The National Consumers League applauds Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) recent decision to validate updated credit scores

/in , /by

October 31, 2022

Media contact: National Consumers League – Katie Brown, katie@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington D.C.— The National Consumers League applauds Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Sandra Thompson’s recent decision to validate updated credit scores for the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). By allowing the use of updated innovative, more predictive scores like FICO10T which reduce the impact of unpaid medical debt and include alternative data sources like rental housing payment information, more consumers will be able to get scored and have access to the market.

However, we are disappointed that FHFA will require the use of VantageScore 4.0  Our concern is prompted by the fact that VantageScore, the company that created VantageScore 4.0, is owned by the credit bureaus, who  have proven themselves to be careless with consumer credit data and consumer protection laws over the years.

In fact, over the past few months, congressional leaders like Housing Banking Chair Maxine Waters and House Majority Leader James Clyburn have raised significant concerns about the anti-consumer activities of the credit bureaus. In August, Chair Waters called on the CFPB to put a moratorium on Equifax after it reported faulty credit scores for millions of consumers. On October 14,  Leader Clyburn requested that the CFPB investigate and review the nation’s largest credit bureaus for possible violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In July of 2021, NCL joined with other consumer groups in sending a letter to the CFPB and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) asking them to update a 2012 study about the accuracy of financial data at the credit bureaus.

In addition to our concerns about data accuracy and anti-consumer anti-competitive behavior by the credit bureaus and the score that they own, NCL is also concerned about the potential cost burdens for consumers that will result from transitioning to this two-score system. Back in our 2018 comments, we asked FHFA to consider what the impact would be for the FHFA, the GSEs, mortgage companies, banks, and most importantly for taxpayers and consumers.

As FHFA works to implement this decision over the next year, we hope they keep the concerns of consumers first and foremost. The housing economy is struggling and we need to ensure consumers aren’t left paying the cost of this transition in increased fees and hidden payments.  We also need to make sure FHFA listens to the concerns of Congress and the consumer community when it comes to the credit bureaus. There is much work to be done and we stand ready to help in any way that we can.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit https://nclnet.org.

NCL urges FDA and FTC to investigate potentially false advertising claims made by a recent-FDA approved anti-wrinkle drug

/in , , , /by

October 26, 2022

Media contact: National Consumers League – Katie Brown, katie@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington D.C.— The National Consumers League (NCL) recently submitted a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urging the agencies to look into misleading advertising claims made by a recent FDA-approved anti-wrinkle drug called DAXXIFY™ (DaxibotulinumtoxinA-lanm).

Revance Therapeutics, Inc., the manufacturer of DAXXIFY™, is promoting the drug’s ability to reduce the appearance of facial lines and wrinkles in about half of its users for about six months. However, FDA-required labeling verifies that roughly one-third of users experience no or mild facial lines for six months after injection – a 20 percent discrepancy from the company’s claim.

NCL believes this discrepancy is concerning and warrants a closer investigation. Moreover, a study mentioned in the company’s press release appears to make inaccurate claims about its results, according to NCL.

We ask that if our concerns are warranted, the FDA and the FTC should hold Revance Therapeutics to accurate claims and insist that the company correct anything deceptive in their advertising, says NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg.

To view the full letter, click here.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit https://nclnet.org.

Court decision jeopardizes CFPB and threatens critical government programs, says NCL

/in , , /by

October 24, 2022

Media contact: National Consumers League – Katie Brown, katie@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington D.C.— Last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) funding structure is unconstitutional due to its non-reliance on annual Congressional appropriations. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent that could cause irreparable harm to consumers by undoing critical regulations against predatory fees and practices among financial servicers. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit’s logic, if extended across the federal government, would upend numerous federal entities that are also self-funded or otherwise receive revenue without regular Congressional appropriation, including Social Security and Medicare. 

The following statement is attributable to NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg: 

“For more than 11 years, the CFPB has served as a dedicated champion for consumers in the federal government, preventing abusive, discriminatory, and predatory practices in the finance sector. The Fifth Circuit’s decision against the CFPB’s funding structure not only jeopardizes the CFPB’s invaluable work but also puts other key regulators at structural risk, such as the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The Fifth Circuit’s ahistorical logic threatens other critical government programs as well, such as Social Security and Medicare. I hope upon further appeal, the American judicial system will not choose to side with payday lenders again.” 

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit https://nclnet.org.

NCL Health Policy Associate testifies on behalf of the Preterm Birth Alliance at the FDA hearing on the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s (CDER’s) proposal to withdraw approval of Makena

/in , , , , , , , , /by

October 17, 2022

Media contact: National Consumers League – Katie Brown, katie@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington D.C.— Today, NCL Health Policy Associate Milena Berhane representing the Preterm Birth Prevention Alliance testified at The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hearing on the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s (CDER’s) proposal to withdraw approval of Makena or 17P. Milena’s full testimony can be found below.

Hello and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Milena Berhane, and I am a Health Policy Associate at the National Consumers League. I am here representing The Preterm Birth Prevention Alliance, a coalition of 15 maternal and women’s health advocacy organizations that came together in 2021 with a shared concern about the state of preterm birth in the U.S. and what the proposed withdrawal of Makena and its generics could mean for women at risk.

Collectively, the Alliance seeks to improve preterm birth outcomes in the U.S. by maintaining access to safe, FDA-approved treatments and advocating for more diverse medical research that adequately represents the experiences of newborns and women of color.

Since convening as an Alliance, our members have included the following pre-existing organizations with their own missions, leadership and voices coming together to speak with one voice on this issue. These groups include:

  1. 1,000 Days
  2. 2020Mom
  3. The American Association of Birth Centers
  4. Black Women’s Health Imperative
  5. Black Mama’s Matter Alliance
  6. Expecting Health
  7. Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies
  8. Healthy Women
  9. Miracle Babies
  10. The National Birth Equity Collaborative
  11. The National Black Midwives Alliance
  12. The National Consumers League
  13. The National Partnership for Women and Families
  14. Sidelines and
  15. SisterReach

Over the next few minutes, I will speak to why we believe it is unnecessary and potentially detrimental to cut off access to this entire class of drugs. And I will address how removing 17P and its generics will not affect all women equally.

For full transparency, the panel should be aware that COVIS Pharma – the sponsors of Makena – are one of more than 100 funders who support the work of the National Consumers League. The company has provided some initial funding to support the Alliance but is not involved in the strategic direction of the Alliance or its activities. And—like all of NCL’s funders—does not hold sway over our positions or efforts.

As I’m sure you know and will hear from many others, women of color have substantially higher rates of preterm birth than their white counterparts. According to the March of Dimes 2021 Report Card, while the U.S. preterm birth rate declined a fraction of a percent in recent years—from 10.2 percent in 2019 to 10.1 percent in 2020—rates of preterm birth increased for Black and American Indian/Alaska Native women, who continue to be up to 60 percent MORE likely to give birth preterm compared to White women.

We at the Alliance believe that the removal of Makena and its generics would exacerbate these inequities and contribute to the already stark divide in maternal and infant health outcomes between Black, Indigenous, and other women of color and their white counterparts.

For more than a decade, maternal-fetal medicine specialists have safely used 17P and its generics to help women with recurrent preterm birth carry their babies closer to term, improving the chances of a healthy birth and reducing the risk of long-term health issues for the infant. Taking it off of the market would mean cutting off access to the only safe and effective drug for this indication, which would leave pregnant women and their providers without an affordable approved alternative.

The Alliance believes the FDA should allow for additional studies to learn which populations 17P is MOST effective in treating. And we believe this can and should happen while maintaining access to 17P for women at high risk of adverse outcomes. Based on available evidence, maternal healthcare providers and their patients should have the opportunity to decide together whether 17P would be beneficial to them in their pregnancy. 

I want to pause on this point of available evidence. All of the clinical trial and real-world evidence to date points to Makena and its generics being safe for women who have had a previous preterm birth. This makes keeping 17P on the market a question of efficacy, not safety. So why aren’t we doing everything possible to understand which populations 17P is most effective in treating before taking it off the market entirely?

Given the discrepancy in efficacy data between the original and confirmatory trials, it seems a logical next step would be to conduct additional efficacy studies in the population known to be at highest risk for recurrent preterm birth, which in the U.S., is Black and indigenous women.

Yet, the proposal to withdraw approval was based not on the original trial – MEIS (“Mees”) – which included nearly 60% African American and other women of color in the United States and found that 17P substantially reduced the rate of recurrent preterm delivery among women at high risk for preterm birth. Instead, the proposal to withdraw seems to be based on the results of the confirmatory trial – PROLONG – which was conducted primarily outside of the U.S. among mostly white European women, and which found Makena to not have the same level of efficacy as in the MEIS trial.

These trials studied two vastly different patient populations, one inclusive of women in the U.S. most vulnerable to preterm birth and one not. So the fact that they had different outcomes is not surprising. What doesn’t make sense is why the outcomes among white European women should carry more weight in decision-making than the outcomes among women of color in the U.S.

The Preterm Birth Prevention Alliance believes that evidence of efficacy for women of color in the U.S should be more determinative than a lack of demonstrated efficacy on white women in Europe.

In 2021, a meta-analysis study called EPPPIC (“eh-pick”), published in the Lancet, pooled data from thirty-one randomized trials in asymptomatic women at risk of preterm birth.  It concluded that both 17P injections and vaginal progesterone reduced the risk of preterm birth before 34 weeks in high-risk women with singleton pregnancies. It also noted that shared decision making with women that have high-risk singleton pregnancies, should discuss an individual’s potential risks and benefits. However, despite this reinforcing conclusion about the efficacy of 17P, the agency made no change to its recommendation to remove.

To achieve birth equity and protect the physical, financial, and emotional wellbeing of mothers and infants, we cannot study pregnant women as a monolith.  Instead, we must gain a better understanding of who can benefit most from treatments like 17P, through more diverse studies that include adequate representation from the women in this country who we know are most affected and are at the highest risk.

We believe that this research must explore the causes of disparate outcomes and risk of eliminating approved treatment options before a decision is made. And we believe that while these additional studies are conducted, 17P should absolutely remain available to patients and providers.

This last point is truly critical from the Alliance’s perspective. Considering the proven, life-impacting outcomes from the first clinical trial, years of anecdotal clinical data, and follow-up studies like EPPPIC, we believe that maintaining patient access to 17P while additional studies are conducted is KEY. The Alliance is fighting for a more inclusive healthcare system that gives every pregnant person an equal chance at having the best birth outcomes possible.

We do not believe that removing 17P from the market without understanding who could benefit the most from its use is in the best interests of patients or healthcare providers, especially without any other approved treatment options available. 

Women of color need a seat at the table.

Thank you.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit https://nclnet.org.

NCL testifies at The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hearing on the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s (CDER’s) proposal to withdraw approval of Makena

/in , , , , , , , , /by

October 17, 2022

Media contact: National Consumers League – Katie Brown, katie@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington D.C.— Today, NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg testified at The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hearing on the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s (CDER’s) proposal to withdraw approval of Makena or 17P. Sally’s full testimony can be found below.

Hello and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Sally Greenberg, and I am the Executive Director of the National Consumers League, the nation’s oldest consumer advocacy organization. For 123 years, it has been our mission to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and to provide the consumer’s perspective on safe and effective medicines and patient-centered health care.

We are deeply concerned about CDER’s recommendation to withdraw all forms of 17P.

We have shared our concerns with the FDA many times over, dating back to our first letter in June of 2020, which urged the agency to protect patient access to this critical therapy for preterm birth. The sentiments outlined in that letter—which was co-signed by more than a dozen maternal and infant health advocates, many of whom you will hear from today—have been reiterated in a series of subsequent letters, statements, and requests for meetings.

And long before that, the National Consumers League spent years advocating for increased regulation and oversight of medication compounding – an issue central to the question of why pregnant women deserve to maintain access to approved 17P, the only class of FDA drugs indicated to prevent a recurrent spontaneous preterm birth.

I appreciate having the time today to share thoughts on behalf of the National Consumers League to share our ongoing concerns and want to start by addressing some of the distortions and half-truths that have been floating around in the public dialogue about 17P over the past few years. I am not a scientist or a doctor, but I take our organization’s mission and ethos, which is rooted in safe products for consumers, and my responsibility as a consumer advocate very seriously. I have talked with numerous scientific, medical, and regulatory experts about this to separate fact from fiction. It is unfortunate that there has to be misinformation about such a serious subject, but that does appear to be the case.

I think you will hear from certain stakeholders that:

Makena should never have been approved. But the truth is that we aren’t here to debate the past. This class of products has been on the market for 10 years, and there is both safety and efficacy data to support that. To state it very simply: We are here today because of new, conflicting efficacy data – but that doesn’t render the original evidence null and void.

You may hear that there is no confirmed clinical benefit to 17P. This is not supported by the existing body of literature or the experiences of hundreds of thousands of American women. The primary basis for FDA approval of Makena was a randomized controlled trial conducted through an NIH network, in the highest risk preterm birth centers in the United States.  The one-third reduction in recurrent preterm birth was described in the New England Journal of Medicine in YEAR. Makena is one of the most well-studied medications given in pregnancy, with data from more than 2,000 women who participated in placebo-controlled trials, and more than 300,000 women treated to date. Every day doctors prescribe 17P for their patients because they have seen evidence of its effectiveness.

You may hear that the benefits of Makena don’t outweigh the risks. This implies that there are safety issues with the therapy. But the published evidence from both clinical trials and ongoing safety surveillance data does not bear this out. We know the FDA can act when there are safety issues. If such issues existed, I find it hard to believe that the FDA – which is one of most stringent and respected regulatory bodies in the world – would have waited three years to act.

You may hear that there are other options that could replace 17P as the standard of care. This is simply not true. With very few medications specifically approved to be given in pregnancy – and no others beyond Makena for recurrent, spontaneous preterm birth – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine continue to support their members’ expertise in determining if Makena is appropriate for their patients. Yet, the regulatory uncertainty relating to 17P has created what must be an unprecedented situation where some providers are putting their patients on vaginal progesterone, which was previously denied approval for this indication, and is often prescribed in compounded form and would therefore likely not be covered by insurance. I cannot imagine the FDA intended to put healthcare providers and pregnant people in this kind of position when there continues to be a safe, approved standard of care for pregnant women at risk of having preterm birth when the issue at hand is inconclusive data on the effectiveness of two trials. But that is the situation before us.

You may also hear about the precautionary principle of public health as a reason to remove all forms of 17P from the market. Again, this is a diversion that seeks to focus this hearing on implied, non-existent safety issues, rather than on the effectiveness and how it can best be determined for which women this therapy is most effective. I would think the precautionary principle of public health could be much more logically applied to the use of vaginal progesterone for recurrent spontaneous preterm birth, since it was denied approval for this indication but is increasingly being used off-label, in compounded form and therefore not covered by insurance, yet because of the uncertainty being created about 17P because of the current regulatory situation, it is essentially being treated as an approved, equivalent therapy.

 You may hear that the company that manufacturers Makena put those who speak in support of continued access to 17P up to defending the product. No one asked me to do this. After the National Consumers League was chartered in 1899 one of our founders, Florence Kelley, who was a champion for equal rights and consumer protections, led the campaign for enactment of of the first federal health care bill, more commonly known as the Sheppard-Towner Act of 1921, which allocated federal funds to combat elevated mortality rates among mothers and newborns. The money went to state programs for mothers and babies, particularly prenatal and newborn care facilities in rural states. For decades, NCL has worked on our own and in collaboration with other advocates to ensure access to safe therapies. I believe that removing access to 17P – a safe therapy, which has been shown to be effective in its first clinical trial and for hundreds of thousands of women since coming to market – while it is determined for whom the therapy is most effective, would be a dramatic step along a path that seeks to limit access to women’s health care. Every step along that path can lead to negative consequences for the women and families who are affected.

That is why I am here today.  As both a mother, and the leader of an organization that cares greatly about the safety and welfare of consumers and patients.

Personal and shared distress over a decision that could impact the long-term health of hundreds of thousands of women and babies led NCL to spearhead the Preterm Birth Prevention Alliance, a group of 15 advocacy organizations that share a common concern about the state of preterm birth in the United States and the proposed market withdrawal of 17P. My colleague Milena Berhane, who leads the Alliance, will talk on behalf of that coalition at another time during this hearing.

I want to state plainly and for the record that while this is an unprecedented situation, the National Consumers League believes the FDA can create a win-win path that leads to BOTH new data on 17P and protected access for pregnant people.

I also want to break down some specific concerns and thoughts that led to and guide the National Consumer’s League’s commitment to this issue:

Number 1: The risks of leaving women without a safe and affordable alternative. But there are real risks to removing the only approved, safe option for women for this indication and so talked with healthcare providers who care for at-risk pregnant women to understand the risks involved in removing access to 17P. If all versions of Makena were to be removed, all that would be available to pregnant women for recurrent spontaneous preterm birth would be unapproved therapy that is often provided in compounded form.

Compounding has a role in our healthcare system, but creating a situation where more pregnant women with a history of preterm birth are given compounding drugs is an unwise course of action. Even before this issue, NCL led an advocacy effort to promote passage of federal legislation to strengthen laws relating to compounding of medications. We know that if done improperly, the process of compounding can pose significant safety risks.

There has been progress since the 2012 series of medical errors that resulted in the contamination of compounded medicines, which in turn caused a deadly fungal meningitis outbreak in the U.S. — killing more than 70 people and causing more than 750 cases of infection in 20 states. And we know there have been recalls of compounded 17P since the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA) of 2013. However, the FDA does not interact with a vast majority of compounders and is often not aware of problems until after the report of an adverse event or contamination.

We strongly urge that all current options remain on the table while additional studies are conducted.

Number 2: The need for more diverse efficacy research on 17P At issue here is the fact that the original clinical trial and subsequent confirmatory trial – upon which the recommendation to remove was based – were essentially comparing apples to oranges. The majority of participants in the first clinical trial (Meis) were African American and other women of color in the United States. This trial demonstrated that 17P substantially reduced the rate of recurrent preterm delivery among women who were at particularly high risk for preterm birth.

The participants in a subsequent confirmatory trial (PROLONG), which was conducted primarily outside of the U.S. after 17P was approved, were predominantly white and Eastern European. While PROLONG reaffirmed the safety of 17P, it did not confirm the same benefit in white European women that it did for women of color in the U.S. But this is not the population at highest risk of preterm birth, either in the U.S. or abroad.

Even after a meta-analysis that pooled data from 31 trials concluded that both 17P injections and vaginal progesterone reduced the risk of preterm birth before 34 weeks in high-risk women with singleton pregnancies, CDER persisted in its recommendation to remove.

Given that there is conflicting efficacy data between the original approval trial and a second confirmatory trial, we are advocating to maintain patient access to a class of treatments while allowing for additional research that reflects the experiences of women in the U.S.

Women most affected by preterm birth are also historically underrepresented in clinical trials. We believe it is critical that more diverse efficacy research be gathered and combined with the extensive amount of real-world evidence on 17P that exists today.

Number 3: The state of preterm birth in the U.S. As other stakeholders have and undoubtedly will testify during this hearing, the state of maternal health and preterm birth in the U.S. is incredibly concerning and many unanswered questions remain relating to it, especially for women of color.

For far too long, U.S. maternal health care has lagged behind that of other developed countries, and maternal health care in the U.S. has consistently failed women of color.

Pregnancy should be one of the most special and exciting times in a woman’s life, with preparation and celebrations to welcome a new addition to the family. I know it was for me. Unfortunately, for about 1 in 10 women in America, their anticipation may be cut short because of an unexpected preterm delivery. Black families, as Black women have a 50% increased risk of delivery before 37 weeks of their pregnancy.

America’s preterm birth crisis led the NAACP to recently spearhead a letter to the FDA, that was also signed by the National Health Law Program, the Prevention Institute and the National Partnership for Women & Families, and stated, and I quote:

The undersigned organizations believe that the confirmed evidence of this treatment for Black women in this country is determinative, and that any disruption of access would be detrimental…As the FDA considers a path forward, we collectively urge the agency to carefully consider all available mechanisms to maintain equitable access to approved 17P while additional evidence can be developed that more accurately reflects underrepresented racial and ethnic patient populations in the U.S.

Preterm birth can have a lasting a physical, mental, emotional, and financial tolls on affected babies and families. Given the dire state of preterm birth in the U.S. and the often-devastating impact of preterm birth on pregnant people and their families, the National Consumers League believes that the decision to utilize 17P in all its forms, branded and generic, should be one left to women and their health care providers. The fact that leading medical societies continue to recognize the role of individual providers and their patients when making treatment decisions about 17P, despite the ongoing regulatory situation, is compelling.

In closing, the company that manufactures the branded version of 17P has publicly said they are willing to do more research – why would we leave that option off the table when clearly there is conflicting efficacy data that needs to be resolved? To remove the only approved and safe therapeutic option to help reduce the likelihood of another spontaneous preterm birth, with the knowledge that the population that most benefits from 17P are women of color –  is not in line with consumer interest.

There is a win-win path here that could lead to both new data and protected access. To the Committee, I urge you to keep this, and the consumer perspective, in mind when making your recommendation to the agency.

Thank you.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit https://nclnet.org.

Consumer and industry groups call on agencies to crack down on user review fraud

/in , , , /by

October 11, 2022

Media contact: National Consumers League – Katie Brown, katie@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington D.C.— A coalition of consumer advocacy and industry organizations is calling on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to do more to crack down on organized user review fraud. In a letter to FTC Chair Lina Khan and Attorney General Merrick Garland, the groups stressed that the trustworthiness of user reviews is a critical factor in consumers’ purchasing decisions and for businesses’ reputations.

While fraudulent reviews are not new, organized rings of review brokers coordinating the placement hundreds or even thousands of fraudulent reviews for products on popular marketplaces and e-commerce websites are a growing problem. These operations sell positive reviews to sellers of substandard products, resulting in consumers purchasing poor quality or even unsafe products and services. Honest sellers, including small businesses, are harmed when they lose sales to dishonest competitors who purchase reviews.

Fraudulent reviews cost consumers an estimated $152 billion globally in 2021, with $28 billion in losses from the U.S. economy alone. Additionally, researchers found that by deceiving buyers into purchasing lower quality and potentially unsafe products, fake reviews lead to $0.12 of consumer welfare lost for every $1 spent online.

Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission brought suit against Roomster, a rental listing platform that allegedly deceived consumers by buying fake reviews and charging for access to fraudulent listings. The FTC’s suit also targeted a review broker who organized the sale of tens of thousands of fake reviews to Roomster. The groups’ letter urged the FTC and DOJ to increase the resources devoted to fighting such scams to hold the purveyors of organized review fraud accountable.

“User reviews are a critical part of the purchasing process for millions of consumers every day,” said Sally Greenberg, Executive Director of the National Consumers League, which organized the coalition. “While the FTC and DOJ have taken some steps to crack down on brokers who profit off of fake reviews, more needs to be done if we are to safeguard the trustworthiness of reviews.”

“Online reviews provide great value to small brands as they are the great equalizer when customers are considering buying new products or patronizing new businesses,” said Rob Retzlaff, Executive Director of the Connected Commerce Council. “Fake reviews undermine trust in the entire e-commerce industry, and the FTC and DOJ should do everything in their power to crack down on those abusing the system.”

“Consumers have come to rely on online reviews to distinguish a valuable product or service from a waste of time and money. If fraudulent reviews become rampant online, they risk ruining a sizable portion of online purchases, “said Ruth Susswein, Consumer Action’s Director of Consumer Protection. “We need to rein in online fake review brokers.”

“It’s crucial that consumers have faith in brands,” said Maura Regan, president of Licensing International. “Counterfeiting and fraudulent reviews go straight to the heart of the global licensing industry because a lack of trust hurts all businesses across every category and on every platform.”

The letter to the FTC and DOJ was signed by the Center for Data Innovation, Chamber of Progress, Consumer Action, Connected Commerce Council, Licensing International, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients), National Consumers League, National Restaurant Association, TechNet, and Women in Toys, Licensing & Entertainment/W I T Foundation.

To view the full letter, click here.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit https://nclnet.org.

National Consumers League applauds President Biden’s plan to cancel $10,000 in federal student loan debt to millions of Americans

/in , , , , , , , , /by

August 24, 2022

Media contact: National Consumers League – Katie Brown, katie@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Consumers League applauds President Biden’s decision to relieve student borrowers of billions of dollars in educational debt and to extend the federal loan repayment moratorium. By cancelling $10,000 in student debt for borrowers earning less than $125,000 and cancelling $20,000 for borrowers who received Pell Grants, this administration is providing direct aid to consumers suffering from the plight of educational debt.

The following statement is attributable to NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg:

“President Biden is providing critical assistance to millions of borrowers across the country. Importantly, this executive order will work to negate the impact of student debt that disproportionately affects women and Black borrowers. As consumers face increased rents, grocery costs, fuel prices, and even student loan interest rates, educational debt cancellation will help provide relief on strained household budgets by reducing—and in many cases eliminating—student debt costs.”

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL) 

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

National Consumers League urges Congress to strengthen Bipartisan Privacy Bill

/in , , , , , , /by

June 17, 2022

Media contact: National Consumers League – Katie Brown, katie@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Consumers League is encouraged by the bipartisan, bicameral American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”), a long-overdue step to protect the privacy and security of consumers’ personal information. However, there remain some concerns that must be addressed to ensure that the bill provides basic consumer remedies for failure to comply with the rules of the road and preserve the best aspects of the privacy laws that are already in place in the states.

“The lack of a comprehensive data protection law has left Americans at the mercy of criminal hackers who are making billions of dollars stealing consumers’ personal data,” said NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg. “At the same time, many companies have built their business models on the collection of sensitive data that exacerbates existing inequities in our economy.”

NCL has long pushed for stronger protections for consumer data. In 2011, NCL supported a bill to regulate the use of sensitive location data. In the wake of the Target data breach in 2013, NCL launched the #DataInsecurity Project to raise awareness about how the lack of data security standards increases the risks to consumers of identity fraud and other scams. Most recently, NCL released a genetic privacy reform roadmap detailing actions Congress, the Biden administration and industry could take to protect consumers’ genetic data.

NCL shares the concerns about the ADPPA raised by privacy and consumer advocates. Importantly, we believe that the bill’s private right of action provisions should be strengthened and a prohibition on mandatory binding arbitration clauses should be included in the legislation.

In addition, NCL supports allowing states with strong privacy and data security laws to preserve those provisions where they provide additional consumer protections.  NCL also supports preserving the Federal Communication Commission’s role in regulating the privacy practices of common carriers. Given the bill’s proposal to expand the role of the Federal Trade Commission in protecting consumer data, Congress must ensure that the FTC has the resources it needs to be effective in that role.

“We applaud members of Congress for putting forward a bipartisan bill to provide comprehensive privacy and security protections,” said John Breyault, NCL’s Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud. “Compromises by all sides in this debate have led us to this moment. There is much promise in this legislation, but key consumer protections need to be addressed before the bill moves forward.”

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL) 

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

NCL Director of Health Policy testifies at Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights on how consolidation in the marketplace harms consumers

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

June 16, 2022

Media contact: National Consumers League – Katie Brown, katie@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, D.C. – On Wednesday, June 15, 2022, the National Consumers League’s Director of Health Policy Jeanette Contreras provided oral testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights on how consolidation in the marketplace harms consumers.

In her testimony, Ms. Contreras discussed the importance of consumers having choices for safe goods and services at a fair price, a core principle of NCL’s advocacy work. Touching on several issues impacting consumers in the U.S. – such as the infant formula shortage, consolidation of the airline industry, primary ticketing market for live events, and the unfair business practices of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) – Ms. Contreras reiterated the need for competition in the marketplace and enacting stronger antitrust laws, all of which help protect U.S. consumers.

Her testimony appears below.

June 15, 2022

Good afternoon Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Member Lee, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Jeanette Contreras. I am the Director of Health Policy at the National Consumers League. I appreciate the opportunity to testify remotely today- due to COVID.

Founded in 1899, NCL is America’s oldest consumer advocacy organization. A core principle of our advocacy is that the marketplace should encourage competition to guarantee that consumers have choices for safe goods and services at a fair price. Monopolies harm competition, leaving consumers with fewer options at higher prices. Monopolistic practices are especially harmful when they occur in the health care arena, where they can exacerbate health disparities.

We share the concerns of new parents regarding the recent shortage of infant formula. Our hearts go out to those parents who have lost babies or whose infants suffered devastating health consequences from contaminated formula. At NCL, we believe all goods and services sold to consumers should be safe and meet all legal requirements- including regulatory guidelines set forth by the FDA.

NCL applauds the FDA and the Administration for adopting a multifaceted approach to increase the supply of infant formula, including temporarily allowing foreign manufacturers to sell their products in the U.S. Additionally, we believe invoking the Defense Production Act to prioritize getting needed inputs to infant formula manufacturers was sound policy. These measures are helping to solve the immediate logistical problem of getting formula onto store shelves across the country.

While addressing the immediate formula shortage is most urgent, we are also troubled that it took the FDA almost four months to act on a whistleblower complaint sent to the agency. This complaint should have received immediate attention given the gravity of the allegations against the Abbott facility. We support a full investigation and, if warranted, bringing criminal and civil charges against those who falsified data. NCL also recommends that the U.S. create a single food safety agency and dedicate an office to overseeing the safety and supply of infant formula.

It should concern every American that one manufacturer controls 40% of the U.S. infant formula market. Only three companies — Abbott, Mead Johnson, and Nestle — control 98% of the industry.

Consolidation in the infant formula industry is a major contributor to the current crisis, but it is only one of many cases where market concentration in recent decades has limited competition and harmed consumers.

For example, NCL continues to raise concerns about the consolidation of the airline industry. Due to weak enforcement of existing antitrust laws, from 2005 to 2015, the number of major U.S. airlines declined from nine to four. And today they control more than 80 percent of the domestic U.S. market.

Our antitrust laws have also failed to protect consumers who attend live events. After merging with Ticketmaster in 2010, Live Nation Entertainment controls roughly 80% of the primary ticketing market in the U.S. As anyone who has purchased tickets recently can attest, this has led to an increase in add-fees and the basic price of tickets.

Stronger antitrust enforcement would be especially beneficial for curtailing anti-competitive conduct in the health care industry, where we’ve seen consolidation lead to higher costs for consumers without an increase in quality or access to care. We are pleased that the Biden administration is looking into how hospital prices increase after acquisitions. We are also hopeful that the ongoing review of DOJ & FTC merger enforcement guidelines will result in more action by those agencies.

NCL also applauds the recent FTC decision to open an investigation into the unfair business practices of pharmacy benefit managers or PBMs. NCL works tirelessly to raise awareness of the outsized role that PBMs play in driving up prescription drug prices for consumers. According to a recent report, the three biggest PBMs controlled roughly 77% of all U.S. prescription drug claims in 2020. And a recent Senate Finance Committee report found some PBMs are getting a 70% rebate on insulin, while out-of-pocket costs for this life-saving medication continue to rise.

These cases are just a few examples of how monopolies and anti-competitive practices have become a problem for consumers. To ensure crises like today’s formula shortage do not happen again, market consolidation must be addressed so that the temporary shutdown of a single factory does not result in the collapse of an entire supply chain.

Whether it is baby formula, airline travel, live event tickets, or pharmaceutical sales, the lack of competition is having increasingly negative impacts on consumer welfare and requires urgent action.

Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Member Lee, thank you for holding today’s hearing and inviting NCL to speak about this important issue. I look forward to answering your questions.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL) 

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

 

NCL urges Judiciary Committee to report the Equality Act to the full Senate

/in , , , /by

June 10, 2022

Media contact: National Consumers League – Katie Brown, katie@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

 

The Honorable Dick Durbin

Chair

Committee on the Judiciary

Unites States Senate

 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

Unites States Senate

 

Dear Chair Durbin and Ranking Member Grassley,

Over a year has passed since the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held hearings for HR5, also known as the Equality Act. The National Consumers League (NCL), the United States’ oldest consumer advocacy organization, urges the Judiciary Committee to report the Equality Act to the full Senate without further delay. This legislation would codify important consumer protections for the LGBT community, notably in housing, credit lending, and public accommodations.

Non-discrimination is a core component of consumer protection that all other safeguards rely upon; access to service is the most basic consumer issue. Studies have shown the challenges still facing the LGBT community, with over half of LGBT Americans having faced discrimination generally and 22% of LGBT consumers having experienced housing discrimination.[1] Regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation, every individual deserves access to housing and financial services, as well as the ability to purchase goods and services at restaurants, lodging, and retail stores.

By passing the Equal Rights Act, Congress can cement consumer protections for the LGBT community nationwide. NCL urges the Judiciary Committee to finish their work on the Equality Act and report this critical legislation to the full Senate.

[1] Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Poll finds a majority of LGBTQ Americans report violence, threats, or sexual harassment related to sexual orientation or gender identity; one-third report bathroom harassment. (2017). https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/poll-lgbtq-americans-discrimination/

 

Sincerely,

Sally Greenberg

Executive Director

National Consumers League

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL) 

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.