Jan 27, 2022 | Blog, Consumer Protection
Surge In Consumer Reports About Money Lost Via Scams Initiated Through Social Media
On January 27, 2022, the FTC reported that consumers in 2021 reported losing about $770 million to fraud initiated on social media—about one fourth of all reported fraud losses for the year and an 18-fold increase from 2017, according to the Federal Trade Commission’s latest Consumer Protection Data Spotlight.
Of those who reported losing money to fraud in 2021, more than 95,000 indicated that they were first contacted on social media, which was more than twice the 2020 number.
Investment scams topped the list of total reported dollar losses, followed by romance scams. The largest number of reports came from people who lost money to online shopping scams. Most of the reports about online shopping scams involved someone who ordered a product they saw marketed on social media that never arrived. Consumers who listed the social media platform where the undelivered products were marketed most often named Facebook or Instagram.
For additional information, please click the FTC’s “Social media a gold mine for scammers in 2021.”
Additional guidance about spotting, avoiding, and reporting scams, and how to recover money if you have paid a scammer, can be viewed at ftc.gov/scams.
Source: FTC.gov
Have you been financially harmed by scams, fraud, deception or other illegal activity?
If so, please contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims by completing the form above on the right or via [email protected].
Jan 14, 2022 | Blog, Consumer Protection
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) has released a bulletin reminding debt collectors and credit bureaus of their legal obligations in light of the “No Surprises Act,” which protects consumers from certain unexpected medical bills.
Companies that try to collect on medical bills that are prohibited by the No Surprises Act, or who furnish information to credit bureaus about such invalid debts, may face significant legal liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).
The CFPB’s bulletin advises credit bureaus that the accuracy and dispute obligations imposed by the FCRA apply with respect to debts stemming from charges that exceed the amount permitted by the No Surprises Act.
The CFPB will investigate claims and take action against companies that attempt to collect or report or furnish consumer information about debts stemming from charges that exceed the amounts permitted under the No Surprises Act.
The bulletin released on January 13, 2022 by the CFPB includes the following reminders to debt collectors, information furnishers, and credit bureaus:
Consumer financial protection law prohibits debt collectors from misrepresenting the character, amount, or legal status of any debt. This prohibition includes misrepresenting that a consumer must pay a debt stemming from a charge that exceeds the amount permitted by the No Surprises Act. In addition, debt collectors are also prohibited from using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt, including the collection of any amount unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. Courts have emphasized that collecting an amount that exceeds what is owed would violate the prohibition on unfair or unconscionable debt collection practices.
Many debt collectors furnish information about unpaid medical debts to credit bureaus. Furnishers must have reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of consumer information provided to credit bureaus. Credit bureaus preparing a consumer report must follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of information contained in the consumer report. Both credit bureaus and furnishers must conduct reasonable and timely investigations of consumer disputes to verify the accuracy of consumer information.
For furnishers and credit bureaus, the accuracy and dispute obligations imposed by federal consumer financial protection law apply with respect to debts stemming from charges that exceed the amount permitted by the No Surprises Act.
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Consumers who believe they are victims of illegal debt collection or credit reporting practices are encouraged to contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. by completing the form above on the right or via [email protected] for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.
Jan 10, 2022 | Blog
The Securities and Exchange Commission has announced two awards totaling more than $4 million to whistleblowers who provided information and assistance in two separate covered actions.
In the first order, the SEC issued an award of approximately $2.6 million to one whistleblower. The whistleblower, who reported internally before reporting to the SEC, provided significant new information during an existing investigation that alerted SEC staff to misconduct occurring overseas, which would have been difficult to detect in the absence of the whistleblower’s information.
In the second order, the SEC issued approximately $1.5 million to joint whistleblowers who provided substantial ongoing assistance throughout the course of the investigation that led to the success of the covered action. The joint whistleblowers had multiple communications with SEC staff and provided information about key witnesses.
The SEC has awarded approximately $1.2 billion to 241 individuals since issuing its first award in 2012. All payments are made out of an investor protection fund established by Congress that is financed entirely through monetary sanctions paid to the SEC by securities law violators. No money has been taken or withheld from harmed investors to pay whistleblower awards. Whistleblowers may be eligible for an award when they voluntarily provide the SEC with original, timely, and credible information that leads to a successful enforcement action. Whistleblower awards can range from 10 percent to 30 percent of the money collected when the monetary sanctions exceed $1 million.
As set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC protects the confidentiality of whistleblowers and does not disclose any information that could reveal a whistleblower’s identity.
Source: SEC.gov
Questions Or Concerns About Providing Information To The SEC About Securities Fraud?
If so, please know that Kehoe Law Firm’s legal team understands the issues associated with making the decision to voluntarily come forward with information about securities fraud or other wrongdoing. Moreover, the Firm’s legal staff has extensive experience investigating and prosecuting fraud, as well as interacting with sources of information, especially brave, honest individuals who are willing to expose fraud committed against the United States government.
If you have questions or concerns about voluntarily providing information as a whistleblower to the SEC regarding violations of the federal securities laws, including questions about whistleblower award eligibility or the form and manner in which the information is required to be provided to the SEC, please complete the form on the right or contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., [email protected].
If you prefer to speak privately with an attorney, please contact either Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, or John Kehoe, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801.
Jan 10, 2022 | Blog, Consumer Protection
FTC Report To Congress Finds There Is Little Evidence To Support Manufacturers’ Justifications For Repair Restrictions
In a new report to Congress, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) identified numerous types of repair restrictions, such as using adhesives that make parts difficult to replace, limiting the availability of spare parts, and making diagnostic software unavailable.
The report’s findings, including that “there is scant evidence to support manufacturers’ justifications for repair restrictions,” are primarily based on responses to the FTC’s requests for public comments and empirical research issued in connection with its July 2019 workshop, “Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on Repair Restrictions.”
Congress directed the FTC to issue the report, noting that it “is aware of the FTC’s ongoing review of how manufacturers – in particular mobile phone and car manufacturers – may limit repairs by consumers and repair shops, and how those limitations may increase costs, limit choice, and impact consumers’ rights under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.”
The Anti-Tying Provision Of The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”)
The MMWA is a consumer protection law passed in 1975 to clarify how written warranties may be used when marketing products to consumers.
The MMWA requires warrantors of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage.
Section 102(c) of the MMWA, known as the anti-tying provision, prohibits warrantors from conditioning warranty coverage on the consumer’s use of an article or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name, unless the warrantor provides that article or service without charge or the warrantor has received a waiver from the FTC.
This provision, for example, bars an automobile manufacturer from voiding a warranty if a consumer has scheduled maintenance performed by someone other than the dealer, prohibits a printer manufacturer from conditioning its warranty on the purchaser’s use of the manufacturer’s branded ink, and forbids a smartphone manufacturer from voiding a warranty when a consumer has a new battery installed at a kiosk at the mall.
Essentially, the anti-tying provision bars manufacturers from using access to warranty coverage as a way of obstructing consumers’ ability to have their consumer products maintained or repaired using third-party replacement parts and independent repair shops.
Companies may seek a waiver of this prohibition if: (1) the warrantor satisfies the FTC that the manufacturers’ parts or services are necessary for the product to function, and (2) the waiver is in the public interest. Since 1975, only three waiver requests have been made to the FTC, all of which were denied.
Types Of Repair Restrictions
There are certain manufacturer practices that “right to repair” advocates assert have the effect of limiting consumer repair choices.
Repair restrictions discussed at the FTC’s July 2019 Workshop on Repair Restrictions generally fall into eight categories:
1) Physical restrictions; 2) Unavailability of parts, repair manuals, and diagnostic software and tools; 3) Designs that make independent repairs less safe; Telematics (i.e., information on the operation and status of a vehicle that is collected by a system contained in the vehicle and wirelessly relayed to a central location, often the manufacturer or dealer of the vehicle); 4) Application of patent rights and enforcement of trademarks; 5) Disparagement of non-OEM parts and independent repair; 6) Software locks; 7) Digital Rights Management and Technical Protection Measures; and 8) End User License Agreements.
Source: Federal Trade Commission
If you feel that you have been prevented or obstructed from having a consumer product repaired using third-party replacement parts or independent repair shops or facilities, or that your warranty was voided, or will be voided, because of independent repair, please complete the form on the right or e-mail [email protected] for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.
Jan 9, 2022 | Blog
The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced an award of more than $13 million to a whistleblower whose information and assistance prompted the opening of an investigation and significantly contributed to the success of an SEC enforcement action.
The whistleblower promptly alerted SEC staff to an ongoing fraud and provided extensive assistance to SEC staff by meeting in person and helping the staff understand the mechanics of the fraudulent scheme. The whistleblower’s information also helped the SEC obtain emergency relief to minimize investor losses.
The SEC has awarded approximately $1.2 billion to 238 individuals since issuing its first award in 2012. All payments are made out of an investor protection fund established by Congress that is financed entirely through monetary sanctions paid to the SEC by securities law violators. No money has been taken or withheld from harmed investors to pay whistleblower awards. Whistleblowers may be eligible for an award when they voluntarily provide the SEC with original, timely, and credible information that leads to a successful enforcement action. Whistleblower awards can range from 10 percent to 30 percent of the money collected when the monetary sanctions exceed $1 million.
As set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC protects the confidentiality of whistleblowers and does not disclose any information that could reveal a whistleblower’s identity.
Source: SEC.gov
Questions Or Concerns About Providing Information To The SEC About Securities Fraud?
If so, please know that Kehoe Law Firm’s legal team understands the issues associated with making the difficult decision to voluntarily come forward with information about securities fraud or other wrongdoing. Moreover, the Firm’s legal staff has extensive experience investigating and prosecuting fraud, as well as interacting with sources of information, especially brave, honest individuals who are willing to expose fraud committed against the United States government.
If you have questions or concerns about voluntarily providing information as a whistleblower to the SEC regarding violations of the federal securities laws, including questions about whistleblower award eligibility or the form and manner in which the information is required to be provided to the SEC, please complete the form on the right or contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., [email protected].
If you prefer to speak privately with an attorney, please contact either Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, or John Kehoe, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801.
Dec 28, 2021 | Blog, Car Problems Car Complaints
More Than Three Million Hyundais & Kias Subject Of New Engineering Analysis – Investigation Involves Model Year 2011-2016 Hyundai Sonata, Hyundai Santa Fe, Hyundai Elantra & Kia Sorento, Kia Rio, Kia Optima & Kia Soul Vehicles
Vehicle owners and lessees should be aware that on December 28, 2021, Autoblog.com posted an Associated Press article which reported that “U.S. auto safety regulators have stepped up a series of investigations into engine fires that have plagued Hyundai and Kia vehicles for more than six years.”
According to the story posted on Autoblog.com, “[t]he National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says a new engineering analysis investigation covers more than 3 million vehicles from the 2011 through 2016 model years. The agency has received 161 complaints of engine fires, some of which occurred in vehicles that had already been recalled.”
Reportedly, “[t]he vehicle fires involve the related Korean automakers’ Theta II GDI, Theta II MPI, Theta II MPI hybrid, Nu GDI and Gamma GDI engines. Models covered include Hyundai’s Sonata, Santa Fe, and Elantra and as well as Kia’s Sorento, Rio, Optima and Soul. Model years covered are 2011 through 2016.” [Emphasis added.]
VEHICLE OWNERS AND LESSEES AFFECTED BY AUTOMOTIVE DEFECTS OR SAFETY RECALLS ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C., [email protected], FOR A FREE, NO-OBLIGATION EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.
