Skip to main content

FTC Charges 'Credit Card' Companies with Deceptive Marketing

The Federal Trade Commission has filed a complaint in federal court alleging that a catalog credit card operation deceptively marketed its card, failed to honor its refund policy, and charged up-front fees for a guaranteed line of credit. The defendants, who charged consumers hundreds of dollars in fees for the card, voluntarily agreed to an order that prohibits the practices alleged in the complaint pending trial. The FTC seeks to permanently stop the unlawful practices and make the defendants provide refunds to consumers.

According to the FTC’s complaint, in mailers sent to consumers with credit problems, the defendants stated that consumers could “build” their credit by using a “Pre-Approved” “Platinum-level” credit card with a “GUARANTEED” $7,500 credit line and a cash advance benefit. Although the card appeared to be a regular credit card, it could be used only to purchase products from the defendants’ catalog, and only for part of the product purchase price. The defendants debited from consumers’ bank accounts 30 percent of each purchase plus shipping costs for products sold at greatly inflated prices. Consumers weren’t adequately informed that a 30 percent down payment would be required, that $397 in fees ($79 processing fee, $120 activation fee, $198 annual fee) also would be debited from their bank accounts, that the “cash advance” was really an opportunity to apply for a payday loan from a third-party lender, and that card users could not “build” their credit because their payment history was not reported to credit reporting agencies.

The defendants offered to refund the $120 fee to consumers who returned the card and catalog within 30 days, but the defendants often failed to deliver the catalog within the refund period, according to the complaint. Disclosures in the mailers were confusing, contradictory, out of context, and buried in pages of fine print. The defendants allegedly withheld details until consumers provided their bank account number, and then revealed as little information as possible. Disclosures about the terms and conditions, such as how fees are paid, did not correct the false impression left by the defendants, the FTC alleges.

The defendants are charged with violating the FTC Act and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by falsely representing that the card could be used to fully finance purchases; that it would provide access to a no-fee, low cost, or guaranteed cash advance benefit; and that consumers could improve their credit ratings by using the card. They also failed to disclose that they would debit from consumers’ bank accounts the advance fees, a non-refundable annual fee, and 30 percent of a product’s price plus shipping costs. In addition, the defendants falsely claimed that they would refund the $120 activation fee to consumers who returned the card and catalog in timely fashion. The defendants also allegedly violated the TSR by charging an advance fee for a guaranteed extension of credit.

The defendants are Low Pay, Inc., doing business as LPC Inc., lowpaycard.com, and mylpcard.com; LP Capital Holdings, Inc.; Century Luxury, Inc.; the Mardan Afrasiabi Living Trust; Mardan M. Afrasiabi; and Ramin Rahimi. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Oregon.

The FTC acknowledges the Oregon Department of Justice and Oregon Attorney General John Kroger for their substantial assistance with the FTC’s investigation.

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 1,700 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.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Frank Dorman,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2674

STAFF CONTACT:
Eleanor Durham,
FTC’s Northwest Region
206-220-4476

(FTC File No. 0923019)
(Low Pay)

Comments

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.

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...

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 ...