Current Events in April 2008

A class action lawsuit charges that major oil companies are manufacturing and selling ethanol blended gasoline that damages marine fuel tanks, engines and other components.

"The price of gas is bad enough, but selling gasoline that dissolves gas tanks is a new low even for the oil companies," said Brian Kabateck, the lead attorney on the case. "The oil companies know this fuel is corrosive, but they're keeping consumers in the dark to pump up their profits. The cost to the consumer is thousands of dollars in repairs."

Companies named in the suit include ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, Valero, and ConocoPhillips, as well as PetroDiamond, Tower Energy and Big West.

ExxonMobil last year recorded the largest profits recorded in U.S. history with $40.6 billion. Chevron posted profits of $18.7 billion in 2007.

Oil companies have long mixed additives into their gasoline as a way to boost octane. Methyl tert-butyl ether, commonly known as MTBE, was widely used as an octane booster until 2004, when it was banned in many states because of environmental concerns. In response, ExxonMobil, Chevron and other oil companies selected ethanol as a replacement.

Consumers were never informed about the differences between MTBE and ethanol-mixed gasoline, nor were they informed about the disastrous effects ethanol has on fiberglass marine fuel tanks.

Fiberglass is widely used in the construction of boat fuel tanks. Fiberglass is a combination of individual glass "threads" bound together by a resin. Ethanol dissolves this resin, destroying the tank. Moreover, the dissolved resin enters the fuel system, causing damage to the engine and other components.

Ethanol blended gasoline is particularly harmful in the marine environment because of "phase separation," Kabateck said. Ethanol attracts water. When enough water is absorbed by the ethanol blended gasoline, the ethanol and water solution separates from the gasoline (phase separation), with the gasoline floating to the top.

This results in a layer of water with a high-concentration of ethanol at the bottom of the fuel tank.

"The environment pays the price for Exxon and Chevron's deception each time a damaged fuel tank leaks gasoline into the water," Kabateck added.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California in Los Angeles.

The suit seeks to represent a class comprising all owners of boats with fiberglass fuel tanks who filled their tanks with ethanol blended gasoline from a California retailer. The suit also seeks to represent all persons in California who own boats with a fiberglass fuel tank that had to be replaced because of damage caused by ethanol blended gasoline bought from a California retailer.

With summer on the way, many drivers' thoughts turn to convertibles. Consumer Reportshas published its annual survey of ragtops, giving the Volkswagen Eos the best overall score of the seven cars it ranked, narrowly out-pointing the BMW 328i. Both vehicles earned "Very Good" overall scores.

Two vehicles in the group, the Saab 9-3 and Volvo C70, earned somewhat lower overall road-test scores, but were still within the "Very Good" range.

The three remaining vehicles, the Pontiac G6, Mitsubishi Eclipse, and Chrysler Sebring, posted only "Good" scores and so were at the bottom of CR's rankings for convertibles.

Five of the seven cars tested have retracting hard tops, while two have traditional fabric tops. All of the tops are power-operated. The vehicles range in price from $32,660 to $49,525.

The latest trend in convertibles, folding hard tops improve visibility and security, the report found. But they have some downsides, too -- they take up considerable trunk space when open, and can't be operated on the move.

"The VW Eos is a well-rounded car that works well in all seasons," said David Champion, senior director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports. "Volkswagen has engineered a glass sunroof into the Eos' hard-top so that you can enjoy just a little sun, or get the full wind-in-your-hair convertible experience."

Consumer Reports is recommending three of the vehicles in this test group, the Eos, 328i, and C70. The 9-3 and G6 are not recommended because of below average reliability. The Eclipse and Sebring did not score high enough in CR's testing to be recommended, the magazine said.

Consumer Reports said it only recommends vehicles that have performed well in its tests, have at least average predicted reliability based on CR's Annual Car Reliability Survey of its own subscribers, and performed at least adequately if crash-tested or included in a government rollover test.

Eos

The VW Eos, which is equipped with the same eager turbocharged four-cylinder engine and responsive transmission found in the GTI and Audi A3, provides a good blend of power and fuel economy.

CR's engineers also liked the Eos's controls and impressive interior fit and finish. But the back seat is cramped and, despite the hard top, there is notable wind and road noise.

The Eos Lux ($35,829 Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price as tested) is powered by a turbocharged 200-hp, 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine and six-speed sequential, or automated manual, transmission that is one of the quickest and smoothest around. The Eos delivered 25 mpg overall in CR's own fuel economy tests, the best of the convertibles in this group. Braking is very good overall.

BMW

The convertible version of the BMW 3 Series gives up very little in terms of the driving experience. The body is free of the flex typical of convertibles, and the 328i is agile and fun to drive, with a strong and smooth powertrain.

Like the 3 Series sedan, the convertible has a supple, well-controlled ride and sporty handling. The cabin is well finished and quiet, but the back seat and trunk space are very tight. The 328i ($49,525 MSRP as tested) is equipped with a 230-hp, 3.0-liter six-cylinder engine and six-speed automatic that deliver strong and smooth performance. But it weighs 400 pounds more than the sedan, which hurts both fuel economy and acceleration. Braking is very good overall.

Saab

The Saab 9-3 doesn't stand out among sports sedans, CR said, but the pleasant convertible version is more competitive. The ride is on the stiff side, but the body has little flex and wind buffeting is not excessive with the top down.

Like the others in this group, rear-seat room is tight. The 9-3 2.0T is powered by a 210-hp, turbocharged four-cylinder engine and five-speed automatic transmission that provides a nice combination of performance and economy.

Volvo

Volvo's C70 convertible offers a well-finished hard top, a sleek interior with impressive fit and finish, and many safety features including side curtain air bags. But it's sluggish from a stop, the ride is stiff, and it's not very agile. Interior space is tight, with a tiny rear seat.

The C70 T5 ($43,880 MSRP as tested) is propelled by a 227-hp, turbocharged, 2.5-liter five-cylinder engine and five-speed transmission that provide decent performance. Braking is very good overall.

Others

Pontiac's four-seat convertible is the least expensive in this group with a retractable hard top and a rear seat that can accommodate two adults in a pinch. The driving position is roomy and acceleration is brisk. But the G6 has an unsettled ride, lacks agility, and creaks and groans constantly, CR reported. Interior fit and finish is subpar, rear access is extremely difficult, and the trunk lid is heavy.

The G6 GT that CR bought ($32,660 MSRP as tested) came with the Sport package, which includes a 222-hp, 3.9-liter V6 that delivers lively acceleration. The four-speed automatic shifts smoothly. Braking in the G6 is also very good overall.

The Eclipse Spyder's sporty impression is only skin deep, the magazine found. While acceleration is quick and handling seems agile at first, CR's tests exposed diminished handling capabilities at its limits.

Its awful visibility, intrusive noise, hard ride, vestigial back seat, and wide turning circle are constant annoyances. The Eclipse Spyder GT is powered by a 260-hp, 3.8-liter V6 engine that delivers strong acceleration. Its five-speed automatic transmission is smooth and responsive. The Eclipse's braking is also very good overall.

Much like the sedan on which it is based, Consumer Reports said the Sebring is a mediocre convertible.

On the plus side, it has a relatively roomy rear seat and trunk, easy-to-use controls and -- in Limited trim -- a strong powertrain. But the Sebring's handling is clumsy, the ride is unsettled, the front seats are uncomfortable, and the body groans and squeaks. The Sebring Limited ($37,030 MSRP as tested) is equipped with a 235-hp, 3.5-liter V6 engine that delivers ample performance. The six-speed automatic transmission is neither as quick nor as smooth as most six-speeds. Braking is good overall.

A 2002 Ford Expedition parked in a homeowners carport is suspected as the cause of a fire in Madison County, Ohio that killed a woman and her two children.

The Columbus Dispatch reported that the origin of the fire has been narrowed to a 10-foot space in the carport although investigators have not yet determined the cause.

Peter Romans, who survived the fire that killed his wife and children, told investigators that the fire started in his parked Ford SUV, according to the news paper.

The fire killed Billi Romans, 51; Ami Romans, 16; and Caleb Romans, 12. Their bodies were found near the back door of their house,

Peter Romans, 47, escaped with minor burns and smoke inhalation.

The 2001 Ford Expedition suspected of igniting the fatal blaze was included in the Ford Motor Company recall of 9.6 million vehicles equipped with a faulty cruise-control switch. the switch can lead to a vehicle fire at any time, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The Ford recall began in 2005. It has dragged on because of the sheer size of the recall effort, a shortage of parts and a lack of urgency by regulators.

Several dwelling fires have been attributed to the faulty cruise-control switch which can overheat and erupt into flames.

After years of fires involving Ford vehicles, NHTSA on February 28 warned Ford, Lincoln and Mercury owners of fire hazards involving the faulty cruise control switches in recalled Ford vehicles that have not been repaired.

ConsumerAffairs.com has been reporting on the problem for years, chronicling fires in vehicles parked outside homes, in garages and even at fire stations.

In a strongly worded and highly unusual statement, NHTSA urged owners of the recalled vehicles to go to a Ford or Lincoln Mercury dealer as soon as possible and have the potentially dangerous cruise control system disconnected.

The recalled vehicles are:

1. 1993 2004 F150
2. 1993 1999 F250 (gasoline engine)
3. 1993 1996 Bronco
4. 1994 1996 Econoline
5. 1997 2002 Ford Expedition
6. 1998 2002 Lincoln Navigator
7. 1998 2002 Ford Ranger
8. 1992 1998 Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Car
9. 1993 1998 Lincoln Mark VIII
10. 1993 1995 Ford Taurus SHO with automatic transmission
11. 1994 Mercury Capri
12. 1998 2001 Ford Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer
13. 2001 2002 Ford Explorer Sport and Explorer Sport Trac
14. 1992 1993 and 1997 2003 Ford E-150-350 gasoline or natural gas vehicles
15. 2002 E-550 gasoline engine vehicles
16. 1996 2003 E-450 gasoline or natural gas vehicles
17. 1994 2002 F-250 through F-550 super Duty trucks (gasoline engine)
18. 2000 2002 Ford Excursion (gasoline engine)
19. 2003 F250 F550 Super Duty, Ford Excursion
20. 1995 2002 Ford F53 Motor home chassis
21. 2002 2003 Lincoln Blackwood

"Failure to have the switch disconnected could lead to a vehicle fire at any time, whether or not the key is in the ignition, and whether or not owners use the cruise control system," NHTSA warned in the consumer advisory.

Ford is once again preparing to notify the owners of the affected vehicles to have the switch disconnected until it can be repaired, according to NHTSA.

Fatal fires allegedly caused by the defective switch have led to wrongful death lawsuits against Ford by several vehicle owners.

5 million time bombs

NHTSA reported that approximately five million vehicles have been repaired so far, leaving almost five million passenger cars and light trucks with the faulty switches intact, and in danger of catching fire at any time without warning.

The firestorm of Ford trucks erupting into flames has devastated Ford truck owners across the country.

The Ford inferno hit a homeowner in Chisago City, Minnesota in January when her 2000 Ford Expedition started on fire parked in our attached garage. We have now lost everything we owned, wrote the Ford Expedition owner. The home we built not even 2 years ago burned to the ground, she said.

Another Ford truck went up in flames in Westminster, California on January 22. This homeowner is fortunate. He lost only his Ford truck and not his house as well.

A Ford spokesman told ConsumerAffairs.com in February that the automaker was doing all it can to complete the fire hazard recall.

This was a large recall, and we're working with the supplier to meet the volume challenge as soon as possible, the Ford executive told ConsumerAffair.Com.

Ford concedes a parts shortage is delaying repairs of the fire prone cruise control system in the recalled vehicles until later in 2008.

As a short-term solution, Ford offers to disconnect the cruise control system in recalled vehicles until parts are available to complete the repair.

Some Ford dealers now require customers who decline to disconnect the cruise control system to sign a waiver of liability.

With just more than half of the fire-prone Fords repaired, the automaker insisted the company is responding adequately in an effort to notify Ford customers to return their vehicles to a Ford dealership for repair of the fire hazard.

We have sent multiple mailings to customers, based on current vehicle registrations, asking them to bring in vehicles. We have one of the highest return rates in the industry, based on update registration info, and sending multiple mailings, a Ford spokesman told ConsumerAffairs.com.

Too late

But the warnings and recall notices have come too late for many Ford owners.

• A Vidor, Texas man saw his mother's truck burning out of control less than a week after federal safety regulators issued the consumer advisory.

I heard a loud BOOM and then horns going off. I thought it was a wreck. When I looked outside a large gulf of flames was burning dangerously close to the house and truck, he said. We kept the flames from hitting the house until fire department got there.

The outrageous -- but common -- story of Ford vehicles catching fire was reported over and again throughout the country in February as NHTSA talked and worried in internal agency meetings about whether to issue the consumer advisory.

• On February 27 in Granite City, Illinois, the day before the NHTSA warning, a 2001 Ford F150 burned.

I was awakened by 2 small booms about a minute apart. I got up to check things out to find my 2001 F150 in the driveway fully engulfed in flames as well as my boat parked about 15 feet away beginning to burn, the Illinois truck owner reported. The truck, boat, contents, asphalt driveway are total losses, he said.

• A day later in Monticello, Florida a Ford F150 burned in a shopping center parking lot while the owner was inside a store.

• In early February in Fairview, New Mexico a 1997 Ford F150 burst into flames. We heard a loud boom which caused the dogs to start barking, the truck owner said. When the Monticello fire department arrived 30 minutes later the truck was still burning.

• An Orange Park, Florida Ford owner reported February 9 that his 1999 Lincoln Navigator caught fire and was destroyed.

• On February 9 a 1999 Ford Explorer caught fire in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

I had just parked at a Burger King for lunch. The truck caught fire minutes after I enter the restaurant, the owner said. The truck was fully engulfed when firefighters finally put out the fire. I am grateful no one was in the vehicle at the time but I am out the only truck I owned.

The Rhode Island Explorer owner told ConsumerAffairs.com that he was not aware of the recall issued in issued on August 2007 and said he was never notified of the important recall even though he had owned the vehicle for many years.

• On February 4, a Ford F150 Lariat caught fire in Virginia Beach, Virginia, even though the cruise control switch was previously repaired under the terms of the August recall.

• In Alta Loma, California a ConsumerAffairs.com reader found his Ford truck on fire while eating lunch at home. Surprisingly every Ford rep was extremely rude and acted as though it's my problem not theirs, this Ford truck owner reported.

• On January 22, a Ford Expedition XLT caught fire in Westminster California.

After driving the vehicle for approximately 20 minutes it was parked in the driveway, the owner said. Approximately 1 hour later the engine compartment was on fire and became engulfed within minutes. Fortunately the vehicle was not in the garage.

Ford truck and SUV owners wanting more information about the fire danger in their vehicle or the recall may contact Ford at 1-800-392-3673 or NHTSA 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153).

Sales of E-85 capable/flexible fuel vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles were up significantly while clean diesel vehicle sales fell slightly.

"Gas prices, consumer incentives, and the increasing number of alternative-fuel models available to consumers continue to play a role in the rising popularity of these vehicles," said Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

But McCurdy said the news is not entirely good.

"And while we're pleased these vehicles continue to grow in popularity, refueling infrastructure challenges may prevent the promise of these vehicles from being fully realized. For example, out of more than 170,000 refueling stations in the U.S. less than 1,500 offer ethanol."

There may be another problem for cars using ethanol.

As commodity prices have soared, food processors are mounting a growing backlash against the government's ethanol mandate, accusing it of making good grains harder to come by, and therefore, more expensive. The criticism escalated last week when corn prices rose to a record $6 a bushel.

"The federal government's food to fuel mandates are diverting one quarter of America's corn supply from kitchen tables to fuel tanks, and the result is corn selling for $6 a bushel," said Scott Faber, a Washington lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association Faber.

"In tough times like these, Congress and the Administration need to take a hard look at the unintended consequences of these mandates that raise food prices without offering a significant environmental benefit."

The ethanol industry rejects claims that its biofuels that are driving food prices higher. Industry spokesmen says food prices are going up, long with everything else, because of skyrocketing fuel costs.

The U.S. Government subsidizes the conversion of corn into ethanol, which is then added to gasoline at a concentration of up to 10 percent for use in most vehicles and up to 85 percent for some vehicles. Food industry economists point out that until the last few years, corn was used mainly to make feed for livestock and poultry, but has increasingly been diverted into ethanol because of hefty federal subsidies.

"The biofuels policy that is driving higher prices of corn, other grains, and soybeans will cost the U.S. economy more than $100 billion from 2006 to 2009," said Thomas Elam, president of FarmEcon LLC, a food industry consulting firm. "It is inevitable that these costs will be passed along to consumers."

Ads touting Lifelock's identity protection program are ubiquitous on the Internet and elsewhere. They're the ones in which the company's CEO, Todd Davis, brandishes his Social Security number in an open dare to identity thieves.

The company provides a $1 million guarantee to its subscribers, covering out of pocket costs resulting from fraud or identity theft. It even takes over the process of dealing with banks and creditors to help consumers restore their credit in the event of fraud, the ads say.

Sound too good to be true?

According to two consumer class action suits, it's just that. The suits charge that the guarantee is riddled with fine print and loopholes.

In one of the cases, Phoenix-area resident Byrl Lane and his attorneys argue that LifeLock, also based in Arizona, misleads its customers because the $1 million service guarantee it advertises "is riddled with restrictions, waivers and limitations."

The Arizona Department of Insurance has reviewed LifeLock's service and does not believe it is an insurance product, department spokeswoman Erin Klug told the Arizona Republic.

Experian suit

Oddly enough, the company also faces a legal challenge from Experian, one of the three big credit reporting agencies. Experian's suit claims that LifeLock is misusing the fraud alert system laid out in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

LifeLock, which claims to be the leading identity theft prevention firm, places fraud alerts on its subscriber's credit files at Experian, Equifax and Trans Union. It also attempts to remove subscribers from junk mailing lists and provides a variety of other services.

Although they differ in the details, all three of the lawsuits basically allege the LifeLock makes false claims and does not protect the degree of protection it promises.

LifeLock works, company insists

But LifeLock insists its system works and says it can prove it.

The company says it has more than 870,000 subscribers. Using federal statistics, this should mean that more than 29,000 of its subscribers have been victims of identity theft.

But Davis, says that, so far, only 71 of its customers have had to invoke the guarantee, and that none of them have complained about the services offered.

Coming to the defense of LifeLock is ACCESS, American Consumer Credit Education Support Services, a not-for-profit organization that deals with privacy and identity theft prevention.

"It is ACCESS position that any attempt to put a company out of business which has proven itself to be effective against fraud and identity theft would be a disservice to the public. LifeLock is certainly such a company," the organization said in a news release.

ConsumerAffairs.com has not received any complaints from LifeLock customers and a Web search of other consumer sites also failed to turn up any substantive complaints.

Federally mandated

The safeguards that LifeLock promises are largely the result of a 2003 law that requires the three big credit reporting companies to provide consumers with certain protections. Consumers don't really need LifeLock to take advantage of the law's protections, but Davis thinks that at $10 a month, it's more cost-efficient to let his company do it.

Among other things, the law provides that the credit reporting agencies must send an annual credit report to any consumer who asks for one. They must also offer fraud alerts and other protections that LifeLock promises.

The TJX retail chain has agreed to pay $24 million in restitution to Mastercard-issuing lenders who were affected by the massive months-long data breach that exposed the credit and debit information of millions of cardholders to identity thieves.

The restitution does not go to cardholders, but to banks and other lenders that provided the cards. The funds will be set aside in an "Alternative Recovery Program" to help issuers recover costs and losses caused by the breach. The agreement must be approved by card issuers representing at least 90 percent of the affected Mastercard accounts.

"This agreement reflects MasterCard's continuing commitment to working with merchants and our customers to reach appropriate and fair resolutions of data breach events," said Joshua Peirez, chief payment system integrity officer for MasterCard Worldwide. "We believe that by working closely and cooperatively with issuers and merchants we can reduce the overall impact and costs of security breaches, while protecting consumers and accelerating fair and equitable resolutions of claims."

Issuers who take up the agreement must agree to not pursue any other means of loss recovery, and they must release Mastercard and TJX from all liability incurred as a result of the breach.

The announced agreement comes two days after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it had settled with TJX over fallout from the breach by mandating that the retail chain submits to independent third-party security audits every other year for the next twenty years.

TJX had already paid $41 million to Visa to settle costs and losses incurred by that card issuer as a result of the breach, which Visa executives estimated cost between $65 and $83 million. The Framingham, Massachusetts-based company also brokered a separate settlement with a coalition of Massachusetts-based banks that had sued TJX, the terms of which remain undisclosed.

The TJX breach occurred when unidentified hackers used laptop computers enabled with wireless access to intercept unencrypted payment data transmissions between scanners at TJX-owned store chains such as TJ Maxx and Marshalls.

About 455,000 Visa and Mastercard debit and credit card holders had personal information stolen during the breach, and as many as 94 million users were exposed. The breach went on for nearly two years, and was discovered in December 2006, but not made public until January 2007.

To date, the only settlement offered to actual cardholders by TJX consisted of an offer of free credit monitoring for cardholders who had information stolen in the breach, a $30 store voucher, and an announced three-day "Customer Appreciation Sale" to be held in 2008.

The Attorney Generals of ten states wrote the judge presiding over the offered settlement asking him to reconsider, saying the offers benefited the TJX chain more than they did the affected consumers.

Since the summer of 2000 more than 500,000 Prius hybrids have quietly filled U.S. roads and highways. Now many of the sophisticated little cars are showing up in used car lots as second-hand gas sippers.

With sales of new hybrids increasing by almost 30 percent a year and gasoline prices following at a faster pace, a second-hand hybrid can appear to be a smart alternative in a tight economy.

But because of the car's relatively new design, there is little information available to help consumers judge the reliability of a used Prius other than reports from previous Prius owners.

Consumer beware. The risks may be higher than you think.

Battery blues

Doris in Smithville, Tennessee bought a used Prius in July 2006.

Trying to inform myself prior to buying the car, I asked about the battery and was told never had they seen the whole battery fail, only a cell at a time to the tune of $200 per cell, she was told. I did not want to spend the money on a brand-new Prius. I wanted to test the waters on a used one first.

The decision to buy a second had hybrid was costly.

The 2006 Prius had 73,200 miles on the odometer leaving 26,800 remaining on the hybrid battery warranty. I bought it and thought I was living the dream, but only for a moment, Doris told ConsumerAffairs.com.

When the weather turned cold her Prius would have no power. The engine was difficult to start. Finally it went totally down, she said. No power!

The Toyota dealer told Doris at first that she must have over-filled the gas tank and may have ruined the Prius computer system. The repair cost would be $1,900.

One year later the Prius lost all power while driving at 65 mph on an Interstate highway. "I was scared to death, Doris wrote. The Prius was towed to a dealer and Doris was told the main battery was down it would be $6,890 to fix it.

Remember, the first dealer told her the battery never failed completely and the replacement cost would be roughly $2,000.

Doris was lucky as things turned out.

They called tech support and found it was a leaf sucked up in a filter which in turn prevented gas and air from going to the battery and drained it." Doris spent $225 to tow the Prius to the dealer and $276 to charge the main battery plus tax, a lot less than the original $6,890 repair estimate but still $549.85.

But not all the repair news was good. "They told me it could happen again. So I'm stuck with what I feel is a defective product. I'm Toyota's rolling gunea pig, she said. I cannot trade the car because they tell I'm $5,500 up side down," she said. I have to buy a new car to roll this amount with it. I can't afford a new car with a $425 per month payment.

Transmission troubles

In Loomis, California, Sam tells the tale of expensive repairs with his 2003 Prius.

After a series of problems with the Prius engine, Toyota informed Sam that he needed to have the transmission replaced. The estimate for repairs was around $7,000, almost the value of the entire vehicle, according to Sam.

Naturally the vehicle was no longer covered by the warranty, he said.

The Prius had 116,289 miles on the odometer when the car began to malfunction. The check-engine light came on and the engine quickly shut down. The dealership informed Sam that the gasoline engine quit because the battery ran out of juice. The dealership checked the spark plugs and coils, detected slight misfire until warm but could not reproduce the problem. The cost of the service was $123.77.

The repair bill seemed too good to be true. And it was.

When the problem occurred a second time, the Toyota dealership said that the problem was not really the spark plugs but that the sophisticated hybrid transmission needed to be replaced. The estimate for the parts and labor for this repair would be approximately $2,000. The estimate was quickly revised to $7,000 with parts and labor. The cost of the new transmission alone was $5,000, Sam reported.

Early adopter

In Sunnyvale, California, Matt was one of the original 2001 Prius hybrid owners.

Now, after 130,000 miles of driving the main battery is dead. The Toyota dealer is telling me the life of the main battery was 100,000 for my car, although the new Prius comes with a 150,000-mile warranty, he said.

Matt said that the dealer told him he was the third Prius owner to require a main battery replacement.

Labor and parts, plus tax was $4,500. Unfortunately, there is no third-party service provider who knows how to fix Prius, he said.

Matt warns consumers interested in a second hand Prius to be prepared to pay $4,500 for the main battery before 150,000 miles have been recorded on the odometer.

Complexity

That is not all.

The car is loaded with electronics and solid state controllers. Be prepared to pay outrageous prices for diagnostics and repair. Very rarely you will walk out with a bill costing under $300, Matt said.

You will pay nearly $150 for having a duplicate key made to your Prius. That is because the key apparently has an anti-theft chip which has to be programmed by Toyota, he said.

There's no doubt the Prius gets good gas mileage (though perhaps not as good as many buyers expect). But whether the total cost of ownership is reasonable is another question indeed.

Consumers who need reliable, inexpensive transportation are still better off with a simple, straightforward economy car -- a Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic or something similar with a four-cylinder engine and a manual transmission are likely to provide trouble-free, economic transportation for hundreds of thousands of miles.

Here are some of the reports we've received from other Prius owners

By Lisa Wade McCormick
ConsumerAffairs.com

April 4, 2008
Grieving pet owners say it's too early to applaud a tentative settlement the company behind the largest pet food recall in United States history -- one blamed for the deaths and illnesses of thousands of dogs and cats nationwide -- announced earlier this week.

The Canadian-based company said it could not disclose terms of the agreement, which is subject to the approval of U.S. and Canadian courts.

"It's a comprehensive settlement," Amy W. Schulman, a lawyer for Menu Foods, told MSNBC. "It would resolve all the claims."

The lead attorney for pet owners agreed and said she's confident a final agreement will be reached.

The settlement comes a little more than a year after Menu Foods recalled 60 million containers of tainted dog and cat food.

Thousands of pet nationwide suffered kidney problems or died after eating the food contaminated with the chemicals melamine and cyanuric acid.

Melamine is used to make plastics. Cyanuric acid is used to chlorinate pools. Neither is approved for use in pet food.

Veterinarians blamed the pets' deaths on the combination of those two chemicals. They said those chemicals can combine and form crystals in the animals' bodies and impair their kidney function.

"Either one of those chemicals alone wouldn't cause these (deaths)," Dr. Barbara Powers, immediate past president of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians (AAVLD) and director of Colorado State University's Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, told ConsumerAffairs.com. "It has to be the combination of the two.

"So it's not melamine alone."

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) traced the source of the contamination to the wheat gluten imported from China.

Medical costs

Pet owners told ConsumerAffairs.com that Menu's settlement should cover the hundreds -- or thousands -- of dollars they and others spent trying to save their sick dogs and cats.

"As far as the 'settlement,' I certainly hope it is, at a minimum, going to reimburse pet owners for the vet bills for the treatment of the sick and deceased pets," said Carol. V. of Rhode Island.

Her two cats -- Jessica and Smudge -- became gravely ill last year after eating Menu's Special Kitty food.

Jessica made a remarkable recovery, but the 15-year-old cat went back into renal failure last December. The family made the difficult decision to euthanize Jessica.

Carol isn't sure Menu's settlement will cover any of her vet bills. She didn't join any of the class action lawsuits filed against the company in the wake of its massive March 16, 2007, recall.

Instead, Carol filed a claim on her own with the company and hasn't received any compensation for the thousands of dollars she spent on her sick cats.

"I don't have the legal knowledge to completely understand if they are referring to 'all claims' to include my claim form I mailed to them on May 20th of last year," she said. "I don't have the finances to hire my own lawyer to figure this out so I am going to have to wait and see."

Menu Foods, she said, should have immediately offered to reimburse grieving pet owners instead of making them wait until the lengthy legal maneuvering and lawsuits were settled.

"I am angry that it has been over one year since Menu Foods' CEO had said publicly that all pet owners who had vet expenses would be reimbursed by them," Carol said. "I truly did believe them -- that they realized what harm they caused emotionally and physically to our pets as well as financially -- and that they would take care of us."

She added: "I know have a different outlook on the concern big business has for us---and that is what saddens me the most. It is hard to trust now. That is new since March 2007."

Carol hopes the settlement will force Menu Foods to improve its internal quality control procedures -- and its communication with other pet food makers and consumers.

"I still truly believe that if pet food companies had some way to communicate with each other -- (regarding) consumer complaints -- that the actual number of pets lost or sickened would have been greatly reduced," she said. "If changes are not made by the pet food industry, all these pets' deaths and illnesses will be in vain. And this could happen again."

Canadian author Ann N. Martin, who researched the pet food industry for five years, agreed.

"It was determined that the cause (of pets' illnesses and deaths) was melamine and cyanuric acid which was added to the food, not approved for use in pet food by the FDA," said Martin, author of "Food Pets Die ForShocking Facts About Pet Food," and "Protect Your PetsMore Shocking Facts." "I question how many other ingredients added to the pet foods are not approved for use by the FDA."

Pentobarbital

A drug called pentobarbital, she said, is a perfect example.

FDA officials discovered this drug -- used to euthanize dogs and cats -- in pet food.

"They admit it should not be there but have taken no steps to eliminate this in pet foods," Martin said. "No one knows the long term affect of this drug and to my knowledge no tests are being taken."

The pet food industry -- and the government -- are also failing to test many of the imported ingredients used in pet food, Martin said.

"What about the vitamins, minerals, (and) amino acids in pet food? The vast percentages of these are coming from China, including taurine (an amino acid). Again, and to the best of my knowledge, no testing is done on the raw material when it enters the country."

Martin encouraged pet owners -- and the media -- to keep a vigilant eye on this industry.

"Please don't become complacent and feel that the industry has cleaned up its act. I think if you dig deep enough you will find the same inferior ingredients are still being used."

Heightened awareness

Something good, however, has come in the wake of the pet food recall and the proposed settlement, Martin said.

"If nothing else this massive recall made consumers more aware of what is in the food they are feeding their pets. (And) hopefully the pet owners that incurred veterinary bills or lost pets will feel vindicated to some extent."

But consumer Don Earl wonders if pet owners will receive fair compensation from the settlement and if it's a coincidence that Menu made its announcement on April 1.

"As the terms of the clandestinely negotiated settlement have yet to be disclose, as a result of further stalling tactics, I guess we'll just have to wait for the punch line to the April Fool's day announcement," said Earl, whose cat died in January 2007 after eating Menu Food's Pet Pride food.

Earl hired a private lab to test the same lots and brands of Menu Food that he fed his cat. Those tests revealed the food contained the pain killer acetaminophen and cyanuric acid.

The cat food did not contain melamine.

Earl is not part of any class action lawsuit; he sued the company and is representing himself in a case.

"Personally, I do not believe pet owners have been well represented by plaintiff's attorneys in the federal case," said Earl, who has a Web site, called petfoodrecallfacts.com that details his legal battle, his cat's story, and the lab results on the food he and other pet owners have tested.

Pet owners in 19 states -- and Ontario -- filed dozens of lawsuits against Menu Foods in the weeks that followed the company's nationwide recall. Those cases were consolidated in a federal court in Camden, New Jersey.

The lawsuits alleged unfair and deceptive trade practices, negligence in failing to provide adequate quality control and breach of implied and express warranties. Some consumers also claimed they suffered emotional trauma after their pets became sick or died. Pet owners also sought compensation for their veterinary bills.

Companies named in the lawsuits -- besides Menu Foods -- included Del Monte Foods Inc. of San Francisco; Nestle of Stamford, Conn.; Procter & Gamble in Cincinnati; Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Co. Ltd. in Pixian, China; and Suzhou Textile Import and Export Co. in Jiangsu, China.

Those defendants -- and Menu's product liability insurance company -- will cover the costs of the settlement.

Menu estimates the nationwide recall cost the company $53.8 million.

The company said pet owners with potential claims should not contact Menu Foods regarding the tentative settlement. When a final agreement is reached -- and claims are processed and approved -- the administrator of the settlement fund will notify pet owners.

U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman set a May 14 hearing in New Jersey to consider the settlement. A final hearing date in Canada is not yet scheduled.

More about pets ...

The National Collegiate Athletics Association has implemented a ticketing practice that requires consumers to pay money just for the opportunity enter a lottery for the much-coveted men's and women's basketball tournament tickets.

The NCAA is now charging consumers a nonrefundable service charge that goes as high as $9 per ticket just to enter a competitive lottery, according to application forms for the 2009 men's and women's tournaments.

The ticket applications for the early rounds for next year's men's basketball tournaments are due March 1 and require the consumer to pay about $200 plus a $9 service charge for each ticket. Consumers can apply for as many as eight tickets.

For the next three months the NCAA will sit on all that money before finally drawing applications in June. If a consumer's application is drawn, he or she will receive the tickets they paid for back in March. If not, they will receive a refund for the tickets while the NCAA keeps the service charge as much as $72 total and presumably all the interest earned in the meantime.

Early-round applications are submitted to the arenas where the games will be played, rather than to the NCAA. The arenas get a small cut from the service charge, but most of it goes to the NCAA, according to an official at the Greensboro Coliseum in Greensboro, N.C., host to six games of the first two rounds of the 2009 men's tournament. The official asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to talk about the matter.

Final Four and Championship tickets for both the women's and men's 2009 tournament are purchased directly from the NCAA's website where consumers can complete an online application that again enters a competitive lottery.

Consumers can submit up to 10 applications, two tickets each, for those games but are charged a nonrefundable $6 service charge for each entry. The tickets cost as much as $170 each. For these last two rounds, the NCAA sits on the cash for five months before informing consumers whether they are one of the lucky few with a ticket. The application does not specify when a refund, minus the service charge, will be made.

One consumer who brought this to the attention of ConsumerAffairs.com said he applies for NCAA tournament tickets every year and that last year was the first year the NCAA implemented this service charge. The consumer wished to remain anonymous for fear of being blacklisted from further NCAA events, he wrote in an e-mail.

The NCAA did not draw his application for the 2008 tournament and took nine months to issue a refund, he wrote.

The bastards kept our money for nine months and then had the gall to keep our $72! He wrote. Given the sheer number of applicants for tickets versus the number of available seats, they have to be making a killing on this.

Unheard of

One consumer advocate who specializes in ticketing scams said he had never heard of any ticketing lottery that charges consumers ahead of time for the tickets and, worse yet, doesn't refund all the money.

Typically you throw your name in the hat and if it's drawn, then they charge you for the tickets, said Russ Haven, legislative counsel for the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

You don't have to loan them money, he said.

Haven said the ticketing industry as a whole in the U.S. is extremely corrupt but that he's not surprised by the NCAA's latest apparent scam.

The NCAA allows corporations to buy up many of the good seats at sporting events before they are opened to the public, Haven said.

The NCAA's online ticketing screen for the men's and women's 2009 Final Four and Championship games are only for select sections in the uppermost regions of the arenas, according to the NCAA Web site.

I like to believe the NCAA stands for No Chance At Admission, Haven said.

The anonymous consumer wrote that he was able to get his $72 in service charges back from the NCAA by fighting through his credit card company. He said he will do the same thing this next year if his application is not selected.

It's always good to have your credit card company between you and your vendor, Haven said.

After two days of failed attempts to get any comment, NCAA representative Gail Dent finally returned numerous phone calls and promised three times to answer ConsumerAffairs.com's questions by this morning. She did not return two subsequent e-mails and the NCAA's PR office did not answer its phone this afternoon.

More Scam Alerts ...

Consumers continue to fall behind on their credit payments, due largely to overdue payments on auto loans.

Delinquencies in the fourth quarter of 2007 reached their highest levels since 1992, according to the American Bankers Associations Consumer Credit Delinquency Bulletin. The composite ratio, which tracks eight closed-end installment loan categories, rose 21 basis points to 2.65 percent of all accounts in the fourth quarter (seasonally adjusted).

All eight loan categories experienced increased delinquencies during the fourth quarter, a rare occurrence. The ABA report defines delinquency as late payments that are 30 days or more overdue.

James Chessen, ABA chief economist, attributed the rise largely to auto loan delinquencies. The auto loan category comprises about two-thirds of all closed-end consumer installment loans. In addition, the number of delinquent bankcard accounts rose to 4.38 percent, but remains close to the five-year average of 4.40 percent.

The rise in consumer credit delinquencies is consistent with a rapidly slowing economy, Chessen said. Stress in the housing market still dominates the story but its a broader tale of an overall weak economy.

The weak housing market continues to be reflected in rising delinquency rates for home equity loans and lines of credit. Delinquencies for home equity lines of credit -- the lowest delinquency rate category -- rose to 0.96 percent.

The fourth quarter composite ratio is made up of the following closed-end loans. All figures are seasonally adjusted based upon the number of accounts.
• Home equity loan delinquencies increased to 2.39 percent from 2.28 percent.
• Property improvement loan delinquencies increased to 1.81 percent from 1.60 percent.
• Indirect auto loan delinquencies increased to 3.13 percent from 2.86 percent.
• Direct auto loan delinquencies increased to 1.90 percent from 1.81 percent.
• Personal loan delinquencies increased to 2.48 percent from 2.29 percent.
• Mobile home loan delinquencies increased to 2.92 percent from 2.87 percent.
• Marine loan delinquencies increased to 1.57 percent from 1.30 percent.
• Recreational vehicle loan delinquencies increased to 1.08 percent from 0.89 percent.

No relief

Chessen predicted that delinquencies will continue to rise during the first half of 2008.

No relief for consumers is in sight as food and gas prices remain stubbornly high and income growth is anemic, Chessen said.

Chessen recommends that borrowers experiencing financial stress seek out their lenders promptly as more options are likely to be available when the problem is addressed early.

ABA advises consumers to review their finances often and watch for the warning signs of overextended credit:
• Paying only the minimum payment month after month;
• Being out of cash constantly;
• Being late on important payments such as rent or mortgage;
• Taking longer and longer to pay off balances; and
• Borrowing from one lender to pay another.

For others having trouble paying down debts, ABA advises taking action -- sooner rather than later -- by following these tips:
• Talk with creditors -- hiding only makes the problem worse;
• Dont charge more purchases until your problems are solved;
• Contact Consumer Credit Counseling Services at 1-800-388-2777.

Acne, cough due to a cold, athlete's foot, hemorrhoids, itching from insect bites, and minor aches and pains of muscles and joints -- these are among the conditions that people treat by applying over-the-counter (OTC) creams and ointments to their skin.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) urges consumers to keep safety in mind when using such treatments.

"These products are medicines," says Andrea Leonard-Segal, M.D., Director of FDA's Division of Nonprescription Clinical Evaluation in the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "Just because they are not in pill form and do not require a doctor's prescription, does not mean that they cannot cause harm if they're overused or misused."

Dr. Segal says consumers should read and follow the directions carefully for all OTC products, including topical ones. Topical products are those that are applied to certain areas of the skin.

"The medication in creams and ointments can sometimes penetrate the skin and enter the blood stream," she says. "It is important to be aware that the medicines in these topical products may cause problems if they are not used as directed. Sometimes the ingredients in these products can even interact with other medicines you are taking."

Many athletes use muscle ache creams that contain methyl salicylate. Also known as oil of wintergreen, methyl salicylate is an aspirin-type ingredient of many topical creams that relieves pain.

Used correctly, creams containing methyl salicylate can provide temporary relief from minor aches and pains of muscles and joints associated with simple backache, arthritis, strains, bruises and sprains.

As with all medications, misuse of these products can cause harm.

Segal warns that products with methyl salicylate should not be used for more than seven days and should not be applied to wounds or damaged skin. They should not be used under a tight bandage, and contact with eyes should be avoided.

FDA requires the labeling of any drug containing more than 5% methyl salicylate to include warnings that cover such precautions as keeping the product out of children's reach and using the product as directed.

"Always remember to read the Drug Facts Label and any information that is provided inside the package of an over-the-counter product," says Segal. "Keep the labeling so you can refer back to it at a future time. The information provided with the medication tells how to use it properly and what to do if a problem occurs while you are using it."

Compounded products

FDA also is concerned about some "compounded" products offered as creams and ointments.

Traditional pharmacy compounding is a practice in which pharmacists combine, mix, or alter ingredients to create unique medications to meet specific medical needs of individual patients in accordance with prescriptions issued by patients' doctors.

Compounded drugs are not reviewed by FDA for safety and effectiveness, and are not FDA-approved. They can expose patients to unnecessary risks when they are used without proper medical supervision.

FDA normally permits traditional pharmacy compounding. By contrast, some pharmacies behave like drug manufacturers, not traditional compounding pharmacies, because they produce standardized versions of products for general distribution.

In December 2006, FDA warned five firms to stop compounding and distributing topical anesthetic creams that were being marketed for general distribution rather than responding to the unique medical needs of individual patients.

Compounded topical anesthetic creams are often used to lessen pain in procedures such as laser hair removal, tattoos, and skin treatments. They are sometimes dispensed by clinics and spas that provide these procedures, or by pharmacies and doctors' offices.

The compounded topical anesthetics that FDA warned about contain high doses of local anesthetics, including lidocaine, tetracaine, benzocaine, and prilocaine. FDA has warned that when different anesthetics are combined into one product, each anesthetic's potential for harm is increased.

This potential harm may also increase if the product is left on the body for long periods of time or applied to broad areas of the body, particularly if an area is then covered by a bandage, plastic, or other dressing.

Nice ad, but the problem is that MacBook LCDs only display 262,144 colors. Geeks say that's because they use 6-bit TFT models instead of a true 8-bit display, which would indeed support 16,777,216.

But someone at Apple was counting pennies and decided to downgrade the display to 6 bits, even though Mac users pay a considerable premium for what they think will be a superior machine. So says a class action lawsuit against the computer maker.

Apple has already settled one lawsuit filed by aggrieved customers. Details are confidential, but what's not confidential is a new suit filed by a powerful Los Angeles legal firm, Kabateck Brown Kellner, a frequent litigant in high-tech circles.

"Apple is duping its customers into thinking theyre buying 'new and improved' when in fact theyre getting stuck with new and inferior," said managing partner Brian Kabatech.

Kabatech says his firm wants "to help those customers who were deceived and make sure Apple tells the truth in the future."

Track record

In the previous "millions of colors" case, MacBook owners Fred Greaves and Dave Gately filed a class action suit against Apple last May.

The case was initially viewed as frivolous but as hundreds of disgruntled MAcbook purchasers began posting their embittered complaints on apple.com and other online forums, both the legal community and Apple began to take the case more seriously.

Apple settled out of court with the two, reaching a confidential settlement. But by then, the damage had been done and others consumers -- and, more significantly, other lawyers -- began following the scent and Apple now faces a much more daunting opponent.

Menu Foods Income Fund announced the tentative settlement on Tuesday.

The Canadian-based company said it could not disclose terms of the agreement, which is subject to the approval of U.S. and Canadian courts.

"It's a comprehensive settlement," Amy W. Schulman, a lawyer for Menu Foods, told MSNBC. "It would resolve all the claims." The lead attorney for pet owners agreed and said she's confident a final agreement will be reached.

Tuesday's settlement comes just a little more than a year after Menu Foods recalled 60 million containers of tainted pet food.

The company took that action after dogs and cats across the country suffered kidney problems or died after eating the company's food.

Menu Foods initially blamed the contamination on a chemical called Aminopterin, which is used as a rat poison and to treat cancer.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) later discovered the chemical melamine in the imported wheat gluten used in the pet food. Melamine is used to make plastics.

Unapproved chemicals

In December, veterinarians blamed the dogs' and cats' deaths on the combination of two chemicals FDA officials found in the tainted pet food: melamine and cyanuric acid, which is used to chlorinate pools.

Neither chemical is approved in pet food.

Veterinarians said those two chemicals can combine and form crystals in the dogs' and cats' bodies. And those crystals can impair the animals' kidney function.

"Either one of those chemicals alone wouldn't cause these (deaths)," Dr. Barbara Powers, immediate past president of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians (AAVLD) and director of Colorado State University's Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, told ConsumerAffairs.com. "It has to be the combination of the two.

"So it's not melamine alone."

Pet owners in 19 states -- and Ontario -- filed dozens of lawsuits against Menu Foods in the weeks that followed the March 16, 2007, nationwide recall of dog and cat food. Those cases were consolidated in a federal court in Camden, New Jersey.

The lawsuits alleged unfair and deceptive trade practices, negligence in failing to provide adequate quality control and breach of implied and express warranties. Some consumers also claimed they suffered emotional trauma after their pets became sick or died.

Pet owners sought compensation for their veterinary bills.

Companies named in the lawsuits -- besides Menu Foods -- included Del Monte Foods Inc. of San Francisco; Nestle of Stamford, Conn.; Procter & Gamble in Cincinnati; Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Co. Ltd. in Pixian, China; and Suzhou Textile Import and Export Co. in Jiangsu, China.

Those defendants -- and Menu Foods product liability insurance company -- will cover the costs of the settlement.

Menu Foods' estimates the nationwide recall cost the company $53.8 million.

The company said pet owners with potential claims should not contact Menu Foods regarding the tentative settlement. When a final agreement is reached -- and claims are processed and approved -- the administrator of the settlement fund will notify pet owners.

U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman set a May 14 hearing in New Jersey to consider the settlement. A final hearing date in Canada is not yet scheduled

Indictments

Last month, two Chinese companies -- and an American importer and its owners -- were indicted for their alleged roles in intentionally manufacturing and distributing melamine-tainted wheat gluten that was used to make dog and cat food.

"When I first read about these (indictments), I was crying because I was so happy," said pet owner Carol V. of Rhode Island, whose two cats became gravely ill last February after eating melamine-tainted pet food.

"It made me feel really good that something was being done. I was shocked because I had not idea that these criminal investigations were going on. I thought they had fizzled," she said.

But Carol and other pet owners are adamant that the investigation into last year's pet food recall -- the largest in U.S. history -- must continue.

They say more companies should be held accountable for their roles in the deaths and illnesses of pets nationwide.

"I don't think the American company that imported the wheat gluten should be alone in this investigation," Carol said.

More about pets ...

Supporters of wireless networks that can work with any phone or device who thought Federal Communications Commission chair Kevin Martin was an ally were wrong.

Martin told an audience at a trade show that he was issuing an order dismissing a challenge from computer phone service Skype to open all wireless networks to all devices.

"In light of the industry's embrace of a more open wireless platform, it would be premature to adopt any other requirements across the industry," Martin said. "Thus, today I will circulate to my fellow commissioners an order dismissing a petition for declaratory ruling filed by Skype that would apply Carterfone requirements to existing wireless networks."

The 1968 Carterfone legal decision mandated that land-line phone networks could be opened to all devices, such as answering machines, faxes, cordless phones, and eventually dial-up Internet modems. PC-to-PC phone service Skype, a subsidiary of eBay, had filed a petition in February 2007 for the FCC to apply the Carterfone standard to wireless networks.

In dismissing the petition, Martin cited recent developments in the wireless industry such as the recently-concluded auction of wireless spectrum, won by Verizon at $19.6 billion.

The auction's conditions included opening any networks built on the new spectrum to all phones or devices, a condition that Martin said could "help foster innovation on the edges of the network...As important, it will give consumers greater freedom to use the wireless devices and applications of their choice when they purchase service."

S. Derek Turner, research director of media watchdog group Free Press, criticized Martin's decision as "a missed opportunity."

"If open devices and applications are good for consumers in the networks to be built on the newly auctioned spectrum, why not for all mobile networks?," asked Turner. "The small handful of companies that dominate the wireless world have a track record of stifling competition and an aversion to innovation. Trusting these same companies with the promise of the mobile Web is short-sighted."

With friends like these...

Martin used the speech to discuss the failure of the auction to net funding for a first-responder public safety network, which he has promised to investigate. Martin also cited his record of promoting market-friendly policies such as an opposition to "net neutrality," the principle that Internet users can access all content on the Web equally.

"[S]ince I have been Chairman, I have opposed applying network neutrality obligations with mandatory unbundling or wholesale requirements to networks that would undermine investment incentives," Martin said. "This careful balancing of spurring innovation and consumer choice while encouraging infrastructure investment is critical to the wireless industry's continued impressive growth."

Phone-friendly

Martin's policies have been especially friendly to the telecom industry, which largely opposes net neutrality and originally opposed opening networks to all devices.

Verizon, which even sued the FCC over the "open access" requirements to the wireless auction, has since claimed it would open its network to all devices, for which Martin gave them credit. But industry analysts and observers who have studied Verizon's plans claim their network would be two-tiered, with one for Verizon customers and one for people bringing their own phones--at a much higher cost.

Martin's FCC failed to stop AT&T, Sprint, and Qwest from blocking access to long-distance conference service FreeConference.Com in April 2006, until consumer complaints and media pressure forced the agency to intervene and broker an agreement between the sparring companies.

Martin also pulled out all the stops to ensure that AT&T and BellSouth could merge into the world's largest telecommunications company, even going so far as to say that the merged company was free to ignore conditions placed on it by other FCC commissioners as part of the merger, such as supporting net neutrality principles on its services.

Martin has supported new video franchising legislation that would enable telecom companies to enter new markets and deploy new services much faster than their cable counterparts, often completely bypassing local and municipal governments to deal directly with states.

Meanwhile, Martin has pursued a much more aggressive legislative agenda against the cable industry, demanding that Comcast immediately stop blocking users from accessing BitTorrent under threat of FCC investigation.

Martin has campaigned for sweeping changes to the cable industry, from ending exclusive service deals to apartments and condominiums to campaigning for "cable a la carte," where viewers can buy only the channels they want to watch, rather than package deals.

The owner of a Missouri kennel -- who sold sick dogs to consumers across the country -- is now barred from such action.

The Missouri Attorney General's Office obtained a temporary restraining order that prohibits Jodi Craft -- owner of Rise-N-Shine Kennels and Safe Haven Puppy Rescue in Bland, Missouri -- from selling or giving away dogs.

That action comes on the heels of a Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA) inspection that revealed Craft sold three dogs with a highly contagious viral disease called parvovirus.

An inspection on February 22, 2008, revealed that Craft's animal facilities did not meet the state's minimum health and operating standards. State officials ordered Craft to fix those problems.

In mid-March, Craft reported parvovirus-like symptoms with dogs at her facility to one of the kennel's veterinarians.

During that same month, three people who bought dogs from Craft discovered their pets had parvovirus.

Craft also said she sold seven other dogs in March, but had not yet shipped them.

On March 21, 2008, MDA inspectors went to Craft's facility and asked for medical records. During the visit, inspectors saw Craft remove labels from several vials and put them on records.

That action made it impossible for inspectors to determine the true health records of any of the dogs in her possession or control.

"This owner has not properly quarantined sick dogs at her kennel, and continues to put more animals at risk," said Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon. "This temporary restraining order is necessary for the health and welfare of not only the dogs in her possession, but also other dogs across the country that might come in contact with the sick dogs if they are sold and shipped."

Previous complaints

Complaints about Craft selling sick dogs are not new.

The Better Business Bureau that covers eastern Missouri has received nine complaints since 2006 about Craft's kennels. The complaints are from consumers across the country.

Some say Craft sent them sick dogs. Others say they never received their dogs even after paying for the animals and the shipping fees.

Several consumers also failed to receive refunds for up to $1,750 for undelivered animals or veterinary bills associated with taking care of the sick dogs Craft sent them, according to the BBB.

A consumer in South Wellfleet, Mass., told the BBB she paid Craft $400 for a lab/boxer mix. She said the puppy was extremely sick with parvo and three kinds of worms when it arrived.

The woman's vet bills totaled more than $1,700 and the dog must be "de-wormed again and be re-vaccinated because the vet has no confidence in the shots record," she told the BBB.

Another consumer in Trumbull, Conn., told the BBB he ordered a dog from Craft through a Web site called nextdaypets.com.

He sent $400 -- but cancelled the shipment after encountering "an unspeakable amount of roadblocks." The man never received a refund or the dog despite numerous attempts to contact Craft.

A consumer in West Lawn, Pennsylvania said she bought a nine-week-old Blue Heeler/English Setter mix from Craft. She paid $375 for the puppy, which arrived underweight and coughing. The woman said the puppy soon started vomiting, had diarrhea, and a fever.

The puppy died three days later. The woman contacted Craft, who promised to refund the money.

In an e-mail message, however, Craft told the woman: "HURT HANDCAN'T SIGN CHECKS RIGHT NOWCAN ONLY TYPE WITH ONE FINGER. YOU WILL GET REFUND SHORTLY." The woman never received her money, according to the BBB.

Poor conditions

Some consumers also complained about the conditions at Craft's kennel.

"I was shocked by the conditions in which the puppies were living," said an Arnold, Missouri, consumer who drove two hours to pick up her Jack Russell/Chihuahua-mix puppy. "Many were caged or locked in a barn which was disgustingly dirty with feces lying on the floor."

A BBB shopper who visited the kennel in late February discovered as many as 10 dogs sharing one caged area, a small dog house, and a bowl of water and food.

The BBB also said that none of Craft's facilities appeared to have enough protection to shield the dogs from the elements, which were below freezing the day their shopper went to the kennel.

ConsumersAffairs.com left a message for Craft on Tuesday. She did not return our call.

The Missouri Attorney General's action --filed last week in Gasconade County Circuit Court -- seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions against Craft to prevent future violations of the law.

What to do

How can consumers protect themselves from buying a sick puppy?

Officials recommend the following:

• Check with the state's Department of Agriculture to ensure a kennel operator is licensed;

• Check for complaints about the kennel or its operator with the Humane Society, attorney general's office, the BBB, and ConsumerAffairs.com;

• Make sure the kennel gives you a written contract and health guarantee. Read it carefully. A breeder should not require you to use a specific veterinarian;

• Ask the kennel's owner to show you where the dogs spend most of their time. That area should be clean and well-maintained;

• Get references from consumers who have bought puppies from the kennel;

• Make multiple visits, if possible, with the entire family to meet the puppy before you take it home;

• Verify the puppy has received all it vaccinations;

• Request a copy of the animal's medical record;

• Look for dogs that appear happy and healthy, and are excited to meet new people.

Animal advocates also encourage consumers to check their local shelters for dogs and cats that are up for adoption and looking for good homes.

More about pets ...