Advertising law news briefs.
Advertising law news briefs.
Your News Your Way: Every Day!


Note:This website is where you can find advertising law information based on archived news briefs from past issues of Advertising Compliance Service. These archived advertising law-related news briefs were published in Advertising Compliance Service in July 2002.





Advertising Disclosures
Car Ads
Car Loans
Children's Ads
Comparative Ads
Consumer Lease
Deceptive Pricing
Diet Programs
Diet Supplements
E-Mail Ads
Eye Care
Eye Surgery
Food Ads
Health Claims
Hearing Aids
Home Financing
Indoor Tanning
Internet Ads
Internet Mktng.
Infertility Svcs.
Made in USA #1
Made in USA #2
Made in USA #3
Made in USA #4
MLM #1
MLM #2
Precious Metals
Retail Electricity
Timeshare Tips
Use of Word "Free"
Vacation Plans
Varicose Veins
Yellow Pages

Our Related Websites

Advertising Compliance Service

Advertising Substantiation

Ad Substantiation

Green Advertising Law

Political Advertising Law


FTC, FBI, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), have joined 10 state attorneys general and 11 other state and local law enforcement agencies to target alleged cyberscams on the Internet. On July 30, 2002, they announced 19 civil and criminal law enforcement actions against alleged scammers who have allegedly bilked tens of thousands of consumers out of millions of dollars.

Operation Used Spam and Internet Websites
to Advertise

FTC asked a U.S. district court judge to shut down an operation that used spam and Internet Web sites to advertise an envelope stuffing work-at-home "opportunity." According to FTC, in exchange for $40, the defendants promised to provide consumers with sales letters and pre-stamped, pre-addressed envelopes and consumers would earn two dollars for every envelope they stuffed. Consumers who sent their money didn't get envelopes. If they received anything - and many didn't - they got materials urging them to solicit self-addressed envelopes from third parties and forward them to the defendants. FTC told the court that the "Stuffing for Cash" defendants likely cheated tens of thousands of consumers out of over $2 million in the last year. At FTC's request, a U.S. district court judge barred defendants from engaging in further deceptive practices and froze their assets, pending trial.

The Commission votes to file the complaint and the stipulated final judgment and order were 5-0. The Stuffing-for-Cash complaint was filed in U S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Chicago, with the assistance of the Chicago office of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

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.

NOTE: A consent judgment is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Consent judgments have the force of law when signed by the judge.

(FTC Release, July 30, 2002; Corp., FTC File No. P024408, Civil Action No. 02 C 5022 (N.D. Ill), July 30, 2002.)


A federal district court judge ordered Medicor LLC, Andrew Rubin, and Matthew Rubin to pay over $16.5 million in redress for consumers who were victims of the defendants' alleged medical billing scam. In March 2001, FTC charged defendants with engaging in a variety of fraudulent practices as part of "Project Homework." "Project Homework" is a law enforcement action targeting work-at-home scams that typically victimizes stay-at-home parents, the physically disabled, non-English speakers, and people who can't secure employment in traditional venues outside the home.

Advertisements in Local Newspapers

FTC charged that defendants engaged in a telemarketing scheme from mid-1999 to 2001 whereby they deceptively sold work-at-home medical billing opportunities to over 40,000 people. According to FTC, typically, consumers responded to advertisements in local newspapers touting large salaries and the need for at-home workers to perform medical billing work for doctors in their community. When consumers called defendants' toll-free number, telemarketers made additional deceptive claims to induce consumers to buy the medical billing business opportunity.

FTC's Complaint

Specifically, FTC's complaint charged that defendants misrepresented: (1) how much consumers who purchased the medical billing opportunity would earn;

(2) that the defendants would arrange for consumers to receive medical billing work from physicians; and

(3) that consumers would readily obtain refunds upon request.

The defendants charged consumers $375 for the opportunity.

Court Granted FTC's Motion for Summary Judgment

On July 18, 2002, the Court granted FTC's motion for summary judgment against the defendants, entered a judgment for the full amount of consumer redress, and issued a permanent injunction against all defendants.

Court Permanently Barred Defendants
From Advertising

In addition to ordering the defendants to pay restitution to consumers and disgorge ill-gotten gains, the Court permanently barred the defendants from the promotion, advertising, marketing, sale, or offering for sale of any medical billing work-at-home opportunity.

The Court's order also bars defendants from engaging in, or assisting others in engaging in, deceptive acts or practices in the business of telemarketing. The order further enjoins the defendants from making, or assisting others in making, any false or misleading oral or written statement or representation in connection with the promotion, advertising, marketing, sale, or offering for sale of any work-at-home opportunity, product, service, or investment.

(Medicor LLC, Andrew Rubin, and Matthew Rubin, FTC File No. 002 3356, Civil Action No. CV 01-1896 CBM (Ex), July 31, 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...

Hosting Service Advertised Services for Flat Fees but then Crammed Unauthorized Charges: Court.



JLCom Publishing Co., L.L.C. is the publisher of Advertising Compliance Service™. For over 34 years (1981-2015),Advertising Compliance Service™ was the authoritative - and comprehensive - source of information for advertising law practitioners, advertisers and advertising agencies -- and their attorneys. One of the 27 advertising law-related topics that were regularly covered by this newsletter/reference service was found in Tab #1, the Bulletin section, and is entitled, "Brief News of Note."

JLCom Publishing Co., LLC, publisher of Advertising Compliance Service, a newsletter / reference service for advertising law attorneys, including in-house counsel and outside counsel, to help them make sure their advertiser clients comply with laws involving false, unfair and deceptive acts.

© Copyright 2002-2014 JLCom Publishing Co., L.L.C. All rights reserved.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Materials included in this Web Site are intended for general information purposes only and are not intended to provide - and do not constitute - legal or other advice. Persons who need legal or other services should contact a duly licensed professional. The inclusion of links on this Website are to Websites that are maintained by third parties over whom JLCom Publishing Co., LLC has no control. Such links do not imply endorsement of the material that's contained therein. JLCom Publishing Co., LLC makes no claims, representations, or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, or appropriateness of these Web Sites or the information these websites contain. Read this disclaimer and our privacy statement before using this site.