SAN FRANCISCO -- Should cities be able to require a flyer at the point of sale advising people of cell-phone safety guidelines? That's the crux of a lawsuit that goes before a federal judge in San Francisco tomorrow, pitting the cell-phone industry against the city of Berkeley.

The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association says the flyers are a violation of cell-phone manufacturers' free speech rights, though the information - that phones can exceed RF radiation guidelines if held too close to the body - is already in user manuals, normally buried in the fine print.

Ellie Marks, executive director of the California Brain Tumor Association, said she's disgusted that the Federal Communications Commission has sided with the CTIA.

"So we're dealing with intensive collusion between the FCC and the wireless industry to hide the truth from the American public that cell phones are not the safe device consumers are led to believe," Marks said. "And the public should be outraged that this is happening."

The lead attorney for the FCC, Thomas Johnson, used to work for the same firm that now represents the CTIA. The FCC has weighed in, saying user manuals provide consumers with sufficient information about cell-phone safety, and the ordinance risks "over-warning" and misleading consumers into believing that cell phones are unsafe.

A 2018 study by the National Toxicology Program found that cell-phone radiation can cause brain tumors in rats. Marks said people should store their phones away from their bodies and turn them off at night.

"People should not keep them on while they're on their body - not in a pocket, not in a bra," she said. "And they should just take simple precautions: Use the speakerphone, use a wired headset and don't hold it to your head or body while it is on. "

The CTIA filed the suit five years ago and fought it all the way to the Supreme Court - twice - and lost.

Critics of recent court cases they say allow corporations to evade responsibility are pointing to legislation in Congress that could fix this issue. Large companies often urge arbitration in cases where legal disputes arise, such as for a couple in New Jersey that was injured when an Uber driver ran a red light. The couple sued Uber but was rebuffed because their daughter checked the company's terms and conditions agreement which says riders will settle disputes through arbitration rather than in court.

Jagjit Nagra, head of Oregon Consumer Justice, said these agreements can often appear dishonest.

"These mandatory clauses that are buried in the fine print - they're there to evade accountability, and what it does is it funnels disputes into a private system that more often than not favors corporations over individuals rather than it playing out in a court of law," Nagra added.

A similar case recently played out in a wrongful death case against Disney, and the Oregon Supreme Court ruled in a 2022 case in favor of employers that require arbitration to settle employment-related disputes. Companies with arbitration clauses have argued the process is quicker and less costly than court. But Nagra said the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal, or FAIR Act in the U.S. Senate would take this process off the table. The bill has support from Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley.

Nagra added the FAIR Act would apply in a variety of cases, including employment, consumer, antitrust, and civil rights disputes. He says the court process is more transparent, which is good for the public.

"Say there's an unsafe product or a fraudulent practice, what have you. This allows folks to be able to hold these corporations and other bad actors accountable in a public process," he said.

Nagra noted the arbitration process has different rules than court, concerning evidence, for example, and added evidence can be admitted in arbitration that is irrelevant or based on hearsay.

"Something that would be anathema in a court of law can take place there because they're private proceedings. And the judges are privately paid for judges by the arbitration company," he continued.

Several Connecticut groups are partnering to help people claim COVID relief money.

The Get Your Refund Campaign aims to help more than 45,000 families statewide get the enhanced tax benefits they were entitled to in 2021. Internal Revenue Service data show $120 million in unclaimed federal Earned Income Tax Credits for 2019.

Juan Berrios, executive director of the tax assistance nonprofit SimplifyCT, said there are a few key reasons for people failing to collect what's owed them.

"I think it's really just about the level of information and misinformation that was out there during that timeframe," Berrios recounted. "If you recall, our government moved very swiftly, right, so the very first stimulus package was passed and then within a couple of weeks, people were actually getting their checks."

Some people could receive up to $6,700 from the federal Earned Income Tax credit alone, available to anyone who earned $64,000 or less in 2021. The expanded child tax credit is available for any family with children who have a valid social security number. The last day to claim or file for these 2021 missed credits is April 15, 2025.

Campaign feedback has been positive with many families grateful to claim the benefits. Berrios noted some have been leery of claiming the refunds since the credits typically apply to people who do not file their taxes but he added collecting refunds will not affect their benefits.

"Filing taxes does not affect government-provided benefits," Berrios emphasized. "The Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit and the third stimulus payment, they're not counted as income. They do not affect your other benefits that an individual or a family receives. And, also, it's very important to note that immigrants can also file taxes."

Berrios added given the chaotic state of the world in 2021 due to the pandemic, local tax preparers might not have been open or returns were done virtually. He acknowledged some might fear filing because they owe the IRS money or fear being penalized for not filing but if you're due a refund, you will not be penalized.


get more stories like this via email

An analysis of court documents by Kentucky Public Radio revealed the social media company TikTok knew users can become addicted to the platform in under 35 minutes.

Kentucky is one of more than a dozen states suing TikTok, arguing the company knowingly harmed children and violated consumer protection laws.

According to a 2022 Pew survey, children spend on average more than 91 minutes a day on TikTok.

Christia Spears Brown, professor of developmental psychology at the University of Kentucky, said rates of depression have spiked among teens.

"We see it in affluent kids, we see it in low-income kids. We see it in rural communities. We see it in urban communities," Spears Brown outlined. "We really see this as a ubiquitous, universal kind of space."

The lawsuit seeks a stop to TikTok's practices and monetary compensation to states. According to the latest CDC data, 40% of the nation's youth say they feel persistent sadness and hopelessness, and the percentage rises to 53% among girls. The nation's suicide rate among youth people jumped 62% between 2007 through 2021. TikTok argued it has implemented policies to protect children and said the lawsuits are misleading.

The American Psychological Association maintains using social media is "not inherently beneficial or harmful to young people." But Spears Brown advised parents to proactively monitor and control their child's social media use.

"One of the biggest pieces of advice for parents is to really limit the amount of time that kids are on social media," Spears Brown emphasized.

TikTok has also come under scrutiny for allowing its livestreaming feature to facilitate child sexual abuse and exploitation. Lawsuit documents say thousands of minors have livestreamed videos of themselves where users can pay to send the live-streamer money in the form of a digital currency the company calls TikTok "gifts."


get more stories like this via email