You may be eligible for Kellogg settlement – WABI-TV

Russ and Joy discuss the Frosted Mini-wheat settlement

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed it’s case against Kellogg in 2009. They charged them with unfair or deceptive advertising. The issue was a series of TV commercials telling moms the cereal could help their children in school. The ads even claimed that Frosted-Mini Wheats had been “clinically shown to
improve kids attentiveness by nearly 20%.

“When the FTC challenged Kellogg to back up their claim the company agreed to tone down their advertising claims, while they denied any wrongdoing.

Boxes of Frosted Mini-Wheats now claim to keep eaters “full and focused all morning.” The proposed settlement orders Kellogg to limit it’s claim to “clinical studies have shown that kids who eat a filling breakfast like Frosted Mini-Wheats have an 11% better attentiveness in school than kids who skip breakfast” or to have similar wording.

Consumers who feel they were misled by the ads that ran from January 2008 to October 2009 may file claims through a website Kellogg created cerealsettlement.com  Forms can be filled out online or printed and mailed. Consumers who file claims may receive up to $5 per box of Frosted Mini-Wheats they purchased up to a maximum of $15.

Kellogg proposes settlement in lawsuit over Mini-Wheats advertising claims

CONSUMER FORUM

By Russ Van Arsdale, Executive Director Northeast CONTACT

Posted June 08, 2013, at 12:52 p.m.

A proposed settlement was announced last week in the class-action lawsuit against Kellogg, the company that manufactures Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal.

The settlement was years in the making, and it could mean a few dollars back in the pockets of consumers. However, the settlement – if approved by a judge – fails to answer some basic questions about what kinds of claims advertisers can and should make about their products.

The Federal Trade Commission filed its case in 2009, charging Kellogg with unfair or deceptive advertising. At issue was a series of TV commercials designed to boost lagging sales of Mini-Wheats by telling moms the cereal could help their children in school.

The TV ads included the claim that Frosted Mini-Wheats had been “clinically shown to improve kids’ attentiveness by nearly 20 percent.” That seemed a stretch to federal watchdogs, at a time when many consumers had a healthy skepticism about sugary foods (a serving of “original” Mini-Wheats today contains 11 grams, or a little under a half ounce, of sugar).

Now, we all want students to do better in school. Kellogg had hoped mothers who saw their ads would buy Mini-Wheats to help their young scholars. When the FTC challenged Kellogg to back up its claim, the company agreed to tone down the rhetoric while denying any wrongdoing or liability. The company still says it stands by its advertising.

The backed-off ads were termed the “full and focused” campaign. A bowl of fiber-rich cereal will keep the little tummies full, the ads proclaimed, leading to “23 percent better quality of memory” than students who ate no breakfast. Washington Post blogger Jennifer LaRue Huget wrote in May 2009 there was no comparison between the 73 youngsters Kellogg fed and students who ate other kinds of breakfasts, nor was it clear how the company measured its results.

Some nutrition-oriented consumer websites are not all that critical of the content of Mini-Wheats. The Center for Science in the Public Interest says Mini-Wheats meet CSPI’s guidelines for marketing food to children (see www.cspinet.org/marketingguidelines.pdf). Caloriecount.com gives the cereal a nutrition rating of A-, pointing out that it’s high in niacin, phosphorous, riboflavin and vitamins B6 and B12, as well as fiber, and very high in iron. The bad point, according to the calorie counters, is the 11 grams of sugar per serving (21 biscuits).

Boxes of Mini-Wheats on the market now have the pledge to keep eaters “full and focused all morning.” The proposed settlement orders Kellogg to limit its claims to “Clinical studies have shown that kids who eat a filling breakfast like Frosted Mini-Wheats have an 11% better attentiveness in school than kids who skip breakfast,” or similar wording.

Consumers who feel they were misled by the earlier ads, which ran from January 2008 to October 2009, may file claims through a website Kellogg created, www.cerealsettlement.com. Forms can be completed online or printed and mailed. You may also exclude yourself from the settlement or object to the settlement. You can also do nothing.

Consumers who file claims may receive up to $5 per box of Mini-Wheats they purchased, up to a maximum of $15. If the $4 million Kellogg has set aside for these payouts isn’t used up in the first round of claims, it’s possible consumers could receive more.

The settlement should serve as a reminder to food manufacturers that their claims need to pass the straight-face test as well as clearing their lawyers’ desks. Until they do, we should all read food packaging with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast CONTACT, Maine’s all-volunteer, nonprofit consumer organization. For assistance with consumer-related issues, including consumer fraud and identity theft, or for information, write Consumer Forum, P.O. Box 486, Brewer 04412, visit http://necontact.wordpress.com or email contacexdir@live.com.

FTC Warns Consumers: Charity Scams Often Follow Disasters

Share Our Resources | Consumer Information.

In the wake of the devastating Tornado that hit suburban Oklahoma City on Monday, the Federal Trade Commission, the nation’s consumer protection agency, reminds consumers that scams often follow disasters. If you’re asked to make a charitable donation to help people in disaster-affected areas, before you give, be sure your donations are going to a reputable organization that will use the money as promised.

Unfortunately, legitimate charities face competition from scammers who either collect for a charity that doesn’t exist or aren’t honest about how their “charity” will use the money you give.  Like legitimate charities, they might appeal for donations in person, by phone or mail, by e-mail, on websites, or on social networking sites.  For more on the questions to ask and for a list of groups that can help you research a charity, go to Charity Scams.

If you’re asked to make a charitable donation to support victims of the recent tornado, remember:

• Donate to charities you know and trust. Be alert for charities that seem to have sprung up overnight in connection with current events, like a natural disaster.
• Ask if a caller is a paid fundraiser, who they work for, and what percentage of your donation goes to the charity and to the fundraiser. If you don’t get a clear answer — or if you don’t like the answer you get — consider donating to a different organization.
• Don’t give out personal or financial information — including your credit card or bank account number — unless you know the charity is reputable.
• Never send cash: you can’t be sure the organization will receive your donation, and you won’t have a record for tax purposes.
• Check out the charity with the Better Business Bureau’s (BBB) Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Navigator, Charity Watch, or GuideStar.
• Find out if the charity or fundraiser must be registered in your state by contacting the NationalAssociation of State Charity Officials.

From Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation:

[Information about charities can be obtained through the Department’s website (www.maine.gov/pfr), specifically at www.maine.gov/pfr/professionallicensing/professions/charitable. Links allow for the search of licensed charitable organizations, as well as disciplinary actions.  Questions and complaints can also be made by calling the Charitable Solicitations Program at 207-624-8525.]

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.  Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

 

Don’t take the bait: Avoid phishing scams

CONSUMER FORUM

By Russ Van Arsdale, Executive Director, Northeast CONTACT

Posted May 18, 2013, at 1 p.m.

 

There’s a kind of social engineering designed to part consumers from their hard-earned money.

It’s called phishing, and it’s become one of the most common scams. It was the fourth most common scam reported to the National Consumers League fraud center last year, and — when lumped in with all “imposter scams” — it ranked No. 8 in the top 10 frauds reported to the Federal Trade Commission.

Phishing involves a number of ways that con artists gain people’s trust and thereby gain access to their personal and/or financial information. Once that’s done, it’s a short step to stealing someone’s identity, cleaning out their bank account or otherwise wreaking havoc on their financial lives.

The director of consumer protection at the Consumer Federation of America says new phishing schemes are popping up every day.

“We want people to realize that it should be no different when someone approaches you online or by phone asking for that information,” Susan Grant said in a news release last week.

For whatever reason, some of us are more trusting of nameless, faceless people who hit us up by email or over the phone. Most of us would not think twice about refusing a request for personal information from someone who rang our doorbell; when that person makes an electronic approach, we might think twice.

That’s what the con artists want. They pretend to be someone they’re not: an employee of your bank, a government official or an officer of the company where you work. They call or email you with what sounds like a legitimate request for information; instead, it is a (sometimes) cleverly disguised way to get you to reveal your Social Security number, bank account number or other personal data that they can use.

The approach by telephone might be the easiest phishing attempt to ward off. You can simply say, “Sorry, I don’t do any business over the phone,” and hang up. It may be a little tougher when the come-on appears in your email.

It might say that you’ve left something off your income tax return: “Don’t delay your return — click here.” Or you may be asked for an account number “to pay the administrative fee on this prize you’ve won.” The variations are endless … and so is the phishing.

A common theme among phishing attempts: They are not what they seem to be. If you’re asked to click on a link, picture or anything from a source you don’t know, DON’T DO IT. You might be downloading malicious spyware onto your computer. You also could be redirected to another, unknown website where trouble awaits. A request to “join my social network” might really be a hook that someone is using to try to reel you in.

The Consumer Federation has a new video summarizing these and other helpful hints at www.consumerfed.org/fraud. If you think you have been a victim of identity theft, visit www.IDtheftINFO.org to find out what to do. There’s more information about scams and protecting your identity at the FTC website, www.consumer.ftc.gov.

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast CONTACT, Maine’s all-volunteer, nonprofit consumer organization. For assistance with consumer-related issues, including consumer fraud and identity theft, or for information, write Consumer Forum, P.O. Box 486, Brewer 04412, visit http://necontact.wordpress.com or email contacexdir@live.com.

Affordable Care Act Scam — WABI-TV

Watch Joy and Russ discuss the latest effort to steal your identity.

Scammers are trying to get people’s information by signing them up early for the Affordable Care Act.

Sign up for the Affordable Care Act or “Obamacare” doesn’t start until October 1st, 2013. If someone is calling to sign you up early, you are advised to just hang up the phone and to give them no information. Also please report the scam attempt if you have received a call.

Another scam associated with the Affordable Care Act is scammers are calling people telling them they can provide them with a government issued insurance card. People will need these cards when the Affordable Care Act kicks in but people calling about them now are just trying to get your account information. Again just hang up and give out no information if they are calling you about signing you up for a card.

Also always remember that government agencies already have your data and will not contact you for it.

The Federal Trade Commission has a website with a list of scams and where you can sign up for email notifications about new scams. The website is consumer.ftc.gov/scam-alerts…

 

Thieves target children as easy victims of identity theft – Bangor Daily News

CONSUMER FORUM

By Russ Van Arsdale, Executive Director, Northeast CONTACT

Posted May 12, 2013, at 12:46 p.m.

Here’s a quick quiz: Which of the following scenarios means your child has become a victim of identity theft?

• You receive a notice from the Internal Revenue Service that your child did not pay income taxes, or that the child’s Social Security number was used on another person’s income tax return.

• You or your child are turned down for government benefits because benefits are being paid to another account bearing the child’s SSN.

• You get bills or collection calls for goods or services that you did not order.

The correct answer is: “All of the above.” Each scenario could be an example of a child’s identity being stolen.

A study by Carnegie Mellon CyLab in November 2011 found that 10.2 percent of more than 40,000 juveniles who were studied experienced some kind of identity theft or fraud. The comparable rate among adults was 0.2 percent.

Why the big difference? Children are routinely issued SSNs as infants; if a child’s number is stolen, the theft may not become apparent for months or even years. Those numbers are prime targets for thieves, who look for SSNs with clean histories. With them, thieves can commit financial fraud, do an end-around bad credit ratings and get around constraints placed on illegal immigrants.

Theft can also occur within families. A driver whose license is suspended or revoked might “borrow” the child’s SSN to establish a new identity and regain a license. A person might assume the identity of another family member to repair credit, apply for a job or to avoid arrest.

When a parent discovers that the child’s ID has been stolen, he or she bears the burden of proving that the child is in fact a child, and that the child did not run up the bills that someone else is trying to collect. The parent becomes lead investigator, trying to figure out how the child’s personal information got into the wrong hands while setting the record straight.

When a person turns 18 and applies for financial aid for college or tries to rent an apartment, only then might he or she discover that his or her identity was stolen years before. The investigation becomes a cold case, with a fraudulently obtained credit history in shambles and no way to find out exactly what happened. The thief often uses the identity until the credit history is destroyed and the thief can no longer get credit using that identity.

Parents are urged to check their child’s credit history when the child is no older than 16, to make sure that history is clear (access the three major reporting agencies for a free annual report at www.AnnualCreditReport.com).

The nonprofit Identity Theft Resource Center (www.idtheftcenter.org) says sometimes parents who get in financial trouble use the SSN of their own child in an effort to rebuild their financial lives. They may think they will pay off their bills in time, so that their child’s credit history won’t be damaged; that may or may not be the case.

Identity theft was the Federal Trade Commission’s leading complaint last year (the 13th straight year the crime ranked number one), with over 369,000 complaints. The FTC has step-by-step help at its website: http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/feature-0014-identity-theft. The Maine Attorney General’s website ( http://www.maine.gov/ag/consumer/index.shtml) has a checklist of action steps as well. Victims may also contact the Identity Theft Resource Center at 888-400-5530.

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast CONTACT, Maine’s all-volunteer, nonprofit consumer organization. For assistance with consumer-related issues, including consumer fraud and identity theft, or for information, write Consumer Forum, P.O. Box 486, Brewer 04412, visit http://necontact.wordpress.com or email contacexdir@live.com.

The Affordable Care Act: When Scams Follow the News | Consumer Information

May 10, 2013

by

Tracey Thomas

Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, FTC

The Affordable Care Act is in the news lately. And one thing we’ve learned at the Federal Trade Commission is that scams often follow the news. Natural disaster? Charity scams will follow. Implementation of a major new law affecting millions of people? Scammers will be there.

To cut through some of the clutter in the environment with all the articles and discussion of the Act, here’s one key fact to hold onto that can help spot and avoid scams:

You can’t sign up yet.

Enrollment in the new Health Insurance Marketplace doesn’t start until October 1, 2013. Anyone who claims to be able to sign you up sooner is trying to scam you. Please report them.

We’ve heard from consumers and from other federal agencies that scammers are trying to convince people to act now. Scammers always want to get your money before you have time to stop and think. So remember that date: October 1, 2013. That’s the first time anyone, anywhere can sign up for health insurance through the Health Insurance Marketplace under the Affordable Care Act.

And please: if you see someone trying to enroll people for health insurance under the Act before October 1, 2013, say something. We can only investigate the scams we know about, so every report helps us find and stop the bad guys. Thanks in advance!

 

Case of spying computers sparks privacy concerns

CONSUMER FORUM

By Russ Van Arsdale, Executive Director, Northeast CONTACT

Posted April 20, 2013, at 4:08 p.m.

 

It was bad enough when criminals were trying to access consumers’ personal information. When some businesses were caught peeking into people’s rented computers, authorities came down hard.

Last week, a settlement was announced between federal investigators and seven rent-to-own, or RTO, companies, plus a software design firm and its two principals. While the settlement allows the companies to avoid admitting they did anything wrong, it requires them to stop doing the things that created all the fuss.

Those things stemmed from the companies’ apparent efforts to cut their losses from theft of their rented computers. According to the Federal Trade Commission, which investigated, the RTOs licensed software from a firm called DesignerWare. That software — installed without the customers’ knowledge — contained a “kill switch” that allowed RTOs to disable a rented computer if, in some cases, even a single payment was missed.

Even more upsetting to consumers may have been the add-on feature in the software called “Detective Mode.” When activated (again without the users’ knowledge) the RTOs could track a computer’s location, log a user’s keystrokes, even turn on a built-in camera to photograph the renter, sometimes in his or her most private moments. It also displayed a fake “registration screen” that tricked consumers into providing their contact information.

The FTC probe determined that the cyberspying gave RTOs access to usernames and passwords for email accounts, financial institutions and social media websites; private emails to doctors; Social Security numbers; bank and credit card statements; data from social media sites; and those photographs that most consumers probably wouldn’t want others to see.

The settlement forbids the companies from using monitoring software and from deceptively gathering personal information. There is to be no geophysical tracking without a consumer’s consent, and the information gathered improperly has to be destroyed (unless it becomes evidence in legal proceedings).

At least one of the companies does business in Maine. You can see the list at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/04/designerware.shtm.

The companies will have to keep good records detailing compliance; the FTC plans to keep tabs on them for the next 20 years. Meanwhile, people who keep an eye on such matters say, since many of us willingly offer up private details, the day is not far off when the law won’t take much notice of privacy violations.

Brian Kabateck and Evan Zucker, attorneys in Los Angeles, wrote an article about the RTO cyberspying. “Everyone must be prepared for a day when these kinds of violations are no longer considered a violation of any right at all because the invitation of so much monitoring technology has completely stripped away any expectation of privacy,” they wrote.

In the Daily Journal, a news service for the legal profession, Kabateck and Zucker urged diligence in protecting consumer information and making sure consumer laws are enforced when breaches occur, “to safeguard these important rights.”

There’s this from the FTC website: “The law balances your right to privacy with a company’s need to provide information for normal business purposes.”

Consumers need to watch carefully, as definitions of terms in the preceding sentence evolve.

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast CONTACT, Maine’s all-volunteer, nonprofit consumer organization. For assistance with consumer-related issues, including consumer fraud and identity theft, or for information, write Consumer Forum, P.O. Box 486, Brewer 04412, visit http://necontact.wordpress.com or email contacexdir@live.com.

Helping Victims of the Bombing in Boston — Make Sure Your Donations Count

April 17, 2013

by

Colleen Tressler

Consumer Education Specialist, FTC

After the bombing at the Boston Marathon, many people are looking for ways to help, like donating to a charity or fund.

Doing some research first will help ensure that your donation will go to a reputable organization that will use the money as promised — and as you intend. Urgent appeals for aid that you get in person, by phone or mail, by e-mail, on websites, or on social networking sites may not be on the up-and-up. Unfortunately, legitimate charities face competition from fraudsters who either solicit for bogus charities or aren’t entirely honest about how a so-called charity will use your contribution.

If you’re asked to make a charitable donation to support victims of the bombing in Boston, consider these tips:

• Donate to charities you know and trust. Be alert for charities that seem to have sprung up overnight in connection with current events, like the bombing.
• Ask if a caller is a paid fundraiser, who they work for, and what percentage of your donation goes to the charity and to the fundraiser. If you don’t get a clear answer — or if you don’t like the answer you get — consider donating to a different organization.
• Don’t give out personal or financial information — including your credit card or bank account number — unless you know the charity is reputable.
• Never send cash: you can’t be sure the organization will receive your donation, and you won’t have a record for tax purposes.
• Check out the charity with the Better Business Bureau’s (BBB) Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Watch, or GuideStar.
• Find out if the charity or fundraiser must be registered in your state by contacting the National Association of State Charity Officials.

For more on the questions to ask and for a list of groups that can help you research a charity, go to Charity Scams.

 

Google Maps settlement reveals privacy concerns

CONSUMER FORUM

By Russ Van Arsdale, Executive Director, Northeast CONTACT
Posted March 31, 2013, at 11:03 a.m.

Last month, the attorneys general of 38 states, including Maine, announced a $7 million settlement of charges that Google engaged in unauthorized collection of data from wireless networks. Of most concern to privacy advocates was the collection that took place in residential neighborhoods, from unsecured Wi-Fi networks of home Internet users.

The collecting happened as part of Google’s Street View effort. Google announced the program five years ago, saying it would give viewers the ability to take a 360-degree look around places on all seven continents. It was supposed to help people looking to find a home, explore places they’d never been, or simply gawk.

To collect the data for Street View, Google dispatched a fleet of vehicles equipped with cameras and computers. They roamed the streets of the United States, photographing whatever could be seen from public streets. The intent was not to invade people’s privacy, but in some cases the data collection was, shall we say, vigorous.

Some of Google’s colorful cars gathered electronic data from wireless computer networks in residential areas. The information that they collected included what is termed “payload data,” including email texts and addresses to Web pages people were viewing. It’s likely that more than a little business content was captured as well.

As soon as the unauthorized data gathering was discovered, Google management said it was not aware that it had been happening; that the company isolated the data once it was discovered; and that the company never used payload data in any of Google’s products or services.

It seemed that was good enough for the Federal Trade Commission, which said in May 2010 it would “take a very, very close look” at Google’s actions. The FTC ended its investigation that October, apparently without examining the data Google had gathered. The Electronic Privacy Information Center ( epic.org) filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the FTC the following February, settling the case after the FTC turned over documents suggesting that it lacked enforcement authority.

Connecticut’s attorney general led the legal action by the states and the District of Columbia; the upshot was the settlement announced March 12. Under the terms, Google will not use any of the data that had been collected and segregated in its products or services; that data will be destroyed. The company will train employees about privacy and confidentiality of user data and run an ad campaign to help educate consumers about securing their personal information when using wireless networks.

Maine Attorney General Janet Mills called the settlement “a reminder that people should take steps to protect themselves from unwarranted intrusions of their personal and financial matters. Password-protecting your home or business Wi-Fi networks is a simple first step.”

To make sure your wireless network can’t be accessed by unwanted or unknown parties, read PC World’s article, “How To Lock Down Your Wireless Network” ( find.pcworld.com/72367). You may also want to contact your Internet service provider for help.

Maine’s share of the settlement is just over $106,000. That money may be used to pay for litigation or for future consumer protection or privacy enforcement and education.

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast CONTACT, Maine’s all-volunteer, nonprofit consumer organization. For assistance with consumer-related issues, including consumer fraud and identity theft, or for information, write Consumer Forum, P.O. Box 486, Brewer 04412, visit http://necontact.wordpress.com or email contacexdir@live.com.