Failure to deliver payments on time
Complaint
Alex Campbell
Country: United States
We gave this company aurthority to proceed in retreiving our debt of over $50,000.00, at 30% commission. Now the agreement calls for us to receive our money 30 days after they have received money from our former customer.
It is over 90 days and we have only received 1 payment, which was nearly 40 days late. Now we are still waiting on the second payment and even that will be late.
Is there anything we can do that would make these people keep their word and make the payments as promised, or is this a Federal Law infraction and should we go to the Feds ( FBI ).
It is over 90 days and we have only received 1 payment, which was nearly 40 days late. Now we are still waiting on the second payment and even that will be late.
Is there anything we can do that would make these people keep their word and make the payments as promised, or is this a Federal Law infraction and should we go to the Feds ( FBI ).
Comments
"...
152. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that AtLast and the Willms Defendants knowingly and intentionally created confusion, or knowingly and intentionally misled consumers, regarding the source and customer service information of their goods to delay the return of their products by consumers by deflecting and directing their concerns to dazzlesmile and its customer service. This is because the Willms Defendants assert that they are somehow justified in continuing to charge the debit or credit cards of consumers for automatic renewals until their products are successfully returned to them or until the customers are able to actually notify them of the desire to cancel.
153. The unauthorized use of the dazzlesmile mark and name has created and will continue to create actual confusion among thousands, if not tens of thousands, of consumers as to the source of the teeth whitening products they purchased as well as to where they should return their product(s) and whom they should inform that they wish to discontinue automatic shipments.
154. dazzlesmile has also received letters of inquiry from numerous states attorneys general regarding consumer confusion and the misrepresentations made by Epic, Neverblue and
155. And many news outlets have run special or investigative reports describing how “dazzlesmile” or “dazzle smile” misled or deceived consumers or was a target of consumer complaints to state attorneys general, despite the “real” dazzlesmile having sold no products to those disgruntled consumers.
..."
Good Luck
Problem is, when you are dealing with a liar and a cheat, a "settlement" isn't worth the toilet paper it's written on, assuming you even get anything in writing, which most consumers never do. Furthermore, it does nothing to stop credit reporting of a "paid collection", even interfering with any attempts to get the paid fraudulent debt removed.
My advice to you is that if you are a debt collector with a portfolio of this trash, and you actually have a reputation worth preserving, you might want to stay clear, because this particular mess is becoming very "ripe".
1) The Senate Commerce Committee held hearings investigating negative-option charge cramming by "affinity" and "discount club" scams. One thing they found was the widespread use of deceptive web pages to obtain consumer "authorization" and pass account information.
2) The Senate committee sought information not only from the 3 major companies in that area, but also from the major credit card companies (VISA, MasterCard, American Express) about what they were doing to stop this consumer fraud. They found that consumer fraud losses were entering the billions of dollars.
3) The New York Attorney General is investigating not only the "discount club" negative-option cramming scams, but their marketing affiliates, many of which are well known name brands. Under this pressure, many have agreed to cut ties, even though these were very lucrative revenue streams.
4) VISA has responded to the Senate Committee pressure by requiring that any third party "authorization" pop-ups must now require that the consumer re-enter their card number, so that consumers at least know they are actually going to be charged for something.
5) VISA has announced in concert with BBB that they have cut off from access to their payment system over a hundred "acai berry" and similar negative-option charge cramming scams, due to high levels of complaints of fraudulent charges. (Some of the scams cut off might even be run by the same people behind the teeth whitening scams.)
6) Several state Attorney Generals have taken action against "teeth whitening" negative-option cramming scams. The Utah action was for deceptively designed websites.
7) The Dazzlewhite lawsuit has exposed the details of this particular operation, including the deliberate deceptive design of websites to minimize the chance that consumers will actually find the "terms and conditions" before parting with their account information, combined with the various tactics used to block and delay attempts to cancel or obtain refunds.
In effect, the goal was not to create a contract by clear notification to consumers of the terms of the offer, which they could then choose to accept, but instead by design to minimize the chance that consumers would even discover the terms before disclosing their account information. Thousands of consumer complaints indicate that they were successful.
8) The Dazzlewhite lawsuit also disclosed that the plaintiff has been bombarded by numerous Attorney General inquires resulting from the fraudulent activity of the defendants.
No question there is a lesson to learn from this. In fact there are several.
One is that if you leave a fraud alone, it just grows.
Another is to be careful who you sleep with.
Keep your nose clean.
Summaries of policy changes by two payment processors.
Note various practices referred to as "brand damaging", basically using deceptive practices to defraud consumers and steal money through the VISA or MasterCard payment systems.
Also note specific requirements on disclosure of terms and costs, including font size, location relative to acceptance button.
Current "teeth whitening" web pages fail to meet these requirements, and as outlined in the Dazzlewhite lawsuit, were deliberately constructed to hide disclosure of terms.
http://www.matthewbredel.com/1183/visa-mastercard-negative-option.html
http://www.billmcintosh.com/affiliate-marketi ... -account-rules/
FTC e-commerce advertising guidelines. Note that "teeth whitening" website negative-option disclosures deliberately avoid following most of the guidelines, obscuring the link to disclosure of terms in small print at the bottom of a long page separated from the path to order, and hiding the existence of the negative-option terms in a long contract paragraph deep into the separate terms page.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/ecommerce/bus41.pdf
16 CRF Part 425 Request for Comment Notice.
Note that the comment period was reopened in Fall 2009, at the request of several states.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/2009/may/090514negativeoptionplans.pdf
A year ago I responded to a complaint by a client of this collection agency who was having problems getting a response from them.
Recently, several months ago, there was a complaint indicating they were collecting on bogus "teeth whitening" debts. I found through various sources that the state of Utah had found that the websites used to sell these products were deceptively designed, and that a trademark lawsuit by former partners in the enterprise outlined the details of how they were designed. You can look at them today and see the construction just as described in the lawsuit.
The two complaints are entirely different, and no, I did not "rail" against them for a year.
What is your connection to them, or are you just a fan of teeth whitening products?
"...
Media Advisory: 08/12/2010
FTC to Announce Action Against Internet Marketers of Acai Berry Weight-Loss Pills and "Colon Cleansers"
Millions of consumers who are anxious to lose weight or prevent cancer have seen the ads: “…USE WITH CAUTION! Major weight loss in short periods of time may occur,” or “detoxify your organs,” and break down and remove “toxic waste matter which may have been stuck in the folds and wrinkles of your digestive system for years and years.” Come and learn from the victims themselves what the “free” trials of these products have cost, and how the Federal Trade Commission and the business community are taking action.
WHAT: The Federal Trade Commission will hold a press conference on Monday, August 16, 2010, at 10 a.m., to announce a lawsuit against a company that marketed acai berry weight-loss supplements and “colon cleansing” supplements by promising consumers “free” trials of the products.
WHO: David C. Vladeck, Director, FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection Martin Elliott, Senior Business Leader, Payment System Risk, Visa Inc. Two consumers who lost money on “free” trial offers promised by this company.
WHEN: Monday, August 16, 2010, 10 a.m. (The room will be open 30 minutes early for media set up.)
WHERE: Federal Trade Commission, Midwest Region
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1825
Chicago, Illinois
Call-in Information: The toll-free phone number in the U.S. and Canada is (866) 363-9013, the confirmation number is 94253184, and the chairperson is Gail Kingsland. The lines, which are for media only, will open at 9:45 a.m. CST. Please reference the confirmation number when joining the call.
PRESS CONTACT: FTC Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180
..."
http://www.warriorforum.com/main-internet-mar ... ial-offers.html
Confirms various commonly used deceptive tactics used by negative-option cramming scams, including tactics used to block attempts to cancel, consistent with disclosures in the Dazzlewhite lawsuit.
99 comments submitted.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/negoprulereopen
For example:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/negoprulereopen/543809-00005.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/negoprulereopen/543809-00051.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/negoprulereopen/543809-00069.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/negoprulereopen/543809-00019.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/negoprulereopen/543809-00066.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/negoprulereopen/543809-00031.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/negoprulereopen/543809-00047.htm
Comments by the Broward County Licensing and Consumer Protection Division, on "unfair and deceptive practices".
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/negoprulereopen/543809-00007.pdf
Comments from the Florida AG.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/negoprulereopen/543809-00099.pdf
Comments from the Colorado AG.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/negoprulereopen/543809-00096.pdf
Comments from the Vermont AG.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/negoprulereopen/543809-00098.pdf
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/negoprulereopen/543809-00098.pdf
"...consumers customarily do business based on the premise that they will not be bound, or incur any monetary obligations, unless and until there is a full "meeting of the minds" and genuine assent between the parties. Rooted in the concepts of offer and acceptance, consumers base their behavior on the notion that they are not "on the hook" until a "deal" is done, be it in the form of a handshake or a fully executed written contract. Free to pay conversion marketing turns those rules on their head, contrary to reasonably understood consumer expectations and assumptions. Lured by catch phrases such as "risk free" or "trial offer/' consumers ultimately find themselves bound in some fashion to take affirmative steps, all because their silence was deemed to be acquiescence.
Consequently, consumers are stuck with terms and monetary obligations to which they did not knowingly assent. By their comments, the States do not mean to suggest that consumers do not have an obligation to read and understand all material terms and conditions; the reality, though, is that free to pay conversion marketing uses a form of trickery, and sleight of hand as it were, to reap millions from consumers in a manner flatly contrary to the ordinary rules of consumer transactions. There is an inherent deception built into these plans by the marketers such that the rule of "caveat emptor" cannot control this marketplace.
As evidenced by consumer data gathered by the States, negative option marketing of the trial conversion type is an area ripe for deception and abuse, consistent with the FTC staffs observation that "some negative option practices generate significant consumer dissatisfaction."
..."
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRAL COAST NUTRACEUTICALS, INC.,
a California corporation,
iLIFE HEALTH AND WELLNESS, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
SIMPLY NATURALS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company,
FIT FOR LIFE, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company,
HEALTH AND_BEAUTY SOLUTIONS LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
GRAHAM D. GIBSON, and
MICHAEL A. MCKENZY,
Defendants.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1023028/index.shtm
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/08/acaicolon.shtm
"...
For Release: 8/16/2010
Court Orders Internet Marketers of Acai Berry Weight-Loss Pills and "Colon Cleansers" to Stop Deceptive Advertising and Unfair Billing Practices
Ads Feature Phony Endorsements Attributed to Oprah Winfrey, Rachael Ray
At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court has ordered the marketers of acai berry supplements, “colon cleansers,” and other products to temporarily halt an Internet sales scheme that allegedly scammed consumers out of $30 million or more in 2009 alone through deceptive advertising and unfair billing practices. The FTC will seek a permanent prohibition. Since 2007, victimized consumers have flooded law enforcement agencies and the Better Business Bureau with more than 2,800 complaints about the company.
Acai berry supplements, derived from acai palm trees that are native to Central and South America, have become popular in recent years. Last year, the Better Business Bureau named fake “free” trial offers – including those for acai supplements offered by the defendants in this case – as one of the “Top 10 Scams and Rip Offs of 2009.”
“Too many ‘free’ offers come with strings attached,” said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “In this case, the defendants promised buyers a ‘risk free’ trial and then illegally billed their credit cards again and again – and again. We estimate that about a million people have fallen victim to this scam. As if that weren’t enough, there were fake endorsements from celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and Rachael Ray for a product that didn’t work in the first place.”
The court order halts the allegedly illegal conduct of Central Coast Nutraceuticals, Inc., imposes an asset freeze, and appoints a temporary receiver over CCN and several related companies, while the FTC moves forward with its case to stop the company’s bogus health claims and other deceptive and unfair conduct.
The FTC charged CCN, two individuals, and four related companies with multiple violations, including deceptively advertising AcaiPure, an acai berry supplement, as a weight-loss product, and Colopure, a colon cleansing supplement, as an aid for preventing cancer.
...
The marketers also deceived consumers about their purported “free” or “risk free” trial offers, and about the charges and refund terms consumers could expect, according to the FTC’s complaint. The FTC also alleges that the marketers made numerous additional unauthorized charges to consumers’ credit and debit card accounts.
The alleged deceptive practices include:
Falsely claiming that using AcaiPure could lead to rapid and substantial weight loss. Consumers were told that “[m]ost consumers taking AcaiPure report weight loss anywhere from 10-25 pounds in the first month.”
Making unproven claims that AcaiPure’s weight-loss claims are backed by “double-blind, placebo-controlled weight loss studies.”
Deceptively claiming that Colopure could help prevent colon cancer because it would “cleanse your entire system,” “detoxify your organs,” and break down and remove “toxic waste matter which may have been stuck in the folds and wrinkles of your digestive system for years and years.”
Falsely claiming that celebrities including Oprah Winfrey and Rachael Ray have endorsed products marketed by Central Coast Nutraceuticals, Inc. In marketing AcaiPure, the defendants declared on their homepage, “Acai Berry rated #1 SUPERFOOD by Rachael Ray.” A photo of Oprah appeared on the homepage, next to a quote that read in part, “Studies have shown that this little berry is one of the most nutritious and powerful foods in the world!” In fact, in declarations to the FTC, both celebrities denied endorsing AcaiPure.
Deceptively claiming that the marketers will provide full refunds to all consumers who request them, and that consumers who paid a nominal fee for a “free” trial supply of supplements would incur no risks or obligations. In fact, many consumers found it all but impossible to avoid paying full price for the products, typically $39.95 to $59.95.
Failing to adequately disclose that consumers would be automatically enrolled in a membership program and charged for additional monthly supplies of a product.
Failing to adequately disclose that consumers would be automatically charged for items other than the trial product unless they opted out.
Failing to adequately disclose the terms and conditions of trial programs, membership programs, and additional charges.
Making numerous unauthorized charges to consumers’ credit and debit card accounts.
Debiting consumers’ bank accounts on an automatic, recurring basis, without obtaining proper preauthorization. The unauthorized debits violated the FTC Act as well as the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, according to the complaint.
“Visa is committed to ensuring that consumers trust digital currency when they shop online by protecting them from deceptive merchant marketing practices,” said Martin Elliott, Senior Business Leader, Payment System Risk, Visa Inc. “Deceptive merchant practices hurt the economy by eroding trust in e-commerce and undermining the vast majority of ethical merchants who deal and compete fairly. We have tightened enforcement of our rules against banks whose merchants generate excessive levels of cardholder disputes because of deceptive marketing. We also make it a priority to partner with law enforcement and agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and support their investigations such as this case.”
The FTC would like to thank the Better Business Bureau of Central, Northern & Western Arizona and Visa, Inc. for their invaluable assistance in this investigation.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and seek a temporary restraining order was 5-0. The FTC filed its complaint and requested a temporary restraining order against the defendants from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On August 6, 2010, the court granted the request for the temporary restraining order.
The complaint also names as defendants Graham D. Gibson and Michael A. McKenzy, and four companies affiliated with Central Coast Nutraceuticals, Inc. – iLife Health and Wellness LLC; Simply Naturals LLC; Health and Beauty Solutions LLC; and Fit for Life LLC.
..."
http://www.ag.ny.gov/bureaus/consumer_frauds/affinion.html
http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2010/aug/aug18a_10.html
Announcement of investigation.
http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2010/jan/jan27a_10.html
I don't have a portfolio of tooth whitening debtors and generally avoid consumer debts if possible.
Kathleen, I agree, TJ should have posted this rant in an Everbrite board or a tooth whitening scam board or a cramming board but to keep posting this on this board looks like he has something against the collection agency.
"October 2009 I sent away for a tooth whitner you just paid shipping and handling. I Got the product. And never heard a thing in till April 8 2010, when I reeiced a letter from Rapid Recovery Solutions telling me I owed 158.27. They told me I did not read the terms and conditions. I tried for several days to locate this company because I now was being told I owed 474.81."
One sample of product was received, then no further contact. How does the account keep growing when it is already in collections? (No, it's not "interest". That would make it 800% APR, and since neither of you are banks, would violate most states' usury laws.)
"On the charges I have three differant names now for this company Premiere Whitening.com phone number no good Beutyclub spelled that way phone number no good and the last one Hollywood Beauty Labs Inc again bad phone number. "
Note the tactics used to cram charges despite attempts to block them, by using multiple names, and the disconnected numbers to prevent cancellations, regardless of the "terms". Deception through confusion, similar to tactics outlined in the Dazzlewhite suit.
"Today I got a letter from their attorney again saying I did not read the terms and conditions."
Your new hire kids writing your "attorney letters"?
As indicated in the Dazzlewhite suit, the websites were designed to make it unlikely that consumers would read the terms and conditions. What sort of "contract" do you get when the seller doesn't intend that the terms be noticed, and that the buyer in fact did not notice them, as the seller intended?
Offer, acceptance, consideration ...
The "offer", if any, was where the minds met. That leaves out the "terms and conditions".
"Teeth whitener in a pen", or "prepaid debit card" with $160 taken from consumer's bank account as obscurely disclosed "fees", it's all the same. The product is worthless compared to the "fees", yet disclosure of the fees is deliberately obscured. Take the money, then keep the excuses coming until consumers give up demanding refunds.
http://ftc.gov/os/caselist/0623125/070730edebitpaycmplt.pdf
There is a lot of this going around.
collection. They proceeded to contact customer without my authorization and then billed me for and outrageous amount of money. No contact from Rapid Recover; my calls and emails went unanswered. I never rec'd any monies from debtor.