Posts Tagged ‘ FTC ’

Week Adjourned: 9.30.11

September 30th, 2011. By LucyC

Top Class Actions

NCAA Concussion Lawsuit Filed. Again. It’s about time! Two former college football players who suffer from the residual effects of head injuries filed an class-action lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), accusing the governing body of neglecting to protect student-athletes from concussions and their aftermath.

The class action lawsuit accuses the NCAA of turning a blind eye to coaches who teach players to use their heads for tackling, failing to establish a NCAA-wide system for screening head injuries and shirking its financial obligations to injured student-athletes who need medical treatment after they’ve left college.

The case alleges that despite a mounting body of scientific evidence linking concussions to depression, dementia and early-onset Alzheimer’s, among a host of other medical problems, the NCAA has failed to enforce the safety measures it introduced in the 1970s. The lawsuit further claims that NCAA football coaches continue to encourage players to use tackling methods that promote head trauma, including helmet-to-helmet hits. The harshest penalty ever imposed on coaches who teach this tactic was a letter of reprimand, according to the complaint.

The lead plaintiffs in the suit are former University of Central Arkansas wide receiver Derek K. Owens and former Northwestern University offensive lineman Alex Rucks, who say their lives have been fundamentally altered as the result of brain trauma that could have been prevented.

Owens, 22, was hit in the head from behind while taking part in a voluntary practice the summer before his freshman season. According to the complaint, Owens never received medical attention from the team despite feeling dizzy, having difficulty seeing and being unable to drive home. The 2008 incident was the first of numerous head injuries for Owens, who was named Arkansas’ Top Offensive Player and one of the state’s top Scholar-Athletes his senior year of high school.

The second week of his first season, a linebacker knocked Owens unconscious in practice, according to the lawsuit. UCA’s trainers told Owens’ roommates he had a “severe concussion” and to wake him up every couple of hours. He sat out for several weeks until he was cleared to return to the practice team. During a 2010 game, Owens was returning a punt when he was leveled by an opposing player, who later called the play “the highlight of his career,” according to a story in the Tulsa World. Owens experienced memory loss, headaches, an inability to concentrate, anxiety and depression. His grades plummeted despite his once-sterling academic record. In May of 2011, he dropped out of school and football as a result of the debilitating effects of repeated head trauma.

Rucks, who played at Northwestern from 2004 to 2008, was never formally diagnosed with a brain injury, but suffered numerous blows to his head that led to symptoms consistent with a concussion. The NCAA never tested or followed-up with Rucks to determine whether he’d been concussed, or if he was experiencing post-concussion syndrome, the lawsuit alleges.

Since his playing days, Owens has suffered from the symptoms of post-concussion syndrome, including the loss of concentration and memory, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges the NCAA never encouraged football players to report or complain about their physical well-being, nor does it educate players about head-injury prevention or the telltale symptoms of a concussion.

The lawsuit, a class action, seeks to represent current or former NCAA football players who have medical or team records indicating they sustained a concussion(s) or suffered concussion-like symptoms while playing football at an NCAA school, and who have, since ending their NCAA careers, developed chronic headaches, dizziness, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease or other physical and mental problems as a result of the concussion and have incurred medical expenses from such injuries.

All class members would be notified that they may require frequent medical monitoring. NCAA-wide return-to-play guidelines would be established. The NCAA would mandate that team physicians learn to detect concussions and sub-concussions, as well as determining when a player is at an increased risk of harm. It also seeks to redress the intangible losses suffered by these class members.

Top Settlements

Asbestos Mesothelioma Lawsuit Settlement. Another asbestos settlement to report this week. A jury in Orleans Parish Civil District Court has ruled that three companies are liable for $7.55 million in damages for exposing former employee Thomas Kenney to asbestos. Kenny has been diagnosed with malignant asbestos mesothelioma.

Mr. Kenney sued Rexam Beverage Can Co., John Crane Inc and Haveg Inc, among others, claiming that he was exposed to asbestos while working in a canning factory and a refinery in the 60s and 70s. The jury hearing his case found John Crane, Rexam and Haveg liable for Kenny’s asbestos exposure and Rexam liable for the dangerous levels of asbestos, which was located in its canning factory in New Orleans’ Mid-City neighborhood. The old canning factory has since been refurbished and converted into an apartment complex.

Reebok to Atone for its Toning Shoes Claims: While the jury may be out on whether or not these shoes actually do tone your butt and abs, the Federal Trade Commission isn’t wasting time making up its mind. Reebok has agreed to pay $25M to settle charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission alleging that the athletic shoe manufacturer falsely advertised its “toning” shoes, making claims that the shoes could measurably strengthen the muscles in the legs, thighs and buttocks.

Among the claims the FTC found offensive–and possibly downright misleading—are that the EasyTone footwear is proven to increase the strength and tone of your gluteus maximus muscles by 28% (really?) and give you 11% more strength in your hamstring and calf muscles—(really)—compared with regular walking shoes—whatever those are.

The FTC settlement is the first, and results from its investigation into the advertising claims made by Reebok. However, other companies such as New Balance and Sketchers have also aced lawsuits over their advertising claims.

Ok—That’s it for this week. See you at the bar!

Tags: Asbestos, asbestos lawsuit, Asbestos Mesothelioma, Asbestos Settlement, Brain Injury, Concussion Lawsuit, false advertising, FTC, NCAA Athletics, NCAA Class Action, NCAA Football, NCAA Lawsuit, Reebok, Reebok Toners, Toning Shoe Lawsuit
Posted in Class Action, Week Adjourned | 8805No Comments »Week+Adjourned%3A+9.30.112011-09-30+22%3A18%3A46LucyC

Irresponsible Advertising? Kenneth Cole Tweet Nothing vs VitaminWater Ads

February 4th, 2011. By AbiK

: Not Funny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: Funny

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

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

That’s not humor—that’s irresponsible.

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

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

What? I should drink sugar water instead?

Tags: Coca-Cola, false advertising, Fraud, FTC, Kenneth Cole, Misleading Advertising, National Consumers League, Responsible Advertising, Vitamin Water, VitaminWater
Posted in Consumer Fraud, Emerging Issues | 6722No Comments »2011-02-04+17%3A30%3A41AbiK

Mad as Hell at Moneygram and the FTC

May 6th, 2010. By AbiK

networkhowardbeale Mad as Hell at Moneygram and the FTC I’m having a “Network” moment—for those of you old enough to recall the classic cult flick.

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

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

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

And here’s what ticks me off.

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

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

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

Tags: FTC, moneygram, Moneygram Scam
Posted in Consumer Fraud | 35302 Comments »Mad+as+Hell+at+Moneygram+and+the+FTC2010-05-06+16%3A22%3A41AbiK

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

February 10th, 2010. By AbiK

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

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

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

Tags: FTC, moneygram, Moneygram Scam
Posted in Consumer Fraud | 268713 Comments »2010-02-10+18%3A25%3A41AbiK