FTC Mailing Checks to Consumers (36,830 Checks Totaling $10,158,601)

Mar 20, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive

On March 19, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it will begin mailing 36,830 checks totaling $10,158,601 to consumers who lost money to a technical support scam.

Inbound Call Experts, LLC, doing business as Advanced Tech Support, along with other defendants, agreed to pay more than $10 million as part of a settlement with the FTC.  The defendants, according to the FTC, used high-pressure sales pitches to market tech support products and services by falsely claiming to find viruses and malware on people’s computers.

The average refund amount is $277.44. Recipients, according to the FTC, should deposit or cash checks within 60 days. The FTC never requires people to pay money or provide account information to cash a refund check, and if recipients have questions about the refunds, they should contact the FTC’s refund administrator, Analytics at 1-877-793-0908.

Refund Process Previously Announced for Victims of the Deceptive Tech Support Operation

On August 28, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it was sending e-mail notices to people who were eligible for partial refunds from the tech support scheme whose operators agreed to pay $10 million to settle allegations that they deceived hundreds of thousands of people.

Eligible consumers bought tech support products and services between April 2012 and November 2014 from Advanced Tech Support, which also used the name Inbound Call Experts. Consumers, according to the FTC’s announcement, had until October 27, 2017 to submit a request for a refund.

According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants used high-pressure sales pitches to market tech support products and services by falsely claiming that people’s computers were infected with viruses and malware.

The defendants in the case paid $10 million as part of a settlement with the FTC. The settlement also prohibited the defendants from misrepresenting that they have identified performance or security issues on people’s computers and from making any other misrepresentations while selling a product or service.

Initial Announcement that Telemarketing Defendants Charged in the Tech Support Scheme Would Pay $10 Million for Consumer Redress to Settle the Action

On December 22, 2016, the FTC announced that the defendants who operated the Florida-based tech support scheme, which the Federal Trade Commission and State of Florida charged deceived thousands of consumers, would pay $10 million for consumer redress to settle the action.

According to the complaint, defendant Inbound Call Experts, doing business as Advanced Tech Support along with other defendants, used high-pressure sales pitches to telemarket tech support products and services falsely claiming to find viruses and malware on the computers of consumers.

The stipulated final court order prohibited the defendants from misrepresenting that they have identified performance or security issues on the computers of consumers and from making any other misrepresentations while selling a product or service. Under the order, a monitor would be appointed to oversee the defendants’ business for two years, at the defendants’ expense. Further, the order required the defendants to review the business practices of any third-party lead generators from whom they obtain leads.

A negotiated settlement with the lead generator defendants in this action was announced in July 2016.

In addition to Inbound Call Experts, the telemarketing defendants included Advanced Tech Supportco LLC; PC Vitalware LLC; Super PC Support LLC; Robert D. Deignan, Paul M. Herdsman and Justin M. Wright.

Source: FTC.gov

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Over 117 Million Illegal Telemarketing Calls to Consumers

Mar 19, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive

Utah-Based Operation Settles FTC Charges – Defendants Barred from Violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule & Calling Numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry

The Federal Trade Commission announced that three Utah-based firms and their owner, which a federal court jury in 2016 found deceptively and illegally called more than 117 million consumers pitching their movies, have agreed to a proposed court order settling the Federal Trade Commission’s charges against them. The U.S. Department of Justice secured the defendants’ agreement to the proposed order imposing civil penalties and prohibiting telemarketing abuses and filed it with the court on the behalf of the FTC.

2016 Jury Verdict Covered Six Different Telemarketing Sales Rule Violations

The 2016 jury verdict covered six different Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) violations, including violations of the FTC’s regulations requiring telemarketers to use caller identification names that tell consumers what seller is calling and restrictions on telemarketers making calls to consumers without connecting the call to a sales representative within two seconds of the consumer’s greeting.

Defendants Barred From Illegally Calling Do Not Call Registry Phone Numbers

The proposed court order announced today bars the defendants from the misconduct alleged in the complaint, including illegally calling phone numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, and imposes a $45.5 million civil penalty judgment, of which all but $487,735 is conditionally suspended. The suspended portion of the penalty amount will become due if the court later finds that defendants misrepresented their financial condition.

Case History of the TSR and FTC Act Violations

According to a 2011 complaint filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC, Forrest S. Baker III and three Utah firms that he controls violated the TSR and the FTC Act multiple times and deceived customers they called about where the proceeds from their movie purchases would go. The three firms named with Forrest S. Baker III as co-defendants are Feature Films for Families, Inc.; Corporations for Character, L.C.; and Family Films of Utah.

After the court resolved several issues in the case, Department of Justice attorneys and FTC witnesses presented evidence to a jury about violations by defendants during multiple telemarketing campaigns. In one nationwide campaign, Corporations for Character called consumers under the name “Kids First,” offered to send two free DVDs and requested feedback on whether the movies should be included on a list of recommended movies. This telemarketing campaign resulted in millions of calls to consumers on the Do Not Call Registry in which defendants urged consumers to buy additional DVDs by telling them that “all of the proceeds” from sales would be used to complete a recommended viewing list of the nonprofit Coalition for Quality Children’s Media. In reality, Feature Films had contracted to receive 93 percent of all money collected from consumers.

The evidence also showed that in 2009 Feature Films called consumers to urge them to buy tickets to see “The Velveteen Rabbit,” a film produced by Baker and released in theaters before going to DVD. Feature Films’ telemarketers made more than 2.5 million calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry during this campaign. In additional marketing campaigns, the defendants routinely called consumers on the Do Not Call Registry to sell DVDs, and even continued to call consumers who had asked the defendants to stop calling, resulting in tens of millions of illegal calls.

Jury Found Defendants Collectively Were Responsible for 117 Million TSR Violations, Including 99 Million Illegal Calls to Phone Numbers on the Do Not Call Registry.

In all, the jury found the defendants collectively responsible for 117 million TSR violations, including 99 million illegal calls to telephone numbers listed on the Do Not Call Registry, as well as more than four million additional calls in which the defendants’ telemarketers made misleading statements to induce DVD sales.

The jury also found the defendants had actual or implied knowledge of the TSR violations, allowing the court to assess civil penalties under the FTC Act. The case was the first-ever jury verdict in an action to enforce the TSR and Do Not Call Registry rules.  The FTC vote approving the proposed order, which is subject to court approval, was 2-0, and it was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division.

Source: FTC.gov

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

1-800-Flowers Call Center Workers – Class and Collective Wages Lawsuit

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.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

America’s JobLink Alliance Data Breach Investigation (10 States Affected)

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.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Applebee’s Payment Card Malware Attack (166 Applebee’s in 15 States)

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

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.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Ace Industrial Supply Telemarketing Calls – TCPA Violations Alleged

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].

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.