Feds Slam InPhonic, Soyo for Deceptive Rebate Practices

Companies Ordered to Pay Up; Consumers to Receive Overdue Checks

April 27, 2007

Inphonic/Wirefly • Inphonic Complaints • Wirefly Complaints • InPhonic Responds --- News • Feds Slam InPhonic for Deceptive Rebate Practices • InPhonic Settles With D.C.

The Federal Trade Commission has settled charges against two companies for unfair and deceptive rebate practices.

The Commission’s complaint against the InPhonic alleges that, in connection with its advertised rebate offers, among other things, the company failed to provide promised documents needed to obtain rebates, to send out rebateconaff_news.html checks in the time promised, and to disclose adequately certain material terms and conditions prior to purchase.

InPhonic earlier settled similar charges leveled by the District of Columbia attorney general. ConsumerAffairs.com has received more than 200 complaints from InPhonic customers.

The Commission’s complaint against Soyo, Inc., alleges that most of Soyo’s rebates were delivered late – in some cases, consumers had to wait a year or longer for their checks to arrive.

The settlements bar the companies from similar violations in the future and require them to pay outstanding rebates to affected consumers.

“When it comes to rebates, protecting consumers’ rights is a Commission priority,” said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Rebate terms must be disclosed up-front and clearly, and rebates must be delivered on time.”

The complaints and administrative consent orders announced today settle the FTC’s charges against Soyo, a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Ontario, California, and InPhonic, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Washington, DC.

InPhonic

The Commission charged InPhonic, an online retailer that offers substantial rebates on mobile phones bought in conjunction with wireless phone service, with making deceptive claims and engaging in unfair practices in connection with its rebate offers.

According to the FTC, in advertising its rebates InPhonic failed to disclose adequately prior to purchase that, among other things, consumers would have to wait at least three to six months to submit their rebate requests and would have to wait at least six to nine months after their purchase to get their rebate.

Further, the FTC alleged that InPhonic misrepresented that consumers would have a reasonable opportunity to resubmit rebate applications in the event that InPhonic deemed them incomplete.

In addition, InPhonic allegedly misled some consumers about the number of wireless bills that had to be submitted with their rebate application, resulting in these consumers submitting applications after the time period allowed had expired. The company rejected these applications as untimely.

Finally, InPhonic allegedly unfairly failed to provide other consumers with the materials needed to submit a complete rebate application, and in some cases, consumers received their rebates weeks or months after the promised delivery time.

The order contains a redress program, under which InPhonic will pay consumers who applied for a rebate with the company but were denied a check based on the company’s deceptive and unfair practices.

Soyo

The Commission’s complaint against Soyo charged it with making deceptive claims in connection with its rebate program for computer motherboards and other consumer electronics products.

According to the FTC, thousands of consumers who submitted valid rebate requests since 2004 experienced significant delays in getting their rebate checks, including delays of one year or more.

Specifically, between October 2004 and March 2006, more than 95 percent of Soyo’s rebate checks were delivered to consumers later than 12 weeks after the date on which a valid request was postmarked. The average delivery time for the company’s rebates to consumers was about 24 weeks, although Soyo’s rebate forms expressly state that they would mail rebate checks “in 10-12 weeks after the postmark date of the program.”

The complaint also charged the company with misrepresenting to consumers that the rebate checks would be mailed in a reasonable amount of time.

The order contains a redress program that requires the company to pay out all the valid rebate requests it has that are past due.

Rebate Debate

The enforcement actions taken against Soyo and InPhonic were announced at the FTC’s “Rebate Debate” public workshop, held today in San Francisco.

The workshop gathered representatives from consumer groups, industry, academia, and government to debate the costs and benefits of rebates and explore the “best practices” that companies should follow when offering and fulfilling rebates.

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.

Follow us on Twitter.

Back to the top |