The Oregon Consumer Identity Theft Protection Act, Oregon 2007 Laws, Chapter 759, §§1-18, now provides greater protection to Oregon consumers. Before passage of the 2007 Act, Oregon businesses were not required to notify consumers when someone without authorization accessed the personal information. The legislation passed in the wake of Providence Health System’s loss of computerized patient records on more than 300,000 patients. Full disclosure: Paul & Sugerman represent consumers affected by the Providence data loss.
Under the Act, Oregon businesses must take steps to protect consumers’ personal information. While there is leeway for small businesses, the Act provides that businesses employing more than 50 people must take significant steps to protect consumer information. Oregon businesses have to be especially careful about not publishing or otherwise disclosing social security numbers, except when they are otherwise required by state or federal law.
The new law provides that when a business suffers a security breach affecting consumers’ personal information, the business must take certain steps to notify various entities. While the details may vary, businesses generally must notify law enforcement, consumers and credit reporting agencies.
Best of all, Section 4 allows consumers to place a security freeze on their consumer reports by sending a written request to consumer reporting agencies. You may be charged a fee for this service, and proper identification will be required, as well.
It’s not the best statute. Violations are enforced by State, and whether they will be enforced at all depends on government officials. But it’s better than what we have, and it at least provides some important protections for consumers, as long as the State makes it real through necessary enforcement.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Consumer Products Safety Commission Fails Consumers
It’s like the we’re living a Groundhog Day existence. Today’s news—November 6, 2007—brings us yet another Mattel recall of over a hundred thousand dangerous toys. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Nancy Nord, has been accused of a range of abuses while serving as the head of the agency that protects children from dangerous toys.
Ms. Nord actually opposed Congressional efforts to add funding to CPSC. She now says that she wasn’t really opposed to additional funding. Instead, she opposed the bill that would strengthen protections for agency whistleblowers and that would make it easier to publicize dangerous products. Here is the link to a media report: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21653084/
Her explanation of why she opposes funding is awful. A whistleblower is someone inside who complains to outside authorities, when an agency fails to properly do its work. It seems that Ms. Nord is opposed to protecting those employees who would speak out when people in her position fail to protect our children. And the opposition to publicizing unsafe products is even worse. If a product is unsafe, those of us with children would want to know. After all, we’re supposed to take responsibility for protecting our children. But if secrecy rules keep information from consumers, how can we do that.
Ms. Nord was an unfortunate political appointment to the head of the CPSC. And for this, it appears that we will relive Groundhog Day because CPSC has failed to protect our children. She would do all of us a favor by either taking seriously her mission or—better—resigning to let someone take over the job who puts consumers first.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Ms. Nord actually opposed Congressional efforts to add funding to CPSC. She now says that she wasn’t really opposed to additional funding. Instead, she opposed the bill that would strengthen protections for agency whistleblowers and that would make it easier to publicize dangerous products. Here is the link to a media report: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21653084/
Her explanation of why she opposes funding is awful. A whistleblower is someone inside who complains to outside authorities, when an agency fails to properly do its work. It seems that Ms. Nord is opposed to protecting those employees who would speak out when people in her position fail to protect our children. And the opposition to publicizing unsafe products is even worse. If a product is unsafe, those of us with children would want to know. After all, we’re supposed to take responsibility for protecting our children. But if secrecy rules keep information from consumers, how can we do that.
Ms. Nord was an unfortunate political appointment to the head of the CPSC. And for this, it appears that we will relive Groundhog Day because CPSC has failed to protect our children. She would do all of us a favor by either taking seriously her mission or—better—resigning to let someone take over the job who puts consumers first.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Monday, November 5, 2007
Mattel Toy Lead Problem: No Surprise
Media reports from the last few months provide rich coverage of the near-daily revelations about lead paint in kids toys. The problem is one of lax oversight. In the waning years of the last century, politicians and various experts convinced American consumers that regulation was bad and deregulation was good. Maybe it’s a little too simple to say, “All regulation bad; all deregulation good.” Case in point: the toy problem.
The dangers of lead paint have been well-known to the medical community and public health officials for decades. Ingested lead is particularly dangerous to children, who can take it in and store it in their bodies. Lead is a toxin that causes injury to the brain and nervous system. It’s bad stuff, and we’ve known it for years.
Consumer safety advocates have focused on childhood lead paint poisoning arising from lead exposure in homes and schools. In the late-1990s, for example, our law firm handled a lead paint exposure case for a young child injured by exposure.
The point is that manufacturers and government agencies have known for years that lead is dangerous to children. But no one checked the Mattel toys.
Our public health system is set up in such a way that there is little if any advance inspection. As consumers, we assume that manufacturers test their products for safety. Many do, but not all. So the way we learn about a problem is from health reports or product failure reports that wend their way to the proper government agency.
In the case of kids’ toys, that agency is the Consumer Products Safety Commission, or CPSC. The agency has a mixed record to be sure. In the past it has taken action-—albeit slow, late and limited—-in the face of dangerous products. The All-Terrain Vehicle deaths and injuries in the 1980s provide a good case study. Eventually, the CPSC did something, though it took a long time, and its action was less than complete.
But these days, the CPSC’s budget has been slashed. As a result, it lacks the resources to provide surveillance necessary to catch emerging problems like lead-paint covered toys. There is more than a little irony here, as news reports in late October 2007 noted that the appointed head of the CPSC opposed increases in the agency’s budget. Someone should really explain to consumers why the head of CPSC opposes additional funding for product safety.
Maybe that would be a good thing if the agency was operating lean. But when it comes to kid safety, no one wants to see a child get hurt. And lax regulation that allows dangerous toys into our homes is unacceptable. All that is left—unfortunately—is the frustrating tool of a lawsuit to provide lifetime compensation to cover an injured child’s harms and losses. Why would anyone choose a lawsuit over prevention?
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The dangers of lead paint have been well-known to the medical community and public health officials for decades. Ingested lead is particularly dangerous to children, who can take it in and store it in their bodies. Lead is a toxin that causes injury to the brain and nervous system. It’s bad stuff, and we’ve known it for years.
Consumer safety advocates have focused on childhood lead paint poisoning arising from lead exposure in homes and schools. In the late-1990s, for example, our law firm handled a lead paint exposure case for a young child injured by exposure.
The point is that manufacturers and government agencies have known for years that lead is dangerous to children. But no one checked the Mattel toys.
Our public health system is set up in such a way that there is little if any advance inspection. As consumers, we assume that manufacturers test their products for safety. Many do, but not all. So the way we learn about a problem is from health reports or product failure reports that wend their way to the proper government agency.
In the case of kids’ toys, that agency is the Consumer Products Safety Commission, or CPSC. The agency has a mixed record to be sure. In the past it has taken action-—albeit slow, late and limited—-in the face of dangerous products. The All-Terrain Vehicle deaths and injuries in the 1980s provide a good case study. Eventually, the CPSC did something, though it took a long time, and its action was less than complete.
But these days, the CPSC’s budget has been slashed. As a result, it lacks the resources to provide surveillance necessary to catch emerging problems like lead-paint covered toys. There is more than a little irony here, as news reports in late October 2007 noted that the appointed head of the CPSC opposed increases in the agency’s budget. Someone should really explain to consumers why the head of CPSC opposes additional funding for product safety.
Maybe that would be a good thing if the agency was operating lean. But when it comes to kid safety, no one wants to see a child get hurt. And lax regulation that allows dangerous toys into our homes is unacceptable. All that is left—unfortunately—is the frustrating tool of a lawsuit to provide lifetime compensation to cover an injured child’s harms and losses. Why would anyone choose a lawsuit over prevention?
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Taking Back Our Constitution
Gracious, yesterday was one of those rare days that restores your faith in the future of our nation. Here in Portland, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken issued her opinion in the Brandon Mayfield case, finding parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional.
Hats off to Mr. Mayfield for pursuing justice and his attorneys Gerry Spence, Elden Rosenthal, and Michelle Longo. As well, to a courageous judge who did not shirk her duty. Judge Aiken found that many provisions of the Patriot Act violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure.
Unfortunately, this is a first round. It's hard to imagine that the government won't appeal. The issues here are critically important. Whether it's in this case or some other, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to weigh in. Can't say that I'm optimistic that the Supreme Court will be as clear-headed as Judge Aiken.
I suppose some might think that the judge was wrong. The argument goes that we have to be willing to make sacrifices when public safety or the national security interests are in play. It's not a bad argument, really, but Mr. Mayfield's terrible saga shows what happens when we sacrifice fundamental rights for public safety or the like.
The truth is that it's not easy living in a society that protects the rights of individuals. We have to be clear about that. Even so, we need to take that hard road because there is too much at stake. Unchecked governmental power is a very dangerous thing, even if it seems like the safe thing to do. So while it's not easy, if we're to live in the America that we value, we have to honor those precious fundamental rights set out in the constitution.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Hats off to Mr. Mayfield for pursuing justice and his attorneys Gerry Spence, Elden Rosenthal, and Michelle Longo. As well, to a courageous judge who did not shirk her duty. Judge Aiken found that many provisions of the Patriot Act violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure.
Unfortunately, this is a first round. It's hard to imagine that the government won't appeal. The issues here are critically important. Whether it's in this case or some other, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to weigh in. Can't say that I'm optimistic that the Supreme Court will be as clear-headed as Judge Aiken.
I suppose some might think that the judge was wrong. The argument goes that we have to be willing to make sacrifices when public safety or the national security interests are in play. It's not a bad argument, really, but Mr. Mayfield's terrible saga shows what happens when we sacrifice fundamental rights for public safety or the like.
The truth is that it's not easy living in a society that protects the rights of individuals. We have to be clear about that. Even so, we need to take that hard road because there is too much at stake. Unchecked governmental power is a very dangerous thing, even if it seems like the safe thing to do. So while it's not easy, if we're to live in the America that we value, we have to honor those precious fundamental rights set out in the constitution.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Providence Employee's Whistleblower Lawsuit
As reported in local media outlets, Steven Shields filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit against Providence Health Systems. As was widely reported at the time, Mr. Shields was the Providence employee who had possession of computer data stolen from his car. The computer data contained confidential patient records on hundreds of thousands of Providence patients.
The case is of special interest because Paul & Sugerman represents the proposed class in the patients' pending case against Providence Health System, related to loss of the patient information. As of this writing, Providence's motion to dismiss is pending in court in the patients' case.
Mr. Shields claims to have been discharged for reporting the data theft to the police. He is represented by Portland attorney Kevin Keaney.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The case is of special interest because Paul & Sugerman represents the proposed class in the patients' pending case against Providence Health System, related to loss of the patient information. As of this writing, Providence's motion to dismiss is pending in court in the patients' case.
Mr. Shields claims to have been discharged for reporting the data theft to the police. He is represented by Portland attorney Kevin Keaney.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Friday, August 31, 2007
Oregon E. coli Outbreak-Interstate Meat Disrtibutors, Inc.
Yesterday, state and federal officials warned consumers about tainted ground beef from Interstate Meat Distributors, Inc. Over 40,000 lbs of ground beef were implicated. Incredibly, NO recall notice will be issued because the meat is now three weeks past the end of its shelf life.
Somehow that seems extremely irresponsible, as many of us put ground beef in the freezer.
Early information from various websites indicates that the alert covers ground beef sold under the "Northwest Finest" brand. The following products are included in the alert:
1. 16-ounce packages of "Northwest Finest 7% FAT, NATURAL GROUND BEEF." The label bears a UPC code of 752907 600127;
2. 16-ounce packages of "Northwest Finest 10% FAT, Organic GROUND BEEF." No UPC code is available.
It's worth checking the freezer, as no one should eat this stuff.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Somehow that seems extremely irresponsible, as many of us put ground beef in the freezer.
Early information from various websites indicates that the alert covers ground beef sold under the "Northwest Finest" brand. The following products are included in the alert:
1. 16-ounce packages of "Northwest Finest 7% FAT, NATURAL GROUND BEEF." The label bears a UPC code of 752907 600127;
2. 16-ounce packages of "Northwest Finest 10% FAT, Organic GROUND BEEF." No UPC code is available.
It's worth checking the freezer, as no one should eat this stuff.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
More Spinach Woes--Salmonella
News reports today include the announcement of another recall--this time California spinach for salmonella. Metz Fresh LLC (King City, CA.) announced the recall earlier today. The recalled bagged fresh spinach was distributed throughout the U.S. and Canada. The recall covers 10 oz and 16 oz bags, plus 4 lb. pound cartons and cartons that contain four 2.5 lb. bags. According to media reports, here are the relevant tracking codes: 12208114, 12208214 and 12208314.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
