Search results matching tag 'Consumer Affairs'

Survey: Driving while texting should be illegal

Karen Datko — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:26:00 GMT

This post comes from James Limbach at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.

The vast majority of U.S. drivers believes handheld texting while driving is very dangerous and should be banned nationwide, according to a new survey.

The survey, conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates on behalf of the Ford Motor Co., found that 86% of U.S. drivers believe handheld texting while driving is "very dangerous" and 93% support a nationwide ban on it.

Bing: Which states ban driving while texting?

At the same time, only 42% of those asked think drivers would stop texting behind the wheel if the practice were banned. However, more than 75% say there would be more compliance if hands-free or voice-activated technologies were widely available.

"Research shows that activity that draws drivers' eyes away from the road for an extended period while driving, such as text messaging, substantially increases the risk of accidents," said Jim Vondale, director of Ford's Automotive Safety Office. "That is why we support a nationwide ban on handheld texting while driving and why Ford has developed hands-free and voice-activated technologies to allow drivers to remain connected, but to do so while keeping their hands on the wheel and their eyes on the road."

Ford last week endorsed a proposed nationwide ban on handheld texting introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, both New York Democrats.

The survey shows that 67% of drivers said they believe voice-activated technology is a safe alternative to texting, and 76% said it would be an appealing feature in a car.

The survey results come as the U.S. Department of Transportation is scheduled to host a summit on driver distraction in Washington, D.C.

According to the survey, there is confusion among drivers over existing state laws prohibiting handheld cell phone use and/or texting while driving. A total of 18 states have enacted such bans, but nearly 40% of drivers in those states indicated they were unaware of the ban.

Research on driving solutions

According to an NHTSA-sponsored 100-car study conducted by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, driver inattention that may involve looking away from the road for more than a few seconds is a factor in nearly 80% of accidents.

"A growing number of drivers are using handheld wireless communications and music-playing devices while driving," said Louis Tijerina, Ford senior technical specialist. "Research clearly shows that manual operation of those devices that takes the driver's eyes from the road for an extended period of time creates the kind of distraction that causes accidents."

In addition, said Jeff Greenberg, senior technical leader for Ford Research & Advanced Engineering, "Our studies show that teens are much more willing to take risks while driving, such as manually dialing on a mobile phone in situations that demand greater attention."

Related reading at ConsumerAffairs.com:

New insight into cell phone use and driving distraction

Feds withheld data on cell phone dangers

Cell phone conversations district drivers, study finds

60% living paycheck to paycheck

Karen Datko — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:23:00 GMT

This post comes from James Limbach at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.

Counting down the hours until payday? You're not alone.

As the economic downturn trudges on, many workers are struggling with household budgets. About six in 10 workers -- 61% -- report they always or usually live paycheck to paycheck just to make ends meet, compared with 49% last year and 43% in 2007, according to a new nationwide survey of more than 4,400 workers by CareerBuilder.

Thirty percent of workers with salaries of $100,000 or more report that they too live paycheck to paycheck, versus 21% in 2008.

Some workers are making ends meet by dipping into their long-term savings. More than one in five workers say they have reduced their 401(k) contributions or personal savings in the last six months to get by. Among workers earning six figures or more, a nearly equal number -- 23% -- report that they have also reduced their 401(k) contributions or savings.

While some workers are tapping into their long-term accounts, others are having a hard time saving anything at all. More than one-third -- 36% -- say they do not participate in any programs such as a 401(k), IRA or retirement plan, compared with 31% in 2008. In addition, one-third report that they don't put any money aside into their savings each month, while 30% set aside $100 or less per month for savings and 16% save less than $50.

"Workers are employing a variety of tactics to help make ends meet in this economy," said Rosemary Haefner, vice president of human resources for CareerBuilder. "Whether it's by keeping a tighter budget, finding ways to bring in additional income or adjusting their savings strategies, workers are doing their best to weather the current storm. These good financial habits will not only help workers in the short term, but better position them for the future."

Haefner offers the following tips for riding out the economic downturn and preparing for the future:

Keep track of spending. Create a spreadsheet to analyze what you spend each month, including the money spent on those inevitable invisible expenses, such as a morning coffee, cab ride or afternoon snack. Once you can see where your money goes, you can clearly see where you can cut back.
Boost your income. One in 10 workers report taking on a second job in this economy to help make ends meet. Ask yourself if this is something you can handle on top of your current job and then pursue some viable options.
Speak up. Talk to your HR department and see what is available to help you save on your monthly expenses. Even though times are tough, companies are still offering flexible spending accounts, wellness benefits, retail discounts, transit reimbursement and more.

Related reading at ConsumerAffairs.com:

New scam targets veterans

Bull's-eye on bank overdraft charges

Time running out on first-time homebuyers' credit

Dannon settles Activia lawsuit

Karen Datko — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:14:00 GMT

This post comes from Jon Hood at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.

Dannon has settled a consumer class-action lawsuit alleging that ads for certain brands of its yogurt overstate their claimed health benefits. The settlement will shell out $35 million to affected consumers.

The suit alleged that ads for both Activia and DanActive yogurt exaggerated their beneficial effects on human health. The ads promote the yogurt as improving digestion and have become well known for their goofiness; a recent Activia iteration features actress Jamie Lee Curtis, seated on a couch, noting that "our busy lives sometimes force us to eat the wrong things at the wrong times," and promoting Activia as the solution to "digestive issues."

A voiceover in the ad claims that Activia is "clinically proven to help regulate your digestive system in two weeks" if eaten every day.

The ads credit Bifidus Regularis, a Dannon-created name for bacteria found in mammals' large intestines, with Activia's positive effects on digestion.

According to the official Activia Web site, Dannon "selected Bifidus Regularis for Activia because it survives passage through the digestive tract, arriving in the colon as a living culture," where "it plays a beneficial role in your intestinal ecosystem." Whether this appetizing section of the Activia campaign will stay or go remains to be seen.

Dannon, a subsidiary of the French company Groupe Danone whose U.S. headquarters is in White Plains, N.Y., agreed to create a fund to reimburse qualified consumers, for amounts reaching up to $100 each.

(The settlement (.pdf form) says: "Forms may recover up to $15 by submitting a Claim Form either by mail or electronically. Claimants may recover more than $15 and up to $30 by submitting a Claim Form signed under penalty of perjury attesting to the amount of Product purchased. Claimants may seek more than $30 and up to $100 by submitting a Claim Form signed under penalty of perjury and providing a register receipt or other sufficient proof of purchase for the amount of Product for which payment is sought." To obtain a claim form once they become available, click here.)

As part of the settlement, Dannon agreed to make changes to its ad campaign to bring it in line with the products' actual benefits (or lack thereof). The company also promised to make changes to the yogurts' labels and packaging.

In the settlement, which still requires final approval from an Ohio federal court, Dannon denied wrongdoing and said it was agreeing to settle only to "avoid the uncertainty and expense of further litigation."

It's unclear how much of the ad content will change, or if Curtis will stay on board. As with most commercials, certain claims might be misleading but technically true; at one point, Curtis says that "87% of this country suffers from digestive issues," although this figure may include those who experience occasional heartburn or stomach aches.

The agreement is a significant victory for Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, the San Diego-based class-action firm that once won a $7 billion lawsuit against Enron. The $35 million Activia settlement is the largest ever for a suit alleging false advertising of a food product.

The firm is apparently confident in its legal strategy; it's now pushing forward with a similar suit targeting General Mills' Yoplait Yo-Plus yogurt. That item is similarly advertised as promoting good health by regulating digestive pathways. In its complaint against General Mills, Coughlin Stoia says that the company falsely claims to have "clinical proof" to back up its claims. That suit is being heard in Florida.

Related reading at ConsumerAffairs.com:

Bull's-eye on bank overdraft charges

Facebook turns off Beacon

6 in 10 workers live paycheck to paycheck, survey finds

Senate studies cell phone cancer risks

Karen Datko — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:04:00 GMT

This post comes from Truman Lewis at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.

For years, health researchers have expressed concerns about the widespread use of cell phones, especially by children. Finally, more than a decade after a test funded by the cell phone industry showed a possible link between cell phones and cancer, the U.S. Senate held hearings on the question.

"I will still use my cell phone after the hearing ends," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said, but added in a more serious moment that he did not want to overlook the nation's experience with cigarettes, which were touted as harmless and even helpful for decades after the first indications that they might cause health problems.

The saving grace for the cell phone industry -- for now anyway -- is that the devices have been in widespread use for only the last 10 years or so, which researchers say may not be long enough to get a complete picture of their health effects.

But with an estimated 270 million Americans using cell phones, National Institutes of Health associate director John Bucher said the nation faces a "potentially significant health problem." Studies so far have been inconclusive, partly because of the time element and partly because they rely on users' memories of when and how often they used their wireless devices.

As an interim measure, Bucher suggested regular cell phone users might want to use an ear piece that connects to the phone, rather than holding the phone next to their ear.

Health authorities in Switzerland, Germany, Israel and France have all issued guidelines on cell phone use and have emphasized that the risk may be greater for children because their brains are smaller and soak up proportionately more radiation than adults' brains. Also, children who start using cell phones at an early age will be exposed to the potentially harmful radiation for many more decades than adults who did not begin using cell phones regularly until they were in their 30s or 40s.

Report warns of dangers

Timed to coincide with the Senate hearing, a new report lists what it says are "15 reasons for concern" about the health effects of cell phones and seeks to debunk a 13-nation industry-funded study called Interphone. The study was begun in 1999 but has not been published.

The report, compiled by a coalition of U.S. and U.K. organizations, alleges that:

There is a risk of brain tumors from cell phone use.
Telecom-funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors.
Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors.

"Exposure to cell phone radiation is the largest human health experiment ever undertaken, without informed consent, and has some 4 billion participants enrolled," said Lloyd Morgan, lead author and member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society. "Science has shown increased risk of brain tumors from use of cell phones, as well as increased risk of eye cancer, salivary gland tumors, testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and leukemia. The public must be informed."

The full text of the report is available online at www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/15reasons.asp.

Industry response

The cell phone industry, meanwhile, issued a statement asserting that no adverse health effects have been proven.

"When it comes to the facts about cell phones and health-related effects, the industry relies on the conclusions of impartial groups such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the American Cancer Society, and the National Institute of Health, which have all concluded that the scientific evidence to date does not demonstrate any adverse health effects associated with the use of wireless phones," said Steve Largent, president of CTIA-The Wireless Association.

"In July 2009, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) released a statement addressing the current scientific evidence concerning exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF), including frequencies used for modern wireless communications. It said the scientific literature ‘provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields,'" Largent said.

Tests find evidence

In 1999, a study conducted at Stanford University and Integrated Laboratory Systems in Research Triangle Park, N.C., found both biological indications of cell changes and a statistical link correlating cell phone usage with certain types of brain cancer. The tests, which were funded by the cellular industry, found chromosomal changes in blood cells subjected to the same type of electromagnetic radiation emitted by hand-held cell phones.

Since then, there have been numerous studies that have indicated the potential for health problems resulting from cell phone use.

Related reading at ConsumerAffairs.com:

Cancer center workers warned about cell phone risks

Study cautions pregnant women on cell phone use

Researcher: Cell phones ‘more dangerous than smoking'

Card companies focus on the wealthy

Karen Datko — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:50:00 GMT

This post comes from James Limbach at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.

If you're an affluent American, chances are you've seen more offers of MasterCard World or Visa Signature -- the so-called premium credit cards -- in your mailbox recently.

Mintel Comperemedia, a provider of direct-marketing information, reports that credit card issuers are advertising more premium cards in an effort to attract the best customers.

In the second quarter of this year, credit card issuers sent 28% more marketing direct-mail offers for premium cards than they did the quarter before. This occurred even as issuers reduced credit card offers as a whole by 8%.

Even more, credit card companies have sent a steady number of premium card offers since early 2008 while slashing direct mail for general cards. In the first half of 2009, premium cards accounted for 19% of mail campaigns tracked by Mintel, compared with just 9% in the first half of last year.

"Credit card companies are competing to attract people with high credit scores and big spending habits," said Andrew Davidson, senior vice president of Mintel. "Because premium credit cards often have high associated fees and low risk, issuers see them as an excellent way to restore profitability in today's economy."

Credit card issuers are also competing by introducing new premium cards. High-profile cards launched since the beginning of the downturn include Chase Sapphire, the Visa Black Card and the American Express Hilton Honors Surpass Card.

Mintel's Davidson sees the focus on premium cards as positive. "Credit card issuers are beginning to expand with more credit and products for the affluent," he said. "It won't be long before this trickles down and we start seeing greater credit card marketing to all consumers."

Related reading at ConsumerAffairs.com:

August foreclosures up 18% over 2008

Small businesses would benefit from health reform, study finds

Is it time to buy yet?

7 signs it’s a scam

Karen Datko — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:18:00 GMT

This post comes from Mark Huffman at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.

Since the dawning of the Internet age, scammers have increasingly relied on the Web to ensnare their victims. With the Internet, one pitch can be sent to millions of potential victims for almost no cost.

Most experienced Internet users have learned to spot the scams in their e-mail inboxes, but a surprising number of people each year fall for the most seemingly transparent hoaxes. So dwelling on what might seem to be the obvious is not exactly a waste of time.

When one of these blatant scam e-mails was sent to Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, his staff took the time to analyze and deconstruct the document, coming up with seven obvious tip-offs the message was a scam.

First, here is the message in its entirety:

Dear, (1)
I write to you haven taken cognizance (2) of the sensitive nature of this deal and thought carefully of a confidant that will assist me in the transaction. I have deemed it pertinent and appropriate to contact you directly for a prospective business deal in the tune of GBP(3)34.3 million.(4)
I am a Portfolio Manager with [business name redacted], and I am ready and willing to work this deal out with your sincere assistance and cooperation. It will be unwise to jeopardize the success of this transaction at this point by releasing the details (5) as I cannot confirm your exact stand till I receive your response to this email.
I will give you the full details of the transaction and how to go about it as soon as I confirm your positive response. Honesty, confidentiality and effective communication is (6) highly needed to ensure prompt conclusion of this deal as this is risk-free (7) and profitable. Please get back to me via my personal mail address: [e-mail address redacted]
Regards,
[name redacted]

In case it didn't just jump out at you, Cordray's staff numbered the clues and outlined the reasons they serve as red flags:

(1) No recipient listed. The spammer likely sent this same message to many other recipients hoping at least one would fall victim to the scam.

(2) Hard to understand. "I write to you haven taken cognizance" isn't exactly a logical statement. In fact, it's totally nonsensical -- a common characteristic of spam.

(3) Foreign money. GBP usually refers to Britain's currency, the pound. This reference indicates the spammer is located in another country.

(4) Too good to be true. When converted to U.S. dollars, 34.3 million pounds is roughly 55.5 million dollars. Few "prospective business deals" actually are worth that much.

(5) Details withheld. The sender won't give you any details until you respond, a major red flag that the whole deal is fake.

(6) Poor grammar. Grammatical errors and spelling mistakes often indicate that an e-mail was written by a scam artist in a foreign country.

(7) "Risk-free." This claim is simply too good to be true. Business deals and investment opportunities always involve some risk.

This particular scam is known as a "419" scam, meaning it originated long ago in Nigeria. It's designed to obtain your bank account number and other personal information. And while it seems laughably obvious, the Federal Trade Commission noted as recently as 2007 that people continue to fall for it to the tune of millions of dollars each year.

Related reading at ConsumerAffairs.com:

Consumer credit plunges in July

Texas has highest rate of uninsured

Florida sues Systemax over rebate policies

Customers less satisfied with credit cards

Karen Datko — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:21:00 GMT

This post comes from James Limbach at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.

Are you happy with your credit card? If not, you have a lot of company.

Driven by a significant decrease in satisfaction with fees and rates, overall credit card customer satisfaction declined to a three-year low, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2009 Credit Card Satisfaction Study.

The study finds that overall credit card customer satisfaction fell to 703 on a 1,000-point scale -- the lowest level since the study's inception in 2007. Overall satisfaction among credit card customers remains the lowest among the financial services industries in which J.D. Power and Associates conducts research, including insurance, banking and investment services.

The study measures customer satisfaction with credit cards by examining six key factors: interaction; fees and rates; billing and payment process; rewards; benefits and services; and problem resolution. Satisfaction with fees and rates dropped to 603 points -- down 37 points from 2008 -- contributing considerably to the decrease in overall satisfaction.

Nearly 20% of customers reported an increase in their interest rate since 2008, almost double the 10% who said the same in 2008. The largest decline in satisfaction with fees and rates was among "revolvers" -- customers who carry a balance from month to month -- a drop of 53 index points from 2008.

American Express ranked highest among credit card issuers for a third consecutive year with an index score of 762. AmEx performed particularly well in the rewards, benefits and services, and billing and payment process factors. Discover (751) and National City (740) followed AmEx in the rankings.

Related reading at ConsumerAffairs.com:

Wal-Mart employees going checkless

Free checking isn't always free

Car buyers are thinking American

What’s next? ‘Dollars for dishwashers’

Karen Datko — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:15:00 GMT

This post comes from James Limbach at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.

If you missed "cash for clunkers," you might want to give "dollars for dishwashers" a whirl.

Although it's not getting nearly the attention the auto rebate program did, the U.S. Department of Energy program is making nearly $300 million in funding available from the economic stimulus for state-run rebate programs for consumer purchases of new Energy Star-rated home appliances.

The allocation of money is based on a state's population. That gives California the lion's share -- more than $35 million. The territories of American Samoa and Northern Marianas have been allocated the minimum amount of $100,000 each.

"Appliances consume a huge amount of our electricity, so there's enormous potential to both save energy and save families money every month," said Energy Secretary Steven Chu when the program was launched back in July. "These rebates will help families make the transition to more efficient appliances, making purchases that will directly stimulate the economy and create jobs."

Under the program, each state or territory will submit a plan that specifies which Energy Star appliance categories will be included in their rebate program, the rebate level for each product type, how the rebates will be processed, and their plan for recycling old appliances.

DOE recommends that states focus on heating and cooling equipment, appliances, and water heaters, as these products offer the greatest energy-savings potential.

Appliance industry hopeful

The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers calls replacing older appliances with Energy Star models "the most practical and effective step a homeowner can take to save energy and money on utility bills." It said rebate programs will be announced by the states starting in mid-October or early November.

AHAM spokeswoman Jill Notini told ConsumerAffairs.com that while this program, at $300 million, is just a fraction of the $3 billion spent on cash for clunkers, AHAM hopes "it will entice people to stores to look for appliances."

The manufacturers say sales have been off for the past three years because of the economy. Last year saw a slump of 10%, and Notini said sales through the first seven months of 2009 were down 15%.

Christine Kielich, a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy, said that while it's expected the rebate program will have a stimulative effect on the economy, "increases in sales will depend on how states structure their individual rebate programs, which appliances are included, and how much the rebates are worth."

The amount of energy saved, she added, "will depend on the specific appliance and model being replaced, but new Energy Star appliances save significantly more energy than those manufactured years ago. For example, replacing a clothes washer made before 2000 with a new Energy Star model can save up to $135 per year."

Related reading at ConsumerAffairs.com:

Store brands score higher than big names in taste tests

Free checking isn't always free

Cash4Gold sues Consumerist.com over investigation

Robocall ban begins

Karen Datko — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:13:00 GMT

This post comes from Jon Hood at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.

Many of the prerecorded calls that seem to come just as you're sitting down to dinner are now illegal.

An amendment to the federal Telemarketing Sales Rule, announced more than a year ago, took effect today, Sept. 1. It includes prohibitions against a large number of robocalls.

There are a few catches, however. First, purely "informational" calls are exempt under the new rules. Thus, those calls from Orbitz announcing that your flight is departing two minutes later than expected will not be subject to a penalty.

Perhaps more annoyingly, public service announcements are exempt from the new rules, as are political calls. Political robocalls are especially common during election season, and aren't likely to stop anytime soon. Banks and telephone carriers are likewise exempt.

The TSR amendment, approved by the Federal Trade Commission in August 2008, subjects violators to fines of up to $16,000. Consumers can waive the prohibition by giving companies written permission to contact them.

The FTC, which oversees and enforces the TSR, has already asked consumers to be on the lookout for calls that violate the new rules. Consumers can also report violations by calling (877) FTC-HELP.

As FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said in a news release, "American consumers have made it crystal clear that few things annoy them more than the billions of commercial telemarketing robocalls they receive every year."

Leibowitz urged consumers being "harassed by robocallers" to "let us know, and we will go after them."

Consumers who want additional protection from telemarketers should add their name to the federal Do Not Call Registry.

Related reading at ConsumerAffairs.com:

Do Not Call doesn't stop all telemarketing calls

Telemarketer shut down for violating Do Not Call rule

MEGA Life and Health pays $17 million in consumer relief

Beware double dipping on ‘clunkers’

Karen Datko — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:49:00 GMT

This post comes from James Limbach at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.

A coalition of consumer groups has called on the U.S. Department of Transportation to ensure -- as the agency winds down the "cash for clunkers" program -- that dealers are not double dipping and getting paid twice -- once by their customers and again by the government.

During the past several weeks, the rejection rate for cash for clunkers transactions has hovered around 80%. Many dealers jumped the gun and entered into a high volume of contracts in July, before the rules governing the program were issued and before any deals were approved. Since then, the program has been overwhelmed, causing delays in the payment of $3,500 or $4,500 per clunker to dealers.

As a result, many dealers are on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars or more. Experiencing cash-flow problems and under pressure from lenders, some dealers have resorted to pressuring their customers to make up the difference. Cash for clunkers sales end today, Aug. 24, at 8 p.m. ET. Dealers have until Tuesday, Aug. 25, at noon to file the required paperwork with the government.

Some dealer associations even provide standardized "contingency agreements" for their dealer members that shift all the risks for rejected deals from the dealers to car buyers. Whether they signed the agreements or not, car buyers across the country have complained of being pressured to give the dealers $3,500 or $4,500 extra in cash or sign a new contract agreeing to pay more, typically under threat of losing their new car or having the dealer report it stolen.

Acknowledging the consumer groups' complaints, DOT posted information on its Web site to advise car buyers that they do not need to sign the contingency agreements. However, many car buyers are unaware of that information. Having surrendered their clunker and dependent on their new car for transportation, they are vulnerable to being pressured, even if they did not sign.

Car buyers have no way to know if the dealer is being paid by the government, making it easy for auto dealers to game the system by collecting the $3,500 or $4,500 from the car buyers and collecting that amount from the government.

To protect taxpayers and reduce the risk of fraud and abuse, the groups are calling upon the DOT to require auto dealers to certify in writing that they have not already collected the amount of the incentive from the car buyer or reconfigured the deal in a subsequent contract.

They also say DOT should send a notice to the car buyers informing them that the deal was approved and the dealer was paid either $3,500 or $4.500. DOT is also urged to provide a simple pre-addressed form with prepaid postage for the car buyers to mail to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration if they have paid that amount to the dealer themselves, or if they entered into an amended contract to buy the same vehicle.

Joe Ridout, consumer services manager of Consumer Action, said, "By including these simple safeguards, the Department of Transportation can both protect consumers and verify that the taxpayers' investment in this program has not been misused."

DOT spokesman Bill Adams told ConsumerAffairs.com that as the program winds down, the department has three shifts working across the country to make sure dealers get their reimbursements. Adams added that DOT "will continue to be diligent about the potential of fraudulent activity by all who are involved in the transactions."

He said, "Consumers are not required to sign contingency agreements to pay back the dealer should the cars credit be rejected."

Related reading at ConsumerAffairs.com:

How to survive the new credit card rules

What you need to know about weight loss surgery

Life expectancy at all-time high