July 14, 2010
A company dealing in e-commerce services has agreed to change course after customers complained the company promised Web hits -- but struck out.
"Visible.net and Captures.com promised small businesses that they'd be 'blown away' by achieving top Internet search results," said Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna said. "But merchants who paid thousands of dollars hoping to increase sales found the defendants couldn't always deliver on their promises." The settlement requires Visible.net and Captures.com to represent their services accurately and "will enable us to provide restitution for some customers," McKenna added.
The AG's office sued Redmond-based Visible.net, which also does business as Captures.com and WebMarketingSource.com, and owner Gilbert Walker in November 2008.
The company sells website design, search-optimization and other Internet marketing services, along with providing e-commerce services to process online purchases. They promote their business through their websites and by telemarketing. Packages include an initial startup fee of $3,749.99 up to $9,749.99, plus a monthly fee of $39.99 to $99.99.
When the suit was filed, McKenna's office and the Better Business Bureau had received nearly 90 complaints about the defendants, showing a pattern of recurring problems since at least 2005. Since then, there have been an additional 70 complaints.
In April 2010, a King County Superior Court judge found the defendants in violation of the state's telemarketing law. The settlement filed late in King County Superior Court resolves the state's remaining allegations of consumer protection law violations. The defendants agree to pay $250,000 to the Attorney General's Office.
Settlement terms
Under the settlement, the defendants must not:
• Misrepresent their ability to significantly increase traffic to customer websites by achieving top search-engine rankings.
• Fail to provide refunds or honor cancellation requests.
• Claim to provide around-the-clock customer support, technical advice or consultations, unless available. The attorney general's office claims the defendants misrepresented customer service representatives could be reached at any time.
• Fail to register with the Department of Licensing as a commercial telephone solicitor.
• Charge consumers' credit cards without authorization.
• Misrepresent their affiliation with other marketers.
