Current Events in August 2014

The Millennial generation appears to be in no hurry to buy a house. Two years ago, when Fannie Mae surveyed this generation, 35% said they were renting in preparation to buy a home. A year later, only 26% gave that answer. A more common response was that renting was “more affordable.”

Since young people traditionally comprise the largest segment of first-time homebuyers, the fact that more Millennials now seem to prefer renting – or are at least resigned to it – is likely to have a major impact on the future of the U.S. housing market.

Real estate website Zillow.com assembled a panel of property experts who conclude that the rate of home ownership will probably decline in the years ahead. Despite that pessimistic outlook the experts agree that homes will probably still go up in price.

The experts expect median home values to end this year up 4.6%, on average. At that rate, they predict the median value will finally eclipse the 2007 bubble peak by 2017.

Lack of enthusiasm

The troubling aspect of the survey, as far as real estate professionals are concerned, is the apparent lack of enthusiasm among Millennials to buy a home. In 2013 the typical first-time homebuyer was 31 years old. The panelists expect that age to rise as the years go on.

"Because of its huge size and great diversity of housing preferences and opinions, the Millennial generation will have enormous influence in coming years, especially as they hold off on getting married and having children, the two biggest reasons for first-time home purchases," said Zillow Chief Economist Dr. Stan Humphries.

And that, of course, will have a ripple effect, keeping rents high and potentially impacting the broader economy if fewer people are buying home furnishings and spending their weekends in a home center store.

Humphries, for one, isn't convinced Millennials don't want to buy a home. He calls it a dangerous assumption.

“Recent Zillow research concluded that millions of current renters do want to buy soon, despite headwinds that may end up delaying their purchase,” he said. “And when they do, policymakers, planners and developers will need to ensure that housing is accessible, affordable and desirable to this new generation of homeowners."

Priced out

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) agrees that first-time homebuyers aren't playing a big part in the nation's housing recovery. It says Millennials have been largely priced out of expensive markets like San Francisco and New York.

But the trade group has analyzed markets around the country, looking at current housing trends, job creation and population trends, and has identified a number of markets it says are ideal for this demographic group. After considering all the criteria, NAR came up with this list of cities that should be affordable for young, first-time buyers – even those still paying off student loans:

• Austin, Texas
• Dallas
• Denver
• Des Moines, Iowa
• Grand Rapids, Michigan
• Minneapolis
• New Orleans
• Ogden, Utah
• Salt Lake City
• Seattle

Other markets with strong potential for attracting Millennial homebuyers include:

• Madison, Wisconsin
• Nashville, Tennessee
• Omaha, Nebraska
• Raleigh, North Carolina
• Washington, D.C.

In short, says NAR, Millennials who express a preference for renting probably do so because of the seeming difficulty of saving for a down payment and meeting today's tighter lending standards. But just because it's that way today, doesn't mean it always will be.

“Millennials will eventually settle down, trade their roommates for spouses and want to raise a family,” said NAR President Steve Brown. “As long as median income continues to support purchasing power in most areas, the demand and opportunity will be there for Millennials to purchase their first home.

Andrew Bachman is the latest crammer to run afoul of the feds. Bachman and number of other defendants pitched text message services offering “love tips,” “fun facts,” and celebrity gossip alerts, but placed charges for these services – typically $9.99 a month – on consumers’ wireless bills without their permission -- a practice known as mobile cramming.

Bachman and friends also allegedly used deceptive websites designed to collect consumers’ mobile phone numbers that would then be billed for the services.

Bachman has agreed to surrender more than $1.2 million in assets to settle Federal Trade Commission charges, including the contents of numerous bank accounts, two luxury cars, shares in a number of startup companies and multiple luxury watches.

“Ensuring that consumers are protected in the growing mobile environment is a top priority at the FTC,” said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “This settlement shows that we are committed to making sure that bad actors do not profit from taking advantage of consumers’ confusion about their mobile phone bills.”

Under the terms of the settlement, Andrew Bachman will be permanently banned from placing any charges on consumers’ phone bills, making any misrepresentations to consumers about a product or service or a consumers’ obligation to pay, and will also be prohibited from charging consumers for a product or service without their express consent.

The settlement also includes a monetary judgment of more than $97 million. The judgment is partially suspended based on Bachman’s inability to pay the full amount, after he turns over nearly all of his assets.

Among the assets Bachman will be required to surrender under the terms of the settlement are:

• the contents of four bank accounts, less $4,500;
• two vehicles: a 2012 Ferrari 458 Italia and a 2012 Mercedes G550 SUV;
• shares in a number of startup companies; and
• jewelry items, including three Audemars watches, one Patek Phillippe watch, and four Rolex watches.

A settlement with a number of the other defendants in the case was announced in June, while the case against corporate defendant Bullroarer, Inc. is still in litigation.

The Federal Trade Commission is mailing refund checks totaling more than $16 million to about 18,000 consumers who paid money to American Tax Relief, which bilked financially distressed consumers by falsely claiming it could reduce their tax debts.

Under a settlement, the defendants turned over millions of dollars in assets the court had frozen, including bank accounts, jewelry, and a Ferrari. In addition, the parents of one of the defendants turned over bank accounts, jewelry, a Beverly Hills residence, and a Los Angeles condominium.

Affected consumers will receive, on average, 16% of the amount they lost.

The money will be going to people like Jerry of South Bend, Ind., who complained recently to ConsumerAffairs about his experience.

"I too was taken for over $4500.00 by these so called tax experts. They did absolutely nothing but take our money and ask for personal info and robbed our bank account," he said, adding that he is still making payments to the IRS "with no end in sight."

Unbearable payments

In its heydey, American Tax Relief claimed in TV, radio and Internet ads that it could settle consumers' delinquent federal and state taxes for a fraction of the amount they owed. The company also claimed that it could remove tax liens and stop wage garnishments, bank and tax levies, property seizures, and "unbearable monthly payments."

The company's troubles began in April 2010 when federal agents executed a criminal search warrant on the operation's Beverly Hills business premises. They seized money from bank accounts and a Ferrari from the company's owner, and placed liens on two residences, including a $3.4 million house.

At the time, one of the company's owners was leasing six other vehicles, including a Rolls Royce, a Bentley, two Porsches, and two Mercedes-Benzes, according to exhibits the FTC filed in court.

American Tax Relief charged upfront fees ranging from about $3,200 to $25,000 for the purported tax relief services. 

What to do

Those who receive checks from the FTC’s refund administrator should cash them within 60 days of the mailing date. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or to provide information before refund checks can be cashed. Those with questions should call the refund administrator, Gilardi & Co., LLC, at 1-877-430-3699, or visit www.FTC.gov/refundsfor more general information.

Home prices across the U.S. -- including distressed sales -- were up 7.5% in June from the same month a year ago, according to the CoreLogic Home Price Index (HPI) report.

June marks 28 months of consecutive year-over-year increases in home prices nationally.

On a month-over-month basis, home prices nationwide -- including distressed sales -- inched up just 1.0% from May. Distressed sales include short sales and real estate owned (REO) transactions.

“Home price appreciation continued moderating in June with its slight month-over-month increase,” said Mark Fleming, chief economist for CoreLogic. “This reversion to normality that we are finally experiencing is expected to continue across the country and should further alleviate concern over diminishing affordability and the risk of another asset bubble.”

At the state level, including distressed sales, only Arkansas posted a decline (-0.4%) in June. A total of 12 states -- Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Wyoming -- plus the District of Columbia, reached new highs in the HPI dating back to January 1976 when the index started.

June highlights

• Including distressed sales, the 5 states with the highest home price appreciation were: Michigan (+11.5%), California (+11.3%), Nevada (+11.1%), Hawaii (+10.8%) and Oregon (+9.5%).
• Excluding distressed sales, the 5 states with the highest home price appreciation were: Massachusetts (+11.2%), New York (+9.8%), Hawaii (+9.2%), California (+9.1%) and Oregon (+8.8%).
• Including distressed transactions, the peak-to-current change in the national HPI (from April 2006 to June 2014) was -12.9%. Excluding distressed transactions, the peak-to-current change in the HPI for the same period was -9.0%.
• Including distressed sales, the U.S. has experienced 28 consecutive months of year-over-year increases; however, the national average is no longer posting double-digit increases.
• The 5 states with the largest peak-to-current declines, including distressed transactions, were: Nevada (-37.3%), Florida (-34.1%), Arizona (-29.5%), Rhode Island (-27.2%) and New Jersey (-22.2%).
• Ninety-eight of the top 100 Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) measured by population showed year-over-year increases in June. The two that did not were Worcester, Mass.-Conn., and Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, Ark.

Star Networks USA of West New York, N.J., is recalling all Magnicube Spheres and Magnicube Cubes as part of the settlement of an administrative case filed by CPSC staff in December 2012.

The case sought a mandatory recall of the Magnicube products, which have produced numerous incident reports of ingestions involving small, high-powered magnets -- including many that required surgery

The recall is intended to protect children and teenagers from the deadly risk of injury that can occur when more than one magnet is ingested.

Consumers are urged immediately stop use of all Magnicube Spheres and Magnicube Cubes immediately and check for magnets that have become separated from the set.

Magnicube Spheres and Magnicube Cubes sets contain from 125 to 1,027 high-powered rare earth magnets and were made in China. About 22,000 sets were sold for between $20 and $80 on magnicube.com, Amazon.com and via Groupon.

Refunds coming

Star has agreed to provide a full refund to consumers who return a full set of Magnicube Cubes or Magnicube Spheres. Consumers who return less than a full set will receive a prorated refund based on the percentage of magnets returned.

Consumers should contact the firm at www.magnicube.com to request a refund.

The settlement resolves CPSC staff’s allegations that the Magnicube Spheres and Magnicube Cubes create a substantial product hazard. Star disputed these allegations, but has agreed to the recall in settlement of the allegations.

It began with a dispute between a Michigan condominium owner and the homeowners' association (HOA) over an unpaid assessment. By the time it reached the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, it had become a case that may have significantly strengthened consumers' rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act(FDCPA).

The homeowner, Camille Haddad, and a debt collector, Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto, had sued one another since 2008 over an unpaid HOA assessment – originally $55 – that over the years ballooned to well over $1,000.

Haddad expressed willingness to pay the debt but did not know what it was for, and demanded verification from the debt collector that the debt was real. Haddad cited the FDCPA in making this request, since the law specifically says the debt collector must provide verification of the legitimacy of the debt.

Defining terms

But what constitutes “verification?” Up until now the courts have been a bit hazy on this point, but have leaned toward giving the benefit of the doubt to the debt collector. In 1999, when the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals took up a similar case, it ruled:

“[V]erification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt.”

In other words, a debt collector could simply take the original creditor's word that the debt was real. If the creditor put in writing that the debt was real, the collector had to provide no other proof.

Hollywood video case

In 2010, when Hollywood Video entered bankruptcy and began liquidation, it turned over thousands of accounts to debt collectors, who began calling former customers demanding payment for late charges. The collector offered no proof the debt was real, other than the fact that Hollywood Video said it was. Most of the customers angrily disputed it.

Though the Hollywood Video case was eventually settled with the intervention of state attorneys general, this interpretation of FDCPA enabled rampant abuses in the debt collection industry.

Debt collectors were able to buy bad debt – debt that had been written off the original creditor's books – for pennies on the dollar. They could then begin aggressive collection efforts without having to prove the debt was real, or wasn't the result of a mistake, such as sloppy bookkeeping.

Turning tide

In its ruling last month, the 6th Circuit Court appears to have put the burden of proof back on the debt collector. In the Haddad case, the collector sent an itemized accounting of the debt but the homeowner disputed a small portion of it for which there was no documentation.

In hindsight, if the collector had agreed to Haddad's demand that the $55 be stricken from the amount owed, the case would likely not have reached the appeals court. Because it did, and the court ruled the way it did, buying old debt and trying to collect it from consumers may be a lot less profitable in the future. 

Crux of the case

The 6th Circuit Court has ruled that the previous definition of “verification” was unfair because Haddad was not given enough information to “sufficiently dispute” the debt and was left with only two options – pay money he didn't think he owed or face a lien on his condo.

“Such verification cannot be enough under the FDCPA, a statute intended to protect consumers,” the justices wrote. “The verification provision must be interpreted to provide the consumer with notice of how and when the debt was originally incurred or other sufficient notice from which the consumer could sufficiently dispute the payment obligation.”

That's the money quote for consumers. That turns the tables in their dealings with debt collectors.

The court notes that this information doesn't have to be extensive. It should provide the date and nature of the transaction that led to the debt, such as a purchase on a particular date, a missed rental payment for a specific month, a fee for a particular service provided at a specified time, or a fine for a particular offense assessed on a certain date.  

According to an alarming story published in the NY Post's “PageSix,” any unhappy guest of the Union Street Guest House in Hudson, New York will be fined $500 for any negative reviews they or their guests leave on social media sites:

The Union Street Guest House, near Catskills estates built by the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers, charges couples who book weddings at the venue $500 for every bad review posted online by their guests.

“Please know that despite the fact that wedding couples love Hudson and our inn, your friends and families may not,” reads an online policy. “If you have booked the inn for a wedding or other type of event . . . and given us a deposit of any kind . . . there will be a $500 fine that will be deducted from your deposit for every negative review . . . placed on any internet site by anyone in your party.”

If you take down the nasty review, you’ll get your money back.

The Post did not link to this online policy, nor post a screenshot of it, and as of noon, neither the “Rates and Policies” nor the “Events & Weddings” pages on the Union Street Guest House website made any mention of this harsh policy. Indeed, the “Events & Weddings” page said (as of noon, Aug. 4): “We do not discuss our policy, availability or rates on site. All correspondence for a wedding must be done via email so that each of us has a clear record of our agreement.”

One-star reviews

The Post published the story at 1:03 a.m. on today. Later, a visit to the Yelp reviews for the Union Street Guest House yielded literally dozens of pages of one-star reviews, all dated Aug. 4 and almost all referencing the $500 fine mentioned in the newspaper story.

I clicked through 13 pages of one-star Yelp reviews mentioning the Post story and review fine before finally finding a pre-story review, posted Aug. 2, from “Mike S.” in Stamford Connecticut, who said:

I was planning a stay at Union Street Guest House until I discovered the most customer-UNFRIENDLY and obnoxious set of polices I have experienced at any property.  Furthermore, when I inquired about the polices by email I received this reply "Every business has a reason for their policies. The beautiful thing about our great State of New York is that we can have any policy that we want as long as it is written on our website.  It's up to you to decide whether you want to adhere to it or not before you make a reservation."

Mike went on to list a litany of complaints about their reservation and cancellation policies, and ended with: “I left out examples of a few other unfriendly polices (such as reducing the value of a gift card, potential 'handling fees' that are not fully disclosed, etc.) in order to keep this review brief, but  I suggest anyone considering a reservation reads the full set of polices here,” followed by a link to their rates & Policies page.

That said, Mike's complaint made no mention of a fine for posting online negative reviews.

Dig back

But dig further back through the Yelp reviews and eventually you'll find a Sept. 23, 2013, comment from “Rabih Z.” in Alexandria, Virginia, who posted a one-star review starting with : “This place was such a disappointment! Avoid at all costs!”

Rabih updated his review on Nov. 21:

The management of this hotel had the gall to email us twice to threaten us financially about the negative review! Here is an excerpt from their first email:

"please note that your recent on-line review of our Inn will cost the wedding party that left us a deposit $500.  This money be charged via  the deposit they have left us unless/until it is removed.  Any other or future reviews will also be charged to the wedding party (bride & groom) from the guarantee they have provided us. "

Disgusting! Instead of taking responsibility and striving to improve their customer service, they instead resort to intimidation!

For its part, the Union Street Guest House posted an update on its Facebook page shortly after noon on Monday, saying:

The policy regarding wedding fines was put on our site as a tongue-in-cheek response to a wedding many years ago. It was meant to be taken down long ago and certainly was never enforced.

The Facebook members who commented on the post didn't seem to buy it. One typical commenter wrote: “Not that you'd read this (hotel folks) but if you scroll all the way back to the beginning post on Yelp, the VERY FIRST POST was a complaint. Actually, quite a few complaints scattered in there... one lady pasted the EMAIL you sent her regarding bad guest reviews on Yelp. You should stop lying now and just hole up in that house for a year and eat tuna and crackers. You're talking yourself into the poorhouse.”

It looks like in-flight cell phone calls will be the latest addition to the long list of things banned on airline flights in America. However, unlike most such bans, the rationale for this one is not “safety” or “terrorism prevention,” but instead is based on the idea that being trapped in a narrow metal tube listening to other passengers talk on their cell phones is annoying enough to require actual laws against it.

Of course, the ban on in-flight cell phone use is nothing new; for years, the FCC banned in-flight cell phone calls out of fear that they'd overwhelm ground-based cell-phone capacity. (In the early days of the technology, that might have been a genuine concern.)

But last December, the FCC said that this justification for banning in-flight cellular use was no longer necessary – though it did not go so far as to lift the ban. Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, responded almost immediately by announcing his intention to propose a bill banning in-flight cell phone chats.

Quick & quiet

The committee voted in favor of the bill the following February. Shuster said at the time that he supported the use of cell phones for Internet access or sending and receiving text messages, but not for voice chat: “As anyone who flies knows, airplane cabins are noisy, crowded and confined … Most passengers would like their flights to go by as quickly and quietly as possible.”

After the February vote, the committee's bill went before the full House of Representatives.

Yet this probably upcoming ban is coming not from Congress but from the Department of Transportation.

The Wall Street Journal reported this weekend that DOT General Counsel Kathryn Thomson gave a speech to the International Aviation Club in D.C. and, according to witnesses, said that the DOT plans to take “the next step” in ensuring a formal ban on in-flight voice calling.

A DOT spokeswoman later confirmed that the agency is preparing “a notice of proposed rulemaking” to come out this December.

The airlines, for their part, say the DOT is overstepping ts authority, and the companies themselves should decide whether or not to offer in-flight cell phone service. Many airlines already have their own anti-calling policies, though others might (for example) want to experiment with dividing their planes into different sections – a no-phone quiet zone over here, and a noisy phones-allowed section over there – rather than have any and all options legally forbidden.

Whether you are allowed to make cell phone calls or not, however, remember to make sure your phone battery is fully charged before you try boarding a plane, or else the TSA will think you're smuggling a bomb.

Every consumer-news or money-saving website, including this one, will tell you to shop around and look for the best price before you commit to buying something. But a Senate antitrust panel suggests that if you need to buy contact lenses, shopping around won't be much help.

Reuters reported earlier this week than a nine-member antitrust panel connected to the Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating allegations of price-fixing against three of the four major manufacturers of contact lenses sold in the United States.

The three companies – Alcon (owned by Novartis AG), Bausch & Lomb (owned by Valeant Pharmaceuticals) and Johnson & Johnson – all impose minimum sale prices on certain of their products. In other words, retailers who sell them are forbidden to offer prices below a certain point.

Under American law, such actions would have been thoroughly illegal price-fixing for most of the 20th century and the first few years of the 21st, until a 2007 Supreme Court ruling.

Leegin Leather

Minimum price agreements between manufacturers and retailers became illegal in 1911, when the Supreme Court ruled that such agreements  violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. But in 2007, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSK Inc.

Here's a brief summary: Leegin manufactured leather fashion accessories, and required all retail sellers to sell them at a certain minimum price—no discounting allowed. A small Texas store called “Kay's Kloset” sold Leegin goods at a discount, so Leegin refused to let Kay's sell any more Leegin products.

Kay's sued Leegin on anti-trust grounds, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Leegin to pay a judgment of $1.2 million. But Leegin appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the earlier judgment in a 5-4 decision.

That said: the Sherman Anti-Trust Act still remains in effect, and some types of minimum-price fixing remain illegal, whereas others are allowed. What's the difference? Basically, the Supreme Court said in 2007, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act only bans minimum-price agreements in cases where the price-fixing is intended to be anti-competition.

In 2007, Justice Kennedy wrote in the court majority decision that “Vertical agreements establishing minimum resale prices can have either pro-competitive or anticompetitive effects, depending upon the circumstances in which they are formed.”

Justice Breyer, writing the dissent, countered that the 2007 court had failed to justify overturning the minimum-price rule, and also failed to show evidence that price minimums would actually help consumers.

Minimum price

Now here we are the middle of 2014, and in the previous 18 months, three out of the four major contact lens manufacturers have established or plan to establish minimum price rules on retailers. So the Senate anti-trust panel held hearings, hoping to find sufficient evidence to solve a mystery: do minimum price mandates on contact lenses help or hurt customers who need to buy contact lenses? And are such price minimums intend to promote or to stifle competition in the contact-lens business?

An executive for 1-800-CONTACTS told the Senate that, as a result of the price minimums, “[Consumers] will see higher prices. They will lose their ability to shop around.”

But a Johnson & Johnson executive said that the company's proposed anti-discount policies don't matter, since customers who buy the company's ACUVUE lenses will still enjoy nice low prices. “By instituting a [uniform price], lowering our prices and making the process by which we make those prices available, we believe we can better compete in the contact lens market.”

And an executive for Novartis/Alcon told the Senate that the price minimums were necessary to protect brick-and-mortar optometrist/retailers from customers who engage in “showrooming” – visiting a retail store (or discussing contact lens options with an optometrist) long enough to learn about the product, then buying it more cheaply from an online discounter.

If numbers tell the story, then consumers' top choice for new cars in July were Fords and Toyotas. A report by automotive publication Kelley Blue Book (KBB) shows Ford captured 14.2% of the new car market last month, with Toyota right behind with 12.8%. However, when you add up all the General Motors nameplates, GM carried the month with 17.4% of the U.S. market.

In addition, consumers were willing to pay more for a new ride. The average transaction price for light vehicles, which includes pick-ups, was $32,556.

"Overall, the industry continues to see average transaction prices rise at a solid pace," said Alec Gutierrez, senior analyst for Kelley Blue Book. "Truck and utility vehicles are the major drivers behind this strength, especially among domestic automakers.”

But an increase in luxury cars also helped boost July's sticker price. Lexus led luxury brands with 1.9% of the market, with BMW trailing only slightly with 1.8% of the market, Cadillac picking up 1.1% and Audi 1.0%.

Sales of BMW brand vehicles increased 9.8% in July for a total of 26,409 compared to 24,043 vehicles sold in July, 2013. Year-to-date, the BMW brand is up 11.7% on sales of 183,791 compared to 164,474 sold in the first seven months of 2013.

Building momentum

"The sales momentum that's been building all year reached its year-to-date peak in July, setting a new BMW record for the month," said Ludwig Willisch, President and CEO, BMW of North America. "There's certainly more to come, especially with the new X4 and 4 Series Gran Coupe now hitting the market and our revolutionary hybrid-electric BMW i8 on the horizon."

Not to be outdone in the luxury class, Mercedes-Benz USA reported the highest July retail volumes in its history with 30,757 units sold across the Mercedes-Benz, Sprinter and smart model lines, representing a 16.4% increase from the 26,423 vehicles sold the same month last year.

"Adding July to our unbroken string of record months, we're driving toward another banner year for the brand," said Stephen Cannon, president and CEO of MBUSA. "We've got two game-changing models in the wings with the launch of our all-new 2015 C-Class later this month, followed by a sporty new entry-level SUV, the GLA, this fall. Stay tuned."

Rising sales of luxury models might be saying something about the state of the economy.

“With consumer confidence on the rise in July, shoppers are clearly willing to spend a little extra on the vehicle they want," Gutierrez said.

Preference for economy

That said, consumers also opted for economy last month. The compact car segment was the strongest, capturing 14.7% of the market. Mid-size cars were second, at 14.4%.

The compact/SUV segment continued to show strength in July. Honda's CR-V broke a July sales record for the second straight year, pushing its year-to-date sales up 5.9%.

"The CR-V continues to cement its place as America's favorite and best-selling SUV with yet another record month of sales," said Jeff Conrad, Honda division senior vice president and general manager. "Combined with Accord, which is on its way to become the most popular car in the U.S. for a second straight year, Honda once again has the vehicles of choice in two of the biggest market classes."

In the competition among pick-ups, the Dodge Ram remained in third place in July, behind the Ford F-150 and Chevy Silverado. However, the KBB numbers how the Ram has been gaining popularity lately, with sales up 7.5% from June and a segment leading 18.8 percent year-over-year.

In-flight deaths of babies are rare but researchers say they've found that lap infants may be at greater risk of death on commercial flights than other babies.

The study analyzed pediatric medical emergencies on flights worldwide between January 2010 and June 2013 and found 90 percent of deaths occurred in children under the age of 2.

"The pattern we identified in our analysis is intriguing and could indicate lap infants are at greater risk of death related to in-flight environmental factors such as sleeping arrangements," says Alexandre Rotta, MD, Chief, Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine at

"The pattern we identified in our analysis is intriguing and could indicate lap infants are at greater risk of death related to in-flight environmental factors such as sleeping arrangements," said Alexandre Rotta, MD, Professor of Pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine.

Could have gone unnoticed

The pattern would have gone unnoticed through single case analysis of these relatively rare events, Rotta said. Rotta was the lead investigator on the study, which was conducted at University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital in Cleveland.

The study was conducted in partnership with MedAire to characterize the rare event of an in-flight pediatric fatality onboard commercial airline flights worldwide. Through a detailed analysis of more than 7,000 reported medical emergencies involving children (newborn to age 18) over a three-year period, researchers found death most commonly occurred in previously healthy children under the age of 2, and in children with a preexisting medical condition.

The fatalities were identified by searching records of all in-flight medical emergencies for child passengers that were reported to MedAire, which provides ground-based medical support to commercial airlines worldwide.

Of the 7,573 reported emergencies, 10 resulted in death, and six had no previous medical history. Four passengers had preflight medical conditions, including two children traveling for the purpose of accessing advanced medical care.

Hypoxic environment

Rotta speculates these infants were at increased risk from exposure to a hypoxic cabin environment, or by sharing a seat with an adult and co-sleeping during a long flight, but there could also be another yet unknown factor.

The majority of pediatric in-flight emergencies are related to infections, neurological conditions, and respiratory issues such as asthma, seldom require alteration of flight route and do not pose significant risk to life. Because an in-flight pediatric death is such a rare event, large datasets were necessary to capture a meaningful number of observations.

"I hope our findings lead to further research on this important subject," Rotta said. "It is my belief the pattern we discovered should promote the development of preventative strategies and travel policies to protect the health of all pediatric airplane passengers, especially infants."

The study was published in the Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Journal.

Jardiance (empagliflozin) tablets have been given the green light to be used to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Approximately 26 million people are affected by type 2 diabetes, which accounts for more than 90% of diabetes cases diagnosed in the U.S. Over time, high blood sugar levels can increase the risk for serious complications, including heart disease, blindness, and nerve and kidney damage.

"Jardiance provides an additional treatment option for the care of patients with type 2 diabetes," said Curtis J. Rosebraugh, M.D., M.P.H., director of the Office of Drug Evaluation II in the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “It can be used alone or added to existing treatment regimens (diet and exercise ) to control blood sugar levels in the overall management of diabetes.”

Safe and effective

Jardiance is a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor. It works by blocking the reabsorption of glucose (blood sugar) by the kidney, increasing glucose excretion, and lowering blood glucose levels in diabetics who have elevated blood glucose levels.

The drug’s safety and effectiveness were evaluated in seven clinical trials with 4,480 patients with type 2 diabetes receiving Jardiance. The pivotal trials showed that Jardiance improved hemoglobin A1c levels (a measure of blood sugar control) compared to placebo.

Jardiance has been studied as a stand-alone therapy and in combination with other type 2 diabetes therapies including metformin, sulfonylureas, pioglitazone, and insulin. It should not be used: to treat people with type 1 diabetes; in those who have increased ketones in their blood or urine (diabetic ketoacidosis); and in those with severe renal impairment, end stage renal disease, or in patients on dialysis.

Further study required

The FDA is requiring four postmarketing studies for Jardiance:

• Completion of a continuing cardiovascular outcomes trial.
• A pediatric pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study.
• A pediatric safety and efficacy study. As part of the safety and efficacy study, the effect on bone health and development will be evaluated.
• A nonclinical (animal) juvenile toxicity study with a particular focus on renal development, bone development, and growth.

Warnings

Jardiance can cause dehydration, leading to a drop in blood pressure (hypotension) that can result in dizziness and/or fainting and a decline in renal function. The elderly, patients with impaired renal function, and patients on diuretics to treat other conditions appeared to be more susceptible to this risk.

The most common side effects of Jardiance are urinary tract infections and female genital infections.

Jardiance is distributed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals of Ridgefield, Conn.

You love your pet to the moon and back and after it leaves this earth you may actually do just that by sending its remains to the moon.

Celestial Pets claims to be the world's first memorial spaceflight company that will honor your pet by sending it to the moon and back, literally. Parent company Celestis has already conducted 12 memorial spaceflights, sending human remains into space, Earth orbit and even to the moon.

You don't get to send your entire Great Dane into space. Celestis launches an engraved flight capsule containing about a gram of your pet's cremated remains or a lock of hair into outer space.

Following successful launch, you'll receive a certificate certifying that your pet reached space with specific launch vehicle and flight information. Your pet’s name, photo, and a brief biography will be placed on the Celestis Pets website as a public memorial of a life well lived.

Just know there is no two-week advance purchase like an airline. The prices range depending on if you are orbiting the Earth, going for a mission to the moon or deep into space. They start at $995 and lift off to more than $12,000. The fee might keep you grounded.

Seven payment processing companies have been charged with illegally processing credit card payments on behalf of a massive Internet scam that allegedly bilked millions of dollars from consumers by repeatedly charging them for “trial” memberships they never ordered. Three of the defendants have agreed to settle the FTC’s charges.

According to a complaint filed by the FTC, the defendants arranged for a deceptive operation known as I Works to obtain and maintain merchant accounts that allowed it to process more than $26 million in illegal credit and debit card payments through the Visa and MasterCard payment networks.

In December 2010, the FTC charged I Works with scamming consumers out of more than $275 million via deceptive “trial” memberships for bogus government-grant and money-making schemes. A federal court subsequently froze I Works’ assets and placed them under the control of a court-supervised receiver. The I Works litigation is ongoing.

The payment processors named by the FTC are: CardFlex Inc. (formerly operated as CardFlex Financial Services LLC), Blaze Processing LLC, Mach 1 Merchanting LLC, Andrew M. Phillips, John S. Blaugrund, Shane Fisher and Jeremy Livingston.

In its complaint, the FTC alleged that the defendants knew I Works had been placed on industry lists of high-risk merchants numerous times due to high chargeback rates. In spite of this, the defendants provided I Works with unfettered access to payment networks and failed to engage in their contractually required underwriting process when they opened accounts for I Works, according to the FTC’s complaint.

Blaze Processing, Mach 1 Merchanting, and Shane Fisher have agreed to settle the FTC’s charges. The suit against CardFlex, Andrew Phillips, John Blaugrund, and Jeremy Livingston is ongoing.

The stipulated final order against Shane Fisher, Blaze Processing, and Mach 1 prohibits them from acting as a payment processor, ISO, or sales agent for any third parties. The order also contains a nearly $1 million monetary judgment against the defendants. The FTC will collect $328,607.78, and the remainder of the judgment will be suspended due to an inability to pay.

Wawona Packing Company of Cutler, Calif., is expanding its July recall of whole white and yellow peaches, white and yellow nectarines, plums and pluots.

The products have the potential of the products being contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

Last month's recall covered specific lots of products packed from June 1 through July 12, 2014. The s expanded recall covers all products packed in the Wawona Packing facility from June 1, 2014, through July 17, 2014, because the company has yet to identify with scientific certainty the source of Listeria monocytogenes in the facility.

Beginning on July 18, 2014, no products have been packed at the Cutler facility. Products packed on or after that date outside that facility are not affected by this recall.

The recalled products include the following brands marketed to consumers: Sweet 2 Eat, Sweet 2 Eat Organic, Mrs. Smittcamp’s. The fruit was also packed in private label, which will be on the boxes or on the stickers placed on individual fruit.

The recalled products were shipped directly to retailers and wholesalers who resell or further distribute the products.

Consumers who have the recalled product should not consume them, but discard them and present proof of purchase or receipt if available for a refund at the store where the product was purchased.

Consumers with questions may contact Wawona Packing’s consumer information desk at 1-888-232-9912, M-F, 8am-11pm EST or Sat-Sun 8am-8pm EST.

Sunburst Superfoods of Tuckahoe, N.Y., is recalling Sunburst Superfoods Organic Raw Carob Powder sold from March 12, 2014 through July 28th, 2014.

The product has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

No illnesses associated with this product have been reported to date.

Sunburst SUPERFOODS Organic Raw Carob Powder was distributed throughout the U.S. to consumers through online sales in 1-lb. and 5-lb. bags with no coding. The product is packaged in re-sealable, all-natural brown paper bags with a thin metal and thin plastic lining on the interior of the bags.

No illnesses associated with this product have been reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled product should not consume it, but return it for a full refund.

Consumers may contact the company at 1-800-228-4436, Monday - Friday, 9 am – 4 pm, ET or by e-mail at customerservice@sunburstsuperfoods.com.

General Motors is recalling 1,939 model year 2014 Chevrolet Corvettes manufactured February 12, 2014, to March 14, 2014.

Due to an improper weld on the rear shock absorbers, the shock absorber tubes may separate from the shock absorber clevis brackets resulting in a sudden change in vehicle handling. This increases the risk of a crash.

GM will notify owners, and dealers will replace both of the rear shock absorbers, free of charge. The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule.

Owners may contact Chevrolet customer service at 1- 800-222-1020. GM's number for this recall is 14302.

New England Greens of Canaan, Conn., is recalling 10 lots of Green Vibrance and one lot of Rainbow Vibrance.

A former raw material supplier recalled the Organic Parsley Leaf Powder used to manufacture the products because of the potential for contamination with Salmonella.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

The recalled products were distributed nationwide through both brick and mortar and online health food and natural product retailers.

The products are packaged in white, high density polyethylene (HDPE) canister jars ranging in size from 20-oz to 51-oz. One lot of Green Vibrance capsules, 240 per bottle, is also included in the recall as well as one lot of Green Vibrance single-serving packets, 15 packets per cardboard display box.

Recalled products and lot numbers are as follows:

53,740 units of the above products were sold into the marketplace.

Consumers who have purchased any of the lot numbers of Green Vibrance or Rainbow Vibrance listed above should return the product to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-242-1835.