Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

Unrollme Inc. reached a settlement with the FTC over allegations that the company deceived some consumers about how it accesses and uses their personal emails.

According to the agency’s April 2019 complaint, UrthBox violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting that positive consumer reviews on the BBB’s and other websites reflected the independent experiences or opinions of impartial consumers, while the reviewers actually had a material connection to the company. The FTC alleged that UrthBox did not adequately disclose that some consumers received compensation, including free snack boxes, to post those positive reviews. The final order settling the FTC’s charges bars the respondents from engaging in similar conduct and requires them to pay $100,000 to the FTC. In December 2019, the FTC returned more than $84,000 to compensate consumers charged after signing up for the trial offer.

In June 2018, the final two defendants among a group of California-based marketers were permanently barred from the deceptive marketing and billing tactics used in connection with selling skincare products offered to consumers with supposedly “risk-free” trials. The court order settled the charges against them, which the FTC announced in mid-2015. In all, 32 defendants who sold AuraVie, Dellure, LéOR Skincare, and Miracle Face Kit branded skincare products agreed to court orders with the FTC or had default orders entered against them. In November 2019, the FTC announced it was returning over $1.8 million to consumers who bought the deceptively marketed products.

The Federal Trade Commission has sued online dating service Match Group, Inc. (Match), the owner of Match.com, Tinder, OKCupid, PlentyOfFish, and other dating sites, alleging that the company used fake love interest advertisements to trick hundreds of thousands of consumers into purchasing paid subscriptions on Match.com. The agency also alleges that Match has unfairly exposed consumers to the risk of fraud and engaged in other allegedly deceptive and unfair practices. For instance, the FTC alleges Match offered false promises of “guarantees,” failed to provide services to consumers who unsuccessfully disputed charges, and made it difficult for users to cancel their subscriptions.

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.

The Federal Trade Commission reached settlements with a group of St. Louis-based defendants who used deceptive Internet pop-up ads to trick consumers into buying unnecessary technical support services.

The FTC is mailing 53,595 refund checks totaling $748,070 to consumers nationwide who signed up for an online auction kit that was supposed to be free, but wasn’t. The kit actually cost consumers up to $59.95 per month if they failed to cancel a trial membership in a business opportunity program called Online Supplier.

In November 2018, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against recidivist Tuan Duong, among others, alleging he falsely promised to reduce students’ monthly loan payments or to eliminate or reduce their educational debts, but widely failed to deliver those services. The defendants also allegedly promoted a 96 percent success rate in reducing consumers’ student loan payments. In fact, the FTC alleged, the consumers who purchased these services often did not receive any debt relief and lost hundreds of dollars. The FTC alleged that the defendants charged consumers illegal upfront fees of $300 or more for these purported debt relief services. A federal court temporarily halted the scheme and froze its assets.

In May 2019, Duong, the ringleader of the scheme, agreed to settle the Commission’s charges that he bilked $11 million from consumers who were trying to reduce their student loan monthly payments or get loan forgiveness. Under the modified court order, Duong admits he violated the 2016 order and is now banned from the telemarketing industry. The proposed modified final order against Duong contains both injunctive and monetary relief. The order contains an $11,000,215.25 judgment as compensatory relief to the FTC and permanently bans Duong from the telemarketing industry.

In July 2019, both Avitia-Pena, president of Impetus Enterprise, Inc., and Jimmy Calderon, manager of Capital Sun Investments, LLC, settled the FTC’s charges alleging they conducted student loan debt relief operations associated with Duong. The $11 million settlement to be paid by Avitia-Pena represents gross revenues of Impetus Enterprise Inc.’s student loan debt relief operation. The order against Calderon and Capital Sun Investments contains a suspended judgment for $1.3 million, the gross revenues of Capital Sun Investments, LLC’s operation.

The FTC today announced its first case challenging a marketer’s use of fake paid reviews on an independent retail website. In settling the agency’s complaint, Cure Encapsulations, Inc. and its owner, Naftula Jacobowitz, resolved allegations that they made false and unsubstantiated claims for their garcinia cambogia weight-loss supplement and that they paid a third-party website to write and post fake reviews on Amazon.com.

The Federal Trade Commission mailed checks totaling nearly $1.1 million to 87,256 consumers who paid for work-at-home opportunities based on the allegedly deceptive advertising practices of Bob Robinson, LLC and other related defendants. The defendants operated under various brand names, including Work At Home EDU, Work At Home Program, Work At Home Ecademy, Work At Home University, Work At Home Revenue, and Work at Home Institute.

The Federal Trade Commission is sending refund checks totaling more than $7 million to people deceived by the operators of an alleged business opportunity fraud that targeted seniors and others living on a fixed income. The refunds stem from a settlement the FTC reached in 2017 with Advertising Strategies, LLC, under which the defendants surrendered virtually all their assets to provide consumer refunds.

The defendants in an alleged work-from-home business opportunity scam are banned from selling any business coaching service or business opportunity under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.

Following a public comment period, the FTC has approved two final orders settling allegations that Creaxion Corporation, Inside Publications, LLC, and their respective principals misrepresented that paid endorsements were independent consumer opinions and that commercial advertising was independent journalistic content.

The operators of a tech support scam that did business under Troth Solutions and other names settled Federal Trade Commission charges that they tricked consumers into believing their computers were infected with viruses and malware, and then charged them hundreds of dollars for unnecessary repairs.