Current Events in February 2012

The first breath test for use in children ages 3 to 17 years to detect Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) bacterial infections, responsible for chronic stomach inflammation and ulcers, has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The FDA first cleared the BreathTek UBT test for adults in 1996. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately two-thirds of the world’s population is infected with H. pylori.

Most people with this infection never have any symptoms but have a two- to six-fold increased risk of developing gastric cancer and mucosal-associated-lymphoid-type lymphoma compared with uninfected people.

“Results from this test, when considered with a physician’s assessment of the patient’s history, other risk factors, and professional guidelines, can quickly indicate infection, which allows a physician to initiate appropriate health measures in a timely manner,” said Alberto Gutierrez, Ph.D., director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

The FDA based its approval of the BreathTek UBT test for children on a multi-center study of 176 patients, comparing its performance to a composite reference method and demonstrating 95.8 percent sensitivity and 99.2 percent specificity. An additional study was done at 1 to 6 months after therapy to support use for post-treatment monitoring of patients.  The sensitivity was 83.3 percent and the specificity was 100 percent. 

A few months ago, shoppers were shocked to learn that Sears Holdings Corp. planned to close as many as 120 Sears and Kmart stores. Now, the ailing chain says it hopes to sell off more than 10 times that many stores to raise up to $770 million, money it needs to help cover more than $3 billion in losses last year.

Sears says it has already found a buyer for 11 of its stores -- General Growth Properties, the shopping mall owner where the stores in question are located.  It also intends to spin off a separate company to control about 1,250 small franchised stores that sell Sears products.

But what happens to the rest of the 126-year-old chain remains in doubt. The company could spin off other divisions, including the profitable Lands End, which Sears acquired before it was taken over by Edward S. Lampert, a hedge fund manager who critics say hasn't spent enough money to keep Sears stores attractive and competitive.

A particular sore point with many consumers is delays and misunderstandings surrounding in-home warranty and repair service.

"I am on my fifth week waiting for Sears to repair my GE washing machine under warranty," said Joan of Chester, Md. "They came out the first time one week and 2 days after my first call. Even though I told them the problem, they waited another week for a part to be delivered. Then, they said it was the wrong part and waited another week for a part to be delivered. Then, they said the two parts were defective because they were not new parts but Sears remanufactured parts, and had to order more parts, yes another week for delivery."

For all its business woes and all the complaints it generates to ConsumerAffairs and other online review sites, Sears has managed to maintain a relatively good standing with consumers.  A computerized sentiment analysis of about 1.2 million consumer comments on social media and blogs over the last year finds Sears maintaining a positive net sentiment that peaked at 52% in October before falling to the low 30s in November and December. 

Sears, an iconic name in retailing and still the nation's largest appliance retailer, has been steadily losing market share to Wal-Mart, Macy's and  Home Depot, not to mention Amazon and other online merchants who offer nearly everything you can -- or, often, can't -- find at a Sears outlet.

Lack of customer service remains the biggest dislike identified by consumers, a perceived failing that may be hard to overcome as the struggling chain tries to hold down expenses in its remaining stores. On the other hand, the number of consumers complaining about customer service is about the same as the number who list customer service in the "plus" column.

While Sears insists it is in no imminent danger of running out of cash, its credit rating has been downgrded to "junk" and one large lender, CIT Group, has stopped financing loans to Sears suppliers. 

But if Sears is having trouble keeping its shelves stocked, that doesn't show up in the comments analyzed in the ConsumerAffairs survey, which found relatively few complaints about items being out of stock. 

Health and nutrition advocates fought long and hard for federal labeling requirements for calorie listings on fast-food chain restaurant menus.

So, how's it working? Not as well as it should, says a study by the Columbia University School of Nursing.

The researchers studied the calorie counts for 200 food items on menu boards in fast-food chain restaurants in the New York inner-city neighborhood of Harlem. Since 2006, the City has had a standard menu labeling law that includes some, though not all, of the new federal requirements.

Legally compliant, but...

“Although most postings were legally compliant, they did not demonstrate utility,” the authors say. “Menu postings for individual servings are easily understood, but complex math skills are needed to interpret meals designed to serve more than one person. In some items, calories doubled depending on flavor, and the calorie posting did not give enough information to make healthier selections.”

The federal health reform law passed in March 2010 requires restaurants with 20 or more locations to provide calorie data and additional nutritional information for menu items and self-service foods. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now considering how best to guide chain restaurants in posting calorie counts on menu boards.

This is where it gets complicated

The study found that it was easy for consumers to figure out how many calories were in a sandwich and fries. It was more confusing, however, when a single order was being divided among a number of consumers.

For example, the study reports, a bucket of chicken was listed as 3,240 to 12,360 calories, but the menu board did not contain enough information to determine the number of pieces of chicken in a serving size. Specialty pizzas were offered in wide ranges without a clear explanation as to how they differed, since the calorie count was based on a standard size and standard set of toppings.

The researchers say the calorie listings must be easily understood in order for them to be helpful to consumers trying to make healthy food choices. There's growing emphasis on encouraging healthy choices, especially in light of the increasing prevalence of obesity among American adults and children.

The trend is a particular problem in low-income and inner-city neighborhoods, where sources of more healthful foods might not be as common as fast-food fare, the researchers said. Studies suggest that consumers are generally unaware of, or inaccurately estimate, the number of calories in restaurant foods.

The Florida House of Representatives has approved the Timeshare Resale Fraud Bill, a measure that cracks down on companies that prey on consumers desperate to unload their timeshare properties.

There was no ambiguity about it - the measure passed unanimously and now goes to the Senate, where it is also expected to pass.

“This bill is essential in stopping unscrupulous individuals from misleading and defrauding our consumers who are attempting to sell their timeshares,” said Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. “I commend Representative Eisnaugle and the House of Representatives on their commitment to protecting Florida’s consumers.”

A new weapon

The proposed new law would give consumers in Florida a weapon against companies that use deceptive business practices when they approach timeshare owners with the promise to find a buyer. The measure would allow consumers to hold these companies accountable.

The legislation would provide greater transparency and would require, among other things, timeshare resale companies to disclose all terms and conditions of their business relationship with a consumer, provide for a right of rescission for consumers to cancel a contract for resale services, and impose penalties on companies who continue these deceptive practices.

ConsumerAffairs hears from lots of consumers who feel they were duped by various timeshare-reselling agents. M., of Bethpage, N.Y, reported a bad experience with Timeshare Solutions.

"I gave them $899 to sell my timeshare in Orlando," M. wrote. "Nothing happened; just another scam. These people should burn in hell for what they do to people. Do not give them money up front."

States crack down

In the last couple of years, various states have reached settlements with some companies in the business of reselling timeshares, especially those that demand a large upfront fee.

In an eight-month period, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell settled with two time-share real estate firms he accused of ripping off consumers. Massachusetts and Missouri were also among the states reaching timeshare settlements in 2010.

In September 2010, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan warned timeshare owners in her state that scammers have moved into the space, collecting money but making no attempt to sell anything.

Now that Florida appears headed toward a law to bring timeshare reselling under more control, other states may not be far behind. In Texas, for example, the Better Business Bureau notes that timeshare resale fraud is on the rise.

New car sales have been up significantly over the last few months, but some people paying for a new car might be better off making do with a used car.

If you can qualify for zero percent financing or other attractive loan rates, then buying a new car may be a good deal. But if your credit score puts you in the "subprime" classification of borrower, you would likely be better off taking the money you saved for a down payment and purchasing a used car instead.

Big disadvantage

Edmunds.com, an automotive information company, says buying used especially makes sense for "deep subprime" buyers with credit scores below 550. These consumers are more likely to turn to "Buy Here, Pay Here" lots that offer uncomfortably high interest rates.

According to Edmunds, an estimated 57 percent of deep subprime buyers make their vehicle purchases from these dealerships which are generally easily identifiable because they only sell used cars and often advertise the tag line "No credit? No problem!"

"Consumers with poor credit think that 'Buy Here, Pay Here' may be their only option, but this move often signs them up for a seemingly endless cycle of high interest payments," said Edmunds.com Consumer Advice Associate Ronald Montoya. "By purchasing a car outright, deep subprime shoppers won't be beholden to the dealership or creditors. And since inexpensive used cars are much more dependable now than they were 20 years ago, they can be a long-term transportation solution instead of just a short-term fix."

Can you buy anything for $2,500?

If they pay cash, most of these buyers will only be able to avoid something in the $2,500 and below range. Can you get anything decent at that price? Edmunds says yes, but be prepared to make some sacrifices.

"In this price range, you are not going to get a recent model with all the frills," said Montoya. "What you will find are a number of high-mileage cars with a few dents and dings. But as long as the car runs well and has been properly maintained, you will likely be better off than if you bought a nicer car that requires expensive financing."

When shopping for a car under $2,500 be suspicious of cars with unreasonably low mileage. Also, beware of "salvage titles." That means the car was in an accident and was totaled. Also, watch out for signs of snow and water damage.

An older vehicle will also require more attention to maintenance, but without monthly payments to worry about, there will be more money on hand for fix-ups.  

You may still be scrambling to file your 2011 federal tax return and hoping for a refund, but here's something to stop and consider: Refunds totaling more than $1 billion may be waiting for one million people who did not file a federal income tax return for 2008.

In making the announcement, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimated half of these potential 2008 refunds are $637 or more. To collect the money, a return for 2008 must be filed with the IRS no later than Tuesday, April 17, 2012.

There may be no penalty

Just because someone didn't file doesn't mean they're in trouble. Some people may not have filed because they had too little income to require filing a tax return even though they had taxes withheld from their wages or made quarterly estimated payments.

In cases where a return was not filed, the law provides most taxpayers with a three-year window of opportunity for claiming a refund. If no return is filed to claim a refund within three years, the money becomes property of the U.S. Treasury.

For 2008 returns, that window closes on April 17, 2012. The law requires that the return be properly addressed, mailed and postmarked by that date. There is no penalty for filing a late return qualifying for a refund, if the taxpayer was not required to file a return that year.

Make sure you filed the last two years

If you seek a 2008 refund, keep in mind that your check may be held if you have not filed tax returns for 2009 and 2010. In addition, the refund will be applied to any amounts still owed to the IRS, and may be used to offset unpaid child support or past due federal debts such as student loans.

By failing to file a return, people stand to lose more than refunds of taxes withheld or paid during 2008. Some people, especially those who did not receive an economic stimulus payment in 2008, may qualify for the Recovery Rebate Credit. In addition, many low-and moderate-income workers may not have claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

The EITC helps individuals and families whose incomes are below certain thresholds. The thresholds for 2008 were:

• $38,646 ($41,646 if married filing jointly) for those with two or more qualifying children,
• $33,995 ($36,995 if married filing jointly) for people with one qualifying child, and
• $12,880 ($15,880 if married filing jointly) for those with no qualifying children.

How do you start? Current and prior year tax forms and instructions are available on the Forms and Publications page of IRS.gov or by calling toll-free 800-TAX-FORM (800-829-3676).  

After more than a year of foot-dragging, Google and other large Internet companies say they'll support a do-not-track button to be embedded in Web browsers. Details remain to be hammered out.

The pledge follows a White House call for Congress to pass a "consumer privacy bill of rights" that would give consumers more control over the personal data that Internet companies collect about them.

“American consumers can’t wait any longer for clear rules of the road that ensure their personal information is safe online,” said President Obama. “As the Internet evolves, consumer trust is essential for the continued growth of the digital economy.

"For businesses to succeed online, consumers must feel secure. By following this blueprint, companies, consumer advocates and policymakers can help protect consumers and ensure the Internet remains a platform for innovation and economic growth,” Obama said.

“It’s great to see that companies are stepping up to our challenge to protect privacy so consumers have greater choice and control over how they are tracked online. More needs to be done, but the work they have done so far is very encouraging,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz.

Doesn't work

Some browsers already have a do-not-track setting but since there is no widespread agreement to support it, it doesn't accomplish much. The non-profit Mozilla Foundation's Firefox was the first to offer a do-not-track button. Others followed along, more or less grudgingly.

Likewise, there will be loopholes in the plan announced today.  For one thing, Facebook will still be able to track its members through their use of "Like" buttons.  And, presumably, Google will retain information about its users clicks on the "+1" button.

What Internet companies won't do under the preliminary plan announced today is use tracking data to customize ads, but they'll still be able to use it for "market research" and "product development," however those may be defined.  

And, since the data will still be collected, it will be available to law enforcement and intelligence agencies, which may or may not need to use subpoena power to get their hands on the data. This is a potential sticking point; many privacy advocates want the companies to simply stop collecting data about individual users.

Alternatives

There are already things consumers can do if they want to reduce the amount of information that's floating around about them, including:

• Dump your "friends."  Facebook, Google+, Twitter and other social media scrape together all kinds of data.  If privacy really matters to you, get some real friends and drop out of the social sites.
• Use alternative search engines.  Believe it or not, Google and Bing aren't the only search engines.  DuckDuckGo.com searches the Web quite adequately for most users and doesn't retain any user data. There are plenty of others. 
• Don't take surveys or respond to online ads.
• Use a fictitious name.  No one says you have to use your real name, as long as you're not stealing someone else's identity or committing fraud.
• Set your browser and other other online tools to the maximum privacy settings. You will not be able to access some of the free services you now take for granted.

Revelations

White House version

Despite reservations about issues with past drugs, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel has recommended approval of the weight loss drug Qnexa. The vote was 20-2. The FDA does not have to follow an advisory panel's recommendation, but it usually does.

The panel said, if Qnexa wins FDA approval, it should be closely monitored in a clinical trial to make sure it is safe.

Many anti-obesity groups have pleaded with the FDA to approve a drug for use in weight control. It has been 13 years since there has been a new approved weight-loss pill on the market.

Second attempt at approval

Previously, the FDA rejected Qnexa, saying it had concerns about potential side effects, including heart problems and birth defects in children of women taking the drug during pregnancy. In July 2010, another FDA panel advised against approving Qnexa and the FDA followed the recommendation.

Some doctors who treat obesity complain that the FDA sets a higher standard for weight control drugs than it does for other types of pharmaceutical products. That may be because of past experience.

The last major weight control drug disaster was fen-phen, which was withdrawn from the market in 1997 after it was shown to cause heart valve damage. Qnexa includes phentermine, part of the phen-fen cocktail that was allowed to stay on the market. The drug company said people taking Qnexa in clinical trials reported success in losing weight.

Phentermine now used alone

Currently, some doctors are prescribing phentermine, which Emily, of Irvine, Calif., reported last December presented her with some negative side effects.

"The first 3 weeks, I dropped 20 pounds," Emily wrote in a post on ConsumerAffairs. "I was eating a regular based 1400 calorie diet with fruits and vegetables. In week 4, I was losing my hair. In week 5, my heart began racing even if I climbed a flight of stairs to go to my apartment. In week 6, my face was extremely pale. Looking back at photos, I looked very pale and almost gray."

In clinical trials, Qnexa helped patients lose about 10 percent of their body weight. While that might not be enough to make an obese person think, advocates say that small amount of weight loss could be helpful.

Over the last few years a number of consumers have reported all sorts of problems with their microwave ovens. It's somewhat surprising, since it isn't exactly a new technology. Most modern kitchens have had them since the early 1980s.

Byron, of Social Circle, Ga., reports his Maytag microwave started causing problems after about five months of use.

“Would not cook a complete cycle without error that door is open, needs to be closed,” Byron wrote in a review on ConsumerAffairs. “Repairman has been out five times already and the problem is still not corrected. Maytag/Whirlpool has said they will not replace item, then they decided they would possibly replace at a pro-rated amount. So, I have to purchase a microwave twice to have one that works? Hmmm, somewhere I feel I'm being taken for a ride in this deal.”

Scary kitchen

And he's not the only one. Virginia, of Glen Burnie, Md., reports her six-year old Magic Chef not only doesn't work properly, but is downright scary.

“Last night I was warming up a blueberry muffin for 15 seconds,” Virginia said. “ All of a sudden there was a big red flash, the flash was so strong and bright, that it looked as if it came out from around the door. The light would not work, the turn table would not turn, and it made a humming sound. I felt a tingling feeling over my face for about an hour last night. Today my face looks as if it was sunburned.

In fact, a number of microwave owners have complained lately that they believe their appliances are fire hazards.

“A fire began within the wall of the unit directly behind the control panel,” David, of Brooklyn, N.Y., reported about his GE. “No mistake, misuse or error on my part at all, it simply burst into flames! I did research on the matter, there are many similar scenarios around the country.”

Recall

From time to time, microwave ovens have been recalled because of potential fire hazard. In 2007, for example, GE recalled 92,000 microwave ovens because of potential fires. At the time, GE said it was aware of 35 incidents of minor property damage and one incident in which a fire damaged adjacent kitchen cabinets.

Problems with microwave ovens are not limited to one brand, so when purchasing a new microwave, do plenty of research from a variety of sources to see which is least likely to give you problems. Consumers who have experienced a fire or other microwave safety issue should file a report with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

A new study finds that the rate of disease outbreaks caused by unpasteurized, or "raw," milk and products made from it was 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk.

The 13-year review by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also revealed that the states where the sale of raw milk was legal had more than twice the rate of outbreaks as states where it was illegal.

The study, published Feb. 21 in the CDC journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, reviewed dairy product outbreaks from 1993 to 2006 in all 50 states. The authors compared the amount of milk produced in the United States during the study period (about 2.7 trillion pounds) to the amount that CDC estimates was likely consumed raw (1 percent or 27 billion pounds) to determine the 150 times higher rate for outbreaks caused by raw milk products.  Raw milk products include cheese and yogurt.

Three deaths

The study included 121 dairy-related disease outbreaks, which caused 4,413 illnesses, 239 hospitalizations and three deaths. In 60 percent of the outbreaks (73 outbreaks) state health officials determined raw milk products were the cause.

Nearly all of the hospitalizations (200 of 239) were in those sickened in the raw milk outbreaks.

These dairy-related outbreaks occurred in 30 states, and 75 percent (55 outbreaks) of the raw milk outbreaks occurred in the 21 states where it was legal to sell raw milk products at the time. The study also reported that seven states changed their laws during the study period.

Consumers can't tell if raw milk is safe to drink by looking at, smelling, or tasting it. Even under ideal conditions of cleanliness, collecting milk introduces some bacteria. Unless the milk is pasteurized, these bacteria can multiply and grow in the milk and cause illness. Pasteurization involves heating milk to kill disease-causing bacteria.

“This study shows an association between state laws and the number of outbreaks and illnesses from raw milk products,” said Robert Tauxe, M.D., M.P.H., deputy director of CDC's Division of Foodborne, Waterborne and Environmental Diseases (DFWED). “Restricting the sale of raw milk products is likely to reduce the number of outbreaks and can help keep people healthier. The states that allow sale of raw milk will probably continue to see outbreaks in the future.”

Younger victims

The study also found that the raw milk product outbreaks led to much more severe illnesses, and disproportionately affected people under age 20. In the raw milk outbreaks with known age breakdowns, 60 percent of patients were younger than age 20, compared to 23 percent in outbreaks from pasteurized products.

Children are more likely than adults to get seriously ill from the bacteria in raw milk.

“While some people think that raw milk has more health benefits than pasteurized milk, this study shows that raw milk has great risks, especially for children, who experience more severe illnesses if they get sick,” said study co-author Barbara Mahon, M.D., M.P.H. “Parents who have lived through the experience of watching their child fight for their life after drinking raw milk now say that it's just not worth the risk.”

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) works very hard to make sure every taxpayer pays taxes on all eligible income. But some income, it turns out, does not have to be reported.

Knowing which income does, and does not have to be listed on your tax return can both save you money and keep you out of trouble.

Here's a quick overview of exempt income, according to the IRS:

If you are divorced and receive child support, that is not taxable income and does not need to be listed. Neither do welfare benefits.

Gifts, bequests, inheritances

You do not have to report gifts, bequests and inheritances, within certain guidelines. For example, there is not tax on a gift to your child if it is less than $13,000.

Life insurance may or may not be taxable income. If you surrender a life insurance policy for its cash value, that's reportable income. However, if you receive a death benefit from a life insurance policy, that is generally not reportable income.

Let's say you are injured on the job and receive worker compensation. That money is not considered income that must be reported. If you are awarded damages in a lawsuit to compensate your for an injury or illness, that too is tax-free income.

Education

Education grants are a little tricky. If you receive money from a scholarship or fellowship, it does not have to be reported as income, as long as the money is used to pay tuition and other direct education fees. However, any of the money used to pay room and board is taxable income and must be reported.

Some income can be in a form other than cash, and almost always that must be reported as income. For example, barter is a form of non-cash income. Though no cash has changed hands, the fair market value of goods and services exchanged is fully taxable and must be included as income on Form 1040 of both parties.

Impossible to avoid

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is launching an inquiry into checking account overdraft programs to determine how these practices are impacting consumers.

As part of that inquiry, the CFPB is seeking public input on a prototype “penalty fee box” – a disclosure on a consumer’s checking account statement that would highlight the amount overdrawn and total overdraft fees charged. Something along these lines, perhaps:

“With today’s technologies, consumers have more opportunities to access their checking accounts and cause overdrafts,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “But overdraft practices have the capacity to inflict serious economic harm on the people who can least afford it. We want to learn how consumers are affected, and how well they are able to anticipate and avoid paying penalty fees.”

An overdraft occurs when a consumer spends or withdraws more money than is available in his or her checking account and the financial institution advances funds on the consumer’s behalf. Banks generally charge an overdraft fee for each transaction that they choose to cover.

For point-of-sale debit card and ATM transactions, regulations by the Federal Reserve Board that became effective in 2010 prohibit a bank from charging the overdraft fee unless the consumer has opted-in. For check and online bill payments, as well as recurring debits, banks can charge an overdraft fee without any affirmative request from the consumer.

$30-$35

According to various industry sources, the average overdraft fee ranged from $30-$35 in 2011 and has increased by 17 percent over the past five years. A study by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation published in 2008 found that consumers who overdrew 20 or more times per year paid an average of $1,610 in overdraft fees annually.

The inquiry the CFPB is launching today will provide insight into overdraft practices. The inquiry is focused on four main areas:

• Transaction Re-ordering that Increases Consumer Costs: The CFPB is concerned that overdraft practices employed by some financial institutions increase consumer costs. One such practice is commingling of all checks, bill payments, debit card transactions, and ATM withdrawals each day and processing the largest transactions first. This maximizes the number of transactions that will trigger an overdraft fee. The CFPB will examine how prevalent this practice is and how it impacts consumers.
• Missing or Confusing Information: The CFPB is exploring whether consumers can anticipate and avoid overdraft fees. The CFPB will examine how clearly overdraft terms are disclosed and the extent to which consumers are made aware of, qualify for, and take advantage of, alternative means of covering overdraft transactions.
• Misleading Marketing Materials: The Bureau is looking into reports that consumers are receiving misleading marketing materials about overdrafts. Initial data suggests that opt-in rates differ widely among institutions. The CFPB seeks to understand how differences in the way institutions explain and promote overdraft programs may affect opt-in rates.
• Disproportionate Impact on Low-Income and Young Consumers: The Bureau is revisiting the 2008 FDIC study that found that 9 percent of checking account customers bear about 84 percent of overdraft fees. Evidence suggests that overdraft programs disproportionately impact low-income and young consumers. According to this study, 46.4 percent of young adult accountholders incurred overdraft fees, and of those, 15 percent recorded more than ten overdrafts in one year.

To submit comments to CFPB on the overdraft inquiry, visit the CFPB's website.  

Americans seemingly can't get enough of the Mini Cooper. The sporty little cars are also selling well throughout Asia. Seems like U.S. and Asian drivers like the European styling, the European handling and the European durability that's built into the sturdy sportsters built by BMW. 

There's only one area where Minis aren't selling well: Europe.

BMW blames it on the sovereign debt crisis. But whatever the reason, BMW will be cutting back its dealerships and sales efforts in Europe while it expands throughout the U.S. and Asia, Automotive News reports.

The trade publication quotes BMW chieftain Key Segler as saying last year's record growth came from increased sales in China, Korea and the United States, while European markets like Spain and Italy were lagging.

Mini sold 285,000 cars last year, a whopping 21.7 percent increase from 2010. And Segler says he expects the sales growth to continue this year in the U.S., Mini's biggest single market. It sold 57,000 cars here last year and plans to add 15 new dealerships this year to the 110 it already has.

More models

Besides adding dealerships, Mini has been steadily adding models. Besides the base and the S models, which come as both hatchbacks and convertibles, it now makes a sort-of station wagon and even has something that passes for an SUV if you don't look too closely.

The most recent addition is a Mini coupe – a two-seater that is basically a pocket rocket for those whose greatest desire is to travel at great speeds, comfort be damned.

Of course, there are those who would say the Mini hatchbacks are hardly worth of the sedan title, the back seats being about as cramped as your average Manhattan apartment. The coupe takes that to new extremes; it has just enough room for two, assuming they're friends.

But never mind that. The little car has lots of fans, mostly younger, and BMW's thinking is that as those fans age they will need a little more room for such things as strollers and the critters that sit in strollers, booster seats and so forth. Thus the newer models, which are what a soap or soup marketer would call brand extensions.

Mini has currently worked itself up to six models but Segler says it hasn't maxed out, not by any means. He sees the brand having 10 models in the semi-near future.

What's not in store, according to Segler, are more plants. He says Mini can produce 400,000 cars a year at its plants in Oxford, England, and Graz, Austria, which should be more than adequate for the next few years.

Why?

Why do so many people like the Mini so much? Good question. For urbanites, the tiny cars are easy to maneuver and park, which is no small consideration. Many owners will tell the they're a blast to drive and they welcome being thrown about in hairpin curves just as much as cars costing four or five times as much.

They're also cute, which has its advantages.  Seasoned Mini drivers will tell you that if they miss a turn on a crowded Los Angeles street, they can whip a U just about anywhere and slip back into traffic, often with a smile and a wave from the drivers they've just cut off.  Try doing this in a Mercedes and see what happens.

Maybe it's because, while a Porsche or big BMW screams "I'm the 1%," the Mini tweets, "Hey, we're all in this together. Thanks for sharing!"

Or something like that.

---

The author, who used to have one Porsche, now has two Mini Coopers. Twice the fun, he says.

Moving day is never fun, but Avii, of San Francisco, says he encountered another problem when he went to U-Haul to pick up a truck for the day.

“I had a friend reserve a truck for me for day use, and she had an unresolved dispute with U-haul with a $110 balance from years ago that she did not know about,” Avii writes in his post on ConsumerAffairs. “When we arrived at the office to pick up the truck, she was blocked from renting.”

Avii said he did what seemed logical. He told the clerk the truck was really for him anyway, so he asked that the reservation be switched to his name. What happened next stunned him

“U-Haul actually linked the debt to MY name and information and blocked me from any further rentals as well until the debt was paid,” Avii said. “Since my friend had no money, and I was the one paying and needed to move that day, I was forced to pay her debt with my credit card. They actually told me the debt was MY responsibility. This sounds completely illegal to me!”

Not only is it not legal, it sounds like something a U-Haul employee dreamed up on the spot to try and get a debt off the books. Unless Avii happened to be married to his “friend,” it's hard to see how responsibility for someone's debt could be so simply transferred to another individual.

Avii should have refused to pay his friend's bill and instead should have gone to another truck rental agency. By agreeing to pay it he will have a very difficult time now getting the refund he is clearly owed.

As a last resort, he should at least tell his story to California Attorney General Kamala Harris' office.

It's hard to lose weight this time of year. Those New Year's resolutions may be going unfulfilled, not because you lack willpower, but perhaps because of the prescription medication you are taking.

Surprisingly, certain medicines can cause significant weight changes, which can be challenging for anyone wanting to shed pounds or maintain weight.

Weight side-effects are common in medicines used for diabetes, high-blood pressure and mental health conditions. Big gainers are likely for users of steroids for cancer treatment and women on birth control, while some antidepressants like Prozac and Wellbutrin are known for weight losses.

“Because of the stigma of weight gain, patients may tend to stop taking their medicines or decrease their dosage without talking to their physician,” said Ryan Roux, chief pharmacy officer, at Houston's Harris County Hospital District. “Doing this is a bad thing. It can affect your health in a number of negative ways.”

Talk to your doctor

Roux says patients should tell their physicians about any weight changes. The weight gains or losses could mean reassessing types of medicine or dosages taken. Additionally, gaining weight could increase the chances of developing diabetes, hypertension or high cholesterol.

Your healthcare provider should advise you of any potential side effects associated with your medication.

Is your medication one that promotes weight gain? Take a look at the list below, provided by the Harris County Health District.

Diabetes:

• Actos (pioglitazone) 
• Amaryl (glimepiride)
• Insulins

Hypertension:

• Actos (pioglitazone)
• Amaryl (glimepiride)
• Insulins

Hypertension:

• Lopressor (metoprolol)
• Tenormin (atenolol)
• Inderal (propranolol)
• Norvasc (amlodipine)
• Clonidine

Antidepressants:

• Paxil (paroxetine)
• Zoloft (sertraline)
• Amitripyline
• Remeron (mirtazapine)

Antipsychotic:

• Clozaril (clozapine)
• Zyprexa (olanzapine)
• Risperdal (risperidone
• Seroquel (quetiapine)
• Lithium
• Valproic Acid
• Carbamazepine

Antiepileptic Drugs:

• Carbamazapine
• Neurontin (gabapentin)

A U.S. district court issued a contempt ruling against promoters of credit repair, debt relief, and food stamp services who violated a 2010 settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

The court ordered the defendants to pay for refunds to consumers they harmed, in violation of the court order. The court also modified the original FTC settlement by permanently barring the marketers from promoting and selling credit repair, debt relief, or government benefits products or services.

In April 2011 the FTC charged Sam Tarad Sky, Allrepco LLC, Credit Restoration Brokers LLC, and Debt Negotiations Associates LLC with violating a March 2010 court order resolving charges that they deceptively marketed credit repair and debt relief services and illegally charged an up-front fee for credit repair services.

The FTC also alleged the defendants falsely told consumers that almost anyone can qualify for food stamps, and encouraged them to mislead the government about their finances so they could qualify for the food stamp program.

The 2010 settlement barred the defendants from deceptively marketing any good or service and from violating the Credit Repair Organizations Act. Nevertheless, in its recent civil contempt order, the court found that Sky and his companies used the Internet to promote a food stamp application guide that falsely promised it would show how "almost everybody" or "virtually everyone" can "legally apply for food stamps" or "legally get [food stamps] for free."

Food stamps

Under longstanding government restrictions, only low-income households can qualify for the federal food stamp program. In the guide, however, the defendants repeatedly told consumers to provide the government with misleading information in order to inflate their chances of being deemed eligible. The court found that following this advice could leave consumers open to civil or criminal charges by the government.

In the contempt order, the court also found that defendants charged up-front fees for credit repair services, failed to make required disclosures about their debt relief services, and failed to fully report Sky's business activities, all in violation of the 2010 settlement.

In issuing the contempt order, the court found that consumers paid the defendants more than $32,000 for food stamp, credit repair, and debt relief services while the settlement was in effect. The court found the defendants liable for this amount, and ordered that the money be used to pay back consumers who were injured from defendants' violations of the settlement.

Hey, President Reagan had Star Wars, why shouldn't you have Riddex? If you believe Google Product Search, a seemingly miraculous product called Riddex Plus Pest Repeller will "repel rodents, roaches, ants & spiders" with no muss, no fuss.

Way back in 2003, Riddex marketers agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they made unsubstantiated claims about the effectiveness of their electromagnetic (EM) and ultrasonic pest control products but that doesn't seem to be slowing down Riddex today. 

Just enter Riddex and Google Product Search will assure you that this fine example of American engineering will: "Turn your home's wiring into a pest repellent force field. Patented digital pulse technology repels rodents, roaches, ants & spiders."

Not only that, it's "non-toxic, no chemicals or poison" and to top it all off, has a "built-in nightlight" and is "easy plug & play," just like your Windows computer. What? No trash compactor?

There's also this disclosure: "This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following 2 conditions: This device may not cause harmful interference, and This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation Made in China" [sic]

Well, that certainly cleared up any remaining confusion. And just in case there's any doubt, Google Product Search gives Riddex 4 1/2 stars.  On a scale of 1 to 5, that's pretty good, so one might think this thing must really be the answer to rodent infestations.

Does it really?

But does it really do that? Amy, of Columbus, Ohio, doesn't think so.  

"The Riddex product does not get rid of roaches and mice. I asked the company for a refund and didn't receive it. I lost $227.10," she told ConsumerAffairs.

Neither do the other consumers we've heard from.  Oh, and by the way they say the moneyback guarantee doesn't work very well either.

"This product does not work at all," said Denise of Bronx, NY. "The commercial for this product guaranteed that it would work. However, if it didn't," said Jerrod, of Brooklyn, NY.

Jerrod had bought not one but two of the devices and thus, is doubly annoyed: "I bought a 2-year extended warranty on this garbage product. I called the company requesting my money back. I was told that the 30 days had expired and in order to obtain new devices, I would need to send in $18 per unit," he said.

And then there's Roberta of Mount Sinai, NY: 

"I ordered online 2 sets for $59.90 to go to the same address. I was charged a shipping fee of $35.80 instead of the advertised $8.95. The customer service number is a machine that does not resolve problems."

FTC report

The Federal Trade Commission was pretty skeptical too when it tried to rid the world of Riddex.  Its report alleged that Riddex made unsubstantiated claims that:

• their electromagnetic pest control products repel, drive away, or eliminate mice, rats, and cockroaches from homes and other buildings in two to four weeks, and drive them away by sending a pulsating signal throughout or altering the field around the electrical wiring inside homes and other buildings; and that they act as an effective alternative to, or eliminate the need for, chemicals, pesticides, insecticides, exterminators, and pest control services;
• their combination electromagnetic/ultrasonic pest control devices effectively repel, control, or eliminate mice, rats, cockroaches, rodents, insects, spiders, silverfish, and bats from homes and other buildings, and upset nesting sites of mice, rats, and cockroaches within walls, ceilings, and floors by using the products’ pulse or electromagnetic technology through the household wiring;
• their ultrasonic pest control devices effectively repel, drive away, or eliminate mice, rats, bats, crickets, spiders, and other insects from homes, and eliminate the need for toxic chemicals, poisons, or traps; and
• their pest control products are effective within an area ranging from up to 800 square feet or up to 2,000 feet, depending on the model.

No more primetime

Now, let's be honest.  It's not surprising that a product like this would be advertised on late-night infomercials and sketchy cable channels.  But here we have some of the supposedly greatest names in no-evil-doing retailing -- not just Google Product Search but Amazon, Walmart, Target and Walgreens -- selling a product that stretches credulity beyond normal margins.

We've asked some of the retailers mentioned above about this but, as our inquiries are normally ignored, don't seriously expect to hear from them.

As for whether the thing works -- well, other than the comments  from consumers who say it doesn't, we checked PhysicsForums.com and found comments like these:

• "About ten years ago we tried a similar product. When I saw a spider making a web directly over the ultrasonic transducer, I took it as a clue that they don't really do much."
• "My in-laws have the little pulsing clickers all over their house. They still get mice. It would seem the best rodent protection is of the feisty feline variety for them."
• "I had something similar in my kitchen for roaches ... and when I finally gave up on it serveral had nested and died within it. Perhaps the pulse needs to be tuned to more country music frequencies. Then again, I would starve and die since I would never return to the kitchen."

Meanwhile, consumers with a serious pest problem might want to call a reputable pest control company.  

More information about Riddex

Last year Bally's Total Fitness sold many of its health clubs to LA Fitness. According to the plan, consumers who were members of one of the purchased facilities were supposed to become LA Fitness members.

While the deal might have been good for the two companies, some consumers say it hasn't worked out that well for them. Some have sued while others are still exploring their options.

“I purchased a Bally's Life Membership for $3,000.00 back in 1993,” Jose, of Rosewell, Ga., wrote in a post on ConsumerAffairs. “Well, I called up Bally's a week ago since a colleague of mine informed me about the LA Fitness acquisition of Bally's here in GA. When I called them up, they identified my membership number and immediately told me that all my info has been transferred over to LA fitness and advised me to go to the nearest LAF to my home address. I did that and they couldn't find me in their system and referred me back to Bally's. I have been back and forth with Ballys and LA fitness for the last 5 or 6 days without any resolution.”

Margie, of Elkins Park, Pa., is another life member of Bally's whose membership should have transferred to LA Fitness.

“I went to LA Fitness in January 2012 only to find out my membership was not transferred,” Margie wrote. “I called Bally's from the gym and was told that they were going to research and all my information would be available in four to five days. Needless to say this didn't happen.”

December deal

In early December, LA Fitness took over more than 170 Bally's Total Fitness locations in 17 states. LA Fitness didn't just want the facilities – they wanted the members as well. But a number of consumers writing to ConsumerAffairs say there is no record of their membership at LA Fitness.

Consumers who receive no satisfaction should probably contact their state attorney general's office. At least one state – North Carolina – has taken a tough stand toward health clubs that close or change ownership, leaving members who paid their dues high and dry.

“My office hears every week from people whose gym shut down, leaving them in the lurch,” North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said last April. “Fortunately, North Carolina law requires health clubs to set aside money for refunds and we want to make sure that businesses are following the law so consumers are protected.”