Current Events in June 2013

Some clarifications and revisions are in store for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) January 2013 mortgage rules.

“When we published our mortgage rules, we pledged to be attentive to issues that arose through the implementation process,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Today’s proposal revises and clarifies certain aspects of our rules to ease implementation and to pave the way for more effective consumer protections in the marketplace.”

The proposal is designed to resolve questions identified during the implementation process and to help the rules deliver their intended value for consumers.

Affected rules

The CFPB finalized several mortgage rules in January 2013 that are addressed by the proposal:

• The Ability-to-Repay rule protects consumers from irresponsible mortgage lending by requiring that lenders make a reasonable, good-faith determination that prospective borrowers have the ability to repay their loans.
• The mortgage servicing rules established strong protections for homeowners facing foreclosure, and
• the loan originator compensation rules address certain practices that incentivized steering borrowers into risky and/or high-cost loans.

The CFPB also finalized rules that strengthened consumer protections for high-cost mortgages, and instituted a requirement that escrow accounts be established for a minimum of five years for certain higher-priced mortgage loans.

Reviising the rules

This new proposal issued involves clarifications and some narrow revisions to those mortgage rules. Among other things, today’s proposal would:

• Outline procedures for obtaining follow-up information on loss-mitigation applications. According to the CFPB’s servicing rule, within five days of receipt of a loss mitigation application, a servicer must acknowledge receipt of the application and inform the borrower whether it deems the application complete or incomplete. If incomplete, the servicer must identify for the borrower what is needed to complete it. 
• Facilitate servicers’ offering of short-term forbearance plans. The proposal would make it easier for servicers to offer short-term forbearance plans for delinquent borrowers who need only temporary relief without going through a full loss mitigation evaluation process. For example, under the proposal, a servicer could provide a two-month forbearance to a borrower who is suffering a short-term hardship.
• Facilitate lending in rural or underserved areas. Some of the CFPB’s mortgage rules contain provisions applicable to certain small creditors that operate predominantly in “rural” or “underserved” areas. It recently announced that it would reexamine the definitions of rural or underserved over the next two years. 
• Make clarifications about financing of credit insurance premiums. The Dodd-Frank Act prohibition on creditors financing credit insurance premiums in connection with certain mortgage transactions was adopted in the Bureau’s loan originator compensation rule. Questions have arisen during the regulatory implementation process concerning the application of that prohibition. The proposal seeks to answer those questions. 
• Clarify the definition of a loan originator. Under the CFPB’s new rules, those classified as loan originators are required to meet qualification requirements, and are also subject to certain restrictions on compensation practices. Creditors and loan originators have expressed concern that tellers or other administrative staff could be unintentionally classified as loan originators for engaging in routine customer service activities. The proposal would clarify the circumstances under which a loan originator’s or creditor’s administrative staff acts as loan originators.
• Clarify the points and fees thresholds for manufactured housing employees. For retailers of manufactured homes and their employees, the proposal would clarify what compensation must be counted toward certain thresholds for points and fees under the ability-to-repay and high-cost mortgage rules.
• Revise effective dates of Loan Originator rule and ban on financing of credit insurance. Currently, the 2013 Loan Originator Compensation Final Rule is scheduled to take effect on January 10, 2014.

The housing market is coming back with a vengeance in terms of sales and prices.

Government figures show sales of new single-family houses rose 2.1% in May 2013 to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 476,000. That's well above the 460,00 projected by economists surveyed by Briefing.com and 29% above the May 2012 level of 369,000.

Sales rose in every regions except the South, led by whopping surge of nearly 41%. Sales in the south fell 9%.

Prices

The median sales price of a new house sold in May was $263,900. The median is the point at which half are higher and half are lower. The average sales price was $307,800.

The full new home sales report for May is available at the Census Bureau website.

Case-Shiller

If you liked the May increase in home prices take a look at a different set of numbers for April.

The S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices showed average home prices increased shot up 11.6% and 12.1% for the 10- and 20-City Composites, respectively, in the 12 months ending in April 2013. March to April, the 10- and 20-City Composites rose 2.6% and 2.5%.

All 20 cities and both Composites showed positive year-over-year returns for at least the fourth

straight month, with Atlanta, Dallas, Detroit and Minneapolis posting their highest annual gains since

the start of their respective indices. On a monthly basis, all cities with the exception of Detroit were higher.

FHFA House Price Index

Finally, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) House Price Index (HPI) reports housing prices were up 0.7% in April, while the previously reported 1.3% increase in March was revised higher -- to a 1.5% increase. This marks the fifteenth consecutive month that the HPI has risen.

For the nine census divisions covered, price changes from March to April ranged from a 0.2% dip in the New England division to a gain of 2.2% in the Mountain division, while the changes over a 12-month period ranged from a gain of 2.9% in the Middle Atlantic division to a 17.1% surge in the Pacific division.

American consumers are more confident about the economy than they've been in more than five years.

The Conference Board says its Consumer Confidence Index rose in June for the second straight month. It now stands at 81.4 -- up 7.1 from May and the highest it's been since January 2008, when it clocked in at 87.3.

The Present Situation Index increased to 69.2 from 64.8. The Expectations Index improved to 89.5 from 80.6 last month.

Lynn Franco, the board's director of economic indicators says consumers are considerably more positive about current business and labor market conditions than they were at the beginning of the year. “Expectations,” she adds, “have also improved considerably over the past several months, suggesting that the pace of growth is unlikely to slow in the short-term, and may even moderately pick up.”

How they see it

Consumers’ assessment of current conditions continued to improve in June. Those who said business conditions are “good” held steady at 19.1%, while those saying business conditions are “bad” decreased to 24.9% from 26.0%.

Consumers’ appraisal of the job market was also more positive. Those claiming jobs are “plentiful” increased to 11.7% from 9.9%, while those claiming jobs are “hard to get” edged up to 36.9% from 36.4%.

Looking ahead

Consumers’ expectations regarding the short-term outlook improved again in June. Those expecting business conditions to be better over the next six months increased to 20.3% from 18.7%, while those expecting business conditions to worsen decreased to 11.4% from 12.2%.

The outlook for the labor market was also more optimistic. Those anticipating more jobs in the months ahead improved to 19.6% from 16.3%, while those anticipating fewer jobs decreased to 16.1% from 20.0%. The proportion of consumers expecting to make more money dipped slightly to 15.2% from 15.6%, while those expecting a decrease declined to 14.4% from 15.3%.

The monthly survey is conducted for The Conference Board by Nielsen. The cutoff date for the preliminary results was June 13.

We're just 100 or so days away from the Oct. 1 implementation of the state health insurance exchanges called for by Obamacare but some major insurers, not to mention Republican governors, are hanging back, refusing to have anything to do with the exchanges.

Not so Blue Cross-Blue Shield. They're expected to operate in nearly every state, while UnitedHealth Group and Aetna are proceeding more cautiously.

The idea behind the exchanges is to make it easier for consumers who don't have health insurance through their job to get a health plan that covers their basic health needs at an affordable price -- something that's nearly impossible for most Americans of modest or moderate means  these days.

Anyone who has ever stood in an emergency room while a family member was being treated and tried to remember if the insurance premium was up to date will know how important this is.

It's not just poor people who have trouble getting health insurance. Many self-employed and entrepreneurial types are in the same boat. With premiums for a family of four easily exceeding $1,200 per month in most states and a list of exclusions as long as a stretch limo, health insurance is a very expensive and frayed safety net.

Higher risk

The reason individual premiums are so high -- at least in theory -- is that individuals present a higher risk since the insurance company can't spread the risk over a larger group, as is the case when it writes a policy for Monsanto or General Motors. 

Of course, if everyone could buy insurance, that would create a larger group, no? This is, to over-simplify greatly, the general idea behind the health exchanges that are at the heart of Obamacare, more formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

In California, which is way ahead of the rest of the states in implementing the exchanges, initial premiums have been lower than expected. They vary by location and plan but a 25-year-old in Los Angeles could pay as little as $190 per month for a bare-bones plan while a 40-year-old in San Francisco would pay up to $525 per month for moderate coverage.

In some parts of the state, there are as many as six companies offering plans while in others, there is only one so far.  

Out to lunch

Why governors in states like Texas and Virginia have decided to deny this coverage to their constitutents is something they'll have to explain. Of course, they're covered now and, in most cases, forever by health plans paid for by the taxpayers who can't afford insurance themselves, so perhaps that makes it OK.

Conservatives have objected to the so-called "mandate" -- the requirement that everyone must buy insurance or pay a penalty. By forcing everyone to either buy insurance of pay a fine, the government creates the enormous risk pool that is supposed to make the program attractive to insurers. Those who can't afford the full premium can qualify for a subsidy.

In states where the governors and legislators have been successful in blocking state-run exchanges, the feds will be in charge, which will provide something else for the local impresarios to complain about.

So why are the Blues going full-bore into the exchanges? Well, the simplest answer, as analysts quoted in various press reports explain it, is that they are already the largest insurer in most states, a position they want to protect.

If the Blues sat out the game, in other words, someone else would walk off with a big batch of their customers. So top Blues executives have decided the best strategy is to aggressively go after as much business as they can get, thus protecting their market share and -- not coincidentally -- creating a very large group across which to spread the risk they incur by taking on everyone who applies.

Enough talk

So, after years of political claptrap, Big Business is about to take over and the competition that the Republican governors claim they yearn for is about to commence.

While they may initially be on the sidelines, UnitedHealth, Aetna and others are not likely to stay there long if, as expected, they see Big Blue poaching their customers and portraying themselves as champions of the little guy.

You can expect the Blues to launch an aggressive advertising campaign that will in next to no time blow away the political fog that now surrounds the issue and provide the kind of consumer education that only Madison Avenue can.

Like it or not, Big Government has set up this system but it is now about to step out of the way and let the marketplace do its thing. Soon, as is already happening in California, there will be demands that the government get back into the game and regulate the insurance companies more harshly to ensure that premiums don't get out of line.

What to do

To find information about your state, go to the official Health and Human Services site -- https://www.healthcare.gov/  

Google and other search engines have not taken the trouble to identify the official government health exchange sites and will most likely direct you to advertisements or sites cleverly disguised to look like official sites. Nor do the commercial sites bother to offer a translation for "Obamacare." 

The search box in the upper right corner of HealthCare.gov will direct you to the insurance exchange site for your state, if there is one. You can also sign up for email updates.

A decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday marked another blow to class action lawsuits -- and the consumers who bring them.

The Court’s ruling in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant continued a recent pattern by the Court of upholding arbitration provisions, even when lower courts found them unfair or otherwise invalid.

The case concerned a clause in a contract between American Express and retail merchants prohibiting the merchants from bringing class-action arbitration cases. Instead, the contract required each merchant to bring its own individual arbitration claim. Despite the provision, lower courts had allowed class actions to proceed on the ground that the merchants couldn’t afford to bring their own individual actions.

In a 5-3 ruling, the Court dismissed those concerns, writing that the Federal Arbitration Act “does not permit courts to invalidate a contractual waiver of class arbitration on the ground that the plaintiff’s cost of individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim exceeds the potential recovery.”

The Act, which dates back to 1925, affirmatively requires that parties who have agreed to arbitration honor that agreement rather than taking their complaints to a traditional court.

Arbitration “a matter of contract”

The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said that the Act “reflects the overarching principle that arbitration is a matter of contract. … And consistent with that text, courts must ‘rigorously enforce’ arbitration agreements according to their terms.”

Justice Elena Kagan wrote a blistering dissent, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined.

Kagan wrote that “if the arbitration clause is enforceable, Amex has insulated itself from antitrust liability — even if it has in fact violated the law. The monopolist gets to use its monopoly power to insist on a contract effectively depriving its victims of all legal recourse.”

“And here is the nutshell version of today’s opinion, admirably flaunted rather than camouflaged: Too darn bad.”

Another Supreme blow to class actions

The opinion is just the latest in a series of blows that the Supreme Court has issued to the class action as a form of dispute resolution. In 2011, the Court upheld a provision in AT&T’s contracts requiring consumers to submit to individual arbitration.  That provision, like the one in American Express, had been waived by lower courts due to its bar on class actions.

That decision was so sweeping that it prompted law professor Brian Fitzpatrick to tell the ABA Journal that it could "end class-action litigaiton as we know it."

And in 2011, the Supreme Court threw out a high-profile employment discrimination lawsuit against retail giant Wal-Mart, ruling that the case did not meet the requirement that a class action involve “questions of law or fact common to the class.”

The next time you sing "Happy Birthday," you may want to make sure you aren’t being video recorded, or at least that there aren’t any entertainment lawyers nearby.

That’s because the timeless birthday song, which dates back to 1893, is technically copyrighted -- owned by Warner/Chapell Music.

Fortunately for those of us who may have unwittingly infringed the copyright by crooning out the melody at a friend or family member’s birthday party, a production company has filed a lawsuit demanding that the song finally be placed into the public domain, free from legal and proprietary restrictions.

The suit was filed by Good Morning To You Productions, a corporation that is in the process of filming a movie called “Happy Birthday.” The production company was forced to pay a licensing fee to Warner/Chappell and promise to use the song in the film. Violation of the agreement could force Good Morning To You to pay a staggering $150,000 penalty.

Suit: Copyright expired long ago

“More than 120 years after the melody to which the simple lyrics of Happy Birthday to You is set was first published,” the suit says, “defendant Warner/Chappell boldly, but wrongfully and unlawfully, insists that it owns the copyright to Happy Birthday to You."

In its suit, the production company points to evidence suggesting that the copyright to the song expired all the way back in 1921. If Warner/Chappell still holds a valid copyright, the suit says, it’s to a specific piano arrangement of the song from 1935. According to the suit, that narrow copyright doesn’t give Warner/Chappell the rights to every version of the song.

The song originated as “Good Morning to All,” which consisted of the same familiar melody that is used today. That melody was copyrighted in 1893, 1896, 1899, and 1907.

In addition to its demand that Happy Birthday to You be placed into the public domain, Good Morning To You is demanding that Warner/Chappell repay over $5 million that it has collected in licensing fees over the years.

The fact that Facebook photos are often accessible to the general public has spawned another lawsuit, this time from a Georgia college student who says a school district official swiped a photo of her in a bikini.

Chelsea Chaney, a freshman at the University of Georgia, was horrified to find out that the Director of Technology for Fayette County Schools used a photo of her standing next to a cardboard cutout of rap star Snoop Dog to demonstrate the dangers of posting questionable pictures on social media channels.

The director of technology paired the photo with the warning that, "Once it's there, it's there to stay."

Student “embarrassed,” “horrified”

Chaney told local ABC affiliate WSB-TV that when she was the photo, "I was embarrassed. I was horrified."

"It never crossed my mind that this would ever, ever happen to me," Chaney told the news channel.

Chaney’s lawyer, Pete Wellborn, told the affiliate that the school district “used [the photo] out of context to suggest that Chelsea is a promiscuous  abuser of alcohol.”

"Their idea that putting something on Facebook gives them a license to steal it and Carte blanche to do with it what they did is wrong ethically, it's wrong morally and it's absolutely wrong legally," Wellborn told WSB-TV.

Chaney told WSB-TV that she wishes the photo “was taken more seriously and [I had] gotten a more sincere apology.”

Chaney is seeking $2 million in damages.

Facebook photo litigation nothing new

The suit is just the latest reminder that, yes, photos posted to Facebook can very easily end up plastered all over the Internet. The social media giant has been wrangling with a lawsuit concerning the company’s use of members’ photos to promote “sponsored stories.”

And last year, a Minnesota man sued an uncle for tagging him in a photo that he didn’t want others to see, coupled with a sarcastic caption. Aaron Olson, the aggrieved tagee, said the behavior constituted harassment.

Unfortunately for Olson, the judge hearing his case ruled that “[c]omments that are mean and disrespectful, coupled with innocuous family photos, do not affect a person’s safety, security, or privacy — and certainly not substantially so."

Three former interns are suing news and gossip website Gawker, claiming that they performed work for the site or its affiliates without compensation.

Andrew Hudson, Hanchen Lu, and Aulistar Mark were interns with Gawker Media LLC between 2008 and 2010. They say they worked between 15 and 25 hours per week.

The plaintiffs filed their complaint on behalf of all unpaid interns who worked for Gawker Media, and also named as a defendant Nick Denton, the founder of the media empire.

“Gawker employs numerous other ‘interns’ in the same way, paying them nothing or underpaying them and utilizing their services to publish its content on the Internet, an enterprise that generates significant amounts of revenue for Gawker,” the inters say in their complaint.

Follows Fox Searchlight ruling

The suit comes on the heels of a ruling that, in order for interns to work without pay, or for pay lower than the minimum wage, employers must comply with certain criteria laid out by the United States Department of Labor.

The decision, which was handed down earlier this month, grew out of a suit filed by two interns on the movie “Black Swan” against Fox Searchlight Productions.

In that case, U.S. District Judge William Pauley ruled that interns can only be unpaid or underpaid if they are doing work that is educational and benefits the interns, rather than work that is primarily for the benefit of the employer or displaces paid employees.

Rachel Bien, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the Fox Searchlight case, told The New York Times that “this decision will go far to discourage private companies from having unpaid internship programs.”

Judging from the Gawker case, the Searchlight decision also threatens to spur a flood of lawsuits by unpaid interns from years past.

Earlier Hearst suit

Indeed, even before the decision was handed down, a similar case spurred Time Magazine to write the headline “The Beginning of the End of the Unpaid Internship.”

That case was brought by Diana Wang against the Hearst Corporation, whose magazine Harper’s Bazaar she says forced her to work up to 55 hours per week without pay. The lawsuit was filed as a class action on behalf of any unpaid or underpaid Hearst intern from the last six years.

There are many risk factors associated with breast cancer, chief among them is being a woman. After that, age is a factor – as you get older your risk of developing the disease grows.

But since March, when actress Angelina Jolie announced she was undergoing a preventive double mastectomy, the genetic risk factor has gotten a lot of attention. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), about 5% to 10% of breast cancers are thought to be hereditary, caused by abnormal genes passed from parent to child.

In most cases of inherited breast cancer two abnormal genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, are thought to be responsible. The genes themselves aren't abnormal, but can become dangerous when they mutate.

Genes helpful when normal

The function of normal BRCA genes is to repair cell damage and keep breast cells growing normally. But when these genes contain abnormalities or mutations that are passed from generation to generation, the genes don't function normally and breast cancer risk increases.

If testing determines you have an abnormal BRCA gene it doesn't mean you will be diagnosed with breast cancer, though Jolie selected her aggressive option because she was told, in her case, the odds were stacked against her. And just as there are risk factors for cancer itself, there are also risk factors for having a mutant gene. They are:

• You have blood relatives who were diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50.
• Someone in your family had both breast and ovarian cancer.
• Someone in your family had a gland-related cancer, such as pancreatic or colon cancer.
• There have been women in your family have had cancer in both breasts.
• You are of Eastern European Jewish heritage.
• A man in your family had been diagnosed with breast cancer.

Genetic testing

According to NCI, risk increases with the number of affected relatives, age at diagnosis, and the number of affected male relatives. Even if you are unsure of your family health history, there are tests that can reveal a genetic risk of breast cancer.

The test will reveal the presence of an abnormal BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. Tests can also reveal the presence of other genes that can predispose you toward the illness. If you think you need these tests, you should discuss it with your health care provider.

Jolie chose to have both healthy breasts removed as a measure to prevent what she felt was an extremely high probability she would get breast cancer. That response is not exactly new but is highly effective.

A recent study found that a preemptive mastectomy may reduce breast cancer risk up to 100% if the patient has a strong genetic history of breast cancer or a BRCA mutation. But the level of risk reduction will vary, patient to patient.

Even removing both healthy breasts doesn't always eliminate the risk fully. It is not unheard of for a woman who has undergone a double mastectomy to still develop breast cancer, though it's very rare.

Other risk factors

While it is important to understand and be aware of genetic risks of breast cancer, some breast cancer specialists stress that other, more common risk factors should not be overlooked. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), being overweight is a common risk factor. Therefore, a proper diet and maintaining a healthy weight is a strong defense against breast cancer.

Other risk factors include alcohol use. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), the risk increases with the amount of alcohol consumed. Women who have just one drink a day have a very small increase in risk. Those who have 2 to 5 drinks daily have about 1½ times the risk of women who don’t drink alcohol at all.

Hormone therapy (HT) after menopause has also been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. ACS cites studies showing the use of combined hormone therapy after menopause increases the risk of getting breast cancer. It may also increase the chances of dying from breast cancer.

This increase in risk can be seen with as little as two years of use. Combined HT also increases the likelihood that the cancer may be found at a more advanced stage. The increased risk appears to apply only to current and recent users. A woman's breast cancer risk seems to return to that of the general population within five years of stopping combined treatment.

All-terrain vehicles (ATV) continue to be popular vehicles in the U.S. but remain dangerous if not operated properly. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reports approximately 135,000 injuries and 800 deaths occur in the U.S. each year from ATV accidents.

One of the most recent victims is a 16-year old Macon, Ga., girl who was a passenger aboard an ATV driven by a 17-year old boy. According to sheriff's deputies, the ATV overturned last week when the driver made a sharp turn.

The accident occurred on city streets and not in rough terrain, where many such accidents happen. According to the deputies' report, neither person was wearing restraints and both were thrown from the vehicle. The driver was seriously injured while his passenger was killed.

No passengers

The CPSC says nearly all ATVs are designed to carry only one person. ATVs are designed for interactive riding – drivers must be able to shift their weight freely in all directions, depending on the situation and terrain.

Interactive riding is critical to maintaining safe control of an ATV, especially on uneven terrain. Having a passenger aboard can make it very difficult for drivers to control the ATV.

A Shelby County, Ohio man, meanwhile, remains in critical condition more than three weeks after he was injured in an ATV accident. According to police reports, the 35-year-old man lost control of the ATV as he was making a turn, causing it to roll over on him. Police reports say the driver was not wearing a helmet.

Many ATV injuries are head injuries. According to the CPSC, wearing a helmet may prevent or reduce the severity of these injuries. ATV drivers should also wear other protective gear, including over-the-ankle boots, goggles, gloves, long pants, and a long-sleeved shirt to protect against cuts, abrasions, and other injuries from rocks, trees and other debris.

Stay off streets

In both of these recent cases, the accidents occurred on paved streets, not off-road terrain. However, ATVs are designed to operate on soft ground, not hard pavement. The CPSC says these vehicles are actually hard to control on pavement. In addition, collisions with cars and other vehicles have also led to many fatalities involving ATVs operated on paved roads.

Also last week a 16-year old Alaska girl was killed in an ATV crash when the vehicle flipped over and rolled down a 25-foot embankment. According to a state police report, the girl was driving the vehicle. Her passenger survived but was injured. Police say neither was wearing protective gear.

One state is considering tightening restrictions on ATV use while another is encouraging their safe and responsible use. In Connecticut, state lawmakers have drafted a measure to increase penalties for illegal use of ATVs on public streets. However, the bill was amended at the last minute to open up access to state land for ATVs. Some environmental groups have urged the governor to veto it.

In nearby New Hampshire, the state has opened 1,000 miles of interconnected trails for ATV riders. Backers of the project say the trails constitute a safe environment for ATV use and will attract riders from across the Northeast, providing a lift to New Hampshire tourism.

Safety tips

ATV enthusiasts say the vehicles are safe as long as they are operated responsibly. Here are some ATV safety tips from the ATV Safety Institute.

• Always wear a DOT-compliant helmet, goggles, long sleeves, long pants, over-the-ankle boots, and gloves.
• Never ride on paved roads except to cross when done safely and permitted by law - another vehicle could hit you. ATVs are designed to be operated off-highway.
• Never ride under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• Never carry a passenger on a single-rider ATV, and no more than one passenger on an ATV specifically designed for two people.
• Ride an ATV that’s right for your age.
• Supervise riders younger than 16; ATVs are not toys

A group called Concerned Families for ATV Safety is urging parents to prevent their children from riding ATVs, or closely supervise their use. The group cites a reports on ATV accidents showing a 150% increase in injuries to children under 19 between 1997 and 2006.

Complaining about the cost of cable is a popular American pastime. But four California consumers have decided to stop talking and do something about it, filing suit against Time Warner for anticipated costs due to the provider’s recent acquisition of Lakers and Dodgers rights.

The suit focuses on two separate acquisitions made by Time Warner. In 2011, the cable provider gained a 20-year-long right to broadcast Los Angeles Lakers basketball games. Then, in January, Time Warner acquired a 25-year-long right to air Los Angeles Dodgers games.

According to the suit, the Lakers deal, which cost Time Warner $3 billion, will add $4 to every customer’s monthly bill; the Dodgers deal, which ran $8 billion, will cost consumers $4 or $5 extra per month, the suit claims.

“There is no legitimate business, legal, technological, or economic reason why TWC cannot offer these Lakers and Dodgers games on a standalone channel basis so that only those subscribers who want and are willing to pay for them would do so and those who did not want these channels could ‘opt out,’” the complaint says.

The suit also names the Dodgers and the Lakers as defendants.

A popular complaint of late

This isn’t the first uproar over “bundling,” the practice of only offering content and channels as part of a larger group. (Bundling is the reason that you can’t, say, subscribe only to HBO and ESPN, while avoiding The Food Network and Lifetime.) In February, cable provider Cablevision sued media conglomerate Viacom, claiming that Viacom only offered popular networks like Nickelodeon and MTV if Cablevision also accepted a slew of less-demanded networks. Cablevision claimed that that practice, knowing as “tying,” violates antitrust laws.

And in May, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced the Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013, which would allow consumers to choose the channels they wanted, and eschew the ones they didn’t.

How sweet it is -- Hostess Twinkies are returning to store shelves after a brief stopover in bankruptcy.

New owners have taken over Hostess and say they'll have Twinkies and other snack products back on store shelves by July 15.

In March, bankrupt Hostess Brands Inc. agreed to sell the snack cake brands to Apollo Global Management, which had offered $410 million and the deal was approved by the bankruptcy court, putting a merciful end to the panic that had overtaken Twinkies groupies.

"A lot of impostor products have come to the market while Hostess has been off the shelves," said Daren Metropoulos, a principal of the investment firm Metropoulos & Co., which teamed up with Apollo Global Management to buy a variety of Hostess snacks.

Among the impostors was Safeway which in February introduced a Twinkies wannabe product.  “It looks like a Twinkie. It tastes like a Twinkie. But this is no dream,” Safeway burbled on its Facebook page. “Snack Artist's delicious snack cakes are real.” 

Hostess shut down late last year after a long-running labor dispute. 

Laconic standup comic Rodney Dangerfield used to quip, “I have enough money to last me the rest of my life as -- long as I don't buy anything.” The man whose constant lament was, “I don't get no respect,” has a lot of company these days.

New research from Bankrate.com finds that fewer than one in four Americans have enough savings to cover at least six months’ expenses. In addition, exactly half have less than three months’ expenses saved up, and 27% have no emergency savings whatsoever. And it's pretty much been that way for the past three years.

Still, things have improved a bit from the pre-recession days of 2006, when only 39% of people had at least three months’ expenses saved up. But that modest progress isn’t nearly enough, according to Greg McBride, CFA, Bankrate.com’s senior financial analyst.

Lagging savings

“We measure five key components of Americans’ financial security each month, and we routinely find that savings is the weakest area,” he said. “People who are less comfortable with their savings now versus a year ago outnumber people who are more comfortable by a margin of nearly two-to-one. That’s especially jarring since people are feeling much more optimistic about other aspects of their finances.”

Bankrate.com’s Financial Security Index reached a new high of 102.7 in June -- the fourth consecutive month in which consumers have indicated improved financial security compared to the previous year. Specifically, consumers currently say their net worth is higher, they feel more secure in their jobs, they’re more comfortable with their debt and their overall financial situations are better.

• Only 17% report lower net worth than last year, the lowest since polling began in Dec. 2010.
• Those feeling more secure in their jobs outnumber those feeling less secure by a two-to-one margin. Merely 13% of employed Americans feel less secure in their jobs compared to one year ago, a new low.
• Thirty percent of Americans feel more comfortable with their debt compared to one year ago, a new high.
• And just one in five Americans feel their overall financial situation is worse now than one year ago, tying the lowest reading.

The entire survey, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, can be seen here.

Beta Labs, a retailer of dietary supplements, is recalling Oxyphen XR Lot #s 200910 and 200911, Phentalene Lot # 58800512, Phen FX Lot # 1205129, and Red Vipers Lot # 1205128.

The products contain1,3 dimethylamylamine (DMAA), which is commonly used as a stimulant, pre-workout, and weight loss ingredient in dietary supplement products. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned that ingestion of DMAA can elevate blood pressure and lead to cardiovascular problems. A number of adverse effects associated with DMAA containing dietary supplements have been reported to the FDA. The agency has also warned that DMAA is not a dietary ingredient and thus, is not Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) compliant.

The UPC codes for each of the products are:

• Oxyphen XR, 70541 59974;
• Phentalene, 70541 59982;
• Phen FX, 29882 55980; and
• Red Vipers, 29882 55981.

The products are all in capsule form.

The products were sold via telephone in all 50 states. There have been no reports of adverse events related to the Beta products to date and no other products distributed by Beta are subject to recall.

Consumers who may have purchased the affected lot numbers should immediately discontinue using the products and contact their health care professional if they experience any adverse effects.

Consumers can contact Beta at accounting@)betalabs.net or by calling 1- 877-283-1742, Monday – Friday, 10 a.m. – 5 p.m. CST to receive further instructions for returning the product(s), refunds, or with any questions.  

Ross Stores will pay a $3.9 million civil penalty, resolving Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) staff charges that from January 2009 to February 2012, the company failed to report immediately -- as required by federal law -- that it sold about 23,000 children's upper outerwear garments with drawstrings at the neck or waist.

The commission issued guidelines in February 1996 (which later became part of a consensus industry voluntary standard) to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in upper garments, such as sweatshirts and jackets.

In July 2011, based on the foregoing, CPSC issued a final rule which designates the hazards presented by drawstrings in children's upper outerwear as substantial product hazards.

Ross's distribution of some children's garments occurred during the same period of time as CPSC investigation and negotiation of a $500,000 penalty that Ross paid in 2009 to settle charges that it failed to report four series of children's upper outerwear drawstring garments distributed between 2006 and 2008. Ross's distribution of the other garments in this matter occurred either partially or entirely after the effective date of CPSC's Final Rule. There have been no reported injuries associated with the recalled garments.

Settlement terms

In addition to paying a monetary penalty, Ross has agreed to implement and maintain a compliance program designed to ensure compliance with the reporting requirements of Section 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act and the Final Rule. Ross also agreed to enhance its existing compliance policies by ensuring that its ongoing program contains written standards and policies, a mechanism for confidential employee reporting of compliance-related questions or concerns, and appropriate communication of company compliance policies to all employees through training programs.

Ross has designed and implemented a system of internal controls and procedures to ensure that the firm's reporting to the Commission is timely, truthful, complete, accurate, and in accordance with applicable law. The company will also take steps to ensure that prompt disclosure is made to management of any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of such internal controls.

Here's a question for you: When's the last time you put a new photo in a photo album? Remember those? Remember when most of us only took pictures once in a while, and we left the daily photo taking to professionals or folks who considered it a hobby.

Today that's changed, as most people snap pics of everything in sight all day long. Whether it's a plate of food, a picture of a friend or the overly taken one-handed-self-photo, folks love capturing all the images they can. Then they'll stick those photos on their social media pages for all to see.

But what are the safety risks of posting pics of yourself, your friends and your family members?

Stephen Ebbett, president of Protect Your Bubble, a company that offers ID theft insurance and other types of coverage, says bad guys can use your social media photos for all kinds of nasty little schemes.

"Photos can be stolen and used by strangers to create new social media profiles," said Ebbett in an interview with ConsumerAffairs.

"A geo-tagged photo contains specific details like the time and date the photo was taken, along with the exact location where it was taken. For example, if someone takes a photo of their friend at their house, it becomes possible for strangers to know exactly where that person lives. Every smartphone has GPS built into it," he said.

Puzzle palace

But smartphones aren't the only concern when it comes to having your identity stolen. There are people who sit around all day, every day, trying to put together the small pieces of information that float around cyberspace.

In fact, people use social media so much these days, they sometimes forget how much of their personal info is really out there.

According to a study conducted by Javelin Strategy & Research, 68% of people who use social media gave their birthdate and 63% posted where they went to high school.

In addition, the survey showed that 18% of users listed their phone number on their social media page and 12% told followers the names of their pets.

And because of this, all a shady person has to do is connect each dot, and presto, he has enough information to carry out his evil deed.

It happened to Michael Benz of Virginia, a Facebook user whose online identity was stolen.

In 2008, Benz cancelled his Facebook account and five years later he noticed it was mysteriously back up and running.

Not only did someone hack his identity and reopen his Facebook page, the thief started giving "likes" to things posted by anti-American and terrorist groups. And even worse, Benz needed a special kind of security clearance for a job he was involved with, so having his identity stolen couldn't have come at a worse time.

"I was horrified," said Benz in an interview with a local news outlet. "I felt sick to my stomach."

"A friend of mine asked me, 'Why didn't you let me know you're back on Facebook?' And I said 'I'm not on Facebook, I closed it in 2008.' I immediately realized that my online identity had been hijacked."

"The bottom line is that someone really could destroy your life breaking into your Facebook account and pretending to be you," he said.

Guard down

James Kerr, from the company Super Geeks, says social media is an ideal place for identity thieves to steal information, because many users let their guard down when using pages like Facebook.

"We don't have our guard up," said Kerr in a televised interview. We still have a feeling of safety and comfort, because we're surrounded by people we know."

"So typically [identity thieves] will hijack somebody's account, and they'll look for the friends in that account and they'll post a message on those friend's pages. And those messages will have some kind of call to action."

Experts say not to post too much information on your social media page and make sure photos don't reveal anything personal like where you live, where you went to school and so on. The harder you make it for an identity thief to connect the dots the better off you'll be.

Plus, be sure to stay on top of all your social media's privacy settings.

And when it comes to your smartphone, Ebbett says you really shouldn't use location services at all.

"It is best to disable location services to keep your whereabouts private since strangers can easily figure out your location, which can lead to ID theft, robberies, stalking or domestic violence," he advised.

"To turn location services off on an iPhone, for example, you would need to go to your settings >privacy >location services and swipe it so it goes from on to off."

Be vigilant

In addition, Ebbett says you have to be vigilant when it comes to guarding your personal info, because thieves are constantly on the hunt and they're always coming up with new schemes.

Here are the key things to remember when it comes to using your social media page and your smartphone, Ebbett says:

• Know what is visible to others. Check your privacy settings and set them to private so only your friends can see your photos.
• Make sure you know who your friends are and do not accept friend requests from people you don't know.
• Never post your whereabouts on social media. Alerting people when you're not home is just asking for trouble.
• A common mistake that people make is to post their address and/or phone number on their social site.  Don't do it.

Even though the economy has shown signs of recovery and reports of summer travel have ticked higher, there are still indications the economy may prevent a number of people from taking a summer vacation.

A Harris Poll finds that just 43% of consumers say the economy has no impact on their travel plans. However, 36% admit they will be less likely to travel this year because of economic conditions.

For those who feel they can't afford to hit the road this summer, a vacation at home, or “staycation,” may be their only alternative. So what do you do for a week when you don't have to get up and go to work every day?

Having something to do every day will keep the entire family engaged and make it feel more like a vacation. The key is planning.

Your options, of course, are going to depend in large part on where you live and what resources are close at hand. If you live within driving distance of a lake or beach, then a day on the water is a good option. If you live in or near a city, cultural opportunities abound.

Here are a few ideas.

Back to nature

Nearly everyone lives near a state or county park. Chances are you have driven past it on numerous occasions without giving it much thought. See what resources it offers and take advantage of them.

Spend a day hiking, picnicking or even camping overnight. If the park offers horseback riding, it might be a good opportunity to introduce your children to the pleasures of riding.

A little culture

If you live in a city, spend a day visiting a museum. Even if you live in a rural area, chances are there is a city within driving distance. If you have children and the city has some type of children's museum, so much the better.

For the grown-ups, take the opportunity to attend a play. There are probably community theater groups not far from where you live.

A change of scenery

Maybe you can't afford to spend a week away from home but what about one night? Find a nice motel nearby that offers amenities like a swimming pool, fitness center and spa. Treat the family to a night away from home.

Epicurean tour

Splurge on dinner out all week, going to a different restaurant each night. Yes, it can get a little expensive but if that's the only thing you are doing all week, it might fit into your budget. Let each family member choose a restaurant.

If a week of restaurant meals isn't in the budget, do take-out or eat at home, letting each family member choose a meal and take the lead in its preparation.

Wet and wild

Create a backyard water park to keep kids cool on a hot day. Buy a couple of elaborate lawn sprinkler that throw up wild water patterns that kids can run through. Go to a home center and purchase a long sheet of heavy plastic that you can wet down and create your own “slip-and-slide.”

Movie night

Make every night movie night. Take the family to see the latest blockbuster at a local theater. The rest of the nights make it movie night at home. Let every family member choose a film for the whole family and pop plenty of pop corn.

Vacations can be pretty expensive for a family on a tight budget. A staycation doesn't have to be and, in some cases, might be just as fun.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is said to be about to relax the ban on some types of personal electronic devices aboard commercial airliners at low altitudes, maybe even during landing and take-off.

The Wall Street Journal says the details are still being debated within the FAA but says there's an emerging consensus that the rules now in effect are out of touch with the times.

The rules prohibiting the use of cell phones and other devices that emit radio signals go back to the 1960s, when practically no one had such a thing. The few portable radio transmitters that did exist tended to use much higher power, making them more likely to interfere with aircraft navigation and communications systems.

Airlines are currently allowed to set their own rules but most have chosen to simply follow the FAA's guidance and have prohibited the use of all devices at altitudes of less than 10,000 feet.

An FAA advisory group has warned the agency that unless it updates its rules, airlines may adopt a "nonstandard system" of patchwork rules that "could further confuse the public."

If the FAA sticks with the current draft version of the new rules, devices like Kindles and other e-readers could be used during all phases of flight while others, like tablets and laptops, might still be restricted to 10,000 feet.

The current draft doesn't propose any changes to cellphone usage, which isn't allowed at anytime on U.S. flights, although some international carriers allow it.

The advisory panel said it will provide a separate draft on that topic that the FAA can address if it feels it can withstand the turbulence that could result. 

When it comes to prescription drugs, it seems that more people are taking them than not. 

In a recent study, researchers at the Mayo Clinic found that almost 70% of Americans take at least one prescription drug, 50% take two and about 20% of patients take five or more prescription medications.

The drugs most commonly prescribed were opioids, antibiotics and antidepressants.

Dr. Jennifer St. Sauver, one of the study authors, says the findings concern her and show just how big a problem mental health really is in the United States.

"Often when people talk about health conditions they're talking about chronic conditions such as heart disease or diabetes," she said. "However, the second most common prescription was for antidepressants.  That suggests mental health is a huge issue and is something we should focus on. And the third most common drugs were opioids, which is a bit concerning considering their addicting nature."

Growth of prescription drug use

A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention produced a different set of numbers. It found that the percentage of Americans on at least one type of prescription medication increased from 44 to 48% in the last 10 years.

The people who were prescribed at least two drugs increased from 25% to 31% during that time period. And the folks who were prescribed at least five or more drugs went up from 6 to 11%.

Dr. Steven Hollon, professor of psychology at Vanderbilt University, said a good number of people aren't benefiting from taking antidepressants.

"I would say at least half the folks who are being treated with antidepressants aren't benefiting from the active pharmacological effects of the drugs themselves but from a placebo effect," he said in a published interview. "If people knew more, I think they would be a little less likely to go down the medication path than the psychosocial treatment path."

In other findings, the Mayo Clinic researchers learned that 17% of respondents were prescribed antibiotics, 13% were prescribed antidepressants, another 13% were told to take opioids and 11% of people were prescribed high blood pressure medications.

The rise of antidepressants

Additionally, women and older Americans were prescribed the most medications overall and received more prescriptions than men in many different drug categories, especially when it came to antidepressants.

The researchers found that just about one out of four women, between the ages of 50 to 64 is currently taking an antidepressant.

Dr. Daniel Carlat, clinical professor of psychiatry at Tufts University, says money and profit have a lot to do with why so many people are on antidepressants.

"There is a huge financial incentive for psychiatrists to prescribe instead of doing psychotherapy," he said. "You can make two, three, four times as much money being a prescriber than a therapist. The vicious cycle here is that as psychiatrists limit their practices to primarily prescribing, they lose their therapy skills by attrition and do even less therapy."

Dr. Des Spence, a general practitioner in the UK agrees, and says not only are antidepressants over-prescribed, people are taking them for too long.

"We use antidepressants too easily, for too long, and they are effective for too few people," said Spence.

Antidepressants are becoming "a distraction from a wider debate about why we are so unhappy as a society. But even if we accept that antidepressants are effective, a Cochrane review suggests that only one in seven people actually benefit. Thus millions of people are enduring at least six months of ineffective treatment," he said. 

However, Ian Reid, professor of Psychiatry at the University of Aberdeen disagrees, and told WebProNews that more antidepressants are being prescribed because more people are being treated for depression these days.

"Antidepressants are but one element available in the treatment of depression, not a panacea," he said. "Like talking treatments, they can have harmful side effects, and they certainly don't help everyone with the disorder.

"But they are not over-prescribed," Reid argues. "Careless reportage has demonized them in the public eye, adding to the stigmatization of mental illness, and erecting unnecessary barriers to effective care."

Additional findings from the Mayo Clinic showed that spending on prescription medication in the United States made up 12% of total personal health care costs. And the total spending on prescription drugs in 2009 alone was $250 billion.