Skip to main content

Maker of Rascal Scooters to Pay $100,000 for Violating FTC’s Do Not Call Rules

The manufacturer of Rascal Scooters, used by disabled and senior consumers with limited mobility, will pay $100,000 to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it illegally called millions of consumers who had chosen to avoid unwanted telemarketing calls by listing their phone numbers on the national Do Not Call Registry. The FTC alleges the firm illegally used phone numbers gathered from sweepstakes entry forms to contact consumers whose numbers are on the Registry.

The FTC’s complaint charges scooter manufacturer Electric Mobility Corporation and its owner Michael Flowers with making more than three million illegal sales calls since 2003 to consumers on the Do Not Call Registry who had entered the company’s “Win a Free Rascal” sweepstakes. According to the FTC, in small print under the part of the sweepstakes form provided for the entrant’s phone number, EMC reminded consumers to list their numbers so the company could contact them if they were “the next lucky winner.”

EMC encourages consumers to enter its sweepstakes through direct mailing, newspapers, and television advertisements. The FTC charged that its conduct violated both the FTC Act and the Do Not Call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule.

The FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule allows a company to call a consumer on the Do Not Call Registry for up to 18 months if it has an “established business relationship” with the consumer and he or she has not asked the firm to stop calling. However, under the Rule, a company may not rely on a completed sweepstakes entry form to establish a business relationship with a consumer. In fact, the FTC consistently has said that simply obtaining a consumer’s phone number – as EMC did with its sweepstakes – does not establish a relationship that would exempt it from the Do Not Call rules.

The order settling the FTC’s charges bars EMC from using sweepstakes entries as the basis for claiming an established business relationship with any consumer. The order also includes monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure that EMC complies with its terms.

In addition, the order imposes civil penalties against both EMC and Flowers for their alleged violation of the FTC Act. Flowers will pay $100,000, and EMC is subject to a $2 million penalty, which is suspended based on its inability to pay. If EMC is found to have misrepresented its financial condition, the full penalty will become due immediately.

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 ...