Current Events in March 2011

It's been talked about for years. Congress could make it a law. You would not be able to start your car if you've consumed too much alcohol.

Two members of the U.S. Senate, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, have taken a step, sponsoring the ROADS SAFE Act, which would authorize $12 million a year for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop technology that would prevent an intoxicated person from driving a vehicle.

The objective, of course, is to prevent drunk drivers from getting on the road and causing fatal accidents. Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and Bob Corker (R-TN) co-sponsored the legislation, expressing hope their bi-partisan approach will help secure passage.

Rising death toll

 In 2008 alone, drunk driving killed 11,773 people nationwide, including 143 in New Mexico and 327 in Tennessee. It is estimated that 8,000 lives could be saved each year if all vehicles were equipped with advanced alcohol detection technology.

 "While New Mexico has been a leader in reducing the number of drunk drivers on the road, drunk driving continues to be a primary cause of fatal crashes in New Mexico and nationwide - and even one death caused by a drunk driver is unacceptable," Udall said. "This legislation will help keep Americans safe on the road by spurring the development of new technologies to prevent - and virtually eliminate - drunk driving crashes in the future."

 "Drunk driving destroys thousands of lives every year in America. The ROADS SAFE Act will invest in new technology research that could help put an end to these preventable deaths and improve highway safety," Corker said.

 Lots of support

The two lawmakers appear to have plenty of support from key interest groups. As you might expect, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is enthusiastically behind the legislature. So is the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

"We commend the leadership of Senators Udall and Corker in proposing this life-saving legislation, said association president and CEO Dave McCurdy. “Through the groundbreaking partnership between NHTSA and leading auto makers, substantial progress is being made on the technology front. The additional resources that the senators propose will assure continued advancements in technology as well as funding to assess the public acceptance and other significant matters that are key elements of this activity.”

Concern

Not everyone is enthusiastic, however. The American Beverage Institute said it is concerned anti-alcohol devices in cars won't be able to distinguish someone who had a glass of wine with dinner from someone over the legal limit.

There is an existing technology that requires a driver to blow into a tube before a vehicle will start. Currently, it's not mass produced and is installed only by court order for repeat DWI offenders.

As usual, California is out in front on the issue. The state legislature is reportedly considering a similar bill to fund research.

The Federal Trade Commission has voted to finalize a settlement with Twitter, resolving charges that Twitter deceived consumers and put their privacy at risk by failing to safeguard their personal information. The settlement was tentatively reached in June 2010.

The FTC alleged that serious lapses in the company’s data security allowed hackers to obtain unauthorized administrative control of Twitter, including both access to non-public user information and tweets that consumers had designated as private, and the ability to send out phony tweets from any account.

The privacy policy posted on Twitter’s website stated that “Twitter is very concerned about safeguarding the confidentiality of your personally identifiable information. We employ administrative, physical, and electronic measures designed to protect your information from unauthorized access.”

In addition, Twitter offered its users privacy settings that enabled them to designate their tweets as private.

The FTC’s complaint alleged that between January and May of 2009, hackers were able to gain administrative control of Twitter on two occasions.

Under the terms of the settlement, Twitter will be barred for 20 years from misleading consumers about the extent to which it protects the security, privacy, and confidentiality of nonpublic consumer information, including the measures it takes to prevent unauthorized access to nonpublic information and honor the privacy choices made by consumers.

The company also must establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program, which will be assessed by an independent auditor every other year for 10 years.

American Suzuki is recalling about 29,000 Suzuki KingQuad ATVs. Some KingQuad ATV’s plastic fuel tanks were improperly manufactured and can develop a fuel leak, posing a fire hazard.

American Suzuki has received 19 reports of fuel leaking from the recalled ATVs. No injuries have been reported.

This recall is for the following Suzuki KingQuad models: all 2008 to 2010 LT-A450X models, all 2009 to 2010 LT-A500X models, all 2008 to 2010 LT-A750X models and 2011 LT-A500X and LT-A750X models manufactured before December 11, 2010. The words “Suzuki KingQuad"” are on the left and right sides of the fuel tank housing. Model numbers are on the left and right lower side panels above the footrests.

Suzuki ATV dealers sold the ATVs nationwide from July 2007 through February 2011 for between $6,600 and $9,500. They were made in the United States.

Consumers should immediately stop using these vehicles and contact a local Suzuki ATV dealer to schedule an appointment for a free repair. Consumers with 2011 LT-A500X and LT-A750X models should call their local Suzuki ATV dealer to determine if their ATV is subject to this recall. Consumers with recalled ATVs are being sent a notice directly from Suzuki.

For more information, contact Suzuki at (800) 444-5077 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s website at www.suzukicycles.com

Illinois may be rid of those fugitive Wisconsin and Indiana legislators but it still has Amazon to contend with. The giant online retailer has severed ties with its affiliated websites in Illinois as retribution for a new state law that requires online retailers to collect Illinois' 6.25% sales tax.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed the new law yesterday. It requires that online retailers who work with affiliates in Illinois must collect sales tax on purchases made by Illinois residents. Affiliates are Web sites that encourage their readers to order products through Amazon links on their sites. The affiliates get a small commission on each sale.

Amazon has fiercely opposed sales taxes in Hawaii, North Carolina and Rhode Island and has cut off its affiliates in those states as well. It is currently locked in a court battle over the issue in New York.

Meanwhile, the grand prize, California (sales tax: 8.25%), is considering legislation similar to Illinois'.

While Amazon was able to jettison its longtime affiliates in smaller states like Rhode Island without noticeable damage to its bottom line, it may not find it quite so easy to go to war with the likes of California, New York, Illinois and other large and relatively prosperous states.

Nevertheless, Amazon is sticking to its guns, insisting that it is “unconstitutional and counterproductive” for states to force it and other online retailers to collect the same tax that is charged by brick-and-mortar retailers.

Loss to affiliates

Meanwhile, the potential loss to Amazon's Illinois 9,000 affiliates is far from minor. Those affiliates generated $611 million in revenue in 2009 and paid taxes of $18 million, a trade association said.

Many affiliates are small, one-person operations while others are non-profit organizations that make a few extra dollars by encouraging their members and supporters to buy books and other products through the Amazon links on their sites.

But larger affiliates may well move out of Illinois to avoid being stuck in the middle of the tax collection battle.

The issue revolves around a 1992 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which held that retailers must collect sales taxes only if they have a substantial physical “nexus” in a state. Illinois' new law adds affiliates to the “nexus” definition, while Amazon refers to them as “advertisers.”

Unfair advantage

Brick-and-mortar retailers complain that freedom from sales tax gives online retailers an unfair advantage – an argument that increasingly rings true to states that find themselves with huge budget deficits brought on at least in part by falling or stagnant sales tax revenues.

Of course, retailers don't want to advertise the face that they're trying to impose new taxes on their customers, so they generally do their lobbying through trade associations.

In Illinois, it was a nationwide trade group called the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) that drummed up support for the measure and praised Gov. Quinn for signing it into law. And who might members of that association be? A few you might recognize are Wal-Mart and Best Buy, as well as most other big-box retailers and many local and regional outlets.

“Governor Quinn has taken a bold step today to help level the playing field for retailers in Illinois,”RILA President Sandy Kennedy.  “Whether a sale happens in a store or online, the sales tax collected should be the same.  It’s time to end the special treatment given to online-only retailers.”

RILA says its members include more than 200 retailers, product manufacturers, and service suppliers, which together account for more than $1.5 trillion in annual sales. RILA members operate more than 100,000 stores.

Kennedy said Illinois retailers would be expanding their affiliate programs to make up for any losses caused by Amazon's pull-out.

“If Amazon chooses to terminate its relationships with Illinois businesses in order to continue dodging sales tax laws, that’s a short-sighted decision, but its Amazon’s to make.  America’s largest brick-and-mortar companies are expanding their affiliate programs should Amazon abandon its partners in Illinois.  Main Street retailers employ more than 590,000 workers in Illinois—and we’re not leaving.”

Early in 2011, a number of major banks began charging some new fees to their checking and savings customers. 

The new CARD Act, which did away with overdraft fees, has removed billions from banks bottom lines. The banks appear to be looking for ways to make up that lost revenue.

Among the consumers who have suddenly noticed the changes is Sherry, of Burleson, Tex. She noticed Chase had charged $12 fees to both her checking and savings accounts.

'$24 coming out of my pocket'

"I kept my cool but was somewhat disgruntled at the idea of $24.00 coming out of my pocket and not knowing why," Sherry told ConsumerAffairs.com. I went to the bank the next day, having already made up my mind to close my savings account so I wouldn't have two charges coming out for whatever reason."

Sherry said bank personnel explained the new fees this way: if you exceed a set number of online transfers from checking to savings in a given month, it's a $12 fee. If you don't maintain a balance of at least $1,500 in your savings account, it's a $12 per month fee. If you don't have a $500 or more direct deposit go to your checking account once a month, it's a $12 fee.

Part-time employee

That last fee is a problem for Sherry because she works part-time. Her direct deposit checks usually don't total $500, she says. She says she feels she is being punished because of what she earns and would like options.

One option might be a credit union, though those institutions aren't without their problems. Many smaller, community banks may also offer more competitive services for bank accounts. Sherry should also read How To Fight The New Bank Maintenance Fees.

Most of us need to get more exercise. We spend too much time in front of a computer, in front of the TV, and in front of the dinner table.

It turns out having a dog might be a good way to improve your physical activity. Epidemiologist Mathew Reeves led a team of researchers from Michigan State University who found that people who walked their dogs were 34 percent more likely to be considered "physically active," when measured by current federal benchmarks.

Promotes walking

"Walking is the most accessible form of physical activity available to people," Reeves said. "What we wanted to know was if dog owners who walked their dogs were getting more physical activity or if the dog-walking was simply a substitute for other forms of activity."

According to the data, dog walkers do indeed appear to be more active. Reeves says the results show that promoting dog ownership and dog walking could help many Americans - of which fewer than half meet recommended levels of leisure-time physical activity - become healthier.

Extra hour of walking per week

For example, the study showed people who walked their dogs generally walked about an hour longer per week than people who owned dogs but did not walk them. And all that extra exercise isn't just from taking Brutus around the block twice a day.

"Obviously you would expect dog walkers to walk more, but we found people who walked their dog also had higher overall levels of both moderate and vigorous physical activities," he said. "There appears to be a strong link between owning and walking a dog and achieving higher levels of physical activity, even after accounting for the actual dog walking."

Positive impact

Reeves says he isn't arguing that owning a dog will suddenly make your shed 15 pounds, but he does see a correlation between the human-animal bond that appears to have an overall positive impact on quality of life.

"The findings suggest public health campaigns that promote the responsible ownership of a dog along with the promotion of dog walking may represent a logical opportunity to increase physical activity," he said.

If you're thinking about adding a dog to your family, be sure to take the time to consider what breed will be most compatible with you and other family members. And when it's time to make a selection, try your local animal shelter, or animal rescue service first.

Over the years flat-screen TVs have come down in price, partly because some manufacturers use cheaper parts. That has led to a lot of complaints about TV sets losing their picture, or not turning on at all.

Usually, the problem occurs right after the set is out of warranty coverage.

"I have a Samsung 40" LCD TV that I paid $1200.00 for in December 2008. All I get is a black screen with sound no picture," Rich of Westminster, Colo., told ConsumerAffairs.com. In my research I have found that hundreds of people are having the same issue with there TV's as I am in different models of Samsung TV's. The capacitors are defective."

Maybe not defective, but not the most durable parts. They do, indeed, appear prone to failure.

Since the set is out of warranty, you could be looking at an expensive repair bill. A number of consumers have figured out how to identify and replace the capacitors themselves. There are a number of consumer videos on YouTube that can walk you through it. Make sure you unplug all power cords before starting, however.

If you've recently purchased a flat screen TV, Kinnya, a consumer from Laurelton, N.Y., says you may get longer life out of your capacitors, and other internal parts, by investing in a really good surge protector. At the urging of a customer service rep, who she thought was only trying to upsell her, she bought a high-end surge protector for $199. A few months later, her apartment flooded.

"The $199 surge protector immediately powered off, cutting the power to all appliances," Kinnya told ConsumerAffairs.com. "I stronglysuggest that a excellent surge protector that comes with a lifetime warranty on the appliances connected is purchased when one makes such an investment."

The Food and Drug Administrationhas a word of advice for pet owners: keep your dogs and ferrets away fromxylitol,a sugar alcohol that's usedin many common products, including sugar-free baked goods, candy, oral hygiene products, and chewing gum.

Xylitol can be found in many over-the-counter drugs such as chewable vitamins and throat lozenges and sprays. It can also be purchased in bulk bags for use in home baking. These products are intended only for human use.

FDA said it is aware of complaints involving dogs that experienced illness associated with the accidental consumption of xylitol. Xylitol is safe for humans but it can be harmful to dogs and ferrets.

FDA is advising consumers to always read the label on products and to not presume that a product that is safe for humans is safe for your pet.

The FDA reports included clinical signs such as a sudden drop in blood sugar (hypoglycemia), seizures and liver failure. If you suspect your pet has ingested xylitol, some signs to look for are depression, loss of coordination and vomiting. The signs of illness may occur within minutes to days of ingesting xylitol.

Owners should consult their veterinarian or pet poison control center immediately for advice if they know or suspect that their pet has ingested a human product containing xylitol.

Does Canada care more about its citizens' health than the U.S.? It sometimes looks that way.

The consumer group Public Citizen wants the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to do what Canada apparently did five months ago – tell Novartis to warn physicians and consumers about a dangerous link between a widely-used osteoporosis drug and serious renal toxicity, which can result in death.

In a letter to the FDA, Public Citizen's Health Research Group said the Canadian government reacted after learning of 265 cases of serious kidney impairment in patients using Aclasta (zoledronic acid). The drug is called Reclast in the U.S. and is identical to the Canadian version.

Five months later, the FDA has done nothing, said Public Citizen's Sidney Wolfe, M.D., in a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, M.D.

“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed to take ... action requiring Novartis to alert physicians and patients in the United States about the growing evidence linking Reclast to this serious, life-threatening adverse event,” Wolfe said. “We therefore urge the FDA to immediately require that Novartis issue a similar “Dear Doctor Letter” to all physicians in the U.S.”

Reclast is given once a year for treatment of osteoporosis in men and postmeopausal women and once every two years for prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Wolfe noted that more than one million infusions of Aclasta had been administered worldwide as of October 2010. The 265 cases of renal impairment reported in Canada corresponds to a rate of about 20 cases per 100,000 patient-years of exposure. The FDA estimates that no more than 10 percent of adverse drug reactions are reported.

“Clearly, the current warnings and precautions in the FDA-approved label for Reclast about the risk of renal impairment are not sufficient for making physicians adequately aware of this serious, life-threatening renal toxicity associated with Reclast, the very reason that the Canadian government convinced the company to initiate the additional warnings,” Wolfe said..

Consumers understandably get angry when they find their credit cards have been charged for something they didn't expect.

Sometimes it happens on a "negative option" sale they aren't even aware of. Sometimes it's a case of a merchant, who has their credit card information, placing multiple charges on their accounts and hoping they won't notice, or saying the consumer misunderstood the actual cost.

The online sales of "Your Baby Can Read" have drawn a number of complaints from consumers who say they agreed to one charge but were eventually charged much more. 

"I was told I would have a $14.95 trial fee," Anna, of San Francisco, told ConsumerAffairs.com. "Then my card would be processed another $66.00 if I chose to sign one."

Surprise!

Anna said she paid all the agreed-upon fees, then saw that her card had been charged another $66.

"I called and they told me the invoice states they are going to charge me a total of $214," Anna said. "The person I spoke with on the phone told me I would be charged 134.80 plus the tax. These people are very sleight of hand."

Another consumer, Heather, of Henderson, Ky., had read all the reviews and complaints about online purchases, so went to her local Wal-Mart. She says she's found a way to virtually eliminate the risk of having unexpected charges placed on her credit card.

Cash is king

"I bought the first stage at Wal-Mart for $25 and there wasn't any trial period or fee and I paid with cash. They have no clue about any of my credit cards," Heather told ConsumerAffairs.com. "Wow, a new discovery, going to a store to buy something instead of ordering it on the Internet!! Get some sunlight people and get out of your houses!"

In all fairness, it's possible to be subjected to unauthorized charges in an in-person transaction too, but Heather has a point. They can't keep charging you if your initial transaction is paid in cash.

It's helpful to remember that once anyone has your credit card information, they can essentially place charges on it at will, and you will be required to dispute it. Reputable businesses don't engage in that kind of behavior, but no one can control the actions of their employees 100 percent of the time..

Over the years, ConsumerAffairs.com has received a number of complaints from consumers about their glass bakeware exploding, either in the oven or soon after being removed.

"My wife was baking fish with vegetables in a Pyrex baking dish when we both heard a bang like a crash of glass coming from inside the oven," Al of Chicago told ConsumerAffairs.com recently. "We opened it and saw that the glass dish had literally exploded, with about 15 large pieces and countless smaller pieces of glass of all sizes inside the oven."

One consumer submitted this YouTube video, showing the aftermath of
one of these kitchen catastrophes.

ConsumerAffairs.com has also received similar complaints about glass baking dishes made by Anchor Hocking.

"I was making dinner last night with our 9x11" glass casserole dish made by Anchor," Kami, of Ashburn, Va., told ConsumerAffairs.com. "I pulled the dish out of the oven, set it on the stovetop to cool off for a few minutes before cutting the casserole to serve for dinner. About five minutes later, we heard the knife fall to the floor and a loud "BOOM" sound. We look up to find that our casserole dish had exploded all over the stove, counters, and floor!"

For the record, the company that makes Pyrex says its products are safe, are made the same way they always have been, and that users should carefully follow the directions for use.

New Jersey hasfiled administrative actions against 11 unlicensed businesses offering “mortgage loan modification” services for homeowners in dire financial straits. State law requires that anyone providing these services in New Jersey be licensed as a Debt Adjuster by the Department of Banking and Insurance, or be otherwise authorized.

“When homeowners are desperate for help, struggling to pay their debts and keep their homes, they should be able to trust the businesses that offer to help. Because so much is at stake for the homeowner and the overall economy, the State will not tolerate unlicensed businesses that present themselves as legally authorized to offer mortgage modification services to individuals in great need,” Attorney General Paula T. Dow said.

The Division of Consumer Affairs filed Notices of Violation against the businesses, which were found to be in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act’s Advertising Regulations. The businesses offered mortgage loan modification services even though they are not licensed to do so in New Jersey. The State is seeking $55,000 in civil penalties and $125,906.29 in consumer restitution from the businesses. The amounts sought in consumer restitution represent the fees paid by approximately 65 consumers for mortgage loan modification services.

“When people fear losing their home, they are vulnerable to making desperate decisions that can put them in an even worse situation,” said Thomas R. Calcagni, Acting Director of the State Division of Consumer Affairs. “With this statewide initiative, we’re turning up the heat on those businesses that take advantage of homeowners in their hour of desperation. And we’re sending a clear message to all mortgage modification businesses in the state: You will comply with our laws.”

The following is a list of the 11 businesses, and the amounts the state is seeking from each in civil penalties and consumer restitution:

• ASRC, LLC, of Little Falls. The State is seeking a $5,000 civil penalty and $1,000 in consumer restitution from this company.

• Creative Land Marketing Corp., d/b/a CLM Corp. Home Mitigation Advisors, d/b/a Express Debt 411, d/b/a Home Mitigation Adv., d/b/a Express Home 411, of New Brunswick. The State is seeking a $5,000 civil penalty and $1,250 in consumer restitution.

• Excel Loan Modifications, of Cherry Hill. The State is seeking a $5,000 civil penalty and $1,059.01 in consumer restitution.

• Homeowners First Financial, LLC, of Parsippany. The State is seeking a $5,000 civil penalty and $2,200 in consumer restitution.

• Hope Loan Today, of Robbinsville. The State is seeking a $5,000 civil penalty and $14,000 in consumer restitution.

• Integrity Plus Financial, LLC, of Berlin. The State is seeking a $5,000 civil penalty and $3,000 in consumer restitution.

• Loan Modification Firm, LLC, of Union City. The State is seeking a $5,000 civil penalty and $1,500 in consumer restitution.

• Mortgage Foreclosure Experts, LLC, of Mt. Laurel. The State is seeking a $5,000 civil penalty and $9,917.28 in consumer restitution.

• Mortgage Solutions for America, LLC, of Gibbsboro. The State is seeking a $5,000 civil penalty and $1,251 in consumer restitution.

• National Foreclosure Group d/b/a/ Hope 4 Solutions, LLC, of Woodbury. The State is seeking a $5,000 civil penalty and $88,479 in consumer restitution.

• Spiros Chartofillis, of Nutley. The State is seeking a $5,000 civil penalty and $2,250 in consumer restitution.

A mortgage loan modification involves changing the terms of an existing loan – for example, by lowering the monthly payments, adjusting the interest rate, extending the length of the loan, or in some cases decreasing the unpaid balance.

The only types of business that can engage in mortgage loan modification services in New Jersey are:

• Nonprofit organizations licensed as Debt Adjusters by the State Department of Banking and Insurance;

• The lender or owner of the loan;

• The mortgage servicer acting on the lender or owner’s behalf; or

• An attorney, provided he or she is not primarily engaged in debt adjustment.

The attorneys general of 38 states today reached a record-breaking agreement with AstraZeneca, which the states investigated for improper marketing practices. The states’ $68.5 million settlement resolves a three-year investigation into AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical’s efforts to market the antipsychotic drug Seroquel.

Today’s multistate agreement stems from a complaint in federal court charging AstraZeneca with unlawfully marketing Seroquel for unapproved – or off-label – uses. The states also charged AstraZeneca with failing to disclose Seroquel’s harmful side effects and concealing scientific data that revealed safety concerns.

Under the settlement, AstraZeneca agreed to comply with state and federal laws governing its marketing – including legal requirements that prohibit manufacturers from promoting their products for off-label uses not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

While physicians may prescribe drugs for off-label uses, pharmaceutical manufacturers may not market their products for a purpose until that use has been approved by the FDA. AstraZeneca marketed Seroquel for a number of off-label purposes.

The states’ legal action explained that AstraZeneca targeted Alzheimer’s patients at nursing homes, as well as patients who suffered anxiety, depression, sleep disorders and post traumatic stress syndrome.

The settlement also imposes injunctive provisions that require AstraZeneca to:

• Publish any payments it makes to physicians on the Internet;
• Implement policies that ensure its marketing and sales personnel are not financially compensated for marketing off-label uses;
• Establish polices to ensure that its sales personnel will refrain from marketing Seroquel to health care providers who are unlikely to prescribe it for an FDA-approved use; and
• Cite Seroquel’s FDA-approved indicators when referencing selected symptoms.

Atypical antipsychotics, including Seroquel, can produce dangerous side effects, including weight gain, hyperglycemia, diabetes, cardiovascular complications, an increased risk of mortality in elderly patients with dementia and other severe conditions.

Despite residing on different sides of the political fence, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and John Kerry (D-MA) have a couple of things in common, besides having run unsuccessfully for President.

They're quietly circulating proposed legislation to create an “online privacy bill of rights,” the Wall Street Journal reported today. It's intended to address consumer concerns about online tracking companies that follow Web users around and use the information to deliver targeted advertising.

Similar legislation was introduced in the House earlier this monthbyRep. Jackie Speier (D-CA).Her bill would give the Federal Trade Commission power to implement and enforce regulations.

The Federal Trade Commission has also been chewing on the issue and in December, urged Congress to authorize a “do-not-track” system, similar to the FTC's do-not-call list.

No one has ever demonstrated that such tracking does any harm or cited any instance of anyone's personal lives being harmed in any way but it's an issue that seems to resonate with consumers.

The Kerry-McCain bill would cover not just the Internet but personal data gathering across all industries, the Journal's report said. Current laws cover medical and financial information but do not address other topics.

Whether the perceived problem really is a problem is open to debate but there's little doubt the politicians are onto a topic that resonates with voters. A USA Today/Gallup poll earlier this month found consumers are concerned about their privacy online.

The USA Today poll found that nearly seven out of 10 Facebook members surveyed — and 52% of Google users — say they are either "somewhat" or "very concerned" about their privacy while using the world's most popular social network and dominant search engine.

A poll by Consumer Watchdog last summer found that 90% of Americans want legislation to protect their online privacy and 80% support a Do  Not Track mechanism. Another 86% want a single-click button on their browsers that makes them anonymous when they search online.

Sperier's bill would enable consumers to "opt out" of tracking by online advertisers. The aide said the bill is narrowly tailored to address tracking issues only, rather than the broader question of online privacy, The Hill newspaper reported.

A class action lawsuit charges that Sprint has wrongly charged millions of customers a $10 per month “Premium Data Add-On” fee, even though the customers contract provides for “unlimited” data transfer at a fixed price.

The suit lists 25 separate data plans that promise “unlimited domestic web access,” unlimited domestic text and “all you can stream, browse email, chat watch and game on the Sprint network.”

But on June 4, 2010, when Sprint began selling its HTC EVO 4G mobile phone, it began charging the “Premium Data Add-On” fee of $10 per month to customers whose contracts already entitled them to unlimited data.

The suit charges that the “Premium Data Add-On” is nowhere defined in Sprint's terms and conditions and alleges that it is simple “a made-up term that Sprint created to disguise the fact that it was simply charging an additional fee for data services for which customers had already paid and which was already obligated to provide.”

While $10 may not mean much to an individual customer, it adds up quickly if you, like Sprint, have 42.8 million subscribers. The suit estimates that more than a million customers are being charged the new fee, translating to $120 million in new revenue for Sprint.

Plaintiff Gretha Wilkerson of Vallejo, Calif., said that she subscribes to the Sprint Everything Plus Data Share 3200 plan for her four lines. Wilkerson said that so far, she has been overcharged $35 in “Premium Data” charges.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

For years, Vertrue has operated a number of "buying clubs," sold to consumers through negative option marketing, often without them being aware of it.

Now, the company has been ordered to pay more than $30 million in restitution and penalties to consumers in Iowa. The state's attorney general, Tom Miller, went to court and successfully argued that Vertrue violated Iowa's buying club law and engaged in deceptive and unfair practices over the last couple of decades.

The $32.6 million ruling includes $29.8 million in consumer restitution, $2.8 million in civil penalties, and $725,000 in costs and fees. Vertrue may appeal the court's ruling.

Nearly 20 years

Since 1993, the court found, Vertrue unlawfully marketed 639,721 "memberships" in discount programs to Iowans.  These buying club "memberships" typically cost $9.95 to $19.95 per month, with charges usually made to consumers' credit card or bank accounts.  Consumers were supposed to use their "membership" to earn discounts on travel, entertainment, and other products and services, but few did.

In fact, the court found that 90 percent who ended up with Vertrue memberships would have cancelled within the required three-day cancellation window, had they known to do so.

During the middle years of the last decade, Vertrue was enormously successful, linking up with many well known retailers and websites, who offered Vertrue’s membership programs as part of a “loyalty” program. In other words, the companies offering Vertrue products thought they were doing their customers a favor.

Actually, it usually turned out poorly for the consumer. At the end of transaction, the consumer was asked if they would like a “free trial” in a discount program. The consumers was supposed to be informed that after the trial, they would be enrolled in an ongoing membership program and their credit card would be charged $9.95 or so a month.

Often, this detail was left out. Instead, outraged consumers found unexplained charges on their credit card bills and had difficulty in canceling the program.

Duped

"This is an outstanding outcome for the hundreds of thousands of Iowans who were duped by this company and its deceptive practices," Miller said. "I am elated at this decision that will grant Iowans the restitution they deserve."

Miller filed the lawsuit in 2006. A judge ruled last March that Vertrue violated the state's Consumer Fraud Act and Buying Club Law. Miller says today's judgement is the latest consumer protection verdict ever awarded in Iowa in a case filed by the attorney general.

Vertrue was once known as MemberWorks, Inc. and operates subsidiaries, including Adaptive Marketing, LLC and Idaptive Marketing, LLC.

There are lots of commercial Internet sites offering a "free" credit report, sometimes confusing consumers who know that the law allows them access to their credit reports, at no charge, once a year.

But the truly free credit reports are only available at one site - annualcreditreport.com. How do you know the site is truly free? It's the only one that won't ask for your credit card number.

Other sites offering "free" credit reports take your credit card information because, to get the "free" credit report, consumers must enroll in a credit monitoring service for about $15 a month. They are told they won't be charged if they cancel the program within a set time, but consumers have complained that it is sometimes hard to cancel.

Unless you actually want to pay $15 a month for a credit monitoring service, you should probably only use www.annualcreditreport.com to get your credit report.

No free FICO score

But what about your FICO score? Is there any way to get that for free? Unfortunately, the law does not provide for a free annual FICO score, just your credit reports from the three credit reporting agencies, Experian, Equifax and Trans Union.

But your credit score is very useful information to have, so it might be worth paying for it. Banks and credit card companies rely on that score when deciding what interest rate to offer you, so knowing where you stand is important.

While a number of sites may offer a "free" FICO score, rest assured it is the same kind of arrangement as the "free" credit reports. You will have to enroll in some kind of program in order to get the score. You'll have a short period of time to cancel without being charged, but you shouldn't count on that happening.

MyFICO.com

A good place to obtain your credit score is at www.myfico.com, the site operated by Fair Isaac, the company that came up with the FICO score in the first place. While the site does offer a "free" FICO score, it requires you to sign up for a service and go through the whole cancellation drill.

Since a FICO score is valuable information to have, maybe it's worth paying for. One time access to your FICO score, as well as your credit report, is $19.95. But it's one transaction with nothing to cancel.

If you want to try for the "free" FICO score, you can enroll in the 10-day free trial of ScoreWatch, MyFICO.com's service that costs $14.95 a month. Here are the terms of the 10-day free trial, as outlined on the MyFICO website:

"You will not be billed unless you decide to keep Score Watch(r) beyond your 10-day free trial period.  Three days before your trial expires, we will contact you by email to notify you of the upcoming conversion of your trial to a monthly subscription," the company says. " Your credit card information will only be used if you do not cancel prior to the end of your free trial - you can cancel at any time during your 10-day free trial."

There is one way to get your FICO score for free. If you have applied for a mortgage, the loan company is required by law to reveal your credit score.

Quik Cash Financial Services has agreed to pay up to $170,000 in restitution as part of a consent judgment reached with Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne.

Horne said Quik Cash, a payday lender, routinely filed default judgments in Pima County Court in Tucson against residents who lived elsewhere in the state and often succeeded in getting garnishment orders against them.

The state sued Quik Cash in 2009, alleging that the company's actions deprived consumers of their right to appear in court or to contest judgments and garnishments. In some cases, Quik Cash allegedly collected on debts that consumers had already paid, the state's lawsuit charged.

“Payday lending is now illegal in Arizona,” Horne said.  Anyone who is aware of payday lending in the state should contact his office, he said.

“Raw” milk is showing up more and more often in supermarkets and at specialty health food stores and farmers markets, along with cheese, yogurt and other milk-based products. It's part of the “eating local” and “back to nature” philosophy that's currently in vogue.

Besides thinking it tastes better, many consumers are now convinced that raw milk is more nutritious and healthful than pasteurized milk.

Simply put, it's not true, says the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Pasteurization is used because it prevents outbreaks of such foodborne illnesses as tuberculosis, brucellosis, salmonellosis, scarlet fever, and listeriosis. It was first used in the United States more than 100 years ago and has been widely used for more than a half-century, says John Sheehan, an FDA expert on the safety of dairy products.

During the pasteurization process, the milk is heated to 161 degrees and kept there for 15 seconds. Pasteurization kills harmful bacteria—including salmonella, E. coli, and listeria—that can contaminate milk before it gets to your table.

Although the heating process slightly affects a few of the vitamins—thiamine, vitamin B6 and folic acid within the B-complex, and vitamin C, the changes are not significant,according to the FDA.

Meanwhile, there is a risk that milk could be contaminated by environmental factors such as soil or animal feces, animal diseases, or bacteria on an animal's skin.

Artisanal cheese

Besides milk, there is currently more raw cheese on the market because of the growth of the artisanal cheese industry, Sheehan says. These cheeses are made by hand using what are considered to be traditional methods—often on the farm where the milk is produced.

Some of these cheese makers use pasteurized milk in their products, but others use raw milk that could contain disease-causing bacteria.

Some people believe cheese made from raw milk is better for you, but Sheehan says there is no scientific evidence to support that belief.

In countries where pasteurization of milk is less common, outbreaks of foodborne illness attributed to tainted milk or milk products occur more frequently than they do in the United States. In France, for example, the rate of foodborne illness attributed to milk and milk products was reported to be roughly three times what it is in the U.S., says Sheehan, citing a 2001 study by researcher Marie-Laure De Buyser and other French scientists.

Laws governing raw milk vary from state to state. About half allow some form of it to be sold. But federal lawprohibits dairies from distributing raw milk across state lines if it has been packaged for consumers.

It's up to consumers to be alert when buying milk at farmers markets and other non-traditional sources. Sheehan advises reading labels carefully and asking the store or market persononel if the milk has been Pasteurized.

Consumers should also be aware, health officials say, that they are not only endangering themselves by consuming raw milk but also others they may come in contact with. Foodborne illnesses may not be serious for healthy people but are especially dangerous to pregnant women, children, the elderly, and people with weakened immune systems.