Current Events in July 2011

Just as the search engine spawned an industry known as Search Engine Optimization (SEO), so has the advent of consumer review sites like this one and social networks like Facebook brought forth a growing industry called reputation management.

In both cases, it is often said that unscrupulous practitioners give their white hat brethren a bad name, although others would argue that both industries are in the information manipulation business.

Black hat SEO companies spam the search engines with questionable content and keywords while black hat reputation management companies flood the Web with fraudulent glowing reviews designed to mislead consumers.

As you'd expect, there are extreme opinions on both sides.

Some small businesses and, in particular, healthcare professionals seem to think that no one should be able to say anything about them. They tend to bluster, threaten and even sue the websites and individuals who post reviews about them, almost always unsuccessfully. Other businesses, especially large corporations, tend to simply ignore the critical comments, confident that their multi-million dollar advertising budgets will drown out the pipsqueaks.

$41 million

Most businesses fall somewhere in between and they have made reputation management companies forces to be reckoned with. One of the largest, Reputation.com, today said it has raised $41 million in its latest round of funding.

The company currently has around 150 employees and said it hopes to hire around 100 more in the next year as its expands its product line-up.

Currently, the company's portfolio includes such relatively benign services as “promoting a positive and accurate image online” while, more ominously, it promises to “suppress negative information.”

Not censorship?

When the government tries to suppress information, that's called censorship but when private companies do it, it's apparently just business as usual. Reputation.com assures clients it can help them “fix false or misleading reviews, bad press, wrongful lawsuits or disputes.”

It and similar companies do this primarily by generating positive material, genuine or otherwise, and using SEO techniques to crowd out actual, though perhaps negative, content.

Now Reputation.com wants to go a bit deeper. It will use some of its $41 million to build a “dataset” business – building profiles of individuals that will enable it to assess their attitudes and interests.

The company will then offer consumers the opportunity to license that data and be paid by marketers who want to sell them something, said CEO Michael Ferlik. He calls it a “pro-privacy business model.”

Being a fairly murky business not generally recognized outside Web business circles, reputation management has generally avoided criticism from the privacy and free speech advocates who might be expected to rail against it.

Free & unfettered

This is not to say, of course, that everything on the Web is Gospel. Fair-minded observers must admit that consumers are sometimes guilty, at the least, of overstating their case and, at the worst, making inaccurate and potentially harmful statements about their experiences.

Case in point: Mairi of Lee, Mass. She signed up last year for JustFab.com (an Authorized Partner), a ladies' shoe boutique that uses a buyers club business model. Members get a monthly selection tailored to their preferences for a flat fee of $39.95.

“This shopping web site started charging me a $39.95 'credit' every month. When I called to ask why I was getting random charges, they said I was supposed to 'opt out' of the last three months fashion selections. Basically it's a scam that forces you to make purchases,” Mairi said in a complaint posted on ConsumerAffairs.com.

No it's not, said another poster who did not give his or her name.

“The company is not at fault if the person signing up does not understand what they are signing up for. Not only that, the site sends you reminder to go check your selections for that month. If they just bother to go to the website once a month and refuse to buy any of their selections there are absolutely no charges,” the JustFab.com (an Authorized Partner) defender wrote, a point echoed by JustFabulous CEO Adam Goldenberg.

“At JustFabulous we pride ourselves in not only the level of our products but also in the quality and transparency of our service. Customers can receive for free a custom, hand-picked boutique; once they become a paying customer, as part of their membership agreement, customers can easily skip a month of purchasing for no charge and avoid buying a product credit. Any ongoing charge if the consumer doesn’t skip is considered a credit towards one of our items,” Goldenberg told ConsumerAffairs.com.

“This particular issue does not come up often at all, but if it is addressed on a forum like Consumer Affairs or through our own Facebook page,  our customers are the first to jump in with a response to clarify to fellow customers.  We will continue to educate new and existing customers about how JustFab.com (an Authorized Partner) works through our website, newsletters and social media platform so everyone can enjoy JustFabulous.”

The site's FAQ is actually pretty clear about how the service works:

Do I have to purchase an item every month?
No, with JustFabulous, there is no obligation to buy. We know that although our members love fashion, not everyone can afford to splurge each month. We've made it easy to skip any month. Simply visit your Boutique between the 1st and the 5th of the month and select the Skip This Month option. Then you won't be charged that month. 

Yet in her complaint, Mairi said, “There is no statement that if you don't 'skip this month', they will charge you any way.”

Consumer dialogue

“Sounds like the consumer is the irresponsible one in this case by not keeping track of their account OR their credit card,” the JustFab (an Authorized Partner) defender wrote. “You can't just blame the company when you don't do your part. You should remove this incorrect review.”

Review sites generally don't try to determine whether a user submission is justified, unjustified, correct or incorrect. Review sites are public forums that are open to one and all. Consumers can complain, companies and other consumers can respond.

And, as the JustFab (an Authorized Partner) example shows, free and unfettered consumer comments tend to be self-regulating – if one or more consumers complain loudly but incorrectly, others are likely to chime in to defend the company being raked over the coals.

Police have arrested the owner of numerous New Jersey vacation travel companies with a long history of consumer complaints. Daryl Turner, 39, of Cherry Hill, is accused of stealing more than $75,000 from consumers for vacation packages and travel benefits that were never provided.

Criminal Justice Director Stephen J. Taylor said Turner was arrested at his home and charged with second degree theft by deception.

It is alleged that since 2008, Turner, through his vacation travel companies, took payments from numerous consumers and then repeatedly failed to provide the contracted-for travel packages, or refund the money. Turner also allegedly failed to deliver various promotional items promised to consumers in return for their attendance at promotional seminars.

That's what happened to Donald of Edgewater Park, N.J.

“Sat in on a 90-minute presentation in return we were to receive a free cruise for 8 days 7 nights and airfare,” Donald told ConsumerAffairs.com. “We filled all information, sent in $603.00 for port charges, government taxes” but never received confirmation of the cruise and soon found that the company's telephone number had been disconnected.

Turner also allegedly used the corporate logos of airlines, hotels, and car rental companies in promotional materials without those companies' permission.

Under terms of a February 2011 agreement with the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General and the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs, Turner is barred from doing business in the state for no less than five years and cannot open or operate any such business in the future without state approval.

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

The vacation trav el companies named as defendants in the state’s civil lawsuit included 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 Division of Consumer Affairs last month filed a six-count Complaint in Burlington County Superior Court that charges Turner, individually and d/b/a Reservations, his wife Robyn B. Bernstein, and their Marlton-based company, Travel Deals Limited Liability Company, as well as VIP Executives, LLC, with violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Advertising Regulations by failing to fulfill promises of complimentary cruises and airfare used to induce attendance at sales presentations, and failing to provide the luxury vacation packages at discounted prices represented during the sales presentations.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan today filed suit against a central Illinois woman for scamming consumers and businesses out of at least $17,000 for advertisements in fictitious magazines.

Madigan’s lawsuit alleges Holly Jones Cunningham, of Leroy, has defrauded consumers since August 2010 into buying advertising in Just 4 Her magazine.

Madigan alleges Cunningham acted as magazine president and editor, charging McLean County consumers and businesses between $330 and $2,900 for ads that never materialized in print, in violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

“My office received multiple complaints from consumers who thought they were paying for advertisements only to learn the magazine was never published, and they’d been scammed out of thousands of dollars,” Madigan said.

Madigan said so far six consumers reported being victimized by Cunningham’s scheme resulting in $17,900 in losses.

The lawsuit asks the court to prohibit Cunningham from selling magazine advertising space and cancel any pending advertising contracts. The lawsuit also seeks restitution for consumers with unresolved complaints.

Madigan’s suit seeks to impose on the defendant a civil penalty of $50,000 and additional penalties of $50,000 for each violation found to be committed with the intent to defraud.

A federal court has temporarily halted a telemarketing operation that allegedly targeted consumers trying to sell their timeshare properties. The defendants allegedly charged consumers thousands of dollars, falsely claiming they had buyers lined up for sales that supposedly would be reviewed and approved by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The FTC is seeking to permanently end the defendants’ deceptive practices and make them refund consumers’ money.

The FTC alleges that the Orlando, Florida-based defendants, who operated out of mail drop addresses in places such as Las Vegas, Boston, and Orlando, contacted consumers trying to sell their timeshare properties and told them they had buyers for them.

In order for the sale to proceed, the defendants charged consumers up to $3,150 – either as an “earnest money deposit” to commit them to the sale, or for sale-related expenses – which, consumers were told, would be refunded when the sale closed.

The defendants instructed consumers to pay by cashier’s check or money order sent by overnight delivery, and to immediately sign and return a “sales agreement” or “seller’s document” that would be mailed to them. Telemarketers who spoke with consumers often represented that the property sale would be reviewed and approved by the FTC.

“Sales agreement”

The FTC’s complaint alleged that the “sales agreement” was merely a marketing contract for advertising the property, not a sales contract. Consumers who signed the contract and sent their payment to the defendants often were not contacted again, and consumers’ properties were never sold.

Consumers who called the defendants were given the run-around, and refund demands were routinely ignored or denied. Contrary to the defendants’ alleged assertions, the FTC does not review or approve timeshare sales.

The FTC charged the defendants with violating the FTC Act and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule by misrepresenting that they had buyers willing to pay a specific price for consumers’ timeshare properties, that they would refund their fee when the property was sold, and that the FTC would review and approve proposed sales.

The court froze the defendants’ assets and appointed a receiver to take control of the businesses. The defendants are National Solutions LLC, also doing business as Blue Scape Timeshares International, Country Wide Timeshares, Countrywide Timesharesales MA, Landmark Timeshares, Propertys Direct, Quicksale Propertys, Sun Property Networks, Sun Property’s, Universal Propertys, and VIM Timeshares; Landmark Marketing LLC, also doing business as Blue Scape Timeshares, Country Wide Timeshares International, Propertys DRK, Quick Sale Advisers, Quick Sale International, and Universal Propertys International; Red Solutions LLC, also doing business as City Resorts and Resort Advisors; Enterprise America, LLC, also doing business as American Timeshares, Exit Week, and Resort Advisors International; Investments Group of Florida, LLC, also doing business as Resort Advisors AM; Multiglobe LLC, also doing business as Universal Propertys; Leandro Velazquez; Samuel Velazquez; Joel Velazquez; Kiomary Cruz; Edgar Gonzalez; Vicente Virgilio; and Aaron Weiss.

OnStar's exclusive arrangement with General Motors (GM) comes to an end Sunday, when the OnStar For My Vehicle (FMV) goes on sale at Best Buy stores.

The company's first out-of-the-box device can work as an after-market product on 90 million older vehicles of all types, the company said. With the controls mounted in the rear view mirror, the existing mirror in cars will simply be replaced with the OnStar device.

The OnStar FMV will sell for $299.99 plus $75 for installation. Service plans start at $18.95 a month.

"The wait is over," said OnStar President Linda Marshall. "Since we announced OnStar FMV at the Consumer Electronics Show in January, thousands of people have signed up to be notified when this innovative product is ready to buy. Now, through Best Buy, they can enhance their Fords, Toyotas, Chryslers and other brands with the power of OnStar."

Security and navigation

OnStar provides security and navigation services using both cellular and GPS technology. Consumers familiar with OnStar radio and television commercials know the service reacts to accidents and summons help and can remotely unlock a vehicle when a driver locks their keys inside.

The process, however, is apparently not as simple as it sounds in the commercials. Consumers have complained of security measures that they say can slow the process of opening a car door or tracking a stolen vehicle.

The company faced a class action suit last year from angry consumers who lost their OnStar service in 2008, when the company stopped supporting analog receivers.

Launched at a time before nearly everyone carried a cell phone, OnStar has promoted the “security” and “peace of mind” aspects of its service from the beginning. Company officials say it continues to offer things cell phones can't, including Automatic Crash Response, which connects the driver to an OnStar operator in the event of a crash.

In addition, it provides services also offered by smartphones, including turn-by-turn navigation and hands-free calling.

Does GM mind losing OnStar exclusivity? Apparently not. OnStar is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the carmaker.

When your new, expensive smartphone breaks in the first few months of use, what happens? Rocky, of Manassas, Va., found out, and isn't happy about what he learned. He said he purchased a Blackberry through Verizon Wireless in January and it broke in May. He said he next took it to a Verizon store.

“The customer rep said 'we don't fix phones,'” Rocky told ConsumerAffairs.com. “I explained that Verizon is responsible for fixing phones because of the expense and they have a one year warranty. The rep said 'you have to buy insurance on the phone.'”

It's true. When you purchase a new phone the last question the sales rep asks is if you want to buy insurance on the phone. But doesn't the manufacturer – RIMM, in Rocky's case – have some responsibility? Indeed they do, and according to RIMM's Web site, Rocky's phone should be covered by a one year manufacturer's warranty. 

Rocky's mistake is his assumption that Verizon Wireless would take care of the repair for him. They won't, and in fairness, neither will other retailers who sell products that have a manufacturer's warranty. The consumer must deal directly with the manufacturer. Verizon only gets into the act if you buy one of their insurance policies.

Let's see some ID

Lisa, of North Port, Fla., signed up with Match.com because the dating service said it checked members' IP address, profile and picture before they post information. But after using the service, Lisa says she doesn't think that's true.

“I found that every person that contacted me was a fraud,” Lisa said. “I learned this after losing money to an online scammer, and have since learned that many, many of Match.com members are actually Nigerian or Turkish scammers. Match.com could easily check this if they did check IP address with physical location the member says they are from.”

It goes without saying you should exercise a healthy dose of skepticism about anyone you meet on a dating service until you meet them face to face – and maybe for a while afterward, too.

Expensive loan

Stephanie, of San Diego, reports her husband borrowed $700 from Cash Yes, a payday lender, in January. As of last week, she said the company had taken $1,974.50 from her checking account.

“When my husband called they told him we still have a balance of 300.00 dollars,” Stephanie told ConsumerAffairs.com. “That means we will have paid over $2200.00 dollars by the time this $700.00 dollar loan is paid off? I'm not sure how this is legal.”

It isn't in 16 states. Unfortunately for Stephanie and her husband, California isn't among the states that have banned payday loans. Stephanie's loan balance mushroomed, in all probability, because the loan was renewed every two weeks.

The Center for Responsible Lending says payday loan terms include high-cost fees and triple-digit interest rates. Instead of a small amount owed for a couple of weeks, borrowers become trapped in thousands of dollars of debt from fees and interest that can last a year or even longer. Most payday borrowers have nine repeat loans per year and 400 percent interest, the group says.

People like their Hyundais. The Korean auto brand has claimed the top spot in Kelley Blue Book's (KBB) second quarter consumer brand loyalty survey.

Honda was in second place while Toyota fell to third. It marks the first time since KKB started tracking this data that Hyundai has held the No. 1 spot for an entire quarter.

In Play

The researchers at KKB say auto loyalty has been up for grabs in the last couple of years. Toyota's well-publicized recalls may have had something to do with it. But the fact that gasoline prices have risen sharply has given companies that excel in fuel efficient cars an edge too.

While many of the auto industry's top players have found themselves struggling to retain customers, KKB says Hyundai has “blazed a new trail and preserved its loyal consumer base.”  The driving factors behind this retention have been aggressive marketing campaigns combined with innovative product redesigns like the highly successful 2011 Sonata and 2011 Elantra.  

For second quarter of 2011, Hyundai's brand loyalty was at 52.3 percent, with Honda following at 49.7 percent and Toyota sliding in third at 47.7 percent.  Rounding out the top five are Ford in the fourth spot at 45.4 percent, and Subaru  in fifth at 44.8 percent.

Korean brands do well

In a time when most brands are losing loyalty, KKB said it is notable that fellow Korean automaker Kia also is bucking the trend.  Kia is one of only two brands that are up in brand loyalty year-over-year, with the other being Mini.  Both Kia and Mini are succeeding in loyalty for reasons similar to Hyundai, with a combined result of attractive redesigns and additional models within their respective lineups, as well as aggressive marketing campaigns, KKB said.

"Hyundai's product renaissance is benefitting the company not just by attracting an all-new customer base, but by helping them to retain current loyal Hyundai owners, as well," said Arthur Henry, market intelligence manager for Kelley Blue Book.  "This latest brand loyalty analysis from KKB.com is a testament to the power of attractive vehicle designs and intriguing marketing in the minds of in-market car shoppers as they consider their next vehicle."

Several luxury brands, which have eroded in loyalty over the past few years, have now risen in loyalty for the second quarter.  April and May of this year saw some positive economic signals, such as a sharp drop in gas prices, and as a result, Kelley Blue Book Market Intelligence sees prior luxury owners shifting back to the luxury brands they enjoyed when the economy was booming. This is a positive sign for luxury brands such as Mercedes-Benz, Audi and BMW, all of which saw quarter-over-quarter increases for Q2 2011 versus Q1 2011, yet all remain down year-over-year.

The Environmental Working Group today released its groundbreaking Meat Eater’s Guide to Climate Change and Health, a tool that allows both consumers and experts to understand easily how food choices affect both their environmental footprint and their health.

Taking into account every stage of food production, processing, consumption and waste disposal, the guide documents in unprecedented detail how consumers who eat less meat and cheese can significantly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, pollution and health risks linked to their dietary choices. Previous studies have focused mostly on emissions from the food production phase only.

The calculations reveal that if everyone in the U.S. ate no meat or cheese just one day a week, over a year, the effect on emissions would be the equivalent of taking 7.6 million cars off the road.

The research also highlights the surprisingly large environmental impact of meat that goes into the trash, which accounts for more than 20 percent of all meat-associated emissions.

Limit damage

“By eating and wasting less meat, consumers can help limit the environmental damage caused by the huge amounts of fertilizer, fuel, water, and pesticides, not to mention the toxic manure and wastewater, that goes along with producing meat,” said Kari Hamerschlag, EWG senior analyst and author of the report.

“Choosing healthier, pasture-raised meats can also help improve people’s health and reduce the environmental damage associated with meat consumption,” Hamerschlag said.

The study points to abundant research showing how eating large quantities of beef and processed meats increases exposure to toxins and increases the risk of heart disease, cancer, and obesity.

EWG teamed up with CleanMetrics, an environmental analysis and consulting firm, to calculate complete lifecycle assessments of the “cradle-to-grave” carbon footprint of 20 types of conventionally raised (not organic or grass-fed) meat, fish, dairy and vegetable proteins, counting emissions generated both before and after the food leaves the farm.

These assessments included every step of the food cycle, from the pesticides and fertilizers used to grow animal feed through to the grazing, processing, transportation, cooking and finally, disposal of unused food. 

Key findings

Other key findings of the report:

• Beef generates more than twice the emissions of pork, nearly four times that of chicken, and more than 13 times that of vegetable proteins such as beans, lentils, and tofu.

• Cheese has the third-highest emissions. Less dense cheese (such as cottage) results in fewer greenhouse gases since it takes less milk to produce it.

• 90 percent of beef’s emissions, 69 percent of pork’s, 72 percent of salmon’s and 68 percent of tuna’s are generated in the production phase. Just half of chicken’s emissions are generated during production.

“The report also points out that making significant cuts in emissions will not come solely from individual action, but also citizen action,” said Ken Cook, EWG’s President. “Consumers need to convince Washington to enact comprehensive policies that put the nation on a path to green energy. Reducing meat production’s negative impact on soil, air and water quality will also require better policies and regulatory enforcement as well as curbing meat consumption.”

An attorney who represents victims of foreclosures and mortgage fraud claims a senior partner with the law firm Bryan Cave LLP who represents Bank of America and Countrywide Mortgage is using underhanded tactics to try to put him out of business. 

In the case filed in Orange County, Calif., Superior Court, attorney Gary Lane says the bank's lawyers have used intentional and malicious tactics to prevent him from representing underprivileged defendants.

Lane operates a non-profit legal clinic, the Consumer Protection Assistance Coalition, in Irvine.

Lane, who has been in practice for 39 years, says that over the last three years his clinic began to handle a large number of cases involving homeowners wrongfully threatened by banks and mortgage lenders and has filed a number of suits against Bank of America and Countrywide.

Stuart Price, a senior partner at Bryan Cave, is responsible for handling Bank of America's mortgage and foreclosure cases, the suit says and it alleges that in every case filed by Lane, Price files responses that include untrue and defamatory statements about Lane.

Lane's suit lists actions that he alleges were taken solely to undermine his reputation and damage his business, including:

• failure to file a stipulation delaying a hearing, causing Lane to be sanctioned for not appearing;

• directed a witness to perjure herself, causing Lane to be sanctioned by the court;

• filed a motion asking that Lane be ordered to seek a judge's approval before filing any additional actions against Bank of America; and

• filed a complaint with the State Bar taking issue with 78 lawsuits Lane had filed against Bank of America, causing Lane to be required to respond separately to each and every complaint;

Lane says that as a result of the law firm's tactics, he has been required to spend “countless hours” responding to the tactical roadblocks.

In the case of the 78 complaints, Lane notes that the State Bar normally allows an attorney one month to respond to a complaint, anticipating that it will take that long to assemble a proper response. But since Price filed 78 complaints in a single document, Lane is being given only one or two months to respond.

Lane cites provisions in California's civil procedure rules noting “a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech,” and alleges that the purpose of Price's actions is to block Lane from bringing further lawsuits against Bank of America on behalf of troubled homeowners.

The suit seeks injunctive relief, legal fees and dismissal of the State Bar complaint. 

Look out – scammers are now assuming the identity of your bank to steal from you.

The scam has elicited a warning from North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, who says the scam has targeted a number of consumers in his state already. He says consumers have received calls that appear to be from the Bank of NC and High Point Bank and Trust.

Here's how it works: the consumer receives an automated phone call saying that the consumer's debit card has been blocked. It asks the person on the line to press 1 to proceed.

You then get a live person who asks for your debit card number. Consumers who’ve received the calls report that they appear to come from numbers in Indiana, North Dakota, New Jersey and Canada.  However, the criminals behind these scams are often located overseas and use technology to make their calls appear to come from numbers inside the U.S.

“If you get one of these phony phone calls, hang up,” Cooper said. “The calls come from scammers trying to steal your personal information and drain your account, not from your real bank.”

The calls are a variation on the phishing scam called vishing, or voice phishing. Con artists will use phone calls, text messages and email to pose as legitimate businesses or even government agencies in an attempt to steal your bank account, credit card or Social Security numbers.

“Don’t take the bait when criminals go phishing for your money and your information,” Cooper said.

Common sense is a good weapon

To avoid becoming a victim of phishing and vishing scams, keep your wits about you and employ common sense.

Never share your account number and/or PIN with anyone who contacts you, even if they claim to be with your bank. Think about it. Your bank already has your account or debit card number and will not contact you to ask for it.

If you get a call, email or text indicating that there’s a problem with your bank account, don’t respond. Instead, contact the bank at a phone number or through a secure website you know to be legitimate.

A federal class action lawsuit claims DuPont pushes its Imprelis herbicide to kill broadleaf weeds, but it also kills spruce, pines and other evergreens, costing people "millions of dollars" nationwide. 

In the suit, the Polo Fields Golf and Country Club of Southfield, Mich., says that after it was introduced in the spring of 2011, Imprelis was used on “thousands, if not tens of thousands, of lawns and other properties” throughout the United States, causing extensive damage to mature pine and spruce trees worth millions of dollars.

The suit quotes DuPont as claiming in a press release that Imprelis offered “tremendous benefits in the performance and application flexibility of Imprelis.” The press release also reiterated the Company’s earlier claim that “[s]tudies show that Imprelis is effective for broadleaf weed control immediately prior to or after seeding of cool season grass (except bentgrass)” and “[r]esearch also proves it is not impacted by rain, hot temperatures or cool temperatures, and provides unprecedented levels of broadleaf weed control when applied on granular fertilizer.”

Yellowing and curling

But shortly after landscapers began applying Imprelis, “property owners and operators began to notice yellowing and curling of needles and branches of spruce, and pine, and other evergreen trees.”

A short time later, the trees affected by Imprelis “became unsightly and many died, adversely affecting the beauty and Plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their property as well as diminishing its value,” the suit alleges.

On June 17, DuPont issued a letter warning landscape managers to avoid applying Imprelis in areas where Norway spruce and white pine trees were present, and added the warning to its Website.

“These warnings came too late for the thousands of golf courses and commercial landscapes featuring valuable, mature trees vulnerable to Imprelis’s effect,” the suit charges.

The suit charges DuPont with negligence, unjust enrichment and consumer fraud. It seeks damages and legal costs.

The mortgage modification process appears to be highly unforgiving. Any little thing can derail it, including a single misplaced digit.

Our story comes from Charles, a homeowner from Hanover Park, Ill., seeking a mortgage modification through Chase, and two and a half years into the process of trying to save his home.

“This past February I started a home modification trial period, which would run from February to April,” Charles told ConsumerAffairs.com. “I made my last payment in April of this year and every time that I called to make my payment they would verify my last four of my banking account number, except for this last time, they ask for my routing number along with my bank account number.”

Charles said a Chase representative read the number back and he verified that it was correct. He assumed everything was on track to finalize his modification.

Don't worry, everything's fine

“Well, after three days I noticed that they hadn't taken the money out of my account so I called Chase Bank, and they said that they have received the funds and everything looks find and I should hear from them very soon concerning my new modification,” Charles said.

But days later Charles noticed the funds for his last trial modification payment had still not been transferred. He said he immediately called his contact at Chase.

“They said that the bank rejected the withdrawal,” Charles said. “After going back and forth with Chase Bank and after their investigation, they said that the routing number was correct but my bank account number was incorrect.”

It turns out Charles's bank account number was wrong – by one digit. Therefore, the money could not be moved from his bank account to make the mortgage payments, meaning he was delinquent.

“They told me that there was nothing that they could do except to try to escalate the issue,” he said.

Charles said because his payment was “late,” his modification was denied, and he was told he would have to make up the amount that was discounted from his mortgage payments during the trial period or face foreclosure. He had gone from being one payment away from a modification to the prospect of losing his home.

The government has recently announced its intention to make the modification process more helpful to homeowners who have a good chance of salvaging their situation. A good start might be to find a way to prevent a bureaucratic error from forcing an otherwise qualified homeowner into foreclosure.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday (Friday) that the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) violated federal law when it installed body scanners in airports for primary screening across the country without first soliciting public comment.

Unless it successfully appeals the ruling, the agency will have to solicit public comment and, by law, consider those comments in its review of the scanner program.

The Administrative Procedure Act requires federal agencies to provide notice and opportunity for comment when implementing a rule that affects the rights of the public.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) had filed suit against the agency in 2010, citing violations of federal law (including the Administrative Procedure Act) and the United States Constitution.

EPIC argued that the Department of Homeland Security "has initiated the most sweeping, the most invasive, and the most unaccountable suspicionless search of American travelers in history."

In its ruling, Judge Ginsburg, writing for the Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with EPIC, stating that “it is clear that by producing an image of the unclothed passenger, an [body] scanner intrudes upon his or her personal privacy in a way a magnetometer does not….Indeed, few if any regulatory procedures impose directly and significantly upon so many members of the public.”

The court then concluded that “TSA has not justified its failure to initiate notice and comment rulemaking before announcing it would use AIT scanners for primary screening.”

“We are pleased with the court's decision,” said Marc Rotenberg, President of EPIC and lead counsel in the case, “The TSA is now subject to the same rules as other government agencies that help ensure transparency and accountability. Many Americans object to the airport body scanner program. Now they will have an opportunity to express their views to the TSA and the agency must take their views into account as a matter of law.”

“The court's decision also makes clear that travelers have a legal right to opt out of the body scanner search. And travelers will be free to exercise that right without coercion.”

Co-plaintiff law professor and rights activist, Chip Pitts of Stanford Law School observed that “while the court's constitutional analysis is flawed given the ineffectiveness of the body scanners to detect the explosives for which they were supposedly designed, it is most welcome that the ruling finally offers procedural hope for the vindication of fundamental rights by giving the public the opportunity to protest against these arbitrary and counterproductive machines.”

It is unclear whether either party will appeal the ruling.

Earlier suit

EPIC succeeded in an earlier lawsuit against the Homeland Security program concerning the body scanner program.

In a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC obtained government records that revealed that the TSA required that the devices be able to store and record images of naked air travelers.

In a related suit against the United States Marshall Service, EPIC also obtained 35,000 stored images from a single body scanner operated in a courthouse.

It might sound like tilting at windmills, but a privacy organization says it will appeal a federal judge's ruling that the super-secret National Security Agency (NSA) doesn't have to disclose its relationship with Google, or for that matter whether it has or ever has had such a relationship.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) began its quest for information following press reports that the NSA and Google had formed a partersnhip of some kind after hackers in China launched a cyber attack on the U.S. government in January 2010.

EPIC first filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking any documents that would reveal whether NSA and Google were developing technical standards that would enable greater surveillance of Internet users.

Not surprisingly, NSA denied the request, saying it could neither confirm nor deny that any such documents existed.

Appeal promised

EPIC said it plans to appeal the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon, noting NSA's argument that revealing a relationship with Google could dissuade other companies from working with the agency in the future.

"This is a serious concern which … warrants finding for the NSA," Leon wrote.

EPIC says it is also seeking information from the NSA about Internet vulnerability assessments and its private findings on how its practices impact Internet privacy. EPIC also wants details about the NSA's "Perfect Citizen" program.

The FBI says it has broken up an Internet fraud scheme that defrauded victims in the United States and elsewhere of more than $10 million through fraudulent auction and online sales scams.

Yesterday, Romania law enforcement executed 117 searches targeting more than 100 individuals allegedly involved in the fraudulent scheme involving fake sales of merchandise through the Internet. Romanian law enforcement targeted individuals organizing and perpetrating this fraud from Romania.

According to U.S. court documents, in many of the cases, conspirators located in Romania would post items for sale such as cars, motorcycles and boats on Internet auction and online websites.

They would instruct victims located in the United States and elsewhere who wanted to buy those items to wire the purchase money to a fictitious name they claimed to be an employee of an escrow company. Once the victim wired the funds, the co-conspirators in Romania would text information about the wire transfer to co-conspirators in the United States known as “arrows” to enable them to retrieve the wired funds.

"Arrows" retrieved the loot

They would also provide the arrows with instructions as to where to send the funds after retrieval. The arrows in the United States would go to money transmitter service counters such as Western Union or MoneyGram International, provide false documents including passports and drivers’ licenses in the name of the recipient of the wire transfer, and obtain the funds.

They would then wire the funds overseas, typically to individuals in Romania, minus a percentage they kept for their commissions. In some cases, co-conspirators in Romania also directed arrows to provide bank accounts in the United States where larger amounts of funds could be wired by victims of the fraud.

The victims never received the items they believed they were purchasing.

The Internet fraud scheme has resulted in an estimated loss of more than $10 million from victims, including those in the United States. The full loss amount and identification of additional victims is ongoing.

Over the last 10 years, U.S. law enforcement authorities have strengthened ties with Romanian law enforcement authorities to address the rising threats posed by Romanian-based organized cyber criminal networks. To date, hundreds of defendants have been arrested and charged in the United States, Romania, and other countries as a result of this cooperation, the FBI said.

Consumers often express frustration in trying to obtain the “hot ticket” to an event. Leeann, of San Diego, Calif., thinks the deck is stacked against individual consumers trying to book seats through Ticketmaster.

“Adele was scheduled to play in San Diego at Humphrey's By the Bay, which I was unable to get tickets to because they were sold out in 10 minutes, and not by actual humans wanting to attend the concert, but by places like Ticketsnow.com and Stubhub,” Leeann told ConsumerAffairs.com.

But Adele canceled the concert and when it was rescheduled to a different venue in San Diego with more space Leeann said she was certain she was going to be able to get tickets.

“I was sitting on the computer on the Ticketmaster website at 9:45am because the tickets went on sale at 10am,” Leeann said. “At 10am on the dot, I submitted my order to Ticketmaster and they were sold out immediately. As soon as they went on sale at 10am, instantly were sold out to these other third party companies that are selling these tickets for anywhere from two to 10 times the face value. I think it is so unfair to people that actually are fans of these people and want to go see their concerts!”

Leeann has no proof, of course, that all the tickets went to third party sites, but it does seem a little fishy that they would sell out in 10 seconds. And we will point out that, earlier this year, the State of Maryland settled charges that Ticketmaster was referring consumers wanting tickets to sold-out events to TicketsNow, without disclosing that it TicketsNow's ticket prices were above the face value.

Here's your modification, no wait, your foreclosure

We have received hundreds of reports from distressed homeowners recounting the frustrations of trying to work out a mortgage modification. This story, from Kim, of Petal Miss., about her Bank of America mortgage may trump them all.

“Went into a trial loan modification in May 2009,” Kim said. “Finally got permanent paperwork in Feb 2011 for loan modification. Payments increased $290.00 per month from the trail period. They sent a notary to my home to fill out the paperwork on March 7.I started sending the increased payment in March 2011. On May 11, Fed Ex drops off a letter saying they are sorry I decided to opt out of the program and I was going in to foreclosure.”

Kim said she has been calling Bank of America ever since and still can't find out why her home is going to foreclosure. She says she certainly did not opt out of the modification program after obtaining a new, modified payment.

“Now they want $10,000 to reinstate my loan,” she said. “They sent my June payment back and I'm waiting on the July to come back any day.”

Meanwhile, Kim says she has had to hire an attorney to try to sort out the mess. But the homeowner being told one thing by personnel at the loan servicer, and something completely different by someone else, appears to be a pattern.

Careful with debt settlement

If you are ever tempted to fire a third party firm to help you “settle” your debt – even those that swear they aren't scams – read what Michael, of Buxton, Me., has to say on the subject.

“I paid Cambridge Credit Counseling Corporation over $500.00 a month for over a year and none of that money went to any of the accounts they were supposed to be paying,” Michael told ConsumerAffairs.com. “I had to go to court and got a judgment filed against me for not paying one of the accounts.”

To ad insult to injury, Michael says his share of a class action settlement with Cambridge Credit Counseling amounted to $35. 

Retailers often ask customers making a credit card purchase to provide their zip code. The assumption is that the information is needed to confirm that the card is valid.

But there have been an increasing number of reports that businesses are using the customer's name and zip code to put together a much more complete portfolio, possibly including their mailing address, telephone number and email.

This practice may be illegal under certain circumstances. In California, the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 makes it a crime to request and then record personal information from a customer paying with a credit card.

A Seattle law firm, Hagens Berman LLP, says it is investigating Nike, Inc. after reports that the company did just that.

Third-party vendors

The firm began its investigation after receiving reports that Nike customers were being asked for their zip codes upon making a purchase with a credit card at a Nike store. The firm believes that Nike may have then employed third-party vendors to use the first and last name of the customer and their zip code together to narrow down customers' home addresses.

The firm said it is interested in talking to consumers who made a purchase at a Nike store with a credit card and complied with a request for their zip code.

ConsumerAffairs.com would also like to hear from consumers who've had this experience. Please use the complaint form to do so.

Nine months after acquiring social adventure company Urban Escapes, daily deals giant LivingSocial today launched LivingSocial Adventures, a new service offering deals on curated experiences ranging from river tubing and beer tasting to sushi-making classes and summer camp for adults.

The service initially will be available in 30 U.S., Canadian and U.K. Markets (see below). The company said all events will be personally guided by its own employees, and also be combined with extras such as meals or transportation.

Tim O'Shaughnessy, the CEO and co-founder of LivingSocial, said the new service "expands LivingSocial's footprint to include bigger and bolder member experiences that are truly unique for our members."

LivingSocial has pioneered the curation of handpicked experiences through our Daily Deals, Escapes, Instant and Families offerings," said Tim O'Shaughnessy, CEO and co-founder, LivingSocial. "The launch of LivingSocial Adventures expands LivingSocial's footprint to include bigger and bolder member experiences that are truly unique for our members."

NYC Adventure

To build excitement for the launch, LivingSocial announced “The Ultimate LivingSocial NYC Adventure” — a sweepstakes that will award three winners with one guest each an adventure consisting of:

• Roundtrip airfare for two from their home to New York City

• Helicopter transport from the airport into Manhattan

• Two nights at Midtown's The Empire Hotel

• Exclusive jet ski tour to the Statue of Liberty

• Skydiving with views of the Manhattan skyline

• Private rifle instruction in Manhattan's only indoor range

• Dinner at Iron Chef winner Marc Forgione's restaurant

• VIP experience at the Dave Matthews Band Caravan Concert on Governor's Island

To learn more, visit http://www.facebook.com/LivingSocialAdventures.

30 markets

LivingSocial Adventures is available to all members of LivingSocial.  Adventures are offered in a total of 30 markets throughout the U.S., Canada and the UK including:

• Atlanta

• Austin, Texas

• Baltimore

• Boise, Idaho

• Boston

• Charlotte, N.C.

• Chicago

• Dallas

• Denver

• Houston

• London

• Los Angeles

• Miami

• Minneapolis/St. Paul

• Nashville, Tenn.

• New Orleans

• New York

• Philadelphia

• Phoenix

• Portland, Ore.

• Raleigh, N.C.

• Richmond, Va.

• Sacramento, Calif.

• Salt Lake City

• San Diego

• San Francisco

• Seattle

• Toronto

• Vancouver, BC

• Washington

We hear a lot lately about the aging of the Baby Boom generation, usually in the context of the strain all those old boomers are putting on Social Security and Medicare. But the rapid aging of the American population is good news for lots of industries, including those who make wheelchairs, bifocals and hearing aids.

While not everyone falls into a wheelchair when they hit their 60s, even the healthiest older adults are likely to experience at least some hearing loss, especially those who spent too much time at rock concerts or at the race track in their youth.

There are all kinds of hearing loss associated with aging. Some can be corrected. Some can't. Nearly everyone can be helped by a hearing aid of some kind, however, and this simple fact has opened the door to a massive blitz of advertising by a few manufacturers, with Miracle Ear perhaps the best-known.

Most Miracle Ear ads, whether on television, the Web or in print, will urge you to immediately call a toll-free number or schedule an appointment at a nearby store to have your hearing tested.

This is not, however, an approach endorsed by anyone but hearing aid salesmen.

What to do

What should you do if you're beginning to have trouble hearing?

As with any health question, the first step should be diagnosis – finding out why your hearing is causing you problems. Once that's done, you can move on to finding the right treatment, which may or may not be a hearing aid.

The place to start is with an ENT – an ear, nose and throat specialist, also known as an otolaryngologist, preferably one who has an audiologist on staff. You can find ENTs in your area by typing "otolaryngologist" into your search engine. If you are part of an HMO or covered by the Veterans Administration, there should be staff ENTs available to you.

After an examination and hearing test, the ENT should be able to prescribe an appropriate treatment. If that treatment is a hearing aid, ask the ENT to be as specific as possible about what type of hearing aid you should get. You don't need a prescription to buy a hearing aid but it doesn't hurt to take notes or ask the ENT to jot down a few specifics.

Some ENTs sell hearing aids in their office. While this may be a good approach, it is also likely to be expensive.

It's important to note that Medicare does not cover hearing aids, although your ENT visit may be covered. Most private health plans don't either. Find out what your plan covers before you start shopping. Don't rely on what a salesman tells you or what a celebrity says on a TV ad.

Shop around

Once you know what type of hearing aid you're looking for, shop around. Be an aggressive consumer. Hearing aids are expensive – as much as $7,000 -- and you don't want to spend a lot of money on something that doesn't work well or that you won't use.

It's a good idea to check specific brand names in online databases. For example, you'll find a very long page of Miracle Ear complaints on ConsumerAffairs.com, as well as complaints and comments on other popular brands.

All states require that you have a try-out period, usually 30 to 45 days, during which you can try the device. If it doesn't work for you, take it back. Be certain to get this in writing before you pay and be sure you understand the written agreement.

As always, the sale is governed by the law in your state and, secondly, by any additional terms in the written sales agreement. Oral promises mean nothing. If a promise isn't in writing, it doesn't exist.

Be aware that the average mark-up on a hearing aid is 100%. This means you have plenty of room to bargain. If the person you're dealing with uses high-pressure tactics or won't offer you any kind of discount, go somewhere else.

As always, you should separate the financing from the purchase. Any purchase plan offered by the hearing aid dealer is likely to be very expensive. If you can't pay cash, it's better to get a loan from your credit union or bank.

Don't overlook the potential tax benefit. The cost of hearing tests, ear exams and the hearing aid itself may be included as expenses on your tax return, according to the Internal Revenue Service. This is potentially a big purchase and a tax break is likely to be welcome.

Be patient

Don't expect the device to work for you right away. It's not just your ears that hear, it's also your brain. Just as it takes your brain time to adjust to a new pair of glasses or contacts, it will take your brain time to reinterpret the new input it's getting from the hearing aid. It may well take a month or more for you to be able to understand speech clearly again.

To be a success, the hearing aid must also be comfortable. If it is annoying, doesn't fit or slips out of position constantly, it will end up in your dresser drawer.