Markets Wired - Page 1146 of 1417 - Global Financial Market News and Press Releases

FTC Settlement Bans Recidivist Robocaller from Telemarketing

American consumers won’t be getting any more telemarketing pitches from robocaller Fereidoun “Fred” Khalilian, under a settlement reached by the Federal Trade Commission. Khalilian has agreed to be permanently banned from the telemarketing business in order to settle FTC charges that he and his company allegedly used pre-recorded robocalls to sell consumers auto service contracts.

Khalilian and his company, The Dolce Group Worldwide, LLC, are the latest robocall operation shut down as part of the FTC’s crackdown on deceptive prerecorded calls. According to the FTC, the operation, doing business under the name My Car Solutions, conned consumers into paying thousands of dollars by leading them to believe that the company was affiliated with auto dealers and manufacturers, and that it was offering to sell them extended auto “warranties.”

Khalilian is well-known to the FTC as a result of a 2001 settlement that banned him from all travel-related telemarketing, and required him to pay $185,000 in consumer redress for making deceptive pitches for travel packages.

In June 2010 the FTC filed a new complaint against Khalilian, alleging that since 2009, he and his company marketed “extended” auto warranties by blasting consumers with pre-recorded robocalls. These calls warned people that their car warranties were about to expire and instructed them to “press one” to talk with a representative. Consumers were then transferred to telemarketers who said they were from the “service contract department,” and they would “verify” information about the consumers’ cars and “confirm” other information, including their zip code.

The telemarketers then transferred consumers to a “senior specialist” who allegedly made more misrepresentations. Only after consumers bought the warranties did they discover that My Car Solutions was not affiliated with their car manufacturer, and that the contracts did not cover “the entire engine,” did not provide “bumper-to-bumper” coverage, and excluded certain “pre-existing conditions.” Consumers who tried to get their money back – typically between $1,300 and $2,485 per warranty – found it nearly impossible.

The court order settling the FTC’s charges bans Khalilian and The Dolce Group from telemarketing or helping others to telemarket, prohibits them from making any misrepresentations or omissions when selling any goods or services, and includes a monetary judgment of more than $4.2 million, the amount of consumer harm the operation caused. Under the order, Khalilian will satisfy part of the judgment by turning over corporate and personal property totaling approximately $50,000. The FTC is authorized to take action to collect the remainder of the outstanding judgment from the defendants. The settlement order contains additional provisions to ensure the defendants comply with its terms.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the consent order settling the court action was 5-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on November 24, 2010, and resolves the FTC’s charges against Khalilian and The Dolce Group Worldwide, LLC, doing businesses as My Car Solutions. The Order has been signed by the judge and entered by the court.

The Commission also has authorized the staff to withdraw a contempt action pending against the defendants in the Middle District of Florida related to violations of Khalilian’s previous FTC Order.

NOTE: This stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge.

Copies of the stipulated final order are available now on the agency’s website and as a link to this press release. 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 File No. X100037;
Civ. No. 10-21788-Civ-COOKE/BANDSTRA)

FTC and Ohio Attorney General Challenge ProMedica’s Acquisition of St. Luke’s Hospital

Continuing its efforts to protect healthcare consumers, the Federal Trade Commission today challenged ProMedica Health System, Inc.’s consummated acquisition of rival St. Luke’s Hospital in Lucas County, Ohio. The FTC’s administrative complaint alleges that the deal will reduce competition and allow ProMedica to raise prices for general acute-care and inpatient obstetrical services, significantly harming patients and local employers and employees.

The FTC staff will file a separate complaint in federal district court tomorrow seeking an order requiring ProMedica to preserve St. Luke’s as a separate, independent competitor during the FTC’s administrative proceeding and any subsequent appeals. The action in federal district court will be brought jointly with the Attorney General of the State of Ohio.

ProMedica is a not-for-profit healthcare system headquartered in Toledo, Ohio. Excluding St. Luke’s, ProMedica operates three general acute-care hospitals in Lucas County: 1) The Toledo Hospital; 2) Flower Hospital; and 3) Bay Park Community Hospital. It also provides healthcare services throughout northwestern and west-central Ohio and southeastern Michigan. ProMedica had 2009 revenues totaling about $1.6 billion.

On August 31, 2010, ProMedica acquired control of St. Luke’s, a formerly independent, not-for-profit general acute-care hospital in Maumee, Ohio. At the time of the acquisition, St. Luke’s was widely recognized as a high-quality, low-cost hospital; it generated revenues of approximately $156 million in 2009.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that ProMedica’s acquisition of St. Luke’s threatens to substantially harm competition in two relevant service markets in Lucas County, Ohio: 1) general acute-care inpatient hospital services, and 2) inpatient obstetrical services. Specifically, the FTC alleges that the acquisition reduces the number of general acute-care hospital competitors in Lucas County from four to three, leaving ProMedica to face only Mercy Health Partners and The University of Toledo Medical Center (UTMC). The complaint states that after acquiring St. Luke’s, ProMedica has a market share approaching 60 percent for general acute-care services in Lucas County.

In the market for inpatient obstetrical services in Lucas County – in which UTMC does not compete – the FTC charges the acquisition leaves only one competitor to ProMedica, increasing ProMedica’s market share to more than 80 percent.

The complaint also charges that ProMedica’s acquisition of St. Luke’s eliminates significant price and non-price competition between the two firms in both the general acute-care and inpatient obstetrical markets. According to the FTC, business documents reveal that a principal motivation for the acquisition was for St. Luke’s to gain enhanced bargaining leverage with health plans, and the ability to raise prices for services. Such reimbursement rate increases, the complaint states, would impose significant financial burdens on local employers and employees, either directly or through higher insurance premiums, co-pays, and other out-of-pocket expenses.

The acquisition, the FTC complaint alleges, also vests ProMedica with the ability to demand higher rates for services performed at its other hospitals as well, because the addition of St. Luke’s to the ProMedica hospital system has made ProMedica a “must-have” system for health plans seeking to do business in Lucas County, as plans can no longer offer consumers a viable provider network without including ProMedica’s hospitals.

Although ProMedica consummated the acquisition at the end of August, it agreed to refrain from certain actions – for example, renegotiation of St. Luke’s health-plan contracts and elimination or consolidation of St. Luke’s clinical services – while the FTC investigated the potential anticompetitive effects of the transaction. These critical protections will expire shortly without court-ordered relief.

The Commission votes approving both the administrative and federal district court complaints were 5-0. The administrative complaint was issued today, and a public version will be available on the agency’s website shortly. The evidentiary hearing is scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge at the FTC, beginning on May 31, 2011.

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. The administrative complaint marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations will be ruled upon after a formal hearing by an administrative law judge.

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to [email protected], or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Room 394, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read “Competition Counts” at http://www.ftc.gov/competitioncounts.

(FTC File No. 101-0167)

FTC Charges Another Defendant as Part of Crackdown on Bogus Medical Discount Plans

The Federal Trade Commission has charged another defendant in a case filed earlier this year against an operation that allegedly defrauded uninsured Americans by selling them “medical discount plans” that were disguised as health insurance.

The FTC amended the complaint that it filed in August against United States Benefits, LLC, adding Kennan Dozier as an additional primary defendant in the case. The agency, along with Tennessee Attorney General Robert E. Cooper, Jr., filed the lawsuit against U.S. Benefits and the company’s owner and chief executive, Timothy Thomas, as part of Operation Health Care Hustle, a broader FTC crackdown on deceptively marketed medical discount plans aimed at financially strapped consumers. The FTC alleges that the defendants have misrepresented that they are selling health insurance, called consumers whose numbers are on the National Do Not Call Registry, and made illegal robocalls.

The original complaint named Dozier – who is married to defendant Timothy Thomas – as a relief defendant, alleging that she unlawfully received funds that were the proceeds for the defendants’ illegal activities. The amended complaint alleges that Dozier participated directly in the fraudulent operation. By naming her as a primary defendant, the agency now seeks to hold her personally liable for violating the law.

After the lawsuit was filed in August, a U.S. district court temporarily halted the company’s deceptive actions. The agencies are seeking a permanent ban on the deceptive practices and a return of the defendants’ ill-gotten gains.

The FTC vote authorizing the staff to file the amended complaint was 5-0. It was filed on December 1, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, and is available now on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release at http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1023084/index.shtm.

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(FTC File No. X100046)
(US Benefits)

Georgia Board of Dentistry Proposal to Restrict Services by Dental Hygienists Would Harm the State’s Most Vulnerable Consumers

The staff of the Federal Trade Commission urged the Georgia Board of Dentistry to reject a proposal that would prohibit dental hygienists from providing basic preventive dental services in approved public health settings except under the indirect supervision of a dentist. In a written comment letter to the Professional Licensing Boards Division of the Georgia Secretary of State, the FTC staff explained that, while there is no evidence that such supervision is necessary to prevent harm to dental patients, the proposed rule amendments likely would raise the cost of dental services in Georgia and reduce the number of consumers receiving dental care.

The FTC staff is especially concerned that the proposed changes to the rule, which could be interpreted to restrict hygienists from performing services such as sealant and fluoride treatments at approved facilities unless a dentist had previously examined the patient and ordered the treatment, would harm the state’s most vulnerable consumers. The lack of dental care is a particular problem for children in rural and low-income communities, the FTC staff comment states, and dental hygienists play an important role in delivering care to these communities. In addition, according to the staff, the notice announcing the proposed amendments cites no evidence that allowing hygienists to continue to perform these types of dental services in facilities without direct supervision has harmed, or will harm, patients.

The Commission vote approving the staff comment was 5-0. It was sent to the Professional Licensing Boards Division on December 29, 2010. Copies of the comment can be found now on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. V110001; the staff contact is Susan S. DeSanti, Office of Policy Planning, 202-326-2210.)

(FYI 56.2010.wpd)

FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges that the Minnesota Rural Health Cooperative Fixed Healthcare Reimbursement Rates

For Your Information

January 4, 2011

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final Order settling charges that the Minnesota Rural Healthcare Cooperative eliminated competition among its doctors and hospitals members by orchestrating agreements to fix the prices at which they contract with health insurance plans and to refuse to deal with plans that did not go along with its inflated reimbursement rates. The Order bars the Minnesota Rural Healthcare Cooperative from using coercive tactics or refusals to deal to secure favorable terms from insurance plans, and requires it to renegotiate all existing contracts with health plans and to submit the renegotiated contracts for state approval.

The Commission vote approving the final Order and a letter to the member of the public who commented on the Order was 5-0. The Order can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. 051-0199; the staff contact is Bradley Albert, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-3670; see press release dated June 18, 2010).

(FYI 54.2010.wpd)

Contact Information

MEDIA CONTACT:

Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

FTC Puts Conditions on Keystone’s $245 Million Purchase of Compagnie de Saint-Gobain’s Advanced Ceramics Business

The Federal Trade Commission moved to preserve competition in the North American market for alumina wear tile by imposing conditions on Keystone Holdings, LLC and Compagnie de Saint-Gobain in a settlement involving Keystone’s planned acquisition of Saint-Gobain’s Advanced Ceramics Business.

Alumina wear tile protects industrial equipment from abrasive wear. Equipment protected by the tiles includes chutes, hoppers, and pipes used to carry coal and ash in coal-fired power plants; silos and equipment used in the cement and asphalt industry; and mineral processing equipment. There are two types of alumina wear tile: standard and pre-engineered. Standard alumina wear tile comes in a variety of predetermined sizes and shapes, while pre-engineered tile is made-to-order to fit complex shapes that standard tile cannot fit.

According to the FTC’s complaint, the deal as originally structured would reduce competition in the North American markets for both types of alumina wear tile, as well as the overall market for alumina wear tile. Keystone and Saint-Gobain are two of only three significant suppliers in North America for pre-engineered alumina wear tile, and two of only four suppliers in North America for standard alumina wear tile. Keystone’s acquisition of Saint-Gobain’s North American alumina wear tile assets would eliminate direct competition between CoorsTek – the Keystone subsidiary that manufactures its tiles – and Saint-Gobain. In addition, the deal would increase CoorsTek’s market share substantially, eliminate CoorsTek’s most significant alumina wear tile competitor in North America, allow the combined company to raise prices for alumina wear tile, and increase the likelihood that the remaining firms could act together to raise consumer prices for alumina wear tile.

The proposed settlement is designed to ensure that Saint-Gobain’s North American alumina tile business will remain in place and continue to compete in the market. Keystone and Saint-Gobain modified their transaction to allow Saint-Gobain to retain its Latrobe, Pennsylvania facility, which manufactures most of the alumina wear tile sold by Saint-Gobain in the United States. The FTC order requires Keystone, for a period of 10 years, to obtain prior approval from the Commission before acquiring any of Saint-Gobain’s North American alumina wear tile assets, including its Latrobe manufacturing facility. Also, under the proposed order, for a period of five years Saint-Gobain must provide the FTC with advance written notice before selling all or substantially all of its North American alumina wear tile assets. Saint-Gobain also must notify the FTC before permanently closing or halting operations at the Labrobe facility, with certain exceptions, such as for maintenance closures.

Finally, to ensure the continued viability of Saint-Gobain’s North American alumina wear tile business, Keystone must comply with all terms of alumina wear tile business agreements between the two firms, including a supply agreement for certain types of tile made at a Saint-Gobain facility in Vinhedo, Brazil, which Keystone will acquire through this transaction.

The Commission vote approving the proposed order was 5-0. It will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until February 1, 2011, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Electronic comments may be submitted at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/keystone.

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. A consent order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a violation of the law. When the Commission issues an order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

Copies of the complaint, consent order, and an analysis to aid in public comment can be found on the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to [email protected], or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Room 383, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read “Competition Counts” at http://www.ftc.gov/competitioncounts.

(FTC File No. 101-0175)

FTC Charges Massive Internet Enterprise with Scamming Consumers Out of Millions Billing Month-After-Month for Products and Services They Never Ordered

The Federal Trade Commission is taking legal action against a far-reaching Internet enterprise that allegedly has made millions of dollars by luring consumers into “trial” memberships for bogus government-grant and money-making schemes, and then repeatedly charging them monthly fees for these and other memberships that they never signed up for. The FTC seeks to stop the illegal practices and make the defendants pay redress to consumers and give up their ill-gotten gains.

“No consumer should be sucker-punched into making payments for products they don’t know about and don’t want,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants offer consumers bogus money-making and government-grant opportunities. They claim that the offers are “free” or “risk-free,” and that they will charge customers only a small shipping and handling fee.

According to the FTC’s complaint, the operation, doing business under the name I Works and controlled by Jeremy Johnson and nine other individuals, uses websites that tout the availability of government grants to pay personal expenses or pitch various money-making programs. The websites offer “free” information at no risk and ask consumers to provide their credit or debit card numbers to pay for a small shipping and handling fee such as $1.99. When consumers provide their billing information, though, I Works proceeds to charge them hefty one-time fees of up to $129.95 and monthly recurring fees of up to $59.95 for the grant or money-making programs. I Works charges them additional monthly fees for one or more unrelated programs that consumers did not agree to.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that this scheme has caused hundreds of thousands of consumers to seek chargebacks – reversals of charges to their credit cards or debits to their banks accounts. The high number of chargebacks has landed the defendants in VISA’s and MasterCard’s chargeback monitoring programs, resulted in millions of dollars in fines for excessive chargebacks, and prevented the defendants from getting access to the credit card and debit card billing systems using their own names. To keep the scam going, the defendants tricked banks into giving them continued access to these billing systems by creating 51shell companies with figurehead officers, and by providing the banks with phony “clean” versions of their websites.

The FTC has charged the defendants with violating the FTC Act by misrepresenting that government grants are available for paying personal expenses, that consumers are likely to obtain grants by using the defendants’ program, that users of their money-making products will earn substantial income, and that their offers are free or risk-free. The complaint also alleges that defendants failed to disclose that consumers who pay a nominal shipping and handling fee will be enrolled in expensive plans that charge consumers fees until they cancel, and that the defendants charged consumers’ credit cards and debited their bank accounts without their consent.

In addition, the FTC alleges that defendants posted deceptive positive reviews and used deceptive testimonials that misrepresented the benefits of their grant services. Finally, the FTC has charged the defendants with violating the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by debiting consumers’ bank accounts without their signed written consent and without providing consumers with a copy of the written authorization.

As alleged in the complaint, the defendants gained access to the Visa and MasterCard systems through many entities. The banks included Wells Fargo, N.A., HSBC Bank USA, First Regional Bank, Harris National Association, and Columbus Bank and Trust Company. The payment processors the defendants used included First Data, ECHO, Global Payment Systems, Litle & Co., Moneris, Payment Tech, Trident, and Vital, as well as independent sales organizations, including CardFlex, RDK Inc., Merchant eSolutions, Pivotal Payments, PowerPay, and Swipe Merchant Solutions.

The FTC complaint names 10 individuals, 10 corporations, and 51 shell companies as defendants. As alleged in the complaint, the linchpin of the enterprise is Jeremy Johnson, the sole owner and officer of I Works Inc., which has done business under numerous names. The FTC’s complaint names Johnson and nine other individual defendants: Duane Fielding; Andy Johnson; Loyd Johnston; Scott Leavitt; Scott Muir; Bryce Payne; Kevin Pilon; Ryan Riddle; and Terrason Spinks. In addition, the 10 corporate defendants are: I Works Inc.; Anthon Holdings Corp.; Cloud Nine Marketing Inc.; CPA Upsell Inc.; Elite Debit Inc.; Employee Plus Inc.; Internet Economy Inc.; Market Funding Solutions Inc.; Network Agenda LLC; and Success Marketing Inc.

The 51 shell companies named in the complaint are Big Bucks Pro Inc., Blue Net Progress Inc., Blue Streak Processing Inc., Bolt Marketing Inc., Bottom Dollar Inc., doing business as BadCustomer.com, Bumble Marketing Inc., Business First Inc., Business Loan Success Inc., Cold Bay Media Inc., Costnet Discounts Inc., CS Processing Inc., Cutting Edge Processing Inc., Diamond J. Media Inc., Ebusiness First Inc., Ebusiness Success Inc., Ecom Success Inc., Excess Net Success Inc., Fiscal Fidelity Inc., Fitness Processing Inc., Funding Search Success Inc., Funding Success Inc., GG Processing Inc., GGL Rewards Inc., Highlight Marketing Inc., Hooper Processing Inc., Internet Business Source Inc., Internet Fitness Inc., Jet Processing Inc., JRB Media Inc., Lifestyles For Fitness Inc., Mist Marketing Inc., Money Harvest Inc., Monroe Processing Inc., Net Business Success Inc., Net Commerce Inc., Net Discounts Inc., Net Fit Trends Inc., Optimum Assistance Inc., Power Processing Inc., Premier Performance Inc., Pro Internet Services Inc., Razor Processing Inc., Rebate Deals Inc., Revive Marketing Inc., Simcor Marketing Inc., Summit Processing Inc., The Net Success Inc., Tranfirst Inc., Tran Voyage Inc., Unlimited Processing Inc., and Xcel Processing Inc.

The Commission vote to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

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 1,800 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.

(FTC File No. 1023015)

FTC Proposes Additional Time for Manufacturers to Adopt New Light Bulb Labels

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comments on whether to provide manufacturers approximately six additional months to incorporate new light bulb labels on their packaging, and whether to exempt certain bulbs that will soon be obsolete from those requirements. The new labels, which were announced last summer, will help consumers choose among the different types of bulbs on the market – traditional incandescent bulbs, and newer high-efficiency compact fluorescent (CFL) and light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs.

Currently, the new light bulb labeling requirements will take effect on July 19, 2011. The FTC proposes to extend the effective date until January 1, 2012 and not to require the new label for incandescent bulbs that will be phased out as of 2013 (e.g., 75 watt bulbs). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 imposes stringent energy efficiency standards for light bulbs beginning in 2012, and will eliminate low-efficiency incandescent bulbs from the market over the next few years. The FTC proposes these modifications in response to a petition submitted by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.

The Commission vote approving the Federal Register notice announcing the proposal was 5-0. Comments on the proposal are being accepted through January 28, 2011, and can be submitted online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/lightbulblabel. (FTC File No. R611004; the staff contact is Hampton Newsome, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2889; see press release dated June 18, 2010.)

(FYI 55.2010.wpd)

Countdown to National Consumer Protection Week 2011 Begins; Website and Blog Launched

The Federal Trade Commission has launched the website and blog for National Consumer Protection Week (NCPW) 2011, to be held March 6-12. The annual event, now in its 13th year, is hosted by the FTC and nearly 30 other government agencies, consumer groups, and national organizations. The website, www.ncpw.gov, provides information about consumer rights, and promotes free resources to help consumers protect their privacy, manage credit and debt, avoid identity theft, understand mortgages, and recognize frauds and scams.

Consumer experts will provide blog posts on a wide variety of subjects. The Consumer Topics section of the website has print and video resources to read, view, download, print, copy, and share.

Government agencies and organizations planning an event for National Consumer Protection Week should visit the site at www.ncpw.gov and send an email (ncpw(at)ftc.gov) including the date, time, location, and concise details.

Learn more about the government agencies, consumer groups, and national participating organizations on the About Us section of the website.

The FTC works 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 or get free information on consumer issues, visit ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. Watch a new video, How to File a Complaint, at ftc.gov/video to learn more. The FTC enters consumer complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database and investigative tool used by more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

(FYI NCPW)

FTC Offers Online Shopping Tips for the Holidays

Tips for Consumers

December 17, 2010

The Federal Trade Commission, the nation’s consumer protection agency, has tips to help consumers make smart online shopping decisions for the holidays:

Know who you’re dealing with:
- Confirm the online seller’s physical address and phone number before you buy.
Know what you’re buying:
- Read the seller’s description of the product and the fine print.
- Understand the terms and conditions regarding refunds, including who pays the shipping costs, and whether there is a restocking fee.
- Print and save records of your online transactions, including all emails to and from the seller.
- Buy gift cards from known and trusted sources, and avoid online auction sites for gift cards.
Be stingy with your personal information:
- Don’t give out your credit card or other financial information in exchange for a tech toy, a free gift card, a seasonal job, or a holiday vacation rental.
- Don’t email your financial information or click on a link in an email. Legitimate companies don’t ask for your financial information via email or pop-up message.
Check the privacy policy:
- If you can’t find it or it doesn’t make sense, consider taking your business elsewhere, and letting the site know what you think.
Shop around:
- Use the manufacturer and model number of the item to compare prices among merchants. Consider whether shipping is included. If the item is offered for pick-up at a store, consider the cost of parking or public transportation.
Use caution when buying on public WiFi:
- If a hot spot has doesn’t have effective security measures in place, it’s risky to send sensitive information like your credit card number over that network.
Pay by credit or charge card:
- They offer the best consumer protections. If you wire money and there’s a problem, you probably won’t get it back. Buying online using cash equivalents – debit card, personal check, cashier’s check, or money order – can be risky. Use them only if you know the party you’re doing business with.
Free screen savers, e-cards, or other seasonal downloads can carry dangerous viruses:
- Keep your anti-virus and anti-spyware software and your firewall current.
Monitor your financial accounts:
- Read your statements regularly, making sure they reflect the charges you authorized.

The FTC works 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 or get free information on consumer issues, visit ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. Watch a new video, How to File a Complaint, at ftc.gov/video to learn more. The FTC enters consumer complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database and investigative tool used by more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

Contact Information

MEDIA CONTACT:

Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Contact Information

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Contact Information

Related posts: