WASHINGTON. Sept. 18, 2002 -- A Nevada company whose advertisements and telemarketers promised consumers that they could make big bucks through a work-at-home medical billing opportunity have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that their misleading pitches violated the law.
According to the FTC, after paying hundreds of dollars for the defendants information packages, nearly 5,000 consumers found that the list of doctors that the defendants provided them was inaccurate or that the doctors did not want or need at-home billing help.
The stipulated final order announced today permanently bans International Trader and its president and owner Bruce Anugwom from promoting or selling work-at-home opportunities and, on a larger scale, from misrepresenting any facts related to any product or service they are offering for sale in the future.
"Most consumers targeted in this scheme came from small towns across the United States," said J. Howard Beales III, Director of the FTCs Bureau of Consumer Protection. "But no matter where they live, people who want to work at home should be wary when considering a program medical billing or otherwise that seems to promise a lot of money for a little effort."
According to the FTCs complaint, the defendants marketed work-at-home medical billing opportunities to consumers through classified ads and a deceptive telemarketing pitch. They promised that for a fee ranging from $189 to $339, they would provide everything necessary to conduct a medical billing business from home, including a list of doctors who needed help from in-home billers, as well as the software to perform the work.
The defendants allegedly claimed consumers could make between $15 and $45 per hour through their business. After paying the fee, however, consumers found that the doctors on the lists the defendants provided either were impossible to reach or did not need medical billers. Consumers were not able to earn the hourly wage promised by the defendants ads and telemarketers. Such misrepresentations are a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
