New Jersey Sues Modeling & Talent Agency

New Jersey has sued two companies that claim to help parents market their children as actors and models after receriving more than 200 complaints about them.

“We allege that consumers were led to believe they would receive personalized assistance to market their children to prospective modeling or acting employers, but they ultimately ended up paying for expensive photoshoots and nothing more,” Attorney General Paula Dow said.

That's what happened to Regina of Oldbridge, N.J., one of several parents who complained to ConsumerAffairs.com.

"After my 16 year old son was approached in a mall with his friend, we set up a meeting regarding talent promotion. A photo shoot was required which cost $1,000," she said. "I told Mr. Lane that I didn't want to charge this but I would bring a check on the day of the shoot.

"He told me he still needed the charge card to 'hold' the date. I couldn't make the time as sceduled so I called and made a different date. The next day my card had already been charged the $1,000."

The suit names Industry Model and Talent Studios, LLC (“IMTS”) and Interface 1, LLC. IMTS, both owned by Roman Vintfeld.

False promises

The State’s four-count complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Consumer Fraud Act through unconscionable commercial practices; false promises and/or misrepresentations and/or knowing omissions of material fact; as well as failing to provide copies of sales contracts to consumers.

The state is seeking restitution for consumers, which at present totals approximately $170,000, as well as civil penalties against the defendants and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and investigative costs.

The state’s complaint alleges that the defendants approached parents with children at malls and theme parks, commented on how attractive the children looked, and obtained contact information from the parents. The state further alleges that defendants then induced the parents to come to their offices for a free evaluation, at which time defendants pressured the parents to sign contracts that they were told included marketing services, but in reality only provided for a photoshoot.

The state charges that the contracts defendants required consumers to sign contained clauses that prevented cancellations or refunds for scheduled photoshoots, and also waived the consumers’ right to a jury trial and to assert any defense, set-off, or counterclaim in any action.

Failed to deliver

“These defendants did far more than just fail to deliver on their high-priced promises,” said Thomas R. Calcagni, Director of the State Division of Consumer Affairs.

“They canvassed malls and other places in search of targets to defraud, and by using flattery and the age-old allure of getting children into show business, they deceived consumers into spending thousands of dollars for nothing more than headshots,” Calcagni said.

The alleged violations committed by the defendants include:

• Misleading consumers into believing they were a model or talent agency;

• Misleading consumers into believing they could place someone in the modeling or entertainment industries;

• Misleading consumers by using the name “Industry Model and Talent Studios, LLC,” when in fact they were only in the business of doing photoshoots;

• Misrepresenting to consumers at the time of initial contact that there were no fees involved with any initial meeting or evaluation;

• Making oral misrepresentations that differed from the actual terms of the Photoshoot Agreement and the online Composite Card Membership Agreement;

• Requiring consumers to execute written contracts or agreements without providing them sufficient opportunity to read and understand the terms; and

• Deceiving consumers by telling them to sign the Photoshoot Agreement, to read it after they arrived home, and to call back with any questions when, by terms of the Agreement, it could not be cancelled and refunds would not be given;

An initial violation of the Consumer Fraud Act may result in a civil penalty of up to $10,000, with each subsequent violation subject to a civil penalty of up to $20,000.