FTC Winds Up Nationwide Crackdown
On Work At Home Schemes

April 12, 2000
Computer & Web Publications, Inc. ("CWP") and its owner, Ana Keilty, have agreed to pay $81,000 as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC alleged that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent business opportunity scheme.

The FTC had filed a suit against CWP and Keilty as well as AMP Publications, Inc., and its owner Ranjit Narayan, as part of a nationwide crackdown on fraudulent business opportunities.

The FTC alleged that the defendants advertised large potential incomes for work-at-home computer users, but few, if any, consumers who purchased their program were able to make such earnings. Under the terms of the settlement, CWP and Keilty are barred from marketing or selling any work-at-home business opportunity for seven years and are prohibited from making false and misleading statements when engaging in the promotion or sale of any product or service. (In February 2001, the court entered a $4.9 million default judgment against AMP and Narayan and permanently banned them from engaging in the sale of work-at-home business opportunities.)

The settlement ends the litigation in this case, which was among 35 cases brought by the FTC and the Department of Justice as part of the crackdown. The defendants in this case, and most of the others, advertised in the classified section of daily newspapers to peddle work-at-home scams. According to the FTC's court papers, the defendants placed classified ads on the Internet, in national magazines and in small-town newspapers. The ads contained statements such as:

"COMPUTER USERS NEEDED
Work own hrs. $25K-$80K/yr.
1-800-476-8653 x7937"

Consumers who called the toll-free telephone number were told by the defendants' telemarketers that for a fee of $89.95 they would receive everything they needed to start working at home. In numerous instances, the telemarketers stated that consumers would earn $30,000 working part-time, $1,000 per week, or would be able to charge $10-$50 per hour. Consumers were often told that if they purchased the defendants' program, they would be given the names of companies in their particular area that were looking for at-home workers. In fact, the FTC alleged, the defendants' earnings claims were false and when consumers tried to contact the listed companies, they often found the telephone numbers outdated. If they did get through, the consumers were told that the company did not have any relationship with the defendants, and neither wanted nor needed the consumers' services.

Before purchasing the defendants' program, consumers were told that it came with a 90-day money back guarantee. However, when consumers complained about the product, they were told for the first time that they had to go through several steps, such as trying to contact several companies on the list; creating several business forms; and keeping the product for 60 to 90 days, before they could get a refund.

Back to the top |

Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use

Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. ConsumerAffairs.com does not evaluate or endorse the products and services advertised. See the FAQ for more information.

Company Response Welcome If complaints about your company appear on our site, we welcome your response. Please see the Response Form for more information.

For more information, see the FAQ and privacy policy. The information on this Web site is general in nature and is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice.  ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein provided and assumes no liability for any damages or loss arising from the use thereof. 

Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc.  All Rights Reserved.    The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission.