Feb 25, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware of the following Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class action lawsuit filings:
Jetset Magazine, LLC; TDX Investments, LLC
Class action lawsuit filed against Jetset Magazine, LLC and TDX Investments, LLC in United States District Court, District of Arizona, for the alleged “illegal actions of Jetset Magazine, LLC and TDX Investments, LLC in sending automated text message advertisements to [Plaintiff’s] cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous other individuals across the country, in clear violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.”
According to the class action complaint, Jetset Magazine and TDX Investments “transmitted, by itself or through an intermediary or intermediaries, at least one text message to Plaintiff’s [cellular telephone number] and at least one text message (that was identical to our substantially the same as those received by the Plaintiff) to each member of the putative Class,” but “without the requisite prior ‘express written consent’ of Plaintiff or any member of the putative Class.”
The complaint alleged that “[e]ach unsolicited text message” that was sent to Plaintiff’s cell phone number originated from (480) 462-6175. The complaint contained the following example of a text message sent to the Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number:
Jetset: We still need your modeling photos for consideration, upload them here: https://jetsetmag.com/modelsearch/registration/cont/QhAkXqqW5DDHpU4t
American Freight Inc.
Class action lawsuit filed against American Freight Inc. in United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, for, allegedly, “sending automated text message advertisements to [Plaintiff’s] cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous other individuals across the country, in clear violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.”
According to the complaint, American Freight “transmitted, by itself or through an intermediary or intermediaries, multiple text messages to Plaintiff’s [cellular telephone number] and more than one text message (identical to or substantially the same as those received by Plaintiff) to each member of the putative [automatic telephone dialing system] Class,” but “without the requisite prior ‘express written consent’ of Plaintiff or any member of the putative ATDS Class.”
The complaint alleged that “[e]ach unsolicited text message sent by or on behalf of [American Freight] . . . originated from telephone number 50813, . . . a dedicated SMS short code leased or owned by or on behalf of [American Freight].” The class action complaint contained the following examples of text messages sent to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number:
American Freight: Deals too good to pass on! Uprgade with our 3- and 5-piece bedroom sets from $198. Find store here:https://amfreight.attn.tv/l/CC2/vfAj5
Living Room Package from $398! Visit your store to get building today https://amfreight.attn.tv/l/BaN/vfAj5
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
If you have received illegal robocalls, text messages, “junk” faxes or telemarketing sales calls, you may be able to recover at least $500 for each illegal call, text or fax you received and, possibly, as much as $1,500 for each illegal call, text message or facsimile that was made either willfully or knowingly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To help evaluate your potential legal claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, please complete KLF’s confidential Robocall Questionnaire or, if you prefer to speak with an attorney, please complete the form above on the right, e-mail [email protected] or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
Feb 24, 2020 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
SEC Enhances Its PAUSE Website Where SEC Provides a List of Entities That Falsely Claim to Be Registered, Licensed, and/or Located in the United States, As Well As Entities That Impersonate Genuine U.S. Registered Securities Firms and Fictitious Regulators, Governmental Agencies or International Organizations.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making investors aware that on February 24, 2020, the SEC announced that it updated its Public Alert: Unregistered Soliciting Entities (“PAUSE”) list by adding 25 soliciting entities and four fictitious regulators. The PAUSE Program lists entities that falsely claim to be registered, licensed, and/or located in the United States in their solicitation of investors. The PAUSE Program also lists entities that impersonate genuine U.S. registered securities firms as well as fictitious regulators, governmental agencies, or international organizations.
According to the SEC, the entities on the PAUSE list have been the subject of investor complaints. The latest additions are firms that SEC staff found were providing inaccurate information about their affiliation, location, or registration to solicit primarily non-U.S. investors. Under U.S. securities laws, firms that solicit investors, generally, are required to register with the SEC and meet minimum financial standards and disclosure, reporting, and record keeping requirements. Additionally, besides alerting investors to firms falsely claiming to be registered, the PAUSE list flags those impersonating registered securities firms and fictitious “regulators” who falsely claim to be government agencies or affiliates. The SEC stated that inclusion on the PAUSE list does not mean the SEC has found violations of U.S. federal securities laws or made a judgment about the merits of any securities being offered.
Unregistered Soliciting Entities
These are entities that falsely claim to be registered, licensed, and/or located in the United States in their solicitation of investors. In many cases, SEC investigation reveals that the soliciting entities are not registered in the United States as they claim or imply. For each of the entities listed, the SEC has determined that there is no U.S. registered securities firm with this name. The SEC stated that it will regularly update this list.
Fictitious Regulators
These are entities that falsely claim to be a regulator, governmental agency, or international organization that do not exist. In many cases, SEC investigation reveals that the so-called governmental agencies or international organizations claimed to have lent support to these solicitations do not exist. The SEC stated that it will regularly update this list.
Impersonators of Genuine Firms
These are legitimate entities/firms whose information was wrongfully appropriated. This information may include the legitimate entity’s name, address, registration number, and website likeness. According to the SEC, the information was wrongfully appropriated from publicly-available databases, such as EDGAR and FINRA’s BrokerCheck, and phony websites were set up to confuse and deceive investors. In other cases, these “spoofer” entities have appropriated the registration information of legitimate firms that recently terminated registration with the SEC and FINRA, or did so years ago. Similarly, representatives of the impersonating entities who cold-call investors often claim to be licensed employees of the legitimate firms being impersonated or of other legitimate firms. The SEC has determined that the impersonators have no connection with, and are not to be confused with, the genuine firms, whether active or defunct. The SEC stated that it will regularly update this list.
Source: SEC.gov
Feb 24, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware of the following Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class action lawsuit filing:
Class action lawsuit filed on February 21, 2020 against Sunlight Solar, Inc. and other defendants, as of yet unknown, in United States District Court, Southern District of California, for, allegedly, “negligently, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff for marketing purposes on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act . . . thereby invading Plaintiff’s privacy.”
According to the class action complaint, “Sunlight Solar, a solar panel installation company, attempts to solicit solar power services to consumers through the use of electronic communication and telephone calls.” Sunlight Solar, according to the complaint, contacted Plaintiff’s cellular telephone from (619) 768-2391. Allegedly, Sunlight Solar contacted Plaintiff on January 27, 2020, as well as “multiple other instances, in an effort to convince Plaintiff to purchase solar panels.” The “unwanted calls” made to Plaintiff’s cell phone, allegedly, “were unsolicited . . . and were placed without Plaintiff’s prior express written consent or permission.”
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
If you have received illegal robocalls, text messages, “junk” faxes or telemarketing sales calls, you may be able to recover at least $500 for each illegal call, text or fax you received and, possibly, as much as $1,500 for each illegal call, text message or facsimile that was made either willfully or knowingly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To help evaluate your potential legal claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, please complete KLF’s confidential Robocall Questionnaire or, if you prefer to speak with an attorney, please complete the form above on the right, e-mail [email protected] or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
Feb 24, 2020 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
Wells Fargo Has Agreed to Pay $500 million to Settle Charges; Money Will Be Returned to Investors. $500 Million Is Part of a Combined $3 Billion Settlement With the SEC and the Department of Justice.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making investors aware that on February 21, 2020, the SEC announced that Wells Fargo & Co. has been charged for misleading investors about the success of its core business strategy at a time when it was opening fake accounts for unknowing customers and selling unnecessary products that went unused. The SEC announced that Wells Fargo has agreed to pay $500 million to settle the charges, which will be returned to harmed investors. The $500 million payment is part of a combined $3 billion settlement with the SEC and the Department of Justice.
According to the SEC’s order, between 2012 and 2016, Wells Fargo publicly touted to investors the success of its Community Bank’s “cross-sell” strategy – selling additional financial products to its existing customers – which it characterized as a key component of its financial success. The order finds that Wells Fargo sought to induce investors’ continued reliance on the cross-sell metric even though it was inflated by accounts and services that were unused, unneeded, or unauthorized. According to the order, from 2002 to 2016, Wells Fargo opened millions of accounts of financial products that were unauthorized or fraudulent. Wells Fargo’s Community Bank also pressured customers to buy products they did not need and would not use. The order finds that these accounts were opened through sales practices inconsistent with Wells Fargo’s investor disclosures regarding its purported needs-based selling model.
The SEC’s order finds that Wells Fargo violated the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Wells Fargo has agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of these provisions and to pay a civil penalty of $500 million. The SEC will distribute this money to harmed investors.
According to the Summary of the SEC’s “Order Instituting Cease-And Desist Proceedings Pursuant To Section 21c Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934, Making Findings, And Imposing A Cease-And-Desist Order”:
1. These proceedings arise out of a fraud committed by Wells Fargo from 2012 through 2016, when the Company misled investors regarding the success of the core business strategy of the Community Bank operating segment, its largest business unit. Wells Fargo publicly stated on numerous occasions that its sales strategy was “needs-based.” In other words, Wells Fargo claimed that its strategy was to sell customers the accounts that they needed. Well Fargo published a Community Bank “cross-sell metric” in its Annual Reports, and quarterly and annual filings with the Commission that purported to be the ratio of the number of accounts and products per retail bank household. During investor presentations and analyst conferences, Wells Fargo characterized its cross-selling strategy to investors as a key component of its financial success and routinely discussed its efforts to achieve cross-sell growth. Wells Fargo referred to the Community Bank’s cross-sell metric as proof of its success at executing on this core business strategy.
2. In contrast to the Company’s public statements and disclosures about needs-based selling, the Community Bank implemented a volume-based sales model in which employees were directed, pressured, or caused to sell large volumes of products to existing customers, often with little regard to actual customer need or expected use. The Community Bank’s onerous sales goals and accompanying management pressure led thousands of its employees to engage in: (1) unlawful conduct to attain sales through fraud, identity theft, and the falsification of bank records, and (2) unethical practices to sell products of no or low value to the customer, with the belief of the employee that the customer did not actually need the account and was not going to use the account. Collectively, many of these practices were referred to within Wells Fargo as “gaming.”
3. From 2002 to 2016, Wells Fargo opened millions of accounts or financial products that were unauthorized or fraudulent. During that same time period, Wells Fargo also opened significant numbers of unneeded, unwanted, or otherwise low-value products by employees that were not consistent with Wells Fargo’s purported needs-based selling model. Accounts and financial products opened without customer consent or pursuant to gaming practices were included by the Company in the Community Bank cross-sell metric until such accounts were eventually closed for lack of use.
4. Beginning as early as 2002, when a group of employees was fired from a branch in Fort Collins, Colorado, for sales gaming, the Community Bank senior leadership became aware that employees were engaged in unlawful and unethical sales practices, that gaming conduct was increasing over time, and that these practices were the result of onerous sales goals and management pressure to meet those sales goals.
5. From 2012 to 2016, Wells Fargo failed to disclose to investors that the Community Bank’s sales model had caused widespread unlawful and unethical sales practices misconduct that was at odds with its investor disclosures regarding needs-based selling and that the publicly reported cross-sell metric included significant numbers of unused or unauthorized accounts. Certain Community Bank senior executives who reviewed or approved the disclosures knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that these disclosures were misleading or incomplete.
6. Moreover in a January 12, 2015, response to a SEC Comment Letter that asked how the cross-sell metric was calculated and in its 2014 and 2015 Annual Reports, Wells Fargo characterized the cross-sell metric as a ratio of “products used by customers in retail banking households.” Prior to and after that time, the metric was described as “products per household,” “products per retail bank household,” or “the average number of products sold to existing customers.” Community Bank executives knew that the metric included many products that were not used by customers. Wells Fargo’s inclusion of the word “used” to describe the accounts was therefore misleading.
7. Notwithstanding the substantial effect the unused and unauthorized products had on inflating the cross-sell metric, Wells Fargo continued to tout the cross-sell metric as one of the Company’s competitive advantages in its public statements to investors. By failing to disclose the extent to which the cross-sell metric was inflated by low-quality accounts, Wells Fargo sought not only to induce investors’ continued reliance on the metric but also to avoid confronting the risk of reputational damage that might arise—and eventually did arise—from public disclosure of the severity and extent of sales quality problems.
Source: SEC.gov
Feb 21, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
FTC Alleges Agreements by Aaron’s Inc., Buddy’s Newco, LLC, and Rent-A-Center, Inc. Reduced Competition, Lowered Quality and Selection of Products
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on February 21, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission announced that rent-to-own operators Aaron’s Inc., Buddy’s Newco, LLC, and Rent-A-Center, Inc. have agreed to settle FTC charges that they negotiated and executed reciprocal purchase agreements in violation of federal antitrust law.
The complaints, according to the FTC, alleged that from June 2015 to May 2018, Aaron’s, Buddy’s, and Rent-A-Center each entered into anticompetitive, reciprocal agreements with each other and other competitors. These agreements swapped customer contracts from rent-to-own (“RTO”) stores in various local markets.
An outcome, according to the FTC, was that one party to the agreement closed down stores and exited a local market where the other party continued to maintain a presence. The FTC stated that the reciprocal agreements likely led to store closures that may not have occurred otherwise, resulting in reduced competition for quality and service in the remaining stores, according to the complaints. In addition, many consumers travel to their designated store to make their regular payments in person. If their store closes, these customers must travel to the next-closest location, which may significantly increase their travel time and costs.
These agreements also explicitly required the selling party not to compete within a specified territory, typically for a period of three years.
The FTC stated that the consent agreements prohibit the three RTO companies and their franchisees from entering into any reciprocal purchase agreement or inviting others to do so, and from enforcing the non-compete clauses still in effect from the past reciprocal purchase agreements. The three RTO companies must also implement antitrust compliance programs, notify the FTC in the event of certain changes in corporate governance, and grant the FTC access to company facilities as needed to ensure compliance with the order. Finally, due to prior board-level relationships between Aaron’s and Buddy’s, these firms are barred from having any of their representatives serve as a board member or officer of a competitor, and from allowing any competitor’s representative to serve on their boards.
“Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment” (In the Matter of Rent-to-Own Store Swaps File No. 191-0074)
According to the FTC’s “Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment“:
The Federal Trade Commission . . . has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order with Aaron’s, Inc. . . . an Agreement Containing Consent Order with Buddy’s Newco LLC . . ., and an Agreement Containing Consent Order with Rent-A-Center, Inc. . . . . The proposed Consent Agreements are intended to remedy anticompetitive effects resulting from reciprocal purchase agreements made between Aaron’s, Buddy’s, and RAC, and certain of their competitors in the brick-and-mortar rent-to-own . . . industry.
Pursuant to the reciprocal purchase agreements, Aaron’s, Buddy’s, and [Rent-A-Center] sold consumer rental contracts to nearby competitors contingent on Aaron’s, Buddy’s, or [Rent-A-Center] acquiring that competitor’s consumer rental contracts in another geographic area. These reciprocal purchase agreements, called swap agreements (“Swap Agreements”) by the RTO industry, also included non-competition agreements whereby Aaron’s, Buddy’s, or [Rent-A-Center] and the nearby competitors each agreed to close stores associated with the consumer rental contacts being sold and to not open new stores within a specified distance for a limited amount of time. Not all swap agreements violate the antitrust laws. Swap agreements between companies in the same industry that generate significant procompetitive benefits for consumers, such as more efficient distribution or creation of a new product, may not violate the law. The Swap Agreements and ancillary non-competition agreements at issue in the present case, however, likely reduced competition between Aaron’s, Buddy’s, [Rent-A-Center], and their competitors in the RTO industry in several local markets in the United States, reducing consumer choice and depriving consumers of the benefits of price and quality competition.
“Effects of the Challenged Conduct”
The FTC’s “Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment” stated that
[t]he evidence indicates that at least some of the Swap Agreements entered into by Buddy’s, Aaron’s, and RAC, had the purpose and effect of facilitating each party’s ability to induce its competitor to exit a market. Such agreements are a form of restraint that reduces competition and creates a clear threat of consumer harm. Consumers in the affected geographic areas lost any benefits of competition resulting from the closing of RTO stores and had fewer options for rental merchandise. Moreover, the evidence indicates that Aaron’s, Buddy’s, and RAC closed stores that might not have been closed but for the Swap Agreements. As a result, the FTC has issued its [c]omplaints and entered into the Consent Agreements, which remedy the harm to competition.
“The Agreement Containing Consent Order”
The FTC’s “Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment” also stated that
[t]he proposed Orders fully address Aaron’s, Buddy’s, and RAC’s past actions and contain important fencing in and notification provisions. The Orders prohibit Aaron’s, Buddy’s, and RAC from entering into any future Swap Agreements and from enforcing any non-compete clauses that are still in effect from past Swap Agreements. The Orders also prohibit any Aaron’s or Buddy’s representatives from serving on the Board of Directors of any of their competitors, or any competitor’s representatives from serving on the Aaron’s or Buddy’s Board. [Rent-A-Center’s] Order does not contain this prohibition because, unlike Buddy’s and Aaron’s, there is no evidence that a [Rent-A-Center] representative has previously served on a competitors’ Board of Directors. The Orders require Aaron’s and Buddy’s to establish antitrust compliance programs, while [Rent-A-Center] must establish a compliance program related to its Order. Finally, all the Orders impose reporting requirements, and the Orders will terminate in 20 years.
Source: FTC.gov
