Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00101/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00101-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3731 Fraud

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

STATE OF ARKANSAS ex rel. PLAINTIFF

LESLIE RUTLEDGE, ATTORNEY GENERAL

v. NO. 4:14CV00101 JLH

ELECTRONIC MEDIA MARKETING

GROUP, INC., d/b/a

GENERAL YELLOW PAGES DEFENDANT

FINAL JUDGMENT AND DECREE

The State of Arkansas commenced this action against Electronic Media Marketing Group,

Inc., on February 20, 2014, alleging that Electronic Media Marketing Group had violated the

Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq., the

Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 310, and the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark.

Code Ann. §§ 4-88-101 through 4-88-115. Summons and complaint were served on Electronic

Media Marketing Group on March 3, 2014. Electronic Media Marketing Group did not file an

answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, so the State of Arkansas moved for default on

September 22, 2014. The Clerk of Court entered Electronic Media Marketing Group, Inc.’s default

on that same date.

On June 24, 2015, the State of Arkansas filed a motion for default judgment seeking

injunctive relief, civil penalties in the amount of $190,000, and attorneys’ fees and costs in the

amount of $4,500. The motion was properly supported by affidavits. Pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), the motion is GRANTED. Document #10.

The following facts are deemed admitted:

1. Defendant deceived Arkansas business owners by billing business owners for

online advertising in a product entitled General Yellow Pages, which the

business owners never agreed to purchase. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 10.)

Case 4:14-cv-00101-JLH Document 13 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 3
2. Despite the fact that business owners did not agree to buy the service,

Defendant placed calls to Arkansas businesses by telephone and attempted

to collect money for the internet advertising services by falsely telling

Arkansas businesses that they had signed up for a ninety-day free trial of the

product that automatically renewed for one year upon conclusion of the trial

period. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 11.)

3. Defendant sent invoices to business owners for one year of internet

advertising in the amount of $599.95 per business. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 12.)

4. Many Arkansas businesses that received Defendant’s $599.95 invoices

contacted Defendant and objected to the charge. Even though these business

owners demanded proof of their purchase of the advertising program,

Defendant was not able to provide any documentation to support any of the

amounts claims in the invoices or proof that the business owners had agreed

to the service. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 13.)

5. Many Arkansas businesses filed consumer complaints with the Arkansas

Attorney General’s Office regarding this matter. When Defendant was

notified of the consumer complaints, Defendant explained that quality control

recordings were available. Defendant, however, only provided one such

recording, and that recording did not include the business owner’s assent to

the advertising service but rather included Defendant’s sales pitch in which

it tried to convince the business owner that the business had agreed to a free

trial of the service and now owed fees for one year of the service. (Doc. 1 at

¶ 14.)

6. Despite the business owners’ consumer complaints, Defendant continued to

insist to the complaining businesses that they owed Defendant money. 

Defendant added late penalties in the amount of 2% for customers who failed

or refused to pay. One such bill, including late fees, amounted to more than

$800. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 15.)

7. Several consumer complaints were filed with the Arkansas Attorney

General’s Office on behalf of Arkansas businesses. The managers or owners

of these businesses stated they never had any previous contact with

Defendant until Defendant contacted them in order to seek payments on the

bogus advertising service. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 16.)

8. Defendant has failed to provide any proof that Arkansas businesses expressly

agreed to purchase any service from Defendant. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 17.)

9. Defendant has not and cannot provide any proof that Arkansas business

owners agreed to automatically sign up for a year of service following the

conclusion of a ninety-day trial period. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 18.)

2

Case 4:14-cv-00101-JLH Document 13 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 3
10. Defendant used deception in an attempt to obtain payments from Arkansas

businesses even though the businesses had never purchased services from

Defendant. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 19.)

Document #11 at 6-8. 

These facts, which are deemed admitted, establish that Electronic Media Marketing Group

has violated the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-

6108, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 310, and the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices

Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-101 et seq. Therefore, the Court ORDERS:

1. Electronic Media Marketing Group, Inc., is ordered to cease from any collection

attempts, including hiring any collection agency to make collection attempts, in the State of

Arkansas.

2. Electronic Media Marketing Group, Inc., is hereby enjoined from placing

telemarketing calls to consumers in the State of Arkansas.

3. Electronic Media Marketing Group, Inc., must pay civil penalties in the amount of

$10,000 for each of nineteen violations, totaling $190,000, to the State of Arkansas.

4. Attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $4,500 are hereby awarded to the State

of Arkansas.

Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the State of Arkansas against Electronic Media

Marketing Group, Inc., in the total amount of $194,500 (which includes the civil penalties,

attorneys’ fees and costs awarded above), for all of which garnishment and execution may issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2015.

 

J. LEON HOLMES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 4:14-cv-00101-JLH Document 13 Filed 07/27/15 Page 3 of 3