Class Action Blog : Consumer Fraud, Consumer Protection, Securities and Antitrust Lawyer & Attorney : Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz

We all accept the fact that we will see advertisements when we watch television or surf the internet. However, check your next monthly statement from your bank, and you will probably notice retailer advertisements or coupons. The reason? You have been targeted by a new type of promotion called transaction-driven marketing.

With banks fighting historically low interest rates and a severe decline in lending and risk taking revenue, thousands of banks have turned to participation in such programs to generate revenue. The programs allow third-party marketing and data-mining companies to sift through checking and credit-card account records for information on your spending habits, and then design customized advertisements based on your shopping preferences. Banks and marketers claim this private information is “anonymized,” that is, stripped of anything that could identify someone (name, address, account number), but it is impossible to know for sure. As long as your bank shares only anonymized, aggregated data, your privacy might be safe. However, if your bank were to release additional personal information, this would immediately put your identity at risk.

We encourage all consumers to ask their banks about their privacy policies and how consumers’ personal information is used and the companies that have access to it.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mouthwash is an important product for maintaining oral hygiene, and many of us are willing to pay a little extra for fresher breath and cleaner teeth. Unfortunately, it appears that the makers of ACT mouthwash are taking advantage of our desire for clean mouths.

The product ACT Total Care costs significantly more than regular ACT mouthwash, even though the two products are made from the exact same ingredients. In addition, ACT Total Care advertises to consumers that it “rebuilds enamel.” However, it is impossible to rebuild or restore enamel. Many customers of ACT Total Care may pay more, thinking they will be able to rebuild enamel or that ACT Total Care is in some way superior to regular ACT Mouth Wash. If you purchased ACT Total Care because you were deceived into believing that the product would rebuild enamel or that it was otherwise superior to regular mouthwash, please contact us to discuss your legal rights
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As consumers become more concerned with reducing their impact on the environment while keeping monthly bills as low as possible, energy efficient appliances are becoming more popular. In fact, washing machines, refrigerators and air conditioners are some of the most significant sources of electricity usage in the home. One way consumers can tell if the appliance they are thinking of purchasing is energy efficient is by relying on its Energy Star certification.

Energy Star is an international standard for energy efficient consumer products. Appliances carrying the Energy Star logo generally use 20%–30% less energy than required by federal standards. As a result, consumers expect that appliances with the Energy Star logo deliver the promised energy savings. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

Indeed, it has been reported that certain Maytag Centennial washing machines and KitchenAid refrigerators failed to meet the required Energy Star specifications, notwithstanding the fact that they bore the Energy Star certificate. In addition, investigators have reported that certain models of Kenmore, Electrolux, Frigidaire and LG Electronics refrigerators do not meet the Energy Star specifications they claim.

If you or someone you know has purchased any of these appliances, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Millions of Americans suffer from sensitive teeth. As anyone in that position can tell you, the pain from sensitive teeth can be unbearable. It is not surprising, then, that toothpaste companies spend substantial sums developing and marketing toothpaste to help those with sensitive teeth. Unfortunately, Proctor & Gamble may have gone too far in making promises it cannot keep. The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus Claims recently issued a report indicating that Proctor & Gamble’s advertising in connection with Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection Toothpaste may be misleading. Proctor & Gamble promises that users will experience “relief within minutes.” 

However, it appears that there is no scientific substantiation for the claim that the toothpaste provides relief “within minutes.” The NAD found that while Proctor & Gamble has support for the claim that its toothpaste provides relief over the course of days and weeks, there is inadequate support for the “relief within minutes” claim.

If you or someone you know purchased Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection Toothpaste and did not receive “relief within minutes,” please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the most difficult issues consumers trying to losing weight face is purchasing a diet product that works. Unfortunately, many unscrupulous marketers deceive consumers into buying unproven or outright worthless products based on bogus weight loss claims. One of the more egregious scams that have come to light recently concerns HCG.  In fact, the FDA sent letters to several HCG diet-product companies, warning them that HCG weight-loss drugs have not been approved by FDA, and that the claim that HCG can help in weight loss is unsupported.

HCG, or human chorionic gonadotropin, is a hormone produced by the human placenta during pregnancy. HCG is approved by FDA as a prescription drug for the treatment of female infertility, and other medical conditions. However, it is not approved for weight loss. Nonetheless, may HCG marketers claim that HCG can “reset your metabolism,” change “abnormal eating patterns,” and cause one to two pounds of weight loss per day. Typically, these products come with a very low calorie diet, and any weight loss is attributable to the diet, not HCG.

If you or someone you know purchased a HCG weight loss product, contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As Americans struggle with weight loss and strive to maintain the best image they can, they are often beset by unscrupulous advertisers offering miracle cures. One of the most difficult issues facing many women is cellulite; not surprisingly, unscrupulous advertisers seek to take advantage of consumers’ desire to rid themselves of cellulite by offering bogus “cures” that are nothing less than snake oil. The word “cellulite” is not a medical term; instead, it originated in European salons and spas to describe deposits of dimpled fat on women’s legs. Cellulite is described by advertisers as a different type of fat than found elsewhere on the body, a combination of fat, water, and toxic wastes.  In fact, cellulite is nothing more than ordinary fatty tissue. Fibrous tissues connect the skin to underlying layers and create compartments containing fat cells.  When those fat cells grow, they create a dimpled appearance.

Products claiming to reduce cellulite are legion, as are related false advertising claims. For example, many anti-cellulite products claim to remove “toxins” as a cure to cellulite. However, fat in cellulite contains no toxins not present in other fat cells, and the presence or absence of “toxins” has no effect on the size or shape of fat cells that make up cellulite. Similarly, products that claim to permanently “shrink cellulite” or reduce collagen are based on misrepresentations, as no cream or other product can produce that miracle.

Another popular, but perhaps no less bogus, anti-cellulite product is Hot Pants by Zaggora. HotPants allegedly contain “bioceramics” that will help you deal with cellulite. In fact, HotPants, which is also touted as a weight loss device that helps consumers “drop up to 2 dress sizes in 2 weeks,” appears to be sold on the basis of a number of questionable claims. First, Zaggora claims that its bioceramics emit “infrared rays” that both help with weight loss and cellulite appearance; however, the company website and advertising materials we reviewed did not contain a reference to a single proper study substantiating its claims. Second, Zaggora claims that its pants “boosts sweating by up to 80% and aids in eliminating the toxins responsible for cellulite.”  Not only are toxins not responsible for cellulite, but sweating only has a short term effect as any fluid reduction is soon reversed by drinking or eating.

If you or someone you know purchased Hot Pants or any other cellulite cure, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Anyone with a child knows that one of the earliest challenges new parents face is getting their infants to sleep through the night. Thus, it comes as no surprise that some sleep-deprived parents are particularly susceptible to the claims of companies offering products they claim will help infants fall asleep easier and sleep through the night. Unfortunately, these parents may be being sold a bill of goods, as many of these products have not been proven to have any impact on a baby’s sleep.

One such product is Johnson’s Bedtime Bath, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson. Prominently displayed on the bottle’s label is the claim “*clinically proven* help baby sleep better”, creating the distinct impression in the mind of the consumer that this product is clinically proven to help your baby sleep better. Banking on parents’ willingness to try anything to help their babies sleep, Johnson & Johnson charges more for this product than for its regular “head-to-toe baby wash”.

However, it does not appear that Johnson’s Bedtime Bath is, in fact, clinically proven to have any impact on an infant’s sleep. Thus, those consumers who have paid a premium in reliance upon Johnson & Johnson’s false claims have suffered the loss of not a few more nights of sleep, but of a few extra dollars as well.

If you or someone you know has purchased Johnson’s Bedtime Bath in the hopes of helping your baby sleep better, please contact us to discuss your legal rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many customers who choose to buy items that are made in America are attempting to support American jobs, and they deserve to be told the truth.  However, the Made in the USA Foundation recently filed complaints with the Federal Trade Commission, alleging that Ford and Chrysler mislead consumers by advertising that their cars were "made in America" when, in fact, the cars were imported from foreign countries.

Ford advertises that its Fusion is an American car, although the car is actually made at a plant in Sonara, Mexico.  Similarly, Chrysler brags that the Chrysler 300 is "Imported from Detroit".  However, the Chrysler 300 is assembled in Canada using an engine built in Mexico.

If you purchased a Ford Fusion, Chrysler 300 or other car because the car company told you it was made in the USA, and you have since learned the car company's claim was false, you may have been a victim of consumer fraud.  Please contact us as soon as possible to discuss your legal rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Omega-3 fatty acids have a wide variety of health benefits, from alleviating inflammation, aiding better brain function and higher intelligence, reducing depression, and aiding cardiovascular health. Omega-3 fatty acids are naturally present in many foods, such as walnuts, certain fruits and vegetables, and fish such as herring, sturgeon, and anchovies. Unfortunately, many Americans are unable to eat adequate amounts of those foods, and so they turn to supplements. All supplements have labels purporting to show how much of the desired nutrient each pill contains. Unfortunately, not all of those labels are accurate.

A recent report from Consumer Lab casts doubt on whether certain supplements contain their represented amounts of Omega-3. Consumer Lab tested a number of popular Omega-3 supplements to determine if they contained the amount Omega-3 represented on labels. While most of the products contained the represented amounts, there were three that had substantially less Omega-3 than advertised.

Consumer Lab found thatNatural Factors Rx Omega-3 Factors Pharmaceutical Grade contained only 83.3% of the claimed EPA (one type of Omega-3 found in fish oil). NOW Neptune Krill Oil was found to contain only 79.1% of claimed EPA, 76.7% of claimed DHA (another type of Omega-3 found in fish oil) and 78.4% of the claimed total omega-3 fatty acids. Perhaps most worrisome, The Simpsons Berry Squirts, a product designed for children, contained only 88.1% of the claimed EPA.

If you or someone you know purchased any of these products, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Airline frequent flier programs can be great for consumers -- free flights and free upgrades are always welcome.  Unfortunately, some airlines think their frequent flier programs should give them free access to your wallet.  It's important to be vigilant to make sure that frequent flier programs aren't using trickery or fine print to trick you into spending more money than you would gain from the savings offered.

Spirit Air's $9 Fare Club is notorious for taking advantage of consumers.  Many consumers who paid to join Spirit Air's $9 Fare Club have been surprised that their memberships were automatically enrolled without their consent, costing them $59.95.  Worse, several customers have complained that they were charged this renewal fee, even though they cancelled their membership.

Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C. is investigating legal proceedings to redress unfair practices relating to Spirit Air's $9 Fare Club.  If you believe you were victimized by Spirit Air's $9 Fare Club, please contact us immediately to discuss your legal rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Allstate appears to be offering customers a great deal:  Call to get an insurance quote and, just for making the call, you get "free" lifetime enrollment in Allstate's roadside assistance program.  Smart consumers might think that instead of paying money to enroll in AAA or another roadside assistance program, it's cheaper to call Allstate and get free enrollment.

But there's a catch.  Allstate's roadside assistance program actually charges for roadside assistance.  In other words, there is nothing free about it -- when you need roadside assistance, you call the number and then you pay for the service provided.  This can result in charges of over $75 each time your car needs to be towed, so, if your car gets towed, you will end up paying more for Allstate's "free" service than you would if you paid for a typical roadside assistance program.

Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C. is investigating a class action lawsuit to redress Allstate's deceptive advertising.  Please contact us immediately to discuss your legal rights, if you purchased Allstate insurance because you were tricked by Allstate's "free" roadside assistance advertising campaign or if you cancelled your contract with a real roadside assistance program because of Allstate's deceptive advertisements. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 19, 2011, Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C. filed a class action in Federal District court for the District of New Jersey against Smart Balance, Inc., on behalf of all consumers who purchased Smart Balance's "Fat Free" milks containing Omega-3s.

Smart Balance sells "Fat Free" milks containing Omega-3s, which purportedly taste as rich and creamy as 2% milk or whole milk.  Unfortunately, however, despite aggressively labeling its milks as "Fat Free", Smart Balance's line of "Fat Free" milks with Omega-3s actually contain 1 gram of fat per serving, double the legal limit of 0.5 grams of fat per serving that a food is legally permitted to contain to label itself "Fat Free".  The Smart Balance milks that contain 1 gram of fat despite labeling themselves as "Fat Free" include:

• Smart Balance® Fat Free Milk and Omega-3s
• Smart Balance® Lactose -Free Milk and Omega-3s
• Smart Balance® HeartRight® Fat Free Milk and Omega-3s, Vitamin E and Natural Plant Sterols

The lawsuit filed by Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz seeks to redress this unfair, deceptive, and otherwise improper business practice that Smart Balance is employing against unsuspecting consumers.  The lawsuit seeks damages, including, but not limited to, a refund of the monies paid for the Smart Balance milks referenced above.  The lawsuit also seeks to change Smart Balance's advertising of these "Fat Free" milks going forward so that future unsuspecting consumers will not fall prey to Smart Balance's deceptive conduct.

If you or someone you know purchased any of these Smart Balance "Fat Free" milks, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 18, 2011, Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C. filed a class action in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all New York consumers that purchased their retail electricity from the independent energy supplier Energy Plus Holdings LLC.

Energy Plus is a company that thrives in the deregulated energy market in which New York consumers purchase retail electricity. Unfortunately for many consumers, numerous states have begun deregulating retail electricity rates. Prior to deregulation, retail electricity suppliers had to file the specific kilowatt per-hour rate they would charge electricity consumers, and they were forbidden from charging more than that rate. However, many states, including New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania now allow independent, alternative electricity suppliers to compete against established utilities like Connecticut Light and Power and ConEd by purchasing electricity at wholesale rates on the open market, which they then sell to consumers at market, and theoretically lower and more competitive, rates.

The Class Action Complaint alleges that Energy Plus takes advantage of the deregulated market by using deceptive sales tactics to market electricity that is substantially more expensive than electricity provided by other independent retailers or local utilities. In particular, Energy Plus claims that its rates are competitive and reflective of market prices. However, Energy Plus’ rates are in fact substantially higher, sometimes as much as two to three times than the rate other suppliers are charging. The Complaint also alleges that Energy Plus fails to inform consumers that their electricity rates are substantially higher than market rates.

If you or someone you know is a customer of Energy Plus, or any other independent supplier you believe may have misrepresented the true amount of their electricity rates, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SAMe (also known as SAM-e, S-adenosyl-methionine, or S-adenosyl-L-methionine) is a popular supplement. A naturally occurring amino acid, SAMe has a wide range of potential benefits. It is used as a treatment for osteoarthritis and associated joint pain, stiffness, and inflammation, and SAMe is a natural therapy for treating depression. SAMe has also been used for the treatment of fibromyalgia, liver disease, AIDS-related myelopathy, Parkinson's disease, and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults.

There are a wide variety of supplements that offer SAMe. However, a recent report from Consumer Lab indicates that many supplements do not contain the amount of SAMe indicated on the bottle. Consumer Lab tested a number of popular multivitamins to determine if they contained the amount of SAMe represented on labels. While most of the products contained the represented amounts, Consumer Lab identified two popular supplements that did not contain the advertised amounts.

Integrative Therapeutics Vitaline SAMe represents that each pill contains 200 mg of SAMe; Consumer Lab found only 149 mg (74.5%). The label on Maxam Nutraceutics SAMe appears to be even more deceptive. This supplement, a liquid, did not contain any detectable SAMe, despite the explicit claim that it provides 100 mg for every eight sprays of a blend of “SAM-e, Co-Enzyme Q10, Hyaluronidase, Bromeliain, Brewer’s Yeast Extract.” Consumer Lab also noted that the supplement likely contains no CoQ10; that compound is bright orange, but the spray is clear.

Consumer Lab also tested S-Adenosyl 100 for pets. The pill they tested rapidly disintegrated in a gastric solution; most SAMe supplements include an enteric coating to prevent premature dissolution in stomach acid. However, S-Adenosyl appears not to have a proper coating. 

If you or someone you know purchased Integrative Therapeutics Vitaline SAMe, Maxam Nutraceutics SAMe or S-Adenosyl 100, please contact us to discuss your legal options

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Subscribers to Rachel Ray’s magazine Every Day with Rachel Ray recently received their November issue of the magazine along with an unwelcome surprise. Along with the issue, readers were greeted with a letter stating that the issue was a “special issue” that will count as two issues and as such the duration of each subscription would be adjusted accordingly. A similar letter accompanied the November issue of The Family Handyman. Both magazines are published by Reader’s Digest.

The current fine print on each magazine’s website states that each “1-year (11 issue) subscription includes a special issue, which counts as 2 in your subscription.” 

But what does this mean? Does this mean that your “1-year” of the magazine is actually only 10 issues because one of the 11 is a special issue, or is it just an explanation of why these magazines only publish 11 issues per year and not 12? 

Furthermore, when was this language added? If this is a recent addition, certainly current subscribers will be shocked to learn that they will be receiving one less issue of the magazine than they paid for. 

Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C. is investigating a potential claim against Reader’s Digest for cutting short the length of subscribers’ magazine subscriptions. If you or someone you know is a subscriber to a Reader’s Digest magazine, including Every Day with Rachel Ray and The Family Handyman and believe that the magazine subscription is getting cut short, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sibutramine is a controlled substance drug known as an oral anorexiant. It is a form of medication known as an appetite suppressant, which works by acting on the appetite control centers in the brain to decrease appetite. It was previously marketed and prescribed by physicians as part of the treatment for weight loss, and was used in combination with a reduced calorie diet and exercise to help people who are overweight lose weight and maintain their weight loss.

In 2008, the United States Food and Drug Administration issued an alert to consumers naming 27 different products marketed as dietary supplements for weight loss that contained illegal and undisclosed amounts of sibutramine. By 2010, the manufacturer of sibutramine had withdrawn the drug from the market altogether after study showed an increased risk of stroke and other cardiovascular problems in persons who were prescribed the medication. The manufacturer had performed a study at the request of the Food and Drug Administration, which ultimately demonstrated a 16% increase in the risk for serious cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, myocardial infarction, and death. Sibutramine is not supposed to be prescribed or sold in the United States, and if “off the market.”

Unfortunately, sibutramine continues to appear on the market, mostly in products that are marketed as dietary supplements for weight loss. Just recently, on October 18, 2011, the Food and Drug Administration issued alerts to consumers advising them not to use or purchase several products that were found to contain sibutramine. The agency issued alerts advising consumers to avoid the products known as "Magic Slim,” “Advanced Slim 5” and “Magic Slim Tea” because they were all found to contain the illegal drug sibutramine.

It is illegal and extremely dangerous for manufacturers of so-called "dietary supplements" to mix sibutramine in their products, and it is unfortunate that some unscrupulous manufacturers continue to do so.  If you or someone you know has been injured by sibutramine, please contact us to discuss your legal rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you have perfect vision, but you think it would be fun to change your eye color to match your outfit, accessorize your Halloween costume, or to support your favorite sports team, you should think twice before using fashion contact lenses. These lenses, when sold illegally by unlicensed vendors on the Internet, or at flea markets and specialty shops, can cause serious eye injuries if used improperly. 

Decorative or fashion contact lenses do not correct vision, they simply change the appearance of the eye. These lenses are advertised as fashion accessories and are principally marketed to teens and young adults. In fact, all contact lenses, including fashion lenses, are classified as medical devices and are subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration. Contact lenses of any type can be legally sold only by licensed eye-care professionals.  The illegal sale of contact lenses is a violation of federal law and can lead to penalties up to $11,000 per violation. 

Those who purchase these contact lenses without a prescription from unlicensed vendors are given little, if any, instructions in the care, cleaning and maintenance of the lenses. Failure to use proper solution to clean and moisten contact lenses can lead to rapid bacterial infection, corneal ulcers and diminished vision. These risks increase when the contact lenses are shared. Moreover, contact lenses are not “one size fits all.” An eye doctor must measure each eye to properly fit lenses and evaluate how each eye responds to contact lens wear. A poor fit can cause severe eye damage, including scratches on the cornea, corneal infection, pink eye, decreased vision, and blindness. 

If you have purchased decorative contact lenses and have suffered an injury, please contact us immediately to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

From cereals to salad dressings, fruit drinks to potato chips, health-conscious consumers can choose an "All Natural" version of just about anything. If you, however, like many other unsuspecting consumers, feel comforted by the words “All Natural” plastered across the labels and packaging of your food, prepare to be disillusioned, for the one thing a consumer cannot find on the shelves of the grocery stores, or anywhere else for that matter, is an official definition of “natural.” 

With “All Natural” foods as easy to come by as a glass of water, what are companies really promising when they claim their products are “All Natural”? As far as labels that state products are “All Natural,” or “Naturally Made,” these terms are not actually regulated, with the exception of meat and poultry.  It is merely suggested, but not required that foods labeled “All-Natural” are less processed and contain less synthetics such as artificial sweeteners, dyes and other additives.  Shockingly, some “All Natural” products have very little natural ingredients at all. In fact, a lot of foods labeled as “All Natural” contain high levels of genetically engineered ingredients. 

According to an article from the Wall Street Journal, food companies play “fast and loose” with the “All Natural” designation, which can lead to confusion for consumers.

Kashi cereals, Skinnygirl Margarita alcoholic beverages, Wesson cooking oils, and Arizona-brand drinks, all claim to be “All Natural” and all have recently been the subject of litigation relating to these claims. While in the past, only a few consumer trusted products claimed to be “All Natural,” as more companies claim their products to be “All Natural,” consumers are having a harder time making comparisons between products that offer a reasonably natural alternative and those that are just making the claim.

Still worse, according to Charlotte Vallaeys, Director of Farm and Food Policy at Cornucopia “[s]ome companies that started out organic, and built brand loyalty as organic brands, have switched to non-organic ingredients and “natural” labeling.” One such brand, Peace Cereal® is an example of what Cornucopia calls “bait-and-switch.”

If you have purchased a product that claims to be “all natural” and the label discloses that the ingredients are not natural, please contact us to discuss your legal options. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With obesity the number one cause of preventable death in the United States, Americans are desperate for healthy options in the supermarket aisles. Against this backdrop, with consumers demanding dairy products that fit their diet and nutritional wants and needs, Smart Balance, Inc. sells “Fat Free” milks containing Omega-3s which purportedly taste as rich and creamy as 2% milk or whole milk. The “Fat Free” milks seemingly give consumers the best of both worlds, a milk free of fat, but that still tastes as rich and creamy as its less healthy higher fat siblings – 2% milk and whole milk.

Unfortunately, however, despite aggressively labeling its milks as “Fat Free” Smart Balance’s line of “Fat Free” milks with Omega-3s actually contain 1 gram of fat per serving. This 1 gram of fat per serving is double the legal limit of 0.5 grams of fat per serving that a food is legally permitted to contain to label itself “Fat Free.” The Smart Balance milks that contain 1 gram of fat despite labeling themselves as “Fat Free” include:

·         Smart Balance® Fat Free Milk and Omega-3s

·         Smart Balance® Lactose-Free Fat Free Milk and Omega-3s

·         Smart Balance® HeartRight® Fat Free Milk and Omega-3s, Vitamin E and Natural Plant Sterols

If you or someone you know purchased any of these Smart Balance “Fat Free” milks, please contact us to discuss your legal options. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Vitamin A is one of the most important supplements consumers can take. Vitamin A provides retinol, which is crucial for maintaining healthy retinas and good vision. In fact, countries whose citizens suffer from vitamin A deficiencies have significant instances of night blindness and other vision issues. Vitamin A is also a good source for antioxidants, which help remove free radicals in the body, thereby protecting against oxidative damage to cells.

Unfortunately, it can be difficult for many consumers to get adequate amounts of vitamin A strictly from dietary sources; fortunately, there are many multivitamins available that offer supplemental vitamin A to fill the gap. Even though vitamin marketers need not submit their products for FDA approval, consumers nonetheless count on accurate labeling and advertising to ensure that they are taking enough Vitamin A (and other supplements).

However, a recent report from Consumer Lab casts significant doubt on whether multivitamin labeling is adequate. Consumer Lab tested a number of popular multivitamins to determine if they contained the amount of vitamin A represented on multivitamin labels. While most of the products contained the represented amounts, there were a number that had substantially less vitamin A than advertised.

For example, testing revealed that Trader Joe's Vitamin Crusade contained less than 60% of the vitamin A claimed on the label and in advertising. Other products that contained less than the advertised amount of vitamin A included:

• Schiff Single Day
• Country Life Maxi-Sorb Max for Men
• Melaleuca Vitality Multivitamin & Mineral Men
• All One Active Seniors

Consumer Lab also tested multivitamins for pets, and found that PetGuard Multi-Vitamin and Multi-Mineral contained less vitamin A than advertised.

If you or someone you know purchased Trader Joe's Vitamin Crusade or any of the other products mentioned above, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Celebrity hairstylist Chaz Dean markets his Wen hair care products on a late night infomercial, using pitch-women who have included recognizable, long-haired women celebrities including Little House on the Prairie’s Melissa Gilbert and Beverly Hills 90210's Jennie Garth. But scores of consumers have reported that California-based, Guthy-Renker, LLC, the company behind Wen Hair Care System, routinely engages in seriously unfair and deceptive sales practices.

Whether or not the Wen Hair Care products work well and are worth the considerable almost $40 per month investment required is a matter that consumers hotly debate on various Internet sites. A considerable number of consumers have reported that the product causes their hair to look and feel excessively oily, and that the product directions are inadequate.

But even assuming the product is worthwhile, what is of great concern is that Guthy-Renker, LLC advertises an initial 30-day supply of its hair care system for $29.99 plus shipping, but consumers who do not carefully read the details of the deal on the Wen website do not realize they are actually enrolling in an ongoing supply program under which they will keep receiving additional 90-day supplies of these hair care products every three months at a cost of $29.99 per month, plus $7.99 shipping and handling, which is billed to their credit cards until they cancel.

Many consumers have reported not having intended to sign up for these repeat purchases. Moreover, it is at least highly confusing and very possibly outright deceptive to charge $30 plus the $8 shipping each month, when the product only ships every third month. It goes without saying that the actual shipping cost could not even begin to approach the $24 the consumer is paying for shipping and handling of the package of shampoo every third month. Whether or not the product works well, most would agree that what would amount to $456 per year is an indefensibly high price to charge for shampoo and shipping.

If that were not bad enough, a great number of consumers who have purchased the Wen Hair Care System have said that they have found it nearly impossible to cancel the “membership” and stop the recurring monthly credit card charges. Chaz Dean and Guthy-Renker are also said not to honor the 60-day money back guarantee they claim to offer. Reportedly the Guthy-Renker customer service representatives are aggressive, rude and unhelpful. Consumers are told to return the hair care system (at their additional expense despite already having paid excessive shipping and handling charges), and no refunds are issued until receipt of the return. Reports are that the company then claims not to have received the products back and fights refunding anything. While all of this fighting for a refund is going on, and although cancellation has been requested, the monthly credit card charges continue.

Reports by consumers who actually managed to get their money fully refunded are scant; and those who did obtain a full, or more commonly a partial refund, did so only after repeated heated and unpleasant phone calls. These determined efforts to stop the charges and obtain a refund are something not all consumers will be able to make.

Beware of Wen Hair Care products which may well not be worth their high price; and whose sellers use deceptive and underhanded sales practices to keep as many consumers as possible on their monthly $38 credit card charge plan.

We at Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C. are investigating consumers’ claims of deceptive sales practices marketing the Wen Hair Care System. If you believe you have been a victim of a sales scam involving the Wen products please contact us to discuss your experience and your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (19)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Previously, we reported on potentially deceptive behavior by United Marketing Group in connection with clandestine Internet and telemarketing “sales” to consumers following a purchase from an otherwise legitimate retailer. However, it appears that United Marketing Group may have teamed up with Discover to deceptively charge small businesses for unwanted “Merchant Technical Solutions.”

A number of small businesses have reported mysterious charges for $49.95 appearing on their Discover Card statements that are cryptically described as “UMG*MERCHANTTECHSOLUT.” It turns out that these and other similarly ambiguous charges are for programs run by United Marketing Group; apparently, United Marketing Group and Discover have become “business partners” in connection with these offerings, and it appears that United Marketing Group and Discover may be working in concert to deceive businesses into “enrolling” in these programs without their knowledge or authorization.

Many small businesses report receiving a call from United Marketing Group (although the callers sometimes identify themselves as being associated with Discover) informing them that they will be sending technical information and requesting an address verification. These calls are often not made to the business owner; the caller states that he or she understands that the person answering the phone is not authorized to make purchases. Nonetheless, charges begin appearing on the businesses’ Discover account. Others report that United Marketing Group “slams” their phone bills with unauthorized charges for these services.

If you have been charged by Discover or United Marketing Group for services you did not want or authorize, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mistolin is a line of cleaning products manufactured in Puerto Rico by Mistolin Caribe, Inc. and sold in the United States. It is a favorite of Latino households. However, their packaging leaves much to be desired. Mistolin is sold in 28 oz. clear bottles. The liquid in the bottles, clearly visible, comes in a variety of bright colors and scents, which, at first glance, appear more to be "flavors." Among the varieties offered are a bright red Raspberry, a clear green Apple, a Tawny vanilla and Tropical.

There are pictures on the front of the bottles depicting the respective fruits. They have a simple twist-off cap, not a child-resistant cap. While anyone who reads the labeling information will see that the bottles are marked, "cleans-deodorizes-perfumes", and contains a warning that the contents are an eye irritant, it is likely that a child would be attracted by the overall appearance, bright colors and picture of the fruit. The packaging therefore would appear to present a potential danger in households with small children who are unlikely to, or unable to, read the wording on the label.

If you, or anyone you know, has been injured using this product, please call us to discuss your options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Federal Trade Commission has reached tentative settlements with two companies charged with marketing smart phone apps with unsubstantiated acne-fighting properties.
 

The FTC alleged that the 99¢ Acne Pwner app and the $1.99 AcneApp falsely promised to treat acne by shooting red and blue lights from the smart phone display screens at the user’s skin. Both made claims that their apps were effective, and DermaApp, the marketer of AcneApp, falsely cited a British Journal of Dermatology study on light-based therapy to back-up its claims.
 

According to the FTC’s complaint, thousands of smart phone consumers were duped by the companies’ false claims. There were approximately 3,300 downloads of Acne Pwner from the Android Marketplace and 11,600 downloads of AcneApp from the Apple iTunes Store.
 

Under the proposed settlement, the companies will be barred from making acne-treatment claims about their apps or devices as well as marketing the health, safety, or performance benefits of any other device without competent and reliable scientific evidence. The settlement would require Koby Brown and Gregory W. Pearson, who did business as DermaApps, to pay $14,294 in fines, and Andrew N. Finkle, who did business as Acne Pwner, to pay $1,700.
 

Other acne fighting apps that will likely be pulled from the market by the FTC are LOL Software’s Acne Away, M&R Selected’s SkinApp, FunVid’s Acne Light Waves, Luke Campbell’s Light Therapy, and LightRx’s ZITzapp.
 

If you, or someone you know, have fallen victim to this type of bogus app scam, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Everyone loves a sale, and that is what the craft store Michaels was likely counting on when it began advertising its "custom framing" services as being 50% off.  That would be a great deal, if Michaels was really offering customers 50% off on the regular price of custom framing.  But when the "sale" lasts for two years or more, it is no longer a sale; instead, it is false and deceptive advertising.  Under New York and other states' consumer protection laws, it is deceptive practice to advertise a service or product as being on sale when, in fact, the sale price is the regular price.  In other words, a "sale" that never ends is illegal.

And that is why New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman recently announced that his office secured Michaels' agreement to enter into a $1.8 million settlement for engaging in deceptive advertising practices by tricking consumers into thinking they were buying something on a sale when they were not.   According to the Attorney General:

"For years, Michaels duped consumers into thinking they were receiving huge discounts, when in fact, they were simply paying the regular store price.  Through deceptive advertising practices, this company violated the law and took advantage of hardworking consumers trying to save money."

We here at Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz applaud the Attorney General's aggressive action to prevent deceptive practices wherever they might be found; however, the settlement does not provide regress to the consumers who were apparently cheated.

MDPCE is investigating a potential class action in New York and other states concerning Michaels' deceptive sales practices.  If you, or someone you know, paid for Michaels' custom framing service and received the alleged discount, please contact us to discuss your legal options. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz  P.C. is currently investigating a potential class action against TaxMasters, Freedom Debt Relief, JK Harris and other “tax relief” companies that mislead consumers and falsely claim they will help with tax-related debts. Many Americans owe significant debts to the IRS. Although some reputable companies properly help people dealing with the IRS, many unscrupulous companies lie to people with tax debt, take their money, and do nothing to resolve the victim’s issues with the IRS. If you were victimized by this scam, please contact us immediately.

Companies like TaxMasters convince people to pay them thousands of dollars upfront, in exchange for lowering their debt to the IRS. Then these companies simply pocket the money and do nothing to lower their victims’ tax debt, all while the interest on the tax debt increases. To make matters worse, TaxMasters and other scam artists then use illegal and harassing debt collection techniques to try to get money from victims of their scam.

A former employee of TaxMasters blew the whistle, telling reporters that the company “told sales representatives it was okay to lie to potential clients to get their business.” ABCNews has exposed TaxMaster’s history of fraud and deception:


 

The scam is so blatant that the Attorneys General of Texas and Minnesota have both sued TaxMasters. The company recently settled with the Minnesota Attorney general, agreeing to pay over $500,000 for its wrongdoing.

The Texas lawsuit is ongoing and Texas’ Attorney General recently announced that a full “investigation and nearly 1,000 customer complaints indicate that the defendants routinely misled customers about the nature of their tax resolution service agreements – and worse, attempted to enforce those improper agreements through unlawful debt collection tactics. The state’s enforcement action seeks to prohibit the defendants from continuing to violate the law and seeks restitution for the financially struggling taxpayers who were harmed by the defendants’ unlawful conduct.”

If you gave money to TaxMasters or another tax relief company and were then treated unfairly, you may have been a victim of fraud. Please contact us immediately to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Dream Water claims to be an all-natural revolutionary sleep and relaxation drink that is “safe as a warm glass of milk and more effective than counting sheep.” The makers of Dream Water claim that the water works well for anyone who is looking for help to fall asleep or to take the “edge off” after a long day, promoting Dream Water as providing 0-calorie sleep and relaxation. In addition, the makers of Dream Water market it as safe and effective, without the negative side effects associated with FDA-approved over-the-counter alternatives.

However, according to Paul Thomas, a scientific consultant with the National Institute of Health, there is “no science that has looked at [Dream Water’s] three ingredients together.” What is worse, Dream Water contains Melatonin, which has recently been banned for over-the-counter sales in many European countries and Canada.

If you purchased Dream Water based on the advertising promises of its efficacy and safety, you may have been a victim of consumer fraud. Please contact us to discuss your legal options.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C. is currently investigating a potential class action against the makers of Relaxium concerning the marketing of this dietary supplement.

Relaxium is marketed as an all natural dietary supplement allegedly clinically proven to reduce the symptoms of anxiety including restlessness, fatigue, sleeplessness, inability to concentrate, headache and heart palpitations. In an attempt to lend credibility to its marketing claims, Relaxium is marketed as being “endorsed by: American Behavioral Research Institute”.

The American Behavioral Research Institute, however, appears to be a company established by the developer of Relaxium, Eric Ciliberti, and not an objective, independent third party. In fact, the trademark for Relaxium is owned by the American Behavioral Research Institute which, in turn, is owned by Ciliberti.

If you purchased Relaxium, you may have been a victim of unfair and deceptive marketing claims. Please contact us, if you would like to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Stamps.com advertises itself as a means to purchase and print at home, discount postage for envelopes and packages, so as to avoid traveling to and waiting on line at a United States Post Office. For some small businesses with a volume of mail and parcels, the convenience of Stamps.com may make it a worthwhile investment; but many consumers have reported that Stamps.com engages in deceptive advertising and unscrupulous sales tactics and costs them far more than the actual cost of the postage they needed.

To begin with, when you log on to the Stamps.com website, you will note the recognizable red, white and blue design that is similar enough to that of the Unites States Postal Service that it could confuse some consumers who do not read the fine print into believing that it is the U.S. Postal Service -- which it is not. The United States Postal Service refers on its website to Stamps.com being one of several “Postal partners” that offer online shipping services.

Although none of this is made very clear in the product descriptions, customers of Stamps.com are charged a monthly fee of approximately $15.99 to a credit card in order to access the service. The monthly fee continues until cancellation, which is reportedly not easily done. The fee applies regardless of how much postage is printed and indeed whether or not any postage is printed. Some consumers have reported that once enrolled in Stamps.com, it is not possible to purchase only as much postage as is needed, but rather one may only purchase minimum $10 increments.

The website engages the potential customer in promises of a “4 week trial,” which a Stamps.com representative explained in a blog does not mean a “free” trial, although many consumers will undoubtedly be confused by this because the word “trial” is so frequently used in advertising of “free” trials. The trial offered actually costs $17.95, which consumers have reported will not be refunded even if the service is cancelled. Moreover, the monthly fee is continuous without any notice, for example, at annual intervals, that the fee is still being charged.

Stamps.com advertises discounts, including $100 free postage, but consumers who signed up have reported in reality only $5.00 free postage is provided. There is a link on the web page that discusses other significant savings for various categories of mailings, but it is unclear from the descriptions on the site how those savings can be realized or whether they are only available after a large volume of purchases.

We urge consumers considering signing up with Stamps.com to be careful to read the website carefully, and to consider whether their postage needs are enough that the service Stamps.com provides make economic sense for them.

Beyond that, Meiselman Denlea Packman Carton & Eberz P.C. is also investigating whether Stamps.com has engaged in deceptive trade practices. If you believe you have been deceived by Stamps.com’s marketing claims please contact us to discuss your experience.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Coconut water is the new drink of choice among celebrities and athletes and is a staple at marathons, triathlons and other sporting events. Its popularity stems from marketing campaigns billing coconut water as a great way to stay hydrated and recover after a workout and is seen as a natural alternative to sports drinks. The beneficial claims associated with coconut water are seemingly endless. Marketers and manufacturers claim that it is more nutritious than whole milk (less fat and no cholesterol), healthier than orange juice (fewer calories), and have even dubbed it “the universal donor” because it is allegedly identical to human blood plasma. It is also claimed to slow aging, improve circulation, fight viruses and reduce the risk of cancer. With claims like this, it is no wonder coconut water is flying off the shelves despite their high costs (approximately $3.00 for 11-14 ounces). But are the claims true?

As they say, if it seems too good to be true, it usually is. ConsumerLab.com, an independent health-product testing firm, recently issued a report reflecting the results of its tests on the three leading brands of coconut water, Vita Coco, O.N.E. and Zico Natural. ConsumerLab.com tested the sodium, potassium, magnesium, and sugar content of three brands and found that only Zico Natural contained the stated amount of all four ingredients. The other two products contained the sugar and potassium contents they claim to, but did not contain the sodium and magnesium amounts claimed on the label. In fact, sodium and magnesium were as much as 83% and 35% lower, respectively, than the listed amount. Since the electrolyte content is one of the main selling points of coconut water, it seems consumers are not getting what they paid for. 

Indeed, a class action lawsuit was filed earlier today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that All Market Inc., the manufacturer of Vita Coco, knew or should have known of the discrepancy in the ingredients and amounts in Vita Coco. The class includes all those who purchased Vita Coco since 2007.

If you purchased Vita Coco or O.N.E. or another brand of coconut water based on the advertising promises of their health benefits, you may have been a victim of consumer fraud. Please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There's no free lunch, and there are no free books or magazines either.  That's the lesson that consumers learned the hard way from Pennsylvania-based Rodale, Inc., the publisher of Men's Health, Women's Health, Prevention, and other magazines. 

Customers have complained for several years that Rodale billed them for books and magazines they never ordered.  An investigation was launched in Florida after consumers said they were receiving books they had not ordered.  Other consumers complained that they were billed for books and magazines that they never ordered or received.  The investigation uncovered that Rodale offered free trials of its books and magazines, and billed consumers if they did not return the books or cancel the magazine subscriptions.  Consumers also claimed their magazine subscriptions were renewed without their consent, and that they were charged for the renewals.

Rodale reached a settlement agreement with the Florida attorney general's office that required it to clean up its marketing practices, issue refunds to consumers, and pay up to $1.3 million to the state.  The settlement requires Rodale to make the terms and conditions of its subscription plans more clear.

But where does that leave consumers in 49 other states who may have been charged for books and magazines that they never ordered and, in some case, never received?  If you have been affected by Rodale's inadequately disclosed practices (or similar practices by other publishers), please contact us about your legal rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz  P.C. is currently investigating a potential class action against Merck & Co. ("Merck") concerning the drugs Temodar, PegIntron, and Intron A.  As recently reported by the Wall Street Journal (August 9, 2011), the Justice Department has issued a subpoena to Merck as part of a criminal investigation into the marketing and selling activities relating to the three drugs.  Temodar is prescribed for brain tumors; PegIntron is prescribed for hepatitis C; and Intron A is prescribed for certain cancers and other conditions.  From 2004 to 2009, the drugs were marketed by Schering-Plough, which Merck subsequently acquired.  Sales figures for the three drugs are in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you or someone you know has been prescribed Temodar, PegIntron or Intron A, you may have been a victim of unfair marketing activities.  Similarly, if you are a physician who issued prescriptions for those drugs, you may also have been the victim of deceptive sales practices.  Please contact us as soon as possible to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Zicam, in various formulations, has been marketed for years in retail stores and on the Internet as a homeopathic remedy for the common cold. Yet Zicam has repeatedly been the target of regulatory scrutiny. For instance, in 2009 the FDA advised consumers to discontinue use of several Zicam non-prescription nasal sprays because of the risk that it was causing anosmia, a loss of the sense of smell that was potentially permanent. Matrixx Initiatives, Zicam’s Scottsdale-based maker, recalled the products and reportedly settled over 300 cases by consumers who were injured.

Earlier this summer, Matrixx again became the subject of regulatory action when the FDA issued a warning letter advising that the formulations Zicam Cold Remedy RapidMelts with Vitamin C and Echinacea and its Zicam Cold Remedy RapidMelts with Vitamin C, were being inappropriately sold without approval as homeopathic remedies when they contained Vitamin C, which is not a homeopathic ingredient. FDA said that these Zicam tablets were not approved because under the regulations the inclusion of Vitamin C made the products new drugs, and that those new drugs were being sold to reduce the severity of the common cold, when existing data does not support the claim that Vitamin C is safe and effective for the treatment of colds or cold symptoms.

Since the issuance of the FDA warning letter, Zicam’s website is still "under construction." It is not known whether Zicam is going to recall the tablets or reissue them with a new label.

If you purchased either of the Zicam RapidMelt products containing with Vitamin C based on the advertising promises that they were a homeopathic remedy for the common cold, you may have been a victim of consumer fraud. Please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you receive an unsolicited offer in the mail to enroll in a "free trial membership" for some type of special interest or hobby club, find out all you can about that club before you join. The simple act of sending in the acceptance form can subject you to a high-pressure marketing barrage that is often difficult to bring to an end.

There are many hobby/special interest clubs which may initially seem to be something you would like to join and the initial sales pitch appears to be a "no obligations" type of offer. However, these memberships can ultimately turn out to be anything but what you expected. Clubs such as these exist in many different areas of interests such as hunting clubs, handyman clubs, motorcycle clubs, fishing clubs, etc. One such club is the Cooking Club of America.

The initial solicitation set forth by the Cooking Club of America is an offer received in the mail which informs the recipient that because he or she is such a good cook, a special opportunity is available to the recipient. It is then indicated that all that is necessary to take advantage of this special offer is to send in the acceptance form and pay a $12 subscription fee that will entitle you to receive 12 issues of the Cooking Club magazine. Payment of the subscription fee also provides you with a free 30 day membership to the Cooking Club of America. It is then explained that as a member you will be sent various cooking utensils to test, critique and keep, free of charge. Membership also entitles you to access thousands of recipes and you can win cooking products in club giveaways. Many people decide to send in the acceptance form because, at the very least, you will be receiving 12 issues of the magazine, and there will probably be products sent to you for testing and critiquing which you may actually find useful.

The problems begin when you receive the test items which are of very little value and you then receive an invoice for a two-year/$24 subscription, rather than the one year/$12 subscription you expected. Many times the recipient will pay the fee for the two-year subscription based upon the same reasoning that caused the unwary recipient to accept the initial offer in the first place. You then find out that your free 30 day membership in the Cooking Club results in the receipt of unsolicited books on cooking and related subjects along with an invoice. If you decide to return the unsolicited book to the Cooking Club you then find out it is very difficult to actually communicate with a live person for that purpose, or to actually remove the invoice charge from your account. In most circumstances the unwary subscriber is ultimately told that to take care of the situation their subscription fee will be refunded and a check will be received in the mail shortly. All that is left to do is cash the check. The unwary subscriber now believes that they are way ahead of the game. However, there is fine print on the refund documents which very few people actually read.

The fine print on the refund documents sets forth that by cashing the refund check you are agreeing to enroll in a lifetime membership and you are agreeing to pay $300 for that lifetime membership. You then find out that cancellation of the lifetime membership is very difficult since you, by your actions of cashing the check, agreed to pay the $300. Furthermore, your lifetime membership to the Cooking Club will then subject you to receiving additional unsolicited books and other merchandise for which you will be billed and further harassed when you attempt to return the unsolicited merchandise.

If you or someone you know has joined a hobby/special interest club which has subjected you to what is described above, please contact us to discuss your legal rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

During a hot summer day, nothing is nicer than a dip in the pool. Unfortunately, not all parents can afford pools for their children. Fortunately, there are a wide variety of affordable and fun alternatives for backyard water fun, from the trusty slip ‘n slide to the plastic wading pool. In fact, consumers have many choices in buying backyard plastic pools and water slides. This is good news for consumers, so long as pool and slide manufacturers fairly and truthfully market their wares. 

Unfortunately, some companies do not do so. It appears that one such company, Banzai Water Slides, may be unfairly representing the size of its waterslides to gain an unfair advantage over its competitors. Banzai sells a variety of backyard inflatable waterslides and pools, some of which are quite large (and no doubt fun). However, it appears that Banzai misrepresents the size of some of its pools in its advertisements.  Some consumers report that at least two of its inflatable pools, the Banzai Slide 'N Splash Whale Pool and the Banzai Wild Waves Water Park, are substantially smaller than the pictures that appear on the box and in advertisements. For example, pictures advertising the Banzai Slide 'N Splash Whale Pool show two children on a slide that goes into a pool, where two other children lounge. In reality, the pool is too small for any normal size child, and the slide is only a few feet tall. Pictures representing the Banzai's Wild Waves Water Park appear to be similarly deceptive.

Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C. is investigating a potential consumer class action against Banzai Water Slides for its potentially deceptive representations concerning the size of its inflatable pools. If you or anyone you know has purchased a Banzai Water Slide that is smaller than depicted, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Progene is marketed as a clinically proven supplement that boosts “your power, performance and confidence” by increasing your body’s production of testosterone. Progene HealthCare, Inc.’s website claims that Progene’s “holistic doctor-recommended formula . . . has restored the youth of thousands of men” by providing “all-day sustained energy . . . higher metabolism and endurance”, improved “home relationships and overall outlook on life” and that “ingredients found in Progene are also suggested to improve prostate and heart health”. Yet, despite the company’s 100% risk free and money back guarantee, many customers who are dissatisfied with the product (because it fails to achieve any of the promised results) were unable to obtain a refund because the company intentionally fails to respond or when it does respond, claims that the cancellation period expired. Moreover, in many instances, customers are immediately charged for the product on their credit cards and they either fail to receive the product in a timely manner or do not receive the product at all.

If you have been victimized by these fraudulent activities, please contact us. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Moms are known for lines like “drink your milk” and “eat your vegetables,” but a new generation of moms may be saying “eat your cookies” if Sun Core Products, the creator of WhoNu? cookies, has anything to do with it. According to its website (www.whonucookies.com), WhoNu? cookies are “nutrition rich cookies” “fortified with various sources of vitamins and minerals.” Sun Core claims these cookies have as much fiber as a bowl of oatmeal, as much calcium and Vitamin D as an 8 ounce glass of milk, as much Vitamin C as one cup of blueberries, as much Iron as one cup of spinach, as much Vitamin E as two cups of carrot juice, as much Vitamin B12 as one cup of cottage cheese and fruit, and as much Vitamin A as an 8 ounce glass of tomato juice (based on a serving size of 3 cookies). These claims sound too good to be true, and time and testing may prove that they are. 

Even if WhoNu? cookies are indeed “nutrition rich,” they nevertheless cause a concern that consumers will believe that eating these cookies is a substitute for drinking milk, carrot juice or tomato juice, or eating spinach, blueberries, oatmeal, and cottage cheese. Indeed, it is likely that consumers will believe that if 3 cookies are healthy, then 6 cookies or 9 cookies must be even healthier. What WhoNu? cookies does not disclose is that milk, spinach, blueberries, oatmeal, carrot juice, tomato juice, and cottage cheese, all contain many additional vitamins and nutrients that WhoNu? cookies do not contain. For example, in addition to Iron, spinach contains beta-carotene, Vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, Bc, C, E and K. For that reason alone, spinach is clearly a healthier choice than three (or more) WhoNu? cookies.

While consumers no doubt love the idea of eating cookies instead of spinach, they should be aware that while WhoNu? cookies may be a healthy alternative to Mallomars and Oreos, they are not a healthy alternative to drinking milk and eating your fruits and vegetables.

If you or someone you know has been harmed by WhoNu? cookies or a similar product, please contact us to discuss your legal rights. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As the old adage goes, the only things certain in life are death and taxes. So every spring, without fail, tax season arrives. Just as it is inevitable that tax returns must be filed, we inevitably wish to make the process as easy and inexpensive as possible. As a result, many turn to software programs such as Intuit’s TurboTax, rather than employing the assistance of an accountant or other tax professional. Indeed, given TurboTax’s “100% Accurate Calculations Guarantee,” it would seem that Intuit’s customers have nothing to lose.

Or do they? Recently, numerous customers have reported calculation errors in their returns prepared though TurboTax. Many of these consumers, having checked their returns before filing, were unaware of the errors until they received notices from the Internal Revenue Service that additional taxes were owed, with penalties. 

What’s more, Intuit appears not to be living up to its “100% Accurate Calculations Guarantee.” Intuit guarantees that “If you pay an IRS or state penalty or interest because of a TurboTax calculation error, we’ll pay you the penalty and interest.” However, many consumers claim that they were required to pay a penalty on their taxes, and that Intuit refused to reimburse them. 

If you have filed a tax return using Intuit’s TurboTax and received notice of a penalty from the IRS or state tax agency, please contact us to discuss your rights.       

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As pressure increases to reduce the size of government and decrease industry regulations, many states have begun deregulating retail electricity rates. Prior to deregulation, retail electricity suppliers had to file the specific kilowatt per-hour rate they would charge electricity consumers, and they were forbidden from charging more than that rate. However, many states, including New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania now allow independent, alternative electricity suppliers to compete against established utilities like Connecticut Light and Power and ConEd by purchasing electricity at wholesale rates on the open market, which they then sell to consumers at market, and theoretically lower and more competitive, rates.

It turns out that deregulation is not the panacea for which state legislatures hoped. While costs for some electricity to consumers who switched to alternate suppliers were initially slightly lower, many consumers have seen their bills skyrocket after leaving the established utilities. In fact, suppliers such as Connecticut Light and Power have recently instituted lower rates across the board as a result of lower energy costs, making it even more difficult for the alternative suppliers to offer competitive prices.

In response, some alternative suppliers have apparently turned to unfair and potentially deceptive practices to maintain their exorbitant profits. In particular, Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz, P.C. is investigating whether Energy Plus, LLC is deceiving consumers as to its rates. Energy Plus claims that its rates are based on the “market.” However, this may be a deceptive misrepresentation, as Energy Plus’ rates are in fact substantially higher, sometimes as much as 50%, than the rate other suppliers are charging. At the very least, Energy Plus fails to inform consumers that their electricity rates are substantially higher than market rates.

If you or someone you know is a customer of Energy Plus, LLC, or any other independent supplier you believe may have misrepresented the true amount of their electricity rates, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Internet has revolutionized the ways in which American consumers shop for and use everyday services. Even the humble greeting card is not immune to e-change. Now, instead of having to go to a brick-and-mortar store, consumers can purchase greeting cards directly from Internet retailers who can send the cards in the mail, allow users to print cards at home, or even allow consumers to instantly send virtual “e-cards” to family and friends via email.

Unfortunately, even something as wholesome as greeting cards can be a breeding ground for fraud and deceit.  Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C. is investigating a potential class action against BlueMountain.com, which is owned by greeting card giant American Greetings Corporation. BlueMountain.com offers consumers the chance to send e-cards and design and print cards at home. 

BlueMountain.com offers a monthly or yearly subscription for its services, and to entice consumers into enrolling, it offers a “free” trial period. Consumers are asked to enter a credit card number, even though they are informed that they have a week or two to try the service. Consumers are told they can cancel any time at no cost prior to the end of the free trial period.

However, BlueMountain.com does not adequately inform consumers that cancelling can be extraordinarily difficult.  Even though consumers sign up for the service on-line, they are informed only in the small print terms and conditions that cancellations may only be made by phone.   Many consumers report that navigating the computerized response system is unnecessarily difficult, and attempts to cancel by telephone are often practically impossible. Moreover, many consumers report charges appearing before the end of the free trial period, or charges continuing after they have cancelled.

If you or someone you know has been unfairly charged by BlueMoutnain.com, please contact Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C.to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the oldest mail-order marketing schemes involves selling consumers memberships in buying clubs. Consumers are initially offered a number of free or reduced-price items; only in the small print are members informed that they will receive periodic items at full price unless they are diligent enough to cancel each such shipment. This scheme is often referred to as negative-option pricing, which is a business practice in which goods or services are provided automatically, and the customer must either pay for the service or specifically decline it in advance of billing.

   One of the more venerable and respected companies in America is Disney, and so it is surprising that Disney would stoop to using such questionable tactics. Nonetheless, Disney offers a “Disney Movie Club” whose members purchase a number of free or reduced price movies; they must then be extraordinarily diligent to avoid monthly recurring charges for expensive movies they do not specifically order.

    While negative option pricing is itself a questionable practice, it appears that Disney may be unfairly preventing consumers from cancelling their unwanted memberships. In fact, consumers complain about a number of issues regarding the Disney Movie Club, including charges for movies not received, difficulty reaching customer service personnel in order to return unwanted titles or cancel memberships, and failure to credit payments.

    If you or someone you know has been unfairly charged by the Disney Movie Club, please contact Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C.to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Penny auctions are a new introduction to the Internet, and are proliferating.  The most popular ones are www.beezid.com, www.bidsauce.com, www.quibids.com, www.bidrivals.com, and www.dealdash.com.  A penny auction is nothing like eBay.  Users do not post the auction items for sale, but rather the owner and operator of the auction site is selling the items.  The items sold on penny auctions are usually high end electronic items like laptop computers, iPads or digital cameras.  But the main difference between a penny auction and eBay is that bidding at a penny auction is not free.  Here's how it works.

Bidding at a penny auction is not free. You need to buy a package of bids, which can often cost as much as one dollar per bid (depending on the particular auction site you use). What this means is that each time you make a bid, you spend one dollar. This is completely different than eBay, where you can bid for free and only have to pay money if you are the winning bidder.

The price that the operator of penny auction sites offers for an item usually starts at $0 or $.01. Each bid (again, which can cost up to one dollar depending on the particular penny auction site you are using) bumps up the price of the item for sale by a penny or two. It also adds a certain amount of seconds to a countdown clock which times the bidding. Even if you are the winning bidder, you have not won the item itself, but simply have won the right to purchase the item at a final price set by the operator of the penny auction site. As an example, if you are bidding on an iPad which has a $50 final price attached to it, and you have placed 200 bids that cost one dollar each, if you win the bid and therefore the right to purchase the item at the final price attached to it, you will have paid $250 for the iPad.

There are allegations made by some users of penny auction sites that winners of bids often find it very difficult to get the item that they have purchased. Many times, the winning bidders are forced to wait weeks in order to get their items, and in some cases the penny auction websites simply close down without notice, thereby causing the bidders to not only lose the money that they have paid to purchase the bids, but also causing many members to not receive items that they purchased.

Penny auctions are a lot like gambling. Every bid you make costs you money, unlike a traditional auction where you only pay if you win. In penny auctions, consumers spend money on bids with the hope of winning a prize, the prize being simply the opportunity to purchase the item at a discount. But as is true with traditional gambling, the vast majority of the bidders who use penny auction sites lose money - the total amount of money people pay for the bids that are used to bid added together with the price of the item often exceeds the value of the item itself. Furthermore, many of the penny auction sites have “automatic” bidding programs where the customers can have the auction site bid for them: the automatic bidding programs can be designed to place bids for the customers at specific time when there is no chance of winning, thereby wasting the bid altogether. 

If you or someone you know has been deceived by a penny auction, please contact us to discuss your legal rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month we posted on this blog an article entitled, "The High Cost of Free Trials".  We noted that various companies offer free trials of so-called "miracle" nutritional supplements and cosmetics. But these companies actually make cancelling and returning the product difficult, if not impossible, so that they can charge consumers full price and more.

One such "free" trial scam that many consumers have complained about is for the cosmetic product Mineral Elements by Eden. Consumers seeking to take advantage of the "free" trial of Mineral Elements makeup, have reported paying up to $9.95 for a 10-day free trial of this makeup on the promise that they could return the product if they did not like it for nothing more than the cost of shipping. According to the Eden company, all that must be done is that within the 10 days of the product having shipped from the company, the dissatisfied consumer must call and obtain a Request for Merchandise Authorization number ("RMA#), and mail back the unused portion with the RMA# on the outside of the package. All shipping costs and some unspecified ‘processing fees" are to be paid by the customer and are non-refundable.

In fact, return of the make up is virtually impossible. Under this scam, the 10 days of the trial begins to run at the time the product ordered and allegedly shipped from Mineral Elements. By the time the consumer receives the product, the majority of the 10 days is already up and a person would have to scramble to call and to arrange to return the two month supply of product without ever trying it at all. One customer reported having ordered the product on the 13th of the month and did not receive it until the 23rd. Then the customer immediately called to complain but was told it was already too late to return the cosmetics, and that the full $130 cost of the product had been charged and could not be refunded.

Other consumers who tried to return the product to avoid being charged reported being treated rudely, hung up on, and never given the required RMA#, or at least not until it was too late according to Eden.

What is worse, consumers who pursue the free trial are also required to cancel a club membership to a Beauty Club that they may not even realize they were enrolled in unless they delved deeply into the fine print buried on Eden’s website. This club membership involves automatic shipments of more two-month supplies of makeup every 60 days for approximately $40, that is charged to the credit card initially provided.

The make up is made and distributed by Eden Cosmetics, LLC, which, by its own ominous admission, "operates a network of websites offering a variety of products and services."

If you attempted to take advantage of a "free" trial of Mineral Elements and believe you were deceived by the advertising, or were dissatisfied and unsuccessfully tried to return the product and believe you have been wrongly charged for something you did not want, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (17)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many services that are provided to consumers, particularly those offered over the Internet, have monthly or periodic subscriptions for services which automatically renew each month or each period. The subscription will automatically renew unless the subscriber calls to cancel the subscription before the end of the current period. However, many consumers find it difficult, if not impossible, to actually get through to a customer service representative that results in actual cancellation of their subscription. As a result, many consumers find themselves stuck with another period of subscription, even though they do not want the service.

Consider the following horror stories: A consumer responds to a commercial offer by Sirius XM for six months of satellite radio services. Towards the end of the subscription, knowing that he has to call to cancel his subscription or it will be automatically renewed, he attempts to call numerous times, but each time fails to reach a customer service representative. Often, he is placed on hold for extended periods of time, following which the phone simply disconnects. Unable to reach a "live being," despite his diligent efforts, he is unable to cancel the subscription, and is automatically renewed for another six months (and charged for another six months), even though he does not want the service. Does this seem fair?

Consider a second case. A person signs up for an on-line greeting card service with AmericanGreetings.com, on a month-to-month basis. After the first month, the person realizes that the service is not what was promised, and wishes to cancel it altogether. However, the consumer is unable to cancel the service on-line, and is never able to reach a customer service representative over the phone. As a result, the person’s subscription renews again for another month, even though the consumer had wanted to cancel the subscription but could not do so because of the technical difficulties.

It seems that some companies, particularly companies offering services on-line, may be purposely making it difficult for consumers to cancel their subscriptions, knowing that these difficulties will cause the person’s subscription to renew. The cost to an individual consumer may not appear that great, but when companies are able to harm large classes of consumers, they can profit handsomely.

If you, or someone you know, has been unable to cancel a subscription and believe that the company is intentionally making it difficult or impossible to cancel the subscription, please contact us so that we may discuss your legal rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Larry Lazy Cakes "brownies" are marketed with a cartoon character named "Lazy Larry" (not coincidentally, one looking strikingly similar to the famous SpongeBob Square Pants), colorful packaging, and a balloon lettering font clearly targeting the product at children.  And yet, upon closer inspection, the appeal of Lazy Cakes is the massive dose of the neurohormone melatonin contained within each brownie, the purpose of which is to simulate a "pot brownie" effect.

Baked World, the brand's distributors, whose own tongue-in-cheek name confirms the product's audience should not be children, markets Lazy Cakes as "The Original Relaxation Brownie".  In fact, each brownie contains more than twice the recommended dose of melatonin recommended to induce sleep, in addition to "herbal" sleep aid ingredients including valerian root and rose hips.  The manufacturer even acknowledges the brownies are a chocolate alternative to medication and narcotics to help people sleep.  Indeed, consumers have reported the high concentration of sleep aid ingredients achieves the intended result:  uncontrollable drowsiness.

The product's packaging, in addition to the "brownie" label, clearly attracts children presenting a clear threat to them.  In fact, in 2009 alone, there were approximately 5,000 melatonin-related calls to poison control centers, most involving small children.  (In addition, Lazy Cakes are often sold in gas station convenience stores where an unsuspecting driver can find him or herself falling asleep at the wheel after eating what he or she thought was a simple snack.)

The federal Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") recently combated a similar issue involving the marketing of the melatonin drink product, Drank.  While the manufacturer of Drank argued it was a dietary supplement and not a food product (and thus subject to far less FDA scrutiny), the FDA nevertheless issued a warning letter citing numerous safety concerns about melatonin in food; specifically research indicating that it reduced glucose tolerance for people with Type I diabetes and enlarged breast tissue in male users.  Drank is now labeled as a dietary supplement, and not sold as a food, in response to these concerns.

If you or someone you know has been harmed by Lazy Cakes or a similar product, please contact us to discuss your legal rights. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Jenny Craig is one of several well-known diet programs that offer memberships, including through diet centers located throughout the country. Members are encouraged to purchase Jenny Craig meals that are purported to be "specifically designed" to promote weight loss. These meals are not inexpensive, but dieters feel pressured to purchase them in their desperate quest to lose weight.

Recent reports by consumers and several Jenny Craig employees suggest that thousands of dieters are being victimized by a fraudulent scheme which the company is fully aware of and allows to continue because it increases the company’s profitability. According to these individuals, Jenny Craig employees are instructed to target certain individuals, usually minorities and immigrants, and encourage them to pay cash for their memberships and food products. These cash purchases are not recorded in the usual books and records of the company. Instead the cash is used to purchase cheaper foods at local grocery stores, which are then placed in bags and baskets bearing the Jenny Craig logos, and which are then shipped to these customers’ homes. These innocent members believe they are receiving Jenny Craig products which will help them lose weight. To the contrary, not only don’t they lose weight, many gain weight as a direct result of eating the less expensive food products. Jenny Craig pockets the extra cash – the difference between what the company spent on the less expensive food products and what it would have spent in preparing the "specially designed" food products. If these customers complain long enough, their names are eventually placed in the appropriate books and records and they begin to receive the "specially designed" Jenny Craig meals.

If you suspect that you have been the victim of this kind or any other kind of fraud by Jenny Craig, you should contact us to discuss your legal rights and options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Factor Nutrition Labs continues to market its product "Focus Factor" as a dietary supplement that "supports and maintains memory, concentration and focus." What makes this claim incredulous is that in 2004, the Federal Trade Commission charged the marketers of "Focus Factor" with having made numerous unsubstantiated advertising claims about the product. In addition, the advertising was also said to be deceptive because the company failed to disclose that certain testimonial "endorsers" in the advertising were either on the company payroll or had been solicited with promises of a free six-month supply of the product. These charges were resolved when the marketers agreed to pay heavy fines. Unfortunately, paying a million dollars in fines is not enough to convert dishonest marketers into honest ones. And to make matters worse, Factor Nutrition Labs, which markets itself as "the leaders in brain nutrition" has even targeted children by creating a supplement called "Focus Factor for Kids."

Yet, both supplements contain nothing more than vitamins, minerals, herbs and amino acids, many of which are already found in ordinary vitamins. Moreover, there is little or no verifiable scientific evidence to substantiate the broad claims about what these products can do. Nevertheless, the manufacturers continue to claim that its "proprietary" formula is different and uses this claim to justify charging you an exorbitant $80 per month!

If you have purchased "Focus Factor" or "Focus Factor for Kids," you may have been a victim of deceptive advertising. Please contact us to discuss your legal rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

These days it’s hard to spend even a few minutes on the Internet without coming across an advertisement for a “free trial” of the next “miracle” product. These trials are particularly prevalent in the nutritional supplement and cosmetics industries, where their ads promise that the touted products will rid users of cellulite or unwanted pounds all for the cost of little more than shipping and handling. 

The “free” trials work as follows. Step (1): the consumer orders the trial and pays only the cost of shipping and handling, charged to a credit card. Step (2): the consumer receives the product in the mail. Step (3): if the consumer does nothing, he is charged monthly for the product on his credit card. The ads tout their trials as “risk free” stating that if the consumer is unsatisfied with the product, he can cancel the order within a prescribed period of time, returning any unused product, and have lost only the cost of shipping and handling. 

What the ads fail to disclose, however, are the barriers in place to ensure that the consumer is unable to cancel in time to avoid being charged the first month’s fee, sometimes as high as $90. For example, some companies require cancellation by email, but do not provide email addresses on their websites. Similarly, calls to the customer service numbers indicated on the companies’ websites may result in different, conflicting information as to how to cancel an order. These practices are designed to make it difficult for the consumer to cancel the order, ensuring that the company receives at least one month’s payment for a product of little or no efficacy.

The sure way for consumers to avoid being taken by these supposedly “risk free” trials is to avoid them all together. If you are really desperate to try that new cellulite cream, ask yourself if you are willing to pay the cost of a full month’s order. If not, stay away from the trial. If you really must try the product, be sure to keep a record of your order number, the company’s customer service number and any information concerning the company’s cancellation policy.

If you have been charged for unwanted products as a result of a “free” trial, please contact us to discuss your rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today's technological advancements render many products obsolete soon after you leave the store.  However, it is rare that a product will intentionally render itself obsolete, and completely cease functioning, just a year after purchase.

Symantec's Norton Anti-Virus, Norton Internet Security, Norton 360, and similar protection products (the "Norton Products") do just that -- self-destruct.

The Norton Products not only risk becoming dated after a year, Symantec deliberately programs the software to completely cease functioning and become non-operational at that time.  Consumers relying on the Norton Products to protect their computers from viruses, malware, and other security threats are left completely exposed unless they agree to"renew" their "subscription".

While many consumers understand that Norton Products, as with other computer security products, rely on periodic updates to ensure that they protect against the latest cyber threats, and that those updates may be obtained as part of a subscription program, Symantec has taken this model even further subjecting use of the entire software product to a subscription.  Under Symantec's model, consumers are not actually purchasing the software, they are instead purchasing a limited one-year license to use the software.

Worse, diligent consumers who elect to renew their subscription prior to its expiration, to ensure there is no intervening period during which their computer may be exposed to a security risk, lose the balance of their original subscription.  For example, if a consumer installed a Norton Product on July 1, 2010, the subscription will expire and the software will deactivate on July 1, 2011.  A diligent consumer may elect to renew their subscription on June 1, 2011 -- one month in advance -- to ensure there is no lapse in security.  As a result, the consumer will lose the remaining month of the subscription period from their original purchase and their current subscription will expire on June 1, 2012, rather than in July.

Over time, with annual renewals, consumers risk paying for, and not receiving, months (and even years) of subscription use of the Norton Products.

If you or someone you know uses Norton Products, please contact us to discuss your legal rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sharp Electronics Corporation has recently hyped its supposedly ground-breaking line of televisions that have so-called "Quattron" quad pixel technology, which Sharp touts as providing "never-before-seen-colors to the TV experience",

In May 2010, Sharp's marketing of the Quattron sets advertised a substantial instant savings on the purchase price of the TV sets, and then failed to honor the offer when consumers went to buy them.

In its advertisements of a promotion, valid from May 2 through 22, 2010, Sharp promised consumers purchasing its sets at Sears, Best Buy, PC Richards and online retailer ElectronicsExpo.com, up to $500 instant savings on the purchase of four different sizes of Aquos LED LCD model TVs featuring Quattron.  The eligible models, had from 40-inch to 60-inch flat screens, and the promised "instant" savings were as follows:

• LC-60LE810/820UN  $500 off
• LC-52LE810/820UN  $300 off
• LC-46LE810/820UN  $400 off
• LC-40LE810/820UN  $400 off

When consumers went to the advertised stores on the appointed dates and attempted to take advantage of the advertisement promising hundreds of dollars of instant savings off the TVs' purchase price, the stores refused to honor the instant savings.  Retailers explained that Sharp had not authorized them to offer the deal.

When confronted about the offer, Sharp acknowledged the offer and that it was not honored, but refused to rebate consumers their expected savings, except when Sharp was hard pressed by individual consumers on a case-by-case basis. 

If you purchased a Sharp Aquos 40-inch or larger television with Quattron during May 2010 from Sears, PC Richards, Best Buy or ElectronicsExpo, and did not receive the promised instant savings, you may have a consumer fraud claim.  Please contact us to discuss your legal rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Senior Citizens are routinely targeted for fraud often because they have a “nest egg,” own their home, and/or have excellent credit—all of which make them attractive to con artists.  Unfortunately, older Americans are less likely to report a fraud because they don't know who to report it to, are too ashamed at having been scammed, or don’t know they have been scammed. Fraudsters know the effects of age on memory, and they are counting on elderly victims not being able to supply enough detailed information to investigators.  Additionally, a victims' realization that they were swindled may take weeks, or even months, after contact with the con artist making it even more difficult to remember details from the event.

Senior Citizens are particularly susceptible to Health Care Fraud or Health Insurance Fraud.  These types of fraud can be highly lucrative to fraudsters and devastating to an elderly victim.  Some examples include:

Medical Equipment Fraud:  Equipment manufacturers offer “free” products to individuals.  Insurers are then charged for products that were not needed and/or may not have been delivered.

"Rolling Lab" Schemes:  Unnecessary and sometimes fake tests are given to individuals at health clubs, retirement homes, or shopping malls and billed to insurance companies or Medicare.

Services Not Performed:  Customers or providers bill insurers for services never rendered by changing bills or submitting fake ones.

Medicare Fraud:  Medicare fraud can take the form of any of the health insurance frauds described above.  Senior citizens are frequent targets of Medicare schemes, especially by medical equipment manufacturers who offer seniors free medical products in exchange for their Medicare numbers. Because a physician has to sign a form certifying that equipment or testing is needed before Medicare pays for it, con artists fake signatures or bribe corrupt doctors to sign the forms.  Once a signature is in place, the manufacturers bill Medicare for merchandise or service that was not needed or was not ordered.

The following tips may prove useful in avoiding Health Care Fraud or Health Insurance Fraud:

■          Never sign blank insurance claim forms.

■          Never give blanket authorization to a medical provider to bill for services rendered.

■          Ask your medical providers what they will charge and what you will be expected to pay out-of-pocket.

■          Carefully review your insurer's explanation of the benefits statement.  Call your insurer and provider if you have questions.

■          Do not do business with door-to-door or telephone salespeople who tell you that services of medical equipment are free.

■          Give your insurance/Medicare identification only to those who have provided you with medical services.

■          Keep accurate records of all health care appointments.

■          Know if your physician ordered equipment for you.

These tips are good “rules of thumb” to aid in protecting yourself or those you know against fraud.  However, con artists are constantly working to create new scams which prey on elderly victims.  If you or someone you know has been a victim of Health Care Fraud or Health Insurance Fraud, please contact us to discuss your legal options.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the most ubiquitous consumer frauds involves claims that products offer substantial health benefits for which there is actually little or no scientific support.  For example, Power Balance recently admitted that it has no scientific basis for its claims that the Power Balance bracelet, a popular accessory endorsed by numerous celebrities and athletes, enhances athletic performance and overall well being.  Power Balance, LLC, which offers “performance technology,” claims that its products work with and optimize the body’s energy field by means of special holograms, resulting in greater flexibility, performance and strength.

However, Tom O’Dowd, CEO of Power Balance Australia, recently admitted that there is no scientific basis for these claims: 

In our advertising we stated that Power Balance wristbands improved your strength, balance and flexibility.  We admit that there is no credible scientific evidence that supports our claims and therefore we engaged in misleading conduct in breach of s52 of the [Australia] Trade Practices Act 1974.

Mr. O’Dowd told ABC News: “We'd made claims in the start that said that our product improved strength, balance and flexibility, and we didn't have the scientific peer-reviewed double blind testing or the level of proof that we needed to substantiate those claims."

While Power Balance is offering its customers in Australia a refund, American consumers have received no such offer.

Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz is currently investigating a potential consumer fraud class action lawsuit regarding Power Balance’s advertising claims.  If you purchased a Power Balance bracelet or accessory in the United States, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Charter Communications has recently announced that it will begin adding a new “Broadcast TV Surcharge” to its customers’ bills.  Charter is adding this new surcharge so that it can pass on to customers the amount broadcast television stations charge Charter to carry their signals.  Charter has announced that it will include this new cost as a “surcharge” in the taxes and fees section of customers’ bills.

Charter’s surcharge may be at odds with the long-term fixed price Service Agreements Charter provides and markets to its customers.  Under the 24 month Service Agreements, Charter offered its customers the opportunity to “lock in” the cable television price at a fixed rate.  Despite Charter’s promise to deliver cable television service at a “guaranteed price,” Charter may now be seeking to impose a new “surcharge.”

Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz is currently investigating a potential consumer fraud class action lawsuit regarding Charter’s imposition of a surcharge at odds with its long-term, guaranteed price Service Agreements.  If you are a Charter Communications cable customer who entered into a two year Service Agreement with Charter before October 2010, and you have been charged the Broadcast TV Surcharge, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

More than 15 years after ending a lengthy legal battle with the Federal Trade Commission in the mid-1990s, sneaker-maker, New Balance, continues boldly to tout its products as “Made in USA” without qualification, even when doing so flouts the FTC’s requirement that “all or virtually all” of the product must be made in this country before a manufacturer can make such a claim.  New Balance’s “Made in USA” claim is an integral part of its marketing; and is a central means by which it attempts to distinguish itself from other sneaker companies whose reputations are of using cut-rate, foreign manufacturing.  Yet, New Balance’s claims of domestic manufacturing are not only potentially misleading, but also aggressively skirt a consent decree the company entered with FTC last decade, in which it agreed not to label as American-made any sneakers not completely made in America.

 New Balance has now adopted its own standard by which claims that any product either 70% made or assembled in the USA is “Made in USA.”  However that definition has never been approved, or even submitted for approval to FTC.  Moreover New Balance reportedly includes in certain places on its website or product packaging an unqualified “Made in the USA,” claim, complete with American flag imagery, while only providing a qualified claim elsewhere, in which it explains that up to 30% of the sneaker’s materials or assembly has occurred abroad.  In short, consumers may be being deceived when they favor these shoes over those of New Balance’s competitor based on the belief that they are made at home.

If you, or someone you know, has been deceived by the “Made in USA” claims of New Balance or another company, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As the Christmas holiday approaches many consumers are avoiding long lines at their U.S. post offices by mailing their holiday cards and gifts at their local United Parcel Service (“UPS”) store.  At your local UPS store, consumers can send their mail by U.S. mail as well as through UPS.  But according to a New York Times article, UPS clerks do not always tell customers that they may be paying a hidden surcharge when they send mail by U.S. mail.

The New York Times sent reporters posing as customers to several UPS stores.  These “customers” wanted to mail items by U.S. Postal Priority Mail.  In nearly every instance, they were quoted prices well above the U.S. postal rate and, most importantly, only one reporter was actually told that the he or she was paying a premium for using a UPS store.

For example, one UPS store said it would cost $21 to send an 8 lb. package by U.S. Priority Mail.  As such, the UPS clerk suggested using UPS Ground instead for $19.90.  In fact, the same package shipped from a U.S. post office costs $8.80, and would arrive at the same time as the more expensive UPS Ground shipment.  And the only notice that The New York Times’ reporters found at the UPS stores was a notation on the receipt – which a customer receives after the purchase – that reads, “U.S. Postal Rates Are Subject to Surcharge.”  There is, however, no notice of the amount of the surcharge or how it is computed.

“I think there’s a natural assumption on the part of the consumer that if you’re sending something through the U.S. Postal Service, even when it’s from another store, you’re not paying more, and if you are paying more, it’s just a pittance,” said Tod Marks, a senior editor at Consumer Reports.  Moreover, consumers should be given notice prior to paying that they are being charged a surcharge.

If you shipped mail from a UPS store by opting to use and pay for U.S. Postal service, and were charged a surcharge as a result, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Would it surprise you that purchasing “refundable” airline tickets from some major airlines and/or Internet travel sites are not actually fully refundable?  It shouldn’t, because they aren’t.  There are hundreds, if not thousands, of consumer complaints online regarding “refundable” airline tickets that are, in fact, not fully refundable.

For example, Continental Airlines allegedly sells “fully refundable” tickets at a premium price to consumers.  But if and when that consumer purchaser decides to cancel the airline ticket and get a refund of his or her “fully refundable” ticket, he or she is allegedly charged a $400 fee.  Other major airlines also sell “refundable” tickets that include a cancellation fee amounting to hundreds of dollars, sometimes equaling the amount of the ticket purchased.

Moreover, Internet travel sites, like Priceline.com and others, also allegedly sell “refundable” tickets that are not truly refundable.  One consumer complained that he purchased a “refundable” ticket from Priceline, attempted to cancel his ticket and was charged a “cancellation fee".

Consumers purchasing airline tickets sold to them at a premium price as “fully refundable” or “refundable” should be able to cancel their tickets and receive the full price paid for that ticket.  Unfortunately, the practice of charging a “cancellation fee” for a ticket that is sold as “fully refundable” is a common practice in the airline industry and on Internet travel sites.  These tickets are sold with little or no disclosure informing purchasers that should they decide to cancel their “refundable” tickets, or change travel plans, they will be charged a substantial “cancellation fee.”

If you purchased “fully refundable” or “refundable” airline tickets and were charged a “cancellation fee,” please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As part of an effort to ensure that environmental marketing is truthful and based on solid evidence, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has advised marketers since 1992 that in order to make claims that an item is “biodegradable” they must have scientific evidence that the product will completely decompose within a reasonably short period of time under customary methods of disposal.  And, as the FTC has asserted in three recently filed actions, products typically are disposed in landfills, incinerators or recycling facilities, where it is impossible for allegedly “biodegradable” products to biodegrade within a reasonably short time.

For example, the FTC recently entered into a settlement with a retailer of rayon towels – Dyna-E International – regarding claims that its Lightload brand dry towels are biodegradable.  The FTC charged that the rayon towels could not be biodegradable as they could not biodegrade in a reasonably short time under typical disposal methods.  Similarly, the FTC entered into settlements with Kmart Corp. and Tender Corp. regarding products sold with biodegradable claims.  All three settlements prohibit the defendants from making deceptive biodegradable product claims and require that they support all other environmental claims with competent and reliable evidence.

If you purchased a product that claims to be “biodegradable,” please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The ever present desire for athletes to train to the extreme to obtain an edge on the competition exists at every level of athletics from high school to the professional athlete.  In the past this desire has led to the imprudent use of anabolic steroids by athletes in all levels of competition.

The dangers of using anabolic steroids have been well-documented and the subject of extensive media coverage.  The BALCO investigation is just one example. The serious and often fatal risks associated with using steroids to increase body strength and performance, clearly should prohibit the use of such substances.  There is, however, the ongoing desire to obtain that edge on the competition.   Thus, to avoid the stigma associated with steroids, certain products have been developed by some manufacturers that have been marketed as dietary supplements, but which actually contain synthetic steroids.

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued a Public Health Advisory on July 28, 2009, warning consumers to stop using body building products marketed as dietary supplements, but are instead unapproved and misbranded drugs.  These products are sold online and in retail stores and are promoted as hormone products and/or alternatives to anabolic steroids.  The FDA warned that these products are potentially harmful and that it has not approved them or reviewed their safety before marketing.

The FDA also sent a warning letter to American Cellular Labs, the manufacturer of TREN-Xtreme and MASS Xtreme.  Other products identified by the FDA include ESTRO Xtreme, AH-89-Xtreme, HMG Xtreme, MMA-3 Xtreme, VNS-9 Xtreme, and TT‑40‑Xtreme.

The FDA has received adverse event reports for these products which include cases of serious liver injury, stroke, kidney failure, and pulmonary embolism.  Other conditions that can be associated with these products include shrinkage of the testes, male infertility, masculinization of women, breast enlargement in males, short stature in children, adverse affects on blood lipid levels and increased risk of heart attack and stroke.  As such, the FDA recommends that consumers immediately stop using these products and has also cautioned that athletes taking these products may test positive for performance-enhancing drugs.

If you have been injured as a result of using any of these products, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the wake of the recent government sponsored “Cash for Clunkers” program, it has been reported that some car dealerships are improperly attempting to extract additional money from customers who have purchased new cars under this program.

Some examples include dealers claiming that: (i) the Cash for Clunkers paperwork was not approved and therefore the customer needs to pay the unpaid government program payment; (ii) the customers financing was not approved and the customer now needs to return and enter into a more expensive financing arrangement, (iii) the customer must buy post-sale extras or extended service contracts; and (iv) several other improper or coercive requirements being imposed on customers.

If you are a consumer who purchased a new car under the Cash for Clunkers program and are now being contacted by the car dealer seeking additional payments, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Gilead Sciences Inc. ("Gilead") received a subpoena from the Inspector General of the Health and Human Services Department regarding the development and marketing of its Ranexa heart drug.

The subpoena comes just months after Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics in order to obtain the drug Ranexa.  Investors who bought Gilead stock on the presumption that Ranexa would contribute to earnings in coming years may now be at risk, should the government determine there are problems with the drug.  Shareholders may be able to recover damages if the government determines Gilead was aware of, or should have been aware of, substantive problems with Ranexa when Gilead purchased CV Therapeutics and failed to disclose material information to investors.

If you purchased shares of Gilead, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the most difficult job market in decades, a bewildering and largely unregulated array of businesses offering employment assistance have left job seekers vulnerable.  For fees that are typically thousands of dollars, these companies offer to help the unemployed land six-figure jobs and to cut the job search time in half.   However, many of these companies do little more than provide ordinary job search assistance: overhauling résumés and cover letters, giving advice on how to network and helping sort through public job listings.

For example, the New York Times recently reported the story of Edward Bockman, who managed the technology center of an Illinois college before losing his job during a restructuring.  Mr. Bockman paid a career management company $5,000 in late 2007 after responding to what he thought was a job posting for professionals looking to earn $100,000 a year.  Benchmark Professional Careers told him that a search for someone his age would normally take 13 months but that the company would cut that time in half.  Mr. Bockman said he believed that the company was a high-end recruiter, with access to a vast “hidden job market” that gave it connections to positions unavailable to regular job seekers.   Only after he began working with the company, did he realize it did not have any special pathways to job openings.  His demands for a refund were rejected.   Two years later, he still does not have a job, and the company’s $5,000 charge on his credit card helped push him and his wife to file for bankruptcy.

Numerous other consumers have had similar experiences.  For example, one consumer paid ITS Corporation $8,250 believing it would help him land a six-figure job in the Denver area, which he said the saleswoman promised.  But the company did little more than redo his résumé and advise him to cold-call employers.  Another consumer paid the Arthur Group nearly $3,000 for various services, which the consumer believed meant the company would market him for all the jobs to which it seemed to have access.  But the company, which purported to have connections to all kinds of employers, rarely placed anyone in jobs, according to three people who worked as salesmen for the company before quitting.

Over the years, several state attorneys general have filed lawsuits after consumers alleged that they had been misled.  In the mid-1980s, the New Jersey Attorney General’s office sued several career counseling companies founded by Robert J. Gerberg Sr., whose son, Robert J. Gerberg Jr., now runs ITS. (The elder Mr. Gerberg is a senior consultant to the company.)  A judge later found that the companies had violated state consumer fraud laws, “through the use of various misrepresentations and misleading statements to consumers.”  The companies were ordered to change their practices.

If you believe you or someone you know has been the victim of a job search scam, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has issued a warning letter to Bodee, LLC, a company based in Century City, California, regarding the marketing and sale of its dietary supplement Zencore Plus (“Zencore”).  The FDA alleges that laboratory analysis of the product concluded that five lots of Zencore contain benzamidenafil, which is in the same class of pharmaceutical ingredients that include phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors.  Pharmaceutical ingredients that include type 5 inhibitors include sildenafil (Viagra), tadalafil (Cialis) and vardenafil (Levitra), which are all FDA approved drugs for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (“ED”).

The FDA states in its warning letter that Zencore -- marketed as a dietary supplement -- is misbranded because it is in fact a drug under the FDA Act.  For example, as the FDA letter points out, statements on Zencore’s labeling and on its website claim, among other things, that Zencore, “contains a combination of powerful natural herbs that supports long lasting, hard and firm erections . . .” and “stimulates the production of nitric oxide, leading to the production of cyclic GMP (cGMP).  It is the cGMP which ultimately affects smooth muscle relaxation, allowing the penile arteries to expand and fill with blood.”  In fact, as the FDA alleges, it is the undisclosed ED ingredients in Zencore that may aid men suffering from ED, not any herbal supplements contained in the product.  And because Zencore labeling does not declare that it contains benzamidenafil (an ED drug) and falsely asserts that it does not have the potential to cause side effects, the FDA alleges that Zencore’s labeling is “false and misleading” under the FDA Act.

Moreover, the FDA warning letter further alleges that because Zencore is misbranded in that it’s labeling lacks adequate warnings for users of the product, there is a potential for adverse events associated with its use.  For example, patients who take nitrates and consume Zencore may be at risk of life-threatening hypotension.

If you have purchased Zencore Plus, or have been injured as a result of using Zencore Plus, please contact us to discuss your legal options

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Have you recently purchased a new car from a dealership and was surprised to find that dealers are still attempting to force new car buyers to hand over their hard earned money for window etching?

Window etching is when the dealer “scratches” the vehicle glass with part of the car’s VIN number, for which the dealership will attempt to charge you anywhere from $150 to $500, or more.  If you ask about it (many people do not), the dealership will tell you it’s a major theft deterrent because a potential car thief will have to break all of the car’s windows to avoid detection.  In fact, car thieves will steal your car if they are inclined to do so whether or not there are some tiny numbers scratched on the windows.  Even assuming there is some theft deterrent, the markup being charged is unconscionable.  In fact, window etching is almost pure profit for the dealership.  It costs the dealer about $14 or less, and “do it yourself” etching kits are available on the Internet for $15 to $20.  Reportedly dealership marketing plans provide for $900,000 annual profits from etching.

The dealership finance manager who may attempt this scam in most cases will not even bother to show a car purchaser the written terms of the window etch deal, (which is essentially an insurance policy).  Admittedly, there is a small discount off of your car insurance if your car is etched -- approximately a 5% discount off of the comprehensive coverage.  For example, if your comprehensive premium is $230 per year, you would save $12 annually if you paid just $157 for the window etching.  After owning the car for 13 years (not likely), you would finally break even.  Many dealers, on the other hand, charge much, much more than $157 for window etching.

Window etching is an auto dealer scam consumers are likely to encounter when purchasing a car.  If you have been deceived by a car dealer’s window etching scam, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The first and second largest distributors of propane gas in the country, AmeriGas Propane, Inc. and Ferrellgas, Inc. (“Defendants”), respectively, began in January, 2009, to allegedly fill and re-fill consumers’ propane gas tanks with 15 cubic feet of gas, rather than the 20 cubic feet of gas which the tank can hold.  At the display cases where consumers re-fill or purchase propane tanks from the Defendants, it plainly states that the purchaser will receive a “full tank” of propane.  As a result, consumers were not allegedly getting what they were promised and what they paid for, and yet were being charged the same price for a “full” propane tank.

The Defendants’ propane display cases are situated in gas stations, hardware stores, convenience stores and at big retail outlets like Wal-Mart and Home Depot.  Ferrellgas propane is also sold under the brand name Blue Rhino.

If you or someone you know purchased propane from Blue Rhino, Ferrellgas and/or AmeriGas, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ConsumerReports.org recently wrote about the class action settlement reached with Costco regarding backdated memberships.  Lead counsel Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz, P.C. litigated the class action and were successful in certifying a class of almost 12 million former and current Costco members.  You can read about the settlement and the facts of the case by clicking here.

If you have purchased a membership in an organization that backdates its memberships, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With the recent economic downturn, many homeowners are facing the risk of mortgage foreclosures.  Desperate to save their homes, many people are falling prey to the predatory practices of mortgage rescue scams.  Typically, these scams solicit the homeowner with promises of debt relief that often seem too good to be true.  In fact, these are fraudulent offers, designed to prey upon those most in need of financial help.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has alerted consumers to look out for five major warning signs of a mortgage rescue scam.  First, they will promise to stop a foreclosure or modify your loan.  Second, they will offer “guarantees,” that your home will be saved, with claims of a 97% success rate.  Third, they usually require fees to be paid in advance.  Fourth, they will advise you to stop paying your mortgage company.  Finally, they may have the look or sound of an official agency or governmental authority.

 If you believe you or someone you know has been the victim of a mortgage rescue scam, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In these tough economic times, with almost 1 out 10 Americans unemployed, many people are desperate for a job or an opportunity to earn a little extra money to pay their bills.  Not surprisingly, it is also when scam artists come out of the dark to prey on innocent consumers.  The latest work-at-home scheme proliferating on the internet is “Easy Google Profit.”  Typically, consumers surfing the internet will click on the link “Easy Google Profit” while reading -- what they later find out to be -- a fake newspaper article or advertisement.  The link directs consumers to a work-at-home scam, where they unwittingly sign up and their credit or debit cards are charged a fee.

The New York Times recently reported about once such example:  The reporter writes about a friend who came across an article online in the “Miami Gazette” about opportunities to work at home.  The article begins with general thoughts about the economic situation and how online jobs from home may be the next big thing.  Then it zeroes in on, and praises “Easy Google Profit,” which offers people work from home posting links on Web sites using text advertising applications.  It all looked legitimate; except, as the reporter points out, the “Miami Gazette” does not exist.  Moreover, the “Reader Response” posted under the fake article also seemed genuine, complete with misspellings and success stories.  In fact, the key to the scheme was that every link in the story sent readers to “Easy Google Profit.”  And in tiny, hard to read type below the newspaper logo, the following statement appeared: “This publication is an article advertisement for Easy Google Profit.”  The reporter’s friend didn’t notice the warning signs and signed up with her debit card.  She had unknowingly authorized this scam work-at-home company to charge $72 to her debit card every month until she called to cancel.

Unfortunately, many consumers across the country are being deceived by these sham work-at-home offers, particularly because they believe that Google -- a trusted and famous household name -- may be affiliated with these offers.  For example, in April, 2009, the Texas Attorney General filed a complaint against Infusion Media, Inc., a company that allegedly ran at least three sham work-at-home websites, two of which capitalized on the Google brand: GoogleMoneyTree.com, Google TreasureChest.com and InternetIncomeIntiative.com.  The State of Texas alleged that all three websites violated the Texas consumer fraud statute because the defendants engaged in false, deceptive and misleading acts and practices in the course of trade and commerce.  And we recently published a post on another famous work-at-home opportunity: Jeff Paul’s “Shortcuts To Internet Millions” program.  As we wrote then, a website dedicated to protecting consumers from sham business opportunities wrote that Jeff Paul’s program is a “scam” and warns consumers not to “believe everything you hear!!”  Another consumer website reported that in its opinion Jeff Paul’s program is not “a legitimate program” and cites to consumer complaints posted by people who signed up for the program.

The Better Business Bureau received 3,539 complains last year about work-at-home companies, and Allison Southwick, a spokeswoman for the bureau, says that her agency is “very concerned about seeing a rise in instances of fraud targeting job hunters this year in light of the increase in the unemployment rate.”  “Scammers,” she added, “read the headlines and anytime people are vulnerable, they’ll take advantage.”

 If you were deceived by a sham work-at-home scheme, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (12)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Detox Foot Pads and similar products are seen everywhere.  They are depicted in television and Internet advertisements.  They are in drug stores of all varieties.  They are also on the bottom of lots of feet.  Successful marketing, however, does not mean they actually do anything beneficial for you.  Detox Foot Pads claim they remove “toxins” from your body.  The ingredients in the pad placed on the bottom of the foot allegedly remove heavy metals, metabolic wastes and other health-threatening substances by drawing them through the pores of the skin on the sole of your foot where they are absorbed by the pad for disposal the next morning.  Their effectiveness is proven by how the white pad attached to the foot turns dark overnight.

The Official Foot Detox Home of The Official Detox Foot Pad claims its pads (as opposed to the cheap imitations found elsewhere) can treat “sleep disturbances, muscle tension, headaches, gastrointestinal disturbances, fatigue, nervousness, anxiety, changes in eating habits including overeating, loss of enthusiasm or energy and mood changes” for only $17.99 for a box of 14 pads.  The Detox Foot Pad contains tourmaline, “a mineral found in Brazil,” that emits “far infrared rays” that generate “negative ions.”  These negative ions stimulate acupressure points to promote wellness.  The website even contains an acupressure diagram of the foot showing where to apply the pad to treat various organs of the body.

The Detox Foot Pad also contains “a vinegar essence from Bamboo trees,” a healing substance known to Chinese villagers for “thousands of years.”  Combined with other substances, it forms a “powerful synergistic detoxification product.”  To certify the integrity of this product, the website even has an Anti-Fraud Policy and proclaims that they “Actively Pursue and Prosecute Fraud Offenders.”  The website also contains a disclaimer that advises that the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had not certified the effectiveness of the product and that you should consult with your physician.

The Detox Foot Pad and similar products are not supported by scientific evidence.  The vinegar in the pad will clean your skin during prolonged contact and turn the pad brown.  Beyond that there is very little to suggest the products work.  In fact, according to the Mayo Clinic, “no scientific studies have been published that demonstrate that these products actually remove toxins from the body.”  Moreover, tourmaline is mined primarily as a gemstone.  While some tourmaline has colors vivid enough to appear to glow (perhaps the source of the claim to emit far infrared rays), other stones are irradiated to improve their color.  There is no scientific evidence to indicate that tourmaline, a crystal silicate mineral, once ground up in a form that can be combined with the other substances in the Detox Foot Pad would emit anything, let alone far infrared rays.  Notably, the product’s website does not indicate how much tourmaline is in each pad.

If you have purchased Detox Foot Pads or any similar product, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Colon cleansing products are all the rage and the competition for the consumer dollar is fierce.  Numerous websites purport to be objective comparisons for colon cleansers, but are really just advertisements touting certain products.  For example, the Colon Review Board bills itself as the “Official source for colon cleanse news, reviews and information.”  They claim to be a New York based company that is a “watch dog group in the health products industry.”  Yet the website is registered to a Canadian firm, Domain Privacy Group, Inc. in Markham, Ontario.  The website reports on three colon cleanser products and goes on to praise the benefits of colon cleansing.  The website claims that our modern diet and lifestyle allegedly deposit toxins in the colon that impair our skin condition, our absorption of nutrients and may even lead to colon cancer.  Not surprisingly this website has links to the websites for the three products it rates most highly.

Another site, naturalhealingtoday.com, also offers a review of colon cleansers by its “editorial staff.”  The site claims that hardened fecal matter and other toxic materials in the colon impair digestion and nutrient absorption.  Ten separate products receive reviews and a customer feedback section is included.  The website is registered to Domains by Proxy, Inc., which at best helps conceal the real identity about this purportedly neutral pro-consumer site.

WebMD reports that colon cleansing has been examined inconclusively in regard to a few health concerns, none of which are the toxins, weight loss or other benefits alleged by the numerous current colon-cleansing advertisements.  WebMD also offers some additional observations.  The liver and the natural bacteria in the colon detoxify food wastes.  The mucus membranes colon cleansers claim should be removed are the body’s natural barrier keeping unwanted substances from being absorbed into the body.  The colon naturally sheds old cells on a regular basis, which prevents a build-up of harmful material.  And weight loss is unrelated to the colon since most calories are absorbed earlier in the digestive process.  WebMD also recommends you protect your colon health by eating 20 – 35 grams of fiber a day, drinking plenty of fluids, limiting alcohol and red meat and having colon cancer screenings after age 50 or at your doctor’s direction.

The claims made by the various colon cleansing products are almost identical to those made by Mega Systems International, Inc. regarding Eden’s Secret Nature’s Purifying Product during the late 1990s.  That product claimed to cleanse the body of toxic waste, colon waste and help the user lose weight, among other benefits.  In 1998, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) required Mega Systems to cease advertising that the product would cause significant weight loss, prevent or cure illnesses and cleanse the body of toxins.

It may well be that the current interest in colon cleansing products may only be the re-emergence of an old consumer health fraud scam.

If you have been injured or deceived into purchasing colon cleansing products, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Everywhere we turn, it seems that we’re being assaulted with extra fees; $1.50 to use an ATM machine that’s not affiliated with your bank, $10 disconnect fee to change television service providers, $2.50 “fuel surcharge” on home delivery of the daily newspaper, $3.00 “surcharge” on in-room food service at a leading hotel, $50 for a second checked bag on a commercial airline, and the list goes on and on.   But have you ever stopped to consider whether these fees are actually permitted by the business that’s imposing them?   Have you ever stopped to ask “Did I agree to this when I accepted the service that’s being provided to me?”   Unfortunately, the “cost” of asking these questions and seeking to challenge the imposition of such fees is often not worth the aggravation and time that’s required to pursue it.   To many, the thought process goes something like this:  “20 minutes on hold with a customer service representative who, after listening to my plight, only passes me off to another rep, or pay the $2.00 fee?  Pay the $2.00 fee.”   And that’s where a class action comes in.

By aggregating the small claims of a great many people, the business practices of an otherwise large, corporate concern can effectively be challenged.  Class actions are successfully prosecuted when the barriers of entry to filing small, individual claims are high, and the injuries suffered by class members arise from a common course of treatment perpetrated by the business whose charges are being contested.   For instance, if the filing fee to commence an individual lawsuit would dwarf the damages that an individual consumer seeks to recover, then there’s an obvious disincentive to bringing an action on one’s individual behalf.   But if a class of persons who suffered the imposition of the same fee can be bundled, then the cumulative weight of such aggregated claims can be leveraged to obtain a recovery for consumers.   As a law firm that prosecutes consumer fraud class actions throughout the country, we’d welcome your input, feedback, comments and experiences if you encounter the imposition of fees or other business practices that offend your consumer’s sense of fair play.   We can be contacted at mdpcelaw.com or by telephone at 914-517-5000.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the wake of rising unemployment claims and mortgage foreclosures, Spanish-speaking consumers are being unfairly preyed upon by unscrupulous businesses who promise to stop foreclosure proceedings only to have consumers ultimately lose their homes despite paying significant sums of money to such “rescue operation” services.  Recently, in a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles, California the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") charged a mortgage foreclosure “rescue operation” with falsely promising Spanish-speaking consumers who are behind on their mortgage payments that it would stop foreclosure.  Many people who paid the “rescue service” ultimately lost their homes, and others avoided foreclosure only through their own efforts.  At the FTC’s request, a federal court temporarily halted the defendants’ practices and froze their assets.

According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants enticed consumers with false claims in Spanish-language radio and magazine ads, and during in-person consultations.  The defendants charged consumers an up-front fee equivalent to each consumer’s monthly mortgage payment, which was typically in the thousands of dollars.  In numerous instances, however, the defendants did not stop foreclosure proceedings from occurring or obtain mortgage loan modifications.

 If you have been the victim of a mortgage foreclosure “rescue operation,” please contact us.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In response to the mortgage crisis, the Obama administration introduced the Making Home Affordable program, which provides free mortgage counseling to consumers who are worried about losing their homes. In late March, the administration launched the program’s web site, makinghomeaffordable.gov.

It didn’t take long before alleged internet scammers attempted to prey on struggling homeowners seeking the government’s help. According to the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), consumers searching for the Making Home Affordable web site were diverted under false pretenses to other sites where they were asked to enter personal and financial information and to purchase mortgage counseling services from private companies for a fee.

On May 14, the FTC filed a complaint against the unknown defendants in federal court in Washington, D.C. The next day, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a temporary restraining order that effectively outlaws the alleged scam.

Here’s how it worked, according to the FTC’s complaint:  the defendants purchased preferred advertisements on Internet search engine sites, including yahoo.com and msn.com.  When consumers entered a search for “making home affordable” or similar phrases, the defendants’ ads would appear at the top of the page, shaded in blue for emphasis.  The FTC alleges that the ads made it appear that the advertisements contained links to the official government program, and even used the phrase “MakingHomeAffordable.gov.”  But consumers who clicked on the links allegedly were redirected to various web sites that marketed home loan modification or foreclosure relief services for a fee.  The FTC alleged that the defendants falsely represented to the public that they were affiliated with the U.S. government and operated the government’s makinghomeaffordable.gov web site.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly found good cause to believe that the defendants were violating the FTC Act, which prohibits deceptive acts or practices in commerce.  She also found good cause to believe that consumers would suffer immediate and continuing harm unless the alleged scam was halted.  Her restraining order prohibits the defendants from pretending to represent the government, and from posting internet ads that contain any hyperlink with a “.gov” domain name, including makinghomeaffordable.gov.

One more thing: the court ordered Yahoo and the other search engine operators to identify whoever placed the ads. For now, the case caption reads: Federal Trade Commission v. One or More Unknown Parties Misrepresenting Their Affiliation With The Making Home Affordable Program.

If you were deceptively redirected to various web sites that market home loan modification or foreclosure relief services and charged a fee, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 14, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against two companies involved in making millions of allegedly deceptive “robocalls” to consumers in an effort to sell them vehicle service contracts under the guise of extensions of the original vehicle warranties. The FTC complaint against the robocaller names Florida-based Voice Touch, Inc. and two of its principals as well as Illinois-based Network Foundations, LLC and a principal of that company.   The complaint against the seller of the extended auto warranties names Florida-based Transcontinental Warranty, Inc., and its president and CEO.

The robocalls consist of a pre-recorded message that informs consumers that their original vehicle warranty is about to expire and they should “extend coverage before it’s too late.” The so-called “warranty specialists” mislead consumers into believing the seller of the extended warranty is affiliated with the dealer or manufacturer of the consumer’s vehicle. The “warranty specialists” then attempt to sell consumers a service contract which is falsely portrayed as an extension of the vehicle’s original warranty.

In addition to the robocalls, the FTC's complaint against Transcontinental Warranty alleges that it mails out deceptive postcards to consumers warning them about imminent expiration of their auto warranties. The FTC has charged the defendants with engaging in deceptive business practices in violation of the FTC Act and violation of the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule by calling consumers whose numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry.

 If you were deceived into purchasing an extended warranty from Transcontinental Warranty, Inc., please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It should come as no surprise that with all the stories in the news about stimulus funding, con artists have invented stimulus scams. The scam begins with an email, online ad or website that says you’re eligible to obtain an economic stimulus payment.  All you have to do is send back a completed form or submit one online.  The message might look like it was sent from a rebate company or the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).  The scam artists may ask you to send a processing fee to supposedly get a much larger check in return.  Others ask for your bank account number so they can deposit your check.  The scam artists then clean out your account or open new ones using your identifying information.  Some stimulus scams even encourage you to click on a link or open attached forms that in turn install harmful software, like spyware, on your computer resulting in your personal information ending up in the hands of an identity thief.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) cautions that the promise of stimulus money in return for a fee or financial information is always a scam, and advises consumers to ignore or delete messages offering you money from the stimulus program in exchange for personal information.

If you are a victim of a stimulus scam, contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has reported a growing problem with scams involving purported rescue plans for home owners facing foreclosure.  The FTC brought 11 cases targeting mortgage foreclosure rescue and loan modification scams within the last year and is actively involved in ongoing investigations.  Additionally, the FTC has sent warning letters to 71 companies for marketing potentially deceptive mortgage loan modification and foreclosure assistance programs, and for falsely appearing to be affiliated with a non-profit or government entity or endorsed by government officials.  For example, the FTC recently filed a complaint against the Federal Loan Modification Law Center, LLP for allegedly misrepresenting that they were a part of, or affiliated with, the federal government and that consumers could obtain a loan modification in virtually all instances.

The FTC also recently settled charges against two individuals that they violated federal law and a previous court order by luring homeowners into high-cost, short term loans secured by an additional mortgage on their homes. The FTC sued them and 7 other defendants as part of an ongoing effort to crack down on businesses that prey upon homeowners facing foreclosure.  The FTC complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act by extending credit based on the value of consumers’ collateral without regard to their repayment ability, by requiring balloon payments after only 6 months, by providing negatively amortized loans that cause consumers to owe more at the end of the loan than at the beginning, and by failing to make required disclosures.  The defendants also allegedly violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) by grossly understating the loan’s annual percentage rate (APR) and finance charges.  Moreover, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated TILA by failing to make timely written disclosures and failing to accurately disclose the amount being financed, the finance charge, the APR, the payment schedule, the total payment amount and the fact that the creditor has or will acquire a security interest in the consumer’s home.

If you are a victim of a mortgage foreclosure rescue scam, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (“CSC) has issued a warning to consumers to avoid certain Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) baby bath products because they allegedly contain undeclared ingredients that could pose serious health risks. For example, CSC claims that dozens of popular bath products for babies and kids manufactured by J&J contain at least two hazardous contaminants: 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde, both of which are not listed on the ingredients label of the product.

Formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane are known carcinogens; formaldehyde can also trigger skin rashes in some children. Unlike many other countries, the U.S. government does not limit formaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane, or most other hazardous substances in personal care products.

Both of these chemicals cause cancer in animals, and formaldehyde is also known to cause skin rashes in people who are sensitive to the chemical. The CSC alleges that Johnson's Baby Shampoo, the iconic brand used by families for generations, contains both of these contaminants - neither of which is listed on J&J’s baby shampoo ingredient label. The CSC also alleges that while a single product might not be cause for concern, babies may be exposed to several products at bath time, several times a week, in addition to other chemical exposures in the home and environment. The CSC claims that these small exposures add up and may contribute to later-life disease.

Of the CSC claims and its report, J&J said, "The trace levels of certain compounds found by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics can result from processes that make our products gentle for babies and safe from bacteria growth," and the Campaign should stop "alarming" parents. 

The CSC responded that parents have a right to know if the products they buy for their babies contain hazardous chemicals linked to cancer and skin rashes. The CSC points to other companies that it claims makes safe and gentle baby products allegedly without hazardous chemicals.

In response to the CSC report, on April 29, 2009, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the Safe Baby Products Act, which directs the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to investigate and regulate hazardous contaminants in personal care products marketed to or used by children.

If you have purchased J&J baby bath products, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has issued a warning to consumers to avoid Internet sites and other promotions for products that claim to diagnose, prevent, mitigate, treat or cure the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus, more commonly known as the Swine Flu.  Many of these deceptive products are being sold over the Internet, and the websites selling these products are hoping to take advantage of the public’s concerns about the Swine Flu pandemic sweeping the country and the world.  As such, in their desire to protect themselves and their families, consumers may be easily tricked into purchasing fraudulent products which claim to cure Swine Flu.

These deceptive products come in all varieties and could include dietary supplements or other food products, or products purporting to be drugs, devices or vaccines.   According to the FDA and FTC, such fraudulent products will not prevent the transmission of the virus or offer effective treatments against infections caused by the H1N1 influenza virus.  “Consumers who purchase products to treat the novel 2009 H1N1 virus that are not approved, cleared or authorized by the FDA for the treatment or prevention of influenza risk their health and the health of their families,” said Michael Chappell, acting FDA Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs.

Consumers can visit the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention web sites for more information about the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus, and to determine which products the FDA has approved, cleared or authorized for use to diagnose, treat, prevent, mitigate or cure infections caused by H1N1 influenza virus.   Currently, there are only two antiviral drugs approved by the FDA for treatment and prophylaxis of the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus: Tamiflu (oseltamivir phosphate) and Relenza (zanamivir).

 If you have a purchased any products which claim fraudulently to diagnose, treat, prevent, mitigate or cure infections caused by H1N1 influenza virus, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With the economy in decline, hundreds of thousands of consumers are turning to debt settlement companies for help in handling large credit card debts.  These companies offer consumers the promise of financial salvation promising to reduce a consumer’s debt, negotiate with creditors, and stop harassment from debt collectors in exchange for various fees.  Yet consumers often wind up paying large fees, often up to 15% of their total debt, and receive little to nothing in return.

As recently reported in the New York Times, these debt settlement companies advise consumers to stop paying the minimum amount on one’s credit card and instead accumulate the money in an account the settlement company promises to use to strike a bargain with creditors.  But, long before making any attempt to deal with creditors, the settlement company takes a monthly fee that can be over $100 a month.  Some consumers have found that the debt settlement company does nothing more than take its large fees. Even the credit card industry has warned that debt settlement companies are “very harmful” to both consumers and creditors.

State attorneys general are being flooded with complaints about debt settlement companies.  For example, the State of Texas has sued Credit Solutions of America claiming that it misrepresents its success rate, noting that the company’s own data “show that over 80 percent of the debts enrolled in the program do not settle.”  The few debts that are settled, the suit alleges, are for higher amounts than the promised 40 cents on the dollar.

If you have used a debt settlement company, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Late at night, or while surfing the web, you may have recently come across an infomercial or website with a person named “Jeff Paul” touting the possibility of earning thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, each week or month by opening up your own internet business. Both in his infomercial and on his website, Jeff Paul promises that if you join his program, you’ll “be in business tomorrow!” earning money by establishing your own internet business. In fact, Jeff Paul promises you that you don’t even have to know how to use a computer as “No computer skills needed!” All you have to do is pay Mr. Paul $39.95 per month -- plus shipping and handling -- and receive “10 New Internet Businesses Each Month!” As Jeff Paul promises, “Sign-up today and be in business tomorrow!”

 In his infomercial and on his website, there are “success stories” by purportedly real followers of Jeff Paul’s program claiming to have earned thousands -- or hundreds of thousands -- of dollars each week or month. For example, there’s “Mike” who “Makes up to $7,000 a Week!” There’s also “Andrea” who “Makes up to $30,000 a Month!” Best of all, there’s “Tom” and “Antonio” who, respectively, make up to $110,000 a Week!” and “$100,000 a Week!”

A review of online consumer websites dedicated to protecting consumers from scam or sham business opportunities reveals another side to Jeff Paul’s “Shortcuts To Internet Millions” program. According to the Internet Scam Review, Jeff Paul’s program is a “scam” and warns consumers not to “believe everything you hear!!” Another consumer website reports that in its opinion Jeff Paul’s program is not “a legitimate program” and cites to consumer complaints posted by people who signed up for the program. One consumer states that, “DO NOT FALL FOR THIS IT IS A SCAM! No money back gurantee [sic], no thousands a week, (not even a penny) But I still get charged every month.” Another post warns consumers, “Do not get suckered into any programs by Jeff Paul . . . They are all SCAMS and rip offs!!!! I hope that enough people complain and perhaps start a class action lawsuit . . .” 

If you enrolled in Jeff Paul’s program, was charged monthly membership or other fees, and are dissatisfied with Mr. Paul’s program, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (9)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link