Current Events in October 2007

October 24, 2007
Consumer safety experts are warning parents to keep safety in mind when shopping for costumes this Halloween and to watch out for masks that may contain dangerous levels of lead and for costumes that may be flammable or hard to see at night.

Safety experts agree that the danger of lead in masks is minimal, but urge parents to still be cautious.

Safe Kids USA, a nonprofit that aims to keep children safe from dangerous products, spot-tested a few masks in the past and didn't find any lead on the inside, close to the where the mouth could come in contact, Alan Korn, director of public policy at the organization said.

The Center for Environmental Health, a nonprofit that fights to keep Americans safe from toxins found in everyday products, also spot-tested some masks and did find lead, but relatively low levels, spokesman Charles Margulis said.

ConsumerAffairs.com checked the masks at a local drug store and found that all 10 the store had available were products of China. But experts aren't concerned because, they're very short-lived, Korn said of masks. They're usually worn once for no more than an hour and not even fully for that hour.

Because of the lack of chronic exposure, Margulis agreed that masks are not a major concern, but suggested that worried parents perform a home lead test on any soft plastic or vinyl masks.

We find those tests to be pretty accurate, Margulis said. The staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), on the other hand, issued a warning earlier this week that the tests are unreliable.

Parents should encourage their children to wear face paint instead of masks, Korn said. Not only would that eliminate lead fears, but more importantly, get rid of a potentially cumbersome mask that can hamper vision.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has never recalled a Halloween mask, said agency spokesman Scott Wolfson. But two Halloween accessories this year have been recalled because of dangerous levels of lead. Dollar General recalled 63,000 Frankenstein mugs and Albert's recalled 55,000 skull-shaped pails.

Wolfson said the greater concern is the flammability of costumes.

Last year Family Dollar recalled 120,000 Creepy Capes because they could easily ignite and in 2001 Disney recalled 54,000 Little Mermaid costumes after a four-year-old girl suffered burns.

When purchasing costumes, masks, beards and wigs, look for flame-resistant fabrics such as nylon or polyester, or look for the label "Flame Resistant," according to the agency's website.

Flame-resistant fabrics will resist burning and should extinguish quickly. To minimize the risk of contact with candles and other fire sources, avoid costumes made with flimsy materials and outfits with big, baggy sleeves or billowing skirts.

Experts warn that cars are far more dangerous to children on Halloween than lead levels in masks or flammable costumes.

By far, the most dangerous thing on Halloween is pedestrian safety, Korn said. Children are four times more likely to be killed on Halloween because of a car/pedestrian incident than any other night of the year.

Korn suggested that when selecting a costume, include:

• Light colors that can be easily seen at night;
• Retro reflective material; and
• A flashlight so that trick or treaters can see and be seen

He also said it's important for adults to slow down while driving.

It is the only night of the year in which every adult you know and every child you know will be doing the exact same thing heading to the roads, Korn said. Parents coming home from rush hour or regular commuting traffic and kids excited to get out there and do their trick or treating.

More safety tips are available on Safe Kids USA's Web site.

A federal appeals court has upheld Connecticut's ban against dormancy fees on gift cards. Simon Property Group, which owns shopping malls nationwide, has been challenging the state's consumer protection laws.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit involves a case in which Simon is challenging Connecticut's ban on gift card fees and expiration dates.

In a separate case, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal sued Simon in state court for illegally imposing expiration dates on gift cards and charging dormancy fees on unused balances.

Blumenthal said the federal court ruling vindicates Connecticut's vital right to prevent businesses from unconscionably devaluing gift card balances - ensuring that consumers get the full product that they bought.

The federal ruling also provides for the U.S. District Court to consider the merits of Simon's challenge to Connecticut's law prohibiting expiration dates on gift cards. Blumenthal and State Treasurer Denise L. Nappier said they will continue to vigorously defend the state ban on expiration dates on gift cards.

"Common sense and law support this ruling that a gift card belongs to a gift recipient - not a mall owner," Blumenthal said. "Simon cannot devalue gift cards. This ruling protects our legal prohibition against businesses devaluing gift cards and imposing dormancy fees on gift card balances. When consumers pay in full for a product, they deserve the full value.

"Simon's gift card policies are illegal and completely nonsensical, turning off consumers, and wasting colossal amounts of money and time on litigation. Simon should spare consumers this unconscionable battle and abandon its court fight," he said.

Meanwhile, Blumenthal said he continues to pursue the state action against Simon for illegally devaluing and expiring gift cards.

Simon Property, which owns the Crystal Mall in Waterford, Connecticut, has subtracted $2.50 a month from Crystal Mall gift cards if an unused balance remains after six months. The company also has levied fees of $7.50 to reactivate an expired card.

The Jeep Grand Cherokee and Jeep Commander along with other Jeep models continue to experience unintended acceleration more than a year after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) refused to order a safety recall because it found no evidence to indicate the influence of a manufacturing defect.

ConsumerAffairs.com has received reports of unintended acceleration in the Grand Cherokee since at least 2000 and continues to receive similar complaints from consumers driving Jeep vehicles.

NHTSA, the federal agency in charge of vehicle safety, reports one petition from Elaine Ziegler in Coatsville, Pennsylvania to recall a 2006 Jeep Commander for sudden acceleration but the petition was denied on January 3, 2007.

The complaint involved unintended acceleration with Ziegler's Jeep Commander causing an accident that killed a person in Delaware in December 2005, according to NHTSA documents.

'No defect'

NHTSA told Ms. Ziegler that the federal safety analysis identified no indication of a safety defect trend that could cause unintended acceleration in these vehicles.

As a result, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, your petition is denied, the brief letter concluded.

In the months since NHTSA closed the unintended acceleration investigation, runaway Jeeps have continued to injure people and destroy property causing an unending trail of trouble for Jeep owners.

Most recently, in La Junta, Colorado, James told us he put his 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee Loredo into drive and it suddenly accelerated," as witnesses said, "like a rocket.

James could not stop the Jeep. He hit several fences, a gas meter, another car and his Jeep ended up "resting in someone's living room."

Lucky no one was killed. I just bought the car about 2 weeks ago, James said at the time.

His troubles are not over however. I was given a ticket but not arrested yet. The accident is still under investigation. The car has been impounded. The state police removed the black box and my insurance agent was refused access to the Jeep, James told us.

James' wife Carol added that the airbags did not deploy.

Not far away, Anna in Denver reported that she took her 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee to a carwash.

As the employee turned the car on to bring it out of the wash and put it in drive, the car accelerated by itself. He dodged people, cars and cleaning materials for 10 seconds before the brakes would work again.

Anna filed a police incident report and took her car to the Jeep dealership, where it remains.

I will not be driving it again as it is a danger and obviously a lemon, Anna told ConsumerAffairs.com.

Isolated incidents? Perhaps, but they are far from the only incidents reported to us. Here are a few more:

Georgina of Park City UT (09/12/07)
On May 26, 2007 my husband was about to borrow our son's 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland, which incidentally, we had purchased earlier in the year expecting it to be a safe and reliable car for college.

He had just hitched the trailer to the vehicle's tow hook as it as faced down our rather steep driveway situated on the side of a mountain. He got behind the driver's wheel, and I climbed into the front passenger's seat. He placed his foot on the brake, intending to put the vehicle in gear, and once the vehicle was placed in drive, it suddenly accelerated violently forward.

He attempted to steer the car to the right where a dirt berm would slow the motion. The vehicle impacted the hillside and rolled onto the top and over onto it's wheels. We were bruised and badly shaken up, but thankfully not seriously hurt.

However, had my husband not taken this evasive action, I'm sure our four children would have been orphans by now. Fortunately after the first roll, the trailer got caught in some trees which prevented the car from further rolling further down the driveway and then possibly continuing down the mountain side!

Even though the police supported our case with the evidence found, Daimler Chrysler concluded that it was driver error. My husband is a meticulously careful driver with an excellent driving record. We are immensely aware of the caution required on such a steep slope, especially when in the process of towing a trailer, so why on earth would he suddenly accelerate with full force down such a steep driveway and then decide to turn right into an embankment to stop?

Thankfully it happened to us, and not to our two sons who were later going to drive almost 2,000 miles across country to go back to college together. Imagine how easily driver error would have been labeled at this age group. I have written to the Daimler Chrysler Customer Claims Resolution Group and to the five Directors of the Board of Daimler Chrysler, explaining what had happened.

The only response I received was a brief and rather flippant letter from the Customer Claims Department denying that there was anything wrong with the vehicle but thanked me for raising my concern! I think it is outrageous that such a large organization should be allowed to get away with this at the customer's expense. I wonder how many more people this could have happened to, only they were never able to tell their story?

Gail of Hockley TX (06/26/07)
Twice since March my 2007 Jeep Liberty has experienced unintended acceleration. This Jeep is only 3 months old.

The first time the Jeep accelerated on its own I was pulling into my own garage and it accelerated into the wall, pushing the filing cabinet in the garage through the wall. We had to have the sheet rock replaced, but have not bought the hardiplank to replace and repair the outside of the house. Today the Jeep accelerated over a hill on a windy wet back road, but there was no one else on the road at the time and no damage done. Is this a common problem with these new vehicles?

Kim of Olean NY (04/08/07)
I have had two incidents while driving my 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee, the first time I was coming over a hill approaching a stop sign as I applied the brake the rpms reached 6,000 I was able to stop the Jeep with no problem with the brakes I put it in neutral and the rpm's continued to race so I shut it off.

I restarted and drove away fine.

Just last night I was driving to work while going up a very steep hill that has many twists and turns not to mention only small guard rails to keep me from plunging to my death the Jeep started to accelerate on its own and the brakes became hard I kept stomping on them until they finally grabbed and I could slow down enough to pull over put it in neutral and turn it off.

Jayne of Englewood CO (03/08/07)
On Tuesday, 3/6/07 my son was driving our 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee LTD when he was pulling into his parking spot at work and the Jeep suddenly accelerated at full throttle. He applied the brakes as hard as he could but flew right into a concrete wall.

We heard from our insurance company yesterday and they did total the vehicle.

We have no GAP insurance on the vehicle. The difference between the insurance payoff, less our deductible, leaves us having to come up with about $2,800 to pay it off. And now we have no family size vehicle. ted complaints.

Many more reports of runaway Jeeps can be found in our reader complaint section.

With two days left in my NutriSystem trial, I have eaten, or at least tried to eat, almost every dish NutriSystem has to offer and I'm glad I'll -- hopefully -- never be eating them again after Thursday.

Most of the foods were fair at best, a few were tasty, while some were so disgusting I'd have to be truly starving before I'd eat them again.

Of the 118 NutriSystem complaints ConsumerAffairs.com has received, almost all describe horrific foods that not even a dog would eat. While I understand that I'm not a picky eater, I would have to say that most of those complaints are gross exaggerations.

I wouldn't describe any NutriSystem dishes as delicious. Most were not bad, especially with the help of some spices and/or hot sauce, which are both allowed. Only a few were so gross I'd never eat them again.

To be honest, considering that this is supposed to be a diet and diet foods are generally healthy foods, I was shocked at how edible most foods were. For our readers who really couldn't handle NutriSystem foods, all I can say is, good luck dieting.

Story continues below video

However, it seemed many of the foods were cheaply made. While the meat wasn't bad, it didn't taste like it was anywhere close to grade A and every item that supposedly had fruits and nuts built into it, had almost none. I was also frequently disappointed when I opened lunches and dinners to find mostly sauce rather than meat and vegetables.

While many bloggers on NutriSystem's forums claim to save money using NutriSystem, I found that claim to be less than credible. I live alone in downtown Washington, D.C. and before this NutriSystem diet, I ate most meals out since preparing meals for one person is rarely feasible and since many of the restaurants in the area offer healthier dishes and cater to young singles like myself.

My spending for food, conservatively, came out to $420 per month while the cheapest possible option for NutriSystem customers is $460. While meals themselves are only $320 per month, they actually only include a portion of one's daily calorie intake.

As I noted in my Day 11 entry, a dieter must also provide 11 extra helpings from various food groups for each day.

After loading up at Trader Joe's, the cheapest grocery store in town that offers fresh fruits and vegetables, and using what was already in my pantry, I burned through at least an additional $140.

Knowing that I live in a very expensive region, I don't understand how anyone outside of Washington, D.C. or Manhattan could possibly claim that they save money using NutriSystem.

Outside of food, the diet also includes counseling, which some say makes the difference. For me, the counseling was helpful. My friendly counselor, Jamie, called me every week to check on me and candidly answered my questions.

However, after a month on the diet, after all my questions have been answered, I'm not sure I'd ever use the counseling again.

During this trial, I have learned what foods I like and what foods I don't and I completely commiserate with complaining consumers whose meals have been swapped. While it doesn't cost more money to choose what foods you want, it makes the diet much more edible considering that most people are likely going to hate at least some of the dishes.

When I chose my plan, I tried to pick one of everything so that I could get a good feel for the palatability of the diet. However, only about a third of what I picked actually arrived.

Instead, they swapped many of the desserts, breakfasts, lunches and dinners with things that I suspect were cheaper to make. Most notable were the five packages of scrambled eggs. I only picked one of those, yet five arrived. The powdered eggs were not only disgusting, as I discuss in today's video, but likely much less expensive to manufacture than some of the other breakfast dishes.

My counselor recently informed me that I could have called NutriSystem when my box arrived and have them send me the items I actually picked, at no charge, and kept the other items I didn't pick.

Maybe, but consumers have complained for years about food being swapped out.

NutriSystem representatives have given me three excuses saying that it's because of a new and improved menu that may not appear on the website, a temporary backlog at the shipping facility and one even blamed it on the company's spokesman, Dan Marino, saying his popular effect on the brand has hurt the supply chains.

NutriSystem needs to stop giving excuses and start sending people what they paid for. Until then, I encourage readers to follow my counselor's advice and make NutriSystem send them all the food they actually requested.

Check out my last NutriSystem blog on Thursday where I'll have my final weigh-in and give my final verdict on the NutriSystem diet.

The New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation has accused Ameriprise Financial of breaking state securities laws, forging and tampering with documents, the state's second action against the company in as many years.

The state said Ameriprise could face penalties and client restitution of up to $10 million.

"What we've found is an unprecedented and widespread compliance failure on a number of levels within the company as well as an unprofessional workplace environment and attitude that would do little to inspire the trust and confidence of New Hampshire investors, said bureau director Mark Connolly.

"This conduct was the direct result of an Ameriprise sales culture more concerned with sales commissions than compliance," he said. "Regulators cannot tolerate such blatant disregard for investors."

The complaint alleges that the brokerage company failed to deliver nearly 500 financial plans, conducted unapproved sales contests and intentionally limited compliance oversight.

Additionally, the Minneapolis-based brokerage company was accused of failing to adequately release all fraudulent activities to the state of New Hampshire while it was under supervision by the state and by an independent consultant in 2005.

In 2005 the company, formerly known as American Express Financial Advisors, settled with the state for $7.4 million on charges related to illegal incentives, conflicts of interest and lack of disclosure to clients.

In the earlier case, the state found a pervasive effort within the company to press its financial advisors to sell "one size fits all" investment plans that were heavily laden with underperforming American Express mutual funds.

The state now charges that the company failed to deliver nearly 500 financial plans, enaged in forgery, document tempering and other illegal activities. The company also allegedly concealed evidence of fraudulent activities from investigators.

By law, financial advisory have a fiduciary duty to always act in the best interest of their clients, tailoring each individual's financial plan based on factors such as the client's age, income and risk tolerance.

The most common notion of an identity thief is a computer hacker sitting alone in the dark, trading credit card numbers in secret chat rooms.

While there's plenty of evidence to back that up, a new study shows that both the perpetrators and victims of identity theft are more diverse than typically believed.

The Center for Identity Management and Information Protection (CIMIP), a think tank established at Utica College in New York, released its report studying trends in identity theft this week.

The CIMIP report focused on actual cases of identity theft, rather than victim reports, using data provided by the U.S. Secret Service. Among the findings:

• 42.5 percent of the offenders were between 25 and 34 years of age at the time that the case was opened, the largest percentage of offenders studied.

• 53.8 percent of the offenders were black, and 38.3 percent were white. One-third of the offenders were female, and of that percentage, two-thirds were black.

• 71 percent of the offenders had no arrest history, and the primary goal of the thieves was for simple personal gain, such as using credit, cash, or applying for auto loans.

• In 50 percent of the 274 cases studied, a business was the primary target. Businesses most likely to be hit with identity theft-related crimes were in the retail industry, such as hotels, restaurants, and gas stations. Private corporations represented 20 percent of the targets.

• 37.1 percent of the victims in the surveyed cases were financial industry organizations, such as banks, credit unions, and credit card companies. Individuals accounted for 34.3 percent of the victims.

• 59 percent of the victims were strangers--people the offenders did not know.

"Some of this does challenge conventional wisdom," CIMIP's executive Gary Gordon told MSNBC's Bob Sullivan. "Other studies report you (often) know who the person is that committed the crime. This study didn't find that."

Shifting the blame

Many studies tracing the origins and patterns of identity theft and related fraud have painted different pictures of who is likely to be affected, which in turn colors the debate about what should be done to prevent the crimes.

"Societal perceptions about identity crimes are based on a combination of notorious case incidents, broadcast vignettes depicting the unfortunate experiences of the victims, media announcements cautioning against behavior that may precipitate victimization, and, quite often, word-of-mouth," the report authors wrote.

A frequently-cited 2006 study by the Javelin Research & Strategy firm found that incidents of identity theft were on the decline, and that the most prevalent forms of identity theft occurred offline, such as stealing checkbooks or "dumpster diving" for personal documents. Perpetrators were likely to be a friend or family member to the victim, the study authors claimed.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) disputed Javelin's findings, pointing to its own statistic of 250,000 identity theft complaints brought to the agency in 2006--36 percent of all total complaints.

Battles over the root causes and preferred victims of identity theft and fraud deliberately influence legislation and responses to the problem. The financial industry and elements of the federal government favor a more hands-off approach, such as the identity theft plan proposed by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FTC chairman Deborah Platt Majoras.

The plan would recommend passing federal identity theft laws that preempt stronger state-level laws, and enabling companies that have suffered data breaches to conduct their own internal investigations rather than automatically notifying affected customers. Studies that claim identity theft is not decisively caused by strangers who have access to personal data would bolster support for the hands-off measures.

Consumer advocates, state legislators, and some members of Congress are pushing for stronger legislation that expands the definitions of identity theft and offers harsher penalties for perpetrators. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) recently introduced a new identity theft prevention bill that made the usage of spyware or keylogger programs a felony, expanded losses of identity theft under $5000 to be classified as misdemeanors, and codified the right of identity theft victims to seek restitution for financial losses.

The study, which is available as a free PDF download, was funded by a grant from the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance as well as corporate support from Lexis-Nexis, IBM, and Trans Union.

Sometimes the good guys win.

Thats the case with a Missouri woman who tried again on Saturday to get tickets to Hannah Montanas upcoming concert in Kansas City for her eight-year-old daughter.

I got them! an excited Claire N. screamed over the phone seconds after the tickets went on sale.

Claire and other Hannah Montana fans in Kansas City had another chance to buy the much-coveted tickets on Saturday thanks to an agreement Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon reached earlier this month with Ticketmaster.

Under that agreement, Ticketmaster released an additional 1,000 tickets -- held by artists promotion company -- to the teen idols December 3 concert in Kansas City.

Claire went online Saturday morning and managed to snatch up two of those hot tickets.

Im ecstatic, she said after buying the tickets for face value -- $56 a piece. Im going to give them to my daughter on Thanksgiving as an early Christmas presents.

Claire had tried in September to buy Hannah Montana tickets -- at the designated time of sale -- but discovered the show was already sold out.

She and other Missouri fans, however, immediately found scores of Hannah Montana tickets at various brokers but at greatly inflated prices. Some tickets to the pop divas concerts in Missouri -- that included an October 18 show in St. Louis -- sold for up to 20 times the face value.

State sues scalpers

Earlier this month, Nixon sued three ticket brokers for allegedly scalping Hannah Montana tickets: GoTickets Inc. and Tickets Now Entertainment Group Inc., both of Springfield, Illinois, and Ticket Solutions Inc. of Overland Park, Kansas.

Investigators from Nixons office purchased tickets from these online brokers to the pop stars upcoming Kansas City concert. They paid $254, $257, and $305 for tickets that had a face value of either $26 or $56.

Nixons lawsuits, filed in the Jackson County, Missouri, Circuit Court, alleged the brokers violated the states consumer protection laws by scalping tickets. The sale of tickets at prices far above the face values is a violation of a Kansas City municipal ordinance that prohibits scalping.

These companies are able to employ inappropriate means, using sophisticated software, to hoard all the tickets to high-demand events and then turn around and sell them at grossly inflated prices, Nixon said when he sued the brokers. Its a blatant rip-off of consumers who attempt to purchase tickets in good faith through the proper means and are met with nothing but frustration.

At the same time Nixon took those ticket brokers to court, he also reached the agreement with Ticketmaster to sell additional tickets to the young pop stars shows in St. Louis and Kansas City.

Under the agreement, fans could only purchase two tickets to the concerts through Ticketmasters Web site or over the phone.

To prevent scalping, fans must pick up their tickets at the venues box office -- on the day of the concert -- and present photo identification and the credit card they used for payment.

By requiring purchasers to appear at the box office and provide credit card and photo ID verification, we also are minimizing the impact that would-be scalpers will have on these sales, Nixon said. If these ticket brokers are rendered unable to hijack the system, real fans get the tickets at the prices set by the artists.

Nixon said he worked out this agreement to ensure fans had a chance to get Hannah Montana tickets at a fair price. We wanted to make sure that a lot of frustrated moms and dads, with their disappointed kids, had the opportunity to purchase tickets to these concerts at face value.

Claire appreciates Nixons action.

My daughter really wanted to go this show and she was upset when we couldnt get tickets. Im so happy that I got theseIm ecstatic.

We beat the ticket scalpers, she added.

No callbacks

ConsumerAffairs.com tried to contact the ticket brokers named in Nixons lawsuit, but none returned our calls.

Meanwhile, consumers nationwide have shared horror stories with us about ticket scalpers gobbling up all the Hannah Montana tickets and selling them at inflated prices.

I was on TicketMaster 20 minutes before the Hannah Montana tickets went on sale at 10:00a.m., one parent from Nottingham, Maryland, wrote us. They were sold out at 10:01! My friends were also on the Web site at the same time and had problems.

Ten minutes later, the tickets were on eBay selling for triple the price. I am very upset that they allow people to sell these tickets online to make money, and my daughter, who is a true fan, can't go because I can't afford to spend $300 per ticket.

Missouri isnt the only state cracking down on brokers that allegedly scalp Hannah Montanas concert tickets.

The Arkansas attorney general recently launched an investigation into the sale of these tickets to determine if some online brokers violated that states scalping laws.

I have a young daughter, and I really wish I could fix this problem for all the parents with disappointed kids right now, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel said. However, what our investigation reveals thus far is that many of the tickets intended to be sold directly to Arkansas consumers were diverted to as yet unidentified bulk purchasers.

McDaniel said he learned of allegations that at least one company is selling a software product that allows users to breach Ticketmasters online system. Users who have this software, he said, can cut in line ahead of legitimate customers and block access to tickets at the site.

Sales at the box office are also tied into the Ticketmaster system, McDaniel said, and its possible that users of this software were able to block the full number of tickets intended to be available at the box office.

McDaniel also warned consumers that some tickets offered for sale on the Internet could be bogus. Some online ticket sellers might not have the tickets theyre selling, he cautioned, while other might sell counterfeit tickets.

What to do

McDaniel offered the following tips to consumers buying tickets online:

• Know the company youre dealing with. Web sites have certain guidelines that resellers must follow, but not all sites verify ticket authenticity before permitting users to post them for sale;

• Avoid paying the seller directly with cash or a check. Many auction sites use separate services to handle the payment, which usually requires the use of a credit card. If purchases are made through a separate service or with a credit card, the consumer is more likely to have some recourse to dispute the charge if the tickets turn out to be bogus;

• Research the seller and the Web site. Web sites that display the Better Business Bureau seal usually have a buyer protection program. Consumers should also find out if the seller has a history of satisfied customers.

While there will always be issues relating to ticket availability where demand exceeds supply, the process must be fair to consumers, Attorney General McDaniel said. With these ticket sales, there is the additional problem that many are being offered on the Internet at prices far above the face value.

"In many instances, Arkansas law prohibits resale at prices over the face value plus a reasonable handling charge.

McDaniel, however, said its sometimes difficult to enforce ticket scalping laws with Internet transactions because the sellers may be in another state or country.

Unfortunately, consumers in Kansas City, Missouri, will soon have zero protection against ticket scalping.

Its currently illegal to sell tickets above face value in that city. But the Missouri Legislature recently passed a measure that legalized ticket scalping in the stateeffective November 28.

Some legislators have said they may try to overturn that law in the next session, which convenes in January.

The latest net neutrality dust-up involves Comcast, following an Associated Press reportthat charged Comcast actively interferes with subscribers who use peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing programs such as BitTorrent.

AP reporter Peter Svensson said he found that using P2P services like BitTorrent to upload large files triggered a message that appeared to be from one of the users asking to block the communication -- but was actually from Comcast itself.

In August, Comcast warned broadband Internet customers across the country to curb their downloading or wind up on the curb.

The company, which a few years ago advertised the service as unlimited has an acceptable use policy which enforces the invisible download limit, ConsumerAffairs.com's Joe Enoch reported.

Comcast had previously denied that it used any sort of technology to block or inhibit file-sharing between users. The latest discovery renewed calls by consumer advocates to pass laws protecting net neutrality, the principle that content on the Internet should be equally accessible by all users.

"Comcast's BitTorrent blocking is the canary in the coal mine for Net Neutrality -- a clear example of an Internet service provider stifling innovation and free speech online," said Free Press' Ben Scott.

"If you want content that isn't available on Comcast's cable system, the Internet is the place to go and this is the technology that is going to bring it to you.

"It's no surprise that Comcast, whose primary business is video, is working to smother a growing competitor."

Comcast denies it.

"Comcast does not block access to any Websites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services like BitTorrent," a Comcast spokeswoman said. "We have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience and we use the latest technologies to manage our network so that they can continue to enjoy these applications."

Comcast has actively taken steps in the past to limit excessive bandwith usage, to the point of shutting off service to customers who the company decides are going over the limit.

But Comcast refuses to disclose its bandwith caps, making it difficult for consumers to judge if they are in danger of exceeding those limits.

Russell of Schaumburg, Illinois wrote ConsumerAffairs.com to complain that Comcast's aggressive pursuit of new customers was causing a strain on the available bandwith, slowing his connection speed to dial-up levels.

"Basically they charge for a service which they can't provide," Russell said.

Dan from Houna, Louisiana claimed Comcast was "advertising unlimited internet and is putting an arbitrary limit on news group downloads and on outgoing email. Someone do something!"

Verizon Wireless, which had similarly claimed to offer unlimited wireless broadband Internet service, was forced to withdraw that claim after testing by ConsumerAffairs.com confirmed that the company would cancel users' service if they downloaded large files or watched streaming video television shows.

The Fear Of Peer-To-Peer

The growth of broadband in America has been fueled in large part by the ability to send and share large files such as music, movies, and documents over P2P programs such as BitTorrent and LimeWire. The faster speeds enabled by broadband Internet service enable video and music files to be downloaded in minutes, rather than hours as with dial-up Internet service.

Although P2P services enable the easy -- and illegal -- sharing of copyrighted content, they also enable the dissemination of works in the public domain. Svensson used the King James Bible as a legal file to test whether or not Comcast would block the upload of the file to the BitTorrent service. It did.

Under influence from lobbyists in the entertainment and media industries, Congress has recently renewed calls to further investigate restrictions on P2P services, claiming they represent a risk of leaking sensitive government documents, as well as the potential to increase identity theft through breaches of personal data.

The Salmonella peanut butter outbreak that is blamed for killing at least four and sickening hundreds early last year, was not the first instance of a Salmonella outbreak in a batch of Peter Pan peanut butter for the ConAgra Foods company.

Nor did it come as a surprise to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which had failed to follow up on earlier problems at the plant that produced the contaminated peanut butter.

Documents obtained by ConsumerAffairs.com through a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that ConAgra discovered microbial problems in October 2004.

In February 2005, the FDA sent inspector Jackie Douglas to ConAgra's Sylvester, Ga. plant, which produces Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butters, to investigate an anonymous claim of insect infestation, poor in-plant sanitation, equipment maintenance and quality control.

The FDA also had received five complaints from consumers who said they found plastic, hair, rice and mouse droppings in the peanut butter.

'Micro hold'

Although Douglas found the plant to be in compliance with applicable codes, the plant managers informed her that there was a micro hold in October 2004, in which some of the plant's peanut butter was destroyed as a result of lab tests.

"Management verbally reported that each day's production is tested in-house for Salmonella and coliforms prior to release of the production for sale," Douglas noted in her inspection report. "Firm acknowledged that there was some production in October that did not meet product specifications and was put on micro hold, and was subsequently destroyed. However, management would not report the exact reason for the hold, nor the amount of product affected."

The plant managers informed Douglas that the details of that micro hold would be made available to the FDA if they filed a written request.

The FDA never did request that information, ConAgra spokeswoman Stephanie Childs said.

FDA dropped the ball

If the FDA had folowed through, it would have discovered that the micro hold was the result of Salmonella, Childs said. She wasn't sure how much peanut butter was destroyed, but she said the product manufactured the day the Salmonella was discovered was destroyed as well as an unspecified number of days before and after.

The FDA made no further inquiries until two years later when the Centers for Disease Control informed the FDA that more than 200 consumers had been infected with Salmonella, possibly as a result of eating Peter Pan peanut butter.

FDA spokeswoman Catherine McDermott gave unresponsive answers to ConsumerAffairs.com's questions and a follow up e-mail and phone call to the agency's press office were not returned.

A month after the initial recall, ConAgra and the FDA issued press releases announcing that the recall would be expanded to October 2004.

"We were reaching back to custumers who might on an off-chance still have that product in storage or on shelf," Childs said. "I think there was some confusion behind the intent of that FDA press release. But our intent from the very beginning was to recall 100 percent of product made there."

Childs said it was a coincidence that the company announced an extension to its recall back to October 2004, the same month the company destroyed unknown batches of peanut butter that contained Salmonella.

Excessive moisture

In both Salmonella outbreaks, ConAgra scientists are not entirely sure what caused them. But they largely blame excessive moisture, Childs said.

The October 2004 outbreak was possibly a result of peanut shells from one distributor that may have been exposed to too much hurricane weather. It's also possible that sugar stored in a damaged shed may have been exposed to rain, the company said.

The February 2007 recall was possibly the result of the plant's faulty sprinkler system or a leak in the roof.

"We have procedures in place to clean up after that; stop production, get rid of product that may have been impacted by those kinds of scenarios and to start fresh," Childs said. "But we think there must have been some salmonella after our cleanup and that that lead to the unintentional contamination of the product later on."

Despite the cleanups, micro holds and ConAgra's in-house Salmonella testing, their product sickened hundreds of consumers whose doctors reported it to the CDC and likely many thousands more.

ConsumerAffairs.com has received 205 related complaints. Many of those complaints involved multiple illnesses among family members.

Was the problem sporadic?

"Yes, we have these regular testing procedures. Yes, we regularly hold the product," Childs said. "But our experts believe that either the salmonella count was either too low to detect or that it was sporadic enough that our testing procedures could not detect it."

The plant tests one jar per line per hour, Childs said.

The FDA has levied no fines against ConAgra and the agency's investigation is ongoing. A manager at the Health and Human Services Freedom of Information Office said it will likely be "many months" before the FDA finishes its investigation.

Back on shelves

Peter Pan returned to store shelves in August and Childs said the company has made extra efforts to ensure the product is safe.

"We fully renovated the plant, worked with food safety experts to modify product testing and further separated raw ingredients from any finished product," Childs said.

By the time Peter Pan returned to stores, the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention said that 628 people in 47 states have been affected by salmonella poisoning from the tainted peanut butter.

While most of the product has been pulled from store shelves, health officials say some of the recalled jars may still be in consumers pantries. The recalled peanut butter can be identified by the product code beginning with 2111 on the lid.

While the CDC does not officially attribute any deaths to the outbreak, families of at least four elderly consumers have told ConsumerAffairs.com that their loved ones died after eating tainted peanut butter. Their deaths are not counted, officials say, because no autopsies were performed.

Eighty-one-year-old Rosie Haskins died February 26. Her family reported to ConsumerAffairs.com that a partially eaten jar of peanut butter was found in her room. The jar had the telltale 2111 stamped on the lid.

Another 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 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.

While new cases of peanut butter-related salmonella have tapered off, the CDC is warning consumers to be careful. The agency says consumers should carefully examine peanut butter jars on kitchen shelves to make sure the product is not included in the recall.

This outbreak demonstrates the potential for widespread illness from a broadly distributed contaminated product, one that had not previously been implicated in a food-borne illness outbreak in the United States, the CDC said in a statement.

These results add to the growing number of cases in which toxicologists at ExperTox Analytical Laboratories in Texas have detected the over-the-counter pain medicine in dog or cat food.

The tests performed by ExperTox earlier this month also detected another toxin in the foods: melamine. Thats the chemical that triggered Menu Foods massive recall in March of more than 60 million containers of pet food.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found the melamine in the wheat gluten imported from China, which pet food companies used to make their products. Thousands of dogs and cats nationwide suffered kidney problems or died after eating the tainted pet food.

ConsumerAffairs.com learned a Rhode Island pet owner bought the Special Kitty food in February one month before Menu announced its nationwide recall. Pet owner Carol V. said her two cats -- Jessica and Smudge -- nearly died after eating the tainted food.

To say the food made them sick is an understatement, she told us. It nearly killed them.

Now, shes beginning to understand why. ExperToxs lab results, she said, give her some insight into what made her cats so sick.

Not just melamine

The acetaminophen in the cat food, however, may explain Jessicas and Smudges problems. The popular pain killer can be toxic to cats, according to veterinarians.

It just floored me that there was acetaminophen in the food I feed my cats, said Carol. How can you explain acetaminophen in my cats food? I sent the food in the original, unopened pouches.

But finding the acetaminophen in there also makes perfect sense after seeing what theyve gone through, she adds. I really thought both of them were going to die.

The first signs of problems surfaced in mid-February when Carol detected a strange odor on Jessicas breath.

It smelled uremic, like a kidney dialysis patient, Carol recalled. We also noticed that Jessica was outside drinking water from a melting puddle. I remember commenting that wed never seen either cat drink before. But Jessica was so desperate for water that she was drinking from a puddle outside.

And then we noticed that she couldnt stand on her own.

Kidneys failing

Carol rushed the 15-year-old Tabby cat to the familys veterinarian.

He did a urinalysis and discovered her kidneys were failing, Carol said. We thought we would have to euthanize her. But our vet said that because Jessica shed seemed fine the day before, he wanted to presume this was something he could treat.

For the next few days, Jessica received fluids, potassium supplements, the heartburn medicine Pepcid AC, and an antibiotic.

We decided that if this didnt workif she was sufferingwe wouldnt continue with the treatment, Carol said.

But Jessicas condition slowly improved.

Her back legs were getting stronger and she seemed to be getting better. So we continued giving her more fluids and sticking with this same treatment program.

Carols vet also emphasized the importance of getting Jessica to eat.

So I tried to force fed her the Special Kitty food, Carol said, adding this occurred a few weeks before Menu Foods announced its recall. Jessica refused. I even poured tuna fish oil on the Special Kitty food to entice her to eat, but she walked away.

Smudge, however, continued to gobble up the Special Kitty food.

And on March 12 -- four days before Menu Foods announced its recall the Calico cat suddenly became seriously ill.

She could hardly stand up, she was staggering, and her breath smelled foul, Carol said. I thought that she had whatever Jessica hadthat maybe it was a virus.

Renal failure

But Carols vet discovered another -- much more serious -- problem. Smudge was in renal failure.

He said she was much worse than Jessica was and he didnt think that shed last through the day, Carol said. He said it looked like shed gotten into some antifreeze. But he did a test and that proved it wasnt antifreeze poisoning.

The family took aggressive measures to save the 13-year-old cat. They authorized their vet to follow the same protocol he used to treat Jessica.

Slowly, Smudge started to improve.

Our vet said he didnt know what was going on with Smudge, Carol said. He was baffled. And I think I asked him if it could be something we were feeding the cats.

Carols suspicious were confirmed a few days later.

Stiffed by Menu, FDA

I was watching the news and heard about Menu Foods recall and that the food was causing renal failure in pets. Carol said she immediately contacted Menu Foods, but the company didnt respond.

All Menu Foods was publicly telling pet owners to do was save their receipts. But this wasnt about money. It was about saving our pets and nothing was happening.

Carol also contacted the FDA--several times.

I offered to give the FDA my cats food, but they said they didnt want it. I told them I have the food thats on the recall list and I also have two really sick cats. I begged and pleaded them to test my food, but they didnt want it.

At one point, an FDA employee even chastised Carol for calling.

The person who answered the phone said why are you calling me about this. What really bothered me was how these agencies could be reporting information about the pet food recall if they werent taking any information -- at least not from me. I didnt expect this from the people who supposedly were the investigators on this.

The FDA finally returned Carols calls but only after she sent numerous e-mails and contacted Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

Five minutes after contacting the Senators office, I received a call from a woman at the FDA, Carol said. She told me my previous messages apparently didnt get through.

This whole experience has been so frustrating. Its like being on a merry-go-round and I keep going to back to square one. And all I really wanted was for someone to test my cats food.

New Organization Responds

A new organization called The Pet Food Products Safety Alliance answered Carols plea.

That organization -- created to raise public awareness of pet food safety issues paid ExperTox to test Carols cat food. A representative with the group, Don Earl, learned about Carols situation on an Internet Web site.

Don asked me if I would send him the cats food to be tested and I told him Id be happy to, Carol said, adding shed saved several unopened pouches of Special Kitty since March and stored the food in her freezer. Don wanted to know which flavor was worse and I said I feed my cats every flavor. Thats why he wanted three different flavors. He knew the results would be scrutinized.

ExperToxs results on the Special Kitty food are significant for two reasons, Earl said.

To my knowledge, this is the first time acetaminophen has been detected in the presence of melamine.

Red herring

The tests also cast doubt on the theory that melamine is the culprit behind the pet food recall, he said.

(These tests) add significantly to the body of evidence that melamine has been used by the pet food companies as a red herring to cover up the actual toxin that killed an estimated quarter of a million pets, said Earl, who has extensively researched this issue since his cat, Chuckles, died in January. Chuckles went into kidney failure after eating Pet Pride cat food that wasnt included in the recall.

Earl said his research -- and these latest finding by ExperTox -- have convinced him that another toxic caused the illnesses and deaths in pets nationwide.

The scientific data, he said, just doesnt support the melamine theory.

Melamine is less toxic than common table salt and couldn't possibly account for the kidney failure epidemic in affected pets, he said.

ExperToxs latest results also add to the growing list of pet foods that have recently tested positive for acetaminophen, including:

• About a half-dozen samples of pet food tested in May. ExperTox did not disclose the brands of those foods because of a confidentiality agreement. But Earl confirmed that two of those samples were Menu Foods Pet Pride "Turkey and Giblets Dinner" and Pet Pride "Mixed Grill that he sent to the lab for analysis. The FDA disputed ExperToxs findings, but we discovered the FDA could not confirm it tested the same lots and brands in which ExperTox detected the pain medication;

• A sample of pet food -- identified as CANIDAE dog food. ExperTox, however, said the sample arrived in a Ziploc bag and it could not confirm the pet food was a CANIDAE product. The lab's customer, who was not identified because of a confidentiality agreement, listed the sample as CANIDAE pet food on ExperToxs forms. CANIDAE denied its products contain acetaminophen, but said it would test samples of its food for the painkiller.

ExperToxs newest findings demand further investigation, Carol said.

I know some people have criticized ExperTox, but I trust them. I know how hard it is for a lab to stay accredited. I dont think the FDA can continue to turn its head on acetaminophen.

FDA, Menu Foods Mum

But will the FDA unleash a new investigation of possible toxins in the tainted pet food in the wake of ExperToxs latest findings?

Will it specifically look for acetaminophen in pet food?

An FDA spokeswoman told us the agency does not comment on pending legislation, litigation, or citizen petitions.

What about the run-around Carol received trying to get some answers from the FDA and get that agency to test her cats food?

The FDA spokeswoman suggested Carol contact the FDAs Consumer Complaint Coordinator. Carol took that action on Tuesday and said the FDA now seems interested in the Special Kitty food.

The FDA coordinator took very detailed information from me, Carol said, adding the representative wanted her cats medical records and additional information about their food. I think from my tone she knew that I have no intention of keeping this quiet.

Menu Foods, on the other hand, is keeping quiet about these latest test results. The company did not respond to our inquiries.

In the meantime, Carol said her cats are getting better each day.

Jessica is 90 percent of her sassy self, she said. And Smudge just started eating on her own at the end of June. We were feeding her in a syringe for months. We were determined that if she survived this in the beginning, she had a right to make a full recovery.

Pet owners also have a right not to worry every time they feed their dogs or cats, Carol said.

I dont want something like this to happen again. My cats dont have the reserves to survive even one more bite of bad food.

The FDA cannot dismiss this as they have with all the other tests (that detected) acetaminophen.

After 21 days, I'm three-fourths of the way through my test of the NutriSystem diet and while it's still easier to follow than when I began, I'm not ready to declare it a success.

A week ago I was losing weight at a torrid pace while I had more energy and was rarely hungry. Apparently the struggles of dieting come and go.

This past weekend started off great. I went on a four-mile run on Friday evening, was able to stay out late with friends and had a productive day Saturday. But after a long work week while running longer distances about every other day, it caught up with me Saturday night.

I promised a friend that night I'd play shuffleboard with him at one of our local watering holes. I was ready to go to bed by midnight and had to rely on water to satisfy a growing appetite as I'd already eaten my daily allowance. Then the next day, while watching football at a friend's house, I had to leave, after only two hours, in the middle of the game because I was so hungry.

So far this week I'm still generally hungry. It's like even when I do have the small portions in my stomach, I could go for an enormous burger, preferably with lots of bacon, tomato and mayonnaise, at any moment.

But with one week left, I'm not about to cave in.

I also have not had nearly the energy I did last week. Although I'm planning to run tonight, it will be my first serious exercise since Saturday. I never went that long even when I was off the diet; I just haven't had the energy to do much more than walk back and forth between my apartment and my office.

I even turned down watching a movie with a friend last night because I was coming down from the coffee high which sustained me during the day. I should add that I'm not a regular coffee drinker.

After perusing NutriSystem's online forums, I found that many of the other dieters also say that their energy and hunger come and go.

Despite this week's struggles, there was a success this morning when I was able to tighten my belt by one notch. That's at least an inch off my waist. I've had the belt for about a year and a half and have always used it on the final notch sometimes barely.

I was somewhat disappointed to see that I only lost one pound in the last week to 179. While it's great that I'm in the 170s a feat I haven't accomplished since college -- it's a huge drop from the four or more pounds I lost the previous two weeks. While I suspected the initial weight would burn off easier, I fantasized that I could continue to lose weight at that pace.

Next week I intend to share video of some of the stranger foods in the NutriSystem diet and on Thursday, I will check in with Dr. Henry Fishman on my final day eating NutriSystem.

But who's counting?

A company charged with using deceptive marketing to pitch its English language learning software has settled charges with the state of North Carolina.

Attorney General Roy Cooper says the company, Interlingual, of Houston, Texas, has agreed to follow the law and pay refunds to consumers who file complaints.

This company took advantage of people who wanted to learn our language, said Cooper. Now, weve won money back for consumers and gotten the company to change its ways.

Cooper alleges the company made telemarketing calls and in-home sales visits to Spanish-speaking North Carolina residents to sell compact discs and printed materials designed to teach English.

Telemarketers working for Interlingual first called consumers, claiming that they were calling to ask them questions for a poll or survey. The telemarketers then quickly switched to a sales pitch and asked to set up a meeting with a sales representative at the consumers home.

According to the complaint, Interlingual sales representatives told prospective customers that they had been selected to receive special scholarships or discounts of up to fifty percent off the purchase price. In reality, all consumers were quoted a price of $1,100 for the CDs and books.

Other consumers were promised 20 free English lessons, but could only get their supposedly free lessons by agreeing to buy the CDs and books.

Under the agreement, Interlingual will change its sales practices. The company has agreed to stop making false claims about scholarships, discounts and free lessons. Interlingual will notify customers verbally and in writing in the same language used to make the sale, which is usually Spanish, about their three-day right to cancel their purchase.

North Carolina law gives people three days to cancel a purchase if it wasnt made at the companys regular place of business.

The company also agreed to change its telemarketing practices. Interlingual telemarketers will stop making false survey calls and will not use automatic dialers and pre-recorded messages without consumers consent.

The company will make sure its telemarketers are properly trained to follow telemarketing laws.

Any consumer who files a complaint with the North Carolina Attorney Generals Office, Texas Attorney Generals Office or the Better Business Bureau within the next 120 days will get a full refund from Interlingual.

More Scam Alerts ...

Would you buy a new television set that will become obsolete in a little more than a year?

That's just what you'll be doing if you buy an analog TV, which will be practically useless once TV broadcasters go digital on February 17, 2009.

The Federal Communications Commission may take steps to ensure that consumers are made aware about the impending change.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has told Congress that he thinks TV broadcasters should be required to air announcements several times a day, making consumers aware that they may have to take additional steps in order to watch TV.

Consumers with analog TVs will have to get a converter box to receive over-the-air signals once TV stations start broadcasting digitally. Those with a satellite TV service or digital cable will not need a converter box.

In this age of flat-screen digital sets, does anyone still buy analog TVs?

Apparently so. In fact, this week retailer Best Buy announced it would immediately stop selling analog sets. In a statement, the retailer said it was pulling analog sets from its shelves as the analog broadcast era draws to an end.

An estimated 60 million U.S. homes still rely on over-the-air reception or analog cable systems. Cable systems currently relying on the old technology have until 2012 to switch over to digital.

Beginning in 2008, the U.S. government says it will provide coupons to each household that can be used to purchase up to two converter boxes. The converter boxes will be available from retailers that currently sell TVs and other electronics.

Meanwhile, consumers could soon begin seeing public service announcements telling them what they have to do in order to receive digital TV. Martin told a House subcommittee that he thinks other FCC commissioners will go along with his proposal.

October 17, 2007
Toyota Motor Co. has dropped from the top spot in Consumer Reports newest survey on vehicle reliability.

Honda Motor Co. beat out Toyota for first place but the maker of the top selling Prius hybrid managed a third place finish behind Honda and Suburu.

Ford Motor Co. made great strides forward, according to the consumer advocacy group with 41 of Ford's 44 models scoring average or better in predicted reliability.

Three Toyota vehicles lost the magazine's "buy" recommendation. For the first time in the survey's history, the V6 Toyota Camry is not recommended by the publication. The Lexus GS sedan and the full-sized Tundra pickup also dropped off the recommended list.

Japanese-made vehicles dominate CR's most-reliable list but U.S. automakers are making some progress, according to David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports' Auto Test Center.

"Just because a vehicle is made in Japan, doesn't mean it has bullet-proof quality," Champion said.

Both General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC achieved high ratings in launches of new vehicles but were unable to maintain the ratings.

Consumer Reports said The Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan sedans rank among the most reliable family cars in its survey, along with the Toyota Prius and Honda Accord. Those Ford sedans and the two-wheel drive Ford F-150 V-6 comprise three of the four domestic models on the survey's most reliable list.

Buick was the top U.S. nameplate at number 10 while Mercury followed in the number 11 spot, Ford was 13 and Lincoln 14.

Chrysler came in at number 20 in the report followed by Dodge at 26 GMC at 28, Jeep at 30, Chevrolet and Cadillac tied for 34.

Of domestic models rated, 93 percent of Ford, 49 percent of GM and 67 percent of Chrysler models had average or better predicted reliability

Thirty-four of 39 models on the most reliable list are Asian.

The Pontiac Solstice had the worst new-car prediction score in the survey Among 36 makes, Land Rover was least reliable on average.

October 16, 2007
The wireless phone might be one of the greatest inventions of all time, but these little gadgets are also the cause of massive confusion and financial trouble. It is not a pretty sight to look at the number of complaints filed against cellular companies, especially when it comes to the issue of contracts and termination fees.

Although there are court cases and potential legislation challenging early termination fees and other horrors, they are all most likely years away from completion.

But there's one step you can take today to avoid the hassles of a contract and that's to choose a prepaid wireless plan.

Prepaid plans also called pay-as-you-go plans allow you to purchase minutes in advance, as you need them. There is no contract, credit check or deposit, and most plans won't make you pay an activation fee.

Prepaid wireless isnt for everyone, especially if youre a heavy wireless user or want certain types of phones. However, you should consider going prepaid if

• You want to budget your expenses

• You or your teen need a limited-use phone

• You need a phone only for emergencies

• You have bad credit

• You want to test-drive the carrier before signing a contracted plan.

Just because you don't sign a contract doesn't mean that choosing service can't be confusing. You still have to do your homework, and do it well.

Where to begin

There is nothing wrong with shopping based on the type of phone or the per-minute rate, but none of that matters if the service doesnt work in your area. Start with checking the coverage map, but understand that its only a general information guide and nowhere near perfect.

Just as with a postpaid plan, a cell phone is basically a small radio. Weather, terrain, and buildings can play havoc with the quality of service. A phone can work fine on one block but not the next.

Until you know the service works well where you need it, youre typically better off by starting with the minimum amount of minutes needed to get the service off the ground.

Prepaid rates and expiration dates

Prepaid rates run anywhere from 10 to 50 cents per minute, but focusing too much on a low rate can be trouble if you dont read the small print. Ill give you an example from personal experience.

I was standing in the prepaid phone section of Wal-Mart. Next to me were a man and woman shopping for a phone. It was obvious they were basing their decision solely from the advertising on the cover of the box.

I heard the woman say, This one is only 10 cents a minute, to which the man responded, Lets go with that one.

Being the helpful and nosy individual that I am, I asked them if they would be using the phone often. They said the phone was just for emergencies. I then pointed out the small print that said to get the 10-cent rate, they would automatically pay a $1.00 daily fee, even if they didnt use the phone.

After they had collapsed onto the floor in shock, I helped them to their feet and proceeded to the restroom where I could change out of my cape and spandex tights and back into my street clothes. Another consumer saved.

Don't forget the tax

When comparing prepaid and postpaid -- or contracted -- service, don't forget to take taxes and fees into consideration. A contracted postpaid plan might have cheaper rates than prepaid but, generally speaking, taxes and fees are usually included in the prepaid rate. This is a huge benefit for budgeting because taxes and fees can easily add 20% or more to the basic monthly price of a contracted plan.

In addition to comparing the rates of various plans, take note of when those rates expire. Based on what the carrier offers, your minutes will be good for anywhere from 30 days to a full year; then you must add more minutes or lose your service and number.

Speaking of prepaying for a year, if you add a ton of minutes to your phone, consider what can happen if the phone is lost or stolen.

Rhonda, of Hobart, Oklahoma, knows first-hand what can happen: My phone was stolen and Ive been trying to get someone on the phone for an hour to disconnect my phone. In the meantime, the person that stole my phone is using up all my minutes! Rhonda fumed.

How to purchase minutes

Retail and convenience stores routinely carry prepaid wireless cards. You can also purchase minutes directly from the carrier, and some carriers will offer an auto-debit option.

Auto-debit sounds like a good idea because you never have to worry about running out of service or minutes. However, using an auto-debit system can cause problems if the carrier deducts too much money or makes a deduction at the wrong time.

Take Irma of Scappoose, Oregon. She told ConsumerAffairs.com that Virgin Mobile prematurely deducted money from her bank account, which caused her bank account to nose-dive into the negative.

I had to call them and try to get it refunded. They said they would. The money still has not been refunded, Irma complained.

We also heard from Steve, of Allyn, Washington.

I called Boost Mobile and requested a single $30.00 re-boost for my cell phone. I checked my bank account and Boost had taken out $60.00. By taking out the extra $30.00, they were going to cause checks to bounce, Steve complained.

The small print

When you buy a prepaid phone, you wont be signing a contract, but youre begging for trouble if you ignore the terms and conditions. I cant tell you which carrier to use, but I can tell you what to look for.

• Roaming: Is the rate the same or extra? Some plans charge as high as 69 cents per minute if your phone goes into roam.

• Daily or monthly fees: This is one of the most important things to verify. Are you automatically charged a daily fee or a fee for any day you use the phone? You might have a 10-cent rate, but if you're charged a $1.00 daily access fee and make a one-minute call that day, you have in essence paid $1.10 for that one-minute call.

• Nights and weekends: Is the rate always the same or does it vary based on the day or time of the week?

• Member-to-member calls: Can you call other carrier members without losing your minutes? Some plans allow it but you might pay an additional fee.

• Features: Most plans will include voice mail, caller ID, and other basic features. However, if you plan on using text or picture messaging, verify the rate. Ive seen plans that charge 15 cents to send a text message or 25 cents to send a picture.

• Taxes and fees: Earlier I mentioned how prepaid rates generally include all taxes and fees. However, certain carriers will advertise 10 cents per minute and then in small print are the words, does not include taxes and fees.

Who comes out on top?

Who's the best carrier? It depends who you ask. The most recent J.D. Power and Associates study found Virgin Mobile took top honors.

The study measured customer satisfaction with current prepaid wireless service across seven dimensions (in order of importance): call quality (24%); company image (19%); cost of service (17%); account management (15%); initial activation (11%); service plan options (8%); and customer service (6%).

Just as in the 2006 study, Virgin Mobile took top honors and did particularly well in cost of service, account management, initial activation and service plan options.

Also ranking above the industry average were AT&T GoPhone, Boost Mobile and T-Mobile To Go.

To turn the question around, we'd have to say TracFone has the hardest time keeping customers happy, based on complaints to ConsumerAffairs.com. We have a whopping 969 Tracfone complaints in our active database, compared to 84 for Virgin Mobile, 17 for Boost and 1 for Net10.

Some other carriers -- like AT&T's Go -- aren't broken out from their parent companies in our database so at the moment we're not able to count them accurately.

The J.D. Power study also found that prepaid customers use 218 minutes per month and spend an average of $38.00 when purchasing additional airtime. Comparatively, postpaid customers average 528 minutes of use per month and pay $71.00.

Before you hit the stores, you might want to look at the various carriers' Web sites to familiarize yourself with what they have to offer. We also suggest you take a look at the complaints in our cell phone department to see what horrors can result if you make the wrong choice.

Shopping list

Here's a list of major prepaid players. Note that some of these carriers were not included in the 2007 J.D. Power study.

• AT&T GoPhone
• Boost Mobile
• Cricket
• Jump Mobile
• MetroPCS
• Net10
• T-Mobile ToGo
• Tracfone
• U.S. Cellular
• Verizon Wireless
• Virgin Mobile

Sushi has become increasingly popular in the United States, but two case studies from Japan point to a potential health problem.

Anisakiasis, sometimes called round worm, is a human parasitic infection caused by the consumption of raw or undercooked seafood containing Anisakis larvae.

Consumers should be aware that while larvae for the parasitic worm Anisakis cannot survive in a human host, the ingested larvae can produce severe intestinal problems warranting a visit to the emergency room, the researchers warn.

When ingested by humans, the larvae attach themselves to the tissues lining the stomach and intestines, resulting in sudden abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

Since the larvae cannot survive in humans and eventually die, intestinal anisakiasis usually resolves on its own. But in the meantime, its not very pleasant.

Researchers in Japan examined two cases of intestinal anisakiasis presenting as an obstruction of the small intestine.

In each case, both patients, ages 64 and 70, were rushed to the emergency room with sudden abdominal pain and vomiting after eating raw sardines as sashimi two days earlier.

The diagnosis of anisakiasis in the stomach can easily be confirmed by endoscopy. However, small intestinal anisakiasis is difficult to diagnose.

Both patients had abdominal X-rays showed air-fluid levels suggesting a small intestinal obstruction. Using a multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT), doctors obtained high quality images of the small bowel, and found the intestinal blockage was caused by the presence of Anisakis larvae.

Fluid replacement and resting immediately relieved the patients symptoms.

Because the symptoms of anisakiasis can mimic other gastrointestinal diseases, it might potentially be misdiagnosed as appendicitis, acute abdomen (peritonitis) or stomach ulcers. According to Mashahiro Matshushita, MD of Haibara General Hospital, Anisakiasis should be considered in the differential diagnosis of small intestinal obstruction.

Verizon turned over data on customers at the request of the government 720 times without court orders or warrants in the past two years, the company admitted yesterday.

When court orders were provided, the company turned over customer data 94,000 times between January 2005 and September 2007.

The company's admission came as a response to an inquiry launched by Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee who wanted more information on the roles the major telecom companies played in assisting the government with domestic surveillance in recent years.

Committee members sent letters to AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest Communications asking them to explain any roles they may have played in the NSA surveillance program and whether they were seeking immunity from prosecution for their actions.

AT&T and Qwest declined to provide any information on whether or not they participated in the NSA surveillance program, citing the "state secrets" doctrine which would prohibit them from revealing classified information.

"We are unable to respond with specificity to your inquiries," wrote AT&T vice-president and general counsel Wayne Watts. "That is because, on many issues that appear to be of central concern to you, responsive information is within the control of the executive branch...Indeed, we are not in a position even to confirm or deny the underlying facts or information that would be responsive to your request that would be considered classified."

Although Verizon counsel Randal Milch also did not confirm or deny that Verizon had been involved in the NSA's surveillance program, he enumerated cases of where Verizon complied with government information requests in criminal cases such as tracking child predators.

Milch also said that the responsibility for determining whether or not a request for information was legal rested with the government, not the company providing the data.

"When an emergency situation arises, prompt assistance is often needed," Milch wrote. "If the provider were to face legal liability in the event the government is later deemed to have acted outside its authority, the provider would have to meet every request for assistance with extensive questions about the need and justification for the request."

Oversight Subcommitee chairman Bart Stupak (D-MI) said that he "recognized the unique legal constraints" the telecoms had which prevented them from sharing more information, but "important questions remain unanswered about how the Administration induced or compelled them to participate in NSAs eavesdropping program."

Although the Bush administration first refused to confirm the existence of the NSA surveillance program, then claimed it was legal, the White House has pushed to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to cover the program, and to grant the telecom companies that participated retroactive immunity from prosecution.

AT&T and Verizon are currently facing multiple lawsuits from advocacy groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who claim the surveillance program violates the Fourth Amendment, and that granting federal authorities access to customer data without proper court orders is illegal.

EFF counsel Cindy Cohn, responding to the Committee request, wrote that "generalized fears are not sufficient to support a reasonable belief in an immediate threat to life or limb." Instead, the 'emergency exception' is reserved for specific emergency situations 'in which time is of the essence and requiring a court order be obtained would cause delay which could result in severe jeopardy for a victim of crime,'" Cohn wrote.

Following the trail blazed, however reluctantly, by Verizon Wireless, AT&T Wireless says it will no longer charge customers a flat termination fee if they cancel their service before their contract is up.

Instead the company will pro rate the fee depending on how many months the customer has left on their contract. Also, AT&T will no longer require customers to renew contracts when making changes to their wireless service plans. The new policy goes into effect in early 2008.

"Customers have told us they do not like one-size-fits-all approaches," said Paul Roth, president of AT&T's wireless sales and marketing division. "They are right, and that is why we have made these important changes."

Contract termination fees and upgrade fees have long been a sore point with wireless customers, who often pay anywhere from $175 to $250 to cancel a contract before its expiration date.

Although industry representatives claim the fees are necessary to subsidize the costs of handsets, the fees are largely viewed by consumers as measures designed to retain customers and prevent them from seeking better deals elsewhere.

First move

Verizon Wireless became the first cellular carrier to pro rate its termination fees over the life of the contract in March 2006.

The popularity of the Apple iPhone, which could only be purchased with an exclusive contract from AT&T, led to hearings in Congress where critics said the termination fees hamper consumer choice. The House hearings singled out AT&T's fee as especially steep, given that Apple covered all the costs of creating the iPhone.

The hearings led two Senators to introduce legislation in September 2007 that would require the prorating of termination fees for contracts and restrict any fees charged consumers to those mandated by law, as well as giving customers 30 days notice to cancel their contracts.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin, who normally takes a hands-off approach to telecom regulation, announced that the Commission would investigate termination fees not only from wireless carriers, but from Internet service providers and the cable industry as well.

And the California Supreme Court recently permitted a class action lawsuit against T-Mobile over its contract and termination fees to go forward, signaling a major shift toward consumers in the debate over the fees.

Verizon's plan

Verizon, Perhaps feeling the heat from growing consumer and Congressional discontent with burdensome contracts, announced similar changes Oct. 2, changing its policy so that its customers can make changes to their service plan without extending their contracts.

New and existing customers will have the option to change their voice and data calling plans -- selecting current plans with different minute allowances or text messaging and data use options -- without changing the end date of their contract.

Verizon says the new policy is part of the Verizon Wireless "Worry Free Guarantee."

Last year, Verizon Wireless became the first major carrier to pro-rate its termination fees.

Two Senators have introduced a bill that would require that carriers prorate termination fees, to be reduced by 50 percent after the first year of a two-year contract.

The bill would also prevent wireless carriers from charging fees for service beyond those expressly required by local, state, or federal law, and to expressly notify customers if any service request or upgrade would trigger a contract renewal, as well as giving customers 30 days' notice to cancel the contract.