Skip to main content

OPERATOR WHO CRAMMED UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES FOR WEB SITE SERVICES ONTO PHONE BILLS ORDERED TO PAY $4.1 MILLION OVER FTC CHARGES

A U.S. district court has ordered a halt to the illegal operations of an defendant who crammed unauthorized charges for Web site services onto the phone bills of hundreds of thousands of small businesses and non-profit organizations. The Federal Trade Commission charged that the operation violated federal law and, following a trial, District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt ordered the defendant to permanently halt the unlawful practices and give up more than $4.1 million in ill-gotten gains.

In June 2006, the FTC charged a group of interrelated businesses and individual defendants with cramming unauthorized charges onto the phone bills of small businesses and nonprofit organizations for Web site services that, in many cases, they had not requested and did not know they had. The agency alleged that the operators used telemarketers to make cold calls to small businesses and non-profits, and offered a “free”15-day trial of a Web site design. The consumers were told there was no charge or obligation and that the Web site would be cancelled automatically if it was not approved by the consumers. The defendants made “verification recordings” that implied that the consumer agreed to be billed for the offer after the free trial, when they did not. Whether the consumers agreed or not, their phone bills often were charged. When consumers called to dispute the charges, the operators told them they had “verification recordings” of an employee authorizing the charges.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more