Scams and Near Scams

Prepaid cards: It seems like once a week network news comes along with the story of a person, usually elderly, who has lost money to a phone or Internet scam. 

They probably use the elderly as examples because they are closer to the age of the people who actually watch network news, but the fact is that they are not the most vulnerable. About a year ago a survey revealed that Millennials are more likely to become the victim of a scam artist than any other generation.

In any case, almost every time, their money disappeared by way of a prepaid card. They may have been informed of a relative in trouble or that they had won some money but had to pay a service charge to collect. The creativity of scammers is remarkable. The caller or e-mailer presented them with the problem and told them to buy and mail a prepaid card to handle the matter.

This should be a clear give-away, a red flag as big as their house, but scammers keep calling until they find a victim. Obvious defenses include not answering the phone unless you recognize the number. Valid callers can always leave a message; scammers rarely do. (This also works as a defense against telemarketers and robo-calls as I have mentioned previously.) Likewise the written return address on an email should correspond with the actual email address that shows up when the cursor moves over it. But the biggest warning sign is the request for a prepaid card. 

Toxins: In all my years of researching miracle drugs in the form of dietary supplements and other health products, I have yet to find one that lists detoxing or cleaning the body of toxins to be legitimate. They do not and cannot prove that there are toxins in the body that the body does not naturally and safely get rid of on its own. The science that debunks all these claims is consistent on that point.

Despite this easily available evidence, the products just keep on coming. They promise to detox your body and magically make you feel so much better. Their celebrity endorsers and satisfied customers back these claims. But always in the fine print at the bottom of the ad is the required paragraph about how none of these claims have been approved by the FDA and how the product is not meant to treat or cure any disease. I even commented a while ago on shoe inserts that somehow had detoxing qualities – by supposedly causing wearers to use the bathroom more often.

This is beyond crazy, but it remains a big business. Detox, like prepaid cards, should be a clear sign of a pending scam. In this case, however, customers can always convince themselves that they really do feel better, but they are still out the money for a product that relies on the power of suggestion rather than on the power of science or real medicine.

Science and the Game of Telephone: When youngsters play telephone, they sit on the floor in a line. The leader whispers a sentence in the ear of the first, who repeats what he’s heard to the second, and so on down the line. When the last person relates what she heard it often bears no resemblance to the initial message. It’s a common analogy for miscommunication, but I recently heard it to explain science reports.

A scientist writes a scholarly article about a real finding. Even if she includes all the possible flaws or conditions that still need to be investigated, by the time it becomes an article for a popular magazine may be downplayed. The next iteration, a short news or “health minute” segment, omits most details. Finally, it hits social media, where all subtlety is lost, but people like and repost without a second thought. 

For example, how many stories have we heard about whether or not breakfast is important? Is it OK to skip it? In 2012 it was declared optional. Around 2014 there were some studies saying skipping it leads to weight gain, and others saying it wouldn’t. One in August 2017 said how important breakfast was for kids. Last year, everyone in a particular study gained weight, but the breakfast eaters gained a little less. This year a study says skipping breakfast is bad for your heart. 

Which study are we to believe? – How about none of them until the scientists actually pin something down. Until then, the news media will continue to report each one that comes along as if it is the definitive answer and social media will keep us all “informed.”

This degradation of scientific findings as they pass down the “telephone line” is not really a scam, but it’s something to be very wary of. Unfortunately too few people research the validity of posts before passing them on.

Read the Fine Print

They seem innocent enough, pads of paper around a display in the aisle at the mall promising a free chance to win the experience of a lifetime – a $59,900 sweepstakes. No purchase is necessary; just fill out the form. It must be very tempting because it looks like about an inch of forms has been torn off from each of six pads.

The forms ask for name, address, phone number, email, age, income, marital status and spouse’s name. That information was once considered somewhat private, but now people apparently are very willing to give it away for free for a chance to win about 60 grand. But they have a better chance to get something else, something much less desirable.

The bottom of the form under the signature line reads: “I consent to receive phone calls, including prerecorded messages and text messages from Promoters at the phone numbers/wireless numbers/addresses above regarding their offers, products and services, including through an automated dialing system.” That’s right, they are voluntarily signing up for the kind of irritating spam messages that everyone is complaining about and demanding action from Congress! They are giving permission to be pestered by robots about time-share opportunities!

Wow! All that personal information must be worth a lot more than $60,000 to the “Promoters.” (The other side of the sheet is filled with terms and conditions in very tiny font.)

Here’s another example. This comes at the end of a 4-page ad in a Sunday newspaper magazine section.

The ad is apparently for a clinic offering addiction recovery services including detoxification. (As soon as I saw reference to detox, I was skeptical; but it acts as a lure for others.)

At the very end of words and pictures showing how wonderful it is, at the very bottom of the page it begins with,  “The images herein are for illustration only.” The images are of happy people. Further on it says that the company “does not guarantee, warrant nor represent successful completion of its program for any of its clients. Results vary by individual, and [the] program may not be suited for everyone.” Then it goes on to say that they might not accept everyone in the program and gives some excuses about why the results for the ones accepted may vary. Finally, the company "is not responsible and expressly disclaims all liability for damages of any kind arising out of use, reference to, or reliance on any information contained in this advertisement.” It directs readers to a website.

Basically, that translates into “maybe and maybe not.” After three-and-a-half pages of happy talk, this is something of a letdown. The company doesn’t promise anything. And they are very adamant about that non-promise. If a client goes through the program and does not get the results expected, it’s not the company’s fault. I would be willing to bet that the first requirement upon entering such a facility is to sign a page or two of documents acknowledging understanding of all their disclaimers.

Part of this song and dance about not being responsible may raise suspicions about the effectiveness of the treatment, but another part must be attributed to a typical reaction among Americans who are disappointed – blame someone else and take them to court. Nevertheless, reading the fine print and all the disclaimers before entering into any agreement leads to better decisions. If it looks too good to be true, guess what.

As the world gets more fast-paced and complex, it becomes of greater importance to pay attention to details. People trying to sell us things, whether it be services, products or ideas, have more tools to trap the unsuspecting and more lawyers to separate them from whatever consequences they may experience for their questionable decisions.

More Government Protection

Today is a day for celebration!  It’s the thirteenth anniversary of the Do Not Call list.  When you put your personal phone number on the list, it becomes illegal for businesses to call you with unsolicited offers or requests, except for political organizations, not-for-profit organizations, bill collectors and organizations conducting surveys.

How effective has it been?  Here is some information from Wikipedia:  “According to the 2009 Economic Report of the President, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, the program has proved quite popular: as of 2007, according to one survey, 72 percent of Americans had registered on the list, and 77 percent of those say that it made a large difference in the number of telemarketing calls that they receive (another 14 percent report a small reduction in calls).”  But is popular the same as effective?  And is fewer calls the same as Do-Not-Call?  “Another survey, conducted less than a year after the Do Not Call list was implemented, found that people who registered for the list saw a reduction in telemarketing calls from an average of 30 calls per month to an average of 6 per month.”

Obviously some companies opted to ignore the list.  I remember early on telling telemarketers that we were on the Do Not Call list and reporting the call on the website.  The information went into cyberspace with no feedback.  Since then technology has improved to give us computers assisting humans to speed up the calling process and robocalls, using a computerized auto dialer to deliver a pre-recorded message.

The main problem with the Do Not Call list is that the process has no teeth.  The enforcement was very weak.  NBC tells us that in the first four months of this year, “the Federal Trade Commission received more than 1.6 million complaints about unwanted calls. Sixty-four percent, or 1.1 million complaints, were for robocalls.”  Imagine the numbers when the people who didn’t bother to complain are accounted for!

Congress recognizes this and now has proposed new legislation requiring landline and mobile carriers to offer free robocall-blocking technology to their customers.  The press release stated, “Robocalls are one of the things that annoy Americans the most and the ROBOCOP Act will finally help put a rest to these dreaded calls that are interrupting family dinners—or worse—scamming people out of their hard-earned money.”  Of course companies who use the technology want the rules loosened rather than tightened.

First, anyone who thinks robocalls are one of our biggest annoyances must lead an otherwise very calm, tranquil and sheltered life.  It’s not such a big deal that we need Congress spending time debating it instead of a thousand bigger issues.

Whether robocalls are among the top annoyances or just a minor pain in the neck, we could always take responsibility and buy an inexpensive phone with caller ID (which most people have already).  If you don’t recognize the caller, don’t answer.  If they really want to talk to you, they will leave a message and you can decide whether to return the call.  (I have been using caller ID to screen calls for several years and haven’t gotten a single solicitation from any organization.  They can’t scam me or annoy me if I don’t answer.)  So once again, why do we need the government stepping in to solve a problem that is so easily taken care of?  They also want to do it in a way that adds costs to the providers, costs that will somehow be passed along to the consumer as they always are.  Nothing is free.

Whenever we don’t take responsibility, acting helpless, acting like victims, some advocate or politician is always happy to step in and solve the problem for us.  Often it doesn’t really get completely resolved; and all we have accomplished is to encourage the attitude of these "helpers" that in this high-tech world of robocalls, scammers or whatever we can’t really take care of ourselves.