Tag: Consumer Protection

In February 2017, the FTC and the Maine AG’s office announced a complaint and three settlements with dietary supplement marketers who allegedly used radio infomercials deceptively formatted as talk shows and print ads featuring fictitious endorsers to advertise supplements purporting to improve memory and to reduce back and joint pain. The settlement orders resolving charges against the named in the complaint bar them from making similar deceptive claims, and prohibit them from engaging in a wide range of marketing practices that have caused serious financial injury to consumers. In April 2015, the FTC sent refunds to consumers who bought one of the company deceptively marketed supplements, CogniPrin. In August 2019, the FTC send refunds to consumers who bought FlexiPrin, another supplement the company sold.

The FTC alleged that while SecurTest initiated a Privacy Shield application in September 2017 with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the company did not complete the steps necessary to be certified as complying with the frameworks. Because it failed to complete certification, SecurTest was not a certified participant in the frameworks, despite representations to the contrary on its website. The settlement with the FTC prohibits SecurTest from misrepresenting its participation in any privacy or security program sponsored by a government, self-regulatory, or standard-setting organization, including the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield frameworks. It also must comply with reporting and compliance requirements.

In December 2018, officers of a company that marketed and sold Nobetes, a pill they claimed treats diabetes, settled an FTC complaint alleging that the advertising claims for the product are false or unsubstantiated. The order settling the FTC’s complaint prohibits the company and its officers from undertaking future deceptive practices, including making unsubstantiated health claims, misleading consumers about the terms of “free trial” offers, billing consumers without their consent, and other practices related to the use of “expert” endorsements and consumer testimonials. In addition, it requires them to pay money to provide refunds to consumers who bought the product. In August 2019, the FTC returned $60,791 to these consumers.

In October 2016, a federal judge granted the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction against two people and their companies for allegedly tricking small commercial trucking businesses into paying them for federal and state motor carrier registrations by impersonating government transportation agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Transportation. The FTC alleged DOTAuthority.com Inc., DOTFilings.com Inc., Excelsior Enterprises International Inc. and JPL Enterprises International Inc. violated the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act. Under a 2018 settlement order, the DOT Authority defendants are banned from misrepresenting affiliation with any government entity and from using consumers’ billing information to obtain payments without consumers’ express consent. They must also adequately disclose that they are a private third-party service provider and any fees associated with their services. The order imposes a $900,000 judgment to provide refunds to defrauded consumers. In October 2018, the FTC sent $90,000 back to defrauded consumers. In August 2019, the FTC sent an additional $757,946 back to defrauded consumers.

The Federal Trade Commission finalized five separate proposed administrative complaints and orders enforcing the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), which prohibits businesses from using form contract provisions that bar consumers from writing or posting negative reviews online, or threatening them with legal action if they do. These are the first five Commission actions exclusively focused on enforcing the CRFA, with the complaints filed against: 1) A Waldron HVAC, LLC and its owner, Thomas J. Waldron; 2) National Floors Direct, Inc. (NFD); 3) LVTR LLC (LTVR) and its owner, Tomi A. Truax; 4) Shore to Please Vacations LLC; and 5) Staffordshire Property Management, LLC. Each respondent agreed to separate final Commission orders barring them from using such non-disparagement clauses in form contracts for goods and services, and requiring them to notify consumers who signed such contracts that the prohibited text is not enforceable. The FTC sent two letters in response to public comments in the Staffordshire matter.

The Federal Trade Commission finalized five separate proposed administrative complaints and orders enforcing the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), which prohibits businesses from using form contract provisions that bar consumers from writing or posting negative reviews online, or threatening them with legal action if they do. These are the first five Commission actions exclusively focused on enforcing the CRFA, with the complaints filed against: 1) A Waldron HVAC, LLC and its owner, Thomas J. Waldron; 2) National Floors Direct, Inc. (NFD); 3) LVTR LLC (LTVR) and its owner, Tomi A. Truax; 4) Shore to Please Vacations LLC; and 5) Staffordshire Property Management, LLC. Each respondent agreed to separate final Commission orders barring them from using such non-disparagement clauses in form contracts for goods and services, and requiring them to notify consumers who signed such contracts that the prohibited text is not enforceable. The FTC sent two letters in response to public comments in the Staffordshire matter.

The Federal Trade Commission finalized five separate proposed administrative complaints and orders enforcing the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), which prohibits businesses from using form contract provisions that bar consumers from writing or posting negative reviews online, or threatening them with legal action if they do. These are the first five Commission actions exclusively focused on enforcing the CRFA, with the complaints filed against: 1) A Waldron HVAC, LLC and its owner, Thomas J. Waldron; 2) National Floors Direct, Inc. (NFD); 3) LVTR LLC (LTVR) and its owner, Tomi A. Truax; 4) Shore to Please Vacations LLC; and 5) Staffordshire Property Management, LLC. Each respondent agreed to separate final Commission orders barring them from using such non-disparagement clauses in form contracts for goods and services, and requiring them to notify consumers who signed such contracts that the prohibited text is not enforceable. The FTC sent two letters in response to public comments in the Staffordshire matter.