Like Goo-Gone for Google…Protect Yourself from Google’s Personal Data Grab

February 29th, 2012. By AbiK

Grippy-grabby Google is about to get a whole lot more up-close and personal beginning in March. That’s when all the convenience their new privacy policy is supposed provide officially kicks in. For many, however, the ‘convenience’ is merely a euphemism for ‘intrusion’ and only reinforces the notion that ‘internet privacy’ is the oxymoron of our age. Googlers can,however, make a change to their Google profiles to help stop the intrusion.

If you’ve seen the “We’re changing our privacy policy” notices all over anything and everything Google, and you’ve clicked “Learn more” you’ve seen that the new policy reflects Google’s “desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google”. (Red flag word = ‘intuitive’—ain’t nothing technologically intuitive out there that hasn’t first had some data input to create that intuition; in this instance, it’s Google trawling your every click and collecting the breadcrumbs you’ve dropped along the way).

So for those of you who don’t want the convenience of Google presenting you with intuitively targeted ads on your Google search screens based on your activity on Google’s entire suite of products—like what videos you viewed on YouTube or what you clicked with Google Plus—well, now’s the time to delete your Google web history—and press the proverbial ‘pause’ button on Google’s ability to continue to store your web history. Think of it as Goo Gone®* for Google.

Here’s how to Delete your Google Web History and Protect your Privacy:

1. Sign into your Google account.

2. Type the following URL into your browser bar: https://google.com/history and hit Enter (or Return)

3. Click “Remove All Web History”

That’s it—simply by doing that, you will also stop Google from collecting your web history, until such a time if and when you feel the need for Google to do so again.

Needless to say, this won’t protect you from all things Google—but it sure is a step in right direction when it comes to internet privacy.

*This is not an endorsement of Goo Gone by LawyersandSettlements.com, however, the author does keep Goo Gone on hand to get out of sticky situations.

Repossessed Car Class Action Lawsuit Seeks $5M for Gas

February 27th, 2012. By AbiK

A woman in Michigan has filed a class action lawsuit over $29 of unreturned gas in her repossessed car. The lawsuit is seeking $5 million. Is she out of her ever-lovin’ mind? Is this just another frivolous class action lawsuit? Is her lawyer a complete opportunist? You be the judge.

The back story on this one is that Victoria Jean Church-Dellinger of White Lake, MI was apparently behind on payments for her leased 2008 Pontiac G6. So she defaulted and the lender, Ally Financial Inc., which The Detroit News reports is majority-owned by the US government, repossessed her car.

The car, however, still had a half-tank of gasoline in it when it was repossessed. (I’m guessing someone took photos of the fuel gauge and that there’s gas purchase receipts, odometer readings, and whatever else one would need to prove such was the case at the very moment the car was repossessed—though I can’t say gathering evidence would be the first thing I’d be thinking of when the tow truck showed up.) 

Regardless, a quick trek over to fueleconomy.gov shows that the 2008 Pontiac G6 has a fuel tank capacity of 16 gallons. And according to ‘Today’s Regional Gas Prices’ over at AAA’s Fuel Cost Calculator, gas in Michigan is currently running about $3.68 per gallon—meaning that the alleged eight gallons of gas sitting in the repossessed Pontiac is worth $29.44.

Needless to say, Church-Dellinger must not be the only person in Michigan to whom this has happened in the past six years—i.e., having a car repossessed while there’s still leftover gas in the tank.

And therein lies the basis for the class action lawsuit. Or at least the ‘class’ members part of it. The lawsuit itself is apparently based on the argument that, as with all personal property within the repossessed vehicle that must be returned to its owner, so too should the gasoline—or the fair market value of it—be returned to its ‘owner’.

Here’s the quote from Church-Dellinger’s attorney, Brian Parker, that’s been making the rounds in the press to explain this notion: “It’s the same as if you left your jacket in there and they didn’t return it to you. You can’t take someone’s coat or fuzzy dice, and you have to return the gas.” Parker goes on to say, “Gasoline is considered personal property. If it’s in the ground and not extracted, it’s a mineral. If it’s extracted, it’s personal property.”

The repo’d car gas class action lawsuit seeks reimbursement for all gasoline taken as a result of car repossession and it also seeks to have Ally provide credit for gas left in repossessed cars in the future.

Asbestos News Roundup: 2.23.12

February 23rd, 2012. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Charleston, WV: On May 28, 2010, Norma Jean Keener was diagnosed with lung cancer. On January 20, 2012 she filed an asbestos lawsuit naming 30 defendant companies which, she claims, are responsible for her disease.

In her asbestos lawsuit, Keener alleges the defendants exposed her to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing material while she worked as an inspector and packer at Owens-Illinois from 1959 until 1980.

Keener also claims the defendants failed to warn her of the dangers of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products.

The defendants are facing allegations of negligence, having or running contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentation and post-sale duty to warn.

The 30 companies named as defendants are: A.W. Chesterton Company, Inc.; Allied Glove Corporation; Cleaver Brooks Company, Inc.; F.B. Wright Company; Flowserve FSD Corporation; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; G. V. Hamilton, Inc.; General Electric Company; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; Ingersoll-Rand Company; McJunkin Corporation; Nagle Pumps, Inc.; Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Ohio Valley Insulating Company, Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Premiere Refractories, Inc.; Rapid American Corporation; Riley Power, Inc.; Rust Constructors, Inc.; Rust Engineering & Construction, Inc.; Rust International, Inc.; Sager Corporation Theim Corporation; Surface Combustion, Inc.; Swindell Dressier International Corporation; Tasco Insulations, Inc.; The Gage Company; United Engineers & Constructors and Washington Group International; Viacom, Inc.; Vimasco Corporation; and Zurn Industries, LLC. (WVRecord.com)

St. Louis, IL: Four new asbestos lawsuits were filed on February 14 in St. Louis. The first, brought by Bert L. and Gloria Dobson, names 63 defendant corporations which, they allege, caused Bert L. Dobson to develop mesothelioma after his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career as a mechanic, laborer and farmer at various locations from 1959 until 2007.

Janice Kassman filed a lawsuit against 11 defendant corporations. Kassman alleges her recently deceased mother, Phyllis Armo, developed mesothelioma after she worked as a welder at the Brooklyn Naval Shipyard from 1941 until 1945.

Stella Lambert names 38 companies as defendants in the asbestos lawsuit brought on behalf of her deceased husband Robert Lambert. Mr. Lambert developed mesothelioma after working as a laborer and manager at various locations throughout the United States, according to the lawsuit.

Danielle Wolfe names 38 defendant corporations in her lawsuit filed on behalf of her deceased mother, Barbara Kuhl alleging that Barbara Kuhl, developed mesothelioma after her exposure to asbestos products during her career as a bookkeeper, dental assistant and waitress at various locations from 1960 until 2002.

The lawsuit also states that Kuhl was secondarily exposed to asbestos fibers through her husband, who worked as a contractor, builder, carpenter and foreman from 1977 until 1980 and through her brother-in-law, who worked as a mechanic from 1950 until 1962.

The lawsuits all claim the defendants should have known of the harmful effects of asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for the plaintiff’s safety.

Further, all the plaintiffs claim that as a result of their asbestos-related diseases, Bert L. Dobson, Armo, Robert Lambert and Kuhl became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, the complaint says. Additionally, they became prevented from pursuing their normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued to them.

The families of Armo, Lambert and Kuhl have all incurred funeral costs and have been deprived of their family members’ support and society as a result of their asbestos-related illnesses, the lawsuit states.

The Dobsons are seeking actual and compensatory damages of more than $50,000, and punitive and exemplary damages of more than $50,000, plus other relief the court deems just.

Kassman is seeking punitive and exemplary damages of more than $50,000 and actual and compensatory damages of more than $50,000.

Stella Lambert is seeking actual and compensatory damages of more than $50,000 and punitive and exemplary damages of more than $50,000.

Danielle Wolfe is seeking actual and compensatory damages of more than $50,000 and punitive and exemplary damages of more than $50,000. (Madisonrecord.com)

You’ve Heard of Thalidomide Babies, what about DES Babies?

February 21st, 2012. By AbiK

 

It’s a startling reality that DES Mothers, DES Daughters and DES Sons live with—that not many people know about or have heard about the pregnancy drug DES—diethylstilbestrol—or the harmful effects its had on both mothers who took the drug, and children who were exposed to the drug in utero.

DES was prescribed during the 1940’s to the 1970’s to expectant mothers who were at risk for miscarriage or pre-term delivery. The drug, however, was found to potentially cause clear cell adenocarcinoma (CCA), a rare form of vaginal and cervical cancer; reproductive tract structural changes such as a T-shaped uterus; complications in pregnancy such as ectopic (tubal) pregnancy and pre-term delivery; and infertility.

DES finally had its FDA approval revoked in 2000 (it had been recommended that doctors not prescibe it in 1971)—but not until potentially millions of mothers and children had been negatively affected by it. And those children are now between forty and seventy years of age or so—some of whom have lived through infertility or miscarriages of their own with out knowing that the reason could be connected to exposure to DES.

And that begs the question: why do so few people know about DES and the damage its caused? DES seems to be in the shadows of thalidomide—so much so that it’s been referred to as the ‘silent thalidomide’ in the press.

There are some possible reasons why, of course.

First, thalidomide was never approved for use in the US. DES was approved which perhaps made it appear less pernicious—after all, ‘my doctor prescribed it’.

Second, thalidomide babies could not help but evoke the collective sympathy and outrage of all who had seen a picture of an innocent newborn with severe birth defects such as missing or shortened arms or other severe disfigurement. There are no alarming pictures of DES victims—only faces; and those faces look just like you or me.

And finally, thalidomide, by its horrific nature, wove its way into popular culture—probably the most familiar evidence of this for many is the Billy Joel lyric from “We Didn’t Start the Fire”.

Diethylstilbestrol (DES), however, has potentially affected many more women in the US—and their children and perhaps their children’s children (aptly called ‘DES Third Generation’)—than thalidomide and is in some ways a much more heinous drug in that DES is the one that slipped through the proverbial cracks—the one that the FDA didn’t put the brakes on—soon enough.

Perhaps you now know about DES. But more importantly, do you know if you were on DES or exposed to it?

 

Propecia Isn’t Supposed to Make Things Disappear, is it?

February 15th, 2012. By AbiK

Funny thing happened on the way to the Propecia website—it wasn’t there! LawyersandSettlements.com recently posted an article about the disappearing act that Merck did with its Propecia site (see image) but one can’t help but appreciate the irony of something that’s supposed to be marketed to make hair appear now, well, disappearing. Stay tuned. And meanwhile, if you or someone you know has used Propecia and lost more than you gained (i.e., lost sexual desire or the ability to perform sexually), read more about Propecia lawsuits here.