Home » $2.6 million settlement addresses earnings claims for business opportunities and crypto bot, Consumer Review Fairness Act – and more

$2.6 million settlement addresses earnings claims for business opportunities and crypto bot, Consumer Review Fairness Act – and more

by admin

FTC Complaints Are Rarely Likened To Artwork Pizza And All Bagels, But Compare The Breadth Of Violations Alleged In FTC Lawsuits Against DK Automation, Kevin David Hulse, David Shawn Arnett And Affiliates need to do it. Proposed $2.6 Million Settlement will settle allegations that defendants made false income claims, failed to comply with business opportunity rules, violated the Consumer Ratings Fairness Act, and unfairly distorted consumer ratings. Further, one complaint alleges that defendants made false or unsubstantiated money-making claims with actual knowledge that they had violated previous commission decisions.

Use of company name DK Automation, THATLifeStyleNinja, Digital, etc. Defendants Ninjaz and AMZ Automation posed an interesting question to consumers. They placed online ads on Google, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc. to market various business opportunities and training programs. In addition, Defendant cites testimony from people believed to have made “$96,000 in a month,” “from sales on Amazon he made $50,000 in a month,” and “earnings of $150,000 in just one month.” I picked it up. years in the Marine Corps.

But the defendants weren’t alone. In January 2022, they “built CRYPTO WEALTH,” “the #1 secret passive income crypto trading bot that trades 24/7 so you can make money while you sleep.” started promoting a program marketed as The video describes it as “an easy way to earn $1,000 a day.”

Depending on the program, consumers paid defendants anywhere from a few hundred dollars to over $100,000 However, according to the FTC, “most buyers are unlikely to earn the income advertised, and many, if not most, are losing money.” Complaint Alleges that defendant’s earnings claims were false or unfounded.

The FTC also said the defendants violated multiple terms. business opportunity rules Among other things, misrepresenting the amount of revenue a prospective purchaser can expect, failing to provide timely disclosure documents required by regulation, failing to make mandatory revenue disclosures in consumer and media advertising, and misrepresenting cost, performance, or business opportunities; effectiveness.

Two additional counts challenge defendants’ consumer review tactics. The FTC alleges that defendants violated. consumer review fairness law By including non-defamation clauses in the form of contracts that seek to stifle the ability of consumers to express their opinions about their experience with the defendant. Complaint Citing examples of defendants intimidating consumers who expressed opinions and said to him They will “sue for damages . I’m here.

The FTC also said defendants used unfair tactics to try and distort reviews of third-party sites. For example, her Trustpilot on her review site informed defendants that they had received hundreds of fake positive reviews about their program. Additionally, the FTC says the defendant routinely flagged negative reviews so much that TrustPilot automatically removed them until the consumer provided documentation. result: The cumbersome process meant many of these negative reviews were taken down permanently.

Count 9 of the complaint is particularly noteworthy for those following the issuance of notices of penalties violations by the FTC. The FTC will rule in April 2022 that defendants Penalty Violation Notice for Money-Making Opportunities When endorsementin violation of Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, ceased to make certain unlawful allegations, but continued to make other allegations.

of Proposed Order of Provisions It includes an injunction that requires defendants to support their revenue claims with corroborative evidence, comply with the Business Opportunity Rule, and respect consumer rights under the Consumer Scrutiny Act. The proposed order would also award a monetary judgment of approximately $53 million, partly based on the defendant’s inability to pay her $2.6 million that would be used for consumer refunds. will be stopped. If the defendants are not telling the truth about their finances, the full amount will be paid immediately.

This case should send three clear messages to the company claiming revenue.

Conduct compliance checks for business opportunity rules. your promotion business opportunity rulenow is the time for a line-by-line review to make sure you are complying with the law.

The FTC is skeptical of attempts to suppress consumers’ right to review. of consumer review fairness law Protect the ability of people to share their candid opinions about a company’s products, services or actions in any forum, including social media. Make sure your contract or agreement does not contain any clauses that violate that law. Additionally, companies that take steps to suppress negative reviews or promote false positive reviews may engage in unfair or deceptive conduct.

“We feel the need, the need to pay attention.” if received Penalty Violation Notice Or if you receive it in the future, please take it seriously. This law gives the FTC the right to seek civil penalties for knowingly breaking the law.

Related Posts

Leave a Comment