mourning in Haskins's room later that day.

"We found the peanut butter sitting in her bedroom almost half eaten," Dorsey wrote.

The jar had "2111" written on the lid -- the same jar number ConAgra and the Food and Drug Administration warned last month may contain Salmonella.

"I wish we would've known about that peanut butter because she'd still be alive today," Trusty said while fighting the tears.

Haskins is the fourth death unofficially blamed on tainted ConAgra peanut butter. More than 162 consumers have complained they and, often, other members of their family became ill.

Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control has reported 425 related infections but no deaths as of March 7. According to the press release from that day, "This is the last planned web update on this outbreak."

The CDC tracks illnesses when doctors or hospitals report a particular disease to state officials, who investigate it and then pass the information onto the CDC, Lola Russell, CDC spokeswoman said.

In the case of Haskins, her death was never reported because there was no autopsy or official declaration of death.

Ali told Trusty that an autopsy "would be cutting her needlessly," Trusty said.

Because of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which protects medical records, Ali was unable to speak with ConsumerAffairs.com about the case.

"I empathize with the other families and want this company to feel pain behind the lives lost and the people affected by this issue," Dorsey wrote.

Other Deaths

Salmonella is known to hit seniors especially hard, so it's perhaps not surprising the three prior deaths blamed on ConAgra's tainted peanut butter were also senior citizens.

The other death reported to ConsumerAffairs.com was that of 85-year-old Mary Halstead of West Virginia. She died after her son made her a peanut butter sandwich -- her favorite food.

"Dumb old me, I made her a peanut butter sandwich at home and brought it to her at the hospital, because it was just about the only thing she wanted to eat," Larry Halstead, her son, said. "In no time, she got just 100 percent worse." Halstead said his mother then became semi-comatose and died.

Two other deaths have been unofficially attributed to the tainted peanut butter.

An elderly Chicago-area man, George Baldwin, was said to be in relatively good health just before his recent death from complications of food poisoning, shortly after he ate a peanut butter sandwich.

"He puts the peanut butter on toast, eats the toast, in six hours he develops fever, nausea, diarrhea and vomiting -- all of which are signs of salmonella poisoning," Baldwin family attorney Don McGarrah said.

A 76-year old Pennsylvania woman, Roberta Barkay of Philadelphia, died in January from complications of food poisoning, and family members contend she too ate peanut butter shortly before her death. The family has hired an attorney who has filed suit against the manufacturer, ConAgra.

Recall Extended

ConAgra is extending its recall of all Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butter beginning with product code 2111, including peanut butter toppings, back to October 2004, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said.

The extension was a result of the agency's "ongoing investigation" of a Salmonella outbreak that has been linked to the two brands of peanut butter, both produced at ConAgra's Georgia plant.

Consumers who have purchased any of the products since October 2004 should discard them, FDA said. The agency is advising consumers not to eat any Peter Pan or Great Value peanut butter beginning with the 2111 product code.

Symptoms

Most persons infected with Salmonella develop diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps 12 to 72 hours after infection. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days, and most persons recover without treatment. However, in some persons the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized.

The elderly, infants, and those with impaired immune systems are more likely to have a severe illness.

What To Do

Persons who think they may have become ill from eating peanut butter should consult a physician if they do not get better in a few days. If the illness affects small children, the elderly, pregnant women or those with compromised immune systems, a doctor should be consulted promptly.

The FDA and other agencies have been advising consumers who have Peter Pan peanut butter or Great Value peanut butter with a product code beginning with 2111 to discard the jar and keep the lid.

However, attorneys advise that, if consumers were seriously harmed by their illness, they should seal the jar in a plastic bag and store it out of the reach of children or others in the household, so that it is available as evidence.

Although a few lawsuits seeking class action status have been filed, one experienced consumer attorney who asked not to be identified expressed doubt such actions would be successful.

"The vast majority of suits will be individual actions. A class suit would be difficult to certify," he said.

ConAgra has publicly offered to repay the money consumers spent on the peanut butter and any attempt to recover medical costs and wages lost to illness would require the filing of an individual personal injury suit. Such suits are usually not economically feasible unless consumers have suffered serious injury or death.

Consumers could also file in Small Claims Court if they have well-documented expenses and a firm diagnosis. Consumers should note that they cannot claim punitive damages for pain and suffering in most small claims cases.

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson is suing two California companies, American Family Legal Plan and Heritage Marketing and Insurance Services, Inc., for operating a "trust mill" that preys upon Minnesota senior citizens.

Swanson said that American Family Legal Plan initiates a "trust mill" scheme through a direct mailing to senior citizens, telling them that the company has special expertise in estate planning and can advise clients on how to avoid estate taxes and probate fees.

If the senior citizen responds positively, Swanson said an agent posing as an estate planner meets the senior citizen at home and sells the person a plan for $2,000 or more. Swanson said that during this meeting, the agent will distort and misrepresent the impact of probate fees and estate taxes, causing the senior citizen to buy the trust out of fear that their heirs will lose the estate.

"These companies deceptively sold boilerplate living trusts to senior citizens regardless of whether those trusts were suitable for the seniors' estate planning or financial needs," Swanson said.

Swanson said the first half of the profit scheme is the "trust mill." After the first meeting with an agent, the senior receives one short telephone call from an attorney who asks very general questions.

Thereafter, regardless of the senior's assets, marital status, existing estate plan, or the likely tax or probate liability, the attorney approves the use of a boilerplate "living trust" for the client. The attorney does not have a personal meeting with the senior, nor does the attorney ask specific estate-related questions. American Family Legal Plan agents receive a commission of approximately $600-$800 for each living trust sold.

Swanson said the second half of the profit scheme occurs when the trust document is delivered to the senior citizen by an insurance agent from Heritage, who poses as a representative of the estate planning firm. The agent calls the senior citizen prior to the meeting and tells the senior to gather together his or her financial records. At the meeting, the agent reviews the trust document and the senior's financial records, then attempts to sell annuities to the senior citizen.

The Heritage agent is not compensated for the trip unless annuities are sold, and the agent is expected to sell $25,000 per meeting.

Senior citizens complained to the Attorney General's Office that they:

• believed that the American Family Legal Plan representative at the first meeting was representing a law firm and had special expertise in the field of estate planning;
• were surprised that, after paying $2,000 or more, the only contact they had from an attorney was a brief telephone call;
• purchased the estate planning service because of the fear that was created by the American Family Legal Plan agent regarding the senior's exposure to estate taxes and probate fees;
• in some cases, had to wait months to receive their living trust;
• were never told that insurance would be solicited until the final meeting; and
• thought they were receiving estate and financial planning advice that was customized to their needs and were not simply being sold a boilerplate living trust.

Swanson said that both companies are owned and controlled by Stanley and Jeffrey Norman, who are father and son and reside in California. Swanson said that the companies are the subject of lawsuits by Attorneys General in at least two states, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Based on an interview with a former American Family Legal Plan employee, Swanson believes the company may have sold to Minnesota seniors as many as 30 trusts each week. Accordingly, these trusts may have been sold to as many as 2,000 Minnesota seniors, for a total of about $4 million.

In addition, Swanson said the companies expected approximately $25,000 in annuity sales for each trust sold, which would add up to $50 million in annuity sales.

The suit, filed in Hennepin County District Court, alleges the companies engaged in consumer fraud, false advertising, and deceptive trade practices. The suit also alleges that the companies violated Minnesota insurance suitability and insurance solicitation laws, as well as state laws applicable to financial planning. The suit seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties, and restitution.

Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson said Domingo Frias-Payan pleaded guilty to eleven counts of charity fraud and one count of securities fraud after he was accused of swindling more than $1 million through a bogus charity, Oklahoma City-based Save a Life Give a Phone Foundation, Inc.

Frias-Payan received a 12-year sentence, with three years imprisonment and nine years probation. A restitution hearing will be held at a later date.

According to the attorney general, Frias-Payan allegedly solicited cell phones on behalf of battered women's shelters, domestic violence victims, the elderly and disabled, but the majority of the donated phones were sold for personal profit.

Frias-Payan's wife was also charged for her role in scheme. Heather Frias-Payan pleaded guilty in May 2006 to eleven counts of violating the Oklahoma Solicitation of Charitable Contributions Act. She was ordered to serve a seven-year suspended sentence and pay $11,000 in fines.

"This so-called charity took in about 100,000 cell phones," Edmondson said. "Frias-Payan promised donors the phones would be distributed to vulnerable groups for emergency use. Our investigators could only find about 300 phones that were actually donated. The others were sold for about $1.2 million, and that money was not used for any charity."

The charity allegedly solicited phones from individuals, businesses, cell phone companies, cities and police departments in 41 different states.

The state alleged the couple also falsely represented that donations to Save a Life would be used to maintain a shelter in The Village for victims of domestic violence. The shelter was shut down because it was not licensed and operated in violation of municipal ordinances.

According to the attorney general, the couple allegedly required the women who stayed at the shelter to either pay $125 per month rent or work four hours a day in a boiler room soliciting more cell phones and donations.

A boiler room refers to a facility equipped for telemarketing solicitation calls.

The couple was originally charged in April 2005, but fled the United States soon after the charges were filed. The fugitives were tracked in and out of three countries before they were taken into custody in Canada in March 2006.

According to the state's complaint, the couple also did business as Domingo Group Telecom, Inc., Givafon, Inc., and Recycleable (sic) Cellular Network, Inc.

More Scam Alerts ...

When you enter most health care facilities, the first thing you see is usually a sign asking you to turn off your cell phone.

But calls made on cellular phones have no negative impact on hospital medical devices, dispelling the long-held notion that they are unsafe to use in health care facilities, according to Mayo Clinic researchers.

In a study published in the March issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings, researchers say normal use of cell phones results in no noticeable interference with patient care equipment. Three hundred tests were performed over a five-month period in 2006, without a single problem incurred.

Involved in the study were two cellular phones which used different technologies from different carriers and 192 medical devices. Tests were performed at Mayo Clinic campus in Rochester.

The study's authors say the findings should prompt hospitals to alter or abandon their bans on cell phone use.

Mayo Clinic leaders are reviewing the facility's cell phone ban because of the study's findings, says David Hayes, M.D., of the Division of Cardiovascular Diseases and a study author.

Cell phone bans inconvenience patients and their families who must exit hospitals to place calls, the study's authors say.

The latest study revisits two earlier studies that were done 'in vitro' (i.e., the equipment wasn't connected to the patients), which also found minimal interaction from cell phones used in health care facilities. Dr. Hayes says the latest study bolsters the notion that cells phones are safe to use in hospitals.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers not to drink certain brands of mineral water imported from Armenia due to the risk of exposure to arsenic, a toxic substance and known cause of cancer in humans.

Symptoms of acute arsenic exposure usually occur within several hours of consumption.

The most likely effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and stomach pain. Over the period of a few days to weeks, the kidneys, liver, skin, and cardiovascular and nervous systems could be affected. Extended exposure could lead to cancer and death.

The products were distributed nationwide. The following products are being recalled:

• Zetlian Bakery, Inc., Pico Rivera, CA is recalling product with labels that read: "Jermuk Original Sparkling Natural Mineral Water Fortified With Natural Gas From The Spring". The product is additionally labeled as "2006 Jermuk Mayr Gortsaran CJSC" and "Imported by: Zetlian Bakery Inc."

• Importers Direct Wholesale Company, Los Angeles, CA is recalling the product with labels that read: "Jermuk Sodium Calcium Bicarbonate and Sulphate Mineral Water". The product is additionally labeled as "Bottled by ARPI Plant, Republic of Armenia" and "Exclusive US importer and distributor: Importers Direct Wholesale Co., Los Angeles, CA".

• Kradjian Importing Company, Glendale, CA is recalling the product with labels that read: "Jermuk, Natural Mineral Water Sparkling". The product is additionally labeled as "Bottled by Jermuk Group CJSC" and "Sale Agent Kradjian Importing Co. Inc." in Glendale, CA.

FDA sampled 500 milliliter (mL) green glass bottles and detected the problem. FDA is investigating whether other sizes or packaging are involved.

FDA testing of this water revealed 500-600 micrograms of arsenic per liter. FDAs standard of quality bottled water allows no more than 10 micrograms per liter.

There have been no illnesses reported at this time. Consumers who drank this water and have concerns are encouraged to contact their health care provider.

A. About one in three Americans over 60 suffer from loss of hearing, which can range from the inability to hear certain voices to deafness.

There are two basic categories of hearing loss. One is caused by damage to the inner ear or the auditory nerve. This type of hearing loss is permanent. The second kind occurs when sound can't reach the inner ear. This can be repaired medically or surgically.

Presbycusis, one form of hearing loss, occurs with age. Presbycusis can be caused by changes in the inner ear, auditory nerve, middle ear, or outer ear. Some of its causes are aging, loud noise, heredity, head injury, infection, illness, certain prescription drugs, and circulation problems such as high blood pressure. It seems to be inherited.

Tinnitus, also common in older people, is the ringing, hissing, or roaring sound in the ears frequently caused by exposure to loud noise or certain medicines. Tinnitus is a symptom that can come with any type of hearing loss.


Hearing loss can by caused by "ototoxic" medicines that damage the inner ear. Some antibiotics are ototoxic. Aspirin can cause temporary problems. If you're having a hearing problem, ask your doctor about any medications you're taking.

Loud noise contributes to presbycusis and tinnitus. Noise has damaged the hearing of about 10 million Americans, many of them Baby Boomers who listened to hard rock with the volume turned up as far as possible.

Hearing problems that are ignored or untreated can get worse. If you have a hearing problem, see your doctor. Hearing aids, special training, medicines and surgery are options.

Your doctor may refer you to an otolaryngologist, a physician who specializes in problems of the ear. Or you may be referred to an audiologist, a professional who can identify and measure hearing loss. An audiologist can help you determine if you need a hearing aid.

There other "hearing aids" you should consider. There are listening systems to help you enjoy television or radio without being bothered by other sounds around you. Some hearing aids can be plugged directly into TVs, stereos, microphones, and personal FM systems to help you hear better.

Some telephones work with certain hearing aids to make sounds louder and remove background noise. And some auditoriums, movie theaters, and other public places are equipped with special sound systems that send sounds directly to your ears.

Alerts such as doorbells, smoke detectors, and alarm clocks can give you a signal that you can see or a vibration that you can feel. For example, a flashing light can let you know someone is at the door or on the phone.

All Rights Reserved © 2007 by Fred Cicetti

New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced a settlement affecting nearly 400 New York consumers whose credit reports were unlawfully accessed by an insurance company. Under the settlement, Administrators for the Professions, Inc. (AFP), a New York insurance company, is paying $229,600 in compensation to those consumers.

Between November 2000 and March 2006, AFP obtained more than 800 consumer credit reports on approximately 400 different individuals from the credit reporting agencies Equifax and TransUnion. An overwhelming majority of the consumers' credit reports were acquired for purposes not permitted by the federal and state Fair Credit Reporting Acts.

Credit reports may be legally obtained by agents such as potential credit grantors, employers, or insurers, or with a consumer's permission. AFP, however, illegally provided credit reports for use as investigative tools in civil litigation, for use in connection with insurance claims, and for satisfying requesters' personal curiosity.

Credit reports were also unlawfully attained for investigators trying to locate parties in matrimonial and other personal matters, and for individuals looking to acquire information about an estranged spouse.

"Companies with access to a consumer's credit report must be vigilant in ensuring that such access is not abused or used unlawfully. Consumers' privacy must be protected, and the integrity and confidentiality of a consumer's credit report must be preserved."

Rebecca J. Weber, Executive Director of the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), said, "Misuse of an individual's credit report can cause a lifetime of financial trouble. This scheme has affected hundreds of New Yorkers, and NYPIRG applauds Attorney General Cuomo for a successful crackdown on corporate crime."

Phyllis Hill Slater, Executive Council Member for the New York State office of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), said, "AARP commends Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for his efforts to ensure New Yorkers' personal credit information is not accessed without their consent. As older New Yorkers tend to be prime targets of fraud and abuse, it's important our laws are enforced to protect them."

Chuck Bell, Programs Director for Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, said, "Consumer credit reports contain highly sensitive personal financial information, including social security numbers, home addresses, credit history, and employment information. It's critical that businesses obey the restrictions in federal and state laws that protect this information from unauthorized disclosure."

As a result of AFP's unlawful acquisition of consumers' credit reports, the credit files of those consumers inappropriately reflected that a credit "inquiry" had been made. The inclusion of such an inquiry in the credit files of these consumers could adversely affect their credit score or result in other negative consequences.

Under the settlement with the Office of the Attorney General, AFP agreed not to acquire a consumer credit report unless it is for a permissible purpose as set forth in federal and state law. AFP agreed to pay $229,600 in compensation for consumers whose credit reports were illegally accessed; those consumers whose credit reports were obtained on one occasion will receive $600, while consumers whose credit reports were accessed on two separate occasions will receive $1,000. AFP will also pay the State of New York $85,000 for penalties and $15,000 for costs related to the investigation.

In addition, AFP will provide the list of all affected consumers to Equifax and TransUnion, and direct those credit reporting agencies to delete all references to the illegal inquiries from each consumer's credit file.

The federal government is pumping money into the ethanol industry to provide consumers with ample fuel for their cards, but that policy may be driving up the cost of putting food -- specifically chicken and beef -- on the table.

Testifying before a House Agriculture Subcommittee, Matthew Herman, manager of a Tyson Foods chicken production and processing complex in Monroe, North Carolina, said producers are facing rapid increases in the cost of the grain needed to feed their animals, because so much corn is being purchased for the ethanol industry.

Herman cited forecasts by Dr. Bruce Babcock, an economist at Iowa State University, on the impact of the corn prices on the poultry industry. The rate of growth of production has slowed, which will allow wholesale prices to rise to cover the increase in feed costs, which will eventually be reflected in higher retail costs, Babcock predicted.

Soaring demand for corn, the largest component of animal feed, from ethanol producers has doubled the cost of corn in recent months and driven up by 40 percent the feed cost of the chicken industry alone, Herman testified.

He said the country could actually face a shortage of corn, its most abundant crop, as ethanol demand -- driven by federal subsidies and mandates -- outstrips supply.

Animal agriculture has survived high feed prices in the past, but Herman said those were temporary conditions caused by bad weather or other problems. The high prices facing the industry now are caused by ethanol subsidies and mandates set by law.

The livestock and poultry industries normally purchase more than half of the corn produced in the country to make feed for their animals. However, the rapidly expanding ethanol industry consumed more than two billion bushels of corn, or 18 percent of production, in 2006 and will take as much as 3.5 billion bushels in 2007, Herman said.

In what played out as a good versus evil scenario, Senators and consumer advocates battled with three of the most powerful men in the credit card industry at a Capitol Hill hearing today.

The woes of millions of Americans who are slaves to hidden fees, compounding interest and cryptic terms were heard in a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations hearing.

The hearing was a preliminary spotlight on the industry. As a result of the hearing some of the companies seem to be backing down on a few of their more unscrupulous practices. But Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the subcommittee, said he intends to keep the "spotlight" on credit card companies and that legislative action may be necessary to purge the industry.

One of the witnesses was Wesley Wannemacher, a former Chase Bank credit card holder who placed $3,200 of wedding expenses in late 2001 on his card. He never spent another cent on that card, yet his debt to Chase ballooned to $10,700 -- that is until Chase saw his name on the witness list last week and forgave his debt.

Unfortunately, not every American in debt can be made the poster boy of unfair credit practices.

"Credit card debt is often seen as a very personal problem, but the burgeoning level of household debt in America has implications for the entire nation," Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), ranking minority member said. "Over the past 25 years, U.S. household debt has ballooned from a collective $59 billion in 1980 to approximately $830 billion in 2005.

"Even more staggering, the number of consumers filing for bankruptcy has increased by 609 percent," Coleman continued.

The executives of the nation's largest credit card companies, Bank of America, Chase and Citi Cards, sat uncomfortably through. ConsumerAffairs.com has more than 572 credit-card-related complaints about those three companies in its database.

Throughout the hearing, the crowd that packed the room occasionally burst into laughter at the seemingly absurd credit card terms and the lack of direct answers from the bank executives.

One of the issues spotlighted was the incomprehensible credit card terms and conditions. The crowd could not hold in the laughter as Levin took about 60 seconds to read a Bank of America billing statement out loud.

27th Grade

In preparation for today's hearing, Levin charged the Government Accountability Office to prepare a report on the industry's rates and fees. That report revealed that credit card disclosures are written at a "twenty-seventh-grade level."

"I can only assume that one would need -- after 12 years of grade school and four years of college -- a four-year medical degree, a five-year PhD and a two-year MBA to fully grasp those particular provisions," Coleman said.

Alys Cohen, staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, recommended all credit card documents be written at the eighth-grade level.

Of the more than a dozen complaints raised against the credit card companies, Levin also raised an issue which he coined "trailing interest."

Trailing interest is the practice of charging interest on entire bill no matter what percentage of it is paid.

"Suppose a consumer who usually pays their account in full, and owes no money on December 1, makes a lot of purchases in December, and gets a January 1 credit card bill for $5,020," Levin said. "That bill is due January 15. Suppose the consumer pays that bill on time, but pays $5,000 instead of the full amount owed. What do you think the consumer owes on the next bill?

"If you thought the bill would be the $20 past due plus interest on the $20, you would be wrong. In fact, under industry practice today, the bill would likely be twice as much. That's because the consumer would have to pay interest, not just on the $20 that wasn't paid on time, but also on the $5,000 that was paid on time.

"The consumer would have to pay interest on the entire $5,020 from the first day of the billing month, January 1, until the day the bill was paid on January 15, compounded daily," Levin continued. "In our example, using an interest rate of 17.99 percent ... the $20 debt would, in one month, rack up $35 in interest charges and balloon into a debt of $55.21."

Bruce Hammonds, president of Bank of America Card Services, Richard Srednicki, chief executive officer of Chase Bank USA and Vikram Atal, Chairman and CEO of Citi Cards, all said that "trailing interest" is a practice shared by various lending schemes but gave no specific examples.

Senators also discussed grace periods, a widely advertised feature that gives credit card holders a period of time to pay their bill before interest is applied to their balance. However, Levin discovered that grace periods only apply to individuals who pay their statement in full each month.

The credit card executives said those restrictions are explained in their terms and conditions.

Sparking around round of laughter, Chase's Srednicki said, "I think the large majority of our customers understand (that grace periods only apply to accounts paid in full)."

Two of the three credit card companies recently announced changes in policy in an attempt to placate the subcommittee.

Atal, of Citi, said his bank will no longer automatically raise interest rates for cardholders who fail to make payments on other bills. Known as "universal default," the practice has long been criticized by consumer advocates who argue it victimizes poorer borrowers.

After publicly apologizing to Wannemacher, Srednicki announced Chase eliminated a practice known as double-cycle billing "a few days ago." The practice involves tacking on fees calculated based on two prior months.

Levin did not seem placated.

"They gave us their spin," Levin told ConsumerAffairs.com after the hearing. "I think they gave us their pitch."

"Recommendations to reduce population soft drink consumption are strongly supported by the available science," concludes the review of 88 studies.

The American Beverage Association, however, presents a different view on its Web site. "It is not feasible to blame any one food product or beverage as being a sole contributor to obesity ... No science supports such a claim."

Carbonated soft drinks are the single largest source of calories in the American diet, according to a 2005 report called "Liquid Candy," produced by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

Companies annually manufacture enough soda pop to provide more than 52 gallons to every man, woman and child in the United States.

"Nobody claims there is a single cause to the obesity problem, but the existing science certainly puts soft drinks in the list of leading contributors," said review co-author Kelly Brownell, Ph.D. He is director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.

The systematic review appears in the April issue of the American Journal of Public Health. The work was supported in part by the Rudd Foundation, a private philanthropic organization focusing on obesity and education.

The authors say that a "true test" of links between a consumer product such as soft drinks and health outcomes requires a critical mass of large studies employing strong methods.

"These conditions now exist, and several clear conclusions are apparent," they say. One of the most "powerful" findings is the link between soft drink intake and increased calorie consumption.

Of 21 studies, 19 showed that as people drink more soda pop, the number of calories they consume rises. Moreover, the studies using the most reliable statistical methods showed the largest effects.

Instead of satisfying a sweet tooth, soft drinks may do just the opposite. Several studies found that the caloric increase is actually greater than that contained in the soda, raising "the possibility that soft drinks increase hunger, decrease satiety or simply calibrate people to a high level of sweetness that generalizes to preferences in other foods," the authors say.

"These results, taken together, provide clear and consistent evidence that people do not compensate for the added calories they consume in soft drinks by reducing their intake of other foods," the reviewers say.

The authors anticipated a weaker relationship between soft drink consumption and body weight, because there are many other calorie sources in the diet. Yet in the highest-quality studies, which controlled for a number of unrelated variables, a moderate relationship existed. The review also showed a slight correlation between soft drink consumption and lower intakes of milk, calcium, fruit and fiber.

Diabetes Link

The "most striking link" was between soft drink consumption and the incidence of type 2 diabetes, according to the reviewers. In a study of 91,249 women followed for eight years, those who consumed one or more soft drinks per day were twice as likely as those who consumed less than one per month to develop diabetes.

"This result alone warrants serious concern about soft drink intake, particularly in light of the unprecedented rise in type 2 diabetes among children," the review says.

The authors acknowledge that there is a great deal of variability among the studies included in this review, which incorporate differing methods, populations, beverage types and measurements of key factors such as body weight. Future research with more uniform approaches "would help clarify the impact of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health outcomes," they say.

CSPI, on the other hand, is satisfied with the research to date.

"There's so much damning evidence," says Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D., executive director. "This is just sugar water. The real need is for laws and regulations that would help rein in soft drink consumption."

The consumer advocacy group calls for clearly presented calorie information at vending machines, convenience stores and restaurants. The group urges schools to stop selling full-calorie soft drinks. CSPI has also petitioned the federal government to require health notices on all nondiet sodas warning that they may promote obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, osteoporosis and other health problems.

The soft drink industry, for its part, has developed voluntary school beverage guidelines designed to limit the availability of sugary sodas and offer more water, milk, juice, energy drinks and diet soft drinks to students.

"All foods and beverages can play an important role in a healthy diet if they're consumed in moderation and also with regular exercise," said Tracey Halliday, a spokesperson for the American Beverage Association.

The Department of Transportation is looking at new restrictions for transporting lithium batteries on airplanes but there are no plans to ban the batteries from carry-on luggage and it's like that only checked baggage would be affected.

Battery industry representatives have acknowledged that some restrictions may be needed, but insist that there is no need to ban laptops, cell phones or other devices from airplanes.

Federal reports indicat at least nine fires involving lithium batteries have happened on airplanes or in cargo destined for planes since 2005.

The Federal Aviation Administration is asking companies that make and ship the batteries to take voluntary steps to ease fire risks. The agencies also will launch a safety awareness campaign for passengers.

Lithium batteries come in two forms. The lithium metal batteries are single-use and the lithium-ion can be recharged. Both store energy that generates intense heat in the event of a short circuit, if metal touches both terminals or if internal seals fail.

In many cases, low-cost or counterfeit batteries lack safeguards against short circuits.

In the last year, more than 4 million lithium batteries or all sorts have been recalled.

Bulk shipments of lithium metal batteries were banned on passenger flights in 2004, in part because fires in those batteries are especially hard to extinguish.

March 6, 2007
Weber Genesis 320 Series gas grills are being recalled. The gas hose attached to the side burner of the grill can crack or break off during shipping, causing it to leak gas when in use, which poses a fire hazard to consumers.

Weber has received 49 reports of hose damage or gas leaks. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Weber Genesis 320 Series gas grills which are designed to be used with either natural gas or with liquid propane gas tanks, and are equipped with a flush-mounted side burner accessory. The gas hose is made of stainless steel.

The grills are sold in stainless steel and in black, blue or green porcelain enamel. All serial numbers begin with the prefix "DI." The model and serial number are located on the tank blocker/drip pan holder located inside the storage cart.

Only the following product names and model numbers are included in this recall:

The grills were sold at Home Depot, Ace Hardware and Home Centers, Tru-Serve, Do-It Best, and other home improvement and hardware stores nationwide from November 2006 through February 2007 for between $450 to $770.

Consumers should stop using the gas grill immediately and contact Weber-Stephen to obtain a free replacement gas hose and schedule a free installation.

Consumer Contact: Call Weber-Stephen toll-free at (866) 249-3237 between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the company's recall web site at www.weberrecall.com.

The recall is being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

It may be time to dust off the old FM radio that's been collecting dust the past few years.

The U.S. Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) has endorsed a plan by SoundExchange, the royalty-collections division of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), to retroactively raise the fees Internet radio broadcasters must pay to broadcast their music.

The royalty increases are so high that many Web-based radio stations will have to go out of business or dramatically increase advertising to cover the royalty fees.

"It's the end of Internet radio as we know it," one broadcaster fumed. "The RIAA wants to put us all out of business."

The CRB's new royalty structure begins at $.0008 per performance, retroactive to January of 2006. While that may not seem like a lot at first, the CRB decision defines "per performance" for Web radio as streaming one song to one listener.

Kurt Hanson, writing for his Radio And Internet Newsletter (RAIN), calculated that an average Web radio station that plays 16 songs per hour would owe 1.28 cents per listener per hour. And the more listeners per hour, the more royalty fees the station would have to pay, "in the ballpark of 100% or more of total revenues," according to Hanson.

The rates would continue to increase each year. In 2007, Web broacasters would owe $.0011, $.0014 in 2008, $.0018 in 2009, and $.0019 in 2010. Those royalty fees only cover the actual broadcast of the songs to listeners -- the station owners would also have to pay royalties to the performers as well.

The owners of SaveNetRadio.org claimed that a royalty fee of $.0011 would tally up to "about 1.76c per hour, per listener. A station with [an average of 500 listeners] would be hit with fees of $211 per day, $6,336 a month or $76,000 a year."

"This amount of money is beyond the resources of all but the very wealthiest of corporations," they said in a post on their site. "Many of the internet radio stations are run by enthusiasts and hobbyists. These small stations are the ones bringing new music, and old favorites to you every day. Music you can't hear on corporate-owned terrestrial stations."

The CRB announced its decision late Friday, ensuring that it would receive little attention from major media.

But it didn't escape the notice of blogs and bulletin boards, many of which were fuming over what they saw as the end of their ability to hear new music over the Web. Chris Gerard, who operated the Washington, D.C.-based BlueSpaceRadio.com, announced that he was shutting down his site not long after the decision was made public.

"Due to the dramatically increased costs involved, we will no longer be able to continue with Bluespace Radio," Gerard said. "We've put many hours of time and work, and quite a bit of money, into the music as well as the website, and its sad that it has to come to an end like this. However, it's been an enjoyable experience, we've learned a lot, and have had the chance to interact with some great music fans."

Gerard previously spoke to ConsumerAffairs.com regarding the efforts of the RIAA to challenge satellite radio stations Sirius and XM Radio over issues such as copying of digital music and copy-protection technology for satellite music players. The two satellite radio companies have announced plans to merge into a single entity, a move the RIAA opposes.

Bill Goldsmith, co-owner and operator of Radio Paradise.com, urged his listeners in blog postings to spread the story and get attention from media outlets.

"Crippling an exciting, groundbreaking industry like Internet radio is certainly not in the best interests of the public, nor that of musical artists, and not even -- if history is any judge -- of the music industry itself," Goldsmith said in a posting on www.saveourinternetradio.com.

Simply to break even, many of the larger Internet radio stations would have to incorporate advertising much more heavily into their formats -- the very thing that has caused traditional-radio listeners to flee in droves. Writing for Advertising Age, marketing consultant Al Ries lamented the commercial-filled state of broadcast radio, calling it "radiADo."

"For every ad that radio stations used to run, it now seems like they run two. Radio, in my opinion, has become Radiado, an extra "ad" inserted at every possible point in the programming," Ries said. "Radio is a powerful medium with great selectivity at relatively low costs, but Radiado threatens the very existence of the medium. Too much is too much."

And yet, thanks to decisions like those made by the Copyright Review Board, radio crammed with advertising may be all that listeners have to look forward to.

Some homeowners facing foreclosure are being subjected to scams that ultimately could cost them tens of thousands of dollars, New Jersey Attorney General Stuart Rabner warns.

As foreclosure filing rates are increasing nationally, scams targeting homeowners facing foreclosure are rising as well. These scams typically target "surplus funds" to which homeowners may be entitled if their homes are sold at a sheriff's sale.

"Homeowners facing the loss of their homes are understandably concerned, and con artists seize on their fears to perpetrate scams," Rabner noted. "These offers of help and money may seem like a godsend, but it is the con artist who ultimately benefits."

Surplus funds are the monies remaining after the sheriff's foreclosure sale takes place and mortgage and tax obligations have been paid. Neither the homeowner's mortgage lender nor the sheriff's office are required to notify the homeowner if surplus funds exist.

The state's Division of Consumer Affairs is alerting the public to two surplus fund scams.

In the first scam, the con artist offers to accept the property deed and, in exchange, pay the homeowner a minimal amount of money, typically no more than a few thousand dollars. By transferring the deed, the homeowner signs away ownership of his or her house and any equity that has built up.

The homeowner may be told he can buy the deed back if certain conditions are met. Many times, however, these conditions are almost impossible to satisfy or the scammer never intends to honor his promise. Instead, the house is sold through a sheriff's foreclosure sale and the con artist keeps the surplus funds that result.

In the second scam, the con artist offers to assist the homeowner in obtaining surplus funds that may be available after the house is sold via a sheriff's foreclosure sale. The homeowner often times is told that he cannot apply for surplus fund on his or her own, or that the process is very complicated or costly.

The con artist scams the homeowner by:

• charging an exorbitant fee that can range up to 75% of the total surplus fund;
• writing a fee in the contract with the homeowner that is higher than the fee verbally promised;
• pressuring the homeowner to sign away his/rights to the surplus funds through a quit claim deed; and
• forging the homeowner's name on a surplus funds application and then keeping the surplus funds.

In reality, homeowners in New Jersey can obtain the surplus funds by filing a simple form and paying less than $100. The process is similar in other states.

"These scams have the same goal: to enrich the con artist by taking money from a homeowner in trouble," Acting Director Nolan said. "It is unconscionable that con artists take advantage of good people who have fallen on hard times. We are working to educate and protect those facing foreclosure from these scams."

If you've noticed a marked uptick in the amount of spam you have to clean out from your e-mail inbox, it's no illusion.

Spam is indeed on the rise, with networks of zombie "botnet" computers churning out garbled advertisements for Viagra and cheap software all across the world. Spam e-mails can unleash viruses, malware, and other nasty surprises on unsuspecting Web surfers.

The February 2007 "Intelligence Report" by messaging security firm MessageLabs found 77.8 percent of all sent e-mails for the month of February from "new and unknown bad sources" were spam, or 1 in every 1.29 e-mails. MessageLabs reported a 2% increase from January 2007, attributable to the tactic of increasing spam traffic due to holidays -- in this case, Valentine's Day.

"While it is routine to see the bad guys use seasonal tactics to exploit unsuspecting targets, the recent rise in Valentine's Day specific malware proves it is still effective," MessageLabs' chief security analyst Mark Sunner said.

"Although it is commendable that global law enforcement agencies are attempting to address the spam and botnetissue, we are likely to see the spammers continuing to innovate both in terms of targeting and with new techniques to reach the end user," Sunner said.

Another security firm, Kaspersky Lab, published its annual "Spam Evolution Report" for 2006, and found that China, Russia, and the United States were still the largest producers of spam worldwide.

Kaspersky found that 70 to 80 percent of all e-mail traffic on the Russian Internet in 2006 was spam. Kaspersky reported that spammers were becoming much more savvy in their efforts, with spammers increasingly employing graphic images to get past antispam filters, and disguising their sender addresses to look like reputable businesses.

"Spam is becoming increasingly criminalized," Kaspersky noted in the report summary. "[S]pammers are proactively looking for new markets for their services, and are migrating to IM clients and cellular communications."

SiliconRepublic.com, an Ireland-based technology news site, reported that 60 percent of all e-mail traffic to businesses in Ireland was spam, according to IE Internet. Like Kaspersky, the report found the majority of spam originating in the United States, though it noted a continuing trend of moving large-scale botnet operations out of the U.S.

Canada's privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddard, noted in a press conference on March 1st that Canada was the sixth largest source of spam e-mails and the only member of the G8 countries to not have any comprehensive anti-spam legislation. Stoddard renewed her call for the Canadian government to address spam proliferation, noting spam's role in fraud and identity theft.

Of course, given the general ineffectiveness of legislation like the U.S.'s CAN-SPAM Act, some observers noted that it might not be the best idea to rely on governments to solve the spam problem.

What You Can Do

• Install antispam software. At this point, surfing the Web or using e-mail without a spam filter or antispam protector is simply foolish. Most software security programs include antispam filters, as well as firewalls and virus protection. Sites such as Cnet.com can help you find and compare products before buying.

• Use multiple e-mail accounts. Filtering your e-mail traffic according to category will help reduce the likelihood of spam cluttering up your inbox. Use one e-mail address for shopping online, one for personal conversations, one for business, etc. Web-based e-mail services, such as ConsumerAffairs.org, Gmail and Yahoo Mail, come with built-in spam filters and tools to remove spam manually.

• Don't give out your e-mail address randomly. If a service or offer doesn't automatically require an e-mail address, don't provide it. Don't post your e-mail address anywhere on the Internet where it can be publicly viewed, as that will increase the chance of it being picked up by "crawlers" attached to search engines, which makes it an easier target for spam botnets. If you do, take out the symbols in the address and write them as words. Instead of "johndoe@youremail.com," write "johndoe AT youremail DOT com."

• Don't open e-mails unless they're from trusted sources. If the e-mail looks at all suspicious, move it to your spam filter and delete it. E-mails that purport to be from PayPal, Bank of America, etc., are invariably "phisher" spam mails, designed to get you to fill out your information by appearing legitimate.