Oct 26, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on October 16, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against Lyft, Inc. in United States District Court, Northern District of California, “ . . . for legal and equitable remedies resulting from the [alleged] illegal actions of Lyft, Inc. in negligently, knowingly, or willfully transmitting unsolicited, autodialed SMS or MMS text messages, en masse, to Plaintiff’s cellular device and the cellular devices of numerous other individuals across the country, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act . . . .”
Allegedly, Plaintiff’s cellular telephone “received unsolicited text messages from Lyft through Lyft’s ‘Concierge’ program,” without having provided express consent. According to the complaint:
. . . in 2016, Lyft started shifting part of its marketing budget to its “Concierge” program to gain access to new customers. The “Concierge” program obtains cellphone numbers from the customers of third-party entities without the cellphone subscribers’ consent. Lyft then contacts the cellphone subscribers via text message even though the persons never agreed to having their cellphone numbers shared with Lyft nor did they agree to receive any text messages from Lyft.
Lyft’s “Concierge” program is especially nefarious because Lyft does not inform the persons that they are receiving the text message as part of Lyft’s “Concierge” Program, nor does Lyft give the persons the ability to opt out of receiving text messages from Lyft.
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 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 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.
Sep 28, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
FTC, DOJ Return a Record Amount – 1,179,803 Refund Checks For More Than $505 Million to Consumers
On September 27, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission announced that the FTC, working jointly with the U.S. Department of Justice, is mailing 1,179,803 refund checks totaling more than $505 million to people who were deceived by a massive payday lending scheme operated by AMG Services, Inc. and Scott A. Tucker (“Tucker”).
The consumer refunds stem from a record-setting $1.3 billion civil court judgment and order the FTC obtained against Tucker and his companies for violating the FTC Act and the Truth in Lending Act when they deceived consumers across the country and illegally charged them undisclosed and inflated fees. The order represents the largest litigated judgment ever obtained by the FTC.
In its 2012 complaint, the FTC alleged that the operators of AMG Services, Inc. falsely claimed they would charge borrowers the loan amount plus a one-time finance fee. Instead, the defendants made multiple withdrawals from consumers’ bank accounts and assessed a new finance fee with each withdrawal. As a result, consumers paid far more for the loans than they had originally agreed to pay.
In 2017, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York obtained criminal convictions against Tucker and his attorney, Timothy Muir. In 2018, they obtained a sentence of more than 16 years in prison for Tucker, and a penalty of $528 million against U.S. Bancorp for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, including failing to timely report suspicious banking activities of Tucker.
The FTC and U.S. Attorney’s Office also obtained settlements in January 2015, November 2015, February 2016, and June 2018 with three Native American tribes involved in Tucker’s operation.
The FTC and Department of Justice are jointly using funds obtained in the civil and criminal matters to provide refunds to consumers who took out loans before January 2013 from the following seven loan portfolios serviced by AMG Services: 500FastCash, Advantage Cash Services, Ameriloan, OneClickCash, Star Cash Processing, UnitedCashLoans, and USFastCash.
According to the FTC, recipients should deposit or cash checks within 60 days, as indicated on the check.
Rust Consulting, Inc., the refund administrator for this matter, will, according to the FTC, begin mailing refund checks today. The FTC and the administrator have used the defendants’ business records from January 2008 through January 2013 to identify consumers and calculate their refund amounts, so it is not necessary for these consumers to contact the FTC to make claims.
The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or provide information to cash refund checks. Consumers, according to the FTC, who borrowed from one of the listed portfolios before January 2008, or who otherwise have questions, should call 1-866-730-8147.
Source: FTC.gov
Sep 25, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
On September 25, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it is sending out 22,671 refund checks to people who lost money to a mobile cramming operation that placed tens of millions of dollars in charges on their mobile phone bills without their permission.
The refunds stem from a major FTC crackdown first announced in 2013.** As part of the scheme, the defendants sent text messages containing celebrity gossip alerts, horoscopes, or “fun facts” to consumers and placed monthly subscription fees for these “services” on their mobile phone bills without their authorization. The practice of placing unauthorized charges on a consumer’s mobile phone bill is known as mobile cramming.
This is the third round of refunds issued as part of the FTC’s crackdown on mobile cramming. The latest round of refunds, totaling $2,107,156.24, comes from assets recovered as part of a settlement with Tatto, Inc. The average check amount is $92.95.
According to the FTC, recipients should deposit, or cash, checks within 60 days, as indicated on the check. The FTC never requires individuals to pay money or provide account information to cash a refund check. If recipients have questions about the refunds, they should contact the FTC’s refund administrator, Epiq, at 888-457-2202.
For additional information, see Tatto, Inc., also d/b/a Winbigbidlow and Tatto Media, et al.
**In December 2013, the FTC announced that it took action to stop a mobile phone cramming operation that has placed tens of millions of dollars on consumers’ mobile phone bills without their permission. In its complaint, the FTC sought to shut down the operation and recover money lost by consumers.
The FTC’s complaint charged that Lin Miao and Andrew Bachman, through a number of companies they owned and controlled, pitched “love tips,” “fun facts,” and celebrity gossip alerts sent by text message to consumers, but placed monthly subscription fees for these “services” on consumers’ mobile phone bills without their authorization. The practice, known as mobile cramming, relies on the fact that consumers often don’t closely examine their monthly statements, or many assume that charges are legitimate.
According to the complaint, consumers, allegedly, received text messages with random factoids that they dismissed as spam without realizing they had received them through a paid subscription service they did not knowingly buy. The defendants also allegedly used misleading website offers to obtain valid consumer phone numbers that they used to sign up consumers for their services without their knowledge.
In one instance, a website told visitors they had won free Justin Bieber tickets, which they could claim by filling out an online quiz. Part of the process required consumers to enter their phone number, and while consumers did not receive the Justin Bieber tickets, their phone numbers were likely signed up for one of the defendants’ paid services.
The charges continued to appear on consumer bills, until the consumers noticed them and took action to unsubscribe. The charges, typically $9.99 per month, often appeared on consumer bills with enigmatic names like “77050IQ12CALL8663611606” and “25184USBFIQMIG,” and in many instances, consumers did not notice the variations in the amount of their bills from month to month.
When consumers noticed the charges, the process of getting a refund was often highly cumbersome. In some cases, consumers could reach representatives of the company, who would promise refunds that never arrived. In other cases, consumers were able to get partial refunds from their phone company, but only for a limited number of months – sometimes far less than the length of time they were billed. The number of consumers seeking refunds from their phone companies was as high as 40 percent in some months, and some carriers suspended the defendants from placing charges on consumer bills.
The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants violated the FTC Act by deceiving consumers, leading them to believe they were obligated to pay for the defendants’ premium text message services. The defendants, according to the FTC, also violated the FTC Act by unfairly billing consumers for services they did not ask for.
The listed defendants were Tatto, Inc. (also doing business as WinBigBidLow and Tatto Media); Bullroarer, Inc. (also doing business as Bullroarer Corporation Pty. Ltd.); Shaboom Media, LLC (also doing business as Tatto Media); Bune, LLC; Mobile Media Products, LLC; Chairman Ventures, LLC; Galactic Media, LLC; Virtus Media, LLC; Lin Miao and Andrew Bachman.
Source: FTC.gov
