FTC Settles with Defendants that Claimed Bogus Ties to Google and Unlawfully Charged Consumers Hidden Fees

FTC 10/18/2010 News Release:

Google Money Tree Defendants Must Surrender Assets of More than $3.5 Million, Banned from Using ‘Negative Option’ Strategy to Automatically Bill Consumers

An online marketer that falsely claimed ties to Google Inc. has been forced to stop operations as part of a Federal Trade Commission action that charged the defendants with marketing an allegedly bogus work-at-home scheme and charging hidden monthly fees to consumers’ credit card and bank accounts.  Under a settlement agreement reached with the FTC, the defendants are banned from selling products through “negative option” transactions ­– in which the seller interprets consumers’ silence or inaction as permission to charge them.  The defendants also are barred from making misleading or unsupported claims while marketing or selling any product or service, and will give up cash and other assets exceeding $3.5 million.

As part of “Operation Short Change” – a crackdown on scammers taking advantage of the economic downturn to bilk vulnerable consumers through a variety of schemes – the FTC announced a complaint in July 2009 against several defendants that allegedly sold a bogus work-at-home product under names including “Google Money Tree,” “Google Pro,” and “Google Treasure Chest.”  By using the name and logo of the Internet search company Google and falsely promising that consumers could earn $100,000 in six months, the defendants lured consumers into divulging their financial account information to pay a modest shipping fee for a work-at-home kit.  The defendants failed to disclose adequately, however, that buying the product would trigger automatic monthly charges of $72.21 for another product, and that those charges would continue until the consumer took steps to cancel, according to the FTC complaint.

The complaint charged that the defendants violated the FTC Act by failing to adequately disclose that consumers would be subjected to monthly charges; by making false or unsupported claims that consumers were likely to earn substantial income; and by falsely claiming that they were affiliated with Google Inc.  The defendants also violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by debiting consumers’ bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining written authorization, according to the complaint.

The settlement includes a $29.5 million judgment against defendants Jonathan Eborn; Michael McLain Miller; Tony Norton; Infusion Media, Inc.; West Coast Internet Media, Inc.; Two Warnings, LLC; Two Part Investments, LLC; and Platinum Teleservices, Inc.  A fourth defendant, Stephanie Burnside, is subject to a judgment of $741,900.  The defendants will give up cash and other assets that include two cars, interests in a Harley Davidson motorcycle and a boat, and a gun collection – which total approximately $3.5 million, in partial satisfaction of the judgment.  The unpaid portions of these judgments are suspended based on the defendants’ inability to pay, but the full amounts will become due if the defendants have misrepresented their financial condition.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the stipulated final order against the Google Money Tree defendants was 5-0.  The FTC filed the proposed settlement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.  It was signed by the judge on October 4, 2010.

NOTE: A stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge.

Related document at FTC website:

Federal Trade Commission v. Infusion Media, Inc., a corporation, also d/b/a Google Money Tree, Google Pro, Internet Income Pro, and Google Treasure Chest, West Coast Internet Media, Inc., a corporation, also d/b/a Google Money Tree, Google Pro, Internet Income Pro, and Google Treasure Chest, Two Warnings, LLC a limited liability company, Two Part Investments, LLC a limited liability company, Two Part Investments, LLC, a limited liability company; Platinum Teleservices, Inc., a corporation; Jonathan Eborn, individually and as an officer of Infusion Media, Inc., Two Warnings, LLC, Two Part Investments, LLC, and West Coast Internet Media, Inc.; Stephanie Burnside, individually and as an officer of Two Warnings, LLC, Two Part Investments, LLC, and West Coast Internet Media, Inc.; Michael McLain Miller, individually and as an officer of Infusion Media, Inc., Two Warnings, LLC, and Two Part Investments, LLC; and Tony Norton, individually and as an officer of Platinum Teleservices, Inc.
(United States District Court for the District of Nevada)

Civil Action No. 09-CV-01112
FTC File No.   092 3060

Related:

FTC Staff Report Recommends Expanding Coverage of Business Opportunity Rule and Streamlining Required Disclosures

The Federal Trade Commission has released a staff report recommending that coverage of the FTC’s Business Opportunity Rule be expanded to include work-at-home opportunities such as envelope stuffing, medical billing, and product assembly, many of which have not been covered before.  FTC staff also recommends streamlining the disclosures required by the Business Opportunity Rule so that companies or individuals selling business opportunities make important disclosures to consumers on a simple, easy-to-read document.  If adopted, the changes will make it less burdensome for legitimate sellers to comply with the Rule, while still protecting consumers from “widespread and persistent” business opportunity fraud.  Public comments on the staff report will be accepted until January 18, 2011.

The Rule that currently governs business opportunities is an interim rule that dates back to March 2007.  Up until then, the FTC had a single rule – known as the Franchise Rule – that covered both franchises and certain business opportunities.  Franchises typically are expensive, involve complex contractual relationships, and can include the right to use a trademark or other commercial symbol.  In contrast, business opportunities often are less costly, and involve simpler purchase agreements.

In 2006, the FTC proposed creating a Business Opportunity Rule separate from the Franchise Rule.  Since then, it has conducted a public workshop and collected public comments on both the workshop and the Revised Proposed Business Opportunity Rule.  The staff report announced today summarizes the rulemaking record to date, analyzes the various alternatives, and sets forth the staff’s recommendations for the proposed final Business Opportunity Rule and disclosure form. The report and disclosure forms in English and Spanish are available on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release.

The Commission vote approving issuance of the Federal Register notice was 5-0.  (FTC File No. R511993; the staff contact is Kathleen Benway, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2024.)

Court Halts Tax Relief Scam That Collected More Than $60 Million

FTC 10/6/2010 News Release:

Company’s Owners Lived Lavish Lifestyle, Targeted Financially Distressed Consumers

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal judge has halted a national operation that allegedly bilked consumers out of more than $60 million by falsely claiming it can reduce people’s tax debts – the company’s California state business license was suspended last year for not paying its own taxes, the FTC alleges. The FTC is seeking to make the defendants pay restitution to victims.

“We’ve made it a top priority to go after scammers who try to exploit the financial hardship of others,” said David C. Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “For people having a tough time paying their taxes, the last thing they need is to lose more money to a fraud.”

According to the FTC, in TV, radio and Internet ads, American Tax Relief LLC falsely claims it can settle consumers’ delinquent federal and state taxes for a fraction of the amount they owe. The company also falsely claims that it can remove tax liens and stop wage garnishments, bank and tax levies, property seizures, and “unbearable monthly payments.” For example, the company’s website states, “The IRS is currently accepting a fraction of back taxes owed to them (sic) for those who qualify. The IRS is allowing the people with delinquent tax liabilities a ONE-TIME opportunity to settle the debt ONCE AND FOR ALL. But at the same time, the IRS does not advertise, promote or even voluntarily suggest this program.”

The FTC alleges that the company has continued its deceptive practices even after federal agents executed a criminal search warrant on the operation’s Beverly Hills business premises in April, 2010. At that time, criminal authorities seized money from bank accounts and a Ferrari from the company’s owner, and placed liens on two residences, including a $3.4 million house. At the time, one of the company’s owners was leasing six other vehicles, including a Rolls Royce, a Bentley, two Porsches, and two Mercedes-Benzes, according to exhibits the FTC filed in court.

American Tax Relief charges up-front fees ranging from about $3,200 to $25,000 for the purported tax relief services. The company’s ads include a toll-free number for consumers to call for a “free consultation.” After speaking briefly with commission-based sales people who are supposedly “tax consultants,” virtually all consumers are told that they “qualify” for a tax relief program, and that American Tax Relief can help them significantly reduce their tax debts, the FTC complaint alleges.

In reality, very few of the company’s customers qualify for the promised tax relief programs, which are available only in very limited circumstances. Most people who hire the company would qualify at most for installment payment plans, which still require payment of the full amount owed, and which many taxpayers can easily arrange by themselves.

Many consumers are told that they qualify for an “Offer in Compromise,” which the Internal Revenue Service states is its only program that allows people to avoid paying the full amount of back taxes, and is available only in limited circumstances; taxpayers are eligible only after other payment options have been exhausted and the person’s ability to pay has been reviewed.

Other consumers are told that they qualify for a “penalty abatement,” which the company claims will eliminate both accumulated penalties and interest stemming from late payments. However, a penalty abatement is considered by the IRS only in very limited circumstances for people who have “reasonable cause” for the late payments, such as death, serious injury, natural disaster or the like. The FTC alleges that the company does not gather sufficient information from consumers to know whether they would be likely to qualify for either an Offer in Compromise or a penalty abatement.

The FTC’s complaint names Alexander Seung Hahn, Joo Hyun Park, and American Tax Relief LLC. Park’s parents, Young Soon Park and Il Kon Park, are named because they are allegedly holding funds obtained from the defendants’ customers. On September 24, 2010, a federal judge in Chicago entered a temporary restraining order prohibiting deceptive claims, freezing the defendants’ assets, and appointing a receiver to manage the company.

The Commission vote to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

To help consumers who may be having trouble meeting their tax obligations, the FTC created “Owe Back Taxes? Tax Relief Companies Can Result in More Pain than Gain,” which is available on the agency’s website.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and
unfair business practices and to provide information and events to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To
file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.