.:[Double Click To][Close]:.
Showing posts with label Class Action Lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Class Action Lawsuit. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Experian Credit Bureau...violates consumer rights! Thumbs nose @ Federal Trade Commission watchdog!







In spite of being dinged with a class action lawsuit for Violations of Consumer Rights pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act – and agreeing to an out-of-court settlement to compensate Plaintiffs for damages suffered - Experian Credit Bureau (and the staff employed at the credit reporting agency) continues to thumb its nose at the Federal Trade Commission (the Government Agency which brought the lawsuit).

Post: 03/22/2011
http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2011/03/experian-transunion-equifaxsettle-class.html

For example, if a U.S. resident spies a delinquent account on their credit report – and seeks to delete it – they are given the run-around.

Once contact has been made, Experian proceeds to exacerbate the complainant’s suffering by making excessive endless demands for proof of identity in a deceitful bold-faced effort to stall-and-delay the process (and ultimately cover-up) their wrongful illegal conduct.

If a debtor points out that pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement with the court of jurisdiction, Experian is required to make the corrections quickly in a prompt professional manner, employees snicker and laugh off the notion.

One telephone operator scoffed in response.

“I can't discuss that lawsuit, Sir! It's pending."

Not!

Experian settled to avoid further scrutiny!

In fact, any bold-faced efforts to discuss the litigation titled  – White, et al vs. Experian Information Services, et al - may result in a hang-up!

Although Experian is supposed to simply report credit data, it is evident from their highly questionable business practices, that they are in “cahoots” with credit grantors (and doing their bidding).

Just try to erase an account one of their “clients” alleges is true and correct!

And, in spite of the fact an individual who is denied credit is entitled to a copy of their credit report for free - Experian attempts to foist a fee ($7.00) on unsuspecting victims who are not familiar with the binding laws of the land in respect to credit reporting practices.

Experian is also guilty of “damaging” an individual’s credit rating by virtue of a fraud alert system they have instituted which confuses Credit grantors.

For instance, if a debtor has been a victim of Identity Theft, they may instruct Experian (and the other two credit bureaus) to post a FRAUD ALERT on their credit report which requires a company double-check the applicant’s request for credit by contacting the individual personally.

However, there are two problems with this practice.

In the event an individual applies for a credit card online, the Bank may generate a “pop up” questionnaire which splashes up on the computer screen with a list of questions for the applicant to answer.

For instance, if the individual has a car loan, they may be asked who financed the vehicle, what the monthly payments are, etc.

Unfortunately, on occasion, the credit bureau has the name of the Corporate entity in their records which may be unknown (and not readily available) to the individual.

In that event, the question will be answered incorrectly, and their credit request will summarily be denied.

But, there is a bigger problem which often arises, which is more sinister.

Credit grantors often misconstrue that a FRAUD ALERT on a credit report signals that the applicant has committed “fraud”, at which point, the credit application is not only denied – but, quite possibly – reported to a law enforcement agency!

What a dilemma for the innocent victim to be embroiled in through no fault of their own!

Notwithstanding, it should be noted, that getting a FRAUD ALERT deleted at any one of the three major credit bureaus is next to impossible (in spite of the fact the individual is entitled to have it removed without questions asked pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The nightmare is further heightened when the consumer is forced to deal with incompetent hateful employees (rude, stupid losers, with all the personality of a worm) who have been instructed by upper level management to - “deny” “deny” “deny” - with the specific aim of mitigating their liability for damages (and prevent prosecution for rights violations).

Bottom line?

In view of the fact the three major credit bureaus are continuing to ignore the Fair Credit Reporting Act – and consumer rights – it is obviously that the Federal Trade Commission has no teeth.

A slap in the wrist just doesn’t cut it in the final analysis.

Maybe some heads will have to roll at the Federal Trade Commission before justice is served and the appropriate companies (and individuals) are duly punished.

There outta be a law, Mr. President!

http://www.thetattler.biz




Consumer watchdog has no bite!

Thursday, April 7, 2011

TransUnion...Violates Consumer Rights! Thumbs nose @ Federal Trade Commission!










In spite of being dinged with a class action lawsuit for Violations of Consumer Rights pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act – and agreeing to an out-of-court settlement to compensate Plaintiffs for damages suffered – TransUnion Credit Bureau (and the staff employed at the credit reporting agency) continues to thumb its nose at the Federal Trade Commission (the Government Agency which brought the lawsuit).

Post: 03/22/2011

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2011/03/experian-transunion-equifaxsettle-class.html

For example, if a U.S. resident spies a delinquent account on their credit report – and seeks to delete it – they are given the run-around.

Once contact has been made, TransUnion proceeds to exacerbate the complainant’s suffering by making excessive endless demands for proof of identity in a deceitful bold-faced effort to stall-and-delay the process (and ultimately cover-up) their wrongful illegal conduct.

If a debtor points out that pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement with the court of jurisdiction, TransUnion is required to make the corrections quickly in a prompt professional manner, employees snicker and laugh off the notion.

One telephone operator scoffed in response.

“There was no lawsuit, Sir!"

When a consumer points out they have a copy of the legal paperwork – White, et al vs. Experian Information Services, et al – they quickly change the subject.

Although TransUnion is supposed to simply report credit data, it is evident from their highly questionable business practices, that they are in “cahoots” with credit grantors (and doing their bidding).

Just try to erase an account one of their “clients” alleges is true and correct!

And, in spite of the fact an individual who is denied credit is entitled to a copy of their credit report for free – TransUnion attempts to foist a fee ($7.00) on unsuspecting victims who are not familiar with the binding laws of the land in respect to credit reporting practices.

Trans Union is also guilty of “damaging” an individual’s credit rating by virtue of a fraud alert system they have instituted which confuses Credit grantors.

For instance, if a debtor has been a victim of Identity Theft, they may instruct TransUnion (and the other two credit bureaus) to post a FRAUD ALERT on their credit report which requires a company double-check the applicant’s request for credit by contacting the individual personally.

However, there are two problems with this practice.

In the event an individual applies for a credit card online, the Bank may generate a “pop up” questionnaire which splashes up on the computer screen with a list of questions for the applicant to answer.

For instance, if the individual has a car loan, they may be asked who financed the vehicle, what the monthly payments are, etc.

Unfortunately, on occasion, the credit bureau has the name of the Corporate Entity in their records which may be unknown (and not readily available) to the individual.

In that event, the question will be answered incorrectly, and their credit request will summarily be denied.

But, there is a bigger problem which often arises, which is more sinister.

Credit grantors often misconstrue that a FRAUD ALERT on a credit report signals that the applicant has committed “fraud”, at which point, the credit application is not only denied – but, quite possibly – reported to a law enforcement agency!

What a dilemma for the innocent victim to be embroiled in through no fault of their own!

Notwithstanding, it should be noted, that getting a FRAUD ALERT deleted at any one of the three major credit bureaus is next to impossible (in spite of the fact the individual is entitled to have it removed without questions asked pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The nightmare is further heightened when the consumer is forced to deal with incompetent hateful employees (rude, stupid losers, with all the personality of a worm) who have been instructed by upper level management to - “deny” “deny” “deny” - with the specific aim of mitigating their liability for damages (and prevent prosecution for rights violations).

Bottom line?

In view of the fact the three major credit bureaus are continuing to ignore the Fair Credit Reporting Act – and consumer rights – it is obviously that the Federal Trade Commission has no teeth.

A slap in the wrist just doesn’t cut it in the final analysis.

Maybe some heads will have to roll at the Federal Trade Commission before justice is served and the appropriate companies (and individuals) are duly punished.

There outta be a law, Mr. President!

http://www.thetattler.biz



 
 
TransUnion thumbs nose at Consumer Watchdog!
 

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Experian, TransUnion & Equifax...settle class-action lawsuit! Violations of FCRA persist!








Claimants in a class-action lawsuit (filed by the Federal Trade Commission on their behalf) received notices by U.S. Post this week requesting that supporting documentary evidence be submitted to the Court (by a March 31st deadline) with the express purpose of calculating "Actual Damage Awards" for individual Plaintiffs named in the pending legal action now that an out-of-court settlement has been reached.

As I reported in a prior post a few months ago, the Federal Trade Commission brought the litigation against the defendants - Experian, TransUnion & Equifax - to compensate aggrieved parties for damages they suffered due to flagrant Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act at the three major credit bureaus.

Post: 10/10/2009

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2009/10/experiantrans-union-equifax-nts.html

In the moving papers - "White, et al v. Experian Information Solutions - the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants posted false, misleading, and erroneous data on their credit profiles which resulted in - a denial of credit, loss of potential employment, right to tenancy on rental properties, rejection of car loan applications, and poor credit ratings - all to their damage.

In spite of being "noticed" of the errors - all of the three defendants not only failed to delete the false information - but proceeded to willfully and wrongfully engaged in a conspiracy to cover-up their Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Ultimately, the legal rights of Americans around the country were violated at whim and with little regard for the law of the land (or any remorse for their misdeeds, either).

Pursuant to the out-of-court settlement agreement, the dollar amount that will be paid for "Convenience" and "Actual Damage Award" claims will depend on the total number of claims validated by the office of the Settlement Administrator (appointed by the Court). 

The amount of the awards to be paid with respect to each category of "Actual Damage" claims will be increased or decreased, pro rata, to reflect the number of valid claims in each category.

Given the response rate to the prior "Notice of Settlement" (mailed by U.S. Post), and the number of Class Members who may qualify for Actual Damage Awards, and depending on the number of claimants who file claims that meet the criteria, Actual Damage Awards are estimated to range between $150 and $750 for denial of employment claims, between $100 and $500 for mortgage or rental denial claims, and between $30 and $150 for claims based on other credit-related claims. 

Depending on the number of claimants who file claims that meet the criteria for Actual Damage Awards, Convenience Awards are estimated to range between $15 and $35.

Claimants (plaintiffs in the class action suit) may elect to "opt out" of the settlement offer and pursue their own personal litigation in the appropriate court of jurisdiction.

For those Class Members who previously made a claim for an Actual Damage Award, the Court has extended the deadline to opt out (request exclusion from) or object to the settlement (including Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and costs which may be found on the settlement-offer website:

 www.bankruptcydischargesettlement.com

To opt out, parties must send a written request to:

White, et al v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
Attn: Exclusion Requests
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 9517
Dublin, OH
43017-4817

All requests must include the plaintiff's full name, address, telephone number, signature, and a specific statement noting the request to "opt out".

Detailed instructions on how to prepare a "Notice" to opt out are provided on the website also.

Claimants may be well-advised to "opt out" and pursue their own litigation to avoid being bound by the terms of the agreement - especially in the event future violations persist - which may warrant additional recovery of damages.

For example, in recent days, claimants have lamented that - in spite of the out-of-court settlement - all three defendants (Experian, TransUnion & Equifax) have continued to post false, misleading, and/or erroneous information on their credit reports (in spite of promises to the court to refrain from doing so in the future).
Undoubtedly, the big brass at the credit bureaus are not unlike giant corporations around the country - who, when push comes to shove - elect to take the easiest route out to save their precious a**es!

Obviously, the FTC settlement is a mere slap on the wrist, in the overall scheme of things.

I say, haul 'the culprits into the town square, and string 'em up by the balls.

And, I'll be standing in line to tar 'n feather the deceitful low-life bastards, alongside the rest of 'ya!

Mr. President, there outta be a law!

http://www.thetattler.biz





FTC filed class-action suit on behalf of consumers!

Friday, August 27, 2010

Merck...dragged into Bribery probe by Government!




Because of a flurry of engagements - and travel in-and-out of town - I was a little remiss in updating some news alerts on Merck.

Last year, I reported on the landmark settlement claim Merck entered into with claimants, and complaint issues fielded my way by disgruntled Merck users who felt that the attorneys for the drug manufacturer were giving complainants the run-around.

Needless to say, it was quite a high-spirited dialogue, at both the WordPress and Blogspot sites where my posts were published.

Post:  02/02/10

http://julian1st.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/vioxx-settlementa-fraud-perpetrated-on-the-american-people-by-merck-lawyers/

Post: 08/07/09

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2009/08/vioxx80-million-dollar-settlement.

Now it appears that Merck is in hot water with the Government in respect to alleged acts of bribery.

The giant in the pharmaceutical industry has acknowledged being in receipt of inquiry letters from the Department of Justice and the Security and Exchange Commission.

Pursuant to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, information is actively being sought arising from Merck's business dealings with a number of countries overseas.

Merck - although cooperating with the authorities - shrugs off the finger-pointing as part of a broader probe that is focusing on the dubious Pharmaceutical practices of foreign companies which they have been allegedly dragged into by virtue of innocent daily business transactions.

News at 11!





Sunday, March 15, 2009

MRI scans...pending class-action lawsuit! Contrast agent gadolinium causes Neprhrogenic systemic fibrosis & death...


High-powered lawyers are gearing up for a class-action lawsuit against hospitals who used a "contrast agent" when conducting an MRI scan on patients in the last five years.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (NMRI) is primarily a technique used in radiology to visualize the internal structure and function of the body.

An MRI scan provides much greater contrast between various soft tissues in the body than others such as computed tomography (CT).

For this reason, medical professionals find an MRI scan particularly useful in neurological (brain), musculoskeletal cardiovascular and oncological (cancer) imaging.

The MRI does not facilitate ionizing radiation; instead, it uses a powerful magnetic field to align the nuclear magnetization of hydrogen atoms in water in the body.

Radiofrequency fields, according to my sources, are used to systematically alter the alignment of this magnetization which cause the hydrogen nuclei to produce a rotating magnetic field detectable by the scanner.

This signal can be manipulated by additional magnetic fields to build up enough information to construct an image of the body.

During some MRI scans (and all MRA scans) a gadolinium-based contrast agent is injected into the patient's vein so blood vessels can be distinguished from other nearby tissues.

Lawyers and research staff studying the effects of the gadolinium-based contrast agent on the human body have informed me that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued two Public Health Advisories about a new skin disorder known as Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis or Nephrogenic Fibrosing Dermotherapy (NSF/NFD) which may develop in the event a patient ingested the agent for an MRI scan.

The disease is debilitating and may cause death.

Some of the symptoms include red or dark patches and/or a woody feeling on the skin, contracting and locking joints, skin lesions, and yellow papules ( or plaques) on or near the eyes.

At the current time, NSF/NFD is believed to develop over a period of days to several weeks.

Patients with NSF/NFD describe swelling and tightening of the skin, usually limited to the extremities, but sometimes involving the trunk.

In many cases, the skin thickening inhibits the flexion and extension of joints, resulting in contractures.

Severely affected patients may be unable to walk, or fully extend the joints of their arms, hands, legs, and feet.

Complaints of muscle weakness are common.

Other organs might be affected, including the lungs, liver, muscles, and heart.

About 5 percent of patients have very rapid and progressive disease development and some patients may die.

What is NSF/NFD?

Neprhrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) / Nephrogenic Fibrosing Dermopathy (NFD) is an emerging systemic disorder characterized by widespread tissue fibrosis.

NFS/NFD was not known to the medical community before March 1997 and some medical authors suggest that the sudden occurrence of the disease in the last 8 years makes it likely that a new agent or technique of examination causes it.

Currently, there is no effective treatment available for NSF/NFD.

Based on recent research, NSF/NFD occurs only in patients with advanced or in end stage kidney disease and is strongly related to the use of gadolinium dyes for MRI scans.

At this time, there are no known cases of NSF/NFD in patients with normal kidney function.

Currently, little is known about NSF/NFD.

However, due to recent studies, the association is so strong that both the FDA and the company that makes gadodiamide have sent out warnings about the use of gadolinum-containing contrast in patients with advanced kidney disease.

In view of the foregoing, a class-action lawsuit may be filed in the near future on behalf of the patients who have been stricken by the disorder, with the ultimate aim of recovering compensation for damages.

http://www.julianayrs.com