|
•Advertising Disclosures
•Auctions
•Car Ads
•Car Loans
•Children's Ads
•Comparative Ads
•Consumer Lease
•Cotton
•Dairy
•Deceptive Pricing
•Diamonds
•Diet Programs
•Diet Supplements
•Down
•E-Mail Ads
•Endorsements
•Environment/Guide
•Environment/Mail
•Eye Care
•Eye Surgery
•Food Ads
•Fur
•Gems
•Health Claims
•Hearing Aids
•Home Financing
•Indoor Tanning
•Internet Ads
•Internet Mktng.
•Infertility Svcs.
•Jewelry
•Made in USA #1
•Made in USA #2
•Made in USA #3
•Made in USA #4
•Milk
•MLM #1
•MLM #2
•Pearls
•Precious Metals
•Recycling
•Retail Electricity
•Spam
•Testimonials
•Timeshare Tips
•Unfairness
•Use of Word "Free"
•Vacation Plans
•Varicose Veins
•Wool
•Yellow Pages
Our Related Websites
Advertising Compliance Service
Advertising Substantiation
Ad Substantiation
Green Advertising Law
Political Advertising Law
|
COMPANIES CHARGED WITH FAILING TO HONOR REFUND POLICIES
A federal judge temporarily halted the operations of two companies that sell
programs and services purported to reduce one's income taxes, for their
alleged failure to live up to their refund guarantees. According to
FTC, National Audit Defense Network, Inc. (NADN); Tax Coach, Inc.,
doing business as Tax Ready (Tax Ready); Robert Bennington, NADN's and
Tax Ready's president; Cort Christie, NADN's chief executive officer;
and Al Rodriguez, NADN's and Tax Ready's general manager misrepresented
that they will provide consumers with refunds, and misrepresented that
they will provide consumers with refunds in a timely manner, in
violation of the FTC Act.
According to FTC, defendants advertise programs and services that
purport to assist consumers in reducing their tax liabilities. The
defendants have promoted their tax-related services and programs
through a variety of media, including advertisements on national radio
talk shows, said FTC. Consumers call a toll-free telephone number in
response to the ads, and the defendants' salespeople state that their
programs and services will save consumers money on their income tax
returns. The defendants' programs cost from around $400 to more than
$1,400.
FTC's complaint said that in connection with the sale of these programs
and services, the defendants offer consumers an unconditional 30-day
money-back guarantee. The defendants represent that if consumers want
to cancel the purchase for any reason, they may do so within 30 days
and receive a full refund. The defendants also tell consumers that if
they are unable to achieve tax savings of $3,000 after implementing or
using defendants' tax-saving strategies, they will receive a full
refund.
When describing these guarantees, the defendants allegedly failed to
disclose certain conditions. Before consumers are eligible for a refund
under the 30-day guarantee, they must obtain a "return authorization"
number from the defendants, and before consumers are eligible for a
refund under the $3,000 guarantee, they must have attempted for one
full year to implement the defendants' recommended tax-saving
strategies, most of which require the operation of a home business,
according to FTC.
FTC's complaint alleged that when consumers who meet the requirements
of the guarantees contact the defendants to attempt to obtain a refund,
the defendants fail or refuse to make such refunds, or otherwise
frustrate consumers in a variety of ways from receiving refunds in a
timely manner. If issued, many refunds take an inordinate amount of
time to be received. Some consumers never receive a refund. Other
consumers receive refunds only through the intercession of law
enforcement agencies or consumer protection organizations such as the
Better Business Bureau.
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 defendant has actually violated the
law. The case will be decided by the court.
(National Audit Defense Network, Inc., FTC File No. 012-3138, Civil
Action No. CV-S 02-0131-LRH-PAL, February 5, 2002.)
COMPANIES CHARGED WITH FAILING TO HONOR REFUND POLICIES
POPCORN COMPANY SETTLES FTC PRIVACY VIOLATION CHARGES--American Pop
Corn Company (APC) will pay $10,000 to settle FTC charges that it
violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA Rule) by
collecting personal information from children on its "Jolly Time" Web
site without getting parental consent. The settlement also will bar
future violations of the COPPA Rule.
In its complaint, FTC alleged that APC maintained a Web site,
www.jollytime.com, with a "Kids Club" section that features games,
crafts, contests, and jokes directed to children under the age of 13.
Without obtaining parental consent, the company collected personal
information, including names, e-mail addresses, and home addresses,
from children who went to the "Kids Club" section. It also conditioned
participation in certain prize offers on children's providing more
information than was necessary to participate in the activity, FTC
alleged. Both practices violate the COPPA Rule, FTC says.
Also, APC posted a privacy policy statement on its Web site stating
that it would notify parents or guardians by e-mail whenever "guests"
under the age of 18 registered at its site. It stated that parents or
guardians would be given the option to invalidate the registration. But
APC did not contact the parents of children who registered and provided
personal information, and so the privacy policy statements were false,
in violation of the FTC Act, FTC alleged.
NOTE: A consent decree is for settlement purposes only and does not
constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Consent
decrees have the force of law when signed by the judge.
(American Pop Corn Company, FTC File No. 012 3026, Civil Action No.
C02-4008DEO, February 14, 2002.)
|
Main Archived News Index:
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002
Archived 2001 News:
January |
February |
March |
April |
May |
June |
July |
August |
September |
October |
November |
December
Advertising Compliance Service...
|
