No, Red Cross Is Not Offering Coronavirus Home Tests
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In mid-March 2020, social media users posted a message cautioning that scammers were victimizing elderly people amid the COVID-19 pandemic by impersonating Red Cross volunteers:  A variation of this meme contained a similar warning, along with an image of people clad in white biohazard suits. (We cropped the image out for the sake of privacy.)   This is indeed a scam. Red Cross chapters have warned of criminals exploiting the coronavirus disease in various ways, which has sickened and killed thousands globally and isolated people in their homes worldwide. In a statement emailed to Snopes, a Red Cross spokesperson said: The American Red Cross has seen widespread reports of this scam across the United States, along with other countries, on social media platforms. We would like to emphasize that this rumor is not true. The Red Cross is not going to people's homes to offer coronavirus tests. If someone comes to your house claiming that they work for the Red Cross and that they're authorized to do coronavirus testing, do not allow them in your home. Our most important guidance is for people to please be safe. Should such an incident occur, we ask that you call the police as soon as possible. The Oklahoma chapter, for example, advised the public to be wary of scammers impersonating Red Cross volunteers offering coronavirus testing door-to-door: advised A similar warning was issued by the British Red Cross Northwest Branch. "We would like to make it clear that the Red Cross is not conducting coronavirus tests in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the UK," the statement said.  warning Likewise, the Canadian Red Cross issued an alert that scammers impersonating the organization were exploiting the pandemic by sending out text messages offering to sell or give away protective masks.Unfortunately, scams like these are not new. In a rather cruel variation of this scam during the coronavirus pandemic, a message posted to social media falsely claimed that if you lacked health insurance to pay for a coronavirus diagnostic test, you could donate blood as an alternative because donors must have a blood test. alert  like these variation The U.S. government has since taken steps to roll out widespread testing for the coronavirus disease at no cost to patients. steps Updated with statement from Red Cross and variation of the meme.
On Jan. 7, 2021, a day after a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., a picture started circulating on social media that supposedly showed damage done to the Oval Office:   This is not a genuine photograph of a desecrated Oval Office, and the picture predates the riot. It should also be noted that the Oval Office is located in the White House, not the Capitol. While the Capitol was vandalized during the riot, no damage was done to the White House.  The above-displayed picture has been circulating online since at least November 2020 when it was shared on social media along with messages mocking U.S. President Donald Trump in the wake of his election loss to President-elect Joe Biden.  This image was created by Nick den Boer, an animator, director, and digital artist who posts on social media under the handle @smearballz. This image, along with three others depicting a tarnished Oval Office, was originally posted on Twitter on Nov. 8, 2020, (the day after Biden was declared the winner of the presidential election) along with the caption: "Aftermath." Nick den Boer declared the winner  Another set of similar images depicting a trashed Oval Office was posted to @Smearballs Instagram page in November 2019. Den Boer explained to us that the above-displayed images are all 3D models of the Oval Office.  Instagram page While this is a digital creation that does not depict any actual damage done to the Oval Office, the Capitol was truly vandalized during a mob riot that included the deaths of five people. deaths of five people NBC News reported: reported Hundreds of President Donald Trump's supporters swarmed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, leaving the halls of Congress with broken windows, vandalized walls and ransacked offices. Among the wreckage were pieces of broken furniture, battered doors and heaps of trash littering the hallway floors. A thick film of dust and tear gas residue remained throughout the building that contains the Senate and the House of Representatives. Stolen and damaged items were reported in elected officials' offices, including the wood and gold placard above House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office. Updated [8 January 2021]: Article updated to credit the original artist. Claim:  John McCain would not be eligible to draw a pension after serving two terms as president. Status:  False. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, August 2008] Retirement - Mr. President A point to ponder ... A president's pension currently is $191,300 per year, until he is 80 years old. Assuming the next president lives to age 80. Sen. McCain would receive ZERO pension as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president. Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years after two terms and would receive $4,973,800 in pension. Therefore it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in November. How's that for non partisan thinking? Origins:  We're not sure whether the above-quoted bit of electioneering about presidential pensions was meant to be taken seriously, or whether it was intended to be light-hearted or sardonic, but regardless its basic premise is incorrect. It is true in broad terms that since John McCain is twenty-five years older than Barack Obama (they'll be 72 and 47 years old, respectively, at the time of the next  presidential inauguration), the former would probably draw a smaller aggregate pension as a former president than the latter would.  (There are no guarantees, of course, since we never know what Fate might have in store for anyone.)  It is not true, however, that if John McCain served two terms as president, he would draw no pension at all due to his having reached the maximum age limit (80) by then.  The pension payments allocated to former presidents are lifetime benefits and do not end or expire once a recipient reaches a particular age. Under the terms of the Former Presidents Act (FPA), former presidents are entitled to "a taxable pension that is equal to the annual rate of basic pay for the head of an executive department" (currently $191,300).  This pension is a lifetime benefit that begins "immediately upon a President's departure from office at noon on Inauguration Day."  (Presidential widows receive lifetime pensions of $20,000 per year.) FPA In fact, pensions constitute a relatively small fraction of the federal funds that are provided for the maintenance of former presidents, who also receive Secret Service protection, free mailing privileges, travel funds, and allowances to maintain and staff their offices.  (Secret Service protection for presidents who began serving after 1 January 1997 is no longer a lifetime benefit and is now limited to ten years.)  As the chart below indicates, these additional benefits typically add up to far more than the base pension amount:  All of these expenditures on former presidents are but a drop in the bucket of the overall U.S. federal budget, which currently totals about $3 trillion per year. budget Since both John McCain and Barack Obama are members of the U.S. Senate, whichever one doesn't win the upcoming presidential election will still have a congressional pension to look forward to. Last updated:  14 August 2008    Sources:   Alexander-Bloch, Benjamin.  "Former Presidents Cost U.S. Taxpayers Big Bucks."   The [Toledo] Blade.  7 January 2007.    Smith, Stephanie.  "Former Presidents: Federal Pension and Retirement Benefits."   Congressional Research Service.  18 March 2008. Claim:  Barack Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to "make loans to poor people." false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CitiBank, demanding that loans be made to poor people, and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the 14th Amendment, which requires 'fair and equal' treatment for all citizens. The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor/indigent/unemployed people was, on it's face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course many went into default, in part explaining why we're in the financial mess we're in. Now, it's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Geo. Bush for this crisis, because he's sitting in the hot seat. What many people don't know is the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration. The lawyer filing the suit was none other than: Barak Hussein Obama. Origins:  This item seeks to dump much of the blame for America's current economic woes on Barack Obama by claiming that as a young lawyer, Obama filed a lawsuit requiring financial institutions to lend money to"poor people" and "others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back."  Although there is a (very) vague element of fact underneath this politicking, the piece quoted above is woefully wrong in all its particulars. The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money  Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank back."  The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings initiated by a black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race.  The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives (a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay).  Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories."  The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages. redlining Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter.  He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case: Obama admits he played a mostly behind-the-scenes role at his law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland. He researched the law, drafted motions, prepared for depositions and did other less glamorous work during his three years full-time and eight years "of counsel" to the firm.  "He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss. Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods. "I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech  it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case. "He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank and he was not very visible to me." Kriss, Clayton and every other co-counsel and opposing counsel interviewed for this story praised Obama's legal ability, temperament and everything about his courtroom demeanor, even though, they agree, he didn't say much in the courtroom.  On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank  which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees  $467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165. Miner commanded the higher rate of $285 an hour. During his appearance before the judge, Obama said he would need more time to file a response to a motion, and the judge agreed. That was all Obama said during the half-hour hearing. His final bill on the case was 138 hours, or $23,000. Last updated:  5 September 2012    Associated Press.  "Some Cases Obama Worked on in His Career as an Attorney."   20 February 2007. At the end of June 2006, a new blog entitled "That Girl Emily" appeared at thatgirlemily.blogspot.com. Ostensibly the musings of a married, 35-year-old New Jersey realtor named Emily, the blog for the first few weeks reported what might be read as the ordinary musings of a suburban professional woman: details of a recent vacation with her husband (Steven, a financial consultant), frustrations she experienced in pilates class, her husband's slow climb up the corporate ladder, and (after prompting by her sister) a discussion of her declining sex life. thatgirlemily.blogspot.com The blog then took a sudden left turn when Emily's brother convinced her to hire a private investigator (PI) to "spy" on her husband  a suggestion which Emily promptly accepted, implemented, and concluded in short order, finding out in the process (Quelle surprise!) that her husband was carrying on an expensive affair with her best friend, Laura. Emily spent the next few weeks venting her anger at her lying, cheating husband in her blog, including divulging information about various revenge schemes she had enacted to get back at Steven, starting with the billboard pictured here:  This photo is what Ive been talking about, the favors that I called in for. Brilliant, isn't it? I think so. I ran out early this morning to beat the rush hour traffic (didn't quite go as planned but at least it wasn't standstill) and got a picture of my billboard. My way to tell the world about the lowlife I've just wasted so many years on. I put it near Steven's office so his co-workers and friends could see exactly what a cheating scumbag he is. And of course, for all of you to see as well. I've decided to do what so many quiet, back-stabbed wives don't  take charge, make my whoring, cheating, adulterous, fornicating husband know what it feels like to be humiliated. And do it with many decibels. It's a personal message for everyone to read. Thanks goes out to my husband who chipped in on the price tag. Golly gee honey, I would've never been able to tell the world about your exploits with my best friend without your contribution! Gotta love joint bank accounts. Oh, sorry Steve, I had to splurge on the lights, too. Some people work late, like you. And theyre always driving home when it's dark. Burning that midnight oil, Steve-o. Just like you. So for the next two weeks, starting with today, I will exact revenge on my whoring husband. And who knows what a disparaged woman with lots of resources at her disposal might do?! Many readers who had been following "Emily"'s blog already suspected that something wasn't quite on the level, and their suspicions were confirmed when billboards with text identical to the one pictured above ("Hi Steven, Do I have your attention now? I know all about her, you dirty, sneaky, immoral, unfaithful, poorly endowed slimeball. Everything's caught on tape. Your [soon-to-be-ex] Wife, Emily.") popped up not only in New York, but in Brooklyn, Los Angeles, and Chicago as well. Some sharp-eyed readers noticed that one of Emily's blog entries was remarkably similar to the plot line of an episode of Court TV's reality show Parco P.I., and the blog and billboards were soon revealed as a stealth promotion for the upcoming season of that television series: Parco P.I. The billboard created interest, and not just from an unfaithful Steven. A booking agent from "Good Morning America" sent an e-mail to Emily inviting her on the show. British Glamour wanted to make her the subject of a feature article. But when pictures of the billboard proliferated on blogs, readers quickly dug in. One fact soon emerged, thanks to camera phone pictures: the billboard was identical to others in Brooklyn, Los Angeles and Chicago. Someone else discovered that Emily was keeping a blog, thatgirlemily.blogspot.com, detailing Steven's infidelities. More digging showed that one Emily blog entry was oddly similar to a synopsis for an episode of "Parco P.I.," a reality show on Court TV. Another "source" sent an e-mail suggesting that Court TV was behind the signs, pointing out that it was a viral marketing campaign to promote one of its programs. Mystery solved. The bad news for viral marketers who use these kind of devices: executives at Court TV said they did not really want to be discovered so quickly. The good news is that even after the ruse was discovered, people visited the Emily blog, pushing it to one million hits by the end of [July 2006]. A fake surveillance video on the blog, supposedly from a private eye capturing Steven holding hands with his paramour, hit YouTube and became one of its most-viewed videos. Did it even matter that Emily was fictitious? "Emily is really an amalgam of all of us who have been cheated on," said Marc Juris, general manager for programming and marketing at Court TV. "Clearly, this really resonated with people." The "Emily" ruse was originally intended to be a stunt to help promote the start of the show's new season on Aug. 15, but Court TV's marketing group liked the idea so much that they made it a large part of the campaign.  Mr. Juris was still marveling: "It's like a flash investigation took place, and within 24 hours we were busted." A similar billboard was spotted in Greensboro, North Carolina, in March 2013, this one supposedly bearing a message from a scorned woman named Jennifer, whose unfaithful partner, Michael, was carrying on an affair with a woman named Jessica. The text of the billboard echoed MasterCard's classic "Priceless" campaign, listing items (e.g., a GPS tracker, a Nikon camera) Jessica had purchased to expose Michael's cheating ways and stating that she had used the couple's investment account to fund putting up the shaming sign.  Local news accounts identified this billboard as another advertising gimmick, in this case for a Greensboro yogurt and coffee shop: What is known is that the billboard is owned by Outdoor Signage, a local company whose phone number connects to the offices of Kotis Properties. Kotis also owns a yogurt and coffee shop  Yo Daddy Dessert Bar  on Westover Terrace, the name of which was [later] featured on the billboard. Jessica  Meet me at Yodaddys at 7:00 p.m. for some wine therapy.  Jennifer, the new message read.  Debbie Hill, vice president of Triad Outdoor Advertising (which is not affiliated with the sign), said she has never known of anyone locally buying a billboard for a revenge message. She added that personalized messages are rare in the business. Its usually way too expensive, she said. In January 2010, YaVaughnie Wilkins put up a series of billboards in New York, San Francisco, and Atlanta after learning that the married man with whom she had been carrying on an affair for over eight years, Charles E. Phillips, had reconciled with his wife. Those billboards bore no scornful messages, however  they simply displayed a romantic picture of the couple, along with their first names and a reproduced quote from Phillips stating "You are my soulmate forever":  The billboards did include a URL for a (no longer active) web site, charlesphillipsandyavaughniewilkins.com, which featured numerous photographs and other mementos documenting the multi-year relationship between Wilkins and Phillips. The attendant publicity forced Phillips, who at the time was the president of Oracle Corporation and a member of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, to publicly acknowledge the affair. (YaVaughnie Wilkins' experience was also chronicled in the documentary film The Glamorous Lie.) The Glamorous Lie Berg, Emmett et al.  "Jilted Mistress Proclaims Love for Exec Ex with Billboard."
  New York Post.  22 January 2010. Bosman, Julie.  "Public Hath No Fury, Even When Deceived."
  The New York Times.  24 July 2006  (p. C6). Gardner, David.  "Revenge by Billboard."
  Daily Mail.  23 Janaury 2010. Tucker, Chad.  "Wifes Billboard Revenge a Clever Marketing Ploy by Restaurant Company."
  WGHP-TV [Greensboro].  20 March 2013. [Greensboro] News & Record.  "Greensboro Billboard Draws Attention."
  22 March 2013. Claim:  "Poison pill" amendment inserted into Health Care Bill by Senator Reid makes proposed bill unamendable if passed. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2010] The impudent tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!! [Rest of article here.] here   Origins:  The gist of this piece, a reproduction of a Washington Examiner editorial, is that Senator Harry Reid of Nevada furtively slipped language into a health care reform bill which would absolutely prevent Congress from ever modifying or repealing the section of the bill to which it applied.  Although the language cited does appear in the bill, it has been quoted out of context and its applicability has been exaggerated. editorial It is true that beginning on page 1,001 of the referenced measure, Section 3403 reads in part:  '... it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.'"  However, that sentence fragment is a misleading, selective excerpt which doesn't provide the full context.  The passage reads, in full: measure (A) IN GENERAL   It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, or amendment, pursuant to this subsection or conference report thereon, that fails to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).  (B) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLATION  It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report (other than pursuant to this section) that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the Board if that change would fail to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2). (C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION.  It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection. What that means, in effect, is that Congress may not make modifications to the referenced section if such modifications do not meet criteria specified elsewhere  ["subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2)"] in the measure.  Those criteria are: (A) REQUIREMENTS.  Each proposal submitted under this section in a proposal year shall meet each of the following requirements:(i) If the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has made a determination under paragraph (7)(A) in the determination year, the proposal shall include recommendations so that the proposal as a whole (after taking into account recommendations under clause (v)) will result in a net reduction in total Medicare program spending in the implementation year that is at least equal to the applicable savings target established under paragraph (7)(B) for such implementation year. In determining whether a proposal meets the requirement of the preceding sentence, reductions in Medicare program spending during the 3-month period immediately preceding the implementation year shall be counted to the extent that such reductions are a result of the implementation of recommendations contained in the proposal for a change in the payment rate for an item or service that was effective during such period pursuant to subsection (e)(2)(A). (C) NO INCREASE IN TOTAL MEDICARE PROGRAM SPENDING.  Each proposal submitted under this section shall be designed in such a manner that implementation of the recommendations contained in the proposal would not be expected to result, over the 10-year period starting with the implementation year, in any increase in the total amount of net Medicare program spending relative to the total amount of net Medicare program spending that would have occurred absent such implementation. In other words,  these prolix passages do not absolutely bar any changes to the measure; they're simply protections that prohibit Congress from enacting modifications to the referenced section that would create an increase in net Medicare program spending or cause it to go over budget.  Moreover, page 1002 specifically states that such protections may be waived by a three-fifths vote of the Senate: (D) WAIVER.  This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. (E) APPEALS.  An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this paragraph. Last updated:  22 March 2010 Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine announced a statewide mask mandate starting July 23, 2020, amidst a rise in COVID-19 cases in the region, online rumors suggested any mask manufacturers, including those selling masks from home, were at risk of facing lawsuits.  announced rise Snopes readers alerted us to the circulation of the above-displayed letter purportedly from the Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA), printed on an American Bar Association (ABA) letterhead. Dated July 19, 2020, the letter claimed that under "Ohio Consumer Laws" individuals could bring a lawsuit against establishments selling or manufacturing masks without licenses or warning labels, including those selling out of their homes, especially if wearers got lung damage. The letter, full of grammatical errors and deprived of punctuation, stated: Under Ohio Consumer Laws you can now bring lawsuit against any retail establishment selling or manufacturing Face Masks or Facial Coverings for the purpose virus protection You can now file lawsuits against anyone selling a facial covering that has not been Medically Approved to filter contagious diseases. This includes any Homemade or Factory made mask With the rise in lung damage caused by pleurisy you can Legally sue for Medical Damages and or selling a Medical Device without license Any mask sold without proper warning labeling sewn into the fabric will be considered in violation, you can also file a mislabeled or not FDA approved lawsuit You can also pursue anyone selling face masks out of their homeYou can also bring suit if selling a medical device without licenseYou can also bring suit for Illegal Monetary Sales and failure to disclose income under IRS 254-70994USYou can also now bring suit against any small business that knowingly sells a defective face covering that causes lung damage We believe these lawsuits will be very lucrative moving forward We learned that the letter attribution was fake and its contents were suspect. In a statement on their Facebook page, the OSBA said they did not issue a letter and readers should be wary of its contents: statement   We reached out to the OSBA who would not comment on the contents of the letter because as an organization they refrain from giving legal advice.  Snopes also reached out to the Ohio attorney generals office about the information in the letter. A representative confirmed that under Ohio law consumers can bring lawsuits against suppliers for unfair and deceptive practices, but much of what constitutes a violation relies on court interpretation. According to the Ohio Revised Code, such deceptive practices include: Ohio Revised Code That the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have; That the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, prescription, or model, if it is not [...] It is likely that this applies to any mask manufacturers that make deceptive promises about the quality of their product(s) and the level of protection the product(s) provide. DeWine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended the use of homemade and non-medical grade masks in addition to practicing social distancing. The CDC stated that surgical masks or respirators are critical supplies that should continue to be reserved for healthcare workers. The Ohio state and federal governments have shared recommendations for do-it-yourself (DIY) or homemade masks without any requirement for a license or warning labels. Consumer protection laws may apply to people selling these homemade masks without affixed labels, but the actual legal implications remain unclear given government recommendations.  DeWine Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Ohio The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulates masks used for medical purposes only. In April 2020, when health care providers in the U.S. reportedly did not have access to enough personal protective equipment, including masks, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for face masks used by the general public and in health care settings during the COVID-19 public health emergency. In short, this EUA required that face masks should be labeled accurately and their use not be misrepresented. Authorized masks were to meet the following requirements:  Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) 1. The product is labeled accurately to describe the product as a face mask and includes a list of the body contacting materials (which does not include any drugs or biologics); 2. The product is labeled accurately so that it does not claim to be intended for use as a surgical mask or to provide liquid barrier protection; 3. The product labeling includes recommendations against use in a clinical setting where the infection risk level through inhalation exposure is high; 4. The product is not labeled in such a manner that would misrepresent the products intended use; for example, the labeling must not state or imply that the product is intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related uses or is for use such as infection prevention or reduction; 5. The product is not labeled as a respiratory protective device, and therefore should not be used for particulate filtration; and 6. The product is not labeled for use in high risk aerosol generating procedures. In sum, although the above-displayed letter was fake, it is possible that consumer protection laws that apply to all kinds of manufacturers would also apply to mask manufacturing, even though its interpretation in situations involving homemade masks is unclear. We thus rate this claim as false. Codes.Ohio.gov.  "Chapter 109:4-3 Deceptive Acts or Trade Practices in Connection with Consumer Transactions."
 Accessed 3 August 2020 FDA.gov. "To: Manufacturers of Face Masks; Health Care Personnel; Hospital Purchasing Departments and Distributors; and Any Other Stakeholders."
  24 April 2020.  Ingles, Jo.  "Coronavirus in Ohio: Ohioans Advised To Wear Homemade Masks in Public."
  WOSU.  6 April 2020. Morello, Carol.  "Coronavirus Cases on the Rise in the Midwest as They Ebb in the Sun Belt."
  The Washington Post.  28 July 2020. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Considerations for Wearing Masks."
  16 July 2020. Waldrop, Theresa.  "Ohio Governor Orders Statewide Mask Mandate as of Thursday."
 CNN. 22 July 2020. In late December 2020, a misleading online advertisement appeared to announce that Monica Lewinsky was dead and that her net worth stunned her family. It read: "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family At Age 47. Monica Lewinsky Leaves Behind A Net Worth That Will Boggle Your Mind." appeared   However, this was not true. She is alive, and despite what the ad claimed, there was no indication in the resulting story that her net worth shocked her family. The ad was sponsored by the Therapy Joker website and was hosted on the Yahoo! Gemini advertising service. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a 430-page story with the headline: "The Biggest Hollywood Celebrities & Their Incredible Net Worth  Can You Guess Who Has The Biggest Bank Account?" Lewinsky's net worth appeared on page 417. This meant that readers had to click "Next Page" 417 times to reach the page for Lewinsky: page 417 Monica Lewinsky: Activist and TV Personality - $500,000 Monica Samille Lewinsky is a lady of many skills. This popular American television personality is also a successful fashion designer, activist, and a former intern at the White House. The papparazi constantly followed her and she was a regular face in the media during her time at the White House. However, she made up her mind to leave all that behind and went on to pursue a different career. Besides that, she has also authored the book, Monica: Her Story which added to her fame. The London School of Economics and Political Science alumni [sic] is now 47 years old and is a popular television personality. She took a lavish apartment on rent and had quite a luxurious lifestyle. Her fleet of cars includes a Mini Cooper and a Cadillac. We hope she has a professional financial advisor is coming to her aid as far as her banking is concerned. Currently, the media personality, activist, and fashion designer has retained her fame and we hope Lewinsky does the same for the money shes accumulated over the years. The page mentioned nothing about Lewinsky's purported death, nor did it present any information about her family being stunned by her net worth. The misleading advertisement and exceptionally lengthy article reflect a strategy known in the advertising world as "arbitrage." The Therapy Joker website's goal was to make more money from ads displayed on each of the 430 pages than it cost to lure readers with the initial "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family" ad in the first place. The business and technology blog Margins defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." Margins also referred to it as "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." defined Lewinsky was a White House intern in the mid-1990s who became famous after her affair with former U.S. President Bill Clinton became a public scandal. In December 1998, Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the Senate did not vote to convict and remove him from office. He served the remainder of his second term in the White House. impeached We previously covered similar misleading net worth stories for Sean Connery, Jaleel White, Richard Gere, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, and Alex Trebek. Sean Connery Jaleel White Richard Gere Chuck Norris Clint Eastwood Alex Trebek Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us In early September 2018, an image purportedly showing the Nike "swoosh" symbol on the tag of a "Make America Great Again" hat started spreading online:   The image was posted in the midst of a controversy over former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick's involvement in a new advertising campaign for Nike, a sports apparel company. Kaepernick made headlines in 2016 by kneeling during pregame renditions of the national anthem to protest racial inequality and police brutality. controversy 2016 The "take a knee" protests, which caught on with other NFL players and spread to athletes in other sports, were viewed by some (including President Trump) as unpatriotic and disrespectful to veterans. So when Kaepernick showed up in Nike's 0th anniversary "Just Do It" ad campaign, some disgruntled consumers took to social media to share photographs and videos of themselves destroying various pieces of Nike apparel to demonstrate their displeasure. destroying It appears that this image of a Nike-branded "Make America Great Again" cap was posted in an attempt to "troll" pro-Trump conservatives who were upset over Kaepernick's endorsement deal ("Make America Great Again," or "MAGA," is a well-known Trump slogan). When the image was shared by Twitter user @Nicoxw1, for example, it included a message facetiously noting that "133,291,000 Americans will have a stroke today." message The image is a hoax, merely a manipulated version of an older viral image showing a "Made in China" tag on a "Make America Great Again" hat. Here's a look at the original photograph, as well as a side-by-side comparison of the Nike MAGA hat image (right) and the original "Made in China" image (left):   It should be noted that while some third-party companies do produce "Make America Great Again" hats in China, the website DonaldJTrump.com, from which customers can purchase official MAGA merchandise, states that all their products are proudly made in U.S.A. third-party companies Sandritter, Mark.  "A Timeline of Colin Kaepernicks National Anthem Protest and the Athletes Who Joined Him."
  SB Nation.  25 September 2017. Abad-Santos, Alex.  "Why the Social Media Boycott Over Colin Kaepernick Is a Win for Nike."
  Vox.  6 September 2018. "If something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is" says the manta of the fact-checking industry. In December 2018, a number of social media users came across a post promising a chance at an ambassadorship with the popular brand Lululemon. The posting, which was shared by Instagram accounts such as @lulurecruitment.co (which has no affiliation with the real Lululemon) explained that anyone with 150 followers had a chance of obtaining free clothes and gift for simply sharing this advertisement with their friends on social media: @lulurecruitment.co   This is not a genuine offer from Lululemon, and the accounts sharing this message are not affiliated with the brand. Lululemon's social media team has responded to a few queries about the scam with messages similar to the following: responded FB User: Is this legit? I am assuming no Lululemon: Hi Michelle, You've got itour accounts are verified with the blue check mark, and our ambassadors are chosen individually by our stores rather than via our social channels. This account has been flagged to our brand protection team. Let me know if you have more questions! - Camilla The non-existent ambassadorship was only offered to users with a minimum of 150 followers, which is a relatively low bar for any sort of social media position, especially for a well-known national brand such as Lululemon. This scam also required potential "ambassadors" to follow the fake Lululemon account and then share its post with their friends. This allowed the scammers to build a following and ensured that their dishonest message would be spread to a greater number of social media users. This Lululemon scam followed a strategy similar to other "like farming" social media schemes. Such fraudsters offer something of value (in this case an ambassadorship) in exchange for social media engagement, which allows them to quickly build a following and then provides them the opportunity to sell the account to a third party. like farming One way to avoid this type of scam is to double-check to make sure that a company-affiliated post actually originated with the brand's official social media accounts: @lululemon can you confirm if this is real or fake? pic.twitter.com/gnp8g2sD2p @lululemon pic.twitter.com/gnp8g2sD2p  Jason Davis (@Jasonnn93) December 13, 2018 December 13, 2018  Social media users should also keep old adages such as "nothing in life is free" when they peruse the internet. Claim:  American Muslims for Jerusalem have called for a boycott of Estee Lauder products. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] Estee Lauder Corporation (which is also is the parent company of  Prescriptives, Mac, Bobbie Brown, La Mer, Jo Malone, Origins, Aramis, Aveda and Bumble and Bumble) is being boycotted by a loud and ambitious campaign of the world's Arab and Muslim community due to Ron Lauder's (Estee Lauder's President) support for Israel.  Mr. Lauder has been extremely courageous and public in his support for the Jewish State and has taken real personal and financial risks to inform the world of the war that the Palestinian Authority has declared on Israel and Jews worldwide.  To combat this boycott I suggest that we all go out and buy as much Estee Lauder and Clinique products as possible.  Make the Estee Lauder and Clinique counters your gift of choice.  Switch brands at least for a while.  It is said that beauty has many discomforts. So does supporting those who speak for us.  Am Yisrael Chai!   PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW! LET'S SHOW THE ARABS THAT PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD WILL STAND TOGETHER.  Ronnie Lauder is married to Jo Carol Knopf Lauder born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware. Her parents were humble Holocaust survivors!  He also works undauntingly for the re-establishment of the Hungarian Jewish community. A good man! PLEASE PASS THIS MESSAGE! Origins:  In February 2001, the American Muslims for Jerusalem, a political group in Washington, called for a worldwide Arab boycott of Estee Lauder products. The group was acting in protest against Ronald Lauder, chairman of Estee Lauder International and Clinique Laboratories, because of his "activities in support of Israeli right-wing extremists." A spokesman for the group said Muslims and Arabs had long been offended by Mr. Lauder's pro-Israeli views, but had not decided to call for a boycott until Mr. Lauder appeared at the "One Jerusalem" rally of religious and nationalist Israelis in January of that  year. The call for an Arab and Muslim boycott of Estee Lauder almost immediately inspired an appeal to Jews and those of pro-Israeli sentiment to support the company by buying its products. This call to arms was circulated in many forms, including via the Internet. (No mention of the Arab/Muslim boycott, the anti-boycott, or Ron Lauder's actions appears on either the Estee Lauder or the American Muslims for Jerusalem web sites, though.) Ron Lauder has been a vocal supporter of Israel and Israeli causes for many years. In 1999 he attempted to broker a peace pact between Israel and Syria by acting as a go-between for Syrian President Hafez Assad and then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The deal failed because the two parties could not reach agreement on the disposition of the Golan Heights. Whether any boycott or a show of support would have an appreciable impact on Estee Lauder's bottom line is debatable  when a multinational coporation with sales in the billions of dollars is involved, only the sustained, concerted actions of millions of consumers can make the needle so much as twitch. For the fiscal year ended 30 June 2001, Estee Lauder had net sales of $4.62 billion, which was an 8% increase on the preceding year's $4.37 billion. For the first three quarters of the fiscal year that will end on 30 June 2002, net sales are $3.57 billion, which is the nearly the same sales figure as the equivalent period last year. More simply, if there's a boycott or counter-boycott going on, the income statement isn't demonstrating any impact from it. Barbara "estee of execution" Mikkelson Additional Information:   Estee Lauder Corporation  Last updated:  1 October 2007    Sources:   Barron, James.  "Boldface Names."   The New York Times.  28 February 2001  (p. B2).     Dan, Uri and Niles Lathem.  "Lauder Was a Go-Between for Israel, Syria."   The New York Post .  6 October 1999  (p. 18).     DeNitto, Emily.  "New York, New York."   Crain's New York Business.  13 August 2001  (p. 6).     The New York Post.  "Unkindest Cut for CNN Legend."   5 March 2001  (p. 8).