Posts Tagged ‘ FTC ’

Watchdog Goes After Portable Bed Rails Citing Deaths

November 28th, 2012. By AbiK

Consumer watchdog group, Public Citizen has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to order Bed Handles, Inc. —makers of portable bed rails used by the elderly or infirm—to stop its deceptive advertising practices.

According to a letter sent by Public Citizen to the FTC, Bed Handles claims its Bedside Assistant bed handles are safe—”[making] and bed a safer bed”. However, Public Citizen notes, the bed handles have been responsible for four deaths.

The Public Citizen request calls for:

1. An immediate ban the marketing of Bedside Assistant bed handles, model numbers BA10W and BA10W-6, manufactured by Bed Handles, Inc., because these devices have directly caused the deaths of at least four adult patients through entrapment and subsequent strangulation or positional asphyxia and therefore present “an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury” …

2. An immediate order for Bed Handles, Inc. to recall all Bedside Assistant bed handles, model number BA10W and BA10W-6, that have been sold or distributed; and

3. An immediate investigation by the FTC to thoroughly assess the association between (a) the design and use of all similar bed handle or bed rail devices manufactured by Bed Handles, Inc. or any other manufacturer and (b) the risk of life-threatening injury or death due to entrapment and subsequent strangulation or positional asphyxia, and as appropriate, based on the result of this investigation, take action to ban the marketing of, and to recall, those devices that pose similar risks of death and injury as seen with Bedside Assistant bed handles.

At issue with the portable bed railings is that they can allegedly slip out of place thereby creating a gap between the railing and the mattress. An individual can become accidentally entrapped in the space between the mattress and the railing. Injury or death can occur as a result of the victim’s trachea being compressed against the bars of the bed railing, leading to strangulation.

The letter from Public Citizen to the FTC included a picture (above) of a caregiver showing how one of her patients had become trapped in the Bedside Assistant bed railing. The victim was found dead in that position.

According to the Public Citizen website, the FTC did acknowledge receipt of the letter. As of this writing, however, while the word “safe” does not appear on the Bed Handles Inc. website in reference to the portable bed railings, there has not been a recall. (Note, the Bed Handles website does reference “safer”–but it’s as it relates to the bed handles leaving “floor space clear”).

Tags: Bed Handles, Bed Rails, Consumer Fraud, Consumer Safety, Deceptive Advertising, FTC, Portable Bed Rails, Public Citizen
Posted in Complaints/Comments, Consumer Fraud, Defective Products | No Comments »

POM Juice Misleads Again with “Doctored” Ads

May 25th, 2012. By AbiK

Unfortunately, advertising isn’t quite held to the same ethical bar that journalism (usually) is. There’s a careful and deliberate selection of each and every word in an ad—and you’re delusional if you think otherwise. But the folks over at POM Wonderful pomegranate juice have taken their selectivity a bit far this week in rolling out an ad campaign that serves as their rebuttal of sorts to the false advertising ruling made by Judge D. Michael Chappell.

Judge Chappell’s ruling was in response to an FTC complaint regarding the alleged health claims that POM was making about the popular juice. The bottom line? POM was found to have insufficient evidence to support its claims that its pomegranate juice reduced the risk of heart disease—as well as prostate cancer (and even impotence—gee, maybe they should’ve teamed up with Merck to help Propecia victims overcome ED while they were at it). The judge also issued a cease-and-desist order that forbids POM from making such claims for 20 years.

So what does POM do? In true catfight fashion, they stoop to childlike tactics and run some ads that use pull-quotes from the judge’s ruling—out of context. For example, one ad states (from the ruling) that, “Competent and reliable scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the consumption of pomegranate juice and pomegranate extract supports prostate health, including by prolonging PSA doubling time in men with rising PSA after primary treatment for prostate cancer”

But it cuts off there without the following statement: “However, the greater weight of the persuasive expert testimony shows that the evidence relied upon by the respondents is not adequate to substantiate claims that POM products treat, prevent or reduce the risk of prostate cancer or that they are clinically proven to do so.”

It’s an interesting ‘rebuttal’ as, without clinical studies supporting the health claims—studies that would stand up in a court of law, that is—the ads POM is running could actually backfire; after all, rather than just go quietly and not draw further attention to the ruling, now the media will be all over the ads (as we are). And without the ‘scientific proof’ it certainly starts to become transparent that this may well be more about sales and revenue impact than any grand gesture to promote the curative benefits of some medicinal elixir.

Well, as they say, you be the judge—and let us know what you think.

Tags: Consumer Fraud, false advertising, FTC, Judge D Michael Chappell, POM pomegranate juice, POM Wonderful
Posted in Complaints/Comments, Consumer Fraud, Emerging Issues, lawsuits, Personal Injury | No Comments »

Irresponsible Advertising? Kenneth Cole Tweet Nothing vs VitaminWater Ads

February 4th, 2011. By AbiK

Not Funny

The Kenneth Cole reaction (couldn’t resist)—i.e., the outburst over his—or his ghostwriting social media whiz—comment on Twitter the other day raised the question of responsible marketing for many—heck, it’s been front page news all over the media. For those of you who missed it, this was the tweet:

“Millions are in an uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is available online at http://bit.ly/KCairo -KC”

Cole followed up later in the day by taking that tweet down and posting a mea culpa:

“Re Egypt tweet: we weren’t intending to make light of a serious situation. We understand the sensitivity of this historic moment -KC”

Ok. Fine. Yes, the situation in Cairo is serious. Very serious. And yes, there are many who would take offense (clearly) at Cole using the situation to grab a cheap marketing shot. But those who have followed Kenneth Cole for many years are well-accustomed to his brand of advertising—and, like it or not, it’s provocative—intentionally so. And, if so inclined—you can even purchase the coffee table book, Footnotes, which takes you through Cole’s first twenty years of advertising.

But now let’s contrast the Kenneth Cole uproar with the latest ad campaign from VitaminWater. Maybe you’ve heard that the National Consumers League (NCL, a watchdog group) has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over VitaminWater’s use of ad copy such as: “Flu shots are so last year.” The inference, of course, being that in some way, shape, or form VitaminWater is on a par—at the least—or superior to—at the worst—getting a flu shot.

The complaint from the NCL charges that such advertising is dangerously misleading. To add to that, ajc.com quotes Sally Greenberg, executive director of NCL as stating, “One of the reasons we went after them was the claims we so outlandish, downright reckless.”

Funny

VitaminWater (aka Glaceau VitaminWater) is owned by Coca-Cola—it’s founder, Michael Repole, sold it to Coke for $4.1 billion in 2007 and Repole’s recently made headlines for his interest in owning a stake in the NY Mets. Coca-Cola has responded to NCL’s criticism by saying that the ads are meant to be funny.

I can buy that—I like humor. But let’s look at the context here as well. Pick up a bottle of VitaminWater (note, not an endorsement here—just pick one up off the store shelf) and read the label. You’ll find things like “vitamins + water = all you need”. Or like the picture shown here, “that’s like brushing your teeth twice”—bet your dentist will like that one.

That’s not humor—that’s irresponsible.

Humor in advertising is that Staples “Most Wonderful Time of the Year” 30-second spot. Or take just about any Super Bowl ad—Pepsi, Doritos, Volkswagon, GoDaddy, Bud Light—they do “funny”. Betty White = Funny.

No one is going to experience undue harm as a result of having read Kenneth Cole’s tweet. What? Some Kenneth Cole fanatic is going to break a fingernail racing to click her mouse to get to Cole’s bit.ly link for his new spring collection? Please. On the other hand, when you put on a food or drink label that your product is “like brushing your teeth twice” when it’s not, well, that’s misleading. Ditto when you use display ads touting that “flu shots are so last year”.

What? I should drink sugar water instead?

Tags: Coca-Cola, false advertising, Fraud, FTC, Kenneth Cole, Misleading Advertising, National Consumers League, Responsible Advertising, Vitamin Water, VitaminWater
Posted in Consumer Fraud, Emerging Issues | 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 »

What to do if you’ve Lost Money in a Moneygram Scam

February 10th, 2010. By AbiK

Many of you have written in about Moneygram scams. Unfortunately, in the aftermath of Moneygram’s court order to cough up $18 million to the FTC to settle charges of consumer fraud, we’re still receiving numerous accounts from readers who’ve been on the receiving end of a Moneygram scam and who are asking what they should do.

For background, the FTC had sued Moneygram, charging that agents from the money transfer service helped fraudulent telemarketers and con artists who tricked consumers into wiring in excess of $84M within US and Canada. The fraudulent activity occured between 2004 and 2008. The $84M in losses was based on consumer complaints that Moneygram received—and the FTC estimates that the figure is actually larger (i.e., not all victims would have filed a complaint with Moneygram).

First, the court order, from last October, is requiring Moneygram to not only pay the $18 million to the FTC—which Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: FTC, moneygram, Moneygram Scam
Posted in Consumer Fraud | 187 Comments »