Work-At-Home Marketer Settles FTC Charges in Envelope-Stuffing Scheme

Byron C. Peterson has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges for his role in an operation that allegedly misled consumers with false earnings claims for an envelope-stuffing business opportunity.

According to the FTC, operating from Florida as “Home Business System,” Peterson and others placed classified ads throughout the nation, including in Spanish-language newspapers. They claimed that participants would earn at least $17.50 per envelope and guaranteed a weekly income of up to $1,400, but most consumers who paid a $45 “registration deposit” never heard from the company again, the FTC alleged.

A federal district court judge halted the operation in August 2007 and ordered a freeze of the defendants’ assets. Litigation continues against Peterson’s co-defendants, Integrity Marketing Team, Inc. and Min Sung Kim.

Under the proposed settlement, in connection with commerce in any goods or services, including any work-at-home opportunity, Peterson is barred from making certain misrepresentations. These include that consumers are likely to earn a substantial amount of money, the amount of sales or earnings the consumers are likely to achieve, and the amount of sales or earnings that others have achieved in the past. Peterson is also barred from misrepresenting that participants will be paid for each envelope they stuff, and the nature of any business venture offered or sold. He is further barred from any misrepresentations regarding any material term, condition, or limitation of a transaction or about the use of any offered good or service. In addition, Peterson is barred from selling, renting, or otherwise disclosing personal information about anyone who paid money to the defendants before the order is entered.

The settlement imposes a $1,280,612 judgment, which is suspended due to Peterson’s inability to pay. The full judgment will be imposed if he is found to have misrepresented his financial condition. The settlement also contains standard record-keeping provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance with its order.

The Commission vote to authorize the Department of Justice to file the stipulated final order was 4–0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

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 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 1,600 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.

Related posts:

  1. FTC Announces Agenda for Second Economic Liberty Public Roundtable
  2. FTC Announces Workshop on Informational Injury
  3. FTC to Host “Fraud Forum”
  4. FTC Receives Application for Approval of Proposed Divestiture from Chicago Bridge & Iron Company; Commission Approves Final Consent Order in the Matter of McCormick & Company and Unilever Group

FTC Challenges Acquisitions by TALX Corp. that Stifled Competition in Unemployment Compensation Management and Employment Verification Services

The Federal Trade Commission announced today that it issued a complaint challenging a series of acquisitions by TALX Corporation that substantially lessened competition in the markets for outsourced unemployment compensation management (UCM) and verification of income and employment (VOIE) services. The Commission and TALX have reached an agreement settling the Commission’s challenge.

TALX, which in May 2007 became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Equifax, Inc., had overall revenue of about $270 million in its last fiscal year. Its VOIE services are provided under the name The Work Number, its UCM services under the UC eXpress banner.

Unemployment compensation management consists of administering, on behalf of large, multi-state employers, unemployment compensation claims filed with a state or territory. VOIE services consists of providing income and employment information on behalf of employers to third parties, such as lending institutions.

In 2002 TALX was the nation’s leading provider of outsourced VOIE services. It then began a series of acquisitions resulting in its obtaining market power in the UCM and VOIE businesses. First it acquired UCM/VOIE provider James E. Frick, Inc. and the UCM business of Gates McDonald & Company, a subsidiary of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. These acquisitions of the two largest UCM service providers eliminated competition between them in the national market for UCM services.

From June 2003 through November 2005, TALX purchased Johnson & Associates, LLC, most of the UCM and VOIE assets of Sheakley-Uniservice, Inc., TBT Enterprises, Inc. and its sister corporation, UI Advantage, Inc., Jon-Jay Associates, Inc., and the unemployment tax management business of Employers Unity, Inc. As alleged in the FTC’s complaint, the Johnson, Sheakley-Uniservice, Jon-Jay, and Employers Unity acquisitions substantially reduced competition in the national market for UCM services, and the Frick, Sheakley-Uniservice, and
Employers Unity acquisitions substantially reduced competition in the nationwide provision of
VOIE services, both in violation of the Clayton Act and the FTC Act.

“TALX acted illegally,” says Jeffrey Schmidt, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, “by acquiring virtually all of its competition in a series of transactions. While each transaction individually may not have been problematic, the FTC looked at the cumulative effect of the acquisitions. This case sends a message that firms can’t get away with unlawful acquisitions just because they take place in relatively small increments.”

The complaint alleges that TALX’s acquisitions have enhanced its ability to increase prices unilaterally and to decrease the quality of services in the relevant markets. In addition, the complaint notes, TALX has alliance partners, including Automated Data Processing, Inc. (ADP), Convergys, Inc., and Ceridian, Inc., which have agreements with TALX to outsource to TALX some or all of the UCM services they provide for their clients.

According to the Commission, the relevant markets for outsourced VOIE and UCM services are highly concentrated, and TALX’s acquisitions substantially increased concentration. The Commission alleges that entry into the relevant markets would not be timely, likely, or sufficient in magnitude, character, and scope to counteract the anticompetitive effects of the acquisitions. The complaint also alleges that entry and expansion in the outsourced UCM market for large, multi-state employers is made more difficult by the large number of customers tied to long-term contracts. Entry and expansion is also made more difficult by non-compete and non-solicitation agreements between TALX and its employees, which reduce the number of experienced persons available for hiring by potential competitors.

The proposed settlement, which is subject to final approval by the Commission following a 30-day public comment period, would foster market entry and expansion by current and future competitors. The settlement would allow long-term TALX customers to terminate their contracts and eliminate non-compete clauses for former and current TALX employees. Specifically, the proposed order provides that:

  • TALX may not enforce certain provisions of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements, and agreements not to disclose trade secrets against past and current employees who accept employment with certain competitors in the UCM services market. The order places a limit on the number of certain current employees who TALX must release from such restrictions.
  • TALX must allow certain UCM customers whose contracts exceed one year to terminate their contracts on 90-days notice if they outsource their UCM services to a competitor. The order places an upper dollar-value limit on the amount of such contracts.
  • TALX may not enter into agreements that would prevent or discourage any entity from supplying goods or services to a UCM competitor.
  • TALX may not enter into, or attempt to enter into, agreements to divide or allocate markets for UCM services.
  • TALX may not enter into, or attempt to enter into, any agreement requiring ADP, Inc. to subcontract to TALX the rendering of UCM services to a customer if such agreement precedes, rather than follows, ADP, Inc.’s agreement with such customer to provide UCM services.
  • For 10 years, TALX must give the Commission 30 days advance notice before acquiring, or entering into a management contract with, a UCM or VOIE service provider.

The Commission vote to accept the complaint and proposed consent order was 4-0. The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the agreement in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through May 28, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent 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 $11,000.

Copies of the complaint, proposed consent order, and an analysis of the complaint and proposed consent order to aid in public comment are available from the FTC’s web site at http://www.ftc.gov and 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 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.

Related posts:

  1. FTC Hosts Tax Identity Theft Awareness Week January 29-February 2
  2. Company Settles FTC Charges that Head Lice Prevention Claims Were Deceptive
  3. Marketers of Ab Force Weight Loss Device Agree to Pay $7 Million for Consumer Redress
  4. Commission Approves Federal Register Notice Adjusting Civil Penalty Amounts

FTC To Host Public Workshop on Green Guides and Packaging

As part of its review of its environmental marketing guidelines, also known as the “Green Guides,” the Federal Trade Commission will host its second public workshop to examine developments in green packaging claims and consumer perceptions of those claims on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The workshop will be held at the agency’s satellite building in Washington, DC. FTC Chairman William E. Kovacic will provide opening remarks. Panels will examine trends in packaging claims, whether the packaging components of the Guides should be revised, new green packaging claims, and the substantiation of green packaging claims. The program will wrap up with a roundtable on consumer protection challenges and the need for FTC guidance on green packaging claims.

WHAT: Workshop on Green Guides and Packaging
WHERE: FTC Conference Center – Satellite Building
601 New Jersey Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20001
WHEN: Wednesday, April 30, 2008; 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
(check-in starts at 8:15 am)
AGENDA: Posted at:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/packaging/agenda.pdf
PRESS CONTACT: FTC Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

 

Webcast Information

Individuals who are unable to attend the workshop can view a live
Webcast by connecting to this link:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/packaging/

 

Related posts:

  1. Telemarketing Defendants Charged by FTC in Tech Support Scheme Will Pay $10 Million for Consumer Redress
  2. FTC Undercover Inspections of Funeral Homes in Nine States Test Compliance with Funeral Rule Disclosure Requirements
  3. Operators of Phony ‘Free $1,000 Gift Card’ Websites Will Pay $2.5 Million in FTC Settlement
  4. FTC Staff: Massachusetts Should Consider Removing Physician Supervision Requirements for Nurse Practitioners and Nurse Anesthetists

Court Orders Telemarketers Responsible for Wal-Mart Shopping Spree Scam to Pay $28.2 Million

The Federal Trade Commission today announced several court actions obtained against a nationwide telemarketing scheme that the media has dubbed the “Wal-Mart Shopping Spree” scam. In this scam, consumers were falsely promised free gifts and wrongfully paid monthly fees for “program memberships” such as discount buyers’ and travel clubs.

The actions announced today ban Brian K. MacGregor, the architect of the scheme, from engaging in any aspect of telemarketing or the selling of program memberships. He and Membership Services Direct, Inc., also known as (aka) Continuity Partners, Inc., have been ordered to pay $28.2 million to the FTC, representing the net profits generated through the scheme. The court has also barred MacGregor and Membership Services Direct, Inc. from making material misrepresentations in connection with the sale of any goods or services, engaging in unauthorized billing, and violating any provision of the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR).

In addition, the court has approved settlements for the remaining defendants in this case. In connection with those settlements, MacGregor’s wife, Christine MacGregor, has turned over title to two properties and proceeds from the sale of two other properties. Brian MacGregor’s co-defendants – Harijinder Sidhu, Joseph F. LaRosa, Jr., Pranot Sangprasit, William T. Heichert, Michael H. Cushing, Paul P. Tosi, and Manh D. Cao – are barred from making material misrepresentations in connection with the sale of any goods or services, engaging in unauthorized billing, and violating any provision of the TSR.

The other companies involved in the telemarketing scam – Universal Premium Services, Inc. (aka Premier Benefits, Inc.), Consumer Reward Network, Inc., Star Communications LLC, All Star Access, Inc., Prime Time Ventures, Inc., Connect2USA, Inc., Merchant Risk Management, Inc., and Pantel One Corporation – are barred from making material misrepresentations in connection with the sale of any goods or services, engaging in unauthorized billing, and violating any provision of the TSR. They have been shut down by a permanent receiver appointed by the court.

The Commission’s Complaint

The FTC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, charging the defendants with violations of the FTC Act and TSR. The complaint alleged that the defendants cold-called consumers with the goal of tricking them into disclosing their bank account information, falsely promising them valuable incentives such as gift cards and “shopping sprees” to retailers such as Wal-Mart and Macy’s, movie passes, and gas vouchers. All of these items were supposedly free with the payment of a nominal shipping-and-handling fee. In many instances, the defendants misrepresented that they were affiliated with well-known retailers, government entities, or the consumers’ financial institutions. The defendants also harassed consumers by making repeated telemarketing calls to them, ignoring consumers’ requests not to call again, and using profane and abusive language during the telemarketing calls. Finally, the defendants made unauthorized debits from consumers’ bank accounts after tricking them into disclosing their account information.

Case History

In March 2007, the court entered stipulated final orders against seven of the individual defendants – Sidhu, Sangprasit, LaRosa, Jr., Heichert, Cushing, Tosi, and Cao – and in August 2007, the court entered a stipulated final order against fraudulent transfer defendants Christine MacGregor and Midwest Properties, Inc. A trial concerning monetary relief was held in July 2007, with the court subsequently finding Brian MacGregor and Membership Services Direct monetarily liable for $28.2 million.

In January 2008, the court entered a stipulated final order against Universal Premium Services, Inc., aka Premier Benefits, Inc.; Consumer Reward Network, Inc.; Star Communications LLC; All Star Access, Inc.; Connect2USA, Inc; Merchant Risk Management, Inc.; and Pantel One Corporation. The stipulated final order bars them from making material misrepresentations in connection with the sale of any goods or services, engaging in unauthorized billing, and violating any provision of the TSR. A permanent receiver appointed by the court has since shut the companies down.

This week, the court entered a final monetary judgment against Brian MacGregor and Membership Services Direct, Inc. totaling $28.2 million, which represents the net profits generated through their fraudulent telemarketing scheme between January 1, 2003 and February 22, 2006.

The Commission vote approving the filing of the stipulated final orders against Sidhu, Sangprasit, LaRosa, Jr., Heichert, Cushing, Tosi, and Cao was 5-0. The court entered those settlements on March 8, 2007. The vote approving the filing of the stipulated final order against Christine MacGregor and Midwest Properties, Inc. was 5-0. The court entered that settlement on August 31, 2007.

The Commission vote authorizing the filing of the stipulated final order against Universal Premium Services, Inc., aka Premier Benefits, Inc.; Consumer Reward Network, Inc.; Star Communications LLC; All Star Access, Inc.; Prime Time Ventures, Inc.; Connect2USA, Inc.; Merchant Risk Management, Inc.; and Pantel One Corporation, was 5-0. The court entered the settlement on February 1, 2007.

The court entered the final order for permanent injunction against Brian MacGregor and Membership Services Direct, Inc. on February 27, 2007, and entered the final order for monetary relief on April 17, 2008.

The FTC would like to thank the attorneys general for the states of Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, as well as the United States Postal Inspection Service, the Better Business Bureau of the Southland, and the Better Business Bureau of Southern Nevada, for their invaluable assistance in this case.

Consumer Information

Consumers who had money taken by any of the corporate defendants without their express informed consent may send a letter to: Federal Trade Commission, attn.: Faye Chen Barnouw or Jennifer M. Brennan, 10877 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90024. The letter should identify which company took money from them, include the dates and amounts of the withdrawals, and contain any supporting documentation. Consumers who have already sent this information to the FTC do not need to resubmit it. Consumers seeking more information about this case may call the case hotline number: 202-326-2090.

NOTE: Stipulated final orders are for settlement purposes only and do 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.

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 1,600 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.

Related posts:

  1. FTC Acts Against Scammers Who Marketed Envelope-Stuffing Schemes to Spanish-Speaking Consumers Across The Nation
  2. Brothers Will Give Up Cash and Cars to Settle FTC Charges That Earnings Claims for Their Money-Making Secrets Misled Consumers
  3. FTC Approves Amended Complaint in Matter of Internet Listing Service Corp., et al.; Commission Approves Amended Complaint in Matter of Med Provisions
  4. Oregano Supplement Marketers Agree to Pay $2.5 Million to Settle FTC Charges for False Advertising Claims

Canadian House of Cards Continues to Fall, as Bogus Biller Settles FTC Charges

The Federal Trade Commission today announced the issuance of a stipulated final court order against Emma G. Wanjiku, a Kenyan citizen and Canadian resident who participated in a wide-ranging scheme to trick U.S. consumers into paying for bogus business and travel directory advertisements and listings, office supplies, and consulting services they never authorized, ordered, or received.

Under the terms of the order, Wanjiku, the ex-wife of the now-jailed ringleader of the Canadian defendants, has been barred from making the claims alleged in the Commission’s complaint and is subject to a $4 million judgment that will become due if she is found to have misrepresented her financial condition. The Commission previously settled similar charges against another individual and corporate defendant in the case, with the court imposing similarly strong injunctive and monetary relief.

The Commission’s Complaint

The FTC’s complaint, announced in October 2006, charged the defendants with operating under bogus business names, including American Register of Manufacturers, International Industrial Trade Directory, National Register, Official Register of Commerce and Industry, Traders International Trade Directory, Hotel & Conventions International, Hotel & Resorts International, Hotel Index, International Hotel & Accommodations Directory, International Hotel Index, Official Hotel & Resort Guide, Bradley Siddons & Associates, and Foremost Business Supplies.

According to the FTC, the defendants’ invoices for business and travel directory advertising included actual print advertisements that U.S. businesses had placed in legitimate publications such as the Thomas Register of American Manufacturers, Hotel & Travel Index, and the Officials Meeting Facilities Guide. The defendants allegedly cut ads from those publications and pasted them onto their own bogus invoices to deceive consumers into paying the bills. The FTC charged that in many instances consumers paid the bogus bills, which rangedfrom a few hundred dollars to several thousand dollars, not realizing that the listings and advertising were unauthorized. The FTC also alleged that the defendants charged for office supplies or consulting services that had not been ordered and were never received.

Based on these allegations, the FTC charged the defendants with violating Section 5 of the FTC Act by misleading consumers into believing they owed money for advertising and other products and services that were not ordered and never delivered.

The Court Order

The final court order announced today against defendant Emma G. Wanjiku contains strong injunctive relief to ensure that she does not engage in similar deceptive conduct in the future. It prohibits her from misrepresenting that consumers have a preexisting business relationship with her or that they have agreed to buy – or owe any money for – the products and services shown on invoices sent to them. Next, the order bars her from making any material misrepresentation in connection with the sale of any good or service, prohibits her from collecting on any outstanding invoices, and prohibits her from selling, leasing, or otherwise making money by selling her customer lists.

The order also requires her to cooperate with the FTC in its ongoing case against her ex-husband and contains standard monitoring and record keeping provisions to ensure her compliance with its terms. Finally, while Wanjiku lacks the funds to provide for consumer redress, the order contains a $4 million judgment against her that would become due if she is found to have misrepresented her financial condition.

The order settles the FTC’s case against Wanjiku, one of the final defendants in this matter. The last defendant, Wanjiku’s ex-husband, Michael Robert Petreikis, was arrested by the Toronto Police Service in August 2006 and pleaded guilty to Canadian criminal charges. Petreikis was recently released from jail in Canada and is currently incarcerated in the United States for violation of an earlier probation order. The FTC’s litigation against him continues.

This case was brought with the assistance of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Toronto Strategic Partnership. The Toronto Strategic Partnership consists of the FTC, Competition Bureau Canada, the Toronto Police Service – Fraud Squad, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Ontario Ministry of Government Services, the Ontario Provincial Police – Anti-Rackets, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the United Kingdom’s Office of Fair Trading. The FTC also received invaluable assistance in this matter from the Better Business Bureau Serving Mid-Western and Central Ontario.

The Commission vote authorizing the filing of the stipulated final order against Emma G. Wanjiku was 4-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

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 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 1,600 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.

Related posts:

  1. FTC Acts Against Scammers Who Marketed Envelope-Stuffing Schemes to Spanish-Speaking Consumers Across The Nation
  2. Brothers Will Give Up Cash and Cars to Settle FTC Charges That Earnings Claims for Their Money-Making Secrets Misled Consumers
  3. FTC Approves Amended Complaint in Matter of Internet Listing Service Corp., et al.; Commission Approves Amended Complaint in Matter of Med Provisions
  4. Oregano Supplement Marketers Agree to Pay $2.5 Million to Settle FTC Charges for False Advertising Claims

Debt Reduction Defendant Settles FTC Charges

The last “Debt-Set” defendant has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges for his role in an operation that allegedly violated federal law by falsely claiming that it could reduce consumers’ credit card interest rates or the amount of their credit card debt. Terms of the settlement, in which the defendant has not admitted liability, are defined in the stipulated order entered by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on April 11, 2008.

According to a complaint filed by the FTC in March 2007, Debt-Set, Resolve Credit
Counseling, Inc., and their principals sold debt reduction services through Web sites and television and radio advertisements with claims such as “Reduce Debt Now” and “Eliminate Harassing Calls.” When consumers called a toll-free number, the complaint alleged, they were encouraged to enroll in a “debt consolidation program” if their unsecured consumer debt was up to one month overdue, or a “debt settlement program” if overdue longer.

The FTC alleged that the defendants violated the FTC Act by falsely promising to obtain lump-sum settlements, such as “fifty cents on the dollar” or “50 to 60 percent” of consumers’ total unsecured debt, or to negotiate with creditors for lower interest rates. The complaint also alleged that they misrepresented that they would not charge consumers any up-front fees before obtaining the promised debt relief, and that participation in their program would stop creditors from calling or suing them to collect debt.

Under the settlement, Isaac Khan is barred from engaging in the violations alleged in the complaint, and, when making representations about specific debt reductions that can be achieved, he is required to disclose truthfully key terms of the program, including all fees and costs, when and how such fees and costs will be paid by consumers, the approximate time period before settlements will be achieved, and the fact that consumers’ balances typically will increase before settlements for all accounts are achieved. The settlement also contains standard compliance and reporting provisions that enable the FTC to monitor future compliance with the order. If Khan is found by the court to have misrepresented the sworn financial statements provided to the Commission, a $1 million judgment will be imposed.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the proposed stipulated final order was 5-0. The document was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

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

Copies of the order 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 in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.htm. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,600 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

Related posts:

  1. FTC and DOJ Seek Public Comment on Proposed Revisions to International Antitrust Guidelines
  2. U.S. Circuit Court Finds Operator of Affiliate Marketing Network Responsible for Deceptive Third-Party Claims Made for LeanSpa Weight-loss Supplement
  3. FTC Cracks Down on Misleading and Unsubstantiated Environmental Marketing Claims
  4. FTC Puts Conditions on Honeywell’s Acquisition of Scan Engine Manufacturer Intermec

FTC Extends Time Period for Public Comment on Jewelry Guides

Commission approval of public comment period extension – By a vote of 4-0, the Commission has approved an extension of the public comment period related to the recently proposed amendment to the platinum section of the FTC’s Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries, commonly known as the Jewelry Guides. On February 26, 2008, the Commission published its request for comments on a proposed amendment to the platinum section of the Guides. The amendment would provide guidance on how to mark or non-deceptively describe products that contain at least 500 parts per thousand (ppt), but less than 850 ppt, pure platinum, and that do not contain at least 950 ppt platinum metal groups (platinum/base metal alloys).

Through the action announced today, the Commission has extended the public comment period on the proposed amendment for 90 days, until August 25, 2008. The Federal Register notice announcing the extension provides information on how and where comments may be submitted. (FTC File No. G711001; the staff contact is the staff contact is Robin Rosen Spector, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-3740; see press release dated February 20, 2008.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release 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, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

Related posts:

  1. FTC Adds Further Factual Details to Complaint in Case Against Lights of America, Inc.
  2. FTC Offers Consumer Tips for Valentine’s Day
  3. FTC Settlement Bans Marketers from Debt Relief Business
  4. FTC Announces Workshop on ‘Green Guides’ and Environmental Claims for Building and Textiles

FTC to Host Workshop This Week: Innovations in Health Care Delivery

For Release

The Federal Trade Commission will host a workshop on Thursday, April 24, to examine recent trends related to health care delivery.

Representatives of physician and healthcare associations, industry, privacy groups, academia, federal and state government, and other experts will engage in panel discussions on competition and consumer protection issues regarding particular health care delivery innovations, including:

  • Limited service clinics – These clinics, which are generally located in pharmacies, shopping malls, and retail stores, provide treatment for basic medical conditions by nurse practitioners and/or physician assistants and offer transparent pricing and convenient hours. Although some groups believe these clinics improve access to care for underserved populations, others question the quality of care and adequacy of oversight. These concerns have prompted proposals for new state regulation of such clinics, such as attempts to limit the scope of practice of nurse practitioners in limited service clinics, limit clinic locations, and prohibit corporate ownership of clinics.
  • Price and quality transparency – Many believe that consumers, armed with more information about the relative prices and quality of competing health care providers, can make better health-care related choices, which can lead to higher quality care and lower health care costs. This has led to initiatives to provide consumers with greater information about the price they pay for health care and the quality of physicians, hospitals, and other healthcare providers. Some observers, however, have expressed concern that consumers may be misled by quality ratings if they are designed to steer consumers to the lowest-priced care provider regardless of quality. Further, increased price transparency may raise some competition concerns.
  • Health information technology – Electronic health records have the potential to reduce administrative costs and medical errors due to incomplete or faulty paper records. The Department of Health and Human Services has developed an extensive framework to facilitate the adoption of electronic health records by the medical community, including the certification of particular products for creating and maintaining such records. Private companies, such as popular online consumer sites, have also started offering personal electronic health record services. Electronic access to medical expertise – such as through transfer of diagnostic imaging, real time doctor/patient and doctor/doctor consultation, and remote monitoring – also has the potential to improve the distribution of medical services. One of the primary consumer protection issues for health information technology is patient privacy and the application of current federal and state privacy protections to electronic health records. Concerns about interoperability of electronic record systems and the impact of state laws on interstate electronic consultation and monitoring also implicate competition concerns.

The workshop, which will be free and open to the public, will be held from 9 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. at the FTC’s satellite building conference center, 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. A government-issued photo ID is required for entry.

Contact Information

MEDIA CONTACT:
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

Related posts:

  1. FTC Announces Internet of Things Challenge to Combat Security Vulnerabilities in Home Devices
  2. FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges that Thermo Fisher’s Acquisition of Life Technologies Corporation Was Anticompetitive
  3. FTC Seeks Public Comment on iKeepSafe’s Proposed Safe Harbor Program Under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule
  4. FTC Halts Multi-Million Dollar Work-From-Home Business Coaching Scheme

Commission Approves Final Consent Order in Matter of Life is Good, Inc.

Commission approval of final consent order – Following a public comment period, the Commission has approved the issuance of a final consent order in the matter of Life is good, Inc., and Life is good Retail (collectively LIG). The vote to approve the final order was 4-0. (FTC File No. 072-3046; the staff contact is Jessica Rich, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2148; see press release dated January 17, 2008.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release 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, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

Related posts:

  1. Nearly One Million LifeLock Victims to Receive Refund Checks from FTC
  2. Online Privacy and Security Certification Service Settles FTC Charges
  3. ValueClick to Pay $2.9 Million to Settle FTC Charges
  4. Online Apparel Retailer Settles FTC Charges That It Failed to Safeguard Consumers Sensitive Information, in Violation of Federal Law

FTC Energy Guide Labels Help Consumers Conserve Energy and Save Money

Get energy-smart this Earth Day with the Federal Trade Commission’s new publication, EnergyGuidance: Appliance Shopping With the EnergyGuide Label. The publication explains how consumers shopping for appliances can use the yellow EnergyGuide labels – recently revised so they are easier to use – to help them compare the energy use of different models. It even includes a sample label consumers can peruse before they shop.

The most prominent feature on EnergyGuide labels for most appliances is an estimate of what it costs to run that model for one year. But each label also includes an estimate of how much actual energy the model uses, and the highest and lowest operating costs for competing models. This helps consumers identify more-efficient models and gain greater control over their energy use. Look for EnergyGuide labels on clothes washers, refrigerators, freezers, water heaters, dishwashers, window air conditioners, central air conditioners, furnaces, boilers, heat pumps, and pool heaters.

Copies of EnergyGuidance: Appliance Shopping With the EnergyGuide Label can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/homes/rea14.shtm.

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 1,600 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.

 

Related posts:

  1. FTC Obtains Court Order Against Husband-Wife Credit Repair Team
  2. FTC to Host Workshop to Explore Consumer Protection and Privacy Implications of Radio Frequency Identification Applications
  3. FTC Cautions Consumers About Voter Registration Scams
  4. Commission Denies Petition Regarding Use of Term “Cultured” to Describe Laboratory-created Gemstones; Commission Approves Federal Register Notice Regarding Fees to Access the National Do Not Call Registry