Mar 13, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
Investors Should Only Use an Online Digital Trading Platform or Entity Registered with the SEC
Recently, the SEC published a public statement about online trading platforms where investors can buy and sell digital assets, including coins and tokens offered and sold in Initial Coin Offerings (“ICOs”). Often, the online trading platforms claim to give investors the ability to quickly buy and sell digital assets, and many platforms bring buyers and sellers together in one place and offer investors access to automated systems that display priced orders, execute trades, and provide transaction data.
Further, a number of these platforms provide a mechanism for trading assets that meet the definition of a “security” under the federal securities laws. If a platform, according to the SEC, offers trading of digital assets that are securities and operates as an “exchange,” as defined by the federal securities laws, then the platform must register with the SEC as a national securities exchange or be exempt from registration. The federal regulatory framework governing registered national securities exchanges and exempt markets is designed to protect investors and prevent against fraudulent and manipulative trading practices.
Investors Should Use a Platform or Entity Registered with the SEC When Trading Digital Assets
To get the protections offered by the federal securities laws and SEC oversight when trading digital assets that are securities, investors should use a platform or entity registered with the SEC, such as a national securities exchange, alternative trading system (“ATS”), or broker-dealer.
Investors Should NOT ASSUME Online Trading Platforms Are SEC-Registered and Regulated Marketplaces
Many online trading platforms appear to investors as SEC-registered and regulated marketplaces when, in fact, they are not. Many trading platforms refer to themselves as “exchanges,” which can give the misimpression to investors that they are regulated or meet the regulatory standards of a national securities exchange. Although some of these platforms claim to use strict standards to pick only high-quality digital assets to trade, the SEC does not review these standards or the digital assets that the platforms select, and the so-called standards should not be equated to the listing standards of national securities exchanges. The SEC also does not review the trading protocols used by these platforms, which determine how orders interact and execute, and access to a platform’s trading services may not be the same for all users. The SEC cautions investors NOT TO ASSUME that the trading protocols meet the standards of an SEC-registered national securities exchange. Finally, many of these platforms give the impression that they perform exchange-like functions by offering order books with updated bid and ask pricing and data about executions on the system, but there is no reason to believe that such information has the same integrity as that provided by national securities exchanges.
Questions the SEC Reminds Investors to Ask Before Trading Digital Assets Via an Online Trading Platform
Is the online trading platform registered as a national securities exchange, a securities exchange that has registered with the SEC under Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934? Please click here for a list of active national securities exchanges registered with the SEC under Section 6(a) of the Exchange Act.
Is the online trading platform operating as an alternative trading system, and if it is, has the ATS registered as a broker-dealer which has filed a Form ATS with the SEC? Please click here for the SEC’s list of active alternative trading systems.
Have you check for information in FINRA’s BrokerCheck ® about any individuals or firms operating the online trading platform?
How does the platform select digital assets for trading? Who can trade on the platform?
What are the trading protocols? How are prices set on the platform?
Are platform users treated equally? What are the platform’s fees?
How does the platform safeguard users’ trading and personally identifying information?
What are the platform’s protections against cybersecurity threats, such as hacking or intrusions?
What other services does the platform provide? Is the platform registered with the SEC for these services?
Does the platform hold users’ assets? If so, how are these assets safeguarded?
Online Trading Platforms and Alternative Trading Systems – Other Considerations
A platform that trades securities and operates as an “exchange,” as defined by the federal securities laws, must register as a national securities exchange or operate under an exemption from registration, such as the exemption provided for ATSs under SEC Regulation ATS. An SEC-registered national securities exchange must, among other things, have rules designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices. Additionally, as a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”), an SEC-registered national securities exchange must have rules and procedures governing the discipline of its members and persons associated with its members and enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its members with the federal securities laws and the rules of the exchange. Further, a national securities exchange must itself comply with the federal securities laws and must file its rules with the SEC.
An entity seeking to operate as an ATS is also subject to regulatory requirements, including registering with the SEC as a broker-dealer and becoming a member of an SRO. Registration as a broker-dealer subjects the ATS to a host of regulatory requirements, such as the requirement to have reasonable policies and procedures to prevent the misuse of material non-public information, books and records requirements, and financial responsibility rules, including, as applicable, requirements concerning the safeguarding and custody of customer funds and securities. The overlay of SRO membership imposes further regulatory requirements and oversight. An ATS must comply with the federal securities laws and its SRO’s rules, and file a Form ATS with the SEC.
Some online trading platforms may not meet the definition of an exchange under the federal securities laws, but directly or indirectly offer trading or other services related to digital assets that are securities. For example, some platforms offer digital wallet services (to hold or store digital assets) or transact in digital assets that are securities. These and other services offered by platforms may trigger other registration requirements under the federal securities laws, including broker-dealer, transfer agent, or clearing agency registration, among other things. In addition, a platform that offers digital assets that are securities may be participating in the unregistered offer and sale of securities if those securities are not registered or exempt from registration.
See also Regulation of Exchanges and Alternative Trading Systems.
Source: SEC.gov
Image: Pixabay, Gerd Altmann (Geralt), CC0 1.0 Universal
Cryptocurrency & Initial Coin Offering Investors
If you are a cryptocurrency or Initial Coin Offering investor who has suffered investment losses and have questions or concerns about your potential legal rights or claims, please complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected]. Alternatively, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801.
Mar 13, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Call Center Customer Service Representatives of 1-800-Flowers Allegedly Spend Time Each Shift Working Without Compensation
On March 8, 2018, a class and collective action complaint was filed against 1-800-Flowers Team Services, Inc., 1-800-Flowers Service Support Center, Inc., and 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. (“1-800-Flowers” or “Defendants”) in United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Medford Division, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Oregon wage statutes, on behalf of “current and former 1-800-Flowers employees who handled calls at its Medford, Oregon call center,” in an attempt “to recover all available damages for 1-800 Flowers’s failure to pay all wages owed to her and those she seeks to represent under the FLSA and Oregon state law.” Among other relief, the class action seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.
Alleged Common Policy and Practice of Failing to Pay Call Center Workers for All Time Worked
According to the class and collective action complaint:
1-800-Flowers has a common policy and practice of failing to pay its call center workers for all time worked. 1-800-Flowers expects call center workers to adhere strictly to their schedules by, among other things, clocking in and out at scheduled times, taking paid and unpaid breaks when scheduled, and spending as much of their scheduled shift as possible available to handle phone calls. In order to meet these expectations, 1-800-Flowers’s call center workers spend time each shift performing work activities without compensation.
Specifically, 1-800-Flowers’s call center workers perform off-the-clock work activities without pay prior to clocking in at the beginning of their scheduled shifts, during the beginning and end of their 30-minute unpaid meal breaks, after clocking out at the end of their scheduled shifts, and at various other times during their shifts when they are clocked out for pay purposes. For example, some of this off-the-clock work includes work activities before their paid shifts begin, including, without limitation, activities related to the operation of their computers. Moreover, when the phones crash or call center workers are otherwise logged out of the phones while performing work activities, 1-800-Flowers does not compensate workers for this time. Through these policies and practices, 1-800-Flowers deliberately fails to pay its employees for all time worked, including overtime, in willful violation of the FLSA and Oregon state law. (Emphasis added)
1-800-Flowers Operates Call Centers Across the USA – Thousands Handle Calls – Call Center Workers Allegedly Instructed to Work “Off-the-Clock” Without Compensation
1-800-Flowers, according to the complaint, operates call centers across the United States and employs thousands of individuals in the company’s call centers to handle calls on behalf of 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. Family of Brands, such as FruitBouquets.com, Harry & David, and The Popcorn Factory. The Plaintiff and other individuals similarly situated work in the Medford, Oregon call center, spending the majority of their time handling telephone calls on behalf of the 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. Family of Brands. Allegedly, 1-800-Flowers “instructed, required, and/or permitted Plaintiff and its other call center workers to perform work ‘off the clock’ without compensation.”
The complaint also alleges that 1-800-Flowers’s timekeeping system “does not capture all the time its call center workers spend working each day,” and the company “. . . requires its call center workers to perform off-the-clock work activities without pay prior to the beginning of their scheduled shift, during the beginning and end of their 30-minute unpaid meal breaks, after clocking out at the end of their scheduled shifts, and at various other times during their shifts when they are clocked out for pay purposes.”
Further, the complaint alleges that “[o]ther call center workers . . . were scheduled to work 40 hours or more each week and . . . spent time each shift working off the clock over and above their scheduled shifts,” thus “regularly work[ing] overtime hours without being compensated at time and a half of their regular hourly rate for all . . . hours above 40 in a week.”
1-800-Flowers Call Center Customer Service Representatives and Workers
If you served as a 1-800-Flowers Call Center Customer Service Representative or Call Center worker outside of Oregon and believe you were improperly compensated, please contact Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected], if you wish to discuss your potential legal options and claims.
Mar 12, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Investigation of the America’s JobLink Alliance Data Breach Continues
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. continues its investigation of America’s JobLink Alliance (“AJLA or “AJL”), “a multi-state web-based system that links job seekers with employers,” which announced on March 22, 2017 that it was “the victim of a hacking incident from an outside source.”
America’s JobLink stated that on March 21, 2017, “[America’s Job Link Alliance-Technical Support] confirmed that a malicious third party ‘hacker’ exploited a vulnerability in the AJL application code to view the names, Social Security Numbers, and dates of birth of job seekers in the AJL systems of up to ten states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Oklahoma, and Vermont.”
The AJLA Data Breach – What Occurred & What Personally Identifiable Information Was Compromised?
On February 20, 2017, according to AJLA, “a hacker created a job seeker account in an America’s JobLink . . . system. The hacker then exploited a misconfiguration in the application code to gain unauthorized access to certain information of other job seekers.” The code misconfiguration, which AJL says was identified and eliminated on March 14, 2017, was “introduced in an AJL system update in October 2016.” AJLA disclosed that “unusual activity” was “first noticed” through “system error messages” on March 12, 2017 by America’s Job Link Alliance-Technical Support.
AJL systems in the 10 aforementioned states were exploited by the hacker, but the code misconfiguration did not threaten systems and users of ReportLink or CertLink.
Impact of the AJLA Data Breach – “Millions of job seekers likely compromised”
Washingtontimes.com reported that “local reports indicate potentially millions of job seekers may have had their personal information compromised.” Reportedly, “approximately 1.4 million Illinois job seekers may have been compromised, while Delaware’s Department of Labor said upwards of 250,000 . . . residents may be affected, including individuals who registered online dating back to 2007.” Further Washingtontimes.com reported that “[a] representative for the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services said an estimated 19,000 residents there were affected, and Oklahoma has put its figure at over 430,000.”
KCUR.org published an article which reported that “[h]ackers who breached a Kansas Department of Commerce data system used by multiple states gained access to more than 5.5 million Social Security numbers and put the agency on the hook to pay for credit monitoring services for all victims.” Additionally, KCUR.org reported that besides “the 5.5 million personal user accounts that included SSNs, about 805,000 more accounts that did not contain SSNs were also exposed.”
For additional information, please see “Significant Data Breach Impacts Job Applicants in 10 States.”
America’s JobLink Data Breach Victims Whose Personal Information May Have Been Illegally Compromised or Misused
If you established an America’s JobLink account, entered personal information on AJLA’s website, have received a notice that your personal information may have been compromised or believe your personal information has been stolen or used illegally, please contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
Mar 10, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Payment Card Data Theft Resulting from Malware Attack of Point-of Sale Systems Affects 166 Applebee’s Restaurants in 15 States
On March 2, 2018, RMH Franchise Holdings (“RMH”) announced that it
. . . recently learned about a data incident affecting certain payment cards used at RMH-owned Applebee’s restaurants that [RMH] operate as a franchisee. [RMH is] providing this notice to [its] guests as a precaution to inform them of the incident and to call their attention to some steps they can take to help protect themselves. RMH operates its point-of-sale systems isolated from the broader Applebee’s network, and this notice applies only to RMH-owned Applebee’s restaurants.
Unauthorized Software Placed on Point-of-Sale Systems
RMH stated that it discovered the data incident on February 13, 2018 and “. . . believes that unauthorized software placed on the point-of-sale system at certain RMH-owned and -operated Applebee’s restaurants was designed to capture payment card information and may have affected a limited number of purchases made at those locations.”
Consumer Information Possibly Compromised by the Applebee’s Point-of-Sale Malware Attack Includes Guest Names, Credit or Debit Card Numbers, Expiration Dates, and Card Verification Codes
According to RMH’s data breach announcement:
Certain guests’ names, credit or debit card numbers, expiration dates and card verification codes processed during limited time periods could have been affected. The exact dates vary by location. . . . Payments made online or using self-pay tabletop devices were not affected by this incident.
166 of 167 Applebee’s Restaurants Impacted by Point-of-Sale Malware Attack
Bankinfosecurity.com reported that RMH “warned that of the 167 Applebee’s restaurants it owns and operates, 166 of them suffered a data breach in which point-of-sale systems were infected with malware designed to capture payment cards for anyone who dined at the restaurants.” Additionally, Bankinfosecurity.com reported that “[i]nfection periods vary by location, but the earliest infections began on Nov. 23, 2017, and none appear to have lasted longer than Jan. 2, the company says. It has not published an estimate of the number of payment cards that hackers compromised.”
Applebee’s Restaurants Affected by the Data Breach Are Located in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming
AL |
Foley |
2409 South McKenzie Street |
AL |
Mobile |
4940 Government Blvd |
AZ |
Gilbert |
4712 E Ray Rd |
AZ |
Glendale |
5880 W Peoria Ave |
AZ |
Glendale |
9330 W Northern Ave |
AZ |
Goodyear |
13832 W McDowell Rd |
AZ |
Laveen |
5210 W Baseline Rd |
AZ |
Mesa |
1143 N Higley Rd |
AZ |
Mesa |
2032 E Baseline Rd |
AZ |
Mesa |
2053 S Alma School Rd |
AZ |
Mesa |
6259 E Southern Ave |
AZ |
Peoria |
8001 W Bell Rd |
AZ |
Phoenix |
2 E Camelback Rd |
AZ |
Phoenix |
2180 E Baseline Rd |
AZ |
Phoenix |
2547 N 44th St |
AZ |
Phoenix |
2651 N. 75th Ave |
AZ |
Prescott |
1881 E State Route 69 |
AZ |
Sierra Vista |
3899 El Mercado Loop |
AZ |
Surprise |
13756 W Bell Rd |
AZ |
Tempe |
1655 W Elliot Rd |
AZ |
Tempe |
909 E Broadway Rd |
AZ |
Tucson |
2230 W Ina Rd |
AZ |
Tucson |
4625 E Grant Rd |
AZ |
Tucson |
565 E Wetmore Rd |
AZ |
Tucson |
5870 E Broadway Blvd |
FL |
Crestview |
215 Rasberry Road |
FL |
Miramar Beach |
8670 Hwy 98 West |
FL |
Pensacola |
165 East Nine Mile Road |
FL |
Pensacola |
5091 Bayou Blvd |
IL |
Bradley |
1040 N. Kinzie Avenue |
IL |
Calumet City |
1719 River Oaks Drive |
IL |
Chicago |
6656 W. Grand Avenue |
IL |
Chicago |
7519 S. Cicero Avenue |
IL |
Country Club Hills |
4029 W. 167th Street |
IL |
Crestwood |
4937 W. Cal Sag Road |
IL |
DeKalb |
2411 Sycamore Road |
IL |
Elgin |
125 S. Randall Road |
IL |
Evergreen Park |
2401 W. 95th Street |
IL |
Hodgkins |
9380 Joliet Road |
IL |
Joliet |
2400 W. Jefferson Street |
IL |
Joliet |
2795 Plainfield Road |
IL |
McHenry |
1700 N. Richmond Road |
IL |
Peru |
1507 36th Street |
IL |
Zion |
2015 Sheridan Road |
IN |
Angola |
202 East Jacob Avenue |
IN |
Auburn |
507 Ley Drive |
IN |
Elkhart |
3241 Interchange Drive |
IN |
Ft. Wayne |
4510 N. Clinton Street |
IN |
Ft. Wayne |
5414 Meijer Drive |
IN |
Ft. Wayne |
5788 Coventry Lane |
IN |
Ft. Wayne |
6525 Lima Road |
IN |
Goshen |
1807 Rieth Road |
IN |
Granger |
6615 N. Main Street |
IN |
Huntington |
346 Hauenstein Road |
IN |
Kendallville |
602 Fairview Blvd. |
IN |
Merrillville |
8425 Broadway |
IN |
Munster |
330 Ridge Road |
IN |
Plymouth |
2225 N. Oak Road |
IN |
Portage |
6211 US Highway 6 |
IN |
Richmond |
4425 National Rd E |
IN |
Schererville |
650 W. Lincoln Highway |
IN |
South Bend |
1150 Ireland Road |
IN |
South Bend |
3703 Portage Road |
IN |
Valparaiso |
670 W. Morthland |
IN |
Warsaw |
2621 E. Center Street |
KS |
Emporia |
2901 Eaglecrest Drive |
KS |
Manhattan |
100 Manhattan Town Center |
KS |
Topeka |
5928 SW 17th Street |
KY |
Crestview Hills |
30 Town Center Blvd |
KY |
Danville |
300 Skywatch Dr |
KY |
Florence |
7383 Turfway Rd |
KY |
Frankfort |
1307 US Highway 127 S |
KY |
Georgetown |
1500 Oxford Dr |
KY |
Highland Heights |
2810 Alexandria Pike |
KY |
Lexington |
1761 Sharkey Way |
KY |
Lexington |
1856 Alysheba Way |
KY |
Lexington |
4009 Nicholasville Rd Block B |
KY |
Maysville |
175 Wal Mart Way |
KY |
Mt Sterling |
690 Maysville Rd |
KY |
Nicholasville |
113 N Plaza Dr |
KY |
Richmond |
853 Eastern Bypass |
KY |
Winchester |
1525 W Lexington Ave |
MO |
Maryville |
2919 South Main Street |
MO |
St Joseph |
4004 Frederick Blvd |
MS |
Ocean Springs |
1601 Bienville Blvd |
NE |
Columbus |
328 E. 23rd Street |
NE |
Grand Island |
721 Diers Avenue |
NE |
Hastings |
2303 Osborne Drive |
NE |
Kearney |
5605 2nd Avenue |
NE |
Lincoln |
318 Gateway Mall |
NE |
Lincoln |
3730 Village Drive |
NE |
Lincoln |
3951 N. 27th Street |
NE |
North Platte |
102 Platte Oasis Pkwy |
NE |
Scottsbluff |
2302 Frontage Road #10 |
NE |
Sidney |
625 Cabela Drive |
NE |
York |
4619 S. Lincoln Avenue |
OH |
Boardman |
6691 South Ave |
OH |
Chillicothe |
820 N Bridge St |
OH |
Cincinnati |
4440 Glen Este Withamsville Rd |
OH |
Cincinnati |
5050 Crookshank Rd |
OH |
Cincinnati |
7920 Beechmont Ave |
OH |
Cincinnati |
8565 Winton Rd |
OH |
Cincinnati |
9595 Colerain Ave |
OH |
Columbus |
1161 Polaris Pkwy |
OH |
Columbus |
1590 Georgesville Square Dr |
OH |
Columbus |
3894 Morse Rd |
OH |
Columbus |
480 Ackerman Rd |
OH |
Dayton |
105 N Springboro Pike |
OH |
Dayton |
6242 Wilmington Pike |
OH |
Defiance |
1003 N. Clinton St. |
OH |
Fairfield |
5331 Pleasant Ave |
OH |
Findlay |
2531 Tiffin Avenue |
OH |
Fremont |
2200 St. Rt. 53 |
OH |
Grove City |
2020 Stringtown Rd |
OH |
Hamilton |
3169 Princeton Rd |
OH |
Hamilton |
700 NW Washington Blvd |
OH |
Heath |
967 Hebron Rd |
OH |
Hilliard |
5561 Westchester Woods Blvd |
OH |
Huber Heights |
8331 Old Troy Pike |
OH |
Kettering |
1795 Delco Park Dr |
OH |
Lancaster |
1615 River Valley Cir N |
OH |
Lima |
1925 Roschman Avenue |
OH |
Lima |
3296 Elida Road |
OH |
Marion |
1514 Mt Vernon Ave |
OH |
Marysville |
1099 Delaware Ave |
OH |
Mason |
9660 S Mason Montgomery Rd |
OH |
Maumee |
531 Dussel Dr. |
OH |
Middletown |
3240 Towne Blvd |
OH |
Niles |
904 Great East Plz |
OH |
Northwood |
3007 Curtice Road |
OH |
Reynoldsburg |
2755 Brice Rd |
OH |
Sidney |
221 N Vandemark Rd |
OH |
Springboro |
881 W Central Ave |
OH |
Springfield |
1800 W 1st St |
OH |
Toledo |
266 E. Alexis Road |
OH |
Toledo |
4702 Monroe Street |
OH |
Toledo |
7340 W Central Ave |
OH |
Troy |
1759 W Main St |
OH |
West Chester |
6084 Mulhauser Rd |
OH |
Xenia |
1991 Harner Dr |
OK |
Ada |
1220 N. Mississippi |
OK |
Altus |
3501 North Main Street |
OK |
Ardmore |
2680 West Broadway |
OK |
Duncan |
2002 N. US Hwy 81 |
OK |
Durant |
1001 Westside Drive |
OK |
Lawton |
6211 NW Cache Rd |
PA |
Hermitage |
201 S Hermitage Rd |
TX |
Amarillo |
2810 Soncy Road |
TX |
Amarillo |
5630 W. Amarillo Blvd |
TX |
Brownsville |
2912 Boca Chica Blvd |
TX |
Corpus Christi |
6691 South Padre Island Drive |
TX |
Edinburg |
1913 West Trenton Road |
TX |
Harlingen |
1519 West Harrison |
TX |
Laredo |
10719 International Blvd |
TX |
Laredo |
7601 San Dario |
TX |
Lubbock |
4025 South Loop 289 |
TX |
McAllen |
514 E. Expressway 83 |
TX |
North McAllen |
4601 N. 10th Street |
TX |
Palmhurst |
306 E Mile 3 Road |
TX |
Portland |
1820 US 181 Frontage Rd |
TX |
Weslaco |
1829 W. Expressway 83 |
TX |
Wichita Falls |
2911 Kemp Blvd |
WY |
Cheyenne |
1401 Dell Range Blvd |
WY |
Evansville |
359 Miracle Street |
WY |
Gillette |
1927 Cliff Davis Drive |
WY |
Laramie |
3209 Grand Avenue |
WY |
Rock Springs |
2491 Foothill Blvd |
Source: RMH Franchise Holdings. This link also contains the dates Applebee’s locations were affected by the malware attack.
Applebee’s Consumers Whose Information May Have Been Compromised by the Data Breach
If you have received a notice or otherwise believe that your personal information may have been stolen or compromised, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated.
Mar 9, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Ace Industrial Supply’s Alleged Telemarketing Calls in Violation of the TCPA
On March 8, 2018 a class action complaint was filed against Defendants Ace Industrial Supply, Inc. and others as of yet unknown (i.e., “Does 1-10”) in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).
Plaintiffs’ Consent and Subsequent Revocation of Consent to Receive Telemarketing Calls from Ace Industrial Supply
According to the complaint, in or about December 2004, Plaintiffs Steven Berning and Galusha Farm, LLC registered their cellular telephone number with the National Do Not Call Registry. In or about 2014, the Plaintiffs purchased industrial supplies from defendant Ace Industrial Supply and, at that time, consented to receive telemarketing sales calls from the company.
Allegedly, not long after their supply purchases, the Plaintiffs, in less than a month, received approximately eight automated telemarketing calls from Ace Industrial Supply. Plaintiff Berning, approximately one month after purchasing industrial supplies, revoked consent for Ace Industrial Supply to “place any automated telemarketing calls to him on multiple occasions, by orally telling the salespeople who called . . . to place Plaintiffs’ number on Ace’s do-not-call list.”
Telemarketing Sales Calls Continued, Despite Requesting to Be Placed on Ace Industrial Supply’s Do-Not-Call List
During one call Plaintiff Berning had with an Ace sales representative, he was, allegedly, told to call a telephone number to be placed on Ace’s do-not-call list. Ace’s automated telemarketing calls, however, did not stop, despite Plaintiff Berning contacting the telephone number and requesting to be placed on the company’s do-not-call list. Further, from the time in 2014 when the Plaintiffs revoked consent to receive automated telemarketing calls to their cell phone, approximately 70 more calls were received from Ace Industrial Supply attempting to sell the Plaintiffs industrial supplies.
Members of the Lawsuit’s Proposed Classes
The class action complaint’s proposed classes consist of all individuals in the United States who, within four years prior to the filing of the complaint, 1) received automated telephone calls from the Defendants and who had not granted prior express consent for the Defendants to place automated calls to them and/or who had revoked consent; and 2) all individuals in the United States whose telephone numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days who had neither granted the Defendants prior express consent nor had a prior established business relationship with Defendants, or who had revoked such consent and prior established business relationship, who received more than one call made by or on behalf of Defendants that promoted Defendants’ products or services, within any 12-month period.
Among other relief, the class action seeks statutory damages of $500 for each TCPA violation, as well as treble, or triple, damages of $1,500 for each knowing or willful violation of the TCPA.
Telemarketing Calls, Robocalls, Junk Faxes, Debt Collection Calls?
If you have received unsolicited, unwanted, harassing or annoying “junk fax” advertisements, telemarketing calls or autodial, automated or prerecorded “robocalls,” debt collection calls or text messages to your cellular telephone without your prior express consent or continued to receive such calls, after having expressly revoked consent to receive these types of unwanted calls, you may have grounds to bring a private right of action, or lawsuit, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to try and recover statutory damages of between $500 and $1,500 for each TCPA violation.
If you would like to speak privately with an attorney at no cost or obligation to you about your potential legal rights or claims, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected].