Zombie Cookies Slated to be Killed

In response to ProPublica’s original revelation, Turn said it will suspend using its zombie cookie


Tech company Turn said it would stop using tracking cookies that are impossible to delete. The decision came in response to a ProPublica article this week that revealed the controversial practice.


"We have heard the concerns and are actively re-evaluating this method," Max Ochoa, Turn's chief privacy officer, wrote in a blog post.


He said the company plans aims to suspend the practice by "early February."


Turn's zombie cookie was exploiting a hidden undeletable number that Verizon uses to track its customers on their smartphones on tablets. Turn used the Verizon number to respawn tracking cookies that users had deleted. The company said it will now re-evaluate its practices.


Turn's decision to suspend the practice was a sharp reversal from its previous stance. It had previously argued that "clearing cookies is not a reliable way for a user to express their desire not to receive tailored advertising."


Critics across the Web vocally disagreed. Jason Kint, CEO of a trade association for digital content companies, wrote that "this kind of surreptitious behavior does nothing to build trust between consumers, advertisers and publishers." The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights organization, said Turn's action made it " impossible for customers to meaningfully control their online privacy."






Lawsuits: Glucosamine's Promised Relief Mostly Marketing Hype
Consumers report adverse reactions
Glucosamine, a dietary supplement that has been touted as being able to do everything from rebuild cartilage to helping to cure arthritis, is one of the most popular non-vitamin over-the-counter supplements in the U.S. with sales topping $700 million. But the benefits of glucosamine are in dispute.
Glucosamine became popular in the U.S. in the 1990s. An amino acid that is produced commercially from the exoskeletons of crustaceans, it is often coupled with chondroitin in supplements.
Sales of the supplement grew quickly in the mid-1990s when it was hailed in Dr. Jason Theodosakis’ book, “The Arthritis Cure.” The 1996 book cited then-promising studies that found glucosamine stimulated the production of cartilage, helped reduce pain and improved joint function in some patients.
Marketers seized on the claims, touting glucosamine products to consumers eager for relief from joint pain and stiffness.
Clinical studies 
But not all doctors were on board with this supplement as a cure-all for joint problems.
Theodosakis said glucosamine — which he sells in supplement form on his website — was meeting with resistance from U.S. doctors “because they don’t know any better” and later, in a 2013 interview with Dr. Oz, discussed with him about how it was becoming the Darth Vader of supplements. But doctors may have had good reason to be hesitant to embrace the supplement.
In February 2004, the American Journal of Orthopedics published an article saying that cartilage could not be regenerated because blood doesn’t flow to the damage cartilage, thus preventing any mechanism to rebuild it.
A slew of later studies, including a 2006 landmark study funded by National Institutes of Health, also countered claims of effectiveness of the supplement.
The 2006 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that while a small subgroup of patients with moderate to severe pain showed some relief, there was no evidence glucosamine and chondroitin were effective in relieving the symptoms of osteoarthritis. Other studies confirmed similar findings:
A 2008 study also sponsored by the National Institutes of Health published in the Journal Arthritis and Rheumatism that followed up on the 2006 study found that the supplements were no more effective at preventing joint damage caused by arthritis than a placebo.
A 2009 Harvard Medical School study found that ingesting glucosamine could not affect the growth of cartilage.
A 2011 study published in the Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceuticals Sciences found that regardless of the formulation used, there were no benefits from taking glucosamine.
Stiffer opposition
Now the industry is facing a slew of lawsuits taking aim at a variety of marketing claims made by manufacturers and major retailers, such as Wal-Mart, in the packaging and advertising of glucosamine supplements. The challenged claims include:
Protect and rebuild cartilage tissue
Improve joint health
Lubricate joints
Improve joint mobility and flexibility
Reduce joint pain
Several of the lawsuits also criticized the earlier studies touted by the industry as heavily flawed, noting that some were sponsored by glucosamine manufacturers. (Some of the lawsuits have reached multi-million settlements. See related story here on’s efforts on one such settlement.)
In addition to the lawsuits, some experts started advising against taking the supplement. In 2013, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons announced it was recommending  patients who suffer from osteoarthritis of the knee not take glucosamine.
Warnings to companies 
Dietary supplements do not receive the same oversight as drugs by the FDA. But the agency was clear back in 2004 about claims it said a glucosamine supplement marketer should not make. Back then, the agency rejected a request by Arizona-based Weider Nutrition International to make claims its glucosamine product could reduce the risk of osteoarthritis and osteoarthritis-related joint pain and degeneration, finding that scientific evidence to date wasn’t sufficient to back up the claims and that many of the studies the company cited were seriously flawed.
The agency in subsequent years also sent warning letters to dozens of manufacturers and marketers of glucosamine products with quality control issues and for making treatment claims — such as “rebuild healthy cartilage” and “soothe joints while helping the rebuilding process” — that made them unapproved drugs. But those were just a few of a number of marketers making similar claims who continued to flood the market with glucosamine products.
Is it safe?
According to documents obtained by through a Freedom of Information request, the FDA has also received more than 200 adverse events reports reported by consumers taking glucosamine products to dietary supplement manufacturers. The reports cite a variety of reactions including everything from abdominal pain to atrial fibrillation to a death.
FDA spokeswoman Jennifer Dooren said that it is often difficult for the FDA to fully evaluate whether the product caused the adverse event or simply coincided with it. Some reports are missing information such as other supplements or drugs a person may have been taking along with glucosamine and the condition of their overall health.
“The fact that an adverse event happened after a person took a dietary supplement does not necessarily mean that the dietary supplement caused the adverse event,’’ she said in an email to “… If we find a relationship between the consumption of the product and harm, FDA will take appropriate action to reduce or eliminate the risk.”
Read more about’s continuing coverage of glucosamine here


SEBI bars Utkarsha Plotters & Multi Agro from collecting money from investors

As per the financial statements of Utkarsha, it had long term liability Rs6.36 crore as on 31 March 2013 as against an inventory of Rs98.54 lakh comprising of agricultural lands


Market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has barred Utkarsha Plotters & Multi Agro Solutions India Limited and its directors from collecting any fresh money from the investors under its existing scheme. 
In its order, SEBI said the company is barred from launching any new schemes or plans or float any new companies to raise fresh moneys. “They are not to dispose of or alienate any of the properties/assets obtained directly or indirectly through money raised by the company. They are not to divert any funds raised from public at large which are kept in bank account(s) and/or in the custody of the company; to furnish all the information/details sought by SEBI within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order,” the order said.
The Company was engaged in fund mobilizing activity from public by floating/ sponsoring/ launching unregistered / unauthorized Collective Investment Scheme (CIS) as defined in section 11AA of the SEBI Act, 1992.
As per its marketing pamphlets, Utkarsha was inviting investments into its various plans with an estimated realisable value for developed plots. Some were instalment payment plans and a few were cash down payment plans. 
From the sample copy of the receipt issued by Utkarsha to purchasers/ investors, SEBI noted that plot size, estimated realisable value of developed plot, date of handing over the possession of developed plot etc. were mentioned, but there was no identification of the plots earmarked for a particular investor.
As per the financial statements of Utkarsha, it had long term liability (booking against sale of land) of Rs1.61 crore as on 31 March 2012 and Rs6.36 crore as on 31 March 2013. It had an inventory of Rs98.54 lakh as on 31 March 2013 comprising of agricultural lands.
Utkarsha submitted to SEBI a list of approximately 12,083 investors (as on 31 March 2013) and a list of 274 investors (as on March 31, 2013) who had entered into an agreement for sale with company for transfer of land in investors names, which is approximately 2.3% of the total investor base of Utkarsha. However, Utkarsha has not provided any proof of having registered sale deed or agreement of sale with investors.
The activities of Utkarsha violate SEBI’s basic principle: "no person shall sponsor or cause to be sponsored or cause to be carried on a 'collective investment scheme' unless he obtains a certificate of registration from the Board in accordance with the regulations.”


We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)