Frito-Lay Lawsuit Claims 'All-Natural' Label Misleading

A Frito-Lay lawsuit asserts some of the company's "all-natural" claims are misleading, and the proof is in the genes.

Frito-Lay's so-called "all-natural" Tostitos and SunChips actually contain ingredients made from genetically modified plants, the lawsuit alleges. A New York man filed the suit, which is seeking class-action status and damages estimated to exceed $5 million, Reuters reports.

Frito-Lay, owned by PepsiCo, charges consumers about 10 cents more per ounce for its allegedly "all-natural" Tostitos and SunChips, the lawsuit contends. But scientific tests revealed the "all-natural" chips contained corn and vegetable oils derived from genetically modified plants.

Consumers who were misled by Frito-Lay's labeling deserve compensation, the Frito-Lay lawsuit suggests.

"Since a reasonable consumer assumes that seeds created [by genetic engineering] are not 'all natural,' advertising Tostitos and SunChips as natural is deceptive and likely to mislead a reasonable consumer," the lawsuit asserts, according to Reuters.

The Frito-Lay lawsuit is likely based on a theory of tortious misrepresentation -- when a person is somehow hurt by relying on false or misleading information conveyed by a product's manufacturer. A plaintiff's recovery doesn't depend on a product defect, but rather the manufacturer's allegedly misleading communication.

If the "all-natural" claim is shot down, Frito-Lay still may not be required to disclose the allegedly gene-altered ingredients. Currently, foods containing such ingredients do not have to be labeled, according to the Food and Drug Administration. But the Center for Food Safety has petitioned the FDA to change that rule, The Wall Street Journal reports. The petition is under review.

This week's Frito-Lay lawsuit is the second to accuse the company of deceiving customers by labeling chips as "all natural." A similar suit was filed in federal court in California in December.

Related Resources:

• Frito-Lay chips not 'all natural,' lawsuit says (Reuters)
• Legal Basis for Liability in Product Cases (FindLaw)
• Browse Product Liability Lawyers by Location (FindLaw)
• Monsanto Wins Genetically Modified Seeds Appeal in Fed Circuit (FindLaw's Federal Circuit blog)

Brazilian Blowout Legally Labeled Carcinogenic, Stylists at Risk

Brazilian Blowout will now be labeled as potentially carcinogenic. The move comes after concerns that the popular Brazilian Blowout treatment may emit formaldehyde gas.

Formaldehyde gas may cause side effects in some consumers and salon workers. It can cause nosebleeds, chest pain, vomiting, eye irritation, and other symptoms. Ultimately, it could even lead to cancer.

Despite the risks, the product was initially labeled "formaldehyde free," according to Time. That is why the California attorney general filed a lawsuit. The state believed Brazilian Blowout was improperly advertised.

California sued the hair product company over violations of state law, including deceptive advertising statutes.

GIB, the company that manufactures Brazilian Blowout products, has settled the case. It will now pay the state $600,000 in penalties and fines. The company has also agreed to warn consumers that chemicals in the product can be dangerous.

The products are popular in salons. Women use the procedure to smooth out their curls and frizz. Brazilian Blowout products temporarily smooth hair. It is sealed in using heat.

Customers sometimes wear some safeguards or protections like masks during the procedure. They also are only exposed to the gas only once every few weeks or however often they go in for the smoothing treatment.

The risk is higher for those who work in beauty parlors. Salon workers may be exposed to the gas on a daily basis.

Should customers refrain from getting a Brazilian Blowout because of formaldehyde? It's ultimately their decision. But hopefully, more salon-goers will now be sufficiently warned. Brazilian Blowout's labeling may give consumers the ability to make an informed decision.

• Brazilian blowout case raises safety concerns (CBS)
• OSHA: Brazilian Blowout Contains Formaldehyde (FindLaw's Injured)
• Brazilian Blowout's Cancer Risk from Formaldehyde (FindLaw's Injured)

Aveeno Baby Lotion Recalled Over Bacteria Levels

Johnson & Johnson has announced that one lot of its Aveeno Baby Calming Comfort lotion is being recalled. The baby lotion recall comes after fears that the product contained too much bacteria.

A test run by the Food and Drug Administration sparked the company's move. The test indicated a sample "exceeded specifications for common bacteria," according to Reuters.

The bacteria in question are called coagulase-negative staphylococci. It's naturally-occurring and can be found in a person's skin or scalp.

Johnson & Johnson maintains that they ran another test using an independent laboratory. Those tests showed that the bacteria levels were fine. The company decided to go ahead with the recall out of "an abundance of caution." The company maintains that potential for harm is "remote."

There are no reports that any consumers have been impacted by the bacteria.

The recall encompasses around 2,000 tubes of the lotion. It was sold in nine states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas.

The tubes under recall all have a lot number of 0161LK.

Consumers who purchased baby lotion in the nine states under the voluntary recall should take a few moments to check their products' labeling. The potential for harm may be low, but it wouldn't hurt to be cautious. After all, the Aveeno lotion is meant to be used on an infant.

Customers can call Johnson & Johnson for more information about the baby lotion recall. The company's call center line is 1-877-298-2525. The Aveeno Baby Calming Comfort recall is not the company's only recall in the past few years. Johnson & Johnson has instituted 30 recalls since 2009, reports the AP.

Related Resources:

• Johnson & Johnson recalls 1 lot of Aveeno baby lotion from stores over possible contamination (AP)
• Tylenol Recall: Moldy Smell Prompts Recall of 60,000 Bottles (FindLaw's Common Law)
• DePuy Hip Implants Recalled by Johnson and Johnson (FindLaw's Common Law)
• Rolaids Recall: 13 Million Packages May Have Wood, Metal Particles (FindLaw's Common Law)

Americans Spend $3,000/Year on Lunch, Lattes

That cup of coffee you're sipping right now at work could be setting you back financially. The average U.S. worker spends more than $1,000 a year on java -- on top of another $2,000 a year on lunch, a new survey finds.

In fact, the $3,000 a year that the average U.S. worker spends on lunch and lattes is twice as much as a worker typically spends on commute costs, the survey finds, according to Reuters.

But spending habits seem to differ by gender and by age. For example:

Male workers are more likely to dig into their wallets for lunch. Men spent $47 a week on midday meals, compared to $27 a week for women, according to the survey by Accounting Principles, a division of staffing-services company Adecco SA.

Younger workers spend much more on coffee and lunch than older workers. People 18 to 34 spent about $25 a week on coffee and nearly $45 a week on lunch. They may want to take a cue in thriftiness from their over-45 counterparts, who spent just $14 a week on morning joe and about $32 a week on lunch, the survey found, according to Fox Business.

Not all American workers are willing to sacrifice $3,000 a year for daily coffee and lunch indulgences, however. One-third of employed Americans are diligent enough to pack their lunches, and about one-half of U.S. workers don't buy coffee, according to the survey.

The coffee and lunch spending survey also revealed another difference between the sexes that has nothing to do with money: Men are far more likely to complain about the crummy selection in office vending machines, the study found.

Related Resources:

• Accounting Principals: U.S. workers spend $3,000 a year on lunch, coffee (New Mexico Business Weekly)
• How To Make Thousands Of Extra Dollars While at Work -- If You Can Bear It (Forbes)
• Managing Personal Finances: Overview (FindLaw)

Symantec Warns Users Not to Use pcAnywhere

Don't use Symantec's pcAnywhere. Disable it now.

That's a request from the security software firm itself. The company suspected someone had broken into its network back in 2006, but was unable to confirm it until earlier this month.

Members of hacktivist group Anonymous have recently begun talking publicly about Symantec's source code, which it claims to have stolen. The code affects the 2006 versions of its Norton security software and newer versions of pcAnywhere, which allows users to remotely access their computers.

Symantec is unsure who stole the code, according to Ars Technica. But Anonymous is believed to be in possession and is threatening to release it. The hackers are reportedly seeking retribution and are claiming Symantec tricked users into buying second-rate trial software.

Programmers are working to patch existing vulnerabilities in Symantec's pcAnywhere software, reports PC Mag. Until then, the company has asked consumers to disable the product. If it's absolutely impossible, users should ensure that the latest version, 12.5, is installed and up to date.

Rest assured that Symantec's Norton security products are not at risk, as the source code has been updated in newer versions.

There are also no confirmed attacks connected to the stolen source code, explains Ars Technica. But if released, hackers can engage in man-in-the-middle attacks. They'd gain unauthorized remote use of computers and be able to intercept pcAnywhere traffic.

The only way to prevent such an attack is to disable Symantec's pcAnywhere software. Persons with employer-provided computers should remember to check with IT.

Related Resources:

• Don't use our software, security firm Symantec warns customers (Fox News)
• How do I protect my computer against viruses? (FindLaw)
• Symantec Lawsuit: Fake Scans Scare Consumers Into Buying Anti-Virus Software (FindLaw's Common Law)

Costco Lunch Boxes Recalled: Leaking Freezer Gel is Poisonous

Approximately 248,000 lunch boxes have been recalled by the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission. The Ci Sport lunch boxes come with three pieces including an insulated box, water bottle, and a freezer gel pack.

California Innovations Inc. sold the products in Costco Wholesale Clubs, Leon Korol, and Cost U Less stores between May 2007 and September 2008. The products cost around $10 at the time. It came in several colors including navy/blue, red, black, and denim blue.

The problem is with the gel packs. Damaged freezer gel packs may leak and could be poisonous if ingested. There have been two reports of dogs chewing and ingesting some of the freezer gel. One dog died. The other recovered.

The gel could pose a risk to children and adults if not handled properly, according to Consumer Reports. The gel contains diethylene glycol and ethylene glycol which is dangerous if consumed. Parents with small children should be cautious.

The recalled lunch boxes have the code "1-61731-99-57" printed on a white label inside the box's main compartment.

Consumers are advised to stop using the gel packs at once. Gel packs should be disposed of properly according to your relevant state or local statutes.

The lunch boxes under recall may be returned to Costco for a full refund. Customers may also get a $5 refund for the CI Sport lunch box's gel pack by contacting California Innovations. The company can be reached by phone at (800) 722-2545 or by email at ci-recall@ca-innovations.com. Consumers can also check the company's website at www.californiainnovations.com.

Related Resources:

• Lunch boxes recalled over leaking freezer gel (Reuters)
• Mini Recall: BMW Recalls Nearly 90,000 Minis Over Fire Risk (FindLaw's Common Law)
• O-Grill Recall: Portable Gas Grills Have Leaks, Fire Risks (FindLaw's Common Law)
• Teddy Bear Recall: Build-A-Bear Recalls 300,000 Bears Over Choking Risk (FindLaw's Common Law)

Google's New Privacy Policy Features Very Little Privacy, No Opt Out Option

Google is stalking you. And you'll have no way to stop it after March 1.

Under the newly unveiled Google privacy policy, the site has given itself permission to collect information stored across all of its platforms, including Gmail, YouTube, Google+ and Reader. That information will then be used to create a single user profile.

As of now, the policy includes no way to opt out.

Instead, all signed-in users will receive more personalized results when using Google products. The integration has already begun -- if you conduct a general search, you'll receive personal results for the web and images. Many of the results will reflect your RSS feeds and the preferences of your Google+ friends.

Google believes the integration will improve advertising and user experience, explains the Washington Post. But privacy advocates are concerned. No one signed up for Gmail expecting it to affect what shows up when they search YouTube.

The single personal profile proposed under the new Google privacy policy may also make user information more lucrative to sell.

One should thus expect some legislative scrutiny in the coming weeks. Google reached a privacy settlement with the Federal Trade Commission in April. Though Google Buzz -- the subject of the settlement -- is no longer active, the settlement terms still remain in force.

It requires Google to be up front with users about privacy changes; to implement a comprehensive privacy program; and to conduct independent privacy audits for the next 20 years.

The new Google privacy policy may very well violate these terms. If it does, an opt-out option will be coming soon.

Related Resources:

• What Google’s privacy changes will mean for you (Digital Trends)
• Online Safety for Kids (FindLaw)
• Google Sued Over Street View Data Decking (FindLaw's Common Law)

Can Apps Stop Your Teen from Texting While Driving?

Teenagers text everywhere they go. They text in class, at home, and sometimes even when they drive. Now there are new technologies and apps that may stop texting while driving. One product, called Cellcontrol, is relatively cheap. It is also potentially life-saving.

Cellcontrol costs about $7.95 a month for up to six phones, reports USA Today . It blocks use of cell phones while driving. Users install a small device into their car. The device will make your cell phone "lock up" when it detects movement. This means you can't text or browse the net.

You will only be permitted to make emergency calls until the car comes to a stop.

Cellcontrol is only one of many products that aim to curb distracted driving. There is software that specifically uses a car's GPS or Bluetooth to detect driving. There are also detection and jamming products that lock cell phone keys while a car is moving.

Texting while driving is against the law in many states. But even if there is no specific texting law in your jurisdiction, it could still be illegal. Texting while driving could amount to distracted driving, which is illegal in many jurisdictions.

Distracted driving is a growing issue. Fatal accidents that involve texting drivers have caused thousands of deaths. A study showed there were about 16,000 fatalities that could be attributed to texting between the years 2002 and 2007.

And this figure might be underreporting the problem. Oftentimes police officers need to rely on a driver's word when they investigate crashes.

Should parents invest in technology and apps that stop texting while driving like Cellcontrol? It's ultimately their decision to make. It could help prevent accidents if used properly.

Related Resources:

• Apps target distracted driving problem (UPI)
• Texting While Driving (FindLaw)
• Authorities: Texting While Driving Ban Tough to Enforce (FindLaw Blotter)
• Pew Survey: Who is Texting While Driving Now? (FindLaw's Injured)

The Top 15 U.S. Hospital Systems

Thomson Reuters has released the names of the nation's top 15 hospital systems, according to a news brief. The results are included in the organization's fourth annual study of U.S. health care systems.

Researchers analyzed quality of care; patient perception of care; efficiency; length of stay; mortality rates; and patient safety. Only U.S. health systems with more than two non-federal hospitals were considered.

The results are broken down into three comparison groups based on the total operating expense of each system (TOE):

Large Health Systems (more than $1.5 billion in TOE)

• Banner Health, Phoenix, AZ
• CareGroup Healthcare System, Boston, MA
• Jefferson Health System, Radnor, PA
• Memorial Hermann Healthcare System, Houston, TX
• St. Vincent Health, Indianapolis, IN

Medium Health Systems ($750 million - $1.5 million in TOE)

• Baystate Health, Springfield, MA
• Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA
• HCA Central and West Texas Division, Austin, TX
• Mission Health System, Asheville, NC
• Prime Healthcare Services, Ontario, CA

Small Health Systems (less than $750 million in TOE)

• Baptist Health, Montgomery, AL
• Maury Regional Healthcare System, Columbia, TN
• Poudre Valley Health System, Fort Collins, CO
• Saint Joseph Regional Health System, Mishawaka, IN
• Tanner Health System, Carrolton, GA

Overall, the nation's top hospital systems boast a lower 30-day post-discharge mortality rate; 17% fewer deaths than expected; fewer complications; shorter hospital stays; and better adherence to patient safety mechanisms.

If you live nearby, it might be time to switch hospitals.

[Disclaimer: Thomson Reuters owns FindLaw, the publisher of this blog.]

Related Resources:

• Patient Safety: Doctors Still Kill 100K Yearly (FindLaw's Injured)
• Katrina Lawsuit: Pandora's Box of Hospital Liability (FindLaw's Injured)
• USC: Kidney Put in Wrong Patient by LA Hospital (FindLaw's Injured)

Zappos, Amazon Sued Over Hack

A Texas woman has sued Zappos and parent company Amazon over a weekend incident that left 24 million Zappos customers exposed. Hackers accessed a Zappos server housed in Kentucky, stealing customer names, phone numbers and email addresses.

The Zappos class action alleges the website does not have adequate procedures to protect user information as required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The company is also accused of being negligent and breaching user privacy.

It's unclear what effect the hack will have on Zappos customers, as PC World reports no credit card information was obtained. Users were only asked to change their passwords, including those used across the web.

Attorneys for the plaintiff claim the breach will still result in identify theft. The theory is that customers will receive more spam mail that includes links to spoof websites. If accessed, those websites can potentially steal critical private information.

Such large-scale security breaches tend to result in legal action, so the Zappos class action is no surprise. What is surprising is that weak security measures persist on sites that collect private information.

Last year's Sony PlayStation and Epsilon hacks exposed over 100 million people to potential fraud. And a hacker stole 130 million credit and debit card numbers in 2009. Why do such breaches continue to occur?

And why hasn't the government done anything about it? There were a few congressional hearings on the PlayStation breach, but nothing more. Do we need tougher data security laws? Or are lawsuits like the Zappos class action continue unpreventable?

Related Resources:

• Zappos, Amazon Sued Over Customer Data Breach (Associated Press)
• Detecting Identity Theft (FindLaw)
• Sony Sued Over PlayStation Network Hack (FindLaw's Injured)