Lionheart Group Scam Prevention Toolkit » consumer

Sensex off 12.7% in Q2 on euro-zone debt worries – India Infoline.com

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:29:41 +0000

Sensex off 12.7% in Q2 on euro-zone debt worries India Infoline.com The BSE Mid- Cap index declined 0.58% and the BSE Small- Cap index fell 0.88%. Both these indices outperformed the Sensex. The total turnover on BSE amounted to Rs 2480 crore, higher than Thursday's Rs 2272.12 crore. Barring the BSE Consumer Durables … and more

Time to lighten up on consumer stocks – Business Line

Sat, 30 Jul 2011 20:54:45 +0000

Business Line Time to lighten up on consumer stocks Business Line First, do small- and mid- cap stocks in the consumer space deserve to trade at similar valuations to large- cap stocks, given that mid- cap stocks have been pushed into a deep discount in the broader market context? Agro Tech Foods (PE of 46 times …

Link:
Time to lighten up on consumer stocks – Business Line

Bud Hibbs Wants Your Junk Debt Buyer Affidavits from Debt Collection Lawsuits

Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:41:00 +0000

Bud Hibbs is attempting to collect affidavits to show that junk debt buyers engage in signing documents where they claim to have firsthand knowledge of the accounts and that these affidavits are routinely

Maker of Rascal Scooters to Pay $100,000 for Violating Do Not Call Law

Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:42:09 +0000

Called Consumers on Registry Using Phone Numbers Gathered From Sweepstakes Entry Forms The manufacturer of Rascal Scooters, used by disabled and senior consumers with limited mobility, will pay $100,000 to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it illegally called millions of consumers who had chosen to avoid unwanted telemarketing calls by listing their phone numbers on the national Do Not Call Registry. The FTC alleges the firm illegally used phone numbers gathered from sweepstakes entry forms to contact consumers whose numbers are on the Registry. The FTC’s complaint charges scooter manufacturer Electric Mobility Corporation and its owner Michael Flowers with making more than three million illegal sales calls since 2003 to consumers on the Do Not Call Registry who had entered the company’s “Win a Free Rascal” sweepstakes. According to the FTC, in small print under the part of the sweepstakes form provided for the entrant’s phone number, EMC reminded consumers to list their numbers so the company could contact them if they were “the next lucky winner.” EMC encourages consumers to enter its sweepstakes through direct mailing, newspapers, and television advertisements. The FTC charged that its conduct violated both the FTC Act and the Do Not Call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule allows a company to call a consumer on the Do Not Call Registry for up to 18 months if it has an “established business relationship” with the consumer and he or she has not asked the firm to stop calling. However, under the Rule, a company may not rely on a completed sweepstakes entry form to establish a business relationship with a consumer. In fact, the FTC consistently has said that simply obtaining a consumer’s phone number – as EMC did with its sweepstakes – does not establish a relationship that would exempt it from the Do Not Call rules. The order settling the FTC’s charges bars EMC from using sweepstakes entries as the basis for claiming an established business relationship with any consumer. The order also includes monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure that EMC complies with its terms. In addition, the order imposes civil penalties against both EMC and Flowers for their alleged violation of the FTC Act. Flowers will pay $100,000, and EMC is subject to a $2 million penalty, which is suspended based on its inability to pay. If EMC is found to have misrepresented its financial condition, the full penalty will become due immediately. Source: FTC United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Electric Mobility Corporation, doing business as Rascal Scooters, and Michael J. Flowers, individually and as an officer of Electric Mobility Corporation, Defendants (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey) Case No. 1:11-cv-02218-RMB-KMW

Read the rest here:
Maker of Rascal Scooters to Pay $100,000 for Violating Do Not Call Law

Oil and Gasoline Market Manipulators, Beware the FTC and CFTC Are Coming For You

Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:13:00 +0000

As part of their ongoing efforts to keep markets that they oversee open and fair for American consumers, the Federal Trade Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that they signed an agreement to foster further cooperation between the two agencies by helping them share nonpublic information. The FTC and CFTC signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will facilitate sharing of non-public information on investigations being conducted by the agencies, including investigations into the oil and gasoline markets. The agreement will help the FTC enforce its petroleum market manipulation rule , which prohibits fraudulent manipulation of U.S. petroleum markets. Information-sharing also will help the CFTC in exercising its authority to pursue manipulation in the oil markets. “It is important for regulators to share information to be able to pursue market manipulation wherever it arises,” CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler said. “I thank Chairman Leibowitz and the staff of the FTC for their work on this MOU and look forward to partnering with them in ensuring the integrity of the oil markets.” “With gasoline prices on the rise, we are committed to doing all we can to ensure that petroleum markets are competitive,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “Competition works to keep prices lower, and this MOU improves the ability of the FTC and CFTC to take action if and when we find market manipulation. I’d like to thank our CFTC partners for helping to improve the already excellent communication between our two agencies.” Both the FTC and CFTC have authorities to take legal action to stop fraud-based manipulation of the petroleum markets. In addition, the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate exchanges, clearing organizations and intermediaries in the U.S. futures industry. The MOU will further facilitate information sharing between the FTC and CFTC on regulatory issues of common interest, such as manipulation of oil and gasoline markets. At the same time, the agreement states that the FTC and CFTC take all necessary steps to ensure that the confidentiality of this nonpublic information is maintained. It also provides that the agreement does not modify the agencies’ current abilities, responsibilities, or obligations to comply with existing laws or regulations, including the FTC’s confidentiality obligations under the premerger laws. Both the FTC and the CFTC votes were unanimous in approving the MOU. It became effective when it was signed, and will remain in effect until it is terminated by either the FTC or CFTC. 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.

Fakes create 4D egg-citement – AsiaOne

Sat, 09 Apr 2011 06:43:30 +0000

AsiaOne Fakes create 4D egg-citement AsiaOne GEORGE TOWN – Punters are getting excited over the alleged egg scam in Penang and taking out their chifa books to guide them to put their money on the right number. This follows complaints by buyers and the Consumer Association of Penang that fake eggs … and more

Nifty scales 3-month closing high – India Infoline.com

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:28:41 +0000

The Hindu Nifty scales 3-month closing high India Infoline.com The Nifty struck a high of 5928.65 in early trade . The BSE Mid- Cap index rose 0.79% and the BSE Small- Cap index rose 1.38%. Both these indices outperformed the Sensex. Most of the sectoral indices on BSE were in the green. The BSE Consumer Durables (up … Markets resume winning streak Business Standard Markets rise, Sensex closes 290 points up Siliconindia.com all 237 news articles

Regulator Puts an End to Chikita’s Tactics of Online Advertising That Deceived Consumers Who Wanted to "Opt Out" from Targeted Ads

Tue, 15 Mar 2011 03:23:00 +0000

Chitika Inc.’s Opt-Out Expired After Only 10 Days The FTC reached a settlement with online advertising company Chitika, Inc. that ends the company’s allegedly deceptive practice of tracking consumers’ online activities even after they have chosen to opt out of online tracking on Chitika’s website. The FTC investigated Chitika as part of its ongoing efforts to protect consumers’ privacy online. Chitika, whose website states that it delivers three billion ad impressions a month, acts as a go-between for websites and advertisers. According to the FTC complaint, Chitika buys ad space on websites and contracts with advertisers to place small text files called cookies on those websites. Chitika also uses a technique known as behavioral advertising – by placing “cookies” on consumers’ computer browsers, the company tracks consumers’ activities on the web, including searches the consumer has conducted and sites the consumer has visited. Based on consumers’ online activities, the company then displays ads to them that correlate to their interests. The FTC alleged that in its privacy policy the company says that it collects data about consumers’ preferences, but allows consumers to opt out of having cookies placed on their browsers and receiving targeted ads. The privacy policy includes an “Opt-Out” button. Consumers who click on it activate a message that states, “You are currently opted out.” According to the FTC complaint, from at least May 2008 through February 2010, Chitika’s opt-out lasted only 10 days. After that time, Chitika placed tracking cookies on browsers of consumers who had opted out and targeted ads to them again. The FTC charged Chitika’s claims about its opt-out mechanism were deceptive and violated federal law. The settlement bars Chitika from making misleading statements about the extent of data collection about consumers and the extent to which consumers can control the collection, use or sharing of their data. It requires that every targeted ad include a hyperlink that takes consumers to a clear opt-out mechanism that allows a consumer to opt out for at least five years. It also requires that Chitika destroy all identifiable user information collected when the defective opt out was in place. In addition, the settlement requires that Chitika alert consumers who previously tried to opt out that their attempt was not effective, and they should opt out again to avoid targeted ads. Source: FTC In the Matter of Chitika, Inc., a corporation FTC File No. 1023087

Debt Collector Portfolio Recovery Associates Sending out Bogus IRS 1099-C’s to Consumers Again?

Sat, 05 Feb 2011 23:12:00 +0000

According to Budd Hibbs, a well-known consumer advocate, Junk debt buyer and debt collection company Portfolio Recovery Associates are sending out IRS form 1099-C’s to consumers. The problem is that Portfolio Recovery Associates (and other junk debt buyers) purchase old debts for a couple of pennies per dollar and then attempt to collect the full face value of the debt, even though they paid much less than face value. In my opinion if Portfolio Recovery is sending 1099-C’s to consumers claiming the full face value of a debt, they may be committing fraud on the consumers involved as well as committing fraud on the Internal Revenue Service. In effect they are writing off the full amount of the ‘forgiven’ debt’ and in reality only paid a small amount for the debt. Two years ago, we went to a Washington Post reporter who contacted the IRS regarding this matter. PRA must be able to produce some type of valid documents that make their claims credible, however based on their record of accomplishment; they likely have little or nothing to back up their claim. We contacted many attorneys and officials about this, we can expect that the Consumer Protection Financial Protection Board currently being set by Professor Elizabeth Warren will finally address the abuse and force PRA to comply with the law. Demand they send you documents that prove their claim or copies of accounts, signatures, goods provided, services rendered and all other information that connects your social security to their alleged loss. IMPORTANT: Once a 1099-C is issued, the law mandates that the debt can no longer be collected. This includes PRA selling it off to another vulture. They MUST show a zero balance on your credit report and are prohibited from extending the seven-year reporting statute. PRA cannot call you or send collection notices after a 1099-C has been issued. ~ Collectors Exposed I can’t for the life of me figure out why the IRS, or the Federal Trade Commission for that matter, allows junk debt buyers to get away with cheating the US government out of taxes that they write off and end up not paying in real taxes. It really does make me wonder about the entire debt collection industry in general. I guess if they have no fear of cheating consumers then they have no fear of cheating our government either. For the full excerpt on Portfolio Recovery Associates and “Bogus” 1099-C mailing click here .

Consumer Beats Debt Collectors Zwicker and Citibank in Court with the ‘Stick It’ Book

Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:45:00 +0000

Once again, justice is served for consumers. As I have often stated, most debt collection attorney’s, debt collectors, and junk debt buyers don’t have the proof that is needed to prove a consumer owes a debt. They still file frivolous lawsuits even they don’t have proper proof in the hopes of scaring a consumer into paying or that they are able to obtain a summary or default judgment. The biggest problem is that consumers are not aware of or are afraid of debt lawsuits and collectors. In as high as ninety percent of the cases get a judgment because the consumer did not respond or fight back and the plaintiffs were awarded a judgment. Just this morning I received an email from a read of ‘Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors’ and he said: “I bought your book a few months ago and used the information to fight Zwicker and Associates who was representing Citibank. Today I received a call from a representative at the law firm telling me that they have voluntarily dismissed the case! Thank you for the book and all your help.” ~ J Wright I tell countless consumers every day that in nearly ninety-five of debt lawsuits the plaintiff doesn’t have sufficient proof to get a judgment and that by fighting back (as outlined in my book) and a consumer can win against debt collectors. I receive emails every week from happy and relieved consumers that did fight back using the book and won. The tactics that I use to put debt collectors in place (in court) and the countless consumers I have helped with the book