Skip to main content

FTC Sends Refund Checks to Victims of "Wal-Mart Shopping Spree" Scam

This week, an administrator working for the Federal Trade Commission began mailing checks to more than 172,000 consumers nationwide who were defrauded by a scam in which consumers were falsely promised free gifts such as shopping sprees, movie passes, and gas vouchers and wrongfully paid monthly fees for “program memberships” in discount buying and travel clubs. Consumers who were victims of the “Wal-Mart Shopping Spree” scam will receive a total of more than $3 million in refunds. These are legitimate checks, and the FTC urges consumers to cash them.

In this 2008 case, known as Universal Premium Services, Inc., the court banned Brian K. McGregor, the architect of the scheme, from telemarketing and selling program memberships. McGregor and Membership Services Direct, Inc., also known as Continuity Partners, Inc., were ordered to pay $28.2 million.
The amount of money consumers receive from the redress administrator will vary, depending on how much they lost in the scam. The average check will be for about $18 per consumer. The redress administrator will mail checks directly to eligible consumers.
The refund checks must be cashed within 60 days of receipt, or they will become void. Consumers should call 1-866-783-5589 with any questions or click on the Internet link here. The FTC never requires the payment of money up front, or the provision of additional information, before consumers cash refund checks issued to them.

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 ...