Consumer | Lionheart Group Scam Prevention Toolkit

Tag Archives: consumer

Sensex off 12.7% in Q2 on euro-zone debt worries – India Infoline.com

September 30th, 2011. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.

Sensex off 12.7% in Q2 on euro-zone debt worries India Infoline.com The BSE Mid- Cap index declined 0.58% and the BSE Small- Cap index fell 0.88%. Both these indices outperformed the Sensex. The total turnover on BSE amounted to Rs 2480 crore, higher than Thursday's Rs 2272.12 crore. Barring the BSE Consumer Durables … and more

Time to lighten up on consumer stocks – Business Line

July 30th, 2011. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.

Business Line Time to lighten up on consumer stocks Business Line First, do small- and mid- cap stocks in the consumer space deserve to trade at similar valuations to large- cap stocks, given that mid- cap stocks have been pushed into a deep discount in the broader market context? Agro Tech Foods (PE of 46 times …

6 Time to lighten up on consumer stocks Business Line

Link:
Time to lighten up on consumer stocks – Business Line

Bud Hibbs Wants Your Junk Debt Buyer Affidavits from Debt Collection Lawsuits

April 23rd, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

Bud Hibbs is attempting to collect affidavits to show that junk debt buyers engage in signing documents where they claim to have firsthand knowledge of the accounts and that these affidavits are routinely

Maker of Rascal Scooters to Pay $100,000 for Violating Do Not Call Law

April 21st, 2011. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Called Consumers on Registry Using Phone Numbers Gathered From Sweepstakes Entry Forms The manufacturer of Rascal Scooters, used by disabled and senior consumers with limited mobility, will pay $100,000 to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it illegally called millions of consumers who had chosen to avoid unwanted telemarketing calls by listing their phone numbers on the national Do Not Call Registry. The FTC alleges the firm illegally used phone numbers gathered from sweepstakes entry forms to contact consumers whose numbers are on the Registry. The FTC’s complaint charges scooter manufacturer Electric Mobility Corporation and its owner Michael Flowers with making more than three million illegal sales calls since 2003 to consumers on the Do Not Call Registry who had entered the company’s “Win a Free Rascal” sweepstakes. According to the FTC, in small print under the part of the sweepstakes form provided for the entrant’s phone number, EMC reminded consumers to list their numbers so the company could contact them if they were “the next lucky winner.” EMC encourages consumers to enter its sweepstakes through direct mailing, newspapers, and television advertisements. The FTC charged that its conduct violated both the FTC Act and the Do Not Call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule allows a company to call a consumer on the Do Not Call Registry for up to 18 months if it has an “established business relationship” with the consumer and he or she has not asked the firm to stop calling. However, under the Rule, a company may not rely on a completed sweepstakes entry form to establish a business relationship with a consumer. In fact, the FTC consistently has said that simply obtaining a consumer’s phone number – as EMC did with its sweepstakes – does not establish a relationship that would exempt it from the Do Not Call rules. The order settling the FTC’s charges bars EMC from using sweepstakes entries as the basis for claiming an established business relationship with any consumer. The order also includes monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure that EMC complies with its terms. In addition, the order imposes civil penalties against both EMC and Flowers for their alleged violation of the FTC Act. Flowers will pay $100,000, and EMC is subject to a $2 million penalty, which is suspended based on its inability to pay. If EMC is found to have misrepresented its financial condition, the full penalty will become due immediately. Source: FTC United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Electric Mobility Corporation, doing business as Rascal Scooters, and Michael J. Flowers, individually and as an officer of Electric Mobility Corporation, Defendants (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey) Case No. 1:11-cv-02218-RMB-KMW

Read the rest here:
Maker of Rascal Scooters to Pay $100,000 for Violating Do Not Call Law

Oil and Gasoline Market Manipulators, Beware the FTC and CFTC Are Coming For You

April 12th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

As part of their ongoing efforts to keep markets that they oversee open and fair for American consumers, the Federal Trade Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that they signed an agreement to foster further cooperation between the two agencies by helping them share nonpublic information. The FTC and CFTC signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will facilitate sharing of non-public information on investigations being conducted by the agencies, including investigations into the oil and gasoline markets. The agreement will help the FTC enforce its petroleum market manipulation rule , which prohibits fraudulent manipulation of U.S. petroleum markets. Information-sharing also will help the CFTC in exercising its authority to pursue manipulation in the oil markets. “It is important for regulators to share information to be able to pursue market manipulation wherever it arises,” CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler said. “I thank Chairman Leibowitz and the staff of the FTC for their work on this MOU and look forward to partnering with them in ensuring the integrity of the oil markets.” “With gasoline prices on the rise, we are committed to doing all we can to ensure that petroleum markets are competitive,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “Competition works to keep prices lower, and this MOU improves the ability of the FTC and CFTC to take action if and when we find market manipulation. I’d like to thank our CFTC partners for helping to improve the already excellent communication between our two agencies.” Both the FTC and CFTC have authorities to take legal action to stop fraud-based manipulation of the petroleum markets. In addition, the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate exchanges, clearing organizations and intermediaries in the U.S. futures industry. The MOU will further facilitate information sharing between the FTC and CFTC on regulatory issues of common interest, such as manipulation of oil and gasoline markets. At the same time, the agreement states that the FTC and CFTC take all necessary steps to ensure that the confidentiality of this nonpublic information is maintained. It also provides that the agreement does not modify the agencies’ current abilities, responsibilities, or obligations to comply with existing laws or regulations, including the FTC’s confidentiality obligations under the premerger laws. Both the FTC and the CFTC votes were unanimous in approving the MOU. It became effective when it was signed, and will remain in effect until it is terminated by either the FTC or CFTC. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.

Fakes create 4D egg-citement – AsiaOne

April 9th, 2011. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.

AsiaOne Fakes create 4D egg-citement AsiaOne GEORGE TOWN – Punters are getting excited over the alleged egg scam in Penang and taking out their chifa books to guide them to put their money on the right number. This follows complaints by buyers and the Consumer Association of Penang that fake eggs … and more

Nifty scales 3-month closing high – India Infoline.com

April 5th, 2011. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.

The Hindu Nifty scales 3-month closing high India Infoline.com The Nifty struck a high of 5928.65 in early trade . The BSE Mid- Cap index rose 0.79% and the BSE Small- Cap index rose 1.38%. Both these indices outperformed the Sensex. Most of the sectoral indices on BSE were in the green. The BSE Consumer Durables (up … Markets resume winning streak Business Standard Markets rise, Sensex closes 290 points up Siliconindia.com all 237 news articles

Regulator Puts an End to Chikita’s Tactics of Online Advertising That Deceived Consumers Who Wanted to "Opt Out" from Targeted Ads

March 14th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

Chitika Inc.’s Opt-Out Expired After Only 10 Days The FTC reached a settlement with online advertising company Chitika, Inc. that ends the company’s allegedly deceptive practice of tracking consumers’ online activities even after they have chosen to opt out of online tracking on Chitika’s website. The FTC investigated Chitika as part of its ongoing efforts to protect consumers’ privacy online. Chitika, whose website states that it delivers three billion ad impressions a month, acts as a go-between for websites and advertisers. According to the FTC complaint, Chitika buys ad space on websites and contracts with advertisers to place small text files called cookies on those websites. Chitika also uses a technique known as behavioral advertising – by placing “cookies” on consumers’ computer browsers, the company tracks consumers’ activities on the web, including searches the consumer has conducted and sites the consumer has visited. Based on consumers’ online activities, the company then displays ads to them that correlate to their interests. The FTC alleged that in its privacy policy the company says that it collects data about consumers’ preferences, but allows consumers to opt out of having cookies placed on their browsers and receiving targeted ads. The privacy policy includes an “Opt-Out” button. Consumers who click on it activate a message that states, “You are currently opted out.” According to the FTC complaint, from at least May 2008 through February 2010, Chitika’s opt-out lasted only 10 days. After that time, Chitika placed tracking cookies on browsers of consumers who had opted out and targeted ads to them again. The FTC charged Chitika’s claims about its opt-out mechanism were deceptive and violated federal law. The settlement bars Chitika from making misleading statements about the extent of data collection about consumers and the extent to which consumers can control the collection, use or sharing of their data. It requires that every targeted ad include a hyperlink that takes consumers to a clear opt-out mechanism that allows a consumer to opt out for at least five years. It also requires that Chitika destroy all identifiable user information collected when the defective opt out was in place. In addition, the settlement requires that Chitika alert consumers who previously tried to opt out that their attempt was not effective, and they should opt out again to avoid targeted ads. Source: FTC In the Matter of Chitika, Inc., a corporation FTC File No. 1023087

Debt Collector Portfolio Recovery Associates Sending out Bogus IRS 1099-C’s to Consumers Again?

February 5th, 2011. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

According to Budd Hibbs, a well-known consumer advocate, Junk debt buyer and debt collection company Portfolio Recovery Associates are sending out IRS form 1099-C’s to consumers. The problem is that Portfolio Recovery Associates (and other junk debt buyers) purchase old debts for a couple of pennies per dollar and then attempt to collect the full face value of the debt, even though they paid much less than face value. In my opinion if Portfolio Recovery is sending 1099-C’s to consumers claiming the full face value of a debt, they may be committing fraud on the consumers involved as well as committing fraud on the Internal Revenue Service. In effect they are writing off the full amount of the ‘forgiven’ debt’ and in reality only paid a small amount for the debt. Two years ago, we went to a Washington Post reporter who contacted the IRS regarding this matter. PRA must be able to produce some type of valid documents that make their claims credible, however based on their record of accomplishment; they likely have little or nothing to back up their claim. We contacted many attorneys and officials about this, we can expect that the Consumer Protection Financial Protection Board currently being set by Professor Elizabeth Warren will finally address the abuse and force PRA to comply with the law. Demand they send you documents that prove their claim or copies of accounts, signatures, goods provided, services rendered and all other information that connects your social security to their alleged loss. IMPORTANT: Once a 1099-C is issued, the law mandates that the debt can no longer be collected. This includes PRA selling it off to another vulture. They MUST show a zero balance on your credit report and are prohibited from extending the seven-year reporting statute. PRA cannot call you or send collection notices after a 1099-C has been issued. ~ Collectors Exposed I can’t for the life of me figure out why the IRS, or the Federal Trade Commission for that matter, allows junk debt buyers to get away with cheating the US government out of taxes that they write off and end up not paying in real taxes. It really does make me wonder about the entire debt collection industry in general. I guess if they have no fear of cheating consumers then they have no fear of cheating our government either. For the full excerpt on Portfolio Recovery Associates and “Bogus” 1099-C mailing click here .

Consumer Beats Debt Collectors Zwicker and Citibank in Court with the ‘Stick It’ Book

February 2nd, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Once again, justice is served for consumers. As I have often stated, most debt collection attorney’s, debt collectors, and junk debt buyers don’t have the proof that is needed to prove a consumer owes a debt. They still file frivolous lawsuits even they don’t have proper proof in the hopes of scaring a consumer into paying or that they are able to obtain a summary or default judgment. The biggest problem is that consumers are not aware of or are afraid of debt lawsuits and collectors. In as high as ninety percent of the cases get a judgment because the consumer did not respond or fight back and the plaintiffs were awarded a judgment. Just this morning I received an email from a read of ‘Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors’ and he said: “I bought your book a few months ago and used the information to fight Zwicker and Associates who was representing Citibank. Today I received a call from a representative at the law firm telling me that they have voluntarily dismissed the case! Thank you for the book and all your help.” ~ J Wright I tell countless consumers every day that in nearly ninety-five of debt lawsuits the plaintiff doesn’t have sufficient proof to get a judgment and that by fighting back (as outlined in my book) and a consumer can win against debt collectors. I receive emails every week from happy and relieved consumers that did fight back using the book and won. The tactics that I use to put debt collectors in place (in court) and the countless consumers I have helped with the book

Another Consumer Beats Debt Collector in Court Using The “Book”

January 24th, 2011. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

I love receiving email from consumers who have purchased and used the information in the “Book”. By book, I am referring to the “’Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors” book. Just this morning I received yet another relieved consumer that battled a debt collection attorney in court, and won. “I have managed to win my motion to dismiss with the help of you book. Thanks! The original creditor’s lawyer showed up but I still won the motion to dismiss.” ~ B. Topol Many consumers are afraid of debt collection lawsuits and in the majority collection cases the consumer never shows up. Not showing up for a debt lawsuit is, in my opinion, worse than losing in court. If a consumer doesn’t show up to fight a collection lawsuit then the collector receive a default judgment and take money from a consumers paycheck, bank accounts or worse. In default judgments lawyers and collectors tend to tack on questionable fees and usurious interest. In nearly ninety-four percent of debt cases file, the consumer never shows up or responds. By far, the single largest issue is that consumers don’t fight back, and collection companies and attorney’s are betting on it. In upwards of ninety percent (90% folks, think about it) the collection company and/or collection attorney cannot prove a debt is owed. Another words, a consumer has nine out of ten chances to beat the collector or attorney. The odds of winning a debt collection lawsuit favors consumers, if they just show up and make the other side prove otherwise. Back before I wrote the book I nearly let debt collectors and their attorney take advantage of me in court. After seeing the questionable tactics they used in court, I became extremely angry and vowed to find a way to fight back and stick it to attorneys that file frivolous court cases. I have spent literally thousands of hours performing legal research and using what I learned in court. Bottom line my legal tactics and precedents work in nearly all collection cases, whether it be an original creditor or junk debt collector. Why should consumers let run roughshod over them and the legal system? They shouldn’t. Consumers can win against collection companies.

New Credit Card Offer Fine Print – Higher Interest Rates and Annual Fees

December 15th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

It seems that credit card companies are becoming more aggressive in credit card marketing by sending out more offers than in they had in the previous three years. They are again marketing to consumers with lower credit scores (higher risk cardholders). The recently enacted CARD ACT prevents card issuers from raising interest rates if a consumer misses a payment, so they are now adding “sneaky” items in their card agreements such as higher APR interest rates (18% and higher) and often adding an annual fee to the cards. On the outside, higher risk consumers with low scores have an opportunity to get credit cards once again. This is a dangerous precedent though as historically speaking these consumers are often the ones that overextend themselves financially and end up defaulting on credit card balances. For the credit card companies though this is a win-win situation as they will sell off any default accounts and write the loss of on their taxes. If the consumer doesn’t default the card companies make money off the higher interest rates and annual fees they are now charging. In my opinion they entire credit card industry is nothing more than gross usury. What ever happened to fairness in the banking industry has ended when it comes to credit cards. Credit cards are a financial crutch at best and at worst a debt trap for struggling consumers. This is coming from a person that knows. I had financial problems and credit cards only made everything worse. I ended up “robbing Peter to Pay Paul” as the saying goes. I found that credit cards are a convenience, not a necessity as many people believe. I haven’t used a credit card in nearly five years. I pay with cash, check or debt card. Even in business I found that I have no need to use credit cards and can do anything that another does with a credit card. I have no credit card payments (or interest) because of this, and have become more financially well off by not using credit cards. “To stem losses, lenders halted new card offers to all but their most affluent customers. At the same time, more than eight million consumers stopped using their credit cards, in a sign of the nationwide belt-tightening, according to TransUnion, the credit bureau. Millions more borrowers who still have cards have been compelled to pay down their balances, or are more often choosing to use cash.”

Financial Freedom of America, Debt Consultants of America, Debt Professionals of America Charged With Misleading Claims

December 5th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

According to the FTC’s two complaints, the defendants made deceptive claims that consumers who enrolled in their programs could eliminate 30 to 60 percent of their credit card debt and be out of debt in 18 to 36 months. The defendants marketed their services via websites and TV and radio ads that urged consumers to call toll-free numbers for a free consultation and to enroll in their debt relief programs. One operation claimed to use “secret programs most credit card companies won’t tell you about.” The other operation touted its “established relationships” with creditors and claimed that its program would “save you literally thousands of dollars.” The defendants charged consumers up-front administrative fees, monthly maintenance fees, negotiation fees, and in some instances, a cancellation fee. The FTC’s complaints charge that few consumers received the promised results. Many consumers canceled or dropped out of the programs before their debt was reduced because they couldn’t afford to pay the defendants’‘ sizable advance fees and accumulate money to pay off their debts. Consumers looking for help with credit card debt should be wary of anyone who tells them to stop paying their bills, to pay someone other than their creditors, or to stop talking to their creditors. Consumers should also be careful about paying for financial assistance before they receive it. The FTC recently announced changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule that prohibit companies that sell debt relief services over the telephone from charging fees before they settle or reduce a customers’ credit card or other unsecured debt. This ban on advance fees protects all consumers who enroll in a debt relief service after October 27, 2010, and specifies that fees for debt relief services may not be collected until: the debt relief service successfully settles or changes the terms of at least one of the consumer’s debts; there is a settlement agreement, debt management plan, or other agreement between the consumer and the creditor that the consumers has agreed to; and the consumer has made at least one payment to the creditor as a result of the agreement negotiated by the debt relief provider. The new provisions of the Rule also prevent debt relief providers from front-loading their fees if a consumer has enrolled multiple debts in one debt relief program. Click here for more information about the advance-fee ban. In addition, the Rule requires debt relief providers to make truthful and substantiated claims about their services. The FTC will actively enforce the Rule and these new provisions, as will the states, which also have enforcement authority under the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The defendants in one of the two cases announced today are Financial Freedom of America, Inc., now known as Financial Freedom Processing Inc., Corey Butcher, and Brent Butcher. The second case names Debt Consultants of America Inc., Debt Professionals of America Inc., Robert Creel, Corey Butcher, and Nikki Creel, also known as Nikki Vrla. The Commission vote to file the complaints was 5-0. The complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. Source: FTC Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff v. Financial Freedom Processing, Inc., formerly known as Financial Freedom of America, Inc., a corporation; Corey Butcher, individually and as an officer of the corporation; and Brent Butcher, individually and as an officer of the corporation, Defendants. (United District Court for the Northern District of Texas) Case No. 3:10-cv-02446 FTC File No.

Debt Collector Threatens to Dig Up Dead Daughter and Hang Body From Tree

November 12th, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

A woman in Bellville Missouri received threatening and vulgar phone calls from a debt collector (Rumson, Bolling and Associates of California 818-431-8169). Mrs. Henshaw alleges that the collector told her “ they were going to dig her daughter up and hang her body from a tree ,” if she didn’t pay the debt. In addition Mrs. Henshaw recorded several conversations with the collector and in one conversation the collector said he would “kill and eat her dog”. The collector’s also allegedly called the woman “white trash” among other vulgar names. This is the very reason that the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau needs to further regulate the debt collection industry. It isn’t until collectors are prosecuted under criminal statutes will the consumer abuse and harassment end. WMOV Channel 4 in Saint Louis has the full story, you can read it here . RELATED Hey GOP, Congress and FTC Stop Listening to Lobbyists and Groups Like ACA International

Excerpt from:
Debt Collector Threatens to Dig Up Dead Daughter and Hang Body From Tree

Hey GOP, Congress and FTC Stop Listening to Lobbyists and Groups Like ACA International

November 11th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

The lobbying and trade groups that comprise the accounts receivables industry (aka debt collection industry) are constantly clouding issues to dissuade Congress, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP)

They Claim The Recession Is Over But The Depression Lingers

October 24th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams, Unemployment. No Comments.

There has been much debate on whether or not we are in an economic recession or a depression. Government officials and the popular news media would have you believe that the “recession’” is over. If that were the case the consumer spending would be at an all time high. Recently it was announced that unemployment was only at twenty-two percent (22%) nationwide. Here is Georgia it is supposedly only ten percent. Somehow I just don’t believe the hype. I dislike pushing reality on people, but we are in a depression folks. Very few jobs are available, banks are still going bankrupt and people are hoarding their hard-earned dollars. The reason why I lay claim to the fact that we are in a depression comes from several real-world observations. The company that I work for has both offline and online business interests. We began to see the effects of the so-called recession back in June of 2009. Our online disposable income sales began to decline sharply. Being a small company we are hyper sensitive to changes in consumer spending, we felt the changes well before larger business began to experience the same effects. Several couple of months ago, we began to see a bit more consumer spending on non-essential goods, however that small gain was quickly replaced with a wholesale decline in consumer spending. Online sales are less than twenty-five percent (25%) of what there were a year ago. I was optimistic prior up until the last several months, currently things have gone bad to at best worst. We are relieved that right now offline sales and services are staying constant. While the “economic recession” as everyone seems to enjoy calling it is over, the consumer spending depression is still upon us. Quite frankly I don’t see it getting any better anytime in the future. While economists and the news media seem upbeat about recovery, it just isn’t happening and the government “stimulus” has been nothing more than a huge failure and a waste of taxpayer money. Until jobs become available and consumers have extra money to spend on things they enjoy the depression will be here to say. We aren’t seeing any sales growth and the last three months have been quite dismal. You can bet if we aren’t seeing any growth, no one else is either.

More here:
They Claim The Recession Is Over But The Depression Lingers

Google Money Tree Scammers Must Surrender Assets of More than $3.5 Million

October 18th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

An online marketer that falsely claimed ties to Google Inc. has been forced to stop operations as part of a Federal Trade Commission action that charged the defendants with marketing an allegedly bogus work-at-home scheme and charging hidden monthly fees to consumers’ credit card and bank accounts.

Watch Out Kids Debt Buyers Are Hot On Collecting Defaulted Student Loans

October 11th, 2010. Published under Scams. No Comments.

It seems that the next hot collection industry target is going to be defaulted student loans. So kids get ready for debt collectors to begin harassing, and possibly abusing you verbally and mentally while they attempt to collect on your old student loan. There are many collectors out there that will say (or do) anything to get you to cough up the money, including filing lawsuits against you. Once a student loan, Federal or otherwise, is sold by the original creditor to a third party such as a debt buyer or junk debt collector the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) protection comes into full force. Another words it becomes a debt just like any other consumer debt (credit card, bank load, payday loan, etc.). It’s my opinion that the debt buyers / junk debt collection companies see younger adults as easy targets, and assume you will run to mom and dad and ask them to bail you out. Be aware most that most collector threats are nothing more than that, just empty threats. Debt collection harassment and abuse is illegal and you need to know that. While I do advocate paying debts, the ballgame changes completely when collectors use illegal and abusive collection tactics to scare you into pay them. What debt collectors cannot do: Harassment. Debt collectors may not harass, oppress, or abuse you or any third parties they contact. For example, they may not: Use threats of violence or harm; Publish a list of names of people who refuse to pay their debts (but they can give this information to the credit reporting companies); Use obscene or profane language Repeatedly use the phone to annoy someone. False statements. Debt collectors may not lie when they are trying to collect a debt. For example, they may not: falsely claim that they are attorneys or government representatives; falsely claim that you have committed a crime; falsely represent that they operate or work for a credit reporting company; misrepresent the amount you owe; indicate that papers they send you are legal forms if they aren’t; or indicate that papers they send to you aren’t legal forms if they are. Debt collectors also are prohibited from saying that: you will be arrested if you don’t pay your debt; they’ll seize, garnish, attach, or sell your property or wages unless they are permitted by law to take the action and intend to do so; or legal action will be taken against you, if doing so would be illegal or if they don’t intend to take the action. Debt collectors may not: give false credit information about you to anyone, including a credit reporting company; send you anything that looks like an official document from a court or government agency if it isn’t; or use a false company name. Unfair practices. Debt collectors may not engage in unfair practices when they try to collect a debt. For example, they may not: try to collect any interest, fee, or other charge on top of the amount you owe unless the contract that created your debt – or your state law – allows the charge; deposit a post-dated check early; take or threaten to take your property unless it can be done legally; or contact you by postcard. In addition, a debt collector cannot represent that they are attorneys if they are not, or imply that communications are from an attorney. 15 U.S.C. 1692e(3). If a debt collector does anything outlined above (or similar) it is your obligation to hold them accountable and sue them. Who knows the collector may end up cutting you a check for the abuse or harassment. While the Federal Trade Commission has been tasked with enforcing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act they rarely take any enforcement action against illegal debt collection. Consumers *must* take action. You can file FDCPA civil complaints yourself in any recognized court of find a consumer protection attorney to help you go after bad collectors. Most good consumer protection attorneys do not require upfront fees to help you sue collectors as they get a small percentage of any monetary award or settlement that they obtain on your behalf. A good place to begin searching for a consumer protection attorney is Martindale ( www.martindale.com ). If you have been harassed or abused by a collector I encourage you to find and retain an attorney. The only way to put a stop to illegal collections is for consumers to fight back using the court system.

Debt Collector Nationwide Credit Sued for Calling Consumers Parents

October 7th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

Nationwide Credit a debt collector out of Kennesaw Georgia has been sued in Federal court for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Practices Act (FDCPA). Due to harassing and abusive communications, calling the plaintiff parents and discussing the alleged debt,

The Quickest and Easiest Way to Sue a Debt Collector for FDCPA Violations

September 25th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

I’ve been doing a lot of legal research for my next consumer book on how to sue debt collectors and collection law firms for violations of the fair debt collection practices act (FDCPA), fair credit reporting act (FCRA), telephone consumer protection act (TCPA) and the truth in lending act (TILA). I spend literally hours every day reading legal decisions, court filings and legal citations. Of late I have been researching the topic of the lack of proper disclosures (i.e. mini-miranda) in written and oral (i.e. telephone) communications by debt collectors to consumers. As with my last book, “ Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors ”, my next book will also be in an easy to understand format that consumers can use to sue debt collectors for breaking the law. Debt collectors frequently do not properly disclose who they are in telephone conversations or in voice mails left on consumers answering machines. A debt collector must abide certain federal regulations concerning the collection of debts, however, many times debt collectors will refrain from disclosing exactly who they are in order to entice (or scare) a consumer into calling back and this sort of behavior is illegal and actionable in a court of law (you can sue them for it). One of my most recent encounters with the lack of proper disclosure revolves around a debt collection company, Phillips & Cohen Associates LTD (sounds like a law firm name doesn’t is? They aren’t though) and through my research I found several federal cases where Phillips & Cohen lost their motions regarding proper disclosures (among others). Below are two examples of a debt collector not providing proper FDCPA disclosures and/or using misleading and deceptive tactics in contact with me personally. They are the same fellow using similar tactics and lack of proper disclosure (several years apart I might add). The links below are MP3 audio files. Call from 866-504-5035 (09/23/2010) The old call in 2007, same guy, threatening fraud charges Note that in both voicemails the debt collector fails to disclose that he is a debt collector, not does he disclose that the call is in reference to a debt (Section

Victims of ChoicePoint Data Breach to Receive Redress Checks

September 22nd, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

An administrator working for the Federal Trade Commission is mailing checks to 14,023 consumers who were victims of ChoicePoint’s alleged failure to implement a comprehensive information security program to protect consumers’ personal information, as required by a previous court order. As a result, in the spring of 2008, an unauthorized person accessed its database and conducted unauthorized searches. In January 2006, ChoicePoint settled FTC charges that its security and record-handling procedures violated consumers’ privacy rights and federal law, an action relating to a 2005 data breach.

Data Broker US Search Inc Settles Charges Privacy Pledges Were Deceptive

September 22nd, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

An online data broker that charged consumers $10 based on the promise that it could “lock their records”so others could not see or buy them, has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that its claims were deceptive and violated federal law. The settlement requires that the operation refund the fees it charged to nearly 5,000 consumers and bars misrepresentations about the effectiveness of any service that purports to remove information about consumers from the broker’s website. This is the latest in a series of FTC cases challenging companies’ failure to honor their privacy pledges. US Search, Inc., is an online data broker that compiles public records and sells data about consumers to the public. The records may contain not only names, addresses and phone numbers, but also information such as aliases, marriages and divorces, bankruptcies, neighbors, associates, criminal records, and home values. US Search offered customers a variety of search services, including “People Search,” “Background Check,” Real Estate Reports,” and “Criminal Records/Court Records Searches.” It also offered a “Reverse Lookup” service that can return the name of an individual associated with a particular phone number or property address. Since June 2009, US Search sold consumers its “PrivacyLock” Service, which it claimed would allow them to “lock their records” and prevent their names and other information from appearing on the company’s website, its search results, or advertisements for a year. According to the FTC complaint, the claims were false. The agency alleged the PrivacyLock Service: did not block consumers’ names from showing up as an associate of someone else in a search for the other person’s name; did not block consumers’ information from appearing in a “reverse search” of their phone number or address, or in a search of their address in real estate records; did not work if the consumer changed addresses, thereby generating new records that would not be subject to the PrivacyLock; and did not work if the consumer had multiple records – for example “John Smith” and “John T. Smith.” The settlement bars US Search, Inc. and US Search, LLC from misrepresenting the effectiveness of their PrivacyLock Service or any other service they offer that will allow consumers to remove information about themselves from search results, websites, and advertisements. The settlement order also requires that they disclose any limitations on such services and provide refunds to consumers who paid for the service. The FTC wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the World Privacy Forum in this area. The Commission vote to approve the complaint and accept the proposed consent agreement was 5-0. The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the agreement in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through October 22, 2010. after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. To file a public comment electronically, please click on the following hyperlink and follow the instructions: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ussearch . Written comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. NOTE: Consent agreements are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

Payday Loan Defendant Settles Charges; Illegally Tried to Garnish Borrowers’ Wages

September 2nd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

One of the owners of a payday loan and debt collection operation has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges for his role in a scheme that illegally tried to garnish borrowers’ wages and used other illegal debt-collection practices. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants, doing business as Ecash and GeteCash, offered loans to be repaid from borrowers’ upcoming paychecks. Online loan applicants checked a box indicating their agreement with loan terms, including an inconspicuous “wage assignment” clause that said that their wages would be garnished to cover delinquent loan payments. Then, using the name LoanPointe, the defendants attempted to collect on the offered payday loans. Federal law allows federal agencies to require employers to garnish employees’ wages without a court order when the employees owe the government money. According to the complaint, in letters to employers that sought garnishment of their employees’ wages, GeteCash and LoanPointe tried to pass themselves off as having the same collection rights as the government. The FTC’s complaint also alleges that GeteCash and LoanPointe falsely stated that consumers knew their pay would be garnished and had an opportunity to dispute the debt. In addition, GeteCash and LoanPointe allegedly violated the law when they told employers and co-workers about consumers’ debts without their consent. (See http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/04/getecash.shtm ) Under the settlement order, Mark S. Lofgren is banned from collecting debts through wage assignment. He is also permanently prohibited from misrepresenting facts in order to collect a debt; contacting a consumer’s employer in trying to collect a debt, unless he is seeking location information or has a valid court order of garnishment; and disclosing a debt to any third party. In addition, Lofgren is barred from violating the Credit Practices Rule and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, selling or otherwise benefitting from customers’ personal or financial information, and failing to properly dispose of customer information. The order imposes a $38,133 judgment that is suspended based on his inability pay. The full judgment will become due immediately if he is found to have misrepresented his financial condition. The FTC also dismissed Benjamin J. Lonsdale and James C. Endicott as defendants in the case. Litigation continues against Joe S. Strom, LoanPointe, LLC, and Eastbrook, LLC, also doing business as Ecash and GeteCash. The Commission votes to dismiss Lonsdale and Endicott from the complaint were 5-0. The Commission vote to file the stipulated final order with Lofgren was 4-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch voting no. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division. NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

Read the original:
Payday Loan Defendant Settles Charges; Illegally Tried to Garnish Borrowers’ Wages

Court Orders Credit Repair Operation To Stop False Claims; Family-Run Scam Surrenders Cars, Houses and Real Estate

September 1st, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

A credit repair operation has agreed to stop making false claims and stop charging up-front fees under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. The settlement is part of an ongoing crackdown on scams that target financially strapped consumers, in this case taking hundreds of dollars in fees to purportedly remove negative information from consumers’ credit reports even if the information is accurate and timely. The FTC filed the action in “Operation Clean Sweep” in October 2008. The settlement agreement requires that Clean Credit Report Services, Inc., Ricardo A. Miranda, Ruthy Villabona, and their son, Daniel R. Miranda give up two cars, three houses, and six commercial properties in Broward and Miami-Dade counties in Florida, and in Bogota, Colombia. According to the FTC, they told consumers they would help remove all the negative remarks from their credit reports, as well as current debt. Clean Credit often debited $400 from consumers’ bank accounts before receiving a signed contract, and then did little, if anything, to fulfill its promises. See http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/10/opcleansweep.shtm . The settlement order bars Clean Credit and its owners from making misrepresentations about any good or service, such as the ability to improve a consumer’s creditworthiness or remove negative information from a consumer’s credit report. The order also prohibits Clean Credit from charging money up-front for credit repair services, and from collecting payments from consumers who purchased its services before October 22, 2008, when the court froze the defendants’ assets, including their bank accounts. The order further bars the defendants from disclosing, benefitting from, or failing to properly dispose of customer information. In addition, the settlement order imposes a $14.4 million judgment that will be suspended, contingent upon the defendants surrendering their assets, including frozen funds totaling about $165,000 and any proceeds received from selling their six commercial and three residential properties under foreclosure in Florida; commercial property in Bogota, Colombia; a 1992 Mercedes S300; and a 1997 Chevrolet Venture. The full judgment will become due immediately if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The Commission vote to file the stipulated final order was 5-0. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

See the original post:
Court Orders Credit Repair Operation To Stop False Claims; Family-Run Scam Surrenders Cars, Houses and Real Estate

Abusive and Stupid Debt Collector Headlines of the Week

August 20th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

Court Orders Internet Marketers of Acai Berry Weight-Loss Pills and "Colon Cleansers" to Stop Deceptive Advertising and Unfair Billing Practices

August 17th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court has ordered the marketers of acai berry supplements, “colon cleansers,” and other products to temporarily halt an Internet sales scheme that allegedly scammed consumers out of $30 million or more in 2009 alone through deceptive advertising and unfair billing practices. The FTC will seek a permanent prohibition. Since 2007, victimized consumers have flooded law enforcement agencies and the Better Business Bureau with more than 2,800 complaints about the company. Acai berry supplements, derived from acai palm trees that are native to Central and South America, have become popular in recent years. Last year, the Better Business Bureau named fake “free” trial offers – including those for acai supplements offered by the defendants in this case – as one of the “Top 10 Scams and Rip Offs of 2009.” “Too many ‘free’ offers come with strings attached,” said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “In this case, the defendants promised buyers a ‘risk free’ trial and then illegally billed their credit cards again and again – and again. We estimate that about a million people have fallen victim to this scam. As if that weren’t enough, there were fake endorsements from celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and Rachael Ray for a product that didn’t work in the first place.” The court order halts the allegedly illegal conduct of Central Coast Nutraceuticals, Inc., imposes an asset freeze, and appoints a temporary receiver over CCN and several related companies, while the FTC moves forward with its case to stop the company’s bogus health claims and other deceptive and unfair conduct. The FTC charged CCN, two individuals, and four related companies with multiple violations, including deceptively advertising AcaiPure, an acai berry supplement, as a weight-loss product, and Colopure, a colon cleansing supplement, as an aid for preventing cancer. The FTC complaint alleges that to sell AcaiPure, the marketers made dramatic claims on their website, including: “ WARNING! AcaiPure Is Fast Weight Loss That Works. It Was Not Created For Those People Who Only Want To Lose A Few Measly Pounds. AcaiPure was created to help you achieve the incredible body you have always wanted …USE WITH CAUTION! Major weight loss in short periods of time may occur.” In pitching Colopure, the defendants cited frightening statistics about colon cancer, while promising that their product would get rid of consumers’ “excess weight and toxic buildup.” The marketers also deceived consumers about their purported “free” or “risk free” trial offers, and about the charges and refund terms consumers could expect, according to the FTC’s complaint. The FTC also alleges that the marketers made numerous additional unauthorized charges to consumers’ credit and debit card accounts. The alleged deceptive practices include: Falsely claiming that using AcaiPure could lead to rapid and substantial weight loss. Consumers were told that “[m]ost consumers taking AcaiPure report weight loss anywhere from 10-25 pounds in the first month.” Making unproven claims that AcaiPure’s weight-loss claims are backed by “double-blind, placebo-controlled weight loss studies.” Deceptively claiming that Colopure could help prevent colon cancer because it would “cleanse your entire system,” “detoxify your organs,” and break down and remove “toxic waste matter which may have been stuck in the folds and wrinkles of your digestive system for years and years.” Falsely claiming that celebrities including Oprah Winfrey and Rachael Ray have endorsed products marketed by Central Coast Nutraceuticals, Inc. In marketing AcaiPure, the defendants declared on their homepage, “Acai Berry rated #1 SUPERFOOD by Rachael Ray.” A photo of Oprah appeared on the homepage, next to a quote that read in part, “Studies have shown that this little berry is one of the most nutritious and powerful foods in the world!” In fact, in declarations to the FTC, both celebrities denied endorsing AcaiPure. Deceptively claiming that the marketers will provide full refunds to all consumers who request them, and that consumers who paid a nominal fee for a “free” trial supply of supplements would incur no risks or obligations. In fact, many consumers found it all but impossible to avoid paying full price for the products, typically $39.95 to $59.95. Failing to adequately disclose that consumers would be automatically enrolled in a membership program and charged for additional monthly supplies of a product. Failing to adequately disclose that consumers would be automatically charged for items other than the trial product unless they opted out. Failing to adequately disclose the terms and conditions of trial programs, membership programs, and additional charges. Making numerous unauthorized charges to consumers’ credit and debit card accounts. Debiting consumers’ bank accounts on an automatic, recurring basis, without obtaining proper preauthorization. The unauthorized debits violated the FTC Act as well as the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, according to the complaint. “Visa is committed to ensuring that consumers trust digital currency when they shop online by protecting them from deceptive merchant marketing practices,” said Martin Elliott, Senior Business Leader, Payment System Risk, Visa Inc. “Deceptive merchant practices hurt the economy by eroding trust in e-commerce and undermining the vast majority of ethical merchants who deal and compete fairly. We have tightened enforcement of our rules against banks whose merchants generate excessive levels of cardholder disputes because of deceptive marketing. We also make it a priority to partner with law enforcement and agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and support their investigations such as this case.” The FTC would like to thank the Better Business Bureau of Central, Northern & Western Arizona and Visa, Inc. for their invaluable assistance in this investigation. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and seek a temporary restraining order was 5-0. The FTC filed its complaint and requested a temporary restraining order against the defendants from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On August 6, 2010, the court granted the request for the temporary restraining order. The complaint also names as defendants Graham D. Gibson and Michael A. McKenzy, and four companies affiliated with Central Coast Nutraceuticals, Inc. – iLife Health and Wellness LLC; Simply Naturals LLC; Health and Beauty Solutions LLC; and Fit for Life LLC. NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has reason to believe that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

FTC Halts Cross Border Domain Name Registration and SEO Fees Scam

August 9th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

The Federal Trade Commission has permanently halted the operations of Canadian con artists who allegedly posed as domain name registrars and convinced thousands of U.S. consumers, small businesses and non-profit organizations to pay bogus bills by leading them to believe they would lose their Web site addresses unless they paid. Settlement and default judgment orders signed by the court will bar the deceptive practices in the future. In June 2008, the FTC charged Toronto-based Internet Listing Service with sending fake invoices to small businesses and others, listing the existing domain name of the consumer’s Web site or a slight variation on the domain name, such as substituting “.org” for “.com.” The invoices appeared to come from the businesses’ existing domain name registrar and instructed them to pay for an annual “WEBSITE ADDRESS LISTING.” The invoices also claimed to include a search engine optimization service. Most consumers who received the “invoices” were led to believe that they had to pay them to maintain their registrations of domain names. Other consumers were induced to pay based on Internet Listing Service’s claims that its “Search Optimization” service would “direct mass traffic” to their sites and that their “proven search engine listing service” would result in “a substantial increase in traffic.” The FTC’s complaint charged that most consumers who paid the defendants’ invoices did not receive any domain name registration services and that the “search optimization” service did not result in increased traffic to the consumers’ Web sites. A federal district court judge in Chicago, Robert M. Dow, Jr., ordered a temporary halt to the deceptive claims and froze the defendants’ assets, pending trial. The settlement and default judgment orders announced today end that litigation. The orders bar the defendants from misrepresenting: that they have a preexisting business relationship with consumers; that consumers owe them money; that they will provide domain name registration; and that they will provide “search optimization services” that will substantially increase traffic to consumers’ Web sites. The defendants are also required to disclose any material restrictions or aspects of any goods or services they provide. The settlement order, entered against defendants Isaac Benlolo, Kirk Mulveney, Pearl Keslassy, and 1646153 Ontario Inc., includes a suspended judgment of $4,261,876, the total amount of consumer injury caused by the illegal activities. Based on the inability of the settling defendants to pay, they will turn over $10,000 to satisfy the judgment. The default judgment order was entered against defendant Steven E. Dale and includes a judgment in the amount of $4,261,876. Charges against Ari Balabanian and Data Business Solutions were dismissed by the court at the FTC’s request. NOTE: Stipulated orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click http://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .

Follow this link:
FTC Halts Cross Border Domain Name Registration and SEO Fees Scam

Is Debt Collector H P & Associates of Jacksonville FL Violating the FDCPA?

August 2nd, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

I received an email from an individual and from the tone of her email I felt that she was confused and afraid. Below is an excerpt from her email. “I received a call this evening from HPC collections, based out of Florida, claiming they were “releasing my case” to the local authorities to come collect the debt (me) by 7 PM if I did not pay the debt in full. This totally freaked me out and the “compliance officer” stated there was nothing he could do about it as “you don’t pay us”. Knowing they are a debt collection agency, I’m wondering who “I pay.” ~ Amy G. I did ask her to clarify the name of collection agency that called her and her response was that “ H P & Associates-HPC.

Home Assure LLC, Mortgage Relief Marketer Will Return $2.4 Million to Consumers to Settle Charges

July 30th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

A company that deceived consumers with promises it could save their homes from foreclosure will pay $2.4 million to victims as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. The case is part of the agency’s continuing crackdown on scams that prey on financially distressed homeowners. According to the FTC’s complaint, Home Assure LLC conducted a nationwide marketing campaign designed to take advantage of struggling homeowners by offering so-called mortgage foreclosure rescue services. Home Assure typically charged consumers an up-front fee of $1,500 to $2,500. The company’s representatives falsely claimed that its special relationships with lenders would enable it to get favorable loan modifications or stop foreclosure, and that the company had helped thousands of consumers avoid foreclosure. One of the claims on its website was, “If we are unable to negotiate a plan with your lender that improves your situation or gives you a viable strategy to avoid foreclosure, we will refund 100% of your money. . . No questions asked!” According to the FTC, however, Home Assure did little or nothing to help consumers avoid foreclosure. In numerous instances the company refused to pay refunds, sometimes claiming that consumers did not meet the terms of the contract for a refund or that they had breached the contract by contacting their lender or filing for bankruptcy, and sometimes without giving a reason. (4/6/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/04/hud.shtm ; 11/24/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/11/stolenhope.shtm ) The settlement order imposes a $2.4 million judgment on Home Assure and bans the company from selling mortgage loan modification and foreclosure relief services. The order also permanently prohibits Home Assure from misrepresenting any good or service, disclosing or benefitting from customers’ personal information, and failing to dispose of customer information properly. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated final order was 5-0. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

Continued here:
Home Assure LLC, Mortgage Relief Marketer Will Return $2.4 Million to Consumers to Settle Charges

NEW FTC Rule to Protect Consumers in Credit Card Debt

July 30th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Amendments to Telemarketing Sales Rule Prohibiting Debt Relief Companies From Collecting Advance Fees Will Take Effect in October 2010 Starting on October 27, 2010, for-profit companies that sell debt relief services over the telephone may no longer charge a fee before they settle or reduce a customer’s credit card or other unsecured debt. “At the FTC we strive every day to make sure America’s middle class families get straight deals for their dollars,” Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. “This rule will stop companies who offer consumers false promises of reducing credit card debts by half or more in exchange for large, up-front fees. Too many of these companies pick the last dollar out of consumers’ pockets – and far from leaving them better off, push them deeper into debt, even bankruptcy.” Three other Telemarketing Sales Rule provisions to take effect on September 27, 2010, will: require debt relief companies to make specific disclosures to consumers; prohibit them from making misrepresentations; an extend the Telemarketing Sales Rule to cover calls consumers make to these firms in response to debt relief advertising. The Final Rule covers telemarketers of for-profit debt relief services, including credit counseling, debt settlement, and debt negotiation services. The Final Rule does not cover nonprofit firms, but does cover companies that falsely claim nonprofit status. Over the past decade, the FTC and state enforcers have brought a combined 259 cases to stop deceptive and abusive practices by debt relief providers that have targeted consumers in financial distress. Advance Fee Ban The Final Rule contains specific requirements for debt relief providers related to charging an advance fee before providing any services. It specifies that fees for debt relief services may not be collected until: the debt relief service successfully renegotiates, settles, reduces, or otherwise changes the terms of at least one of the consumer’s debts; there is a written settlement agreement, debt management plan, or other agreement between the consumer and the creditor, and the consumer has agreed to it; and the consumer has made at least one payment to the creditor as a result of the agreement negotiated by the debt relief provider. To ensure that debt relief providers do not front-load their fees if a consumer has enrolled multiple debts in one debt relief program, the Final Rule specifies how debt relief providers can collect their fee for each settled debt. First, the provider’s fee for a single debt must be in proportion to the total fee that would be charged if all of the debts had been settled. Alternatively, if the provider bases its fee on the percentage of what the consumer saves as result of using its services, the percentage charged must be the same for each of the consumer’s debts. Dedicated Account for Fees and Savings Another new provision of the Final Rule will allow debt relief companies to require that consumers set aside their fees and savings for payment to creditors in a “dedicated account.” However, providers may only require a dedicated account as long as five conditions are met: the dedicated account is maintained at an insured financial institution; the consumer owns the funds (including any interest accrued); the consumer can withdraw the funds at any time without penalty; the provider does not own or control or have any affiliation with the company administering the account; and the provider does not exchange any referral fees with the company administering the account. Disclosures and Prohibited Misrepresentations Under the Final Rule, providers will have to make several disclosures when telemarketing their services to consumers. Before the consumer signs up for any debt relief service, providers must disclose fundamental aspects of their services, including how long it will take for consumers to see results, how much it will cost, the negative consequences that could result from using debt relief services, and key information about dedicated accounts if they choose to require them. The Final Rule also prohibits misrepresentations about any debt relief service, including success rates and whether the provider is a nonprofit entity. The FTC’s Statement of Basis and Purpose, which accompanies the Final Rule, provides extensive guidance about the evidence providers must have to make advertising claims commonly used in selling debt relief services. The Rulemaking Process In August 2009, the FTC published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule and requesting public comments. Over 300 commenters, representing a wide variety of stakeholders, submitted comments in response. The Commission also held a public forum on the proposed amendments on November 4, 2009. The FTC developed the Final Rule based on the public comments, the record of the public forum and the FTC’s September 2008 Workshop on the debt settlement industry, recent testimony before Congress, and law enforcement actions brought by the Commission and the states. Information for Businesses Today, the FTC staff issued a compliance guide to help businesses comply with the new debt relief rules. The compliance guide describes the key changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule affecting debt relief services, helps businesses determine if they are covered by the new rules, details information that covered entities must disclose to customers, and discusses how fees may now be collected. It can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/marketing/bus72.pdf on the agency’s website and is linked to this press release. The FTC vote approving publication of the Federal Register notice was 4-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch voting no. The notice will be published in the Federal Register shortly, and is available now on the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/07/R411001finalrule.pdf . The provisions of the Final Rule will take effect on September 27, with the exception of the advance fee ban provision, which will take effect on October 27. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .

Visit link:
NEW FTC Rule to Protect Consumers in Credit Card Debt

Men Most Affected by Recession

July 27th, 2010. Published under Economic News, Unemployment. No Comments.

A report from Credit counselling charity shows that there are rising demand from men as male income drops and outgoings increase. Men have been more affected by recession due to a number of factors including rising unemployment, a slower rate of salary increases and rising household expenditure. Going by the figures from Consumer Credit Counselling Service

See original here:
Men Most Affected by Recession

Dietary Supplement Maker to Pay $5.5 Million to Settle FTC False Advertising Charges

July 15th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

As part of its ongoing efforts to stop bogus health claims, the Federal Trade Commission is requiring a major marketer of dietary supplements to pay $5.5 million to settle charges that it falsely advertised that its supplements could help consumers lose weight and treat or prevent colds and other illnesses. The $5.5 million will be used for refunds to consumers who purchased Accelis, nanoSLIM, and any Cold MD, Germ MD, and Allergy MD product.

Would Safetouch Security 904-309-5370 Stop Calling, I am on the Do Not Call List

July 12th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

Jeez, even when you have had your phone numbers on the do not call list ( www.donotcall.gov ), idiots like Safetouch Security (904) 309-5370 call anyway. They never leave a message when I don’t pick up, then when I do it’s dead air (TCPA – Telephone Consumer Protection Act violation) so I hang up. They call several times a week without fail. I have a security system that a local company installed and maintains, so I don’t need an alarm system and anyone that repeatedly calls my numbers will **NEVER** get a dollar from me. I don’t buy anything over the phone. From what I can find online Safetouch security calls a lot of people on the Do Not Call list . I’ll be glad when the Federal Trade Commission nails them to the wall. Safetouch Security as annoying as they stupid extended car warranty robocallers are. I’ve never done business with you so stop calling. To whom it may concern at Safetouch Security. Your telemarketing tactics aren’t working and annoying consumers especially those on the Federal Do Not Call List is going to land you in hot water. You can bet every time you call us, a report is filed with Do Not Call and the FTC . I am just waiting on the day that the Federal Trade Commission announces an investigation into your telemarketing tactics and sticks you with a huge fine. On Top of that check out all of the consumer complaints against SafeTouch Security . Have you been harassed repeatedly on the phone by Safetouch Security? Give them a piece of your mind and on their own dime:

Redress Checks Mailed to Borrowers Misled By Chase Financial Funding Inc Allegedly Deceptive Mortgage Ads

July 5th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

The Federal Trade Commission is distributing refund checks to borrowers lured by a firm charged with deceptively advertising that it offered 3.5 percent, fixed-payment, 30-year mortgage loans. According to the FTC’s federal court complaint filed in 2004, the firm allegedly duped consumers into signing up for adjustable rate mortgages in which the principal balance would increase if they made payments at the advertised rates. The FTC mailed 261 checks on June 30, with each one totaling $1,238.35. The refund checks are valid for 60 days from the date they are issued. The refunds are the result of a settlement between the FTC and the defendants and the recent distribution of the defendants’ assets by the Bankruptcy court. Consumers who were victimized by the company, Chase Financial Funding Inc., but did not complain to the agency may still qualify to receive refunds. A special phone line has been set up to handle questions. Consumers who think they may be eligible for a refund or have questions can contact the claims administrator on its hotline at 1-877-789-9498. For more information about the case, see the court documents and news release at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/06/chasefinancial.shtm . NOTE: The settlement in this case does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Consent decrees have the force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

See the rest here:
Redress Checks Mailed to Borrowers Misled By Chase Financial Funding Inc Allegedly Deceptive Mortgage Ads

Georgia’s JAK Productions Inc to Pay $300,000 for Abandoning Millions of Telemarketing Calls

June 30th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Text Of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act – Wall Street Journal

June 26th, 2010. Published under Political Scams. No Comments.

Text Of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act Wall Street Journal … mortgage brokers, and foreclosure scam operators), payday lenders, and student lenders as well as other non-bank financial companies that are large, … and more

Debt Collector Hanna and Associates Wins Battle with Georgia, Ultimately loses the War

June 12th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

A recent State of Georgia Appeals Court ruling ( STATE v. FREDERICK J. HANNA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ) handed Frederick J. Hanna an (albeit) small victory that prevents the Georgia Office of Consumer Affairs (GA OCA) from obtaining records that may have shown that the debt collection law firm may have abused consumers, violated the Georgia Business Practices Act and the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The ruling doesn’t prevent consumers from filing suit against the debt collector, as the decision boiled down to the fact that only the Georgia Supreme court can regulate the practice of law. I am quite sure Frederick Hanna and his attorney’s are sitting at their desks with smug smiles on their faces and slapping each other on the back. While the law firm may have won the battle with the State of Georgia for the moment, ultimately they have lost the war. “The trial court defeated the OCA’s attempt to compel the law firm’s compliance with its investigative demand by dismissing the lawsuit OCA filed. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding in part that it was an attempt to regulate the practice of law — something that is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Georgia Supreme Court to do. This is a technical way to defeat consumer protection. I agree with Justice Melton’s dissent, but we are in the minority. I note that this was a 4:3 decision. Not a landslide but, for now at least, the law in this state.” ~ Georgia Consumer Protection Attorney Joseph Segui I am quite sure that Georgia state legislators are now seeing that this legal loophole that could allow debt collection law firms to abuse consumers without fear of legal retribution is a big problem. I wouldn’t be surprised that in the near future Georgia Senators and Representatives will draft a change in the law or create new consumer protection laws to put a stop to the abuse by lawyers in the debt collection business. Who knows we may even finally see the State of Georgia more strictly regulate the debt collection industry in the state. One thing is for sure Frederick J. Hanna and Associates are now going to be a target in all of the states they do business in and with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Besides suing abusive debt collector attorneys, consumers can also file Bar Association complaints against lawyers that violate the law, violate ethics, or abuse the legal system to collect debts. Attorney’s and law firms hate to get sued and their second biggest fear is getting suspended or disbarred from practicing law. It only takes a few minutes to contact a particular states Bar Association to request complaint/grievance forms. The more complaints that are filed the more apt are the State Bar Associations to take action. I myself have filed several complaints against debt collection attorney’s as well as filed suit against collection law firms. The more consumers that do, the less consumer abuse that will occur. Stand up consumers and fight back, it’s the only way to beat them at their own game.Stand up consumers and fight back, it’s the only way to beat them at their own game. If you want to beat debt collection law firms then read this book, Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors , you’ll be glad you did.

Court Halts Massive Telemarketing Robocall Operation

June 10th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

The Federal Trade Commission’s work to stop deceptive pre-recorded “robocalls” took another step forward today as a federal court halted a major telemarketing operation that made millions of illegal phone calls pitching worthless extended auto warranties and credit card interest rate-reduction programs. At the request of the FTC, a federal court judge in Chicago has entered an order stopping the operation’s calls, temporarily freezing its assets, and appointing a receiver to take control of the operation. “Telemarketers need to understand that blasting consumers with ‘robocall’ pitches is no longer legal,” said FTC Midwest Region Director C. Steven Baker. “Unless you have someone’s consent up-front and in writing to receive a robocall, just don’t do it. The rules could not be simpler than that, and we will go after telemarketers who ignore them.” According to the FTC, SBN Peripherals, Inc., based near Los Angeles, allegedly made more than 370 million calls to consumers nationwide in the past year alone, prompting tens of thousands of complaints to the agency. One telephone service provider told the FTC that during a single day in April 2009 the defendants sent 2.4 million calls to consumers – more than 27 calls per second. The FTC charges the robocalls violated the agency’s Do Not Call Registry Rule. To make it difficult for consumers to identify the caller, the FTC alleges that SBN’s robocalls often transmitted caller ID information vaguely identifying the caller as “SALES DEPT” and displaying telephone numbers registered to an offshore company it controlled called Asia Pacific Telecom. Asia Pacific, a foreign shell company for SBN, made many of the calls and lists its addresses in locations as disparate as the Northern Mariana Islands, Hong Kong, and the Netherlands, the FTC’s complaint alleges. According to the FTC, three of Asia Pacific’s telemarketing numbers accounted for more than 25,000 consumer complaints to the agency in the past year. Two of those telephone numbers – 301-882-9986 and 757-990-8981 – generated more complaints to the FTC during the past year than any other robocall number. Many of the calls were made to cell phones, sticking consumers with additional charges. The operation allegedly used a technology known as “voice broadcasting” to deliver its fraudulent pitches. The FTC charges that the recordings falsely claimed that the caller had urgent information about the consumer’s auto warranty or credit card interest rate. Consumers who pressed “1” for more information were transferred to live telemarketers at a variety of different locations, who used fraudulent practices to sell inferior extended auto service contracts or worthless debt-reduction services. The company’s calls may be familiar to consumers who have answered the phone, only to be greeted by a recording from “Stacey at Account Holder Services” or “Rachel at Cardholder Services” pitching a purported service to lower their credit card interest rate. The FTC’s complaint alleges that defendants violated the FTC’s telemarketing rules by: using robocalls to contact consumers. Under the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, since September 1, 2009, nearly all such pre-recorded calls have been illegal, unless the seller first obtains the consumer’s written permission; calling consumers whose telephone numbers are on the National Do Not Call Registry; “abandoning” pre-recorded calls (not connecting to a live person when a consumer answers) at a higher rate than permitted under law (three percent of all calls made); and repeatedly calling consumers who asked to be put on their company-specific do-not-call list. The FTC alleges SBN delivered robocalls on behalf of at least seven entities that the agency or state attorneys general previously sued for engaging in fraudulent sales practices. SBN also allegedly made illegal “extended auto warranty robocalls” on behalf of another company owned by Fereidoun “Fred” Khalilian, a repeat telemarketing offender against whom the FTC obtained a new court order last week (see press release at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/dolcegroup.shtm ). In addition to the temporary restraining order and asset freeze announced today, the FTC is seeking a court order permanently barring the allegedly illegal conduct and will seek consumer redress as appropriate. The Commission vote approving the complaint was 5-0. It was filed under seal on May 25, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The court issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants on May 26, 2010. The FTC filed the complaint announced today against Asia Pacific Telecom, Inc., doing business as (d/b/a) Asia Pacific Networks; Repo B.V.; SBN Peripherals, Inc., d/b/a SBN Dials; Johan Hendrik Smit Duyzentkunst; and Janneke Bakker-Smit Duyzentkunst. The Commission would like to acknowledge the assistance that telecommunications carriers AT&T and Verizon Wireless provided in the investigation of the case. The FTC reminds consumers that if they get a robocall they did not authorize, they can file a complaint by going to: www.donotcall.gov or by calling 1-888-382-1222. The FTC’s Do Not Call Registry for telemarketers accepts both land lines and cell phone numbers. NOTE: The Commission issues a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The issuance of a complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have violated the law. Copies of the complaint are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .

Originally posted here:
Court Halts Massive Telemarketing Robocall Operation

US Consumer Confidence Up But Consumer Spending Down

May 31st, 2010. Published under Economic News. No Comments.

This is not a comedy of errors, but a real life scenario, where the Consumer Board survey suggested a strengthening of the consumer confidence in November, but US GDP growth took a beating on the back of constrained consumer spending. While, suggesting stronger consumer confidence for November, the Conference Board also suggested that US consumers continue

More here:
US Consumer Confidence Up But Consumer Spending Down

Is Your Hardware Or Software Security At Risk Because Of Back Doors?

May 16th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

When we use the latest gadget or the latest software product from some company we put our trust in the product that it will not harm us in some way. This is the only way that our system can continue to work. Companies that are not careful or that abuse our trust are usual voted out of the marketplace. This is done by people not purchasing their products anymore. Back Doors Recently there has been a big deal made about companies selling products that have back doors in them. If you are the one purchasing these items from a company, then that can cause you to lose a great deal of trust. I will discuss in this article what exactly a back door is and why some companies put them into their products. So let’s go over what exactly a back door is. When you create hardware, if the item is in any way electronic, then you must create code that tells the item what to do. The same thing goes with software. If you want the software to perform a particular task, then it must be told what to do. Again the way that you do this is by code. So when a company decides to put a back door into a product, what they are doing is telling the code to let them have a way in, anytime that they feel like it. So if you have items on a server that you want to keep protected, there is no way that it will be a hundred percent secured since someone else has a way in. This is why people, especially guys that are heavily into security, have a problems with back doors on any piece of software or hardware that they use. There are several reasons why a company would put code such as this in their products. Why Have A Back Door? They either are a crooked company, they feel that they need to so that they are able to fix the product anytime that it is needed, or the government has asked them to . If a company is putting back doors in their products for nefarious reasons, then they will be caught and run out of the market place. If they are putting one in because they need it to help the product, then a case could be argued for that. It is not a great excuse but it seems reasonable. And if the government wants a back door into their product, then they should warn the consumer first. Too many companies are asked by the government to perform this activity and they tell nobody. Then a hacker finds the back door, and all of the sudden they are hit with serious questions, not to mention potential problems. If you have any concerns about your hardware or software having back doors in it, then do a little research of your own. If the company has a history of doing it with their products before, you can be fairly certain that they will do it again. Is Your Hardware Or Software Security At Risk Because Of Back Doors? is a post from: Security FAQs

c97dd2501drisks.jpg 100x150 Is Your Hardware Or Software Security At Risk Because Of Back Doors?

See the original post here:
Is Your Hardware Or Software Security At Risk Because Of Back Doors?

$6 Million in Refunds Mailed to Consumers Who Bought Deceptively Advertised Weight-loss Supplements from QVC

April 28th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

Starting April 30, an administrator working for the Federal Trade Commission will mail more than 140,000 refund checks totaling about $6 million to consumers who bought certain “For Women Only” brand dietary supplements from TV home shopping channel QVC, Inc.

Women’s Clothing Retailer Talbots and its Telemarketer to Pay Total of $161,000 for Violating FTC’s Robocall ‘Opt-Out’ Requirements

April 28th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

Women’s clothing retailer Talbots and its California marketing company have agreed to pay penalties totaling $161,000 to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they illegally delivered prerecorded “robocalls” that failed to give consumers proper notice of their right to opt out of receiving telemarketing calls. Talbots operates stores in 587 locations in 47 states, the District of Columbia, and Canada. It markets clothing under the Talbots brand, and prior to July 2009, also marketed clothing under the J. Jill brand. Talbots and its telemarketer, SmartReply, Inc., have both agreed to orders that prohibit them from violating the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule in the future. Among other requirements, when using prerecorded telemarketing messages, the companies must: Tell consumers how to opt out of receiving telemarketing calls from the seller before delivering the seller’s sales pitch; Immediately disconnect consumers who indicate that they do not want to receive such calls; and Inform consumers listening to the message that they can make a do-not-call request at any time during a call. According to the FTC, Talbots and SmartReply violated the prerecorded message requirements in the Telemarketing Sales Rule during seven advertising campaigns conducted between February and July 2009 to promote Talbots and J. Jill. SmartReply’s telemarketing campaigns delivered 40- to 60-second recordings that advertised special sales and offers to consumers who had bought merchandise from Talbots’ companies during the previous year. The messages in these campaigns were drafted by SmartReply and then approved by Talbots. During the seven campaigns, SmartReply made at least 3.4 million robocalls to consumers. The FTC’s complaint details how the companies’ robocall campaigns failed to comply with the Telemarketing Sales Rule. First, the Rule requires that telemarketers give consumers a way to “opt out” of future calls immediately after the message states who the seller is, what they are selling, and the purpose of the call. SmartReply’s robocalls, however, required consumers to listen to almost all of the prerecorded sales pitch for Talbots or J. Jill before informing them that they could interrupt the call. Some messages contained no instructions on how consumers could be added to the do-not-call list and, instead, stated that pressing the prompt would ensure that the consumer would continue to receive prerecorded telemarketing messages. Second, the Telemarketing Sales Rule requires telemarketers to disconnect a call immediately when a consumer chooses an opt-out mechanism. But when consumers tried to use their telephone keypad to be placed on Talbots’ do-not-call list, they were instead connected to another recorded ad, before they were asked to press another prompt to get on the company’s do-not-call list. Third, when a robocall message is played to a live person, rather than to an answering machine, the Telemarketing Sales Rule requires that the message inform the person listening to the message that he or she can request to be placed on a company’s do-not-call list at any time during the call. Instead, SmartReply’s messages for Talbots did not inform consumers that they could opt out until the end of the ad pitch. Under the orders settling the FTC’s charges, Talbots and SmartReply are both subject to a $112,000 civil penalty. Talbots will pay the full penalty and SmartReply will pay $49,000, with the remainder of the penalty stayed due to its inability to pay. The Commission vote approving the complaints and orders was 4-0. The proposed orders require approval by the courts. The complaint and proposed final settlement order regarding Talbots were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the complaint and proposed final settlement order regarding SmartReply was filed in Central District of California. The Department of Justice filed both actions on the FTC’s behalf on April 26, 2010. Although delivering prerecorded phone messages without consumers’ written authorization is now prohibited under FTC restrictions that became effective September 1, 2009, prior to this date the FTC allowed prerecorded calls to recent customers if the messages met certain requirements that are designed to ensure that consumers are able to make do-not-call requests during both automated and live calls. Today’s cases continue the FTC’s work to enforce rules related to robocalls. In the past year, the agency has brought cases against robocallers pitching fraudulent auto warranties and credit card interest-rate reduction plans. NOTE: The Commission issues or files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the named parties have violated the law. These stipulated final orders are for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Stipulated final orders require approval by the court and have the force of law when signed by the judge. Copies of the complaints and proposed stipulated final orders are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .

See more here:
Women’s Clothing Retailer Talbots and its Telemarketer to Pay Total of $161,000 for Violating FTC’s Robocall ‘Opt-Out’ Requirements

Ecash and GeteCash Payday Lender Charged by FTC with Deceiving Employers in Scheme to Collect Debts

April 7th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

The Federal Trade Commission has charged a payday loan operation with illegally trying to garnish borrowers’ wages and using other illegal debt-collection practices. The FTC seeks to stop these practices and require the operators to surrender improperly collected money so it can be used for consumer refunds. According to the FTC’s complaint, the operators do business as Ecash and GeteCash, offering loans of up to $1,000 to be repaid from a borrower’s upcoming paycheck. They require online loan applicants to check a box indicating their agreement with loan terms. These terms include an inconspicuous statement consumers often don’t see, which states that their wages will be garnished to cover delinquent loan payments. The statement allegedly attempts to circumvent federal requirements, including a debtor’s right to revoke a garnishment agreement. U.S. law allows federal agencies to require employers to garnish employees’ wages without a court order when the employees owe the government money. According to the complaint, in letters to employers, GeteCash tries to pass itself off as having the same collection rights as the government. The FTC’s complaint also alleges that GeteCash falsely stated that consumers knew their pay would be garnished and had an opportunity to dispute the debt. In addition, GeteCash allegedly violated the law when it told employers and co-workers about consumers’ debt without their consent. The FTC alleges that, in carrying out their scheme, the operators violated the FTC Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Credit Practices Rule. The defendants are Eastbrook LLC, also doing business as Ecash and GeteCash; LoanPointe LLC; Joe S. Strom; Benjamin J. Lonsdale; James C. Endicott; and Mark S. Lofgren. Eastbrook, LoanPointe, and Strom have agreed to a preliminary injunction barring them from further unlawful practices. The Commission vote to file the complaint was 4-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division on March 15, 2010. The FTC would like to acknowledge the assistance of the Financial Management Service of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Idaho Department of Finance. NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

View post:
Ecash and GeteCash Payday Lender Charged by FTC with Deceiving Employers in Scheme to Collect Debts

New Jersey-Based Telephone Fundraisers Banned from Soliciting Donations; Will Pay $18.8 Million for Violating FTC Order

April 3rd, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Defendants Deceived Consumers into Believing All Donations Would Help Local Police, Firefighters, Veterans The operators of a New Jersey-based telemarketing scheme will pay a record $18.8 million and leave the charitable donation business to settle charges that they violated a Federal Trade Commission order by misleading consumers to believe that they were donating directly to legitimate charities serving police, firefighters, and veterans, when in fact only a small slice of the donations actually went to these charities. The civil penalty against Civic Development Group, LLC; CDG Management LLC; and owners Scott Pasch and David Keezer is the largest ever in an FTC consumer protection case.

Direct Marketing Associates Corp Settles FTC Charges; Falsely Told Consumers They Were Pre-Approved for Auto Loans

March 30th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

A marketing company that solicits prospective customers for automobile dealers has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it falsely told low-income and “credit-challenged” consumers that they were pre-approved for auto loans and improperly obtained their names from a consumer reporting agency. According to the FTC, the company prepared sales solicitations for automobile dealers telling consumers that a specific finance company would lend them money to buy a car, but the finance companies featured in the ads lacked business licenses and didn’t actually make any loans. The marketing company obtained lists of consumers from a credit reporting agency by falsely representing that the lists would be used to make prescreened firm offers of credit to consumers. The settlement order bars the company and its principal from telling consumers they are pre-approved for, or are likely to receive, an extension of credit or financing unless the defendants know that a lender can make good on the offer for all eligible customers. The order also prohibits the defendants from obtaining credit reports from consumer reporting agencies without a purpose authorized by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The order imposes a $157,000 civil penalty that is suspended based on the defendants’ inability to pay. The full judgment will be imposed if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The defendants are Direct Marketing Associates Corp. and its president and owner, John M. Rainey, Jr. The Commission vote to authorize staff to refer the complaint and proposed stipulated final order to the Department of Justice for filing was 4-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division. NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

See the original post here:
Direct Marketing Associates Corp Settles FTC Charges; Falsely Told Consumers They Were Pre-Approved for Auto Loans

CyberDefender Corp, MyCleanPC, DoubleMySpeed and Catanese and Wells Never Heard of the 1st Amendment

March 29th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

A week or two ago I (Allen Harkleroad) expressed my personal opinion of MyCleanPC and DoubleMySpeed, which by the way are owned by the CyberDefender Corporation. While in the past legal threats and legal intimidation may have served CyberDefender well in regards to stifling consumers and individuals public opinions. However, such threats do not work on me as everyone involved will soon find out. I will speak and/or publish my opinions of businesses as I see fit without fear of prosecution or persecution. CyberDefender Corporation and the law firm that represents them (Catanese & Wells of Westlake Village, California) must have never heard of a US Citizens 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights. I intend to educate all of the involved parties as to what the first amendment is and what it covers. First of all, feel free to read my opinion pieces by following the links below (hint they are the same article posted on various websites I and my company owns). Which by the way, are read by an estimated 450,000 unique visitors each month. I included the article as well at the end of this item. Beware of MyCleanPC.com and DoubleMySpeed.com – Same Scam, Same Company Statesboro.biz Beware of MyCleanPC.com and DoubleMySpeed.com – Same Scam, Same Company DesignerToday.com NOT FUNNY PSA: Beware of MyCleanPC.com and DoubleMySpeed.com – Same Scam, Same Company Smarterotti NOT FUNNY PSA: Beware of MyCleanPC.com and DoubleMySpeed.com – Same Scam, Same Company

Live On-Air Interview Tonight with the Author of Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book

March 25th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Allen Harkleroad, the author of “Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors, will be live on the on air tonight for a radio interview on KSVY – 91.3 FM Sonoma, CA, the GUYS@5Thursday show, to promote his latest consumer book “Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors”.

Debt Collectors Will Pay More Than $1 Million to Settle FTC Charges – Credit Bureau Collection Services

March 3rd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Another unethical debt collector gets smacked by the Federal Trade Commission — A nationwide debt collector has agreed to pay a civil fine of more than $1 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law by inaccurately reporting credit information and pressing consumers to pay debts they often did not owe. According to the FTC’s complaint, the company and two of its officers illegally tried to collect invalid debts and reported them to the credit reporting agencies without noting that consumers disputed them. In addition, even after receiving information from consumers that a debt was paid off or did not belong to the consumer, the company continued to assert, no longer with a reasonable basis, that the consumer owed the debt, without trying to confirm or dispute the consumer’s information, in violation of the FTC Act. The FTC charged that the company, Credit Bureau Collection Services, and two of its officers, Larry Ebert and Brian Striker, violated the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The company also is charged with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by reporting information to credit agencies that consumers had proved was inaccurate, failing to inform to the credit agencies that consumers had disputed the debts, and failing to investigate after receiving a notice of dispute from a credit reporting agency. In addition to imposing the $1.1 million civil penalty on the company, the settlement order: Bars the defendants from further violations; Prohibits them from making unsupported statements to collect a debt or obtain information about a consumer; Bars them from making claims that a debt is owed or about the amount, without a reasonable basis; Requires the defendants, when a debt is questionable or a consumer questions it, to either close the account and end collection efforts or investigate the dispute. If they cannot show that the consumer owes a debt, they cannot sell the debt or provide it to any business other than the original client; and Bars the company from re-reporting information to credit reporting agencies that it had voluntarily deleted from credit reporting before December 2008. The Commission vote to authorize staff to refer the complaint and consent decree to the Department of Justice for filing was 4-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The Commission recently released a video for consumers who are facing debt collection . The video is at www.ftc.gov/MoneyMatters , a site that includes information for consumers on managing credit, dealing with debt, and a variety of other financial topics. NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Consent decrees are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Consent decrees are subject to court approval and have the force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

Go here to see the original:
Debt Collectors Will Pay More Than $1 Million to Settle FTC Charges – Credit Bureau Collection Services

Payment Processing CEO Banned from the Business; Company Illegally Debited Millions from Consumers’ Bank Accounts

March 1st, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

The chief executive officer of a payment processing company will be banned from the business as part of a settlement resolving Federal Trade Commission charges that the company illegally debited millions of dollars in bogus charges from consumers’ bank accounts. In 2007, the FTC charged the executive, Tarzenea Dixon, her company, and others with processing unauthorized debits on behalf of deceptive telemarketers and Internet-based schemes they knew, or deliberately avoided knowing, were violating the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule. In addition, the attorneys general of Illinois, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and Vermont charged the defendants with violating various state laws. According to the FTC complaint, the company played a critical role in helping many of its clients carry out these illegal schemes by providing access to the banking system and the means to extract money from consumers’ bank accounts. Between June 23, 2004, and March 31, 2006, the defendants processed more than $200 million in debits and attempted debits. More than $69 million of the attempted debits were returned or rejected by consumers or their banks for various reasons, an indication that in many cases consumers had never authorized the charges. In many instances, the merchants either failed to deliver the promised products or services or sent consumers relatively worthless items. The settling defendant is Tarzenea Dixon. Her co-defendants are Your Money Access, LLC d/b/a Netchex Corp., Universal Payment Solutions, Check Recovery Systems, Nterglobal Payment Solutions, and Subscription Services, Ltd.; YMA Company, LLC; and Derrelle Janey. In addition to permanently banning Dixon from any payment processing, the settlement order bans her from substantially aiding any marketer when she knows, or consciously avoids knowing, that it is violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The order imposes a $22 million judgment that is stayed based on her inability to pay. The full judgment will become due immediately if she is found to have misrepresented her financial condition. The Commission vote approving the consent in settlement of the court action against Dixon was 4-0. The FTC filed the documents in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on December 22, 2009, and court entered the order on January 11, 2010. Litigation against Janey continues. On October 28, 2008, the court entered a default judgment against the corporate defendants, Your Money Access, LLC and YMA Company, LLC, barring them from payment processing for any client whose business practices are deceptive, unfair, or abusive within the meaning of the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the state consumer protection laws. The case was part of the FTC’s “Operation Tele-PHONEY” telemarketing fraud law enforcement sweep announced in May 2008. Wachovia Bank Redress Program In December 2008, the FTC announced a settlement between the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Wachovia Bank, N.A. to issue more than $150 million in redress checks to victims of telemarketing fraud. The checks reimbursed consumers for funds deducted from their accounts by three payment processors that maintained accounts with Wachovia, including Your Money Access. NOTE: Stipulated final judgments and orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Consent judgments have the force of law when signed by the judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .

Link:
Payment Processing CEO Banned from the Business; Company Illegally Debited Millions from Consumers’ Bank Accounts

Federal Trade Commission Issues Report of 2009 Top Consumer Complaints – Debt Collection #2

February 24th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

What bothers me the most is that debt collection complaints ranks number 2, the Federal Trade Commission received 119,549 complaints and only a handful of enforcement actions in 2009. As far as I am concerned the Federal Trade Commission is as useless as “tits on a boar hog” in regards to enforcing the FDCPA and FCRA. Congress needs to light a fire under the FTC or vote the new consumer protection agency into power. —- The Federal Trade Commission today released a report listing top complaints consumers filed with the agency in 2009. It shows that while identity theft remains the top complaint category, identity theft complaints declined 5 percentage points from 2008. The FTC is releasing a new animated video showing how people can file a complaint, and offers examples of what complaints the FTC handles. To watch the video, visit http://ftc.gov/multimedia/video/scam-watch/file-a-complaint.shtm (also available in Spanish at http://ftc.gov/multimedia/video/scam-watch/file-a-complaint_es.shtm ). The report breaks out complaint data on a state-by-state basis and also contains data about the 50 metropolitan areas reporting the highest per capita incidence of fraud and other complaints. In addition, the 50 metropolitan areas reporting the highest incidence of identity theft are noted. The top complaints were: Rank | Category

May 2012
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Tag Archives: consumer

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Search

Categories

Recent Posts