Current Events in February 2012

Fuji is recalling about 10,500 Saratoga Women's Bicycles. The bicycle's frame can break in the center of the downtube during use, causing the rider to lose control and fall.

The company is aware of 12 reports of bicycle frames breaking, including two injuries, a head laceration requiring 20 stitches and scrapes and bruises.

The recalled bicycles are Fuji women's cruiser bicycles. The 2008 through 2010 models Saratoga 1.0, Saratoga 2.0, Saratoga 3.0 and Saratoga 4.0 are included. The bicycles are various colors. "Fuji" and "Saratoga" alone or "Saratoga" along with the model number is printed on the frame of the bicycle. Serial numbers beginning with ICFJ7, ICFJ8, ICFJ9, ICFJ10 and ICFJ11 are included in this recall. The serial number is located on the bottom of the frame near the crank:

Specialty bicycle stores sold the bikes nationwide from November 2007 through December 2011 for between $300 and $500. They were made in China.

Consumers should stop riding the recalled bicycle immediately and return it to any authorized Fuji Bicycle dealers for a free replacement frame.

For additional information, consumers should contact Advanced Sports Inc. toll-free at (888) 286-6263 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the company's website at www.fujibikes.com

The Obama White House’s work to push regulatory approvals behind the scenes for genetically-engineered (GE) crops should be publicly known, according to legal briefs filed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). 

For the past five months, PEER has been litigating to force release of documents detailing the activities of a White House-led “Agriculture Biotech Working Group” consisting of officials from ten agencies dedicated to promoting GE agriculture.  

The Working Group is chaired by the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) which has only released tiny fragments of materials to PEER in its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, PEER charged.  OSTP still refuses to divulge lists of agenda items, schedules and other indications of its work on GE issues.

Monsanto

While not a member of the Working Group, the Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO), whose most prominent member is Monsanto, the world’s leading GE seed company, appears to be intimately aware of the White House actions, as indicated by snippets of correspondence surrendered by OSTP, PEER charged.

Indeed, PEER alleges the White House is withholding a portion of an email it received from a BIO lobbyist on the grounds that it would reveal “trade secrets” and confidential business information.

PEER became involved because the White House Working Group was pressuring the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to plant GE crops on scores of national wildlife refuges, as part of an effort to rebut foreign government concerns about planting these crops.  PEER and other groups are now suing to block these plantings.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s decision last week to pave the way for the sale of gasoline blended with up to 15 percent ethanol is likely to prove a nightmare for car owners who improperly fuel their gas tanks, the Environmental Working Group warns.

The EPA took its action even though every major automaker has warned that millions of vehicle warranties will be voided if drivers fill up with E15.

If the EPA proceeds, it means consumers will pull into gas stations that could have as many as four pumps with different kinds of fuel:

• one for E10 (up to 10 percent ethanol); 
• one for E15; 
• possibly one for E85 (between 70 and 85 percent ethanol); and 
• maybe one for old-fashioned gasoline.

Some stations will also have diesel and natural gas, although they use different-sized nozzles to help eliminate fueling errors.

The EPA intends to approve E15 only for vehicles manufactured after 2000. But some gas station pumps may not even have labels specifying which ethanol blend is which, because not every state requires them.

Extremely confusing

"It is going to be extremely confusing and dangerous for consumers," said Sheila Karpf, a legislative analyst at the Environmental Working Group. "If they make a mistake and put E15 into an older car or small engine, there's a good chance they'll ruin their engine and the manufacturer's warranty won't cover the damage."

To advance consumer safety, EWG analysts have created an Ethanol Blends Guide and Fact Sheet to help drivers choose the right fuel for their vehicles. The analysis provides more information about the new E15 label requirements.

Ethanol is more corrosive and burns hotter than gasoline, properties that could cause some engines to stall, misfire and overheat. Fuel with higher ethanol blends emits more nitrous oxide and formaldehyde than gasoline, lowers mileage and damages fuel tanks and pumps.

"Instead of approving a fuel that will pose health and safety hazards and damage engines, the U.S. should invest in energy efficiency measures and research and development for truly sustainable biofuels," said Karpf. "The high cost of replacing or repairing engines will be tacked onto corn ethanol's other costs -- including higher food prices, increased soil erosion and polluted water supplies."

Stick with E10 or regular

To be safe, EWG recommends that consumers stick with E10 or regular unleaded gasoline if they can find it. If gas pumps are not labeled, consumers should ask a service station employee for more information about the fuel and the amount of ethanol it contains. Consumers should check with their engine manufacturers or mechanics to find out if their cars or small engines can safely run on E15 or other ethanol blends.

Here are other tips for consumers to cut the economic and environmental costs of driving:

• Maintain your vehicle properly: 
  - Keep tires inflated to the recommended pressure.
  - Use the right grade of motor oil (check the manual).
  - Replace air filters when you change oil (your engine will run more efficiently).
  - Replace worn spark plugs.
  - Repair leaks from engine oil or other fluids.
• Drive the speed limit and don't accelerate too fast or brake too hard.
• Minimize air conditioner use.
• Turn your engine off when idling for long periods.
• Get rid of excess weight in your vehicle.
• Drive less.
• Walk, run, or bike.

The latest buzz in convenience store circles is something called AeroShot Pure Energy -- an inhalable caffeine product that its enthusiasts say makes Red Bull look like ginger ale.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Food and Drug Administration is not as enthusiastic and says it will investigate the product to see if it's safe for consumers.  Word of the probe came after Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote to FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, urging her to review AeroShot’s safety and legality.

“We will cooperate fully with the FDA’s review to address the issues raised by Sen. Schumer and are confident that it will conclude that AeroShot is a safe, effective product that complies with FDA regulations," said Tom Hadfield, CEO of Breathable Foods, the Cambridge, Mass., company that makes AeroShot.

In a prepared statement, Hadfield said:

• When used in accordance with its label, AeroShot provides a safe amount of caffeine and B vitamins for ingestion.
• AeroShot does not contain common additives used to enhance the effect of caffeine in energy drinks.
• Each AeroShot contains B vitamins, plus 100 milligrams of caffeine, about the equivalent of the caffeine in a large cup of coffee.
• AeroShot is not recommended for those under 18 years of age, and it is not marketed to children.
• Unlike energy drinks that can be easily mixed with alcohol, AeroShot is not designed to have its contents poured into alcoholic beverages, and it is not intended for mixing with any liquids.
• AeroShot should be used in moderation. Do not exceed three per day.

The product is the brainchild of Dr. David Edwards, a Harvard professor who has also developed inhaled insulin and vaccine products.

Edwards has also been promoting WikiCells -- edible food packaging. 

AeroShot is so far available only in Massachusetts, New York and France.  It sells for $2.99 and is classified as a dietary supplement, a classification the FDA is also likely to investigate.

A class-action lawsuit charges that the Happiness Is Pets chain store misrepresents that its puppies come from small-scale breeders, though they actually come from "some of the most despicable and horrendous puppy mills in the Midwest."

Lead plaintiff Jane Clifford seeks punitive damages from 18 Happiness Is Pets branches in the Chicagoland area, and their owner Ronald Berning, Courthouse News Service reports.

"Plaintiffs purchased sick puppies sold by Happiness which falsely represented that its puppies were healthy and came from private and reputable breeders. In fact, the puppies at Happiness are often sick and come from some of the most despicable and horrendous puppy mills in the Midwest," the complaint states.

That's similar to the experience Ida of Lombard, Ill., recounted in a complaint to ConsumerAffairs.

"I adopted a dog from a couple who bought her at Happiness is Pets in Orland Park four years ago. The store told them she came from a reputable breeder. Big lie," Ida said. "Since then, she has had so many problems, I decided to research her breeder. I found out that her breeder was Marty who runs puppy mills."

Ida said that she researched the matter and found that her dog and others sold by the store come from a puppy mill in Iowa.

"My dog, a cockapoo that I adopted from the couple, could not drink her water when she was a puppy. She would gag and start coughing every time," Ida said. "I found out they use hamster tubes for the puppies to drink from. I literally had to teach her to use a bowl!"

Severe allergies

Ida said her dog also has severe allergies and constantly licks and grooms herself.

"Now she is 4 and I have her on 2 pills daily and two baths every week due to allergies. The only time my poor dog is at peace is when she is asleep. No dog should have to live that way," she said.

The class action lawsuit charges that many puppies are sick when they get to the stores.

"On information and belief, many puppies, no more than 8 weeks old, arrive at Happiness in crowded vans, packed in crates covered with feces and urine, shaking and visibly stressed, many sick," the suit charges. "Happiness employees are directed to bathe and groom the puppies and administer antibiotics and deworming treatments daily, in an effort to mask the unhealthy condition of the puppies.

"These deceptions are perpetrated so as to prevent plaintiffs from realizing the obvious - that purchasing a puppy from Happiness is a terrible idea and is financially and emotionally burdensome," the suit alleges.

The plaintiffs seek punitive damages for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of implied warranty, and want Happiness enjoined from continuing its allegedly deceptive practices. They also seek refunds of the price of the puppies, including all items associated with the purchases, and veterinary expenses.

Medical conditions can sometimes be caused by the food you eat and the drugs you take. Stacy, of Smiths Falls, Ontario, has linked her pain to Cipro.

"I have been suffering for over four months," Stacy wrote in a review on ConsumerAffairs. "Severe, debilitating pain in both my shoulders, preventing me from performing everyday activities and preventing me from sleeping at night. Although the pain started in my shoulders, it quickly began to also affect my left wrist, both hands and most of my fingers. Initially my knees and feet ached as well but that has since subsided.

"Until last night I had no idea what was happening to me. I've been seen by 3 ER doctors, an orthopedic surgeon, an internist, a rheumatologist, spent the night in a sleep lab, and had countless blood tests, all which turned up nothing," she said. "I began taking various vitamins and started on a gluten-free and sugar free diet praying that this may help my pain. Last night I stumbled upon an article about Cipro and it's connection with tendon damage. I was shocked. I take that antibiotic very frequently and never knew this. Although I have yet to discuss this possibility with any doctor, I am nearly certain this is the root of my pain. I suppose I am somewhat relieved to finally have an answer however disappointed to know that I could have prevented this had I of known."

Stacy should immediately discuss this with her doctor. And she may comfort in the fact that she isn't the only one having the reaction.

"Just finished a seven-day course of Cipro," Abigail, of Manchester, N.H. reported to ConsumerAffairs. "Been feeling like I have the flu, achy joints and constant nausea. My elbow felt like it was going to break, carrying in groceries. Everything tastes bad, including water. I knew antibiotics could cause nausea, but I didn't know about the joint problems."

The consumer group Public Citizen was among the first to sound warning about Cipro reactions. Back in 2006 the group asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to warn the public about the risks of tendon rupture by using Cipro. 

If your doctor prescribes Cripro, discuss with her or him the possibility of side effects and any concerns you might have.

Read more about Cipro

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), working with the Wisconsin Office of Credit Unions, has assumed control of service and operations at A M Community Credit Union headquartered in Kenosha, Wis.

Deposits at A M Community Credit remain protected. Administered by NCUA, the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) continues to insure individual accounts at A M Community Credit Union up to $250,000. The NCUSIF, like the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund, has the backing of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

A M Community Credit Union is a state-chartered, federally insured credit union that serves anyone who lives or works in Wisconsin’s Kenosha and Racine counties, as well as any employee of Chrysler Corporation. It reported assets of $125 million and 16,000 members.

NCUA did not publicly say why it had taken control of the credit union. It is authorized by law to appoint itself conservator when necessary to conserve the assets of a federally insured credit union, protect members’ interests, or protect the NCUSIF.

While continuing normal member services, NCUA will work to resolve issues affecting the institution’s safety and soundness, the agency said. During conservatorship, members can continue to conduct normal financial transactions—deposit and access funds, make loan payments, and use shares—at the credit union.

A M Community Credit Union is the second federally insured credit union placed into conservatorship during 2012. 

More information for depositors is available on the NCUA Web site.

We often hear from consumers upset that their expensive new refrigerators have multiple problems. One consumer tells us she did a little investigation and was able to resolve her problem herself.

"It appears, according to my repairman, Frigidaire SS side by side PHSC239DSBO has a wiring harness issue," Rebecca, of Milton, Fla., wrote in a review on ConsumerAffairs. "It falls into the drip pan shorting it out, which could cost $300 for a circuit board if that would correct the problem. He states Frigidaire knows of the problem but refused to do a recall. My neighbor and husband rewired the harness and strapped it up so that it will not fall into the drip pan again. Presto I have power to freezer side."

Some people feel comfortable trying to repair their own appliances and some don't. Perhaps most don't, and for good reason. Some of these appliances are complex machines, with advanced electronics.

Obviously, if your unit is still under warranty you should only have an approved repair person work on it. Otherwise, you will void the warranty.

But if the machine is older and you are an experienced home handyperson, it may be possible to do the work yourself. 

Read more about Frigidaire

The Wall Street Journal reports today that Google and other advertising networks have used "tricks" to get around privacy controls in Apple's Safari browser, widely used on iPhones and Apple computers -- and a consumer group that has been sharply critical of Google is calling for a federal investigation.

The Journal says that by using special code, the companies were able to monitor users who had set their controls to block such monitoring. The newspaper said Google disabled the code after it was contacted by the Journal reporters working on the story.

The Consumer Watchdog group asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether Google violated a previous privacy agreement with the FTC by tracking cookies in a way that circumvents default privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser.

In a letter to the FTC, the group said the FTC should take "immediate action against Google for using unfair and deceptive practices in violation of Section Five of the Federal Trade Commission Act in the way that it has violated peoples online privacy choices and falsely advised them about how to make opt-out choices."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation called the relevation "bad news for the company" and said, "It’s time for Google to acknowledge that it can do a better job of respecting the privacy of Web users.

"One way that Google can prove itself as a good actor in the online privacy debate is by providing meaningful ways for users to limit what data Google collects about them," EFF said in a blog posting on its site. "Specifically, it’s time that Google's third-party web servers start respecting Do Not Track requests, and time for Google to offer a built-in Do Not Track option," .

Contradicted instructions

The Journal said the use of the code "appeared to contradict some of Google's own instructions to Safari users on how to avoid tracking."

"Google was lying," said John M. Simpson, privacy policy director for Consumer Watchdog. "It was in fact circumventing the privacy choice and setting ... tracking cookies.

"Until recently, one Google site told Safari users they could rely on Safari's privacy settings to prevent tracking by Google. Google removed that language from the site Tuesday night," the Journal said.

Google disputed the Journal's report.

"The Journal mischaracterizes what happened and why. We used known Safari functionality to provide features that signed-in Google users had enabled. It's important to stress that these advertising cookies do not collect personal information."

The Journal said the Google code was initially spotted by Stanford researcher Jonathan Mayer. The Journal said it hired an independent technical adviser, Ashkan Soltani, who it said "found that ads on 22 of the top 100 websites installed the Google tracking code on a test computer, and ads on 23 sites installed it on an iPhone browser."

Once the code was activated, it could reach beyond those Web sites and enable Google to track users across the "vast majority" of sites.

The other advertising companies using the code were Vibrant Media Inc., Media Innovation Group LLC and PointRoll Inc., the Journal said.

Children endangered

The latest charges come just one day after the Federal Trade Commission said a survey found children's privacy was being endangered by lax oversight of mobile apps provided through Google's Android Apps Store and Apple's App Store.

FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said it was time for the apps industry to "wake up" and act responsibly.

The study found that online app stores are providing almost no information about what information is gathered from children, how it is used, who has access to it and what steps parents can take to keep their children safe.

The report found that in 2008, smartphone users could choose from about 600 available apps. Today there are more than 500,000 apps in the Apple App Store and 380,000 in the Android Market.

"Consumers have downloaded these apps more than 28 billion times, and young children and teens are increasingly embracing smartphone technology for entertainment and educational purposes" but neither the app stores nor the app developers provide the information parents need to determine what data is being collected from their children, how it is being shared, or who will have access to it, the survey found.

Because of all the moisture in a small space, bathrooms need "refreshing" more often than most of the other rooms in our homes. If you're selling or renting your property, sprucing up the bathroom can improve the market value quickly and relatively inexpensively, assuming you have the right contractor.

Hiring a franchisee who uses cookie-cutter solutions and marketing spiels dictated by the company whose name he's licensing can work out but it can also backfire, as John of Port Richey, Fla., learned.

"I had Bath Fitter do two bathrooms in my home. The main bathroom walls are coming loose and bubbling. They do not return a phone call and I am extremely upset with them. The tape they use does not adhere," John said. "Never in my life have I seen a company that will not return a phone call and back up their product that cost a lot of money and misery to a consumer."

Unfortunately, John's experience is fairly typical of the complaints consumers -- and former employees -- write to us about.

"As a former employee, I would like to say watch out for people you hire to perform work in your home. As you are likely to be beat out of your money by salesmen who are trying to get the most they can for their services," said a Charleston, W.V., man who asked that his name not be used. "They will install the same tub or shower down this street for more money if they can get it out of you. Be careful. Don't be fooled by the offer of a free accessory. They are never free."

Now or never

That's the experience David of Kansas City, Mo., reported. 

"The original price quote was around $4,300 but when we balked, he said he could reduce it to $4,000. Then we said we weren't interested, the price suddenly was reduced by $1,000. His whole approach was the 'hard sell,' David said. "He never showed us a detailed price list for each item on what we wanted. He did all his figuring in an old spiral notebook with a calculator. He did not leave any paperwork of the prices he quoted and said it was now or never to buy."

Richard of Waltham, Mass., found the facelift he paid for to be just that -- a surface job.

"It may look pretty, but beware of what is behind the walls! We had a double sized shower stall installed in 2005 to replace a bathtub. The shower looks beautiful. About three months ago, water started to drip from our kitchen ceiling under the shower. Then one day, a chunk of the ceiling fell down along with chunks of old tiles and debris," Richard said.

"I had the plumbing repaired by my own plumber as it was an emergency situation.  When Bath Fitters came out, they ruled that they would not pay for the plumbing repairs since I did not use their plumbers," Richard said.

What to do

What's a homeowner to do?  

Research.  As with any home improvement project, the most essential step is to do your research upfront, before you sign anything or get out the crowbar. We found lots of good information at About.com and ConsumerReports.org.  Ripping everything out and covering the walls with plastic shower liners is not always the best way to go. Check out Ask Jim to get the unvarnished opinion of a Northern Virginia contractor. 

Interview.  The next step is to find a couple of local contractors who are recommended by your friends and acquaintances.  Ask the contractors for references who can vouch for their work.  Any good contractor should have a photo album of his work or an iPad stuffed with images. Ask the contractors to give you a proposal.  You can then make final decisions about what to include, what to downgrade, etc. See Hey Jim for more advice on picking a contractor. 

Get a written contract. The contractor should present you with a complete contract that outlines the work to be done, specifies how your home will be protected from dust, chemicals, etc., during the process, what materials will be used and the approximate timeline.

Be wary of franchisees.  Sure, some people have a good experience with Bath Fitter but many don't. When you hire a local contractor, you are talking to the person who will actually do, or at least supervise, the work.  When you are dealing with a franchisee, you are dealing with a salesman whose job is to make the sale and move on. His or her hands will not be sullied by epoxy or paint.

Also, if a job goes bad, the local contractor is a lot easier to track down and is more likely to negotiate a settlement that will make you at least somewhat happy. Franchise operations tend to rely on the legal advice of the franchisor's legal department, which is often best defined in one word: stonewall.

Franchises work fairly well for hamburger joints. But remodeling a bathroom isn't flipping a burger and the quality control is not what consumers have come to expect in a mass-market food franchise.

If you want to consider a franchise, that's fine, but ask for references and check them out.  Read the contract carefully before you sign it. 

Buyer beward. If that Big Mac isn't done to your liking you can pitch it and forget about it. If your bathroom remodel goes south, it's another story.

More consumer reviews of Bath Fitter   

The Media Policy Center, a Santa Monica non-profit, today announced establishment of the Martin H. Bosworth Award for Consumer Journalism, an award to be given annually to the individual or organization whose work in the preceding year best exemplifies consumer-centered news reporting.

The award is named for Martin H. Bosworth, the late managing editor of ConsumerAffairs and is funded by a grant from James R. Hood, the founder and editor of the consumer Web site.

“Martin was a tireless and fearless crusader for the everyday consumer. His outstanding work benefited millions of individuals and lives on to this day in ConsumerAffairs' reporting and consumer empowerment efforts,” Hood said. “He was a big guy with a big voice and consumers lost a real champion when he was taken from us long before his time.”

Bosworth was 35 when he died at his Los Angeles home two years ago of a circulatory disorder. A graduate of Boston University, he joined ConsumerAffairs as a free lance reporter in Washington, D.C., in 2005, later becoming a fulltime staff member. He was named Managing Editor in 2008 and in 2009 led the transfer of the Web site's editorial operations to Los Angeles.

One of the first peer review sites on the Web, ConsumerAffairs, founded in 1998, publishes consumer reviews that empower consumers to collaboratively find the products and services that best suit their needs and helps them identify shoddy practices and outright scams. Its news reports deal with automotive, personal finance, health, travel and other consumer issues.

The Media Policy Center addresses issues of social welfare, public policy, education, the environment, and health care. Its primary goal is to inform, challenge, and ultimately engage a responsive citizenry and to encourage full and meaningful debate and participation across the political, social, and economic spectrum.

Media Policy Center co-CEOs Harry Wiland and Dale Bell said the first Bosworth award will be presented in February 2013 at a dinner ceremony in Santa Monica. Details and nomination forms will be available later this year.

The U.S. Labor Department reports the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the government's main inflation gauge, rose 0.2 percent in January. But as motorists are all too aware, most of that is due to gasoline prices.

Inflation over the past 12 months has increased at a rate of 2.9 percent. Inflation is at its highest level since September 2008. While it might seem low, economist Joel Naroff, of Naroff Economic Advisors, in Holland, Pa., says it's enough to wipe out a worker's increase in earnings.

“Households have been battered by weak growth and rapidly rising prices but, it looks like inflation is moderating to some extent,” Naroff said.

Good news, bad news

From an economist's perspective, there is both good and bad news in the report. January's increase in gasoline prices has continued into February, and will likely continue into the spring. At least, that's what happened last year.

Also, food prices continue to rise. But at least the pace of food price increases slowed last month.

“Indeed, supermarket prices were largely flat, though restaurants are pushing things up,” Naroff said.

While inflation, on the surface, still appears tame, it's still rising faster than paychecks. Wages rose at the same pace in January as did inflation so consumer spending power was flat.

“That does not bode well for consumption,” Naroff said. “Over the year, inflation adjusted earnings were down one percent and that was for all workers. When you only look at production and nonsupervisory employees, earnings fell by 1.7 percent, which explains why consumers have not been shopping.”

A Pennsylvania case has emerged as a teaching moment for parents whose children use social networking sites, such as Facebook. People aren't always who they seem to be.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly has filed a series of felony charges against a Butler County, Pa., man accused of using Facebook to operate an elaborate and disturbing false identity scheme that was used to solicit young girls for explicit photos or meetings for sex.

The man, 53-year old William Ainsworth, was arrested last September at the home of a 14-year old girl. But Kelly said the investigation quickly expanded as investigators realized there was more to the case than the solicitation of one girl.

'Intricate web'

"What we found was an intricate web of false Facebook identities that were used to establish online relationships with vulnerable girls, who were then manipulated into sending nude photos to Ainsworth , believing he was a young surfer living in Florida - or physically meeting Ainsworth for sex - under the impression that those sexual encounters would help raise money so the girls could run away to Florida to be with their new online friend," Kelly said.

Kelly urged parents to use this case as a reason to have serious conversations with their children about online social networking sites like Facebook, especially concerning predators who may manipulate these sites to victimize children.

"It is important to emphasize that the people you meet online may not always be who they say, and may actually be looking for something far more than just 'friendship'," Kelly said. "The things you say, the photos you post and your other online activities may be twisted against you in a sinister manner."

Multiple Fake Facebook Personas

Kelly said that Ainsworth is accused of fabricating the Facebook personas of two young men, "Bill Cano" and "Anthony 'Rip' Navari," who were both supposedly living in Florida as surfers after dropping out of high school and running away from their families. Kelly said Ainsworth may have copied numerous photos of young men and surfers from other social networking sites in order to support these fake Facebook profiles.

As part of the scheme, Kelly said that Ainsworth allegedly used "Bill" and "Rip" to initiate online friendships with young people from throughout the greater Pittsburgh area, nearly all of them female. She said that Ainsworth accumulated more than 600 Facebook "friends" using the bogus profiles. The false accounts were removed at the request of the Attorney General's Office during this investigation, Kelly said.

Initially, Ainsworth is accused of using the "Bill Cano" profile to identify vulnerable girls. In some cases, Ainsworth's victims believed that "Bill" had attended their school before running away, while in other cases the victims responded to his online invitations because of multiple overlapping friends.

Intricate plan

Kelly said the plan was very involved and highly detailed. She contends that Ainsworth allegedly used Bill to "groom" potential victims; asking about their interests, complimenting them about their physical appearance and discussing problems with school or family members in order to establish an emotional relationship. "Bill" would then convince the victims to send him nude or sexually explicit photos.

In a bizarre turn, Kelly says Ainsworth then “killed off” Bill, creating grief among the community of young girls who had befriended him. A new character, “Rip,” then moved in to console the girls and eventually let them know that they could raise money to run away and join him in Florida by having sex with an older man in the Pittsburgh area.

Online safety

Kelly urged parents to be aware of a number of online safety issues that were identified during this investigation:

• Several of the victims indicated that their parents had little or no awareness of their activity on Facebook or did not closely monitor their online communication with others.
• Many victims regularly accessed Facebook outside their homes, away from any possible oversight by parents, using cell phones and other portable devices.
• All of the victims had been experiencing stresses at home or school, ranging from parental custody disputes to substance abuse and/or harassment by peers.  Those issues appear to have been used by Ainsworth to develop closer online relationships.

 Kelly encouraged parents to stress the importance of not sharing personal information online, like full names, ages, addresses, phone numbers and school information.

She added that children should always be especially cautious about strangers who approach them online.

Finally, she encouraged parents to take time to closely review how their children are using social networking sites and to monitor their communication with others, especially with young teens who may not yet be sensitive to deceptive or predatory behavior involving online "friends."

A petition attacking Michael Taylor, deputy commissioner for foods at the Food and Drug Administration, “represents the baldest sort of character assassination” and is full of factual misstatements, according to an open letter written by food safety experts to MoveOn.org, whose SignOn.org site hosts the petition.

The food safety experts, and the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, are calling on MoveOn to send an email to its members correcting the petition’s errors and offering instructions to people who may want to remove their names from the petition.

The petition, created by an Atlanta financial advisor, Frederick Ravid, criticizes Taylor for having worked at the controversial biotechnology company Monsanto.

But MoveOn.org defended its position.

"Michael Taylor is just another example of the revolving door between lobbyists and government that has made the American people so distrustful of Washington politics," said Steven Biel, Director of SignOn.org. "Mr. Taylor went from working at the FDA to working at Monsanto and back to the FDA. Of course this back and forth raises questions about his ability to remain impartial regarding decisions that impact Monsanto's bottom line."

"The American people deserve an unbiased approach to protecting our food. That's why the nearly 500,000 people who signed the petition on SignOn.org urge President Obama to seek a qualified replacement with no such conflicts of interest."

Diversity of views

The signatories to the open letter to MoveOn.org write that they have a “diversity of views” on genetically engineered foods but are “unanimous in our belief that Taylor is a valued deputy commissioner, and we regret that a factually untrue Internet smear campaign has attracted so much support.”

“All of us have known Michael Taylor for many years, including when he occupied previous high-level positions in the federal government, taught at George Washington University School of Public Health, and even when he worked at Monsanto,” the food safety experts write. “We acknowledge that Monsanto symbolizes a lot of things that many people (including some of us) don’t like about modern, industrial agriculture. But Mr. Taylor’s résumé is not reducible to his work at that company.”

The letter goes on to praise Taylor’s work in the Clinton Administration fighting for pathogen controls for meat and poultry producers, and for his current work in the Obama Administration reforming the FDA.

"No basis in fact"

The letter to MoveOn also says that some of Mr. Ravid’s statements in the petition about genetically engineered foods are without basis in fact.

The petition blames skyrocketing diagnoses of chronic disease on genetically engineered foods, and says that the biotech industry’s products “may also be contributors to colon, breast, lymphatic, and prostate cancers.” Despite the controversy over genetically engineered crops, no evidence supports those claims, according to CSPI.

“Reasonable people can disagree about Monsanto’s corporate policies (often bad), or the quality of government oversight of GE foods (inadequate), or the appropriateness of genetically engineering food crops in the first place,” the open letter reads. “But all of us agree that there is no foundation for the outlandish statements made in the petition.”

The open letter notes that far from being a food safety authority, the petition’s author, Mr. Ravid, believes himself to be “the 21st generation descendent from father-to-son of the famous 12th century Kaballistic [sic] Master Rabbi Abraham ben David, of Posquierres, known as the RaVaD.”

Ravid’s web site indicates that he believes President Obama is the reincarnation of a Civil-War-era Senator, Lyman Trumbull, and that various world events, such as the earthquake in Haiti or the founding of the League of Nations, are related to solar eclipses.

“We mean no disrespect for Mr. Ravid’s religious beliefs but we do question his respect for science,” the food safety experts wrote to MoveOn.org.

Besides CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson, other signatories to the letter include Carole Tucker Foreman, a former Assistant Secretary for Food Safety affiliated with Consumer Federation of America, food safety lawyer William D. Marler, STOP Foodborne Illness chief executive officer Deirdre Schlunegger, J. Glenn Morris of the University of Florida’s Emerging Pathogens Institute, Michael Rodemeyer of the University of Virginia and the former executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, National Center for Food Protection and Defense director Shawn Kennedy, and Donald W. Schaffner, director of the Center for Advanced Food Technology at Rutgers. 

A study by the Federal Trade Commission finds that online app stores are providing almost no information about what information is gathered from children, how it is used, who has access to it and what steps parents can take to keep their children safe.

The report found that in 2008, smartphone users could choose from about 600 available apps. Today there are more than 500,000 apps in the Apple App Store and 380,000 in the Android Market.

"Consumers have downloaded these apps more than 28 billion times, and young children and teens are increasingly embracing smartphone technology for entertainment and educational purposes" but neither the app stores nor the app developers provide the information parents need to determine what data is being collected from their children, how it is being shared, or who will have access to it, the survey found.

"At the FTC, one of our highest priorities is protecting children's privacy, and parents deserve the tools to help them do that," said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. "Companies that operate in the mobile marketplace provide great benefits, but they must step up to the plate and provide easily accessible, basic information, so that parents can make informed decisions about the apps their kids use.

"Right now, it is almost impossible to figure out which apps collect data and what they do with it," Leibowitz said. "The kids app ecosystem needs to wake up, and we want to work collaboratively with industry to help ensure parents have the information they need."

Lots of data

The report notes that mobile apps can capture a broad range of user information from a mobile device automatically, including the user's precise geolocation, phone number, list of contacts, call logs, unique identifiers, and other information stored on the device. At the same time, the report highlights "the lack of information available to parents prior to downloading mobile apps for their children, and calls on industry to provide greater transparency about their data practices."

While there was a diverse pool of kids apps created by hundreds of different developers, there was almost no information about the data collection and sharing on the Apple App store promotion pages and little information beyond general permission statements on the Android Market promotion pages.

"In most instances, staff was unable to determine from the information on the app store page or the developer's landing page whether an app collected any data, let alone the type of data collected, the purpose for such collection, and who . . . obtained access to such data."

The report recommends:

• All members of the "kids app ecosystem" – the stores, developers and third parties providing services – should play an active role in providing key information to parents.
• App developers should provide data practices information in simple and short disclosures. They also should disclose whether the app connects with social media, and whether it contains ads. Third parties that collect data also should disclose their privacy practices.
• App stores also should take responsibility for ensuring that parents have basic information. "As gatekeepers of the app marketplace, the app stores should do more." The report notes that the stores provide architecture for sharing pricing and category data, and should be able to provide a way for developers to provide information about their data collection and sharing practices.

The FTC enforces the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule. The Rule requires operators of online services, including interactive mobile apps, to provide notice and get parental consent prior to collecting information from children under 13. The report says in the next 6 months, FTC staff will conduct an additional review to determine whether some mobile apps were violating COPPA.

It's great having the Internet, DVD and CD players, navigation systems and smartphones in our cars, except for one thing -- the potential for disaster rises exponentially with the degree of distraction, several studies have shown. 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who has sometimes been out on the bleeding edge of the issue, today announced the first-ever federally proposed guidelines to encourage automobile manufacturers to limit the distraction risk for in-vehicle electronic devices. 

“Distracted driving is a dangerous and deadly habit on America’s roadways – that’s why I’ve made it a priority to encourage people to stay focused behind the wheel,” said Secretary LaHood. “These guidelines are a major step forward in identifying real solutions to tackle the issue of distracted driving for drivers of all ages.”

The proposed voluntary guidelines would apply to communications, entertainment, information gathering and navigation devices or functions that are not required to safely operate the vehicle. 

And even though they're voluntary, automakers who choose to ignore the guidelines will be leaving themselves open to litigation and possible regulatory backlash when future accidents occur.

$330 million

Issued by the Department’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the guidelines would establish specific recommended criteria for electronic devices installed in vehicles at the time they are manufactured that require visual or manual operation by drivers.  The announcement of the guidelines comes just days after President Obama’s FY 2013 budget request, which includes $330 million over six years for distracted driving programs that increase awareness of the issue and encourage stakeholders to take action. 

Geared toward light vehicles (cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, minivans, and other vehicles rated at not more than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight), the guidelines proposed today are the first in a series of guidance documents NHTSA plans to issue to address sources of distraction that require use of the hands and/or diversion of the eyes from the primary task of driving.

In particular, the proposed guidelines released today recommend criteria that manufacturers can use to ensure the systems or devices they provide in their vehicles are less likely to distract the driver with tasks not directly relevant to safely operating the vehicle, or cause undue distraction by engaging the driver’s eyes or hands for more than a very limited duration while driving.

Electronic warning system functions such as forward-collision or lane departure alerts would not be subject to the proposed guidelines, since they are intended to warn a driver of a potential crash and are not considered distracting devices.

“We recognize that vehicle manufacturers want to build vehicles that include the tools and conveniences expected by today’s American drivers,” said NHTSA Administrator David Strickland. “The guidelines we’re proposing would offer real-world guidance to automakers to help them develop electronic devices that provide features consumers want—without disrupting a driver’s attention or sacrificing safety.”

The proposed Phase I distraction guidelines include recommendations to:

• Reduce complexity and task length required by the device;
• Limit device operation to one hand only (leaving the other hand to remain on the steering wheel to control the vehicle);
• Limit individual off-road glances required for device operation to no more than two seconds in duration;
• Limit unnecessary visual information in the driver’s field of view;
• Limit the amount of manual inputs required for device operation. 

The proposed guidelines would also recommend the disabling of the following operations by in-vehicle electronic devices while driving, unless the devices are intended for use by passengers and cannot reasonably be accessed or seen by the driver, or unless the vehicle is stopped and the transmission shift lever is in park.

• Visual-manual text messaging;
• Visual-manual internet browsing;
• Visual-manual social media browsing;
• Visual-manual navigation system destination entry by address;
• Visual-manual 10-digit phone dialing;
• Displaying to the driver more than 30 characters of text unrelated to the driving task.

NHTSA is also considering future guidelines that might address devices or systems that are not built into the vehicle but are brought into the vehicle and used while driving, including aftermarket and portable personal electronic devices such as navigation systems, smart phones, electronic tablets and pads, and other mobile communications devices.

A third set of proposed guidelines may address voice-activated controls to further minimize distraction in factory-installed, aftermarket, and portable devices.  

Debt collectors and consumer credit reporting agencies are among the few largely unregulated segments of the financial services industry. But, perhaps, not for much longer.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today announced a proposed rule to include debt collectors and consumer reporting agencies under its nonbank supervision program -- the first time they would be subject to federal supervision.

“Consumer financial products and services have become more complex over the years and they have expanded well beyond traditional banks,” said Richard Cordray, CFPB Director. “Our proposed rule would mean that those debt collectors and credit reporting agencies that qualify as larger participants are subject to the same supervision process that we apply to the banks. This oversight would help restore confidence that the federal government is standing beside the American consumer.”

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which created the CFPB, authorizes the CFPB to supervise nonbanks in the specific markets of residential mortgage, payday lending, and private education lending.

In addition, for other nonbank markets for consumer financial products or services, the CFPB has the authority to supervise “larger participants.” As directed by Dodd-Frank, the Bureau must define such “larger participants” by rule, and an initial such rule must be issued by July 21, 2012.

Last summer, the CFPB sought public comment about possible markets to include in the initial rule and available data sources the Bureau could use to define larger participants in nonbank markets.

30 million

Debt collectors and consumer reporting agencies touch millions of American consumers. About 30 million Americans have debt under collection. For these consumers, the average amount under collection is $1,400.

Three main kinds of debt collection firms dominate the market: firms that collect debt owned by another company in return for a fee; firms that buy debt and collect the proceeds for themselves; and debt collection attorneys and law firms that collect through litigation. A single company may collect through any or all of these activities.

Under the proposed rule, debt collectors with more than $10 million in annual receipts from debt collection activities would be subject to supervision. Based on available data, the CFPB estimates that the proposed rule would cover approximately 175 debt collection firms — or 4 percent of debt collection firms — and that these firms account for 63 percent of annual receipts from the debt collection market.

Credit reporting agencies

The consumer reporting market plays a critical role in the consumer financial services marketplace and in consumers’ financial lives. It includes the largest credit bureaus selling comprehensive consumer reports, consumer report resellers, and specialty consumer reporting agencies.

According to the Consumer Data Industry Association, each year there are 36 billion updates to consumer files, and three billion reports are issued. The three largest consumer reporting agencies alone maintain information on 200 million American consumers.

Lenders use consumer reports, which are commonly called credit reports, when evaluating applications for credit cards, home mortgage loans, automobile loans, and other types of credit. Specialty consumer reporting agencies collect and provide information used to make eligibility decisions for a variety of products, such as checking accounts.

Under the proposed rule, consumer reporting agencies with more than $7 million in annual receipts from consumer reporting activities would be subject to supervision. This would include approximately 7 percent of consumer reporting agencies based on available data. The proposed threshold would allow the CFPB to cover about 30 consumer reporting agencies. The CFPB estimates that these 30 companies account for about 94 percent of the annual receipts from consumer reporting.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is making it virtually impossible for telemarketers to reach out and touch consumers with pre-recorded marketing pitches, also known as “robo-calls.”

By a unanimous vote, the FCC adopted rules to require telemarketers who use automated calling systems to get permission from a consumer before they contact them. And not just permission – written permission!

Death knell

Since telemarketers in general and robo-calls in particular are a widespread source of consumer complaints, it's highly unlikely many consumers would provide such consent. Given the fact that obtaining that written permission would be an extremely expensive undertaking, the ruling appears to be a death knell for robo-calls.

The ruling only covers robo-calls in which the telemarketer is trying to sell something. Informational robo-calls, like reminders of a dentist appointment, and political messages, are exempt from the rule.

“Consumers by the thousands have complained to us, letting us know that they remain unhappy with having their privacy invaded and their time wasted by these unwanted calls,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a statement.

How about debt collectors?

It isn't immediately clear if the new ruling will apply to debt collectors that use automated calling systems. Jannette, of Garden Grove, Calif., has to hope it does.

“They are robo-calling my cellphone number several times a day without my request to track down another member of my family,” Jannette told ConsumerAffairs. “I have called them several times and asked them to cease and desist, but they keep calling.”

Texts are covered

The ruling does, in fact, apply to cellular text messages, also a source of widespread complaints. The wireless industry strongly supported the ruling.

"With 80 percent of wireless-related complaints coming from third parties sending unwanted text messages and making unsolicited phone calls, consumers are the winners from the FCC's re-affirmation today,” said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, an executive with CTIA – The Wireless Association. “As CTIA had requested this January, any autodialed text message sent to a wireless device without prior written or oral consent violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.”

Guttman-McCabe said there has been an increase in consumer complaints and inquiries made to carriers' customer call centers in recent months regarding unwanted text messages sent by political campaigns.