|
|
NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
RESOURCES
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
| Automotive Education Employment Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Pets Shopping Travel |
|
|
![]() |
Canadian Telemarketers Ordered to Pay $5 MillionConsumers never received the goods they were promised |
||||||
|
May 5, 2008
Under the terms of the final order and judgment, the defendants – collectively known as Pacific Liberty – are barred from violating the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Commission's Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). The $5 million judgment represents estimated losses suffered by consumers. The FTC's complaint charged the defendants with using outbound telemarketing to call U.S. consumers. For an advance fee of $319, which they electronically debited from the consumers' bank accounts, the defendants promised that they could deliver Visa or MasterCard credit cards, along with free gifts such as cell phones. No consumers who paid the money received either credit cards or "complimentary" gifts. Instead, consumers received only a "member benefits" package with items such as booklets on how to improve their creditworthiness. Some also received a "member merchandise" card valid only for purchases from a catalog supplied by the defendants. The defendants also called consumers offering them a brand-name personal computer if they agreed to have a fee debited from their bank account. No one received the promised computers. Instead, they received certificates purportedly redeemable for off-brand computers, but the consumers first had to pay additional fees. The FTC is not aware of any consumer who ultimately obtained a computer. The court order and final judgment found that the defendants failed to respond to an FTC motion for summary judgment, as well as to other information requests. According to the order, the commission submitted considerable additional evidence to support the allegations in the complaint, including that the defendants engaged in deceptive acts or practices, and that they are accordingly liable for them. Specifically, the order states that the defendants: Report Your Experience
|
||||||
Back to the top | |
|||||||
Advertisement
|
|
Custom Search
|
||||
|
AUTOMOTIVE Dealers Manufacturers Service Extended Warranties Lemon Laws Recalls Tires Transporters FAMILY Aging Children, Parenting Recalls Dating Education Entertainment Pets Weddings |
FINANCE Annuities Banks Credit Cards Debt Collection Debt Counseling Insurance Investing Loans Mortgages Payday Loans Student Loans Tax Prep HEALTH Doctors Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOMEOWNERS & RENTERS Appliances Cookware Furniture Home Improvements Lawn & Garden Movers Pools & Spas Realtors, Rental Agents Recalls Utilities ELECTRONICS Cable TV/DBS Cameras Cell Phones Computers Home Electronics Internet Access Local Phone Service Long Distance VoIP |
SHOPPING In-Home Online Retail Stores Sporting Goods Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Lemon Laws |
CONSUMER NEWS Latest News Automotive Telecom Financial Health Homeowners Scams Seniors Travel More ... RECALLS Automotive Children's Products Drugs Food Household Products Sporting Goods ABOUT US FAQ Privacy Policy Advertise With Us Newsroom Syndication Terms of Use |
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
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. |
|