Consumer Fraud Archive
Erectile Pump Scam Makes a Winner a Loser
November 21st, 2011. By AbiK
What would you call someone—within reason, of course—who runs a scam that allows him to buy cheap sex devices aimed at enhancing certain private parts, and then resells them to unwitting customers who’ve been diagnosed with bladder control or urinary flow issues, arthritis or diabetes—and then charges the hell out of Medicare for it?
Now, I know there are a few of you out there who are thinking—not out loud—”Ha! That’s genius!”
Most of us, however, would be thinking: low-life, good-for-nothing…LOSER.
Ironically, the idiot who masterminded this one is named Winner—Gary Winner. Can’t make this stuff up.
Winner it appears found some penis enlargers on an “adult” website and that must’ve been when his light-bulb moment occurred. No comment on just why Winner was scanning the, a-hem, self-help sections on sex toy websites—though my thoughts are rife with conjecture.
Regardless, according to a cbsnews.com report, Winner found a beauty of a device for $26 and he bought a whole bunch of them. He renamed them—after all, don’t want Medicare batting an eye with this one—”erectile pumps” and went as far as to repackage them (I have visions of him shrink-wrapping penis enlargers with a blow dryer—but perhaps I’m letting my imagination go too far here).
So Winner touted the would-be erectile pumps as being able to increase blood flow to the urinary tract and prostate with regular use. Uh-huh. I’m surprised he didn’t claim they cured Propecia E.D. as well…
But how’d he manage to bilk Medicare?
Obviously, in order to make the sales, Winner had to target Medicare beneficiaries and, lucky for him, he just happened to have access to such information via his medical device company, Planned Eldercare. Once he cajoled patients into providing their Medicare info by offering free medical equipment (swag for the ill!), he then turned around and billed Medicare $284 for each “pump”.
As Medicare coverage includes reimbursement for products treating organic impotence and erectile dysfunction (who knew?), all Winner had to do was claim the erectile pumps treated erectile dysfunction. Medicare also requires a prescription from a physician, and that may be where Winner ultimately forced a red flag or two. Read on…
$284 may not sound all too huge, but it apparently added up to some $370,305. Not too shabby. Unless you get caught. Which he did.
So Winner, who’s also answering charges of having bilked Medicare out of another $1.8 million for some “arthritic packages” (cbsnews.com) he claims Medicare beneficiaries and their doctors had ordered, is now up a creek without a paddle—or a pump of any sort.
Winner’s agreed to give up $2.2 million and he’s facing up to 33 years in prison along with $760,000 in fines. His sentencing will be on February 10, 2012.
Oreck Vacuum Class Action, Again (Oreck Air Purifier, too)
October 26th, 2011. By AbiK
Separated at Birth? Oreck Halo and Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Third time’s a charm? Seems we’ve been covering the Oreck germ-killing claim filings for a while now—indeed, we were posting about it back in 2007 when a lawsuit was filed claiming that an Oreck air purifier did not alleviate allergy symptoms (that one was thrown out).
Then just last spring we posted about the Oreck class action lawsuit—Ruscitti v. Oreck Corporation 1:11-cv-03121. In that one, plaintiffs allege Oreck made false claims regarding the Oreck Halo vacuum’s ability to kill germs; specifically, to “kill and reduce virtually all bacteria, viruses, germs, mold, and allergens that exist on carpets and floor surfaces”. You can read our interview with the plaintiffs’ attorney on that one, too.
The Oreck Halo apparently claimed to use UV light to knock out those bad germs. Pictures of the vacuum in use conjure up a scene straight out of Close Encounters of the Third Kind—clearly the Halo designer must’ve had a childhood fixation with the flick (see separated at birth image above—seriousl
y).
Aside from whatever the inspiration was for the vacuum, it’s the advertising that’s at issue. As the ad at right depicts, the Oreck Halo was touted with the headline, “When the light is on, the germs are gone” —and there’s that graphic of the sideways bracket under the word “Kills” that just hangs there as if to literally suck all those bad viruses, mites, bacteria…right up off the ad itself. Why, this would be an asthmatics dream, right?
Wrong—and the FTC didn’t think so either…
In the midst of all these lawsuits, the FTC came down on Oreck for false and deceptive health claims, which led to Oreck coughing up a fine of $750k last May. Oreck, as a quick web search confirms, also stopped selling the Halo vacuum. (They do still sell Oreck Halo vacuum bags, though—for those who’d already drank, or bought, the Kool-Aid®).
Ok, so now we’re at number three…
Another Oreck class action lawsuit has been filed—just last Friday—in California seeking over $5 million in damages. What are the damages you ask? Well, again, it’s about false claims regarding the Halo and Oreck’s ProShield air purifier and their ability to kill germs. Rewind that tape…here’s the heart of the matter straight from the lawsuit: “Defendants’ claims are not adequately supported by credible, scientific testing or other substantiation and are not true”.
The plaintiffs in the new Oreck Halo class action are Roxy Edge of Los Angeles, CA and Linda Gonzalez of Broome County, NY.
Movie Madness: Lawsuit Says “Drive” didn’t Drive Enough
October 13th, 2011. By AbiK
Been to a movie lately that you thought, quite frankly, sucked?
Did you file a lawsuit over it? Or even request a refund at the box office? Probably not. But Sarah Deming from Michigan did.
Seems she saw the trailer for the movie, Drive, and subsequently put it on her “must see” list. Deming’s apparently a Fast and Furious (the movie, not the federal gun-running op), hit-the-accelerator type of gal. For most, Hollywood darling Ryan Gosling would’ve been reason enough to hit the box office. But Deming sought the action aspect, and well, unfortunately, when she saw the full movie, she was less than wowed.
Deming’s beef—there are actually a couple—was that the Drive trailer promoted a race action film—i.e., one that would have a lot of fast driving in it—but in reality, Drive had “very little driving” in it. Deming’s complaint actually stated that Drive was promoted as being like Fast and Furious but in reality it was not.
The second part of her lawsuit—which somehow seems completely off-topic from what she’s seeking damages for (i.e., allegedly misleading trailer)–states that there was “extreme gratuitous defamatory dehumanizing racism directed against members of the Jewish faith.” Something tells me the likes of Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman wouldn’t be associated with such a movie—but what do I know?
If you’ve seen the Drive trailer, it doesn’t, IMHO, make you think the movie is just going to be driving a-go-go. There’s actually this little thing called a storyline going on—and you get that from the trailer. Thinking about it now, in fact, most car action movies I recall have a bit more than the driving going on. Heck, even Speed Racer has a plot that puts the cars in “park” for large chunks of the movie.
But my perception does not equate Ms. Deming’s perception. And therein lies the crux of the matter here. Was the trailer for Drive misleading? Was it false advertising?
One has to imagine that Deming could’ve just gotten a refund (reports don’t mention whether Deming sat the whole movie out or if she got up midway through it and left the theater). But Deming is on a rant here so she’s suing. She wants her ticket refunded, and apparently an end to misleading movie trailers—whatever that really means. And, according to kcra.com, she’ll be seeking class action status on this one.
Hard to imagine that this one will really go anywhere—if it does, what’s to stop an onslaught of copycat lawsuits? And, what’s next? Read some cover notes at Barnes & Noble, buy the book, read the book, and…?
Next time, perhaps Ms. Deming should just stay home, grab her remote, and watch some NASCAR.
Law School Lawsuits over Law School Scam?
October 12th, 2011. By AbiK
It’s a Catch-22. Law school enrollments have been declining—they’re reportedly down about 10 percent nationally in 2011, with some schools like Vermont Law School down 23.8 percent. Law schools, in order to drive enrollments, need to show that their post-graduate job placement rates are fairly high (Marketing 101).
But the economy is not exactly cooperating as it leaves newly minted attorneys loaded with debt and schlepping coffee orders at Starbucks. And that’s left some students with that WTF? feeling—after all, those published post-grad job placement rates (promises, promises) are looking rather bogus once that graduation cap is tossed in the air.
(Toss that law career, too!)
The cycle is nothing new—very textbook, if you’ll excuse the pun. But, let’s face it, it’s a scam that schools have been known to employ—not just law schools—to bolster enrollment. So while there has been at least one lawsuit filed, according to an AP report, against Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, looks like more are en route…
Two lawyers—David Anziska and Jesse Strauss—are hoping to put a reality check on the marketed outlook for law firm gigs post-graduation.
So far, they’ve filed two lawsuits in New York and Michigan alleging that New York Law School and Thomas Cooley Law School (MI) inflated their post-grad employment rates. Next up, 15 more law schools:
- Albany Law School
- Brooklyn Law School
- California Western School of Law
- Chicago-Kent College of Law
- DePaul University School of Law
- Florida Coastal School of Law
- Hofstra Law School
- John Marshall School of Law in Chicago
- Pace University School of Law
- St. John’s University School of Law
- Southwestern Law School
- Villanova University School of Law
- Widener University School of Law
- University of Baltimore School of Law
- University of San Francisco School of Law
According to Anziska and Strauss, the above 15 schools individually reported post-grad employment rates in a range of 80-98 percent; along with an average debt per student of $108,829.40 (2009 graduates).
That’s more than some folks’ mortgages.
Figure in also that the National Association for Law Placement reported that only just over two-thirds of spring 2010 law grad had landed jobs requiring law licenses nine months post-graduation (source: AP).
And, the same report states that the national median salary for new 2010 law school grads dropped to $63k, down from $72k.
Sure makes the graduation party a bit less festive, and certainly makes the “80-98 percent” placement picture seem like b.s. (assuming, of course, that the 15 schools’ placement rates are in line with national averages, which, I’m guessing they are).
Times are tough, indeed. But having a bunch of eager, aspiring and, dare I say, impressionable lawyer wannabes ramp up their law school application process with visions of plum positions (partner!) in their heads is misleading at best, fraudulent at worst.
Anziska and Strauss are looking for lead plaintiffs. And somehow, I think they’ll find them.
Bought any Rice Krispies? There’s a Rice Krispies Class Action Settlement
September 22nd, 2011. By AbiK
Kellogg’s Rice Krispies—and Cocoa Krispies—cereals are the focus of a class action lawsuit settlement. Granted, the Class Period for this lawsuit isn’t all that long: it’s for Rice Krispies or Cocoa Krispies bought between June 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010. But, as any mom with school-age kids could tell you, between bowls at breakfast and the ever-popular Rice Krispies treats (homemade, of course), there’s a good chance that a lot of folks—including you—are part of the Class for this one.
So here’s the lowdown on the Kellogg’s Rice Krispies class action settlement…
What is the Kellogg’s Rice Krispies lawsuit about?
False advertising. How? The plaintiff claimed that Kellogg Company made claims about Rice Krispies’ and Cocoa Krispies’ supporting a person’s immunity system (see pic)—without having competent clinical evidence to support the claim. (Personally, I’d be seeking other ways to boost my immunity, but what do I know…). Kellogg denies any wrongdoing, however the company and Class Representatives agreed to settle to avoid the cost of a trial.
Who is part of the Kellogg’s Rice Krispies class action?
Anyone who purchased Rice Krispies or Cocoa Krispies in the US between June 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010 is considered part of the Class.
What will I get from the Rice Krispies settlement?
A settlement fund of $2.5 million has been set up. Claimants will share in the amount left over once attorney fees and an incentive award for Class Representatives have been paid from the settlement fund.
Accordingly, Class Members may then seek reimbursement of $5 per box purchased, up to a maximum of $15 (i.e., 3 boxes) per household. As is typical with class action lawsuits, the actual amount claimant receives will depend on how many valid claims are received for this class action. If valid claims exceed the amount of money available to pay them, then each award will be reduced pro rata.
What do I need to do to be included in the Rice Krispies settlement?
You need to fill out and submit a claim form by November 16, 2011. Proof of purchase is not required (but your honesty is).
For full details on the Kellogg’s Rice Krispies and Cocoa Krispies class action lawsuit, visit www.cerealadvertisingsettlement.com.
Find us on
Archive by Category
- Accidents (24)
- Airlines (9)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (262)
- Automotive (25)
- Celebrity (14)
- Class Action (84)
- Complaints/Comments (15)
- Consumer Fraud (84)
- Contest (2)
- Court of Public Opinion (5)
- Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See (61)
- Criminal Law (4)
- Defective Products (111)
- DePuy ASR Hip Recall (2)
- Discrimination (22)
- Drugs/Medical (248)
- Elder Care Abuse (4)
- Emerging Issues (462)
- Employment (54)
- Environment (52)
- Financial (28)
- Food Illness (15)
- Human/Civil Rights (4)
- Insecurities (5)
- Insurance (16)
- Intellectual Property (16)
- Internet/E-commerce (19)
- lawsuits (161)
- Lawyers (20)
- Lawyers Giving Back (43)
- Lex Levity (10)
- Personal Injury (106)
- Pleading Ignorance (53)
- Real Estate (2)
- Recall (6)
- Scam (3)
- Securities (13)
- Settlement (81)
- Tort Reform (2)
- Totally Tortelicious (81)
- Veterans (11)
- Whistleblower (9)