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 | 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 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
Feb 21, 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:
Papa John’s USA, Inc. (“Papa John’s”)
Class action lawsuit filed on February 20, 2020 in United States District Court, Central District of California, against Papa John’s USA, Inc., “the corporate entity behind the popular Papa John’s pizza restaurant chain,” for, allegedly, “tak[ing] advantage of the goodwill of consumers by sending them text messages in excess of the limited consent [Papa John’s] obtains,” thereby, according to the complaint, “repeatedly violat[ing] the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.”
The complaint states that the Plaintiff provided Papa John’s “consent to send him a maximum of six text messages each month at his cellular telephone.” However, Papa John’s, allegedly, sent seven text messages to Plaintiff’s cell phone, thus “exceeding the six messages per month that [Plaintiff] consented to receive.”
Examples in the class action complaint of text messages the Plaintiff received from SMS code 472-72 are as follows:
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 21, 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:
Sonic Corp. and Sonic Restaurants, Inc.
Class action lawsuit filed on February 20, 2020 in United States District Court, Central District of California, Eastern Division, against Sonic Corp. and Sonic Restaurants, Inc. for, allegedly, “negligently, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff through text messages on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.”
According to the class action complaint, “Sonic routinely contacts individuals through mass text messaging campaigns with automatic telephone dialing equipment. However, Sonic regularly sends these text messages to cellular telephones, without consent, let alone prior express written consent, in violation of the TCPA.”
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff received “unsolicited promotional text messages from Sonic from the SMS code 876-642 to [Plaintiff’s] wireless phone . . . for which Plaintiff provided no consent to call, in an attempt to solicit her business.” The complaint contained the following examples of text messages sent to the Plaintiff as “solicitations for purchases of food and drink items and on some occasions included coupons or promotional one day only sales”:
The SONIC Double Feature: single-patty Cheeseburger & Sm Shake for $3.99! Lmt tome @ part’ drive-ins. + Tax / addons. More: [link] HELP/STOP: 8447887525.
Get fizzy with it! Snag a Large SONIC Fruit Fizz for $0.99! Valid 1/3 only @ @ part’ drive-ins. HELP/STOP: 8447887525
Today @ Sonic ½ price 3 or 5 pc Crispy Tenders! Must mention @part’ drive-ins or use promo code CRISPY in app! Valid 2/6 + tax/addon HELP/STOP call 8447887525.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff “never provided Defendants with her phone number or consented to text messages from Defendants on her mobile telephone.”
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 21, 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:
Neuvoo USA Inc.
Class action lawsuit filed on February 20, 2020 in United States District Court, District of Arizona, “to stop Neuvoo from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by [allegedly] sending unsolicited autodialed text messages to consumers.”
According to the complaint, Neuvoo USA Inc., “a job search website,” is a company which “markets the availability of jobs on its website using unsolicited, autodialed text messages.” The Plaintiff, allegedly, was sent unsolicited text messages from (833) 429-1258 to her cellular telephone, examples of which from the complaint are as follows:
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff “never searched for jobs on Neuvoo’s website and has never provided her consent to Neuvoo to send her text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system or to otherwise contact her.”
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.
