Tag Archives: consumer
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.
Popular Searches
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
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
Popular Searches
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 .
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
West Virginia AG Settles With Debt Collectors
February 23rd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.
According to the State Journal , West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw has reached settlements with three companies that used very different approaches to collect debts that were often disputed, sometimes non-existent, and in the case of one company, so old that the time to sue had expired. The three companies – Allied Interstate of Minneapolis, Minn; Jefferson Capital Systems of St. Cloud, Minn; and Wilhelm, West, Kacey & Associates (WWKA), of Canton, Ga. – promised to conform their practices with state and federal debt collection laws in the future. Collectively, they agreed to make restitution, cash refunds, and to cancel debts totaling $404,091.48 for 446 West Virginia consumers. Anyone wishing to file a complaint about a consumer matter or to alert the Attorney General about unfair or deceptive practices may do so by calling the Consumer Protection Hot Line, 800-368-8808. Read the full story on the State Journal .
Go here to see the original:
West Virginia AG Settles With Debt Collectors
Widespread Data Breaches Uncovered on P2P File Sharing Networks
February 22nd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
Yet another reason to not install P2P file sharing software on a computer that contains your personal information. FTC Warns of Improper Release of Sensitive Consumer Data on P2P File-Sharing Networks The Federal Trade Commission has notified almost 100 organizations that personal information, including sensitive data about customers and/or employees, has been shared from the organizations’ computer networks and is available on peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks to any users of those networks, who could use it to commit identity theft or fraud. The agency also has opened non-public investigations of other companies whose customer or employee information has been exposed on P2P networks. To help businesses manage the security risks presented by file-sharing software, the FTC is releasing new education materials that present the risks and recommend ways to manage them. Peer-to-peer technology can be used in many ways, such as to play games, make online telephone calls, and, through P2P file-sharing software, share music, video, and documents. But when P2P file-sharing software is not configured properly, files not intended for sharing may be accessible to anyone on the P2P network. “Unfortunately, companies and institutions of all sizes are vulnerable to serious P2P-related breaches, placing consumers’ sensitive information at risk. For example, we found health-related information, financial records, and drivers’ license and social security numbers–the kind of information that could lead to identity theft,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “Companies should take a hard look at their systems to ensure that there are no unauthorized P2P file-sharing programs and that authorized programs are properly configured and secure. Just as important, companies that distribute P2P programs, for their part, should ensure that their software design does not contribute to inadvertent file sharing.” As the nation’s consumer protection agency, the FTC enforces laws that require companies in various industries to take reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect sensitive personal information, including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act. Failure to prevent such information from being shared to a P2P network may violate such laws. Information about the FTC’s privacy and data security enforcement actions can be found at www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/ promises_enf.html . The notices went to both private and public entities, including schools and local governments, and the entities contacted ranged in size from businesses with as few as eight employees to publicly held corporations employing tens of thousands. In the notification letters, the FTC urged the entities to review their security practices and, if appropriate, the practices of contractors and vendors, to ensure that they are reasonable, appropriate, and in compliance with the law. The letters state, “It is your responsibility to protect such information from unauthorized access, including taking steps to control the use of P2P software on your own networks and those of your service providers.” The FTC also recommended that the entities identify affected customers and employees and consider whether to notify them that their information is available on P2P networks. Many states and federal regulatory agencies have laws or guidelines about businesses’ notification responsibilities in these circumstances. Samples of the notification letters can be found at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/02/100222sampleletter-a.pdf , http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/02/100222sampleletter-b.pdf , http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/02/100222sampleletter-c.pdf . The fact that a company received a letter does not mean that the company necessarily violated any law enforced by the Commission. Letters went to companies under FTC jurisdiction, as well as entities such as banks and public agencies over which the agency does not have jurisdiction. The FTC appreciates the assistance of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Office of Comptroller of the Currency. The new business education brochure – titled Peer-to-Peer File Sharing: A Guide for Business – is designed to assist businesses and others as they consider whether to allow file-sharing technologies on their networks, and explain how to safeguard sensitive information on their systems, and other security recommendations. This information is available at www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/idtheft/bus46.shtm . Tips for consumers about computer security and P2P can be found at www.onguardonline.gov/topics/p2p-security.aspx . 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 1,700 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 .
Visit link:
Widespread Data Breaches Uncovered on P2P File Sharing Networks
Allen Harkleroad WANTED by the Debt Collection Industry and ACA International for Fighting Back
February 10th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.
The FCC Considers Ramping Up Crusade Against “Robo Callers”
February 8th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) already has regulations concerning the use of automated (predictive) dialers to cellular phone numbers. The FCC has proposed several new regulations that would curtail the use of automated pre-recorded message dialers and automated dialing systems. If adopted, the changes to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act would limit the use of prerecorded calls and automatic telephone dialing systems. The stricter guidelines proposed by the FCC on Jan. 20 have debt-collection companies in an uproar. Right now, non-sellers can make “autodialed” or prerecorded calls to wireless numbers. The ARM or “account receivable management” professionals claim they had consumers’ “prior express consent” for those calls when the customer provided a cell phone number on a credit application. Debt collectors have expressed outrage about the plan on insider Web sites. A few suggested suing debtors as a way to get even for the new restrictions . Some blamed voting in liberal Democrats when Republicans have been “traditionally better for the ARM (Accounts Receivable Management) industry.” ~ source Delco Times If adopted debt collectors are suggesting they will sue consumers in retribution if the new guidelines are approved, even though it is the US Government taking the action. This is exactly why I (Allen Harkleroad) wrote the book, “ Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors ”. I say let them sue and then the consumer can beat them in court. It is a sad fact that only one out of ten consumers respond to a debt lawsuit, and 90 percent (or more) the debt collector had not physical proof that a debt is owed. It is time for the bad lawsuits to go away, consumers must fight for their rights.
Original post:
The FCC Considers Ramping Up Crusade Against “Robo Callers”
Federal Trade Commission Returns $1.6 Million to Consumers Scammed by Bogus Debt Collector
February 5th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
The FTC will distribute $1.6 million to thousands of consumers who were scammed into paying money they did not owe by con artists who threatened, harassed and lied to them. In 2003, the FTC sued three companies, operating under the name National Check Control, charging them with harassing and abusing consumers, falsely threatening criminal prosecution, illegally communicating with third parties, collecting amounts that were not due, and other violations of federal laws. In 2005, the court ordered a permanent halt to their operations and ordered them to pay redress to the consumers they had bilked. The defendants, including Check Investors, Inc., Check Enforcement, Inc., Jaredco, Inc., the companies’ owner, Barry Sussman, and their corporate counsel, Charles Hutchins, unsuccessfully appealed the case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. On February 7, 2008, one day after the appeals court refused to reconsider his appeal, Sussman removed from a bank safe deposit box coins valued at $335,000 that the federal court had ordered him to turn over to the FTC for consumer redress. A federal jury convicted him of two felony counts – theft of government property and obstruction of justice. In October 2009, he was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison and is currently serving his sentence. The FTC recovered a total of $1.6 million for consumer redress. The funds will be distributed to 24,916 consumers who each lost $100 or more as the result of the defendants’ illegal actions. The consumers have been identified based on records obtained in the case. Consumers will begin to receive checks this month. The FTC received substantial assistance in this case from the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, the United States Postal Inspection Service, and the Office of the New Jersey Attorney General. 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 1,700 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 .
Visit link:
Federal Trade Commission Returns $1.6 Million to Consumers Scammed by Bogus Debt Collector
FTC Warns 78 Retailers, Including Wal-Mart, Target, and Kmart, to Stop Labeling and Advertising Rayon Textile Products as "Bamboo"
February 3rd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
Seventy-eight companies nationwide have received Federal Trade Commission letters warning that they may be breaking the law by selling clothing and other textile products that are labeled and advertised as “bamboo,” but actually are made of manufactured rayon fiber. The letters, which the agency’s staff sent last week, make the retailers aware of the FTC’s concerns about possible mislabeling of rayon products as “bamboo,” so the companies can take corrective steps to avoid Commission action. “We need to make sure companies use proper labeling and advertising in their efforts to appeal to environmentally conscious consumers,” said David C. Vladeck, Director of the agency’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Rayon is rayon, even if bamboo has been used somewhere along the line in the manufacturing process.” The FTC sued several companies last year for allegedly selling products labeled or advertised as “bamboo” that in reality were made of rayon. Rayon is a man-made fiber created from the cellulose found in plants and trees and processed with harsh chemicals that release hazardous air pollution. Any plant or tree – including bamboo – could be used as the cellulose source, but the fiber that is created is rayon. “While we have seen action by some retailers to correct mislabeled clothing and textile products, our hope is that these warning letters will serve as a wake-up call to all companies, regardless of their size,” Vladeck said. The FTC staff letter outlines the requirements for proper labeling and advertising of textile products derived from bamboo. The letter states, “Rayon, even if manufactured using cellulose from bamboo, must be described using an appropriate term recognized under the FTC’s Textile Rules. . . . Failing to properly label and advertise textiles misleads consumers and runs afoul of both the Textile Rules and the FTC Act.” In the letter, the FTC tells the companies they should review the labeling and advertising for the textile products they are selling and remove or correct any misleading bamboo references. Along with the warning letters, the agency sent each company a synopsis of FTC decisions finding that the failure to use proper fiber names in textile labeling and advertising was deceptive and violated the FTC Act. Under the Act, the FTC can seek civil penalties of up to $16,000 per violation against any company that receives this information but fails to correct its advertising and labeling. A complete list of the companies sent warning letters can be found on the FTC’s Web site and as a link to this press release. They include small and large retailers, with both online and brick-and-mortar stores, and firms selling textile products labeled or advertised as “bamboo” that may be made of rayon. The more commonly known retailers include: Amazon.com, Barney’s New York, Bed Bath & Beyond, BJ’s Wholesale Club, Bloomingdale’s, Costco Wholesale, Garnet Hill, Gold Toe, Hanes, Isotoner, JC Penney, Jockey, Kmart, Kohl’s, Land’s End, Macy’s, Maidenform, Nordstrom, Overstock.com, QVC, REI, Saks Fifth Avenue, Sears, Shop NBC, Spiegel, Sports Authority, Target, The Gap, The Great Indoors, Tommy Bahama, Toys R’ Us, Wal-Mart, and Zappos.com . Recent Enforcement Actions. Today’s announcement comes on the heels of four FTC enforcement actions brought against companies selling rayon products that were misleadingly labeled and advertised. According to the Commission’s complaints, filed in August 2009, the companies falsely claimed that their rayon clothing and other textile products were “bamboo fiber,” marketing them using names such as “ecoKashmere,” “Pure Bamboo,” “Bamboo Comfort,” and “BambooBaby.” The complaints also challenged a number of other deceptive “green” claims, including that the products retained the bamboo plant’s antimicrobial properties, were made using environmentally friendly manufacturing processes, and are biodegradable. The four companies have settled the FTC’s charges and agreed to modify their labels to ensure their claims are not misleading or deceptive. (One of the cases still needs final FTC approval.) Press releases announcing the complaints and related settlements can be found at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/12/dynabamboo.shtm and http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/bamboosa.shtm , respectively. Business and Consumer Information. The FTC has a publication designed to help businesses that sell clothing and textile products that are labeled as bamboo to market their products in ways that are truthful, non-deceptive, and in compliance with the law. “Avoid Bamboo-zling Your Customers” can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/bamboo . The FTC also has an alert entitled “Have You Been Bamboozled by Bamboo Fabrics?” that provides useful information for consumers shopping for bamboo-based fabrics. It also can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/bamboo . The Commission vote to publicly disclose the warning letters was 4-0. Copies of the letters and a complete list of companies that received them can be found on the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/bamboo and as a link to this press release. 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 1,700 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 .
Read the rest here:
FTC Warns 78 Retailers, Including Wal-Mart, Target, and Kmart, to Stop Labeling and Advertising Rayon Textile Products as "Bamboo"
When Debt Collection Lawyers Pull Credit Reports and Break the law – FCRA
February 3rd, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
If you are being sued by a debt collection law firm it would be prudent to pull all three of your credit reports (Experian, Equifax and TransUnion). Chances are that the law firm pulled your credit report and this is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Below is a photo of my credit reporting showing Macey Wilensky, Kessler and Hennings having pulled my credit report on three occasions 6/24/2008, 7/15/2008 and 7/31/2008, shortly after that I received a summons naming American Express Centurion Bank as Plaintiff and Macey, Wilensky as the filing law firm. According to the FCRA litigation is not a permissible use of a consumers credit report as it is not a business to consumer transaction.
I’m about to Sue Worldwide Asset Purchasing II LLC, Hollander Law Offices LLC and Leading Edge Recovery Solutions. They are now Co-Defendants
February 2nd, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
These jokers take an alleged $12,000.00 debt, turn it into a $15,000.00 debt then in short order turn it into a $17,000.00 debt. Time to start suing. Evidently Worldwide Asset Purchasing II, LLC (State of Nevada) thinks I owe them. As far as I know I have never had a MBNA account. I did receive a long time ago something stating I owed $12,000.00 to MBNA. May be I do and maybe I don’t. Anyway the junk debt buyer (pays pennies on the dollar for debts), turned the alleged debt over to Hollander Law Offices (a foreign corporation in Georgia) claimed that I owed $15,456.30. Hollander seemed to enjoy leaving voice mail at my employers office that they are debt collectors, we aren’t talking once but many times. I never gave anyone permission to contact my employer about a debt. Can you say multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)? Hollander Law Offices, LLC sent me a letter on 9/12/2009 stating that I owed $15,460.30 (remember the date) I of course ignored the empty legal threats of Hollander Law Offices, LLC. And so I should have. On January 25, 2010 I receive a letter from Leading Edge Recovery Solutions, stating that they represented Worldwide Asset Purchasing II, LLC. for the amount of $17,007.15. Somehow in the period of about 5 months the alleged amount owed jumped $1,541.85. That’s a lot of interest of fees. Bear with me and I will explain all of the violations of the FDCAP this entails.
Judge Rules that Ellis v. Solomon and Solomon Violated the FDCPA by Suing Before During 30 Day Debt Validation Period
January 28th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.
I just got this via email. Ellis v. Solomon & Solomon P.C, Julie Farina, and Douglas Fisher 09-1247-cv United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit on 01/13/10 Affirmed the verdict of the district court which held that the defendants violated the FDCPA by serving Ellis with a summons and complaint during the FDCPA thirty-day validation period, without explaining that commencement of the lawsuit did not affect the rights set forth in the validation notice. We agree, and hold that service of process during the validation period must , at a minimum, be preceded or accompanied by notice to the consumer clarifying that the lawsuit does not in any alter the information contained in the validation notice. The National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys filed a amicus brief in support of the collection lawyers but it didn’t do any good. Judge said there is real potential for confusion when a consumer is served with a lawsuit during the validation period. Without some explanation to the consumer of the relationship between the suit and the provisions in the notice it may well appear to the least sophisticated consumer that being taken to court trumps any other out of court rights she had. PDF version of the decision
Judge Rules that Ellis v. Solomon & Solomon Violated the FDCPA by Suing Before During 30 Day Debt Validation Period
January 28th, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
I just got this via email. Ellis v. Solomon & Solomon P.C, Julie Farina, and Douglas Fisher 09-1247-cv United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit on 01/13/10 Affirmed the verdict of the district court which held that the defendants violated the FDCPA by serving Ellis with a summons and complaint during the FDCPA thirty-day validation period, without explaining that commencement of the lawsuit did not affect the rights set forth in the validation notice. We agree, and hold that service of process during the validation period must , at a minimum, be preceded or accompanied by notice to the consumer clarifying that the lawsuit does not in any alter the information contained in the validation notice. The National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys filed a amicus brief in support of the collection lawyers but it didn’t do any good. Judge said there is real potential for confusion when a consumer is served with a lawsuit during the validation period. Without some explanation to the consumer of the relationship between the suit and the provisions in the notice it may well appear to the least sophisticated consumer that being taken to court trumps any other out of court rights she had. PDF version of the decision
Continued here:
Judge Rules that Ellis v. Solomon & Solomon Violated the FDCPA by Suing Before During 30 Day Debt Validation Period
Mortgage Broker Who Dumped Consumer Records Settles FTC Charges
January 20th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
A mortgage broker who discarded consumers’ personal financial records in a publicly- accessible dumpster paid a $35,000 civil penalty to settle Federal Trade Commission charges. According to an FTC complaint filed in December 2008, the defendant improperly disposed of about 40 boxes of sensitive consumer records collected by companies he had owned, including tax returns, mortgage applications, bank statements, photocopies of credit cards and drivers’ licenses, and at least 230 credit reports. In addition, two mortgage brokerage companies he previously owned failed to provide reasonable and appropriate security for sensitive consumer information, despite promising they would do so.
Marketers of Unproven Weight-Loss Products Bronson Partners LLC Ordered to Pay Nearly $2 Million
January 11th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
Court Rules in Favor of FTC in Case of Diet Tea and Bio-Slim Patch A federal district court has ordered the marketers of an herbal tea and a diet patch to pay nearly $2 million to the Federal Trade Commission for making deceptive claims that both products would allow users to lose weight quickly without diet or exercise. For nearly two years before the FTC complaint was filed, Bronson Partners, LLC and its officer, Martin Howard, marketed Chinese Diet Tea, telling consumers they could lose as much as six pounds a week by drinking one cup of the green tea after each meal to “neutralize the absorption of fattening foods.” Advertising in national magazines such as USA Weekend and Clipper Magazine, the marketers charged $24.95 plus shipping and handling for a month’s supply. Also during this time, the marketers sold the Bio-Slim Patch, a diet patch that contained extracts from the fucus, garcinia, and guarana plants. Instructing consumers to wear the patches 24 hours a day for at least three months, the marketers claimed that “repulsive, excess ugly fatty tissue will disappear at a spectacular rate due to the combination and synergy of these three natural ingredients.” The marketers advertised the patch in national magazines and in a company catalog, and consumers paid $24.95 plus shipping and handling for a month’s supply. In addition to ordering the nearly $2 million payment, citing “obvious and widespread” violations of the FTC Act, Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the FTC’s request to prohibit the defendants from selling or advertising any weight-loss products. “Future violations of a similar nature would surely result in financial harm to consumers, and possible physical harm if consumers engage in risky weight-loss techniques in reliance on (the) defendants’ misleading representations,” the judge wrote in his December 2009 ruling and order. He also ordered the defendants to help the FTC identify consumer victims who lost money on the products, so that restitution can be made. The FTC filed its complaint against Bronson Partners, LLC and Martin Howard as part of the “Big Fat Lie” law enforcement sweep in November 2004. The sweep targeted marketers of bogus weight-loss products, such as pills, powders, gels, green teas, and diet patches. In July 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the FTC’s request for summary judgment against Howard and Bronson Partners, LLC – also doing business as New England Diet Center and Bronson Day Spa. Copies of the November 2004 complaint and the December 2009 ruling and order are available on 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 in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers 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 .
Read this article:
Marketers of Unproven Weight-Loss Products Bronson Partners LLC Ordered to Pay Nearly $2 Million
Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book Now Available in Print Edition
January 9th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.
Allen Harkleroad’s latest book, “Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors” is now available in print. Synopsis Beat Greedy Lawsuit Filing Debt Collectors At Their Own Game. Learn to Fight Debt Collection Lawsuits and WIN! Have you been sued by a debt collector or law firm over a debt?
NOW AVAILABLE – New Book – Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors
December 31st, 2009. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
I Allen Harkleroad, have released a new book titled “Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors”. This is my second consumer book and I believe is a much needed resource for consumers having financial difficulties. To purchase or for more information go to www.BeatDebtCollectors.com . What you will read in my book is based on own personal experiences and what I learned from dealing with debt collector lawsuits over the last couple of years. For the record I have been sued so many times over the last couple of years that I have literally lost count. I can tell you one thing with one hundred percent certainty; I win in court and stick it to sue happy debt collectors, attorneys and law firms. It took a while to learn out how to how to fight a debt lawsuit, represent myself in court and win. Most consumers have no idea how to deal with debt lawsuits and most cannot afford to be represented by an attorney. This is why I wrote this book. In this book I will cover original creditor lawsuits and junk debt buyer lawsuits. Both are very similar in the way that you will deal with them. I will also cover how to keep debt collectors off your back before any lawsuits are filed. I also cover how and when to sue a debt collector for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). My ultimate goal is to show you how to overwhelm the opposing attorney and to show them that the burden of proving the debt is going to be an arduous, long, tiring and expensive (for them) journey. Most attorneys will bailout (voluntary dismissal) once they see that they have to spend time and money to prove the case. I am not an “easy money target” and after you read my book neither will you. My goal when responding to either an original creditor or junk debt buyer lawsuits is to overwhelm the opposing attorney and forcing the burden of proof on them. As I said earlier my debt collector attorneys and law firms are looking for easy money (default judgments). I turn the tables and show them that they must actually work to get a judgment. Did you know in upwards of ninety-percent (90%) of credit card debt lawsuits that are filed the attorney has insufficient proof that you owe the debt? The reason is that the proper documentation was lost or never transferred to the law firm or the debt buyer. Did you know that one in ten (1 in 10) consumers served with a debt lawsuit will never respond or show up (for whatever reason). In some cases the consumer was never made aware of the lawsuit or possibly it could be because of embarrassment or fear. You’ll see results like this TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword – written by Chris Gleason a prominent consumer protection attorney Acknowledgements Introduction Chapter One – Important Things You May Not Know About Debt Lawsuits Chapter Two – Defending Yourself (Pro Se) Is Mostly Paperwork Chapter Three – Original Creditor Lawsuits Answering the Complaint and Affirmative Defenses – Deny Everything Example Answer and Affirmative Defenses Explanations of the Affirmative Defenses and Other Affirmative Defenses Filing a Motion to Dismiss and Sworn Denials Using the Federal Truth in Lending Act to Your Advantage Breach of Contract not Suit on Account The Motion to Dismiss and Sworn Denial Bombshell Motion to Strike Affidavit of Debt or Affidavit of Account Discovery – Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, Request for Admissions Responses to Plaintiff’s Discovery Chapter Four- Debt Buyer (junk debt collectors) Lawsuits Answering the Complaint and Affirmative Defenses – Deny Everything Explanations of the Affirmative Defenses and Other Affirmative Defenses The Motion to Dismiss and Sworn Denial Bombshell Motion to Strike Affidavit of Debt or Affidavit of Account Discovery – Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, Request for Admissions Chapter Five – Dealing with Debt Collectors Before They Sue You The Never and Always Tips for Dealing with Debt Collectors How to Pay Collection Agencies or Creditors How to Sue Debt Collectors for Violations of the FDCPA Or FCRA Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Violations Whether you owe a debt or not, this book will give you tools that you can use to get these lawyers off of your back. An attorney friend of mine once told me, “This is America so make them prove you owe them, if they can’t you win”. In as many as ninety percent (90%) of credit card debt lawsuits, the lawyers filing the suits don’t have the documentation to prove that you owe the debt. This book also shows you how and what to file in court to make them back off. REMEMBER: Credit card lawsuits are civil lawsuits. They CANNOT put you in jail even if you lose. So if you are worried or scared, DON’T BE. Most of these sorts of lawsuits are scare tactics by debt collectors (and debt collection law firms) to scare you (to keep you from answering or responding). When they see that they must work for the money, often times they’ll go away. To purchase or for more information go to www.BeatDebtCollectors.com .
See the original post:
NOW AVAILABLE – New Book – Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors
New Book – Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors
December 28th, 2009. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
I (Allen Harkleroad) am about to release a new book titled “Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors”. This is my second consumer book and I believe is a much needed resource for consumers having financial difficulties. What you will read in my book is based on own personal experiences and what I learned from dealing with debt collector lawsuits over the last couple of years. For the record I have been sued so many times over the last couple of years that I have literally lost count. I can tell you one thing with one hundred percent certainty; I win in court and stick it to sue happy debt collectors, attorneys and law firms. It took a while to learn out how to represent myself in court and win against lawsuit happy debt collection law firms and debt collection companies. Most consumers have no idea how to deal with debt lawsuits and most cannot afford to be represented by an attorney. This is why I wrote this book. In this book I will cover original creditor lawsuits and junk debt buyer lawsuits. Both are very similar in the way that you will deal with them. I will also cover how to keep debt collectors off your back before any lawsuits are filed. I also cover how and when to sue a debt collector for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). My ultimate goal is to show you how to overwhelm the opposing attorney and to show them that the burden of proving the debt is going to be an arduous, long, tiring and expensive (for them) journey. Most attorneys will bailout (voluntary dismissal) once they see that they
Online scams dominate BBB branch’s Top 10 list – CBC.ca
December 14th, 2009. Published under Political Scams, Scams. No Comments.
CBC.ca Online scams dominate BBB branch's Top 10 list CBC.ca “Some of the scams are just a bit of misleading advertising. A lot of the time, the consumer's credit card information is going from one company that they … and more
FTC Announces New Enforcement Actions In Continuing Crackdown On Mortgage Relief Services Scams
September 17th, 2009. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
The Federal Trade Commission today announced two new law enforcement actions in a continuing crackdown on mortgage foreclosure rescue and loan modification scams, bringing to 22 the number of these cases the Commission has filed since the housing crisis began. The FTC also announced developments in similar pending mortgage-related actions. “Today’s challenging economy presents an opportunity for con artists who prey upon financially distressed consumers. The Federal Trade Commission and our state and federal partners will continue to bring law enforcement actions to stop this insidious fraud,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. “If you’re worried about keeping your home, avoid any company that asks for a large fee in advance, guarantees that they’ll stop a foreclosure or modify a loan, or tells you to stop paying your mortgage company and to pay them instead.” The FTC’s announcement accompanied a meeting of federal and state officials including Chairman Leibowitz, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Attorney General Eric Holder, Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, and the state attorneys general from eleven states (Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island and Washington). These federal and state officials met in Washington, D.C., to discuss emerging trends and ongoing efforts against fraud in the mortgage marketplace. In addition to law enforcement, the FTC discussed its ongoing rulemaking proceeding involving mortgage modification services and continuing efforts to educate consumers about avoiding mortgage-related scams. In today’s two new announced FTC actions, the defendants allegedly falsely claimed that they would obtain a mortgage modification in virtually all cases. According to the FTC’s complaints, after charging homeowners large up-front fees, the defendants often did little or nothing to help them renegotiate their mortgages or stop foreclosure. The FTC seeks to stop the defendants’ deceptive claims and make them forfeit their ill-gotten gains. Nations Housing Modification Center and its principals allegedly violated the FTC Act and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule by misrepresenting themselves as a federal government agency or affiliate and falsely claiming that, in return for a $3,000 fee – half due up-front and half due two weeks later – they would obtain mortgage modifications that would make consumers’ loan payments substantially more affordable in virtually every instance. According to the FTC, the defendants also falsely claimed a 90 percent success rate, that only selected customers meeting certain qualifications were offered a loan, and that they had attorneys and forensic accountants on staff. In fact, the FTC alleges that very few homeowners got modifications, the defendants accepted advance fees for services from all applicants, and they had neither lawyers nor accountants on staff. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants solicited consumers by mail designed to look as if it came from a federal government agency, deceptively stating, “a bill has been passed by Congress” that “allows the Nations Housing Modification Center to provide relief for homeowners that are delinquent on their mortgage through the Nations Home Affordable Modification Program.” The defendants also allegedly made misleading statements on their Web site and with consumers who called their toll-free number. The complaint alleges that consumers were misled because the defendants’ promotion is very similar to the real government “Making Home Affordable” program that provides free mortgage loan assistance. The defendants are Federal Housing Modification Department, Inc., doing business as Nations Housing Modification Center and Loan Modification Reform Association, and Michael A. Trap, Glenn S. Rosofsky, and Bryan P. Rosenberg. The Commission vote to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 16, 2009. The FTC appreciates the assistance of the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the office of Jim Freis, Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the office of Bonnie M. Dumanis, District Attorney, County of San Diego, California, in this matter. Infinity Group Services and its president are charged with violating the FTC Act by falsely representing that they would obtain a loan modification in all, or virtually all, instances; that they would give full refunds if they failed to do so; and that they would obtain loan refinancing for an up-front fee of $995. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants’ radio ads and Web site urged consumers to call a toll-free number. Once consumers called, the defendants’ sales personnel promised that, in return for the up-front fee, the company would help them modify their mortgage loans through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Hope for Homeowners program. The defendants claimed a high success rate and offered a full refund if they failed. The FTC alleges that the company often failed to obtain loan modifications and either failed to answer or return consumers’ telephone calls or update them about their status. When consumers were able to contact the defendants, they were falsely told that negotiations were proceeding smoothly or that lenders had caused a delay. In many instances, consumers received refunds only after repeatedly complaining to the FTC, the California Attorney General’s Office, or the Better Business Bureau. The FTC’s complaint further alleged that the defendants also offered mortgage loan refinancing for a “flat fee” of $995 but then sought additional fees ranging from $2,000 to $15,000. In other instances, consumers were led to believe that they had closed on their loans but were later told by the defendants that the loan would not be funded. According to the complaint, the defendants’ Web site stated that there were no hidden costs, but a fine-print footnote stated, “Rates, Fees and Terms are subject to change.” The defendants are Infinity Group Services, also doing business as IGS, Hope to Homeowners, ASK IGS, and ASK IGS, Inc., and the company’s president, Kahram Zamani. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, on August 26, 2009. The FTC also announced developments in four previously filed foreclosure rescue cases: The FTC has obtained a stipulated federal court order barring Lucas Law Center and its principals from misrepresenting their services and charging up-front fees. The defendants allegedly used an attorney to circumvent California prohibitions against receiving a fee before providing any services. In addition to falsely representing that they would obtain mortgage loan modifications, the defendants allegedly told some homeowners to stop paying their mortgage in order to pay the defendants’ fees of up to $3,995. The order announced today bars the defendants’ allegedly deceptive practices, pending a trial, and requires them to disable Web sites offering their services and to note the FTC’s lawsuit and the order on the Web sites. The order also requires domain name registrars to prevent any changes to the defendants’ Internet domain name registrations. The order names a permanent receiver over the corporate defendants, extends an earlier asset freeze, and bars the defendants from filing for bankruptcy without the court’s permission. The FTC ultimately seeks consumer restitution and a permanent bar on the defendants’ deceptive practices. The defendants are LUCASLAWCENTER “INCORPORATED,” Future Financial Services, LLC, Paul Jeffrey Lucas, Christopher Francis Betts, and Frank Sullivan. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, on July 7, 2009. (see July 15, 2009, press release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/loanlies.shtm ) The stipulated order was entered on August 24, 2009. The FTC has obtained a preliminary injunction halting the allegedly deceptive practices of United Credit Adjusters Inc., The Loan Modification Shop, Ltd. , and their principals, and freezing their assets, pending a trial. The Commission recently filed an amended complaint in this matter, adding as defendants The Loan Modification Shop, Ltd. and Casey Lynn Cohen, also known as Casey Lynn Collins, alleging that they and one of the original defendants, Ezra Rishty, misrepresented that they would help consumers obtain a mortgage loan modification or stop foreclosure in all or virtually all instances. The FTC’s original complaint, filed in February 2009, charged seven corporate and three individual defendants with falsely promising to remove negative information from consumers’ credit reports (even information that is accurate and current), charging an up-front fee, and failing to provide written disclosures. (see March 17, 2009, press release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/unitedcredit.shtm .) The original defendants are United Credit Adjusters, Inc., doing business as United Credit Adjustors and UCA; United Credit Adjustors, Inc., d/b/a United Credit Adjusters and UCA; United Counseling Association, Inc., d/b/a UCA; Bankruptcy Masters Corp., National Bankruptcy Services Corp., Federal Debt Solutions, Ltd., United Money Tree, Inc., and Ahron E. Henoch, Ezra Rishty, and Gerald Serino, also known as Jerry Serino. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the amended complaint was 4-0. The amended complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 4, 2009. The court entered a preliminary injunction as to all of the defendants on September 1, 2009. The FTC has obtained preliminary injunctions halting the allegedly deceptive practices of Loss Mitigation Services and its principals, pending a trial. Primarily through direct mail solicitation, the defendants allegedly targeted consumers whose mortgage payments have increased, who have made late payments, and whose homes were in foreclosure. They charged up to $5,500 in advance and promised that a loan modification was assured or virtually assured if consumers hired them. The defendants also misrepresented that they were a department of, or affiliated with, the consumer’s lender or mortgage servicer. In many cases, they failed to obtain loan modifications for consumers, some of whom lost their homes while waiting for the promised results. The defendants are Loss Mitigation Services, Inc., Synergy Financial Management Corporation, doing business as Direct Lender, and Dean Shafer, Bernadette Perry, and Tony Perry. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 13, 2009. (see July 15, 2009, press release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/loanlies.shtm ) The litigated preliminary injunction as to the corporate defendants and the stipulated preliminary injunction as to the individual defendants were filed on August 19, 2009. The FTC has filed an amended complaint in its action pending against Hope Now Modifications, LLC, adding as defendants Michael Kwasnik, Esq. and The Law Firm of Kwasnik, Rodio, Kanowitz & Buckley P.C. The original complaint, filed in March 2009, alleged that the defendants misled consumers about their ability to provide mortgage loan modification and foreclosure relief or to provide refunds if they failed to do so, and misrepresented that they were affiliated with, or part of, the HOPE NOW Alliance, a non-profit organization endorsed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The amended complaint also alleges violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the amended complaint was 4-0. The complaint and amended complaint were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 17, 2009, and September 14, 2009, respectively. (see March 24, 2009, press release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/newhope.shtm ) The FTC asks homeowners to report foreclosure rescue and mortgage modification scams to FTC.gov or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP. The FTC makes those complaints available to federal, state, and local law enforcement through the Consumer Sentinel Network. Homeowners in distress can get free help from the Homeowner’s HOPE Hotline 888-995-HOPE (4673), which connects homeowners to HUD-certified housing counselors. In addition to the FTC’s law enforcement efforts, the agency has initiated a rulemaking proceeding to address the proliferation of companies offering mortgage modification services to determine whether new rules could be useful to protect consumers. The FTC also launched new initiatives to educate consumers on avoiding these scams. For example, the Commission has released a video, “ Real People. Real Stories ,” featuring people targeted by foreclosure rescue scammers sharing lessons learned from their experiences. The FTC is distributing the video, and a version in Spanish, to more than 5,000 housing counseling and consumer protection organizations around the country, and posting them at FTC.gov/yourhome and YouTube.com/FTCVideos . The Commission’s mortgage-related resources are available at www.ftc.gov/moneymatters . 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. 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 1,500 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:
FTC Announces New Enforcement Actions In Continuing Crackdown On Mortgage Relief Services Scams
Phishing Cartoon Drives The Message Home
September 16th, 2009. Published under Scams. No Comments.
The following cartoon from Consumer Reports WebWatch is cute and a little funny too – You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video Fortunately, it also makes some good points about what phishing is and how such crimes are committed. If it has piqued your curiosity then you can learn a whole lot more by reading my recent post : Phishing – What Is It And How Can You Avoid It?
Continued here:
Phishing Cartoon Drives The Message Home
What Everybody Needs To Know About Car Financing Scams
September 10th, 2009. Published under Scams. No Comments.
Ever thought of purchasing a car? Purchasing a vehicle is probably one of the biggest investments any consumer can make today. Unfortunately due to economic circumstances the majority of vehicle buyers today prefer to finance a vehicle, rather than buying it cash. The advantage of financing a vehicle is that one can retain ones cash and improve cash flow. For other users financing a vehicle can be done for tax relief purposes. Another advantage of financing a vehicle, and only in certain instances, is that the consumer could have recourse against the dealership and/or financing institution in the event troubles occur. Vehicle financing scams generally occur only with dealerships offering their own finance to consumers. Well established and reputable financing providers seldom involve in unscrupulous business dealings. HOW CAR FINANCING SCAMS ARE COMMITTED These types of scams are generally committed when a consumer applies for vehicle finance. The dealership will notify the client of approval and request the client to sign the contract. After signing the finance agreement, the client will be informed that a higher interest rate was required to approve the finance. In certain instances the client will also be informed that a higher deposit is required for the finance to come into effect. In other instances clients will also then only be informed that the vehicle needs to be repaid in a much shorter period, along with the higher instalment and deposit. HOW TO AVOID CAR FINANCING SCAMS Always be careful of advertisements offering lower interest rates in vehicle finance. When taking part in these offers you should be aware that: You could be required to pay a large deposit in order to get finance approval You could be required to repay the finance in a very short time You may be required to buy additional options or even sign over a manufacturers? rebate to the dealership You may be required to pay the advertised price of the vehicle, and not be allowed to negotiate a better sale price Be careful of reserve prices placed on the vehicle, which needs to be paid in full at the end of the finance agreement as a lump sum, as with a lease It is highly recommended that you discuss such offers with a person with the required knowledge and experience. By approaching a finance specialist at any dealership you might be informed of any pitfalls you may enter yourself into.
View original post here:
What Everybody Needs To Know About Car Financing Scams
FREE – Consumer Credit DVD Available to Consumers
September 9th, 2009. Published under Scams. No Comments.
The Center for Consumer Law at the University of Houston has produced an educational DVD entitled “Money, Credit and the Law–Know Your Rights.” Funded in part by grants from the Texas Bar Foundation and Money Management International, the video shows consumers how the law protects them from abusive practices. It also explains how knowing your legal rights can resolve some credit problems, and let you work out a reasonable payment plan. The DVD is available to be viewed online at www.peopleslawyer.net , or, will be sent free to anyone who requests one from me, alderman@uh.edu Thanks to the Public Citizen Blog for the info
Read the original here:
FREE – Consumer Credit DVD Available to Consumers
American Express Blue – Raising all Interest Rates Even Old Balances – Jacking Consumers Around Again
August 14th, 2009. Published under Fraud. No Comments.
American Express Centurion Bank (AMEX) is really sticking it hard to American Express Blue card holders (every single one of them). There is nothing card holders can do about it either, you are at American Express’ mercy and they aren’t having any of that. Standard APR is going from fixed rate 11.99% to Prime Rate plus 11.99%. Rate as of Aug 1, 15.24% (this is applies to new purchases AND ALL BALANCES PREVIOUS) (aka variable interest rate) APR for Cash Advances will be 21.99% plus prime. APR for Late Payment will be 23.99% plus prime. Late fees for less than $250 will be $19, greater than $39. Read the full story on the Consumerist What do you want to bet that eventually all American Express card holder are going to have their interest rates and penalties jacked up. Well the cards that allow you to carry a balance that is. While this arbitrary tactic may boost American Expresses profits for a short while, what it will ultimately do is cause consumers to use credit less, especially if other credit card issuers do that same. Imagine if consumers that used credit cards, stopped using them and went back to using cash. The entire credit card industry would go into turmoil and the consumer would end up with the upper hand. My wife and I weaned ourselves off of credit cards about three years ago and haven’t had any problems with making purchases (we just make wiser choices now). No interest rate increases, no late fees and no sudden arbitrary fees at the whim of a credit card company. Yep it’s nice not to have financial crutches called credit cards. I like to call it financial freedom. My best advice: Cut up those American Express cards and do whatever you have to do to pay off the balance in a hurry, get out from under American Express debt. On top of that (This Just in News 9/14/2009) via the Associated Press Do you have an American Express Credit Card? Chances are your identity was just stolen. Amex cardholders’ data stolen by employee PS: Hey, Martin Rabinowitz ( martin.rabinowitz@aexp.com ) the Vice President of Credit Administration at American Express. Remember me? UP YOURS and AMEX’s and then some.
First Class Action Filed Against Georgia’s Mann Bracken and FIA Card Services (aka MBNA America Bank).
July 24th, 2009. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.
I personally hope that this is the first of many class-action lawsuits against Mann Bracken (aka Axiant, Aka Accretive Technologies), Wolpoff and Abramson, Eskanos and Adler and the rest that are involved. Of course at this point the class-action is filed, a judge still has to certify it as a class-action. However with all that has been going on I think it will gain class action status and I hope that a nationwide class action shows up soon. from wislawjournal.com The complaint (PDF) mapped out a “complex web” which boiled down to a cozy financial relationship: the arbitration services of NAF and sister organizations as well as the debt collection services of the law firm Mann Bracken and other companies have all been owned by the same New York hedge fund since 2007. The complaint alleged that the NAF violated state consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices and false advertising statutes through “complex and opaque corporate structuring” that concealed its financial ties and represented itself as a neutral party. “The ability of a class action litigant to get all of these other court cases undone is limited because of comity. Definitely a federal court will not be able to tell state courts to set aside judgments,” said Rubin, who hopes that other state attorneys general or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will step in and order that profits be disgorged. I just hope that there is some money left when my civil lawsuit filed in Georgia gets in front of a judge, I want a piece of Mann Bracken myself for the harassment I have endured…. If you have been harassed or had an illegal judgment against you then I suggest that you: File a complaint with the Georgia Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs against Mann Bracken. The state of Georgia is suing Mann Bracken for FDCPA and for violations of the Georgia Business Practices Act. Contact the Georgia Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs PDF complaint form http://consumer.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_1210/35/26/117138786Complaintform.pdf If you are harassed by debt collectors or debt collector law firms, go to www.naca.net or www.martindale.com and get a consumer protection attorney and SUE the pants off of them. Consumer protection attorney’s work on a contingency basis (no upfront costs – i.e. $0.00). BE SURE to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) as well. It is imperative that they get your complaint. https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/
Read more from the original source:
First Class Action Filed Against Georgia’s Mann Bracken and FIA Card Services (aka MBNA America Bank).