Complaint resolution service publishes case studies, recall information and consumer news.

Edward Jones & Co has agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a suit filed by the state.  The suit accused the financial services company of not disclosing its relationship with mutual fund companies.  The relationship reportedly allowed Edward Jones to be paid when referring a consumer to those companies.

The financial services company had settled similar charges at the federal level in 2004 and paid $75 million in fines and penalties.  California’s suit was independent of the 2004 federal case.

Posted under Finance

We’ve often written about the fortunes trapped in the wallets of consumers who carry around gift cards for months.  In many ways, this is almost as bad as getting large tax refunds every year.

What makes this practice especially dangerous is what happened Friday.  Home furnishings giant Linens ‘n Things announced they were filing for bankruptcy protection.   That filing is a danger sign, but not especially problematic. The true problem came in the details of the filing when the company said that it would close 120 of its less than 600 stores.  About 15% of those stores are in California.

What does that mean for you?  If you’re in a California community with a Linens ‘n Things store due for closing, you might find some amazing deals.  After all, it is cheaper to sell products at a deep discount than to pack and move them.

But don’t hesitate.  You may very well find that the store in your town and surrounding towns is closed before you know it.

Reminder:  The email function on this blog is in the top right corner.  Be sure to send this to anyone to whom you’ve given a Linens ‘n Things gift card or someone you know who has one.  Smart consumers stay aware of trends, and gift card holders need to know if and when their local store is closing.

Posted under Finance

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer today filed a lawsuit against leading U.S. and Japanese auto manufacturers, alleging their vehicles’ emissions have contributed significantly to global warming, harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health of California, and cost the state millions of dollars to address current and future effects.

“Global warming is causing significant harm to California’s environment, economy, agriculture and public health. The impacts are already costing millions of dollars and the price tag is increasing,” said Lockyer. “Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming, yet the federal government and automakers have refused to act. It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis.”

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the complaint names as defendants: Chrysler Motors Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Honda North America, and Nissan North America. The lawsuit is the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by greenhouse gases that their products emit. Lockyer filed the lawsuit on behalf of the People of the State of California.

The complaint alleges that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a public nuisance by producing “millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide,” a greenhouse gas that traps atmospheric heat and causes global warming. Under the law, a “public nuisance” is an unreasonable interference with a public right, or an action that interferes with or causes harm to life, health or property. The complaint asks the court to hold the defendants liable for damages, including future harm, caused by their ongoing, substantial contribution to the public nuisance of global warming.

As stated in the complaint, the automakers produce vehicles that emit a combined 289 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the United States each year. Those emissions, the complaint alleges, currently account for nearly 20 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and more than 30 percent in California. The defendants rank “among the world’s largest contributors to global warming and the adverse impacts on California,” according to the complaint.

“Global warming has already injured California, it environment, its economy, and the health and well-being of its citizens,” the complaint alleges. “California is responding to the ongoing impacts and the inevitable additional future impacts of global warming. The State is spending millions of dollars on planning, monitoring, and infrastructure changes to address a large spectrum of current and anticipated impacts, including reduced snow pack, coastal and beach erosion, increased ozone pollution, sea water intrusion into Delta drinking supplies, response to impacts on wildlife, including endangered species and fish, wildfire risks, and the long-term need to monitor on-going and inevitable impacts. California has already begun to address the decline in the snow pack and earlier melting of the snow pack in order to avert water shortages and flooding in the future.” Dealing with global warming’s harmful effects, the complaint adds, “will almost certainly cost millions more.”

The AG’s office did not comment on the impact of the suit on consumer prices for those automobiles.

Posted under Automotive

The State of California has announced that they will deny 3.4 million motorists consumer choice when it comes to where they have their cars inspected in the Smog Check program in 2005. The Department of Consumer Affairs’ Bureau of Automotive Repair (DCA/BAR) will force 287,000 motorists each month to get their Smog Check inspections at a limited number of specialized “Test-Only” centers.

The remaining 6,000 licensed small businesses are enraged at the fact that they invested in the licenses, the trained technicians and sophisticated equipment but can no longer serve their customers. Dennis DeCota of the California Service Station and Automotive Repair Association says “the men and women in the auto repair industry spent more than $70,000 per shop to install expensive new emissions testing equipment and to train their employees. Now, the State of California says these 6,000 shops cannot serve their customers — this is devastating to family-owned small businesses who believed in this air quality improvement program.”

Likewise, consumers are outraged at the additional cost and inconvenience this mandate will require of them and their families. Under this mandate, they must take more time to get their car “smogged,” pay additional testing fees and be bounced back and forth between test facilities and repair shops until their vehicle passes the emissions test. The Smog Check process could now take more than a day of personal time for those consumers who have been denied access to other licensed facilities.

DCA/BAR says regrettably that they can no longer give consumers choice to go to traditional test-and-repair facilities or “one-stop-shops” for Smog Checks because of federal guidelines and results of state air quality studies conducted in 1998 and 2000. However, neither the federal law nor studies suggest that the state be required to send 3.4 million motorists to “test-Only” facilities. In fact, under federal law passed in 1995 individual states are specifically allowed to conduct their Smog Check programs without using any “Test-Only” stations whatsoever.

Further, the state oversight committee on Smog Check, called the Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee, heard just this month from Dr. Jeffrey Williams of the University of California at Davis that the state’s conclusion about the superiority of “Test-Only” may be seriously flawed. In fact, after reviewing the records of almost one million vehicles, Dr. Williams asserts there is not much of a difference between the failure rates achieved at “Test-Only” facilities vs. the “one-stop-shops” favored by consumers.

More than 14,000 consumers have signed petitions asking Governor Schwarzenegger to step in and to help simplify the Smog Check program for consumers. “There is very little reason to increase costs and deny consumers choice when the air quality is not being improved,” said Jim Conran of Consumers First. “I call upon the Governor to use his authority to clear the air and gain control of the bureaucrats in Sacramento to simplify and improve this important air quality program for consumers.”

Posted under Customer Service