WhoIs ~ www.pharmacy-orders.com

Drug Enforcement Agency

United States of America


The Ryan Haight Act Known as
Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008
Sec. 2. Requirement of a valid prescription for
controlled substances dispensed by means of the Internet.

SUMMARY: The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act,
which was enacted on October 15, 2008,amended the Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act by adding several new provisions to prevent the illegal distribution and dispensing of controlled substances by means of the Internet.


pharmacy-orders

Address lookup
canonical name pharmacy-orders.com.
aliases
addresses 178.238.138.123
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.internic.net with “dom pharmacy-orders.com

Domain Name: PHARMACY-ORDERS.COM
Registrar: MONIKER ONLINE SERVICES, INC.
Whois Server: whois.moniker.com
Referral URL: http://www.moniker.com
Name Server: NS1.TECKBEANS.COM
Name Server: NS2.TECKBEANS.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 19-jun-2012
Creation Date: 19-jun-2012
Expiration Date: 19-jun-2013

Last update of whois database: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 03:03:02 UTC
Queried whois.moniker.com with “pharmacy-orders.com”…

Domain Name: PHARMACY-ORDERS.COM
Registrar: MONIKER

Registrant [3863590]:
Moniker Privacy Services PHARMACY-ORDERS.COM@monikerprivacy.net
Moniker Privacy Services
1800 SW 1st Avenue
Suite 440
Portland
OR
97201
US

Administrative Contact [3863590]:
Moniker Privacy Services PHARMACY-ORDERS.COM@monikerprivacy.net
Moniker Privacy Services
1800 SW 1st Avenue
Suite 440
Portland
OR
97201
US
Phone: +1.5032070147
Fax: +1.9545859186

Billing Contact [3863590]:
Moniker Privacy Services PHARMACY-ORDERS.COM@monikerprivacy.net
Moniker Privacy Services
1800 SW 1st Avenue
Suite 440
Portland
OR
97201
US
Phone: +1.5032070147
Fax: +1.9545859186

Technical Contact [3863590]:
Moniker Privacy Services PHARMACY-ORDERS.COM@monikerprivacy.net
Moniker Privacy Services
1800 SW 1st Avenue
Suite 440
Portland
OR
97201
US
Phone: +1.5032070147
Fax: +1.9545859186

Domain servers in listed order:

NS1.TECKBEANS.COM
NS2.TECKBEANS.COM

Record created on: 2012-06-19 09:04:44.0
Database last updated on: 2012-06-19 09:07:46.113
Domain Expires on: 2013-06-19 09:04:46.0

Network Whois record

Queried whois.ripe.net with “-B 178.238.138.123″…

% Information related to ‘178.238.138.120 – 178.238.138.127’

inetnum: 178.238.138.120 – 178.238.138.127
netname: NS-UK-178238138120
descr: 30011227.host.emhglobalinc.com
remarks: Dedicated Server
country: GB
admin-c: LA3599-RIPE
tech-c: UA16042-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
changed: ripe@burst.net 20121204
source: RIPE
mnt-irt: IRT-BURSTNET
mnt-by: mnt-burst-au
mnt-by: mnt-burst-mu

role: LIR Admin
org: ORG-BL102-RIPE
address: BurstNET Limited, Unit 31, Greenheys, Pencroft Way, Manchester Science Park, Manchester, United Kingdom, M15 6JJ
phone: +1 570 343 2200
fax-no: +1 570 343 9505
e-mail: ripe@burst.net
admin-c: BRA40-RIPE
admin-c: BED8-RIPE
tech-c: BRA40-RIPE
tech-c: BED8-RIPE
nic-hdl: LA3599-RIPE
notify: ripe@burst.net
mnt-by: BurstNET
changed: adam.hahn@burst.net 20110914
source: RIPE

person: Usman Ashraf
address: Village Kakra Town, Mirpur, Azad Kashmir, 10450, Pk
phone: +1 570 343 2200
fax-no: +1 570 343 9533
nic-hdl: UA16042-RIPE
changed: ripe@burst.net 20121204
source: RIPE
mnt-by: mnt-burst-au
mnt-by: mnt-burst-mu

% This query was served by the RIPE Database Query Service version 1.58.1 (WHOIS4)

DNS records
name class type data time to live
http://www.pharmacy-orders.com IN CNAME pharmacy-orders.com 300s (00:05:00)
pharmacy-orders.com IN SOA
server: pharmacy-orders.com
email: hostmaster@pharmacy-orders.com
serial: 2012010201
refresh: 3600
retry: 7200
expire: 604800
minimum ttl: 3600
300s (00:05:00)
pharmacy-orders.com IN NS ns1.teckbeans.com 300s (00:05:00)
pharmacy-orders.com IN NS ns2.teckbeans.com 300s (00:05:00)
pharmacy-orders.com IN A 178.238.138.123 300s (00:05:00)
123.138.238.178.in-addr.arpa IN PTR 178-238-138-123.hostnoc.eu 14400s (04:00:00)
138.238.178.in-addr.arpa IN RRSIG
type covered: NSEC (47)
algorithm: RSA/SHA-1 (5)
labels: 5
original ttl: 7200 (02:00:00)
signature expiration: 2013-05-06 10:00:11Z
signature inception: 2013-04-06 09:00:11Z
key tag: 40948
signer’s name: 178.in-addr.arpa
signature:
(1024 bits)

5449s (01:30:49)
138.238.178.in-addr.arpa IN NSEC
next domain name: 139.238.178.in-addr.arpa
record types: NS RRSIG NSEC
5449s (01:30:49)
138.238.178.in-addr.arpa IN NS ns2.hostnoc.net 12649s (03:30:49)
138.238.178.in-addr.arpa IN NS dns.burst.net 12649s (03:30:49)
138.238.178.in-addr.arpa IN NS dns1.burst.net 12649s (03:30:49)
138.238.178.in-addr.arpa IN NS ns1.hostnoc.net 12649s (03:30:49)

— end —
Last update of whois database: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 02:33:53 UTC
178.238.138.123 resolves to 178-238-138-123.hostnoc.eu.

The following A records are set to 178.238.138.123:

  1. 1st-pills.com
  2. all-pharma.com
  3. allpharmacymeds.com
  4. cheap-pharm.com
  5. edmedsstore.com
  6. genericmedscenter.com
  7. genericpillsshop.com
  8. getgenericpills.com
  9. gold-pharmacy.com
  10. mdprice.net
  11. mdpricepharmacy.com
  12. meds-buy.net
  13. meds-net.com
  14. mega-pharmacy.com
  15. megarxpills.com
  16. ns2.teckbeans.com
  17. order-pharma.com
  18. order-pills.com
  19. pharm-deals.com
  20. pharmacy-orders.com
  21. pillsarena.com
  22. ultra-meds.com
  23. usa-rx-pharmacy.com

WhoIs ~ www.mysuperpharm.com

Drug Enforcement Agency

United States of America


The Ryan Haight Act Known as
Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008
Sec. 2. Requirement of a valid prescription for
controlled substances dispensed by means of the Internet.

SUMMARY: The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act,
which was enacted on October 15, 2008,amended the Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act by adding several new provisions to prevent the illegal distribution and dispensing of controlled substances by means of the Internet.


mysuperpharm

Address lookup
canonical name mysuperpharm.com
aliases
addresses 178.238.138.123
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.internic.net with “dom mysuperpharm.com”…

Domain Name: MYSUPERPHARM.COM
Registrar: NAMESILO, LLC
Whois Server: whois.namesilo.com
Referral URL: http://www.namesilo.com
Name Server: NS1.TECKBEANS.COM
Name Server: NS2.TECKBEANS.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 23-dec-2012
Creation Date: 06-nov-2012
Expiration Date: 06-nov-2013

Last update of whois database: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 02:33:53 UTC
178.238.138.123 resolves to 178-238-138-123.hostnoc.eu.

The following A records are set to 178.238.138.123:

  1. 1st-pills.com
  2. all-pharma.com
  3. allpharmacymeds.com
  4. cheap-pharm.com
  5. edmedsstore.com
  6. genericmedscenter.com
  7. genericpillsshop.com
  8. getgenericpills.com
  9. gold-pharmacy.com
  10. mdprice.net
  11. mdpricepharmacy.com
  12. meds-buy.net
  13. meds-net.com
  14. mega-pharmacy.com
  15. megarxpills.com
  16. ns2.teckbeans.com
  17. order-pharma.com
  18. order-pills.com
  19. pharm-deals.com
  20. pharmacy-orders.com
  21. pillsarena.com
  22. ultra-meds.com
  23. usa-rx-pharmacy.com

WhoIs ~ best-canadian-pills.com

Drug Enforcement Agency

United States of America


The Ryan Haight Act Known as
Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008
Sec. 2. Requirement of a valid prescription for
controlled substances dispensed by means of the Internet.

SUMMARY: The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act,
which was enacted on October 15, 2008,amended the Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act by adding several new provisions to prevent the illegal distribution and dispensing of controlled substances by means of the Internet.


best-canadian-pills

Address lookup
canonical name best-canadian-pills.com

aliases
addresses 38.69.128.204
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.internic.net with “dom best-canadian-pills.com”…

Domain Name: BEST-CANADIAN-PILLS.COM
Registrar: BIZCN.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.bizcn.com
Referral URL: http://www.bizcn.com
Name Server: NS.LOCAL-PROVIDER.COM
Name Server: NS.LOCAL-PROVIDER2.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 21-mar-2013
Creation Date: 21-mar-2013
Expiration Date: 21-mar-2014

Last update of whois database: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 18:15:30 UTC
Queried whois.bizcn.com with “best-canadian-pills.com

The following A records are set to 38.69.128.204:

  1. 24h-drugstore.com
  2. best-generic-store.com
  3. bests-ed-tabs.com
  4. buycanadapills.com
  5. canadian-ccm.net
  6. canadian-health-shop.com
  7. canadian-mc.net
  8. canadian-mds.net
  9. canadian-medicines-itd.net
  10. canadian-medicines.net
  11. canadian-medinc.net
  12. canadian-pharmacy-lux.net
  13. canadian-pharmacy-nc.net
  14. canadian-super-store.com
  15. canadian-top-pharmacy.net
  16. canadiangenericsstore.com
  17. drugspick.com
  18. drugstax.com
  19. first-canadian-pharmacy.net
  20. gammahealthcaregroup.com
  21. generic-pills-shops.com
  22. health-md.biz
  23. health-trends.biz
  24. healthmd.biz
  25. healthtrends.biz
  26. hosted-img.com
  27. hugedrugs.com
  28. itsdrugstore.com
  29. pharcharmy.org
  30. pharma-host.com
  31. pharmacy-24.net
  32. premium-tabs.com
  33. rx-medical.com
  34. rx-pharmaceutic.com
  35. rxtabsforyou.com
  36. secure-canadian-pharmacy.net
  37. secure-canadian.net
  38. softdrugstore.com
  39. thebluedrugs.com
  40. top-canadian-pharmacy.net
  41. vancouver-pharmacy.com

WhoIs ~ www.buy5viagra.com

Drug Enforcement Agency

United States of America


The Ryan Haight Act Known as
Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008
Sec. 2. Requirement of a valid prescription for
controlled substances dispensed by means of the Internet.

SUMMARY: The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act,
which was enacted on October 15, 2008,amended the Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act by adding several new provisions to prevent the illegal distribution and dispensing of controlled substances by means of the Internet.


buyviagraonline2

http://www.buy5viagra.com
Address lookup
canonical name http://www.buy5viagra.com
aliases
addresses 46.21.157.140
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.internic.net with “dom buy5viagra.com

Domain Name: BUY5VIAGRA.COM
Registrar: TODAYNIC.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.todaynic.com
Referral URL: http://www.NOW.CN
Name Server: NS1.BUY5VIAGRA.COM
Name Server: NS2.BUY5VIAGRA.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 29-mar-2013
Creation Date: 29-mar-2013
Expiration Date: 29-mar-2014

Last update of whois database: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:54:03 UTC

WhoIs buyviagraonline-phm.com

Drug Enforcement Agency

United States of America


The Ryan Haight Act Known as
Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008
Sec. 2. Requirement of a valid prescription for
controlled substances dispensed by means of the Internet.

SUMMARY: The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act,
which was enacted on October 15, 2008,amended the Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act by adding several new provisions to prevent the illegal distribution and dispensing of controlled substances by means of the Internet.


buyviagraonline

(866) 503-4818
+44-870-490-0618


Address lookup
canonical name buyviagraonline-phm.com

aliases
addresses 74.52.238.247
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.internic.net with “dom buyviagraonline-phm.com”…

Domain Name: BUYVIAGRAONLINE-PHM.COM
Registrar: TODAYNIC.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.todaynic.com
Referral URL: http://www.NOW.CN
Name Server: NS1.ZEOHOST.COM
Name Server: NS2.ZEOHOST.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 04-apr-2013
Creation Date: 04-apr-2013
Expiration Date: 04-apr-2014

cheapviagrads.com aka TrustedTablets.com

Drug Enforcement Agency

United States of America


The Ryan Haight Act Known as
Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008
Sec. 2. Requirement of a valid prescription for
controlled substances dispensed by means of the Internet.

SUMMARY: The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act,

Ritalin

Ritalin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

which was enacted on October 15, 2008,amended the Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act by adding several new provisions to prevent the illegal distribution and dispensing of controlled substances by means of the Internet.


Telephone Numbers
1-800-532-4808
718-313-1498
44-203-011-0241

cheapviagrads

The following A records are set to 37.1.210.140:

  1. ns1.order-cialiss.org
  2. ns2.cialisonlinenowe.org
  3. order-cialiss.org

Address lookup
canonical name cheapviagrads.com

aliases
addresses 37.1.210.140
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.internic.net with “dom cheapviagrads.com”…

Domain Name: CHEAPVIAGRADS.COM
Registrar: REGTIME LTD.
Whois Server: whois.webnames.ru
Referral URL: http://www.webnames.ru
Name Server: NS2.CHEAPVIAGRADS.COM
Name Server: NS3.CHEAPVIAGRADS.COM
Status: ok
Updated Date: 27-mar-2013
Creation Date: 27-mar-2013
Expiration Date: 27-mar-2014

>>> Last update of whois database: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:30:41 UTC

INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESSES [IAB] Operators Banned by FTC

For Release: 02/20/2013

 

Telemarketers Allegedly Bilked Millions of Dollars from Consumers Seeking Health Insurance

 

Telemarketers who allegedly tricked consumers into buying purported health insurance are permanently banned from selling healthcare-related products under a

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commission. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.  The case is part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts to crack down on fraudsters who prey on vulnerable consumers seeking health insurance, including the uninsured, the unemployed, and those with pre-existing medical conditions.

In September 2012, the FTC charged Roy D. Hamilton and his wife, Judy M. Hamilton, and their companies,

Health Service Providers, Inc. defendants, with fraudulently selling bogus health insurance for the Independent Association of Businesses (IAB).

The HSP defendants allegedly called consumers who had submitted their contact information to websites that claimed to offer quotes for traditional health insurance or equivalent coverage.  According to the FTC, after paying an initial fee ranging from $50 to several hundred dollars and a monthly fee ranging from $40 to $1,000, consumers eventually learned they had not purchased comprehensive health insurance, but were deceived into buying an IAB membership that supposedly provided discounts on services such as golf, travel, and some limited health related services and insured benefits.

In addition to the ban against selling healthcare-related products, the settlement order prohibits the HSP defendants from misrepresenting material facts about any goods or services, selling or otherwise benefiting from consumers’ personal information, and from violating the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, including calling consumers on the Do Not Call Registry.  The order also imposes an $11.8 million judgment that has been suspended following the HSP defendants’ surrender of assets to the FTC.

Litigation continues against the remaining defendants behind the allegedly fraudulent health insurance scheme:  IAB Marketing Associates LP, Independent Association of Businesses, HealthCorp International Inc., JW Marketing Designs LLC, International Marketing Agencies, LP, International Marketing Management LLC, Wood LLC, James C. Wood, James J. Wood, Michael J. Wood, and Gary D. Wood.  The FTC has also sought to amend its complaint against the remaining defendants in the case, adding two individuals as relief defendants who allegedly benefitted from the scheme but did not participate in it.

The Commission vote approving the consent order and authorizing the staff to file the amended complaint was 4-0-1, with Chairman Leibowitz not participating.  The FTC filed its motion to amend the complaint on February 13, 2013, and the consent order was entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 19, 2013.

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 defendant has actually violated the law.  The consent order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant that the law has been violated.  Consent orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information 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 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.  Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Frank Dorman
Office of Public Affairs

202-326-2674
 
STAFF CONTACT:
Dotan Weinman
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3049

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1123185/index.shtm

 

 

FTC Settlement Bans Telemarketers from Selling Healthcare-Related Products

For Release: 02/20/2013

 

Telemarketers Allegedly Bilked Millions of Dollars from Consumers Seeking Health Insurance

 

Telemarketers who allegedly tricked consumers into buying purported health insurance are permanently banned from selling healthcare-related products under a

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commission. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.  The case is part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts to crack down on fraudsters who prey on vulnerable consumers seeking health insurance, including the uninsured, the unemployed, and those with pre-existing medical conditions.

In September 2012, the FTC charged Roy D. Hamilton and his wife, Judy M. Hamilton, and their companies,

Health Service Providers, Inc. defendants, with fraudulently selling bogus health insurance for the Independent Association of Businesses (IAB).

The HSP defendants allegedly called consumers who had submitted their contact information to websites that claimed to offer quotes for traditional health insurance or equivalent coverage.  According to the FTC, after paying an initial fee ranging from $50 to several hundred dollars and a monthly fee ranging from $40 to $1,000, consumers eventually learned they had not purchased comprehensive health insurance, but were deceived into buying an IAB membership that supposedly provided discounts on services such as golf, travel, and some limited health related services and insured benefits.

In addition to the ban against selling healthcare-related products, the settlement order prohibits the HSP defendants from misrepresenting material facts about any goods or services, selling or otherwise benefiting from consumers’ personal information, and from violating the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, including calling consumers on the Do Not Call Registry.  The order also imposes an $11.8 million judgment that has been suspended following the HSP defendants’ surrender of assets to the FTC.

Litigation continues against the remaining defendants behind the allegedly fraudulent health insurance scheme:  IAB Marketing Associates LP, Independent Association of Businesses, HealthCorp International Inc., JW Marketing Designs LLC, International Marketing Agencies, LP, International Marketing Management LLC, Wood LLC, James C. Wood, James J. Wood, Michael J. Wood, and Gary D. Wood.  The FTC has also sought to amend its complaint against the remaining defendants in the case, adding two individuals as relief defendants who allegedly benefitted from the scheme but did not participate in it.

The Commission vote approving the consent order and authorizing the staff to file the amended complaint was 4-0-1, with Chairman Leibowitz not participating.  The FTC filed its motion to amend the complaint on February 13, 2013, and the consent order was entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 19, 2013.

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 defendant has actually violated the law.  The consent order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant that the law has been violated.  Consent orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information 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 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.  Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Frank Dorman
Office of Public Affairs

202-326-2674
 
STAFF CONTACT:
Dotan Weinman
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3049

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1123185/index.shtm

 

 

FTC Settles Charges That Compete.com Deceived Consumers

For Release: 10/22/2012

Tracking Software Company Settles FTC Charges That it Deceived Consumers and Failed to Safeguard Sensitive Data it Collected

A web analytics company has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commission. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

that it violated federal law by using its web-tracking software that collected personal data without disclosing the extent of the information that it was collecting. The company, Compete Inc., also allegedly failed to honor promises it made to protect the personal data it collected.

Compete is a company that uses tracking software to collect data on the browsing behavior of millions of consumers, then uses the data to generate reports, which it sells to clients who want to improve their website traffic and sales.

The proposed settlement will require that Compete obtain consumers’ express consent before collecting any data from Compete software downloaded onto consumers’ computers, that the company delete or anonymize the use of the consumer data it already has collected, and that it provide directions to consumers for uninstalling its software.

According to the FTC, Compete got consumers to download its tracking software in several ways, including by urging them to join a “Consumer Input Panel” that was promoted using ads that pointed consumers to Compete’s website, http://www.consumerinput.com. Compete told consumers that by joining the “Panel” they could win rewards while sharing their opinions about products and services, the FTC alleged.  The company also allegedly promised that consumers who installed another type of its software– the Compete Toolbar (from compete.com)– could have “instant access” to data about the websites they visited.

Compete also licensed its web-tracking software to other companies, the FTC alleged.  Upromise, which licensed Compete’s web-tracking software, settled similar FTC charges earlier this year.

Once installed, the Compete tracking component operated in the background, automatically collecting information about consumers’ online activity.  It captured information consumers entered into websites, including consumers’ usernames, passwords, and search terms, and also some sensitive information such as credit card and financial account information, security codes and expiration dates, and Social Security Numbers, according to the FTC.

The FTC charged that several of Compete’s business practices were unfair or deceptive and violated the law.  For example, the company failed to disclose to consumers that it would collect detailed information such as information they provided in making purchases, not just “the web pages you visit.”

In addition, the FTC alleged that Compete made false and deceptive assurances to consumers that their personal information would be removed from the data it collected.  The company made statements such as:

  • “All data is stripped of personally identifiable information before it is transmitted to our servers;” and
  • “We take reasonable security measures to protect against unauthorized access to or unauthorized alteration, disclosure or destruction of personal information.”

Despite these assurances, the FTC charged that Compete failed to remove personal data before transmitting it; failed to provide reasonable and appropriate data security; transmitted sensitive information from secure websites in readable text; failed to design and implement reasonable safeguards to protect consumers’ data; and failed to use readily available measures to mitigate the risk to consumers’ data.

The proposed settlement order requires Compete and its clients to fully disclose the information they collect and get consumers’ express consent before they collect consumers’ data in the future.  In addition, the settlement bars misrepresentations about the company’s privacy and data security practices and requires that it implement a comprehensive information security program with independent third-party audits every  two years for 20 years.

The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment was 4-0-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch abstaining.  The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly.  The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through November 19, 2012, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final.  Interested parties can submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Invitation To Comment” part of the “Supplementary Information” section https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/competeincconsent. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to:  Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.  The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

NOTE:  The Commission issues an administrative 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 respondent has actually violated the law.  A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated.  When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions.  Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information 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 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.  Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Claudia Bourne Farrell
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2181
 
STAFF CONTACT:
Ruth Yodaiken,
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-2127Jamie Hine
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-2188

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1023155/index.shtm

SOUTH AFRICAN LOTTERY

from: SOUTH AFRICAN LOTTERY <dd392@nau.edu> reply-to: jtravel4356@gmail.comscamalert
to:
bcc: scamfraudalert@gmail.com
date: Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 8:07 AM
subject: URGENT ALERT!!!
mailed-by: nau.edu

This is to publicize and notify you that your email has won
£950,000.00 GBP at the South African National online Jackpot selection lottery. REF: PTY/35-4829321-UK, TICKET No:20511465463-7641,
For payment find contact below:

Contact For Payment: Mr. John Travel
Telephone: +27604791874
Email: mrjohnt4356@gmail.com

Online Notification Desk
South African National Lottery©

Residential Relief Foundation, LLC

For Release: 10/04/2011

At FTC’s Request, Court Shuts Down Deceptive Mortgage and Debt Relief Operation One

Firm Charged $1,495 for Loan Modification Program, but Provided No Services

At the Federal Trade Commission’s request, a U.S. district court has shut down two related operations as a result of settlements with defendants who allegedly failed to
Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...
provide promised debt relief services and jeopardized their clients’ privacy by tossing their personal information into unsecured dumpsters. In addition, one of the operations allegedly charged consumers a $1,495 up-front fee based on phony promises that they would get mortgage relief assistance.

The settlements with

  1. Residential Relief Foundation, LLC
  2. Silver Lining Services, LLC
  3. Mitigation America, LLC

and their principal owners are part of the FTC’s ongoing crackdown on scams that target consumers in financial distress. The settlements ban the defendants from working in the mortgage assistance and debt relief business, prohibit them from the alleged privacy violations, and impose judgments totaling more than $11 million – the amount of consumer harm they caused.

In its November 2010 complaint, the FTC alleged the defendants behind Residential Relief Foundation violated federal law by falsely claiming their loan modification program could lead to the waiver of late mortgage payments, late fees, and legal fees; the conversion of adjustable mortgage rates to fixed rates as low as one percent; the reduction of consumers’ principal balance; and up to 40 percent lower mortgage payments.

According to the FTC, the Residential Relief defendants used a logo similar to the Great Seal of the United States to market their products. Claiming quick results and a high success rate, the defendants charged a $1,495 up-front fee, advised consumers to stop making mortgage payments, and falsely claimed that reports they created would enable homeowners get the promised results.

The defendants engaged in their conduct amid the publicity surrounding the availability of free mortgage loan assistance and modification programs, including the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) implemented by the federal government under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). HAMP encourages loan servicers and investors to modify mortgages to reduce the monthly payments of homeowners who are at risk of default. There is no fee to homeowners to apply for a modification under HAMP.

The Residential Relief defendants allegedly also improperly disposed of consumers’ information in unsecured dumpsters in violation of their own privacy policies. Finally, the FTC charged that in marketing credit card debt relief services, the defendants falsely told people they could become debt-free in 12 to 36 months, could eliminate late fees and penalties, and could reduce their debts by up to 50 percent.

The first settlement bans Residential Relief Foundation, Silver Lining Services, and their owners, James Holderness, Bryan Melanson, Michael Valenti, and Jillian Melanson, from participating in both the mortgage assistance relief and debt relief industries. It imposes a judgment of more than $10.5 million, which is the total amount the defendants made through their deceptive conduct. This includes a joint judgment of $509,306 entered against the Mitigation America defendants, as discussed below. A court-appointed receiver will attempt to recover nearly $1 million that the corporate defendants still have from the scheme. The individual defendants will turn over their frozen assets, with the remainder of the judgment suspended due to their inability to pay.

The FTC also has settled related charges against Mitigation America, LLC and its principal, Dennis Strzegowski, who allegedly worked with Residential Relief Foundation as part of the scam by deceptively marketing debt relief services to consumers. They were charged with violating their privacy policy by discarding confidential consumer information into unsecured dumpsters. The settlement bans Mitigation America and Strzegowski from participating in the debt relief industry and includes a judgment of $509,306, the total amount they received from their fraudulent debt relief promotions. The court-appointed receiver will liquidate Mitigation America. Strzegowski is required to pay $5,000, with the rest suspended due to his inability to pay.

Both settlements also bar the defendants from making misrepresentations about any product or service, including claims about financial products or services, their government affiliation, and implementation of their data security measures. The orders also require the defendants to have competent and reliable evidence to back up key claims about their financial products or services and prohibit them from violating the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule. Also, in settlements, the total judgment amounts will become due if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition.

The FTC appreciates the investigative assistance provided in this case by the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP). SIGTARP investigates fraud, waste, and abuse related to HAMP and all other TARP-funded programs. Since this case was filed, the FTC has issued a rule prohibiting mortgage relief programs from charging up-front fees before providing their services.

Information for consumers on how to detect and avoid mortgage relief fraud can be found here.

The Commission vote approving the proposed settlement orders was 5-0. The first order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, and resolves the FTC’s charges against Residential Relief Foundation, LLC; Silver Lining Services, LLC; James Holderness; Bryan Melanson; Michael Valenti; and Jilliam Melanson. The second order, also filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, settles the FTC charges against defendants Mitigation America, LLC and Dennis Strzegowski. The court entered the orders on September 30, 2011.

NOTE: The consent orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants that the law has been violated. Consent orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information 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 2,000 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. Like the FTC on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..

MEDIA CONTACT:
Mitchell J. Katz
Office of Public Affairs

202-326-2161

(FTC File No. X110004; Civ. No. 1:10-cv-3124-JFM (D. Md.))
(Res Relief.final)

FTC Crack Down On Spammers Sending Text Messages

This is GREAT NEWS for scamFRAUDalert as we have been ALERTING you to spam text messaging.

For Release: 03/07/2013

FTC Cracks Down on Senders of
Spam Text Messages Promoting “Free” Gift Cards

Defendants Were Responsible for More than
180 Million Spam Text Messages

The Federal Trade Commission is cracking down on affiliate marketers that allegedly bombarded consumers with hundreds of millions of unwanted spam text messages in

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commission. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

an effort to steer them towards deceptive websites falsely promising “free” gift cards.

In eight different complaints filed in courts around the United States, the FTC charged 29 defendants with collectively sending more than 180 million unwanted text messages to consumers, many of whom had to pay for receiving the texts. The messages promised consumers free gifts or prizes, including gift cards worth $1,000 to major retailers such as Best Buy, Walmart and Target. Consumers who clicked on the links in the messages found themselves caught in a confusing and elaborate process that required them to provide sensitive personal information, apply for credit or pay to subscribe to services to get the supposedly “free” cards.

“Today’s announcement says ‘game over’ to the major league scam artists behind millions of spam texts,” said Charles A. Harwood, Acting Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.  “The FTC is committed to rooting out this deception and stopping it.  For consumers who find spam texts on their phones, delete them, immediately. The offers are, in a word, garbage.”

The FTC complaints targeted defendants who sent the unwanted text messages, as well as those who operated the deceptive websites. In addition, the FTC is pursuing a contempt action against a serial text message spammer, Phil Flora, who was barred in 2011 from sending spam text messages and who is accused of being part of this spam texting scheme as well.

The Commission’s complaints seek restraining orders against the defendants preventing them from continuing their alleged deceptive and unfair practices as well as preserving and accounting for their assets.

According to the FTC complaints, the defendants sent text messages to random phone numbers, including to consumers who do not have a text message subscription plan. As many as 12 percent of mobile phone users fall into this category.

When consumers followed the links included in the unwanted messages, they were directed to sites that collected a substantial amount of personal information, including in some instances health information, before being allowed to continue toward receiving the supposed gift cards.  In many cases, the information was requested under the guise of being shipping information for the supposed gift cards.  The Commission alleged the information collected was then sold to third parties for marketing purposes, meaning consumers were deceived as to the real use of the information.

Once consumers entered their personal information, they were directed to another site and told they would have to participate in a number of “offers” to be eligible for their gift card.  In some cases, consumers were obligated to sign up for as many as 13 of the offers. These offers frequently included recurring subscriptions for which consumers were required to provide credit card information.  In other cases, they required consumers to submit applications for credit that would be reflected in their credit reports and possibly affect their credit score. If a consumer completed all of the “offers,” they were then notified that to get the promised gift card, they had to find three others who also would complete the offers.

The FTC alleged that the operators of these sites violated the FTC Act by failing to tell consumers about all the conditions attached to the “free” gift, including the possibility that consumers would actually be required to spend money to receive the gift.

According to the FTC, the defendants who sent the text messages were paid by the operators of the “free” gift websites based on how many consumers eventually entered their information. The operators of the free gift websites were in turn paid by those businesses who gained customers or subscribers through the “offer” process.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the eight complaints was 4-0-1, with former Chairman Jon Leibowitz not participating.

Seven complaints were filed against the alleged senders of the unsolicited text messages containing deceptive promises of free gifts and prizes:

  • Superior Affiliate Management, a case against five defendants: Ecommerce Merchants, LLC (also doing business as Superior Affiliate Management); Cresta Pillsbury, Jan-Paul Diaz, Joshua Brewer and Daniel Stanitski. This case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.
  • Rentbro, Inc., a case against three defendants: Rentbro, Inc., Daniel Pessin and Jacob Engel. This case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.
  • Jason Q. Cruz, a case against one defendant, Jason Q. Cruz (also doing business as Appidemic, Inc.) This case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.
  • Rishab Verma, a case against two defendants: Verma Holdings, LLC and Rishab Verma. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston.
  • AdvertMarketing, a case against three defendants: AdvertMarketing, Inc., Scott A. Dalrymple and Robert Jerrold Wence. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston.
  • Henry Kelly, a case against one defendant, Henry Nolan Kelly. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta.
  • Seaside Building Marketing, a case against four defendants: Phillip Flora, Sandra Skipper, Kevin Beans and Dakota Geffre (all of whom are also doing business as Seaside Building Marketing Inc. and SB Marketing). This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles.

One complaint was filed against the alleged operators of the deceptive websites to which consumers were directed by the spam text messages:

  • SubscriberBASE Holdings, Inc., a case against ten defendants: SubscriberBASE Holdings, Inc.; SubscriberBASE, Inc.; Jeffrey French; All Square Marketing, LLC; Threadpoint, LLC; PC Global Investments, LLC; Slash 20, LLC; Brent Cranmer; Christopher McVeigh (also doing business as CMB Marketing, Inc.) and Michael Mazzella (also doing business as Mazzco Marketing, Inc.). This case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.

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 defendant has actually violated the law.  The cases will be decided by the court.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information 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 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.  Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Jay Mayfield
Office of Public Affairs

202-326-2181
 
STAFF CONTACT:
Steven Wernikoff
Midwest Region
312-960-5630

FTC Banned ~ Hope for Car Owners

For Your Information: 03/07/2013

Court Bans Auto Loan Modification Company from the Debt Relief Services Business

Acting on a Federal Trade Commission complaint, a federal court has banned a

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...

California-based company from providing modification services for auto loans and for any other type of debt.  The court imposed a $362,388 default judgment against Hope for Car Owners, LLC, a company owned by Patrick Freeman.  In December 2012, Freeman settled charges with the FTC in connection with this allegedly fraudulent auto loan modification operation.

The FTC charged Freeman and Hope for Car Owners by falsely promising consumers that Hope for Car Owners could modify auto loans and stop cars from being repossessed.  In March 2012, the FTC alleged that Hope for Car Owners and Freeman unlawfully charged hundreds of dollars in up-front fees, and told the consumers to stop paying their auto lenders, which often left them in worse shape than when they began, and increased the risk that their vehicles would be repossessed.  The FTC also alleged that once the up-front fees were collected, the defendants did nothing to obtain the promised loan modifications while also denying requests for refunds.

In addition to the ban on loan modification services, the default judgment prohibits Hope for Car Owners from making misrepresentations about any other product or service.  It requires the company to back up any claims about the benefits, performance, or efficacy of any product or service, and destroy customer information it obtained in connection with the scheme.

A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California entered the default judgment against Hope for Car Owners on February 21, 2013.  The default judgment concludes the case against Hope for Car Owners.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information 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 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.  Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1223021/index.shtm

FTC Stops Construct Data Publishers

For Release: 03/20/2013

FTC Stops Foreign Operation That Scammed Many Small Businesses and Nonprofits Into Paying Millions of Dollars for Bogus Online Directory

At the Federal Trade Commission’s request, a federal judge has temporarily halted a

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...

Slovakia-based operation that allegedly tricked small businesses and non-profits into collectively paying millions of dollars to be listed in an online directory in which they had no interest in being listed and for which they did not understand they would be charged.  The FTC is seeking to permanently halt the alleged scam and require the defendants to refund the fees.

According to the FTC, the defendants send mailings to retailers, home-based businesses, local associations, and others who attend trade shows.  The mailings mention a specific trade show or exhibition and are designed to appear as though they are merely asking the recipient to update and check the accuracy of information for the “exhibitors directory” for the named trade show or exhibition.

As alleged in the FTC’s complaint, the mailings include a form stating that the recipient’s basic information has been listed in the directory for free, and instructing them to confirm its accuracy or make corrections on the form.  The form falsely suggests that the parties have a preexisting business relationship and that the directory listing is related to the recipient’s participation in the named trade show or exhibition.  Many recipients do not notice a statement, buried in fine print at the bottom of the form, that by signing and returning the form they agree to pay the defendants $1,717 per year for three years.  Often, the person who returns the form is not even authorized to enter into contracts for their employer.

According to the complaint, long after the form is signed and returned and the defendants’ 10-day cancellation period has expired, the defendants send an invoice demanding payment of $1,717 to a Slovakian bank account.  Those who challenge the invoice are told the order cannot be canceled.  Late payment notices follow, with late fees added, and some organizations pay just to end the harassment.

The FTC’s complaint was filed against Construct Data Publishers a.s., also doing business as Fair Guide, Wolfgang Valvoda, and Susanne AnhornConstruct Data moved from Austria to Slovakia in 2008, after being sued by Austrian authorities for deceptive practices.  To settle the Austrian case, Construct Data agreed to stop soliciting businesses in the European Union.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-0.  The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a temporary restraining order and asset freeze on March 15, 2013.

The FTC acknowledges the assistance of the United States Postal Inspection Service, the Attorney General’s Offices of California and Illinois, the Better Business Bureaus serving Central Ohio, Metropolitan New York, and Chicago and Northern Illinois, and the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre.

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 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 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.  Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Frank Dorman
Office of Public Affairs

202-326-2674
 
STAFF CONTACT:
Guy G. Ward
Bureau of Consumer Protection
312-960-5612

FTC Suit Halts Bogus Health Insurance Scam

For Release: 06/14/2012

The Federal Trade Commission has halted a telemarketing scam that allegedly tricked consumers who were seeking affordable health insurance into buying worthless medical discount plans. Health Care One LLC and three affiliated companies agreed to settlements that will bar them from any healthcare-related enterprise and from selling goods or services related to healthcare. The settlements also prohibit the defendants from violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule and require them to turn over their ill-gotten gains.

The settlement orders with Health Care One:

  1. Americans4Healthcare Inc.,
  2. Elite Business Solutions, Inc.,
  3. Mile High Enterprise Inc.,

and their principals resolve a complaint filed by the FTC in August 2010 as part of an agency crackdown on scams targeting Americans without health insurance.

Health Care One and its affiliates allegedly deceived consumers by marketing medical discount plans as government-endorsed health insurance and claiming they would deliver substantial savings on consumers’ healthcare costs. According to the FTC’s complaint, filed in Central District of California, the companies also falsely claimed that their program was widely accepted by healthcare providers in consumers’ local communities. The Health Care One companies touted their services in television commercials and radio ads. They promised “100% satisfaction” and a money-back guarantee.

However, the FTC alleged that Health Care One’s discount plans were not insurance, were not widely accepted by healthcare providers, and did not provide the promised healthcare savings to consumers.

According to the FTC’s complaint, the companies did not inform consumers that their program was not health insurance until after consumers signed up for the program and paid hundreds of dollars in fees. Consumers who subsequently tried to cancel their enrollment found that the Health Care One companies made it difficult or impossible to obtain refunds.

Shortly after the FTC filed its complaint, the Court issued preliminary injunctions against each of the Health Care One companies to halt their deceptive practices pending trial.

The settlement orders announced today require the defendants to surrender assets including the proceeds from the sale of an Aston Martin, a Maserati, a yacht, and two motorcycles. The orders also prohibit the defendants from making misrepresentations in connection with the sale of any good or service, including falsely representing: that a program is insurance; affiliation with, or endorsement or sponsorship by, the federal government; that purchase of a good or service will result in substantial savings to consumers; any material aspect of the good or service; the total costs associated with the good or service; and any material refund and cancellation policies, including, but not limited to, the likelihood of a consumer obtaining a full or partial refund, or the circumstances in which a full or partial refund will be granted to the consumer. The orders also bar the defendants from violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule, which prohibits misrepresentations in telephone sales and the making of unsolicited automated telemarketing calls.

In addition to the companies, the defendants in the case are Michael Jay Ellman; Robert Daniel Freeman; and Bryan Matthew Loving.

NOTE: These stipulated orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants that the law has been violated. Stipulated orders have the force of law when signed and approved by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information 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 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.  Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180
 
STAFF CONTACT:
Faye Chen Barnouw or Barbara Chun,
FTC Western Region – Los Angeles
310-824-4343