Stop montly withdrawal from my bank acc
Complaint
Mohammed Saad
Country: United States
I have received a monthly charge on my Bank of America account for $40 dated Feb09. I did receive a phone call claimed to be from Bank of America some time ago to try a certain insurance for a trial period. to be followed by more details.Nothing was received until I got a charge of $40 off my acc. I wrote to B of A who did not seem to know who the "merchant" was. I want to CANCELL this montly charge effective immediatly and the $40 charged to my acc reversed.
Thanks
Mohammed
Thanks
Mohammed
Comments
http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/5_ ... racy/index.html
"June 29, 2009
States win a round on bank law preemption
UPDATE: LA Times story. New York Times story. USA Today story. Finally, here is the Forbes story. The bank kids do a good job in all these stories of sticking to their tired, false "patchwork" messaging. They seem to like that better than "balkanization" these days even if neither is accurate. What happened is this: The court simply put real corporate crime cops back on the beat enforcing their narrow set of non-preempted laws. The next step, reinstating all the other state laws OCC wrongly preempted, is up to Congress.
Original post: The Supreme Court has issued its decision in Cuomo vs. Clearinghouse and OCC, holding that when a state attorney general seeks to enforce state laws over national banks in his or her role as the state's chief law enforcer, he or she is not preempted by the overly-broad OCC preemption rules. However, the decision is not 100% on our side, as it is unclear how investigations could be conducted under the lines drawn by the court. In any case, we knew that win this case or not, we'd still need Congress and the President to go further to reinstate state rights, as the President has proposed. We'll have more after our legal eagles analyze the scope of the decision.
We were amicus in the case on the side of the states. Dow Jones via CNN Money. Lauren Saunders of the National Consumer Law Center has issued a statement: Excerpt:
“The Supreme Court today has given states only a limited ability to enforce state fair lending laws. States can sue if they are confident that a violation has occurred, but cannot act responsibly by investigating first. Banks’ lending practices are a black box, and states cannot peer inside to see what is really happening. The decision also leaves in place a number of other decisions and regulations, based on the same Civil War-era law, that continue to allow banks to ignore state predatory lending and other consumer protection laws."
Posted by Ed Mierzwinski at 11:48 AM | Comments (0)
..."
Senate investigation into preacquired account marketing fraud.
http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/5_ ... racy/index.html
"May 29, 2009
Rockefeller moves on click-to-ripoff scams
John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation today announced a Senate Commerce Committee investigation into certain e-commerce marketing practices that generate thousands of mysterious monthly charges to consumer credit cards.
Remember Memberworks and its assorted travel, medical and roadside assistance clubs? It's b-a-a-c-c-k. Actually, it never left, but its newer name is Vertrue. From Chairman Rockefeller's press release:
On many well-known websites, including Fandango.com and Orbitz.com, after consumers make a purchase, a hyperlink or “pop up” window appears and offers consumers a cash back reward if they sign up for a company’s online membership service.
The Rockefeller investigation will drill-down into "click-to-ripoff" scams involving Vertrue and other "club" companies that have "relationships" with popular sites like Orbitz and Fandango on the Internet. Here's a letter, or Rockefeller-gram, to Vertrue. The relationships being investigated involve old practices popularized by the banks and supposedly fixed by the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act and later by amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule.
The practices? Pre-acquired account telemarketing and "free-to-pay" scams. Without your informed consent, if any consent at all -- a company you "trust" (some of the companies you used to trust were called "banks") shares your confidential credit card, debit card or even checking account information with a "marketing partner" that it "trusts" to provide it with massive commissions after it signs you up for products you didn't order and clubs you didn't join.
In the free-to-pay variant, you might get a few weeks free. But unlike the Mickey Mouse Club, you don't even get a cool hat. You just get monthly bills and find it a royal pain in the neck to get your money back.
Yes, Virginia, it is "very true" that websites are sharing your credit card number with third parties that bill you for products you didn't order and club memberships for clubs you didn't join. But, you say, "I just clicked on a "special offer" popup and immediately closed the horrific page of junky offers. I had no idea they could, or would, enroll me for looking at a page for two seconds. They can do that?"
Yes, websites could and yes, they would. And they have for years (my previous blog). But maybe, as part of this investigation and the renewed Congressional oversight of the financial system, the old problem of "pre-acquired account telemarketing" will finally be solved.
The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act was supposed to fix a lot of things. It was supposed to remove barriers that prevented financial firms from becoming giant one-stop financial supermarkets that would create synergies, boost competition, offer consumers choices, lower prices and make America strong. How's that going for you?
In response to a rotten privacy scandal involving Memberworks and U.S. Bank, first uncovered by the Minnesota Attorney General, GLBA was also supposed to stop banks and other firms from sharing your credit card, debit card and even checking account numbers with "trusted" marketing partners without your consent. Who needs identity theft? An identity thief didn't steal your information and sell it. Your bank had it already and sold it.
Just as its consolidation of the banking industry didn't work out, GLBA didn't completely solve this problem, either, so after pressure from the state attorneys general, the FTC made changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule to further limit the seamy practice of "pre-acquired account telemarketing" as explained in these supplemental comments of the Minnesota and Illinois Attorneys General. As the Minnesota comments make clear, it isn't just hard to avoid being signed up without consent, it's hard to cancel.
Some financial institutions have a “hotline” system so that consumer calls can be transferred directly from the customer service center at the financial institution to the retention department of the preacquired account seller. As one bank told its customer service representatives: We prefer that cardmembers contact the Business Partner directly when
attempting to cancel. However, when a call comes into [Bank], we will attempt to re-route the call to the Business Partner via an abbreviated warm transfer, i.e., we introduce the caller and then the Business Partner handles the call.
Unfortunately, GLBA and the TSR include only limited protections against pre-acquired account telemarketing and related "free-to-pay" scams. Let's hope Senator Rockefeller's investigation leads to more financial privacy reforms, including on the Internet.
Believe it or not, Vertrue even has a page warning about pre-acquired account telemarketing, even though that's its game.
More links:
My testimony from a 2002 Senate hearing on privacy and Gramm-Leach Bliley. Other pro-privacy witnesses at the hearing included the Minnesota and Vermont Attorneys General and Phyllis Schlafly, head of the conservative Eagle Forum. Among the industry witnesses was John Dugan, now head of the obscure, but powerful, federal OCC (previous blog).
An article from the Multinational Monitor about Memberworks and U.S. Bank.
New credit law will regulate Freecreditreport.com, a classic free-to-pay scam.
Well. as you can see, I am so excited about this investigation, this blog could go on and on...
Posted by Ed Mierzwinski at 06:03 AM | Comments (0)
..."
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F ... nth=5&Year=2009
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/5270 ... yaltyLetter.pdf
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/52709GaryJohnsonVertrueLetter0.pdf
https://complaintwire.org/Complaint.aspx/_nGgYsBqmABT1QjKTAT2mA
Complaints, including Do Not Call complaints, tied to number used for National Union Fire Insurance Co telemarketing connected to Chase, Wells Fargo, US Bank. Number also shows up used by debt collector and "auto warranty" telemarketer, so it's probably a telemarketing call center.
Note that asking for identifying information, just to "send information on insurance", is a deceptive attempt to obtain "verifiable authorization" that can be used to make unauthorized charges to consumers' accounts through preacquired account information already in the hands of telemarketers. Claiming to offer some prize or reward is generally the opening line in a similar deceptive offer.
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-800-553-1077
Apparent deceptive attempt to obtain "verifiable authorization", in connection with telemarketing to Chase customers.
"Andrew - 6 May 2008
I got a call from this number claiming to be from Chase credit card services and asking me to provide DOB and other information to claim some sort of award. I refused as this request seemed suspicious."
"Rating: +3 Ilias - 25 Jul 2007
Possible Scam involving Wells Fargo!
Hello,
I just got off the phone with a sales person claiming to be with Wells Fargo, a female with a foreign accent that I couldn't identify. She didn't give her name, but she knew mine. The number used showed up on my caller ID, 1-800-553-1077. She was tryng to sell me a life/medical insurance policy, and the pitch went something like this. All she needed to enroll me in the program was verification of some personal information like my name and address. If I agreed, I would be automatically enrolled in the program, over the phone. After verification, and only after verification of my personal information would the insurance policy would be sent to my home address for my review. I would have 60 days to go over the full details of the policy, and I could disenroll at any time during those 60 days. I didn't give any personal information, just said I wasn't interested. I just did a Google search on the phone number and saw several listings of suspicious activity from it.
July 24th, 2007 8:45 PM
Caller Type: Telemarketer"
Probable deceptive attempt to obtain some acknowledgement that could be misrepresented as "authorization".
"Rating: +2 Kira - 15 Oct 2007
Said he was from AIG offering $25 gas voucher for just looking at their $2 million accidental death insurance policy. I told him to remove me. We'll see.
Caller ID: "Unknown Name"
Caller: AIG?
Caller Type: Telemarketer"
Negative option free to pay attempt.
"roxanne - 16 May 2008
I finally answered the phone tonight because I was tired of them calling and it was Wells Fargo Home Mortgage trying to sell life insurance. They say they are sending me a $50 gas card even if we decide not get the insurance(which we will not get!)."
Deceptive attempt to obtain "verifiable authorization".
"Billy - 21 Dec 2007
A man at this number called me today, said he was calling from my mortgage company. I asked him to verify this and he did.
He offered me insurance. I said, "mail it to me."
He wanted to verify my info. Me, idiot, started to.
I gave name, address, date and city of birth, then my idiot bell went, "ding".
I asked for his name, company and position. He said, "a telemarketing company". I asked him to not force me to call my lawyer. He hung up. Dialing *69 revealed the phone number. I called it and got a circular message from "INSURANCE SERVICES". I called my lawyer to ask if this was PHISHING. She said it is and is illegal, but there is little to do but write to the state attorney general, which I have done.
I will be filing a complaint formally against this "business".
I am already on the Federal Do Not Call Registry.
They offer little further protection, if any.
It seems like this number is traceable to many "businesses". Maybe it's just a masked point-of-origin number like the kids use to mess with each other.
Caller: "INSURANCE SERVICES"
Caller Type: Telemarketer"
Deceptive attempt to obtain "verifiable authorization".
"howdy - 12 Feb 2008
i got a call from this number and i am only 18, some kind of insurance thing they wanted to enroll me in and wanted me to verify my name and everything. stupid me did, i verified everything, what an idiot i am. then i did some research on the number and found this, now i feel like a [***]! WHAT CAN THEY DO WITH MY NAME, NUMBER, P.O. BOX, DATE OF BIRTH, AND CITY OF MY BIRTH ANYWAY! i gave that information to them and now i do not know what they r going to do with that information.
Caller ID: 800-533-1077
Caller: Toll Free Number"
Deceptive attempt to obtain "verifiable authorization".
"Rating: +2 Dan - 28 Feb 2008
I got a call from this number (1-800-553-1077) today. It was some guy saying he was with U.S.Bank. He wanted me to verify some data so they could upgrade my account. After about 10 seconds of listening to this guy he started mumbling like. So I asked him to repeat what he just said and he hung up. Yeah It was a Total Scam.
Caller ID: Unavailable"
Deceptive attempt to obtain "verifiable authorization".
"SF Bay Heat - 10 Apr 2008
The caller stated that she was with Wells Fargo, and would arrange for my spouse to be on permanent disability (like a bank wants one not to work). They told her they'd send information, they only required PII (personal identifying information). This is known as Phishing, and is a method employed to gain PII and steal identities for credit! Don't fall for this; don't give them information."
Deceptive attempt to obtain "verifiable authorization" from an 8 year old.
"Rating: 0 T.L. - 24 Jul 2008
My son who is only eight years old answered the telephone there was a lady on the on the line trying to get him to make financial decisions. I found this to be very unprofessional and appalling.i asked them not to call but they do only know they ask if their is an adult who can make financial decisions. i just wish they stop calling.
Caller ID: 8009336004
Caller: Toll Free Number"
Deceptive attempt to obtain "verifiable authorization".
"Aaron Rosenberg - 22 Sep 2008
Was told that I'm eligible to win some amount over a million dollars. Was not given a name, and didn't get that far before I hung up on them.
Caller ID: *69ing back, "insurance servic
Caller: National Union Fire Insurance
Caller Type: Telemarketer"
Deceptive attempt to obtain "verifiable authorization".
"Micha - 17 Dec 2008
I got a call from this number, too. I tried to make my voice sound like a helpless old lady. They took the bait and insisted that I give them my address so they could send me out some insurance info with the chance of winning 1 million dollars for a $25 fee. I asked if I could call them back and she gave me this number: 866-495-9378 it's the same company and I went OFF on them!
Caller ID: 800-553-1077
Caller Type: Telemarketer"
Reported to be a telemarketer known as Sitel.
"Bettie - 12 Aug 2009
It is actually a telemarketer service www.sitel.com They are hired by lenders, insurance companies, etc. If they call again, ask to speak to a supervisor and demand that you be removed from their list.
Caller ID: Insurance Services 800-553-107
Caller: http://www.sitel.com/Content.asp?id=6
Caller Type: Telemarketer"
Deceptive telemarketing.
"Rating: 0 pamela - 15 Aug 2009
I have been called repeatedly, 4-5 times/day and finally I answered. "She" blathered on about something related to HSBC with whom I do have an acct. They then said I can cancel within 45 days and I said, no, I don't want it in the first place, there's no need to cancel something I didn't agree to., they said thats why there's an option to cancel. I emphatically said
"NO" and they hung up on me. Have tried to call back but impossible to reach a "live" person. I can't wait for the mail, I'll raise as much hell as possible and report to authorities. It appears they are connected to HSBC. I suggest contacting HSBC if you have an acct.
Caller ID: Insurance SVC
Caller: phone read "Insurance SVC"
http://classactiondefense.jmbm.com/2009/06/ca ... se_case_29.html#
1) the call is being recorded illegally in violation of state law, or
2) if only part of the call is recorded (the "authorization"), then the recording does not meet the FTC TSR requirements for "verifiable authorization", since the recording does not include the whole sales pitch.
FTC's own guidance to business in this area is that recording of the call must be announced at the beginning prior to actual recording, and then stated again after recording starts so that the recording includes the announcement that the call is being recorded.
Footnote from Cox's paper:
"17 NAAG Comments I, supra note 11, at 12 (“Preacquired account marketers rarely, if ever, directly ask the consumer for authority to charge his or her account. Instead the telemarketer asks the consumer a general question about whether or not she or he understands the terms of the offer,” including asking the consumer to verify their birth date or state mother’s maiden name.)"
http://www.shakibdiscovernoticeofclassactionsettlement.com/shakib.html
"Shakib, et al. v. Discover Financial Services Corporation, et al. Settlement
..."
http://www.shakibdiscovernoticeofclassactionsettlement.com/faqs.html
"What is this case about?
In this lawsuit, plaintiffs claim that customer information was improperly used by Discover for or in its marketing or was improperly disclosed by Discover to third parties including, but not limited to its parents, its subsidiaries or affiliates. Plaintiffs claim that such use or disclosure violated their rights to privacy and constituted unjust enrichment and unfair competition under California law, and they seek compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits and attorneys' fees and costs.
Discover denies all claims of wrongdoing, asserts that Discover's use and disclosure of customer information was proper and complied with its privacy policies and credit card agreements and applicable privacy laws and asserts that Discover's customers have not been injured. The Court has not made any determination about the strengths or weaknesses of plaintiffs' claim or Discover's defenses in this lawsuit.
Nevertheless, Defendants contend that they have agreed to the proposed settlement only to avoid the burden and expense of further defending the lawsuit. Plaintiffs believe that the claims asserted in the lawsuit have merit but that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the members of the "Settlement Class," as that term is defined below, given the risk and expense of further prosecuting the lawsuit.
...
What benefits does this settlement provide for the Settlement Class Members?
Identity Fraud Insurance Coverage
As a result of this settlement, Discover has agreed to provide Identity Fraud Insurance Coverage ("Identity Fraud Insurance Coverage") through a Master Policy underwritten by Travelers Excess and Surplus Lines Company with the following terms, among others: a limit of $10,000, with a $250 deductible, lost wages coverage of $500 per week for a maximum of four weeks, coverage periods of either 120 days or 90 days, as detailed below, and including other terms that are substantially similar (as determined by the Court) to the policy attached as Exhibit 1 to the Class Notice which can be found on this website.
The Identity Fraud Insurance Coverage will be provided to all Persons who as of the first day of the insurance coverage are current cardmembers, hold a credit card issued by Discover, have open accounts and are not delinquent, have had a billing address for their credit cards from Discover in California at any time from December 31, 1998 to June 15, 2009, who will receive in the ordinary course of Discover's business a monthly statement during the calendar month in which the insurance coverage commences, including each Cardmember of a given account, and who do not exclude themselves from the settlement as described above in FAQ #4 (collectively referred to hereafter as the "Discover Insureds"). Persons who fall within this description will automatically receive the Identity Fraud Insurance Coverage, without the need for any action or request on their part.
In the event a Discover Insured has a claim under the Policy, the Discover Insured must report the claim to the insurance company underwriting the Policy according to the Policy claim provisions, and the Discover Insured must comply with the Policy terms and provisions. The Identity Fraud Insurance Coverage will automatically terminate upon the conclusion of its term, without the need for any action or request on the part of the persons who receive the coverage.
The Discover Insureds who had a California billing address, at any time, from December 30, 1998 to December 31, 2004 (referred to hereafter as the "Group 1 Insureds") will receive the Identity Fraud Insurance Coverage for 120 days. The Discover Insureds who had a California billing address, at any time, from January 1, 2005 to June 15, 2009 (referred to hereafter as the "Group 2 Insureds") will receive the Identity Fraud Insurance Coverage for 90 days. In the event an individual is a member of both Group 1 Insureds and Group 2 Insureds, then that individual will receive the Identity Fraud Insurance Coverage for 120 days.
The coverage period of the Identity Fraud Insurance Coverage for both the Group 1 Insureds and Group 2 Insureds will be the time period that begins on the first day of a month beginning no later than 90 days after the judgment in the lawsuit becomes final and that ends 120 days and 90 days, respectively, after the first day of such month. Discover will post the dates of the coverage period, at least 14 days prior to the start of the coverage period, on this website.
..."
So Discover pays off the class action attorneys, pays money to a bunch of charities, and pays for identity fraud insurance for class members for 90 or 120 days, which does not cover any fraud discovered outside of the policy period.
And who is the provider of this policy:
http://www.shakibdiscovernoticeofclassactions ... f_Insurance.pdf
"...
The Master Policy has been issued to
INTERSECTIONS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.
315 West University Drive
Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004
(the "Master Policy Holder")
Policy Number. 105168912
underwritten and issued by:
Travelers Excess and Surplus Lines Company
One Tower Square
Hartford, CT 06183 ("Travelers")
to provide insurance to an Insured Person as set forth in the Master Policy and as described in this Certificate of Insurance
..."
Other sources show that Intersections Insurance was a third party marketer with which Discover has had a marketing agreement to sell products to its customers, selling... "identity fraud insurance".
employee here. The birth date given was incorrect
These people are cons. Do not talk to them.
Include in your report their attempt to pass off a fraudulent phone recording, so regulatory authorities have on record that they engage in such fraudulent practices.
Who gave the fake birthdate, a telemarketing caller, or someone with a recording of a fake "authorization"?
http://forums.techguy.org/random-discussion/4 ... vacysource.html
"...
After doing some research and talking with a customer service representative at Bank of America, I come to find out that around the end of 2004, Bank of America automatically subscribed their Visa card customers to the BAC Privacysource service without their consent and began unauthorized charges for the service to customer’s Visa card accounts. I vaguely remember that when we received new Visa cards about that time, that there was a prominant announcement of improved identity theft protection, but apparently only if you had read the fine print would you know that you were being automatically subscribed to a paid service, and only if you read the fine print would you know that you must call BAC Privacysource at 1-800-243-9404 within 30 days after receipt of the new Visa cards to cancel the service and avoid the charges. Apparently failure to call the number within 30 days of receipt of the cards constitutes acceptance of the subscription from Bank of America’s point of view.
I called Bank of America Visa card customer service and told them that I wanted to contest the charges from BAC Privacysource. They told me that I was not allowed to contest the charges because BAC Privacysource was a Bank of America internal company and that they had an agreement with BAC Privacysource that they would not contest their charges. This was the point when I began to get angry.
I repeatedly attempted to call BAC Privacysource at 1-800-243-9404 but I could never get through to a live person. With each attempt I spent perhaps ten minutes navigating through multiple layers of their automated phone system before hearing a recorded message saying that all of their customer service representatives were busy and that I should call back later, and then the system would hang up on me. I called Bank of America Visa card customer service and asked them to connect me to BAC Privacysource and they were able to connect me to a live person immediately. My impression was that BAC Privacysource intentionally makes it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to reach a live person to cancel their service.
When I was finally in contact with a live person at BAC Privacysource, she started reading a scripted sales pitch and would not stop talking. Even when I lost my temper and raised my voice, she paused only momentarily and charged ahead with her sales pitch. Finally after her reading through the sales pitch I was able to tell the girl that I wanted to cancel the service and that I wanted a refund of all charges. Her response was another sales pitch. Ultimately I was given a cancellation number and told that the charge made on 1-13-06 would be reversed within two to three weeks, but that the
1-13-05 charge would not be reversed. After much argument, the only thing the girl would do about the 1-13-05 charge was to give me an address to send a letter:
Privacysource Support Services
P.O. Box 6123
Westerville, Ohio 43081
I tried to get a phone number from directory service and found that there was no listing for BAC Privacysource or Privacysource Support Services or any permutation of that name in the Westerville Ohio area. I called the Westerville Ohio chamber of commerce and they likewise had no listing or knowledge of such a company.
..."
References to similar consumer complaints that Trilegiant and their bank partners put barriers in the way of consumers disputing unauthorized Trilegiant charges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinion_Group
The consumer can dispute all he wants, even claiming the recording is doctored or a fabrication (as it often is), and the bank and telemarketer can simply ignore the evidence of fraud, dismissing the consumer's dispute as erroneous.
There is no way for the consumer to verifiably prove that even a fraudulent "verifiable authorization" is fraudulent, with any more certainty than any other disputed charge, even one with no recorded "verifiable authorization".
Only rare "recordings" are provably rebuttable by the consumer (male voice recorded for a female victim, away from home on day of call, etc.), and in fact, telemarketers have learned to counter even these disputes by claiming "your son (or husband) authorized the charges", as reported in several consumer complaints and despite the relative not even being on the account in question.
All suspect recordings challenged by disputes are dismissable as "innocent error", not proving or even hinting at fraud, with no obligation on the bank to treat the charge as fraudulent, and with no consequences to the telemarketer.
After multiple levels of rejecting claims of fraudulent charges, the number of such charge disputes that survive still classified as "due to fraud" is so low, that they can just be ignored as "normal and acceptable error", even though the telemarketer "annual retention rate" statistics point to consumers not wanting the "product" being "sold" in most cases.
http://philadelphia.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/ph103009.htm
"For Immediate Release
October 30, 2009
United States Attorney's Office
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Contact: (215) 861-8200
President of Telemarketing Fraud Business Pleads Guilty
PHILADELPHIA—Neal D. Saferstein, 36, of Mount Laurel, NJ, pleaded guilty today to four counts of an indictment stemming from a multi-million dollar telemarketing scam that defrauded as many as 400,000 small businesses out of as much as $75 million, announced U.S. Attorney Michael L. Levy. Saferstein was the President and Chief Executive Officer of GoInternet.net, Inc. (“GoInternet”), which did business at 20 N. Third Street, and 6 Strawberry Street, in Philadelphia. GoInternet allegedly derived more than $75 million in gross revenues from a fraudulent telemarketing scheme that lasted from 2001 to 2004. Co-defendant Tyrone L. Barr, 35, of Philadelphia, was Vice President of Customer Service and Regulatory Affairs. Co-defendant Billy D. Light, 41, of Voorhees, NJ, was Chief Information Officer. Saferstein pleaded guilty today to one count of wire fraud, one count of mail fraud, and two counts of filing false tax returns. Sentencing is scheduled for February 2010.
According to the indictment, the entire GoInternet business model was designed to defraud customers and potential customers into making monthly $29.00 payments for Internet-related services without their knowledge or authorization. GoInternet’s telemarketers duped customers into receiving a welcome packet without disclosing that the mailing would trigger monthly bills unless the customer called to cancel. The packets were then designed to look like bulk business mail to prompt it to be disregarded or thrown away. GoInternet engaged in “cramming.” It would place monthly charges on its customers’ local telephone bills, without authorization, which customers routinely paid without noticing. By approximately 2003, GoInternet employed over 1,000 telemarketers and was signing on approximately 7,500 new customers every week. By the end of 2003, GoInternet’s customer base included more than 350,000 businesses.
Saferstein prevented customers from receiving notices disclosing the cost of services, and delayed and prevented refunds from going to customers that had been defrauded and were promised refunds. Barr created fake sales-verification tapes which were purported to contain the telemarketer’s call to the customer and the customer’s consent. Barr pleaded guilty to wire fraud and is awaiting sentencing.
In 2003, the Federal Trade Commission brought a civil proceeding regarding GoInternet’s practice of billing consumers for services without their authorization, which resulted in a $58 million judgment being imposed against Saferstein and GoInternet. Light admitted that Saferstein directed him to testify falsely before the federal district court in Philadelphia during the FTC proceedings. Light pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit perjury and is awaiting sentencing.
Saferstein also used GoInternet corporate funds as if they were in his personal bank account, paying for significant personal expenses. He also failed to report income from the years 2000 to 2003 allegedly exceeding $1.7 million. In addition, the indictment charges defendant Saferstein with failing to pay over to the Internal Revenue Service more than $2.8 million in payroll taxes while he ran GoInternet.
Saferstein faces a maximum penalty of 46 years' imprisonment with a maximum fine of $1 million.
Barr faces a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment with a maximum fine of $250,000.
Light faces a maximum penalty five years' imprisonment with a maximum fine of $250,000.
The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Jennifer Arbittier Williams and Jason P. Bologna, and by FTC Special Assistant United States Attorney Larissa L. Bungo.
..."
"...
Barr created fake sales-verification tapes which were purported to contain the telemarketer’s call to the customer and the customer’s consent. Barr pleaded guilty to wire fraud and is awaiting sentencing.
...
Barr faces a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment with a maximum fine of $250,000.
..."
Note the "information packet" component of this GoInternet "cramming" scam, same as with Smart Step. They say they were sent, yet they make sure they are overlooked or not sent at all. Legally, "verifiable authorization" requires a recording (which they faked), or signed returned authorization, as just sending some "information packet" does NOT meet FTC TSR.
Since this shows up repeatedly in this type of scam, what role does the "information packet" "MacGuffin" play in the scheme?
1) Used to obtain an "agreement" only to send "information", which is then fraudulently misrepresented as an "agreement" to accept charges. This is the initial deception.
2) Used to intimidate consumers into believing their "negligence" in failing to "cancel" what they allegedly "agreed" to makes them liable for the charges, as an excuse to not refund. (Same argument used by BofA to limit refunds to 60 days.)
3) Used to maintain the belief of those telemarketers (hundreds to thousands of employees?) who don't know it's a total scam. As long as SOME informtion packets go out, and the telemarketers handling complaints have seen the "information packet", been told they were sent, and that consumers COULD have cancelled, they can lie with a straight face, with some belief the charges are "legitimate".
"...
GoInternet’s telemarketers duped customers into receiving a welcome packet without disclosing that the mailing would trigger monthly bills unless the customer called to cancel. The packets were then designed to look like bulk business mail to prompt it to be disregarded or thrown away.
...
Saferstein prevented customers from receiving notices disclosing the cost of services, and delayed and prevented refunds from going to customers that had been defrauded and were promised refunds.
..."
It is the "reason" for BofA to blame and ignore their own customer complaints of fraud, since not only have the customers missed the fraudulent charges on their statements, but they don't even read their own mail (like that would have helped), making it also believable they also forget what they "agreed" to.