Current Events in February 2011

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is notifying the public that information on the cardiovascular risks (including heart attack) of the diabetes drug Avendia (rosiglitazone) has been added to the physician labeling and patient Medication Guide.

This information was first announced by FDA on September 23, 2010, as part of new restrictions for prescribing and use of this drug.

Rosiglitazone is sold as a single-ingredient product under the brand name Avandia and as a combination product under the brand name Avandamet (contains rosiglitazone and metformin) and under the brand name Avandaryl (contains rosiglitazone and glimepiride).

Revisions

In addition to describing the cardiovascular risks, the drug labels have been revised to state that rosiglitazone and rosiglitazone-containing medicines should only be used:

• In patients already being treated with these medicines
• In patients whose blood sugar cannot be controlled with other anti-diabetic medicines and who, after consulting with their healthcare professional, do not wish to use pioglitazone-containing medicines (Actos, Actoplus Met, Actoplus Met XR, or Duetact).
• At this time, FDA has only approved these safety-related changes to the physician labeling and Medication Guides for the rosiglitazone-containing medicines. The Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), which will restrict rosiglitazone-containing medicines' availability, has not yet been approved and formally implemented.
• FDA will be providing further information on this REMS program in the coming months. FDA expects to approve the REMS by Spring 2011, and for the manufacturer to complete implementation 6 months thereafter.

Patient information

• You may continue to take a rosiglitazone-containing medicine if directed by your healthcare professional, but it is important that you understand the risks and benefits of the drug.
• Talk to your healthcare professional if you have concerns about rosiglitazone-containing medicines.
• Read the Medication Guide you get along with your rosiglitazone-containing medicine. It explains the risks associated with the use of rosiglitazone.
• Any side effects from the use of rosiglitazone-containing medicines may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail, using postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500 available here and sending it to the address on the pre-addressed form or by fax at 1-800-FDA-0178

Information for healthcare professionals

• The REMS for rosiglitazone-containing medicines does not take effect at the time of this announcement. You may continue to prescribe and dispense rosiglitazone-containing medicines as directed in the revised drug label.
• You should begin discussing the risks and benefits of taking rosiglitazone-containing medicines versus other therapies with your patients, and make decisions about optimal treatment for your individual patients.
• Encourage patients to read the rosiglitazone Medication Guide given to them when they pick-up their prescription at the pharmacy
• Report adverse events involving rosiglitazone-containing medicines to the FDA MedWatch program, using the above information.

A new report by international scientists calls for greatly reduced exposure limits for electromagnetic radiation from power line and telecommunications technologies -- including cell phones and wireless technologies.

The report was published by the scientific journal Reviews on Environmental Health.

The statement, called The Seletun Scientific Statement, was written based on "a large and growing body of science showing biological effects." Scientists say governments should take decisive action now to protect biological function as well as the health of future generations.

Recommendations

In a consensus agreement, including “10 Key Recommendations to Protect Public Health.” the  Seletun Scientific Panel claims the global population is at risk, that the current accepted measure of radiation risk -- the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) -- is inadequate, and that there is abundant evidence biological effects are occurring at exposures ‘many orders of magnitude’ below existing public safety standards.

According to the panel:

1. The global population is at risk.
2. Sensitive populations are currently vulnerable.
3. Government actions are warranted now based on evidence of serious disruption to biological systems.
4. The burden of proof for the safety of radiation-emitting technologies should fall on producers and providers not consumers.
5. EMF exposures should be reduced in advance of complete understanding of mechanisms of action.
6. The current accepted measure of radiation risk -- the SAR -- is inadequate, and misguides on safety and risk.
7. An international disease registry is needed to track time trends of illnesses to correlate illnesses with exposures.
8. Pre-market health testing and safety demonstration is needed for all radiation-emitting technologies.
9. Parity is needed for occupational exposure standards
10. ‘Functional Impairment’ designation is needed for persons with electrohypersensitivity.

Congressional inaction

In the United States, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) announced on June 30, 2010, that he would introduce a bill calling for a U.S. cell phone research program, warning labels on cell phones and an update of antiquated radiation exposure standards. Six months later, no bill has yet been introduced in Congress.

Earlier, in September 2009, Senate hearings were held on the health effects of cell phones, presided over by Senators Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). To the dismay of scientists, no action has yet been taken since the hearing sixteen months ago.

At the hearing, Sen. Harkin said, “I found this really very interesting and very challenging and I can assure you we are going to do some follow-up on this.” Nothing has happened since.

“Current US and International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) standards for radiofrequency and microwave radiation from wireless technologies are entirely inadequate," said Olle Johansson, PhD, who chaired the Seletun Scientific Panel. "They never were intended to address the kind of exposures from wireless devices that now affect over four billion people.”

 “Each time there is a briefing or hearing in a government body around the world, lip service is paid to the concerns of scientists, professors, physicians and citizens," public health advocate, Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org, says. "Through their inaction, global governments have supported the interests of the telecommunications industry. We hope the Seletun Scientific Statement will finally get the attention this very serious public health issue deserves.”

It's an annual list, but perhaps its getting a little more attention this year because one state is monopolizing it. When Forbes released it's list of the 20 Most Miserable American Cities, eight California cities were among the elite.

With high taxes, increasing crime, falling property values and a nearly bankrupt state government, the Forbes editors found a target rich environment when they surveyed the Golden State.

Topping the list of most miserable cities for the second time in three years is Stockton, Calif., located in the Central Valley. Median home prices went from $142,000 to $431,000, back to $142,000. Nearly seven percent of Stockton homes had some kind of brush with foreclosure last year.

Besides Stockton at number one, other California cities making the Forbes list include Merced at number three, Modesto at number four, Sacramento at five, Vallejo at nine, Fresno at 17, Salinas at 18 and Bakersfield at 20.

Florida well-represented

Miami, Fla., was number two on the list of miserable cities, with another three Florida cities making the cut. Together, California and Florida accounted for 12 of the 2o cities, or 60 percent.

How did Forbes arrive at its rankings?

"We consider a total of 10 factors, things that people gripe about around the water cooler every day. Most are serious issues, including unemployment, crime and taxes," said Kurt Badenhausen, who wrote an article for Forbes accompanying the list."A few we factor in are not as critical, but still elevate people's blood pressure, like the weather, commute times and how the local sports team is doing."

The Forbes list of Most Miserable American Cities is:

1. Stockton, Calif.
2. Miami, Fla.
3. Merced, Calif.
4. Modesto, Calif.
5. Sacramento, Calif.
6. Memphis, Tenn.
7. Chicago, Ill.
8. West Palm Beach, Fla.
9. Valleja, Calif.
10. Cleveland, Ohio
11. Flint, Mich.
12. Toledo, Ohio
13. Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.
14. Youngstown, Ohio
15. Detroit, Mich.
16. Washington, DC
17. Fresno, Calif.
18. Salinas, Calif.
19. Jacksonville, Fla.
20. Bakersfield, Calif.

Chicago and Washington were the two largest cities to make the list, hurt in large part by traffic problems, taxes and weather. While Chicago is still struggling with home values, Washington has shown some improvement in recent months.

A class action lawsuit filed this week accuses Toshiba's U.S. arm of discrimination against female employees. The suit, filed in New York, alleges that the computer corporation favors men for promotion opportunities and pays women lower salaries and bonuses.

Lead plaintiff Elaine Cyphers says in the complaint that Toshiba's six-year-old “Gender Equality Office” hasn't prevented an “astounding lack of women in leadership positions”; Cyphers says that a mere 3.4 percent of the company's 6,273 executives are women.

“The numbers are atrocious,” Cyphers's attorney David Sanford, a partner with Sanford Wittels & Heisler, told Reuters in an interview. “We believe the class claims are significant, and will be substantiated in the litigation.”

Shareholder concern

The issue came up last June at a shareholder meeting in Tokyo, when one shareholder asked why none of Toshiba's executives are women. A Toshiba executive replied that the company wasn't “discriminating at all. It’s just that we haven’t found appropriate candidates. We expect to have female executives in near future.”

But that promise wasn't enough to hold off Cyphers's suit, which seeks $100 million in damages and seeks to represent a class of as many as 8,000 U.S. employees.

Cyphers, who is the highest-ranked U.S. employee with Toshiba's America Nuclear Energy Corp unit, says Toshiba paid her between $90,000 to $91,800 per year since she started in 2008, while similarly-employed men were bringing home around $120,000 a year.

Cyphers started her job at Toshiba in June 2008 after working for 25 years in the human resource departments of other companies. She says that Toshiba tried to force her from the company after she complained about the discrimination alleged in her complaint. She also says that the company promoted a man with less experience shortly after she began her job.

Cultural divide

The suit highlights the larger problem of gender equality in Japanese corporations. A study performed by Toyo Keizai, a business publisher, found that a mere 1.2 percent of executives at Japanese companies were female. By contrast, a survey by the nonprofit firm Catalyst, Inc. found that 13.5 percent of executives at U.S. Fortune 500 companies are women.

Sanford Wittels, the firm handling the case, obtained a $175 million settlement against the U.S. arm of Novartis last July, following an employment discrimination suit.

The suit comes just a few months before the U.S. Supreme Court hears an employment discrimination action alleging that female employees of Wal-Mart are paid less, given smaller raises, and promoted less often than their male colleagues. The suit, which potentially puts Wal-Mart on the hook for up to $1 billion, is the largest employment discrimination suit in history. Whether Wal-Mart wins or loses, the case will give plaintiffs a better idea of how to certify a successful employment class action.

A class action lawsuit says Safeway failed to notify its regular customers about a Salmonella recall, even though it had the tools to do so through its Safeway Club Card program.

But Safeway says it's not always possible to reach shoppers via its loyalty program, although it says it attempts to do so in other ways.

Filing the complaint in California are two Safeway shoppers, Dee Hensley-Maclean of Montana and Jennifer Rosen of San Francisco, with the assistance of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

Hensley-Maclean said she bought peanut butter crackers and Nutter Butter sandwich cookies that had been recalled because of Salmonella contamination. Rosen said she bought Salmonella-contaminated eggs.

The women argue that they and others who bought recalled food should be refunded the price of those purchases. They also want Safety to commit to using its Club Card program to contact consumers about future recalls.

“As a concerned parent I take care with my purchases and I assume that the foods we bring home from Safeway will be safe to eat,” said Hensley-Maclean, a 53-year-old civic volunteer. “If Safeway knows that there is a problem, and they know how to get in touch with me, quite frankly I’m astonished that they wouldn’t try to spare me or my children from a preventable foodborne illness.”

Safeway denies that it failed to notify Hensley-Maclean, Rosen and other shoppers of the recall, but resorts to legalese in making its defense.

"Safeway notifies its customers of Class I recalls consistent with all legal/ regulatory requirements," a Safeway spokesperson told Progressive Grocer,a grocery industry newspaper. "In addition to press releases, Safeway voluntarily posts on its web site recall information concerning private label/ Safeway brand products, products sold in our meat, deli and bakery departments, or products otherwise sold without a supplier/ manufacturer label."

Not every grocery chain is as defensive about its response to recalls.

Hensley-Maclean also purchased some similar snack foods made with peanuts at Costco. But unlike Safeway, Costco uses its membership data to contact consumers who purchased recalled food, and Hensley-Maclean received a letter from that company advising her not to eat the food and instructing her how to get a refund.

Rosen, a 40-year-old drama and Improv teacher, learned from a neighborhood listserv that the eggs she purchased from Safeway might have been contaminated with Salmonella. She and her family had already consumed several of them—some when they nibbled on raw cookie dough—though none of the Rosens became ill.

Rosen was stunned that Safeway didn’t contact her and warn her not to eat the contaminated eggs, even though she, like Hensley-Maclean, used her Safeway Club card when she made her purchase.

“My kids are little so I worried that if they got sick, they could get really sick,” Rosen said. “When I had my husband check the numbers on the carton, I couldn’t believe we had contaminated eggs. Safeway sends me emails all the time with paperless coupons. I can’t believe they wouldn’t text or email me with news of a recall.”

In fact, Safeway is one of the biggest grocery chains that does not have a system that uses loyalty card data to notify consumers who purchased recalled foods. Ralphs, Kroger, Walmart, Sam’s Club, Costco, Giant Food, Harris Teeter, Wegmans, and ShopRite all routinely issue food safety alerts using a variety of methods, including emails and automated phone calls, according to CSPI.

“Safeway aggressively uses its Club card data to churn out coupons, analyze its customers’ shopping habits, and otherwise boost sales,” said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner. “Yet when it knows it has sold products that may be contaminated with E. coli, Salmonella, or other hazards, it does not use its robust marketing database to prevent illnesses or deaths. That is hardly the “safe way” and just shows Safeway’s reckless disregard for the health and safety of its shoppers.”

CSPI said it notified Safeway in May that it might seek a court order directing the company to notify customers who bought food subject to Class 1 recalls if the company did not agree to do so on its own. In a letter to Safeway, CSPI said that selling food with deadly contaminants makes those foods “misbranded” and “adulterated” under federal law and California’s Health and Safety Code. Refusing to notify consumers of the fact that they are at risk is a violation of California’s Business and Professions Code.

Besides CSPI’s litigation unit, the plaintiffs are represented by Craig Briskin and Steven A. Skalet of the Washington, D.C. law firm of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, and Daniel T. LeBel of the San Francisco-based Consumer Law Practice. Skalet’s firm earlier worked with CSPI to obtain a historic agreement with Kellogg that set nutrition standards for the foods that company markets to young children.

In February of 2009, CSPI publicly called on the supermarket industry and other retailers that use bonus or loyalty card programs to contact customers who bought recalled food. In addition, for customers who used a credit card to pay for the food, companies could use their bonus card data to automatically refund the purchase price of the recalled items, according to CSPI.

Three companies whose business is reselling consumers’ credit reports have agreed to settle federal charges that they did not take reasonable steps to protect consumers’ personal information, failures that allowed computer hackers to access that data.

The settlements with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) require the companies to strengthen their data security procedures and submit to audits for 20 years. These are the FTC’s first cases against credit report resellers for their clients’ data security failures.

“These cases should send a strong message that companies giving their clients online access to sensitive consumer information must have reasonable procedures to secure it,” said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Had these three companies taken adequate steps to ensure the use of basic computer security measures, they might have foiled the hackers who wound up gaining access to extensive personal information in the consumer reporting system.”

According to administrative complaints issued by the FTC, the three resellers buy credit reports from the three nationwide consumer reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, and combine them into special reports they sell to mortgage brokers and others to determine consumers’ eligibility for credit.

Due to their lack of information security policies and procedures, the companies allegedly allowed clients without basic security measures, such as firewalls and updated antivirus software, to access their reports.

As a result, hackers accessed more than 1,800 credit reports without authorization via the clients’ computer networks. In addition, even after becoming aware of the data breaches, the companies did not make reasonable efforts to protect against future breaches.

The resellers are SettlementOne Credit Corporation and its parent company, Sackett National Holdings Inc.; ACRAnet Inc.; Fajilan and Associates Inc., doing business as Statewide Credit Services; and Robert Fajilan.

They are charged with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to protect their internet portals and thereby furnishing credit reports to hackers who lacked a permissible purpose to have them, failing to maintain reasonable procedures to limit the furnishing of credit reports for such purposes, and furnishing credit reports when they had reasonable grounds for believing the reports would not be used for a permissible purpose. Their failure to protect consumers’ personal information also allegedly violated the FTC Act.

In addition, the resellers allegedly violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Safeguards Rule by failing to design and implement information safeguards to control the risks to consumer information; to regularly test or monitor the effectiveness of their controls and procedures; to evaluate and adjust their information security programs in light of known or identified risks; and to have comprehensive information security programs.

The proposed consent orders bar the respondents from violating the Safeguards Rule and require them to:

• have comprehensive information security programs designed to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of consumers’ personal information, including information accessible to clients;

• obtain independent audits of their security programs, every other year for 20 years;

• furnish credit reports only to those with a permissible purpose; and

• maintain reasonable procedures to limit the furnishing of credit reports to those with a permissible purpose.

The DirectBuy (an Authorized Partner) buying club chain has reached a preliminary settlement of a class action lawsuit that claimed the club's members were wrongfully excluded from “kickbacks” and other promotional payments allegedly made by manufacturers of products sold by the clubs.

Earlier this week, West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw sued DirectBuy (an Authorized Partner), alleging it uses coercion, deception and high-pressure sales tactics to sell memberships that cost $3,995 or more.

The class action charged that members of the 145 franchised DirectBuy (an Authorized Partner) centers pay thousands of dollars to join and are promised that they will be able to buy furniture, appliances, carpeting and other products at the “direct” price – the price actually charged by the manufacturer or supplier, thus avoiding the usual retail mark-up.

But the lawsuit alleges that DirectBuy's (an Authorized Partner) promises are “false and misleading” because the company does not report the “kickbacks” – volume rebates, cooperative advertising funds and early payment discounts. The plaintiffs alleged that, therefore, they were paying more than the “direct” price they had been promised.

$6 million

In support of the plaintiffs' claims, the lawsuit says that during the fiscal year ended July 31, 2007, DirectBuy (an Authorized Partner) and its affiliates received about $8,000,000 in “kickbacks.” During the same time, it generated income of about $87 million, including $77 million from the sale of memberships and about $2 million from the financing of memberships.

DirectBuy (an Authorized Partner) denied that it had broken any laws or misrepresented its service and said it agreed to the settlement only to avoid the cost of litigation.

The settlement applies to anyone who was a DirectBuy (an Authorized Partner) member during a specific time period and to certain former members. Those who are current members will receive a 28-month DirectBuy (an Authorized Partner) membership renewal for the price of 24 months, or a 13-month renewal for the price of 12.

Former members will be eligible for a two-month free membership at their most recent membership level.

What to do

Court documents indicate that more details of the settlement will be made available at www.settlement.direct.com, although the link was not operating at the time of this writing.

Potential class members may also contact the law firm representing the plaintiffs:

Jeffrey S. Nobel

IZARD NOBEL LLP

29 South Main Street

Suite 215

West Hartford, CT 06107

(860) 493-6292

The preliminary settlement was reached before United States Magistrate William I. Garfinkel of Connecticut U.S. District Court in December 2010. It remains subject to final approval by the Court.  

The State of New York has filed suit against six web site operators that illegally sold cigarettes to New York State residents, according to the complaint.

In filing the lawsuit, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said the alleged sales are part of a disturbing trend that provides teens easy access to tobacco, and encourages a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in state revenues.

"These vendors not only broke the law prohibiting the sale of tobacco online, but also endangered our children by making cigarettes easier and cheaper to purchase,"Schneiderman said. "With thousands of children becoming addicted smokers each year, and hundreds of thousands more expected to die because of smoking-related illnesses, our fight for a healthier New York is not over. This office has a proud history of standing up to corrupt tobacco corporations, and as Attorney General I will continue to stop those, no matter how big or powerful they might be, who put profits before the health and safety of our communities, and the laws of this state."

According to the Attorney General's complaints, the named Internet vendors accepted orders from New York State consumers and delivered the cigarettes to New York State addresses. The six vendors named in the suit are:

• Totally Tickled Limited, Inc. for discountcigarettesdomestic.com, Kentucky Smokes, and David White;

• Anton Limited for INeedSmoke.com, and Kyle Williams;

• Cigarettes-online.biz and John Sparkle;

• Best Products Solution Limited for http://cigoutlet.net/;

• Best Products Solution Limited for Smokin4free.com; and

• Best Products Solution Limited for cigoutlet.biz.

Against the law

New York State Public Health Law Section 1399-ll prohibits the shipment of cigarettes to any person in the state unless that person is licensed as a cigarette tax agent or wholesale dealer. Four of the complaints further charge that the Internet vendors violated Executive Law section 63(12) by repeating these illegal sales on more than one occasion. The state is seeking fines of up to $5,000 for each violation and injunction against future sales.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that 24,100 children under the age of 18 become new daily smokers each year. An estimated 389,000 kids now under the age of 18 in New York will die prematurely from smoking, according to the CDC.

Lost revenue

In addition to the health effects, the fiscal impact of low-cost cigarettes is staggering. The New York State Department of Health reported that in 2004, the state lost between $436 million and $576 million from the sale of low price, mainly untaxed cigarettes. Of that loss, between $106 million and $122 million derived from online tobacco sales.

Aside from the lost revenue, avoiding the cigarette tax helps smokers avoid quitting: Schneiderman believes if all smokers paid the average retail price for cigarettes, there would be between 51,026 and 76,539 fewer adult smokers in New York.

Internet tobacco prices are much lower than those in regular brick-and-mortar retail outlets because they almost never include the taxes charged by retail stores. The low-cost cigarettes make Internet tobacco products attractive to both adult and underage smokers, and help boost overall smoking levels. There is little to prevent underage online purchases as youth smokers can simply provide false identification to avoid their "age verification" procedures - which is not possible in face-to-face purchases.

Ford is recalling about 281,000 F-150 pickup trucks from the 2009 and 2010 model years. The company said the interior door handle spring may fracture, causing the handle to fail to return to the fully stowed position.

In a side impact crash, the door latch could open.

Owners will be notified and instructed to take their vehicles to a Ford or Lincoln dealer if any interior door handle is loose. Dealers will fix the problem free of charge when the recall begins in mid-February.

Owners may contact Ford about Recall No. 11S15 at 1-866-436-7332.

The use of debit cards has quickly become a more common form of payment than writing checks or using credit cards.  If you use a debit card, it is important you know how it works and what to do if you have problems.

A debit card is different from a credit card in that the funds are deducted immediately from the account, whereas a credit card uses a line of credit that is repaid at a later time. (Read consumer complaints about credit cards).

A debit card is issued by a bank to its customers.  The card allows instant purchases and the total purchase price is immediately deducted from the user’s attached bank account (a “pay as you go” approach).

Using the debit card

Most debit cards have two features: the ability to withdraw cash from the associated bank account at an Automated Transaction Machine (ATM) and the ability to purchase items at stores that have automated debit or credit card machines.  Most debit cards require a personal identification number or PIN as a security feature. 

When using your debit card at a store or an ATM, you usually have to enter your PIN for verification.  Some bank debit cards have a third feature: the ability to complete a purchase as a “credit” transaction, using only a signature. Although no PIN is required, the purchase price is deducted immediately from the associated bank account.

If you are using your debit card for an online purchase, the PIN may not be required, but you will often need to enter the three or four digit security code for the card.

ATM fees

It's important to keep in mind that many banks charge fees for using your debit card at an ATM. Most banks don’t charge the fee if you have an account at that bank. But if you are a "foreign" user -- someone without an account -- you could pay a hefty charge.

In fact, there has been so much anger over ATM fees that there have been efforts  on the federal level to cap them. Last May an attempt to limit the fee to $0.50 was defeated in the Senate.

Use with caution

Be very careful when using your debit card online!  To commit debit card fraud, all a thief needs is your card number and PIN. This allows the thief to gain access to your bank accounts. Debit card fraud can be even more devastating in some ways than credit card fraud, since in this case the criminal gains access to the money you are using for every day spending. 

When shopping online, always make sure that you shop online at merchants who have secure shopping carts. Instead of using your debit card to shop online, a safer alternative is to use online bill payment for your purchases or use your credit card.

If you have become one of the millions who regularly use a debit card, it is essential that you monitor your bank account.  Don’t wait for your monthly statements to determine if there has been unauthorized use of your account. 

Liability

You can easily check your account online once you get it set up.  Federal law limits your liability for fraudulent debit card charges to $50, but only if you report the theft or loss of your card or PIN within two business days of discovering the problem. 

If you fail to report unauthorized charges within 60 days of the date the statement listing those charges were made, you could be liable for any unauthorized withdrawals afterwards.

When you are a victim of unauthorized charges on a credit card, you won’t be out any money while the disputed charges are being investigated.  But if money is stolen from your bank account using a counterfeit debit or ATM card transaction, that cash won’t be restored to your account until the bank conducts its investigation and classifies it as a case of fraud.

If you find yourself in a situation where your debit card has unauthorized usage, North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem’s Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division offers these tips:

• Contact your bank immediately after learning that you are the victim of a scam.  Ask for the fraud or claims department and be sure to find out the date, time and any other information about the transaction.  Write all of the information down for future reference.
• Your bank will more than likely put a freeze on your account -- or you may close that account and open another one.  It is important that you contact any people you have made recent payments to or have incoming payments from to let them know about your situation and that the account has been frozen or changed.
• Contact the business or vendor who made the charge.  Request a copy of the signed receipt and any other information they can provide you about the purchase.  Let them know you will be reporting the situation to your local law enforcement agency.
• Contact your local law enforcement agency to file a report, providing the agency with all of the information you have been able to gather.
• It is extremely important that you keep a file of all the calls, reports and conversations you have had with the various businesses, banks, law enforcement, etc.  You will need to continue following up on your account transactions in the future.

Remember, a debit card is not protected with the same liability clauses as your credit card.  You may be liable for some portion of the fraudulent charges.  If you feel concerned about using your debit card for a transaction, may wish to use your credit card instead, as most credit cards have more protections than debit cards.  

Godi International, Corp. is recalling Fruta Planta weight loss dietary supplements because the products contain Sibutramine an undeclared drug ingredient.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lab analysis of the dietary supplements found the Authentic Formula Fruta Planta to contain 18 mg of Sibutramine. No illnesses or injuries have been reported to Godi International in connection with these products.

Consumer threat

Sibutramine is an FDA approved drug used as an appetite suppressant for weight loss. It poses a potential threat to consumers because Sibutramine is known to cause a substantial increase in blood pressure and/or pulse rate in some patients and may present a significant risk for patients with a history of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, arrhythmias or stroke.

All lots of the Fruta Planta and Reduce Weight Fruta Planta Dietary Supplement Products are being recalled.

Affected products

The following recalled products contain the active pharmaceutical ingredient Sibutramine:

• Fruta Planta; 30 Capsules/Box.
• Reduce Weight Fruta Planta; 30 Capsules/Box with Gold sticker.
• Reduce Weight Fruta Planta; 30 Capsules/Box.

The Products listed above were sold and distributed to Colombia and Venezuela. It is possible that a traveler could purchase the product in Colombia or Venezuela and bring it into the U.S.

Godi International, Corp says there is NO SAFE formula on the market and that all versions of Fruta Planta contain Sibutramine. All versions of the formula are UNSAFE and should not be purchased from any source.

Consumer actions

Customers are advised to discontinue use immediately and discard the above products in a sealed container where children and animals cannot gain access to it. Those with questions may contact Godi Monday through Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm, EST at 954-272-6188.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail, using postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500 available here and sending it to the address on the pre-addressed form or by fax at 1-800-FDA-0178

The owner of numerous vacation travel club companies with a long history of consumer complaints in New Jersey has been barred from doing business in the state for no less than five years.

According to a lawsuit filed by the New Jersey Attorney General in 2009, defendants Daryl T. Turner, 39, of Cherry Hill, and his vacation travel companies took payments from numerous consumers and then repeatedly failed to provide the contracted-for travel packages, or refund the money.

The defendants also failed to deliver various promotional items promised to consumers in return for their attendance at promotional seminars. To date, over 670 affected consumers have been identified. The lawsuit further charges Turner and his companies with using in their promotional materials the corporate logos of airlines, hotels, and car rental companies without those companies’ permission.

Besides being barred from doing business for five years, Turner cannot open or operate any such business in the future without state approval, under terms of a settlement with the Office of the Attorney General and State Division of Consumer Affairs.

The vacation travel companies named as defendants in the state’s lawsuit include Dreamworks Vacation Club, Dreamworks Vacations, Bentley Travel, Modern Destinations Unlimited, Blue Water, Vacation Clubs LLC d/b/a La Bonne Vie Travel, Five Points Travel Company, Dream Vacations International, Inc., and Away We Go Promotions, LLC.

The civil complaint, filed in Morris County, was amended several times as Consumer Affairs investigators uncovered additional travel club companies owned or controlled by Turner throughout New Jersey. The Final Consent Judgment includes nine of Turner’s travel companies, all of which are now shut down.

“We’ve reached a settlement that immediately puts an end to Mr. Turner’s business activities and prevents him from offering vacation travel club memberships and services here for at least five years, Attorney General Paula T. Dow said.

Under the settlement, Turner is responsible for over $2,188,000 in consumer restitution and $478,000 in civil penalties. Turner is also required to reimburse the state $419,780.10 for its attorneys’ fees and investigative costs.

“Not only does this Judgment make Turner a ‘persona non grata’ in the New Jersey vacation travel industry, it clears the way for the Division of Consumer Affairs to investigate and seize any assets Turner has or may come into -- and that is precisely what we intend to do until every last consumer is made whole, until every last dollar is paid,” said Thomas R. Calcagni, Acting Director of the State Division of Consumer Affairs.

To assist in getting immediate relief to affected consumers, the Division of Consumer Affairs has identified those consumers who used credit cards to pay Turner and his companies for vacation packages, and will be contacting the credit card companies to inform them of the Consent Judgment to facilitate reimbursements to those consumers through credit card charge-backs.

Should consumers wish to pursue reimbursements from their credit card companies themselves, they may obtain an electronic copy of the Final Consent Judgment by contacting Consumer Affairs Investigator Murat Botas at murat.botas@lps.state.nj.us or(973) 273-8038.

Starting Thursday, February 3, Verizon Wireless customers may begin pre-ordering an iPhone4, with orders shipping to arrive on or before February 10, the company said.

However, you must be an existing Verizon Wireless customer to order. The company said it has set aside a limited quantity of iPhone 4 smartphones solely for existing customers.

"We appreciate our many customers who told us that iPhone 4 should be on the nation's most reliable network," said Dan Mead, chief executive officer for Verizon Wireless. "We heard them and we agreed, which is why we are letting them be among the first to own an iPhone 4 on the Verizon Wireless network. We thought it fitting to say thank you to our customers by giving them the phone they want, a week before the general population."

Pricing and Availability

Meanwhile, Verizon confirm previously reported pricing information. The iPhone 4 on the Verizon Wireless network is priced at $199.99 for the 16 GB iPhone 4 or $299.99 for the 32 GB iPhone 4 with a new two-year customer agreement.

Customers can subscribe to a Nationwide Talk plan, beginning at $39.99 for 450 minutes, or a Nationwide Talk and Text plan, beginning at $59.99 and including unlimited text, picture and video messaging, as well as an unlimited Email and Web data plan, available for $29.99 per month.

The iPhone 4 also gives customers a unique 3G Mobile Hotspot feature that can power up to 5 devices over Wi-Fi. The 3G Mobile Hotspot plan is $20 per month for 2 GB.

The Verizon iPhone will go on sale at 3 a.m. EST on Thursday online. www.verizonwireless.com/iphone

Buy now or wait?

Before they do, however, it might be wise to do a little research. As smartphones go, the iPhone4 will soon be old technology. Apple normally updates the produce line every July.

In five months it is likely Apple and Verizon will offer an iPhone5, with expanded capabilities and able to operate on Verizon's faster 4G LTE network.

However, there may be one good reason to buy the iPhone4 now, rather than waiting for the updated model. For those early adopters, Verizon is offering an unlimited data package. There is every indication that offer won't apply when the new, faster phones come out later this year.

A California chiropractor has been charged with consumer fraud in a lawsuit organized by a group of district attorneys. The suit alleges that Benjamin Altadonna of Danville, Calif., sold the $115,000 DRX-9000 spinal-traction machine to other chiropractors around the state and encouraged them to solicit expensive treatments for their patients.

(Read more consumer complaints about doctors).

The lawsuit also alleges that Altadonna defrauded thousands of chiropractors into buying his expensive marketing products based on false promises of increased income.

Altadonna provided chiropractors with an advertising program that promoted the DRX-9000 to the general public. This advertising program included newspaper advertisements that ran throughout California touting the DRX-9000  as a breakthrough medical technology with a scientifically-proven, 86% success rate in the treatment of medical problems like disc herniation.  

The same advertisements claimed the DRX was an FDA approved and patented alternative to spinal surgery as well as being endorsed by NASA.  All of these claims were either false or not scientifically substantiated, according to Santa Cruz County District Attorney Bob Lee.

”Consumers rely on healthcare professionals to explain their treatment options so the consumer can choose the appropriate treatment. It is both unethical and unlawful for healthcare professionals to use false and deceptive statements or unsubstantiated junk science to promote their services,”  Lee said. “Advertising that purposefully baits consumers who suffer from serious medical problems through the use of deceptive and unsubstantiated claims must be addressed by law enforcement.”

The DAs are asking the Alameda Superior Court to award restitution to patients who were deceived into expensive treatments that didn't work, as well as restitution to chiropractors who bought the expensive device. They are also seeking "significant" civil penalties for illegal business practices.

The suit was filed in Alameda County Superior Court by the district attorneys of Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, Napa, Orange, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Solano, and Sonoma counties.

Not just Altadonna

While Dr. Altadonna is on the hook in California, he is far from the only chiropractor hawking the DRX-9000. A simple Google search produces more than 60,000 results, many of them Web sites and advertisements placed by chiropractors around the country.

The company that manufactures the device, Axiom Worldwide, has had its own legal entanglements. In 2007, a rival company, North American Medical Corp. (NAM), won an injunction in U.S. District Court that barred Axion from representing that the DRX-9000 is FDA-approved or that Axiom has any affiliation with NASA.

“This order helps protect the public from further deception. I feel sorry for all of those who purchased a DRX thinking that it was patented when it was not; not to mention for all of the patients who were treated on a DRX believing it was FDA approved, or designed by NASA, when it was not,” said Gidgette Rubin, a senior vice president of NAM in a press release.

A federal appeals court later vacated the injunction and returned the case to the lower court, noting however that, “The district court did not clearly err when it concluded that Axiom made literally false statements in its advertising.”

In 2009, a former independent sales representative for Axiom, Greg Westfall, sued Axiom under the federal False Claims Act.

The suit charged that Axiom “devised a sales scheme to promote the sale of the Axiom products by knowingly, falsely, and fraudulently using misleading representations to physicians which they knew would cause physicians to submit false and fraudulent claims for payment to Medicare and other federal healthcare programs for services rendered with Axiom’s devices.”

But the Florida U.S. District Court hearing the case dismissed the charges.

By Perry J. Zucker

Airbags have saved countless lives in vehicle collisions, but they have also contributed to many serious injuries and deaths.

Many of those injuries and deaths had at least one common denominator – drivers were sitting too close to the steering wheel that contained the airbag.

A recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) of 35 airbag-related deaths found that 25 of the victims were women between 4-feet-7.92 inches and 5-feet-4.92 inches in height. Fifteen of them were unbelted, one was improperly belted and in two cases, belt usage could not be determined.

Eleven of the women had their seat positioned too close to the steering wheel, and two were believed to have made contact with the steering wheel when the airbag deployed.

About 5 percent of the United States female population sits closer than 9.84 inches from the steering wheel, studies have found. This puts the driver at a high risk of serious injuries or death from the inflating air bag as well as other vehicle components (windshields, dashboard, etc.).

What to do

Drivers can reduce the possibility of serious airbag-related injuries by properly adjusting their seat belts and sitting farther than 10 inches from the steering wheel, measured from the center of the steering wheel to their chest.

However, if the driver cannot operate the vehicle in a safe and comfortable manner, due to their physical dimensions, pedal extenders should be installed.

Pedal extenders are currently available as after-market equipment at auto parts stores and through numberous online retailers. They will soon be available as optional and, in some cases, as standard equipment on new cars, allowing shortrer drivers to sit farther back from the steering wheel and operate their vehicle more safely.

--

Perry J. Zuckeris a degreed engineer with offices in Philadelphia. He has testified as an expert witness in numerous trials and before legislative and regulatory bodies.

Egypt produces very little oil, but what happens there in the aftermath of violent street protests could well affect the price of crude and what American motorists pay at the pump.

The good news is, so far it hasn't and a growing number of oil industry analysts think it won't.

The price of oil remains under $100 a barrel, and despite market concerns about the potential spread of unrest to oil exporting countries in the middle east, prices have traded in a stable range in the last week. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's announcement that he would not seek re-election may mark a lessening of tensions in that country.

Baked into the price

Analysts also think the present scenario is baked into the current price of. At the beginning of the protests, oil prices moved sharply higher, rising nearly 10 percent. Now, the price is closer to $90 with an ample supply in the pipeline.

There were plenty of reasons to believe, as Egyptian protestors took to the streets, that we could be in for a rerun of 2008. You'll remember that oil and gasoline prices surged in the spring and summer of that year, at the slightest provocation. Unrest in Nigeria? The price of crude might surge another $10.

Before it peaked in July, a barrel of oil sold for $147 and the average price of a gallon of gas was $4.11 a gallon. The rationale for this increase was that the global economy was heating up, and anticipated demand prompted oil traders to bid up the price of futures contracts.

Phantom demand

Alas, the anticipated demand never materialized because -- in point of fact -- the global economy was not booming, but had already entered a recession. That recession was apparent for all to see by the fall of 2008, when the price of oil and gasoline plunged.

But from the beginning of the Egyptian situation, oil traders seemed to keep their composure. The reason? The economy may have made some fundamental changes in the last two years, with businesses learning how to live with expensive energy.

In an editorial this week, the Financial Times notes a dramatic rise in oil prices can be painful and destabilizing.

"But all signs are that in the developed world, this is not 1973, when soaring oil prices set off simultaneous inflationary spirals and economic contractions," the editors wrote. "This week surveys from country after country have shown manufacturers reporting robust growth in activity despite accelerating input costs."

The publication says the greatest threat oil price hikes pose to the recovery is that central bankers will "lose their nerve" and raise interest rates in reaction to oil-driven inflation.

Plenty of gas, for now

In its weekly report today, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said U.S. stockpiles of crude oil rose by 2.6 million barrels last week. The supply of refined gasoline on hand jumped by 6.2 million barrels.

But wary motorists will likely keep an eye on the gas pump for a while. So far, the view may be slightly reassuring. Despite the Egyptian turmoil, the average price of self-serve regular gas, as measured by the AAA Fuel Gauge Survey, is $3.10 a gallon, the same as it was a week ago and only three cents more than the average price a month ago.

With all the emphasis financial planners put on saving for retirement, you might think everyone has at least some kind of nest egg waiting for them. But a new poll by Harris Interactive has found that not everyone has gotten the retirement savings message.

Thirty-four percent of those asked say they have no retirement savings and 27 percent have no personal savings.  Just 18 months ago those numbers were moderately lower, at 30 percent and 22 percent respectively.

Generationally, one-in-four Baby Boomers between the ages of 46 and 64 have no retirement savings, with 22 percent of Matures, those 65 and older, saying the same. 

Gen Xers, between the ages of 34 and 45, are struggling with more immediate issues; 32 percent say they have no personal savings.

Investment breakdown

In terms of investments, 14 percent of Baby Boomers and Matures each state that their personal savings is mostly invested in stocks or mutual funds -- a greater proportion than younger generations say the same.

"Current economic conditions seem to be driving somewhat less risky investment behavior by Gen Xers, which goes against the grain of traditional investment advice," said Barbara Bertner, Vice President of Financial Services Research for Harris Interactive. "A combination of trust and education would likely bring these consumers back into alignment with traditional investment thinking."

Other results of this survey suggest a fairly low level of financial literacy or awareness among these demographics. For example, 59 percent of respondents say they have heard nothing, or very little, about new rules about overdrafts requiring bank customers to sign an annual agreement to permit their bank to approve payments that exceed their balances.

This is surprising, since overdraft fees have been a huge source of consumer complaints about banks. Under the new law, banks were required to contact their customers to tell them about the change, and their right to "opt in" to continue the overdraft coverage.

While two in five bank customers say they know all about these new rules, only one in every six have "opted in" for this service.

Money in the bank

A 31 percent plurality of all adults report that they keep their personal savings "mostly in bank savings and and/or CDs," 17 percent keep "a relatively equal mix of stocks/mutual funds and investments such as bonds and money market funds," 11 percent keep their personal savings "mostly in stocks and/or mutual funds," eight percent keep theirs "mostly in bonds, money market funds and other stable investments," and just over a quarter of all adults say they have no personal savings or investments.

The survey also found that most people have not changed the portfolio mix in the last  six months of either their personal savings and investments (70 percent) or their retirement savings and investments (74 percent).  Relatively small numbers have moved their investments into or out of stocks, bonds, bank savings, money market funds and CDs.

So What?

The survey authors say it is a concern if Americans are depleting both short and long term investments to make ends meet today. Many may not have retirement savings when they need it. 

Financial experts have traditionally advised younger investors to invest heavily in equities for the long term and older investors to move more of their savings into less volatile investments.

"It is interesting to see how few people under 45 have adjusted to this advice given current economic conditions," the authors write. "It seems Gen Xers are keeping money out of the markets in favor of less risky investments, possibly a result of being skittish about market conditions."

Crib bumpers, the pillow-like lining used to separate the sides of the crib with an infant’s head, may be one step closer to extinction due to beefed up safety guidelines by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

While the CPSC doesn't specifically discourage use of bumpers, it does recommend keeping all extraneous items out of cribs like stuffed animals, pillows and heavy quilts.

Plus, whether it was intended or not, bumpers are nowhere to be seen among the examples of safe cribs featured in the commission’s informational video online.

Crib bumper safety

The safety of crib bumpers has been a hotly debated topic over the last decade. Consumer advocacy groups and children’s safety organizations believe bumpers can cause suffocation, strangulation, or contribute to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).  However, the government has been slow to take a stand on the controversial crib accessory.

Still, the commission is not ignoring the subject of safe sleep areas for infants and young toddlers.

In December 2010, it unanimously approved new, stricter safety standards for all cribs; standards that had not been updated in thirty years.

Under the new guidelines, crib manufacturers must ensure mattress supports are stronger, the crib hardware is more durable, and the safety testing of their products is more rigorous.

The commission’s standards also stop the manufacture and sale of traditional drop-side cribs, which they warned parents about in May, 2010 and issued almost a dozen recalls for since 2005.

According to the commission, over seven million drop-side cribs were included in the recalls due to suffocation and strangulation hazards created by the drop side.

While these are steps in a positive direction, when (or if) the commission will address the possible safety hazards of crib bumpers is anyone’s guess.

Bumper ban

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has been calling for the end of crib bumpers since December 2010.

Last month, she urged the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), the national industry trade group overseeing manufacturers of crib bumpers, to release the results of a study it conducted on the safety of bumpers.  As of mid-January 2011, the results have yet to be released.

Madigan continues to warn parents and care-givers of the potentially fatal risk of using crib bumpers.

Along with discouraging keeping bulky items out of cribs, the CPSC’s safety guidelines included other important tips to keep babies and young toddlers safe while they sleep:

• To prevent suffocation, never place pillows or thick quilts in a baby's sleep environment. Also, make sure there are no gaps larger than two fingers between the sides of the crib and the mattress.
• Proper assembly of cribs is paramount - Follow the instructions provided and make sure that every part is installed correctly. If you are not sure, call the manufacturer for assistance.
• Do not use cribs older than 10 years or broken or modified cribs. Infants can strangle to death if their bodies pass through gaps between loose components or broken slats while their heads remain entrapped.
• Set up play yards properly according to manufacturers' directions. Only use the mattress pad provided with the play yard; do not add extra padding.
• Never place a crib near a window with blind, curtain cords or baby monitor cords; babies can strangle on cords.

The commission also has resources for parents and care-givers to see if their child’s crib has been included in any of the recalls.