Consumer Protection Massey, Stotser & Nichols P.C. Attorneys Birmingham Alabama

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Banks Reorder Transactions & Consumers Pay Insufficient Fund Fees
Posted by: Micah Adkins
August 24, 2009

Several nationwide class actions have been filed against some of the countries largest banking associations. The named plaintiffs allege the banks' practice of reordering electronic transactions is deceptive and illegal, despite the banks' customer agreements that state they can process customers' transactions in any order. So what's the big deal?

The following is an example of how banks are making millions of dollars by reordering customer transactions. Johnny and his family live paycheck to paycheck. Johnny makes his money the old fashion way, hard work and sweat at the local factory, and he gets paid every two weeks when his employer electronically deposits his check with his bank, Bank X. Its tough for Johnny and his family to pay all of their bills and expenses, and more often than not, Johnny's paycheck is not enough to make ends meet. Johnny's bank, Bank X, on the other hand, makes money the easy way, insufficient fund fees. Its quick, easy, and sweat free! While Johnny makes $15 per hour, Bank X has found a way to make $35 in less than one second!

For example, its Thursday Johnny has a balance of $200 in his Bank X checking account. Johnny started his morning like he does every Thursday, gassed up his truck, $50, and picks up a sausage biscuit and coffee, $5, for breakfast on his way to work. Later that same day, while on lunch break, Johnny picks up a burger and soda, $8, the family's laundry from the cleaners, $35, and a birthday card for his grandmother, $4. After Johnny gets home from work, he takes his wife and three kids out for dinner, $65, then to the movies, $60. All 7 transactions were made with Johnny's Bank X debit card and all 7 transactions were made on Thursday.

The total charges for Thursday total $ 227.00. As a result, his account is overdrawn on Friday. One would think that Johnny might expect one $35 overdraft fee for the insufficient funds and have an ending negative balance of $-62 ($27 overdraft + 35 insufficient fund fee) for the day, but instead Johnny is shocked to discover he has $105.00 in insufficient fund fees and has an ending negative balance of $-132.00. In other words, his checking account was debited by Bank X for three $35 overdraft fees. How? After all, he expected his account to be overdrawn by $23.00, but not according to Bank X's records.

While Johnny's transactions were made electronically throughout the day in the following order: $50; $5; $8; $35; $4; $65; and $60, Bank X has reordered the transactions from largest to smallest. Here is the order in which Bank X reorders Johnny's debit card transactions for the day: $65; $60; $50; $35; $8; $5; and $4. Johnny's account is now overdrawn after the fourth transaction, and he incurs $35 in overdraft fees for the next three transactions. Had Bank X processed the transaction in the order in which they were actually made, Johnny would have been charged $35 for one insufficient fund fee. Instead, Bank X charged Johnny's account $105.00 in overdraft fees!

Sound familiar? If your bank has reordered your transactions or your bank has delayed posting deposits to your account and you have incurred overdraft fees, you need to contact attorney Micah Adkins.

Permalink

FDA WARNS OF HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH E-CIGARETTES
Posted by: Micah Adkins
August 04, 2009

The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") has issued a warning to consumers about the potential health risks associated with the use of electronic smoking devices ("e-cigarettes"). According to the FDA, the battery operated e-cigarettes are designed to be used like a traditional tobacco packed cigarette and are sold without any age restrictions. While the products do not contain tobacco, the products may contain ingredients that are known to be toxic for humans.

The FDA has expressed concerns that the use of e-cigarettes will increase nicotine addiction among young children and will ultimately lead to the consumption of other tobacco products. After all, the e-cigarettes are being sold in kid friendly flavors, chocolate, mint and strawberry.

The e-cigarettes are not packaged with warnings like you would find on a traditional pack of cigarettes. One FDA sampling of the e-cigarettes in its lab revealed diethylene glycol (active ingredient found in anti-freeze) and carcinogens. Currently, the FDA is involved in litigation regarding the FDA's ability to regulate the e-cigarettes under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

If you or a loved one have used an e-cigarette and suffered catastrophic injury and required hospitalization, your legal rights may have been violated. Contact attorney Micah Adkins for a free consultation.

Attachments:
ecigarettes_0709.pdf

Permalink

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT NOTICE - SURIN & THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT
Posted by: Micah Adkins
July 06, 2009

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT NOTICE

If you are a consumer who used a credit card or debit card to make a purchase at Surin West, Surin of Thailand, Mountain Brook or Surin 280 between December 4, 2006, and September 28, 2007 and you were provided an electronically printed credit card or debit card receipt containing more than the last five digits of your credit or debit card num- ber, you should read this notice. Your legal rights may be affected. This notice pertains to three class action lawsuits, Thomason v. Surin of Thailand, Mountain Brook, Inc., CV-07-SLB-1710-S, Kanakis v Surin 280, LLC, CV-07-SLB-1711-S, and Iradji v. Surin West, Inc., CV-07-SLB- 1712-S, In The U.S. District Court, for the Northern District of Alabama.

The lawsuits allege that the Defendants willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by providing consumers with credit card and debit card receipts containing more than the last five digits of the credit card or debit card numbe rs. The Defendant denies that it willfully violated any laws. The Plaintiffs do not allege any actual damages as a result of the alleged FACTA violations. The parties agreed to a settlement to avoid the uncertainty and the costs of a trial and to provide benefits to class members. The defendants have agreed take additional measures to ensure compliance with the FACTA provisions pertaining to the truncations of the credit card account numbers and the expiration dates on receipts provided to consumers.

The Defendants will also provide a minimum of 50,000 vouchers. Each Class Member will be entitled to one voucher, which will be good for one order of pot stickers, one order of crab angels, one bowl of hot and sour soup or one bowl of coconut soup. The proposed settlement also provides that each of the 3 named plaintiffs will receive a $2,000.00 incentive fee ($6,000.00 total).

The Court has appointed as Class Counsel Micah S. Adkins and Richard A. Bearden of the law firm MASSEY, STOTSER & NICHOLS, P.C. and Archie C. Lamb of THE LAMB FIRM, LLC. Class counsel have requested a fee of $100,000.00. Class Counsel's fee will be paid by the Defendants. The Defendants are represented by David R. Donaldson of DONALDSON & GUIN, LLC and C. Lee Reeves of SIROTE & PERMUTT, P.C.

You are not responsible for any attorney fees, unless you decide to hire your own lawyer. You do not need to do anything to participate in the Settlement other than coming to one of the restaurants and asking for a free voucher. You have the right to object to the Settlement by filing an objection on or before July 21, 2009 with the Clerk of Court at the following address:

Hugo L. Black United States Courthouse 1729 5th Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203

If you file a timely objection, you will have the right to appear at the hearing scheduled on August 5, 2009 at 10:00 at which time the Court will consider final approval of the settlement. The hearing may be rescheduled without further notice.

For additional information or copies of the settlement agreement and other documents, please visit http://www.surinwest.com/classaction or http://www.surinofthailand.com/classaction.

Source: Published in The Birmingham News

Permalink

SWIFT TRUCKING & SWIFT DRIVING ACADEMY DRIVING INVESTIGATION
Posted by: Micah Adkins
April 29, 2009

The Tennessee Department of Safety is notifying various state departments of public safety and transportation, including Alabama, Georgia and Arkansas, that truck drivers that received a commercial drivers license (CDL) from the Swift Driving Academy (located in Middleton, TN) between May 2005 and January 2008, is not valid because the administrator of the skills and driving portion of the examination did not have the proper credentials. As a result of the letter, commercial truck drivers all over the country are being grounded until they can re-apply and re-take their CDL examination.

Click here for Tennessee Department of Safety Media Advisory regarding FBI investigation of Swift.

If you attended the Swift Driving Academy in Middleton, TN between May 2005 and January 2008 and if you would be willing to discuss your experience with us, please contact attorney Micah Adkins.

Permalink

TOY MAKERS PAY $1.8 MILLION TO SETTLE TOXIC LEAD LAWSUIT
Posted by: Micah Adkins
December 08, 2008

The Los Angeles Times (Marc Lifsher) is reporting a $ 1.8 million settlement has been reached between the State of California and Mattel Inc. (including Fisher-Price Inc.), RC2 Corp., A&A Global Industries Inc., Cranium Inc., Eveready Battery Co., Marvel Entertainment Inc., Toy Investments Inc., Kids II Inc. and Amscan Inc. The settlement was reached after the State of California and the City of Los Angeles filed suit against the toy makers for placing toys into the market place with unsafe levels of lead.

The toy makers will also have to pay over $1.5 million to test toys for lead, improve future recalls, civil penalties, costs and attorneys' fees. In return, the toy makers agreed to reformulate their products to ensure compliance with federal law.

Full Story

If you or a loved one have purchased or have been harmed by a product containing lead, contact consumer protection attorney Micah Adkins for a free case evaluation.

Permalink

Childrens Bags Recalled - Excessive Levels of Lead
Posted by: Micah Adkins
September 07, 2008

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (USCPSC) issued a recall for almost 1 million accessory bags marketed to children. The recall includes products marketed under the brand name "Bonne Bell" and "Smackers."

The following model names and UPC numbers (located on the hangtag) were recalled because of excessive levels of lead:

SMACKERS Sweet Treats Collection UPC 0 50051 50575 7
SMACKERS Sparkle & Shine Collection UPC 0 50051 50576 4
SMACKERS Glam It Up Collection UPC 0 50051 50577 1
BONNEBELL Natural Neutrals Collection UPC 0 50051 22640 9
BONNEBELL Pretty Pinks Collection UPC 0 50051 22641 6
BONNEBELL Fresh Pinks Collection UPC 0 50051 22642 3
BONNEBELL Glamorous Neutrals Collection UPC 0 50051 22643 0

The products were sold at retail stores nationwide and Bonne Bell's Web site between September 2007 through August 2008 for about $9. Full Press Release

Picture of Recalled Bonne Bell Children's Cosmetics Accessory Bags

Micah Adkins is dedicated to helping consumers, especially children. Children's toys containing excessive levels of lead can be dangerous if ingested. If you purchased a toy for your child between September 2007 through August 2008 you may be entitled to join a potential class action lawsuit.

You can also contact Micah Adkins at Massey, Stotser & Nichols.

Permalink