Consumer Fraud Archive

Sunscreen Scare or Media Hype?

June 29th, 2010. By janem

Is there nothing new under the sun? The media is all over the link between sunscreen and cancer but it’s yesterday’s news (specifically, a number of years ago)–everyone knows that too much sun can cause skin cancer. But here’s the problem: the media could be sending out a misleading message to sun worshippers who believe sunscreen can cause melanoma, so they might soak up the rays sans sunscreen. Duh. Besides, the problem isn’t sunscreen; it’s retinyl palmitate, a compound used by sunscreen manufacturers.

A new (!) report has found that vitamin A and its derivatives, retinol and retinyl palmitate, may speed up the cancer that sunscreen is used to prevent.

On May 24, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) published its  2010 report on sunscreen that calls into question the protection offered by most products and raises a red flag about a chemical additive called retinyl palmitate that could increase cancer risk. EWG recommends that consumers choose vitamin A-free sunscreens and it also lambastes the FDA for its failure to issue regulations regarding sunscreen containing vitamin A.

“There was enough evidence 10 years ago for FDA to caution consumers against the use of vitamin A in sunscreens,” Jane Houlihan, EWG’s senior vice president for research, told AOL News. “FDA launched this one-year study, completed their research and now 10 years later, they say nothing about it, just silence.” Incredibly, the FDA denied the allegations. As reported by AOL News,  an FDA spokesperson said, “We have thoroughly checked and are not aware of any studies…[the spokesperson] checked with bosses throughout the agency and found no one who knew of the vitamin A sunscreen research being done by or on behalf of the agency.

But documents from the FDA and the National Toxicology Program showed that the agency had done the research in 2000, and they have been made public!

In October 2000, a report by the National Toxicology Program said that ” Retinyl palmitate was selected by (FDA’s) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition for photo-toxicity and photocarcinogenicity testing based on the increasingly widespread use of this compound in cosmetic retail products for use on sun-exposed skin.”

I don’t see any studies done on people who slathered on sunscreen, stayed out of the sun, and wound up with melanoma.  So why hasn’t the FDA gone after the maker of retinyl, which is Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: sunscreen, sunscreen skin cancer
Posted in Consumer Fraud | No Comments »

Sue McDonald’s? Sounds Frivolous to me

June 23rd, 2010. By AbiK

So The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is targeting McDonald’s and its ubiquitous Happy Meal toys. Seems if McDonald’s doesn’t stop dangling those toys in front of wide-eyed kids, the CSPI is set to sue the fast-food giant.

Now, I’m no fan of Happy Meals. Though, I will say, kid-sized menus across the board have slowly been responding to consumer demand for healthier options to be included in the movie-du-jour carry-out meal box. Options like low-fat milk, apple slices, carrot sticks… Still, let’s face it, a Happy Meal cannot compare to a wholesome meal.

But, as far as I’m concerned, this is another example of the “who’s responsible here?” question.

Here’s a typical example of how Happy Meal marketing plays out in my home—which includes three kid-meal aged kids:

Mom (aka me): Darn, I wanted to get that roast in the oven but now it’s too late!

Kids: Let’s go to McDonald’s!!!!!

Mom: No.

If you’ve noticed, there’s a two-letter word there that flew—effortlessly I might add—right out of my mouth. In case you missed it, it was “No.”

As in No, we’re not going to McDonald’s. No, we’re not getting any Happy Meals. No, I’m not letting any Happy Meal toys enter the house only to find themselves heading to a landfill within mere minutes of the meal’s consumption. If you haven’t yet noticed, Mommy doesn’t do Happy Meals. I do Happy. I do Meals. But the two don’t co-exist at the dinner table.

So the CSPI sent McDonald’s a letter stating that Mickey D’s is violating state consumer protection laws in four states and Washington, DC. According to cnn.com, the letter gives McDonald’s 30 days to agree to stop using toys in its Happy Meals.

The CSPI also seems to like extremes when it comes to the use of analogy—granted, it’s for effect, but still—here’s what their litigation director is quoted as having said in a prepared statement: “McDonald’s is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children…It’s a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction.”

If I take that literally, Ronald McDonald ought to be on a searchable sex offender Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: CSPI, McDonald's, McDonald's Happy Meal
Posted in Consumer Fraud, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

Lawyer Needs a Date – Help!

May 28th, 2010. By AbiK

We hear a lot (A LOT) of tales of woe here at LawyersAndSettlements.com about love. Not unrequited love. Not long- lost love. But love that just never materialized. From sites like Match.com or eHarmony.com, and “placement firms” (my words) like Great Expectations.

Now, to be upfront here, I’m not a fan of such sites and services. I’m a believer in the “when it’s there, you’ll know it” kind of love-finding. Why? Well, here’s 3 examples from people I know who’ve found their love (or not) from such services—names are withheld, for obvious reasons.

Love Contestant #1: Meets lawyer on dating site (yes, a LAWYER). They fall in love in a matter of weeks. She gets pregnant. He skips town. It’s a few years later now and all told, he’s contributed $400 to his child’s support. For those of you wondering, that works out to $50 a year. Yup, there’s some dating material for you.

Love Contestant #2: Has joined just about every dating site known to man. Wonders why no one’s floating her boat when all she has to go on prior to meeting for coffee is a filled in questionnaire and a couple of email exchanges. No photo or headshot. Also wonders why no one she gets hooked up with seems to match her criteria for getting hooked up.

Love Contestant #3: Did meet her true love. In her mid-60’s. They’re married now. She teaches tapping classes. Oh—not that kind of tapping. As in Emotional Freedom Technique tapping therapy. Uh-huh. She’s on another wavelength from the rest of us, if you get my drift.

So enter another lawyer—John Friedland. He was lookin’ for love. Apparently at the wrong Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Amy Laurent, Dating Service, John Friedland
Posted in Consumer Fraud, Defective Products | No Comments »

Mad as Hell at Moneygram and the FTC

May 6th, 2010. By AbiK

I’m having a “Network” moment—for those of you old enough to recall the classic cult flick.

I just read another comment from a reader whose father—only YESTERDAY—was the victim of a Moneygram scam. It was your run-of-the-mill scam story. Someone in Canada calls to tell Dad that his son was in a car accident. And, unfortunately, son didn’t buy the rental car insurance. They need $3,000 or they will detain son and he won’t make flight home. They need the money now. Via Moneygram.

Dad sends the cash. Dad then calls son’s cell phone. Dad finds out truth. Dad not happy. Dad files complaint with Moneygram—and gets a bit of a brush off as he tries to glean any info about the situation. Kudos to the Moneygram Customer Service Department (sarcasm dripping from my fingertips). Dad also files a police report. Dad does most everything he’s supposed to. (You can read my post on what to do if you’ve been Moneygram scammed). Only other thing he should do is…

File a complaint with the FTC at ftc.gov or at 1-877-FTC-HELP.

And here’s what ticks me off.

Only last week the FTC began mailing out the over 34,000 redress checks—on average $520 per victim—to close the loop on the Moneygram fine the FTC ordered Moneygram to pay. But keep in mind, the redress checks—and the FTC’s fine—only applied to folks who were victimized during the years 2004-2008. It’s 2010. And it’s still happening.

It was only this past February we’d posted about the $18 million fine that Moneygram was ordered, in October ’09, to cough up to the FTC to help offset the losses—to the tune of $84 million—that victims unwittingly lost in Moneygram scams. That post also included the list of things that the folks at Moneygram were supposed to enact to help stop Moneygram fraud. That list, to refresh your memory, stated that Moneygram was to:

• Not knowingly provide substantial help or support to any sellers or telemarketers that are violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule.
• Implement a comprehensive anti-fraud program, that includes background checks on prospective agents; consumer fraud education and training for Moneygram’s employees; agent monitoring; and disciplinary action for those agents who do not comply with the rules.
• Provide a clear and conspicuous fraud warning on the front of all its money transfer forms.
• Develop and maintain a system for receiving consumer complaints and data, and to provide that information to the FTC upon request.
• Take all reasonable steps to identify agents who are involved in fraud. This means Moneygram must Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: FTC, moneygram, Moneygram Scam
Posted in Consumer Fraud | 2 Comments »

Coca-Cola Shareholders Spurred by Conscience or Profit?

April 26th, 2010. By janem

Coca-Cola shareholders know if their coke glass is half-full or half-empty. By that comment I mean they are aware of public concern regarding the safety of Bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical used in the epoxy lining of Coca-Cola’s canned beverages. Yet at the same time, if something isn’t done about it, sales could potentially drop and so would their dividends. So the shareholders voted last week on a measure that will force the company to go public on plans to rid their beverage cans of BPA.

The Coca-Cola company already eliminated BPA from their plastic bottles, but the plastic used to line aluminum cans still contains BPA. Did the company think this measure would satisfy their shareholders and the public, and they would get away with just a bit of BPA? Apparently not. Shareholders say the company has “failed to provide investors or consumers with sufficient evidence that it is taking steps to address these public health concerns”—and 22% of them voted for a resolution asking the company to publish a report on how it is responding to the “public policy challenges” related to BPA and what they’re doing to come up with alternatives for their beverage cans.

Meanwhile, as reported by Business Wire, Coca-Cola’s Board of Directors today approved the quarterly dividend of 44 cents per common share, up from 41 cents. Coca-cola returned $5.3 billion to shareowners in 2009, through $3.8 billion in dividends and $1.5 billion in share repurchases.

BPA is an endocrine disruptor that interrupts hormones and has been linked with breast cancer, Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: BPA, Coca-Cola, Coke
Posted in Consumer Fraud, Defective Products | 3 Comments »