wine1A recent class action lawsuit filed against several well-known California winemakers over arsenic found in their wine shows once again how easy it is to misuse the American courts to create fear where none is warranted and then attempt to make money off the situation.

Arsenic in wine?! The provocative statement alone is enough to grab the attention of even the most casual wine drinker, but it’s a story that even non-wine enthusiasts need to hear.

In case you missed it, CBS News first reported in March that several winemakers including Sutter Home Winery, Beringer Vineyards, Fetzer Vineyards, Woodbridge Winery and Trader Joe’s are being sued after a laboratory reported that some of their wines were “contaminated with arsenic in levels above regulatory standards.” It led to news reports nationwide and sensationalistic headlines like:

“Alarming levels of arsenic in some popular wines, lawsuit claims” in Florida, and

“Lawsuit claims popular, low-cost wines contain high levels of arsenic” in Colorado.

What wine drinker wouldn’t be a little concerned after reading that? My concern after looking into this lawsuit, however, is that many consumers will hear the headlines and be afraid that retailers in the United States are selling dangerous wines because they don’t know the full story. So, here are the facts.

To begin with, the statement that the wines contain arsenic levels “above regulatory standards” is totally misleading. The truth is that the US government does not regulate arsenic levels in wine. The government has, on the other hand, limited the amount of arsenic in water for many years, but comparing water to wine is like comparing apples to oranges.

After the CBS report was aired, FDA spokeswoman, Lauren Sucher, revealed to CNN that the EPA standard for arsenic in drinking water:

“is of limited use when considering any potential health risks related to arsenic in wine. People drink far more water than they do wine over their lifetimes, and they start drinking water earlier in life. Thus, both the amount and period of exposure are different and would require separate analyses.”

Furthermore, seeing as the USDA recommends drinking about 10 cups of water a day and no more than two alcoholic drinks (about 1 cup of wine) a day, Cornell University’s Gavin Lavi told CNN that “a sensible concentration limit for arsenic in wine should be at least 10-fold higher than for drinking water, and possibly higher, since we also use water for cooking and cleaning.”

While the United States doesn’t regulate the amount of arsenic in wine, Canada and Europe do. In a subsequent story that provided much-needed perspective on this issue, NPR reported that:

“The upper threshold, set by Health Canada, is 100 parts per billion, or ppb. And the limit set by OIV, a European intergovernmental wine organization, is even higher at 200 ppb.“

None of the California wines produced by the wineries named in the class-action lawsuit tested higher than 50 ppb!

So, if these wines are safe by standards set by the top wine-consuming regions in the world, why does a lawsuit like this see the light of day? It’s impossible to rationalize why courts allow such speculative lawsuits, but it IS possible to see how someone could personally benefit from this litigation.

The Wine Business Blog published a news release from the public relations firm representing the laboratory, BeverageGrades, that released the testing results that led to this lawsuit. In the release, the lab cites the CBS story that reported on its test results and then conveniently states that the laboratory also “offers alcoholic beverage retailers a tool for screening their offerings to ensure the quality of their supply chain.”

Would it be too cynical to suppose, as the wine blog suggests, that the laboratory has taken a page from Marketing 101 and created a problem to which it can provide a solution for financial gain? It wouldn’t be the first time our courts have been manipulated like this. The big question is, why is it allowed to continue?

{ 1 comment }

DNAbiotechIn recent years, innovative ways of treating cancer have provided new hope to thousands of patients. Many of these treatments have been developed by startup biotech companies, but now a major investor in these companies is speaking out about a crisis threatening to derail this important research.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled, “Too Bad Biotechs Can’t Cure Tort Abuse,” venture capitalist, Standish Fleming, writes that small companies being formed to fight diseases are now: “suffering from a disease of their own – a legalized extortion by plaintiffs’ lawyers looking to make a quick buck.”

He reveals that shareholder lawsuits against growing companies are threatening access to the capital these startups need to develop new drugs that are years away from generating revenues. As a board member of a biotech firm that was being acquired, he was told by an attorney representing his company that they should expect to be sued as part of the merger. His prediction turned out to be true.

The attorney obviously knew that the majority of these mergers are challenged by lawsuits. Part of the problem is that it’s relatively easy, says Fleming. They can follow a “cookie-cutter process with potentially seven-figure payoffs.” In fact, according to Cornerstone Research, 94% of sales above $100 million result in a lawsuit.

Small biotech companies face on average more than $3 million in legal and accounting costs when preparing to sell stock to fund their growth, and many can’t afford this expense. Fleming argues that the mere threat of a lawsuit can be enough to prevent a small company from raising the capital they need, so they feel compelled to settle as quickly as possible.

The last thing we need standing in the way of the next potential big medical breakthrough is American’s legal system. When a leader in funding this research signals an alarm, it’s time for our lawmakers to listen.


waterloggedipodThere are a lot of things you can learn by dropping your iPod into a bucket of water. The first thing is pretty obvious: electronic devices and water don’t mix well. The second thing is that the old “put-the-device-in-a-bag-of-rice-until-it-dries-out” trick doesn’t always work. However, if you wait long enough, you might also learn something about the American legal system…even if you were perfectly willing to accept responsibility for your waterlogged iPod.

A few years ago, our youngest son accidentally dropped his iPod into a bucket of water, so I’m not talking hypothetically here. We took it to the Apple store to see if it could be fixed. It couldn’t, and since it was our fault, we accepted it as one of those unfortunate things that happen in life. Case closed.

At least, I thought it was closed, but a lawyer somewhere decided that anyone who had an iPod that stopped working because it got soaked should be paid. He filed a class action lawsuit against Apple. Anyone who took an iPod to Apple for water damage during a certain time period was automatically included as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Now, Apple’s warranty clearly states that an iPod will not be replaced if it is damaged by water or other liquid, so I think the lawsuit should have been dismissed.  That apparently makes too much sense, however, and Apple was forced to rack up huge legal bills as it fought to defend common sense.  Eventually, as the case dragged on, the company decided to cut its losses and settle the case as so many other job providers are forced to do these days.

Not long after that, we received a check in the mail for over $100.  It was our share of the settlement money in a lawsuit we’d never heard about.  I didn’t want the money under those circumstances, though.  Even if Apple is making more money than virtually any other business in the world, fair is fair.

Unfortunately, after going to a website created to answer questions about the class action lawsuit, I learned that if I sent the check back, it wouldn’t go to Apple. Instead, it would go to one of these five groups:

  • Center for Auto Safety
  • Consumer Federation of America
  • Consumers Union
  • National Association of Consumer Advocates
  • National Consumer Law Center

The Center for Auto Safety?!  Why should it get any of this money? It makes no sense. However, it does have one thing in common with the other groups – it’s a darling of the trial bar.  You see, in more and more class action lawsuits these days, the trial lawyers aren’t the only ones who get a big pay day; groups they support that often file lawsuits against job providers can also win big, too.

How’s that for gaming the system?  Under rules approved by the judge, if I returned my check, it could very well go to funding another lawsuit against a company that had done nothing wrong.

Phooey on that. So, considering my options, I did what I thought was best.  I went straight to Apple and bought another one of their products, spending twice as much as the amount of my check and further adding to their record profits.

Do you have a story of class action lawsuit abuse, too?  If so, share it with us. Working together, we’ll increase public awareness of how this scam is making a mockery of personal responsibility in American courts.


vaccine needleIt’s almost impossible to turn on a TV news program these days without hearing about the growing Ebola crisis, but did you know there’s another infectious disease now spreading across America at a record rate? I bring this up for a couple of reasons: 1) many people aren’t aware of it even though it has serious public health ramifications, and 2) it’s partly rooted in an abusive lawsuit that went terribly wrong, and this blog was created to raise public awareness about how abuse of the civil justice system is affecting our lives.

The disease is measles, and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there have been three times more cases of measles reported in 2014 than in any year since the disease was thought to have been eliminated in the US.

The obvious question is, “Why?” Don’t we have a vaccine for measles?

The answer is, yes, there is a vaccine, and it’s why measles was virtually eliminated in the United States 14 years ago.  However, something very disturbing happened around that time that many experts believe is largely responsible for the return of measles and other infectious diseases like whooping cough and chicken pox to our communities.

In 1998, a medical researcher working on behalf of lawyers suing vaccine makers manufactured evidence that he thought would help them win the case and bring them huge amounts of money.  To bolster the lawsuit, he claimed that he had found 12 children that developed autism after receiving vaccines.  The news spread like wildfire, and all of a sudden, many parents began to question whether they were doing the right thing by having their children vaccinated.  Some of them decided not to.

What they didn’t know, however, was that there was a big problem with the research.  That problem wouldn’t be revealed until 2011 when the British Medical Journal published a blockbuster report that showed the supposed “research” that sparked that fear about vaccines was fraudulent.  According to the Journal, “three of the 12, it turns out, had never been diagnosed with autism and others displayed symptoms long before they received vaccines.”

Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, pointed out at the time that the fraudulent research was tailor-made for litigation. “Science designed to serve the courtroom.” I highly recommend his column.

In the years since then, some news outlets have reported on the comeback of infectious diseases – like Time magazine did in this March, 2014 article — and have cited parents’ fears over vaccines as a major reason for the dramatic rise in these diseases.  However, in general, they have done a poor job of reporting why those fears arose in the first place and that the reason for those fears has been exposed as a fraud.

Dr. Paul A. Offit, the Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is one of the leaders in the medical community who is working to set the record straight.  He says dozens of studies have exonerated vaccines as a cause of autism, but too many people are unaware of these studies.  In his book, Deadly Choices, How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All, he delves deeply into other frauds that have been perpetrated and the terrible effect they have had on public health.

Many now fear that if the media doesn’t start reporting on this litigation-fueled fraud, more and more people will decide to forgo vaccinations because they only know half the story.  In the meantime, infectious diseases that we once thought were eradicated will continue to spread. Last year, US News & World Report revealed that in 2012, “the United States had the highest number of whooping cough cases since 1955” resulting in 18 deaths.

This is an epic tragedy considering all of the technology and medical research available today. As Paul Harvey would have said, it’s time for the rest of the story to be told.

{ 1 comment }

Teens DrivingYou don’t have to be the parent of a teenage driver to have a special interest in any device that would make it impossible to use a cell phone while driving, but if you are, you’ll definitely want to know about this story. I strongly suspect it will also be of great interest to anyone who occasionally texts while driving and knows they should stop.

I fall into both of those categories, so I was especially intrigued to learn recently about a former engineer for NASA who has invented what many safety experts believe is the “holy grail” solution to distracted driving. I was also bothered (but not surprised) to hear why it’s not on the market after getting tremendous support from several key allies in this effort.

Scott Tibbitts is the engineer/entrepreneur who has worked on this amazing “gadget” for the past five years, and he and his company were recently featured in an article in the New York Times.  It’s a captivating story, beginning with his inspiration for ending cell phone-related distracted driving.  Tragically, a business executive with whom he was scheduled to meet one day in 2008 was killed hours before their meeting by a teenager who was texting while driving.

We all know that using a cell phone while driving can be extremely dangerous, and stories like that are too common.  In fact, every day, nine people die on American roads because of someone who has been distracted by texting, talking or emailing on a cell phone.  According to another story in Newsmax:

An estimated one in five crashes occurred through distracted driving, and 69 percent of drivers in the U.S. between the ages of 18 and 64 said they talk on their cell phones and 31 percent say they read or send text messages or email while driving, according to the CDC. This includes nearly half of all U.S. high school student drivers.

Safety experts have long searched for the perfect solution to this problem, but so far, the cell phone apps that have been created to stop distracted driving are not widely used and the state laws that have been passed to motivate drivers to do the right thing are regularly ignored.

So, when Tibbitts was able to find a way to use a “telematics” port found in all cars manufactured since 1996 to shut down phone use when a car is moving, he quickly drew the attention of these experts.  However, it was the attention and support he drew from some in the insurance and cell phone industries that led many to believe his device might finally be the perfect solution.

Tibbitts was able to convince insurance giant, American Family Insurance, to invest a significant amount of money in his venture.  He also got Sprint to allow his company to use its networks to stop texts.  It was the first time this had happened, so it looked like everything was lining up perfectly for the device to be brought to market.

Unfortunately, just when all of the technological hurdles were cleared, an old, familiar problem popped up to keep it off the market: lawsuit fears.

As the Times reports, Sprint executives worried about:

“what would happen if the technology let one text slip through, and someone reading the message became involved in a crash. That could be a financial liability for the company, and a tragedy. ‘If that one message does get through, and someone understood, “I bought this and I’ll be safe,” what does that mean for our brand and our business?’” said a vice president for business and product development at Sprint.

A spokesperson for Sprint now says: “It’s a matter of working out the legal issues. The legal uncertainty — that’s the major issue.” So far, the daunting legal hurdle is the only one they haven’t been able to clear.

It’s certainly not the first time that legal concerns have robbed American consumers of a wonderful product, but it is especially disturbing to hear that once again, an amazing invention could potentially save three thousand lives a year and prevent more than 300,000 injuries is stalled in its tracks because of lawsuit fears.


And The Winner Of The 2014 Wacky Warning Labels™ Contest Is…

by bobdorigojones 08.06.2014

…a label found on a cell phone battery booster.  It warns: “Get rid of children.” What?? Is that a mistranslation, or is there something else going on with that label? I provide the inside story on that in an op-ed posted today on That label was selected as the grand prize winner of the […]

Read more →

Label On Sports Decal Is Among Five Finalists In 2014 Wacky Warning Labels™ Contest

by bobdorigojones 06.30.2014

Thanks to the Washington Times for publishing my op-ed (below) about the five finalists in this year’s Wacky Warning Label Contest.  The three cash prize winners will be selected by John Stossel’s studio audience later this month on FOX Business News. Americans love sports. We also love our sports teams.  And to show our team […]

Read more →

The Stella Awards and Frivolous Lawsuits

by bobdorigojones 03.28.2014

Ever heard the story about the guy who sued Winnebago over its cruise control? According to the story, he set the cruise control while driving and then left his seat to brew some coffee.  Of course, he crashed.  And, as the story goes, he was mad that the instructions didn’t warn him not to do […]

Read more →

The “Horse Sense Fence” Offers Humorous Commentary On Life In America

by bobdorigojones 02.25.2014

The wacky warning labels found on products sold throughout America have been fodder for this blog for years, but did you know that wacky warnings have now found their place in contemporary art, too?  Let me tell you about Shey Hembrey and the Horse Sense Fence. Shey Hembrey is one of the most creative artists […]

Read more →

Great Advice From Abraham Lincoln On The Topic of Suing Someone

by bobdorigojones 02.10.2014

Every once in a while, usually during radio interviews, I must address the issue of whether the effort to end lawsuit abuse in America is really an anti-lawyer effort.  Sometimes the host will add to that question by quoting a famous line written by Shakespeare: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” […]

Read more →