Oct 22, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on October 19, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, against Mercedes-Benz Financial USA, LLC (“Mercedes-Benz Financial” or “Mercedes”) for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).
According to the complaint, the lawsuit was brought
. . . for damages and other equitable relief resulting from the unlawful conduct of [Mercedes] in negligently or knowingly and/or willfully placing calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and putative Class Members for non-emergency purposes, using an automatic telephone-dialing system without their prior express consent, in violation of the TCPA. Plaintiff and putative Class Members were not Mercedes customers at the time the calls at issue were placed. Upon information and belief, these calls were intended for persons other than Plaintiff and putative Class Members.
Mercedes-Benz Financial, allegedly, “[b]etween September 2017 and March 2018 . . . placed, or caused to be placed, at least ten (10) automated calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system . . . or pre-recorded or artificial voice.” Further, according to the complaint:
The automated calls were initiated from (800) 654-6222, which is a telephone number assigned to Defendant. The calls were placed regarding the status of an account that does not belong to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is not a Mercedes customer and has never had an account or business relationship with Mercedes.
Plaintiff did not provide her cellular telephone number to [Mercedes], nor did Plaintiff ever provide express consent for Defendant to place calls to her cellular telephone regarding any subject matter.
Plaintiff answered certain calls placed, or caused to be placed, by [Mercedes] to her cellular telephone, informed Defendant that she did not have an account with Mercedes and that Defendant was calling the wrong party, and requested that Defendant stop calling her.
Defendant’s robocalls, as received by Plaintiff, did not provide her the opportunity to opt out of or request the cessation of Defendant’s calls, as evidenced by the fact that Defendant continued placing calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number after she informed [Mercedes] that she was not the intended recipient and requested that the calls cease.
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.
Oct 11, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
On October 11, 2018, the FTC announced that the marketer of a scheme to make money on Amazon, and his companies, have been banned from marketing and selling business opportunities and business coaching services under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. The settlement order against Jeffrey A. Gomez (a/k/a Jeffrey Adams), Adams Consulting LLC, and Global Marketing Services L.L.C. also requires them to surrender funds and assets for consumer redress.
The FTC earlier secured a judgment against Adam Bowser, Christopher Bowser, Jody Marshall, AWS LLC, FBA Distributors LLC, FBA Stores LLC, Info Pros LLC, Info Solutions LLC, Online Auction Learning Center Inc. (Massachusetts), and Online Auction Learning Center Inc. (Nevada) related to the same fraudulent scheme.
According to the FTC, the defendants, who have no affiliation with Amazon.com, falsely claimed their “Amazing Wealth System” would enable consumers to create a profitable online business selling products on Amazon. Buyers, however, did not earn the advertised income. Most of them lost significant amounts of money, and many experienced problems with their Amazon stores, including suspension and losing their ability to sell on Amazon.com.
According to the FTC, the settlement order bans Gomez and his companies from selling business opportunities and business coaching services, and making false earnings claims. It imposes a judgment of more than $63.5 million, which will be partially suspended when Gomez surrenders approximately $2.55 million in funds and assets to the FTC. The order also prohibits Gomez and his companies from profiting from consumers’ personal information collected as part of the scheme, and requires proper disposal of that information.
The FTC encourages consumers affected by the defendants’ scheme to file a complaint to add their name to the FTC’s case and visit the FTC’s blog about this case.
Source: FTC.gov
Oct 11, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
On October 11, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it obtained an emergency court order halting a planned initial coin offering (“ICO”), which backers falsely claimed was approved by the SEC. The order also halted ongoing pre-ICO sales by the company, Blockvest LLC (“Blockvest”) and its founder, Reginald Buddy Ringgold, III (“Ringgold”).
According to the SEC, an SEC complaint unsealed on October 10, 2018 alleged that Blockvest falsely claimed its ICO and its affiliates received regulatory approval from various agencies, including the SEC. According to the SEC’s complaint, Blockvest and Ringgold, a/k/a Rasool Abdul Rahim El, were using the SEC seal without permission, a violation of federal law, and falsely claiming their crypto fund was “licensed and regulated.” The complaint also alleged Ringgold promoted the ICO with a fake agency he created called the “Blockchain Exchange Commission,” using a graphic similar to the SEC’s seal and the same address as SEC headquarters.
Allegedly, Blockvest and Ringgold also misrepresented Blockvest’s connections to a well-known accounting firm and continued their fraudulent conduct even after the National Futures Association (NFA) sent them a cease-and-desist letter to stop them from using the NFA’s seal and from making false claims about their status with that organization.
The federal court’s order froze defendants’ assets and temporarily prohibited Blockvest and Ringgold from violating the antifraud provisions and securities registration provisions. A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 18, 2018, to consider continuing the asset freeze and issuance of a preliminary injunction.
The SEC’s complaint charged Blockvest and Ringgold with violating the antifraud and securities registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks injunctions, return of ill-gotten gains plus interest and penalties, and a bar against Ringgold to prohibit him from participating in offering any securities, including digital securities, in the future or making misrepresentations about regulatory approval.
The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (“CFTC”) Office of Customer Education and Outreach have jointly issued an investor alert on the use of false claims regarding SEC and CFTC endorsements.
Source: SEC.gov
Oct 8, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
If so, you may be paying too much for Epson Printer Cartridges. Epson Ink Cartridge consumers are encouraged to contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. to discuss their purchases of Epson Printer Cartridges.
Some Reasons Why Printer Ink So Expensive?
According to Consumer Reports:
There’s no joy in shopping for printer ink. It’s expensive to buy, little fun to use, and before you know it—it’s time to purchase it again.
And that’s a constant cause of frustration among printer owners. In CR’s annual printers survey, the expense of ink or toner replacement is the most common pain point for printer owners—affecting the owners of 1 in 5 printers.
Printer “Ink Gets Wasted”
According to Consumer Reports:
Most consumers are getting only half of what they [think] they’re paying for.
According to our labs, with many printers, more than half of the ink you buy will never wind up on a page.
Printers use ink in two ways. First, of course, they use ink to print documents and images. But inkjets also use ink just for maintenance, mainly for cleaning the printheads. “Most people aren’t really aware of the maintenance needs of inkjets,” [Rich] Sulin says.
“It’s typical for an inkjet to waste as much ink on maintenance cycles as it uses to print documents,” he says.
However, there are big disparities in efficiency between models, Sulin says. Some printers use much more ink than others for maintenance—and the differences to the consumer’s bottom line can really add up.
Epson Printer Cartridge Consumers
If you purchased Epson Printer Ink Cartridges and have questions or concerns about the amount you paid for replacement cartridges, please contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected] or complete the form on the right.
Oct 5, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
On October 3, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it filed an emergency action and obtained an asset freeze against two individuals and their companies in a scheme that generated more than $165 million of illegal sales of stock in at least 50 microcap companies. SEC investigators unraveled the multi-year scheme with the assistance of more than a dozen international regulators and sophisticated analysis of nearly 400 bank and brokerage accounts.
According to the SEC’s unsealed complaint, U.K. citizen Roger Knox (“Knox”) and his Swiss-based company, Wintercap SA (“Wintercap”) helped microcap securities holders evade federal securities laws that restrict sales by large shareholders. The complaint charges that Knox and Wintercap, formerly Silverton SA, helped sellers conceal their stock ownership and provided anonymous access to brokerage accounts to sell the shares in the U.S. market. For three specific issuers detailed in the complaint, Knox sold the stocks when their price and trading volume were inflated by promotional campaigns. Michael T. Gastauer (“Gastauer”) allegedly aided and abetted the fraud by establishing several U.S. corporations and allowing Knox to use their bank accounts to disburse the proceeds of his illegal stock sales.
The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal district court in Boston, charged Knox and Wintercap with violating the antifraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws and with acting as unregistered broker-dealers, and charged Gastauer and his entities with aiding and abetting Knox’s violations of the antifraud and registration provisions.
The complaint also named as relief defendants two family members of Gastauer and a U.K. entity Gastauer controlled. In addition to the asset freeze and other temporary relief obtained, the SEC has sought permanent injunctions, disgorgement of allegedly ill-gotten gains plus interest, penalties, and penny stock bars.
In a parallel criminal case, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts announced criminal charges against Knox.
Source: SEC.gov
