A million hard boiled eggs have been recalled over Listeria fears. The egg recall comes after tests showed that some eggs, produced by Minnesota company Michael Foods, could be contaminated.

The eggs were distributed to around 34 states. The eggs were sold in brine. They were mostly for institutional use and were purchased by food distributors and manufacturers. The products were not directly sold to retailers.

The company has traced the problem back to a packaging room, according to the AP.

So far no illnesses have been reported. But the eggs could be in a number of your favorite products. After all, hard boiled eggs are used in numerous recipes.

The eggs in question were sold under six different brand names. The names include Columbia Valley Farms and Wholesome Farms. The eggs can last up to 45 days if the package is unopened.

This could be a problem. Listeria grows well in cold temperatures. Recipes calling for hard boiled eggs, such as egg salads, are often refrigerated. This means the problem could easily become worse, said Michael Doyle, director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia, to NPR.

Individuals sickened with listeria can end up suffering a variety of different symptoms. These can include fever and other gastrointestinal symptoms. Pregnant women and the elderly are more likely to come down with the disease.

The hard boiled egg recall extends to packages that have lot codes starting with a “1″ and ending with a “W.” The company can be reached at 877-367-3447 by those who have questions about the egg recall.

Related Resources:

• Eggs Recalled for Possible Listeria Contamination (KTLA-TV)
• Types of Food Poisoning: Listeria / Listeriosis (FindLaw)
• Deadly Listeria in CO Cantaloupe, CDC Warns (FindLaw’s Common Law)
• Texas Food Processor Closed After 5 Listeria Deaths (FindLaw’s Common Law)

Window or aisle? Your seat preference on an airplane could land you in a higher-risk category for a potentially deadly blood clot, a new study finds.

The risk of developing deep vein thrombosis, or DVT, is notably higher for passengers in window seats, according to a study in the medical journal Chest. Other factors such as a passenger’s age, obesity, and the duration of the flight also play a role, the study found.

“Long-distance travelers sitting in a window seat tend to have limited mobility, which increases their risk for DVT,” one of the study’s authors told Fox News. The risk is highest on flights longer than eight hours, he said.

Deep vein thrombosis occurs when a blood clot forms in a vein, usually in a person’s lower leg or thigh, according to the National Institutes of Health. The clot can impede blood flow, causing painful swelling; the clot can also break off and travel through the bloodstream, damaging vital organs like the brain, lungs, or heart.

Remaining in a prolonged, seated position can raise the risk of blood clots. That makes window-seat passengers more at risk than others, because they’re less likely to get up and walk around, according to the study by researchers at McMaster University in Canada.

Passengers affected by DVT have sued airlines for negligence. Airlines knew about the risk of DVT, but failed to warn passengers to get up and move around to reduce the risk of blood clots, the lawsuits generally claim.

In legal circles, the condition is sometimes called “economy class syndrome,” ABC News reports. Lawsuits usually point to cramped coach-class seats and limited leg room.

But the Chest study debunked “economy class syndrome” as a myth. There is no difference between economy and first-class passengers’ risk of DVT — rather, remaining seated on a long flight is a more critical factor, the study found.

Related Resources:

• Dangers of DVT: Why you should avoid the window seat on the plane (even in First Class) (Daily Mail)
• Browse Personal Injury Lawyers by Location (FindLaw)
• Passenger Bill of Rights Doesn’t Allow You to Sue Airlines (FindLaw’s Common Law)
• A Domestic Passenger’s Deep Vein Thrombosis Claims Are Federally Preempted, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules (FindLaw)

Do you love going to that cute little diner for lunch but absolutely hate having to pay cash? There are drawbacks to carrying a lot of bills. Maybe you don’t want to get mugged. Or, maybe you’re just busy and can’t make pit stops at the ATM before going out for a meal or a snack.

You might wonder if it’s legal for stores to impose a credit card minimum charge before they’ll swipe your plastic. You’re not alone.

It seems some consumers think that it’s against the law. Except, those consumers are wrong. It’s perfectly legal to impose a minimum charge. Well, most of the time at least.

Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in July 2010. The legislation paved the way for new rules that affect cardholders nationwide.

It specifically allows merchants to set minimum credit card charges. But the cap can only be set at $10 or less.

Before the Dodd-Frank Act, such minimum charges typically violated service agreements with Visa and MasterCard. Meaning, merchants weren’t allowed to set those limits. But the Act made it so that payment card networks like Visa can no longer have these types of regulations.

This means that most of the time, if you see a store posting a credit card minimum of $10 or less, that’s perfectly legal. But if you see a store advertising a minimum purchase of $20, they are violating the law.

It certainly can be annoying. Some people genuinely dislike walking around with a wad of cash in their back pocket. But at the same time, if you want to enjoy a meal or buy something a small store, chances are they might not accept your card if you’re only purchasing a few small items.

For consumers, this now means you might need to trudge around with some green in your wallet.

That is, unless you only plan on frequenting establishments that have no credit card minimum charges. But keep in mind: these rules don’t apply to debit cards.

Related Resources:

• Charging a Minimum on Credit Card Purchases (Merchant Council)
• Avoiding Debt: Credit Card Do’s and Don’ts (FindLaw)
• New Debit Card Fees Don’t Always Save Merchants Money (FindLaw’s Free Enterprise)
• Student Credit CARD Loopholes on Campus (FindLaw’s Law & Daily Life)

Do you love going to that cute little diner for lunch but absolutely hate having to pay cash? There are drawbacks to carrying a lot of bills. Maybe you don’t want to get mugged. Or, maybe you’re just busy and can’t make pit stops at the ATM before going out for a meal or a snack.

You might wonder if it’s legal for stores to impose a credit card minimum charge before they’ll swipe your plastic. You’re not alone.

It seems some consumers think that it’s against the law. Except, those consumers are wrong. It’s perfectly legal to impose a minimum charge. Well, most of the time at least.

Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in July 2010. The legislation paved the way for new rules that affect cardholders nationwide.

It specifically allows merchants to set minimum credit card charges. But the cap can only be set at $10 or less.

Before the Dodd-Frank Act, such minimum charges typically violated service agreements with Visa and MasterCard. Meaning, merchants weren’t allowed to set those limits. But the Act made it so that payment card networks like Visa can no longer have these types of regulations.

This means that most of the time, if you see a store posting a credit card minimum of $10 or less, that’s perfectly legal. But if you see a store advertising a minimum purchase of $20, they are violating the law.

It certainly can be annoying. Some people genuinely dislike walking around with a wad of cash in their back pocket. But at the same time, if you want to enjoy a meal or buy something a small store, chances are they might not accept your card if you’re only purchasing a few small items.

For consumers, this now means you might need to trudge around with some green in your wallet.

That is, unless you only plan on frequenting establishments that have no credit card minimum charges. But keep in mind: these rules don’t apply to debit cards.

Related Resources:

• Charging a Minimum on Credit Card Purchases (Merchant Council)
• Avoiding Debt: Credit Card Do’s and Don’ts (FindLaw)
• New Debit Card Fees Don’t Always Save Merchants Money (FindLaw’s Free Enterprise)
• Student Credit CARD Loopholes on Campus (FindLaw’s Law & Daily Life)

Do you love going to that cute little diner for lunch but absolutely hate having to pay cash? There are drawbacks to carrying a lot of bills. Maybe you don’t want to get mugged. Or, maybe you’re just busy and can’t make pit stops at the ATM before going out for a meal or a snack.

You might wonder if it’s legal for stores to impose a credit card minimum charge before they’ll swipe your plastic. You’re not alone.

It seems some consumers think that it’s against the law. Except, those consumers are wrong. It’s perfectly legal to impose a minimum charge. Well, most of the time at least.

Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in July 2010. The legislation paved the way for new rules that affect cardholders nationwide.

It specifically allows merchants to set minimum credit card charges. But the cap can only be set at $10 or less.

Before the Dodd-Frank Act, such minimum charges typically violated service agreements with Visa and MasterCard. Meaning, merchants weren’t allowed to set those limits. But the Act made it so that payment card networks like Visa can no longer have these types of regulations.

This means that most of the time, if you see a store posting a credit card minimum of $10 or less, that’s perfectly legal. But if you see a store advertising a minimum purchase of $20, they are violating the law.

It certainly can be annoying. Some people genuinely dislike walking around with a wad of cash in their back pocket. But at the same time, if you want to enjoy a meal or buy something a small store, chances are they might not accept your card if you’re only purchasing a few small items.

For consumers, this now means you might need to trudge around with some green in your wallet.

That is, unless you only plan on frequenting establishments that have no credit card minimum charges. But keep in mind: these rules don’t apply to debit cards.

Related Resources:

• Charging a Minimum on Credit Card Purchases (Merchant Council)
• Avoiding Debt: Credit Card Do’s and Don’ts (FindLaw)
• New Debit Card Fees Don’t Always Save Merchants Money (FindLaw’s Free Enterprise)
• Student Credit CARD Loopholes on Campus (FindLaw’s Law & Daily Life)

Some Taco Bell customers had to make a run for the doctor’s office after a Salmonella outbreak that infected dozens of people in ten states last fall.

But the outbreak also affected other unidentified restaurants, not just Taco Bell, the fast-food company points out.

A Salmonella outbreak in October and November 2011 infected 68 people, 20 of whom had to be treated at hospitals, the Centers for Disease Control reports, according to ABC News. No one died from the infections.

Salmonella are bacteria that cause fever, diarrhea, and abdominal cramps within 12 to 72 hours of infection. Infection may not require treatment, unless a person becomes dehydrated or the infection spreads.

A CDC report in January described the Salmonella outbreak and linked most of the infections to “Restaurant Chain A.” Food Safety News identified “Chain A” as Taco Bell on Wednesday, ABC reports.

The CDC’s report did not name Taco Bell because of a long-standing policy, according to ABC. The CDC does not identify restaurants under investigation if there is “not a public health threat.”

“By the time we posted information about this outbreak, it was over,” a CDC spokeswoman told ABC. “If it was over, there would have been no public need to disclose it.”

A Taco Bell statement emphasized that “some people who were ill ate at Taco Bell, while others did not,” ABC reports. The problem may be tied to a supplier, the company suggested.

The source of the Taco Bell Salmonella outbreak remains a mystery. Multiple infections were reported in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, while Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, and Tennessee each saw one case of Salmonella infection, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Related Resources:

• Taco Bell Salmonella Outbreak: Investigation Pins Blame On Yum Brands Chain (The Huffington Post)
• Types of Food Poisoning: Salmonella (FindLaw)
• Browse Products Liability Lawyers by Location (FindLaw)
• Food Poisoning: What Are Your Rights? (FindLaw’s Injured)

Asset Acceptance, one of the country’s largest debt collection companies, has agreed to pay the Federal Trade Commission $2.5 million in civil fines. The FTC had accused the company of deceiving debtors and failing to inform them of their rights under a debt’s statute of limitations.

The company is known for buying “charged-off” debt, explains MSNBC. For just pennies, it acquires the right to collect old debts that creditors no longer want to pursue.

But many states have a statute of limitations — normally between 3 and 6 years — that bars creditors from suing over an unpaid debt. At that point, it is up to the debtor to make voluntary payments.

However, those voluntary payments may revive what is called a “time-barred debt.” A partial payment resets the statute of limitations, again giving the creditor a right to sue.

Federal law requires collectors to explain a debt’s statute of limitations and revival when trying to collect a time-barred debt. Asset Acceptance failed to do so.

You should be aware of this issue if a collector is trying to collect an old debt. In fact, you should ask whether he is calling about a time-barred debt.

The collector must answer truthfully, according to the Federal Trade Commission. But if he declines to respond, you should ask for the date of your last payment. Once you find your state’s debt statute of limitations, you will be able to determine whether your debt is time-barred.

At this point, you will need to decide what to do. A partial payment may make you liable, but an unpaid debt will continue to adorn your credit report. If you have enough money, you could call the company and make a deal.

The decision is yours, but be sure to make an informed one.

Related Resources:

• F.T.C. Fines a Collector of Debt $2.5 Million (New York Times)
• Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: FAQs (FindLaw)
• Debt Collection Agency Uses Facebook to Contact Debtor, Gets Sued (FindLaw’s Common Law)

About 1 million packets of Pfizer birth control pills are being recalled because of a mix-up that could lead to unintended pregnancies.

Pfizer announced Tuesday that about 1 million packages of two birth-control products — Lo/Ovral-28 and generic Norgestrel/Ethinyl Estradiol — may not contain enough contraceptive to prevent pregnancy, MSNBC reports.

Pfizer manufactures the pills, but they are marketed under the Akrimax Pharmaceuticals brand, the Associated Press reports. The recalled pill packets have expiration dates between July 31, 2013 and March 31, 2014; the affected lot numbers are listed on the FDA’s website.

The recalled Pfizer birth-control pills are supposed to be taken orally each day over a four-week period. Each birth-control package contains 21 active drug tablets to provide contraception and 7 inactive sugar tablets to coincide with the menstrual period, according to MSNBC.

“What has happened is, there has been a mix-up,” a physician and contributor to Women’s Health magazine explained on NBC’s “Today” show. “So some of the inactive pills have been mixed up and placed where the active pills are, or vice-versa, they’re not quite sure.”

The pills themselves do not pose a health risk, according to Pfizer. But women who use the recalled products “will not be protected against pregnancy for the entire month,” the physician said on “Today.”

“So stop it immediately and use a form of backup birth control instead,” the physician advised. You can watch her interview here:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The mix-up that led to Pfizer’s birth-control recall has been corrected, a company spokeswoman told the Associated Press. She blamed both mechanical and visual-inspection failures at a packaging plant.

Related Resources:

• Pfizer recalls 1M birth control packs after mixup (The Associated Press)
• Pfizer recall the newest troubling development around birth control (The Washington Post)
• Recalls and Safety Alerts (FindLaw)
• Pfizer’s Plan to Block Generic Lipitor May Be Illegal (FindLaw’s In House)

About 1 million packets of Pfizer birth control pills are being recalled because of a mix-up that could lead to unintended pregnancies.

Pfizer announced Tuesday that about 1 million packages of two birth-control products — Lo/Ovral-28 and generic Norgestrel/Ethinyl Estradiol — may not contain enough contraceptive to prevent pregnancy, MSNBC reports.

Pfizer manufactures the pills, but they are marketed under the Akrimax Pharmaceuticals brand, the Associated Press reports. The recalled pill packets have expiration dates between July 31, 2013 and March 31, 2014; the affected lot numbers are listed on the FDA’s website.

The recalled Pfizer birth-control pills are supposed to be taken orally each day over a four-week period. Each birth-control package contains 21 active drug tablets to provide contraception and 7 inactive sugar tablets to coincide with the menstrual period, according to MSNBC.

“What has happened is, there has been a mix-up,” a physician and contributor to Women’s Health magazine explained on NBC’s “Today” show. “So some of the inactive pills have been mixed up and placed where the active pills are, or vice-versa, they’re not quite sure.”

The pills themselves do not pose a health risk, according to Pfizer. But women who use the recalled products “will not be protected against pregnancy for the entire month,” the physician said on “Today.”

“So stop it immediately and use a form of backup birth control instead,” the physician advised. You can watch her interview here:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The mix-up that led to Pfizer’s birth-control recall has been corrected, a company spokeswoman told the Associated Press. She blamed both mechanical and visual-inspection failures at a packaging plant.

Related Resources:

• Pfizer recalls 1M birth control packs after mixup (The Associated Press)
• Pfizer recall the newest troubling development around birth control (The Washington Post)
• Recalls and Safety Alerts (FindLaw)
• Pfizer’s Plan to Block Generic Lipitor May Be Illegal (FindLaw’s In House)

About 1 million packets of Pfizer birth control pills are being recalled because of a mix-up that could lead to unintended pregnancies.

Pfizer announced Tuesday that about 1 million packages of two birth-control products — Lo/Ovral-28 and generic Norgestrel/Ethinyl Estradiol — may not contain enough contraceptive to prevent pregnancy, MSNBC reports.

Pfizer manufactures the pills, but they are marketed under the Akrimax Pharmaceuticals brand, the Associated Press reports. The recalled pill packets have expiration dates between July 31, 2013 and March 31, 2014; the affected lot numbers are listed on the FDA’s website.

The recalled Pfizer birth-control pills are supposed to be taken orally each day over a four-week period. Each birth-control package contains 21 active drug tablets to provide contraception and 7 inactive sugar tablets to coincide with the menstrual period, according to MSNBC.

“What has happened is, there has been a mix-up,” a physician and contributor to Women’s Health magazine explained on NBC’s “Today” show. “So some of the inactive pills have been mixed up and placed where the active pills are, or vice-versa, they’re not quite sure.”

The pills themselves do not pose a health risk, according to Pfizer. But women who use the recalled products “will not be protected against pregnancy for the entire month,” the physician said on “Today.”

“So stop it immediately and use a form of backup birth control instead,” the physician advised. You can watch her interview here:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The mix-up that led to Pfizer’s birth-control recall has been corrected, a company spokeswoman told the Associated Press. She blamed both mechanical and visual-inspection failures at a packaging plant.

Related Resources:

• Pfizer recalls 1M birth control packs after mixup (The Associated Press)
• Pfizer recall the newest troubling development around birth control (The Washington Post)
• Recalls and Safety Alerts (FindLaw)
• Pfizer’s Plan to Block Generic Lipitor May Be Illegal (FindLaw’s In House)