Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 1 of 57 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JASJIT GOTRA, individually and as an officer 

or owner of Alliance Security Inc., formerly 

known as Versatile Marketing Solutions, Inc., 

VMS Alarms, VMS, Alliance Security, Alliance 

Home Protection, and AH Protection, 

ALLIANCE SECURITY INC., a Delaware 

corporation, formerly known as Versatile 

Marketing Solutions, Inc., VMS Alarms, VMS, 

Alliance Security, Alliance Home Protection, and 

AH Protection, 

JESSICA MERRICK, a/k/a Jessica Bright, a/k/a 

Jessica Dudlicek, individually and as an officer of 

Defend America LLC, 

DEFEND AMERICA LLC, a Florida Limited 

Liability Company, 

KEVIN KLINK, individually and as an officer or 

owner of Power Marketing Promotions LLC, also 

d/b/a J Tele Alarms, and 

POWER MARKETING PROMOTIONS LLC, 

a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, also 

d/b/a J Tele Alarms. 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 1:18-cv-10548

COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES, 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION, AND OTHER RELIEF 

1. Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), brings this action under 

Sections 5(a), 5(m)(1)(A), 13(b), and 16(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 45(m)(1)(A), 

53(b), and 56(a); Section 6 of the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act 

(the “Telemarketing Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 6105; and section 621(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting 

Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §1681s(a), to obtain monetary civil penalties, permanent injunctive 

relief, and other relief for Defendants’ acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 2 of 57 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), as amended, 16 C.F.R. 

Part 310; and the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §1681-1681x. 

INTRODUCTION 

2. Defendants Alliance Security Inc. (“Alliance”) and its CEO and founder, Jasjit 

Gotra (“Gotra”), are recidivist violators of the TSR. In 2014, the United States of America sued 

Alliance and Gotra in this Court for violating the TSR. See No. 1:14-cv-10612 (PBS). Alliance 

(previously known as Versatile Marketing Systems) and Gotra agreed to a Stipulated Final Order 

(the “2014 Order”), which this Court entered on April 24, 2014. They have never complied with 

this Court’s 2014 Order, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Complaint. In addition, 

Alliance routinely performs unauthorized and unlawful credit inquiries on its potential 

customers. 

3. After this Court entered the 2014 Order, Alliance initiated, caused the initiation, 

or assisted and facilitated the initiation of at least two million violations of the TSR, including 

over one million calls to numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry (“DNC Registry”). 

4. Alliance installs home security systems. Alliance’s employees place outbound 

telephone calls to consumers to: solicit the sale of those home security systems and associated 

home security alarm monitoring services; arrange for the installation of the home security 

systems; and provide consumers with their purchase price, a description of the equipment that 

will be installed, the length of the alarm monitoring contract, and other material terms of sale. 

From April 24, 2014 through at least July 14, 2017, Alliance sold the alarm monitoring contracts 

to Monitronics International, Inc. (“Monitronics”) under an exclusive agreement with 

Monitronics. In some of its outbound telephone calls, Alliance also solicits the sale of additional 

home security products and services. Alliance initiates these calls, many of which are to numbers 

listed on the DNC Registry. 

5. Alliance also contracts with third-party telemarketers that initiate similar 

outbound telephone calls to consumers to solicit the sale of home security systems and associated 

home security alarm monitoring services, including calls to numbers on the DNC Registry. Like 

2 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 3 of 57 

the calls placed by Alliance, these calls by third-party telemarketers also: arrange for the 

installation of the home security systems; provide consumers with their purchase price, a 

description of the equipment that will be installed, the length of the alarm monitoring contract, 

and other material terms of sale; and in some instances, include solicitations for additional home 

security products and services. Alliance causes the initiation of these calls. For example, Alliance 

retained Defendants Defend America LLC (“Defend America”) and Power Marketing 

Promotions LLC (“Power Marketing”) and authorized them to market for Alliance, and Defend 

America and Power Marketing subsequently placed outbound calls to numbers listed on the 

DNC Registry. 

6. After April 24, 2014, and while telemarketing for Alliance, both Defend America 

and Power Marketing have initiated calls to numbers on the DNC Registry. Even after Alliance 

received complaints and inquiries about unwanted sales calls by Defend America and Power 

Marketing while telemarketing for Alliance, Alliance continued its contractual relationship with 

them. 

7. Defend America and Power Marketing harass consumers so relentlessly with 

repeated, unwanted sales calls for Alliance home security systems that many consumers resort to 

scheduling installation appointments just to have a face-to-face opportunity to tell them to stop 

calling. Alliance’s installers have told consumers this happens often. Even after learning about 

this, Alliance continued its contractual relationships with Defend America and Power Marketing. 

8. To further induce some consumers to arrange for the installation of their home 

security systems, Alliance and some of its telemarketers, including Power Marketing, have made 

misrepresentations to deceive consumers about their business affiliation or identity. In certain 

telemarketing calls, Alliance and Power Marketing telemarketers have misrepresented 

themselves as calling on behalf of ADT, an unrelated home security company, or as a successor 

company to ADT, rather than Alliance. Even after learning about these deceptive calls, Alliance 

did not change its practices or terminate its relationship with the responsible telemarketers. 

3 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 4 of 57 

9. Alliance also routinely performs unauthorized, undisclosed, and unlawful credit 

checks on its potential customers, in violation of the FCRA. Specifically, Alliance has obtained 

consumer reports (both credit scores and full consumer credit reports) from consumer reporting 

agencies without any permissible purpose, in violation of the FCRA. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331, 1337(a), 1345, and 1355, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(m)(1)(A), 53(b), and 56(a). This action 

arises under 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

11. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2)-(3), 28 U.S.C. § 

1395(a), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

12. Since April 24, 2014, Alliance has installed home security systems in homes in 

Massachusetts. Since April 24, 2014, Alliance has also placed outbound telephone calls to 

telephone numbers with Massachusetts area codes, including calls to numbers listed on the DNC 

Registry, in violation of this Court’s 2014 Order (as well as the TSR). 

13. At all relevant times, Defend America solicited Massachusetts consumers under a 

contract with Alliance. Since April 24, 2014, Defend America has set appointments for Alliance 

installers to install home security systems in homes in Massachusetts. Also since April 24, 2014, 

Defend America has placed outbound telephone calls to telephone numbers with a Massachusetts 

area code, including calls to numbers listed on the DNC Registry. 

14. Power Marketing solicits Massachusetts consumers under a contract with 

Alliance. Since April 24, 2014, Power Marketing has set appointments for Alliance installers to 

install home security systems in homes in Massachusetts. Also since April 24, 2014, Power 

Marketing has placed outbound telephone calls to telephone numbers with a Massachusetts area 

code, including calls to numbers listed on the DNC Registry. 

PLAINTIFF 

15. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States government created by 

statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), 

4 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 5 of 57 

which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTC also 

enforces the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108. Pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, the 

FTC promulgated and enforces the TSR, 16 C.F.R. Part 310, which prohibits deceptive and 

abusive telemarketing acts or practices. The FTC further enforces the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §1681 et 

seq., which imposes duties on consumer reporting agencies and those who furnish information to 

a consumer reporting agency or use information obtained from a consumer reporting agency. 

16. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its own 

attorneys, to enjoin violation of the FTC Act, the TSR, and the FCRA, and to secure such 

equitable relief as may be appropriate in each case, including rescission or reformation of 

contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 

U.S.C §§ 53(b), 56(a)(2)(A), 56(a)(2)(B), and 57b. The FTC is also authorized to obtain civil 

penalties for violations of the TSR, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A), and violations of the FCRA, 15 

U.S.C. § 1681s. 

DEFENDANTS 

17. Alliance is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Rhode 

Island. Alliance was formerly incorporated in Massachusetts as Versatile Marketing Solutions, 

Inc. Alliance is a seller and telemarketer that initiates, causes the initiation of, and assists the 

initiation of outbound telephone calls to induce consumers to purchase goods or services. 

Alliance, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in 

this district and throughout the United States. 

18. Gotra is the founder, chief executive officer, and majority owner of Alliance. At 

all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Gotra has had the 

authority and responsibility to prevent or correct unlawful telemarketing practices of Alliance, 

and has formulated, directed, controlled, or participated in the acts and practices of Alliance, 

including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Gotra, in connection with the matters 

alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United 

States. 

5 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 6 of 57 

19. Defend America is a former Florida limited liability company that was dissolved 

on November 1, 2016. Defend America was a telemarketer that initiated outbound telephone 

calls to induce consumers to purchase goods or services from Alliance or Alliance’s client, 

Monitronics. Defend America, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacted business 

in this district and throughout the United States. 

20. Jessica Merrick a/k/a Jessica Bright a/k/a Jessica Dudlicek (“Merrick”) was a 

founder and owner of Defend America. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in 

concert with others, Merrick had the authority and responsibility to prevent or correct unlawful 

telemarketing practices of Defend America, and formulated, directed, controlled, or participated 

in the acts and practices of Defend America, including the acts and practices set forth in this 

Complaint. Merrick, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted 

business in this district and throughout the United States. 

21. Power Marketing is a former North Carolina limited liability company that was 

dissolved on September 14, 2017. Power Marketing was a telemarketer that initiated outbound 

telephone calls to induce consumers to purchase goods or services from Alliance or Alliance’s 

client, Monitronics. Power Marketing, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacted 

business in this district and throughout the United States. 

22. Kevin Klink is an owner, officer, and manager of Power Marketing. At all times 

material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Klink had the authority and 

responsibility to prevent or correct unlawful telemarketing practices of Power Marketing, and 

formulated, directed, controlled, or participated in the acts and practices of Power Marketing, 

including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Klink is a recidivist unlawful 

telemarketer who was sued in his individual capacity, along with his prior company ISI Alarms, 

in Mississippi Public Service Commission v. ISI Alarms, Inc., Docket No. 2013-NC-32 (Miss. 

Pub. Serv. Comm’n 2013). Klink, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has 

transacted business in this district and throughout the United States. Mr. Klink’s former 

company, ISI Alarms, also consented to a judgment in a case where a consumer alleged that ISI 

6 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 7 of 57 

Alarms had unlawfully obtained her credit report or credit score, in violation of the FCRA. See 

Dkt. No. 64, Grice v. ISI Alarms NC, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02873 (E.D. La. Sept. 19, 2013). 

COMMERCE 

23. At all times relevant to this complaint, all of the Defendants have maintained a 

substantial course of trade or business in marketing goods or services via the telephone, in or 

affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44. 

THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

AND THE NATIONAL DO NOT CALL REGISTRY 

24. Congress directed the Commission to prescribe rules prohibiting abusive and 

deceptive telemarketing acts or practices pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-

6108. The Commission adopted the original TSR in 1995, extensively amended it in 2003, and 

amended certain provisions thereafter. 16 C.F.R. Part 310. 

25. Among other things, the 2003 amendments to the TSR established a do-not-call 

registry, maintained by the Commission (the “DNC Registry”), of consumers who do not wish to 

receive certain types of telemarketing calls. Consumers can register their telephone numbers on 

the DNC Registry without charge either through a toll-free telephone call or over the Internet at 

donotcall.gov. 

26. Consumers who receive telemarketing calls to their registered numbers can 

complain of DNC Registry violations the same way they registered, through a toll-free telephone 

call or over the Internet at donotcall.gov, or by otherwise contacting law enforcement authorities. 

27. The FTC allows sellers, telemarketers, and other permitted organizations to access 

the DNC Registry over the Internet at telemarketing.donotcall.gov, to pay the fee(s) if required, 

and to download the numbers not to call. 

28. Under the TSR, a “telemarketer” means any person who, in connection with 

telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls to or from a customer or donor. 16 C.F.R. 

§ 310.2(ff). A “seller” means any person who, in connection with a telemarketing transaction, 

7 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 8 of 57 

provides, offers to provide, or arranges for others to provide goods or services to the customer in 

exchange for consideration. Id. § 301.2(dd). 

29. Under the TSR, an “outbound telephone call” means a telephone call initiated by 

a telemarketer to induce the purchase of goods or services or to solicit a charitable contribution. 

16 C.F.R. § 310.2(x). 

30. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from initiating or causing the 

initiation of an outbound telephone call to numbers on the DNC Registry. 16 C.F.R. 

§ 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B). 

31. The TSR prohibits telemarketers from initiating an outbound telephone call that 

fails to disclose the seller’s identity truthfully, promptly, and in a clear and conspicuous manner 

to the person receiving the call. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(d). 

32. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from misrepresenting, directly or by 

implication, in the sale of goods or services, the seller’s or telemarketer’s affiliation with, or 

endorsement or sponsorship by, any person. 16 C.F.R. §310.3(a)(2)(vii). 

33. The TSR requires that sellers and telemarketers transmit or cause to be 

transmitted the telephone number of the telemarketer and, when made available by the 

telemarketer’s carrier, the name of the telemarketer (“caller ID information”), to any caller 

identification service in use by a recipient of a telemarketing call, or transmit the customer 

service number of the seller on whose behalf the call is made and, when made available by the 

telemarketer’s carrier, the name of the seller. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(8). Transmitting inaccurate 

caller ID information, or causing inaccurate caller ID information to be transmitted, is commonly 

called spoofing. 

34. It is a violation of the TSR for any person to provide substantial assistance or 

support to any seller or telemarketer when that person knows or consciously avoids knowing that 

the seller or telemarketer is engaged in any practice that violates Sections 310.3(a), (c) or (d), or 

310.4 of the TSR. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b). 

8 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 9 of 57 

35. Pursuant to Section 3(c) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6102(c), and 

Section 18(d)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), a violation of the TSR constitutes an 

unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT 

36. The FCRA was enacted in 1970, became effective on April 25, 1971, and has 

been in force since that date. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amended the FCRA 

in December 2003, and the Dodd-Frank Act amended the FCRA in July 2010. 

37. Section 621 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s, authorizes the Commission to use 

all of its functions and powers under the FTC Act to enforce compliance with the FCRA by all 

persons subject thereto except to the extent that enforcement specifically is committed to some 

other governmental agency, irrespective of whether the person is engaged in commerce or meets 

any other jurisdictional tests set forth by the FTC Act. 

38. Section 603(d) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d) defines a “consumer report” as 

“any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency 

bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general 

reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living, which is used or expected to be used or 

collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing a consumer’s 

eligibility for (A) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household 

purposes; (B) employment purposes; or (C) any other purposes authorized under section 1681b 

of this title.” 

39. Credit reports and credit scores are types of consumer reports. 

40. Section 604(f) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f), prohibits persons from using 

or obtaining consumer reports in the absence of a “permissible purpose,” as defined by Section 

604(a) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a). 

9 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 10 of 57 

41. Pursuant to section 621(a)(1) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a)(1), using or 

obtaining consumer reports without a permissible purpose constitutes an unfair or deceptive act 

or practice in violation of section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

ALLIANCE’S VIOLATIONS OF THE 2014 ORDER 

42. Section I.A. of the 2014 Order prohibits Alliance from initiating, causing the 

initiation of, or assisting the initiation of outbound telephone calls to any person at a number 

listed on the DNC Registry, unless Alliance proves that it had either: (a) express written consent 

from that person to place the call; or (b) a pre-existing business relationship with that person (the 

“DNC Prohibition of the 2014 Order”). Alliance has never complied with this aspect of the 2014 

Order. Indeed, the day after this Court entered the 2014 Order, Alliance’s own employees placed 

622 outbound telephone calls to numbers listed on the DNC Registry. On the one-year 

anniversary of this Court entering the 2014 Order, Alliance’s own employees placed 1,729 

outbound telephone calls to numbers listed on the DNC Registry. 

43. In addition to violating the DNC Prohibition of the 2014 Order, Alliance has 

violated many other aspects of the Order, including the following: 

a. Order Acknowledgments. The 2014 Order required Alliance to obtain 

acknowledgments from all of its lead generators confirming that the lead 

generators had reviewed the 2014 Order and agree to comply with it within 90 

days of entry of the order. Alliance failed to obtain any order acknowledgments 

until September 2015, after the Commission asked for proof of compliance. 

b. Lead Generator Termination for Non-Compliance. The 2014 Order required 

Alliance to “immediately cease” purchasing leads from any lead generator if the 

lead generator was telemarketing in a way that violated the 2014 Order. Alliance 

violated this requirement by continuing to purchase leads from lead generators 

that had sold Alliance leads violating the 2014 Order. 

c. Failure to Disclose Alliance’s Identity. The 2014 Order prohibited Alliance from 

“engaging in, causing others to engage in, or assisting others engaging in ... 

10 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 11 of 57 

[i]nitiating any Outbound Telephone Call in which Defendants or their 

Representatives fail to disclose truthfully, promptly, and in a clear and 

conspicuous manner the Defendants’ identity.” Alliance violated this aspect of the 

2014 Order (and the TSR) by specifically prohibiting their lead generators and 

telemarketers from disclosing Alliance’s identity or using Alliance’s name in 

telemarketing calls unless consumers specifically ask for the name of the 

company that will be installing the home security system. In December 2015, 

Gotra testified under oath that Alliance’s telemarketers and lead generators are 

“definitely not” allowed to identify Alliance in their telemarketing and lead 

generation calls. Alliance has even sent cease and desist letters to its own lead 

generators and telemarketers “to make them refrain from using our company 

name Alliance Security.” 

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS AND TELEMARKETING PRACTICES 

-- Alliance’s General Business Practices --

44. From April 24, 2014 through July 14, 2017, all of the home security systems 

Alliance installed were monitored by a single alarm monitoring company, Monitronics. During 

that same period, Alliance obtained almost all of its revenue from Monitronics. Alliance and 

Monitronics have been co-defendants in a series of ongoing consumer class action lawsuits that 

were consolidated by the panel on multi-district litigation “(MDL”). The MDL class action 

litigation alleged that Alliance and its telemarketers placed unlawful calls telemarketing calls on 

behalf of Monitronics. Monitronics has agreed to a proposed settlement of $28 million, but 

Alliance is not part of that settlement. See in re Monitronics International Inc. Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act Litigation, No. 1:13-MD-02493-JPB-JES (N.D. W. Va.). 

45. Alliance generally does not charge consumers for the home security system or for 

installing it. When Alliance’s installers arrive at a consumer’s house to install a home security 

system, they bring a contract for the consumer’s purchase of monthly alarm monitoring services. 

Under that contract, the consumer agrees to pay a monthly fee, often for a period of several 

11 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 12 of 57 

years. Alliance’s installers generally collect the first monthly payment when they install the 

home security system. This is a prepayment by the consumers in advance of activating the 

monitoring services. The contracts are generally electronic, not printed, and Alliance displays 

them to consumers on a tablet device. 

46. From April 24, 2014 through July 14, 2017, Alliance sold the signed alarm 

monitoring contracts to Monitronics, and Monitronics paid Alliance a percentage of the total 

value of the contract. Monitronics determined what percentage of the total contract value to pay 

Alliance partly based upon the consumer’s credit score. For consumers with a high credit score, 

Alliance got a higher percentage of the total contract value. Monitronics generally did not pay 

Alliance if the consumer had a credit score below 600. 

47. Alliance generally will not send an installer to a consumer’s home until it has 

obtained the consumer’s credit score. Alliance’s typical practice, however, is that it does not 

disclose to consumers that it obtains their credit information. 

48. Alliance identifies consumers who are interested in home security systems and 

alarm monitoring through telemarketing. 

49. Alliance has both an internal telemarketing program conducted by its own 

employees and an external telemarketing program conducted by third-party contractors that 

Alliance calls “dealers” or “independent business operators.” 

-- Alliance’s Consumer Credit Inquiries --

50. During Alliance’s sales calls, which are initiated by Alliance or its telemarketers 

and not by consumers, Alliance often obtains information necessary to obtain the consumer’s 

credit scores. Alliance often asks consumers for personal information during the sales calls, such 

as name, address, date of birth, or the last four digits of their social security number. Some of 

Alliance’s sales scripts instruct the salespersons to use deceptive methods to obtain this 

information from consumers. For example, one script instructs the salespersons to tell consumers 

that they request this information to set up the customer’s “secondary account number.” 

Alliance’s “rebuttal” sales script instructs salespersons to admit to consumers that Alliance 

12 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 13 of 57 

obtains consumers’ credit scores or other credit information, but only if the consumer persists in 

asking questions. Despite this instruction in the rebuttal script, some of Alliance’s sales 

managers have instructed its salespersons to tell consumers that Alliance does not obtain their 

credit information. 

51. Alliance has routinely obtained consumers’ credit information from several 

consumer reporting agencies without disclosing these inquiries to the consumers, without 

obtaining consent, and without any other permissible purpose, as set forth in the FCRA. 

52. With its primary consumer reporting agency, Transunion, Alliance has made 

several certifications concerning its “permissible purpose” for obtaining consumer credit scores. 

In January 2017, Alliance’s Chief Financial Officer, Douglas Anderson, certified to Transunion 

that Alliance’s “sole” permissible purpose for obtaining consumer report information was “to use 

the Consumer Report Information in connection with transactions ... initiated by a consumer.” 

On April 11, 2017, Mr. Anderson certified to Transunion that Alliance’s “sole” permissible 

purpose for obtaining consumer report information was “to use the Consumer Report 

Information in connection with ... review[ing] an account to determine whether the consumer 

continues to meet the terms of the account.” 

53. As a result of its credit inquiries to Transunion, Alliance has obtained consumers’ 

credit information from Transunion after Alliance or its telemarketers initiated unsolicited 

telemarketing calls to the consumer—without the consumer’s knowledge or consent, without the 

consumer having any existing or prior account with Alliance, and without any other permissible 

purpose under the FCRA. 

54. In addition to performing unlawful credit inquiries on its potential customers, 

Alliance has also obtained consumer credit scores or other consumer information of consumers 

who could not be potential customers, because they live in areas where Alliance did not install 

alarms. 

55. Alliance has also attempted to perform unlawful credit inquiries on many 

individuals who were not potential customers. 

13 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 14 of 57 

56. For example, Alliance attempted to obtain from Transunion consumer credit 

scores, credit reports, or other consumer information after submitting the following consumer 

information to Transunion: 

a. August 9, 2016—“Bill Clinton, *********, Washington, DC 20008.” 

b. October 18, 2016—“Joe Biden, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC 

20500.” [1600 Pennsylvania Ave is the address of the White House.] 

c. October 19, 2016—Barrack [sic] Obama, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, 

Washington, DC 20500.” 

d. March 15, 2017—“Mike Pence, 3450 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, 

DC 20392.” [3450 Massachusetts Ave is the address of the United States 

Naval Observatory, where the Vice Presidential residence is located.] 

e. August 17, 2017—“Donald Trump, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, 

DC 20006.” 

57. The attempted unauthorized credit inquiry by Alliance seeking President Donald 

Trump’s credit score on August 17, 2017 was after staff attorneys for the FTC informed Alliance 

that its investigation had expanded to include potential violations of the FCRA. 

58. Further, in some instances, Alliance actually obtained a credit score or credit 

report from Transunion when it submitted inquiries about public figures. For example, 

Transunion informed the FTC that on April 12, 2016 Alliance obtained a credit score or credit 

report from Transunion after Alliance submitted to Transunion an inquiry about the following 

consumer: “James Comey, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC 20001.” 

59. In hundreds of thousands of instances, Alliance unlawfully obtained a credit 

score, credit report, or other consumer information from Transunion or another consumer 

reporting agencies without any permissible purpose under the FCRA. 

-- Alliance’s Internal Telemarketing Program --

60. Alliance’s employee telemarketers place outbound sales calls to consumers to 

attempt: to solicit the sale of home security systems and associated home security alarm 

14 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 15 of 57 

monitoring services; to arrange for the installation of the home security systems; and to provide 

consumers with their purchase price, a description of the equipment that will be installed, the 

length of the alarm monitoring contract, and other material terms of sale for the alarm monitoring 

contract. In some calls, Alliance also solicits the sale of additional home security products and 

services. 

61. Alliance places these calls to telephone numbers that are contained in “leads” that 

Alliance either purchases from its lead generators or obtains through customer referrals. 

62. From April 24, 2014 through July 31, 2015, Alliance’s internal telemarketing 

program—including both the lead generator and customer referral programs—led to the 

initiation of 374,129 outbound telephone calls to numbers listed on the DNC Registry. Alliance’s 

telemarketers placed these outbound telephone calls without express written consent from the 

consumers who owned those numbers, and without a pre-existing business relationship with 

those consumers. 

63. Alliance sent the FTC a letter informing the FTC that 120,000 of its outbound 

telemarketing calls to telephone numbers listed on the DNC Registry from April 24, 2015 

through July 31, 2015 were made through Alliance’s customer referral program. 

64. In its customer referral program, Alliance asks its existing customers to identify 

friends or family members who might be interested in obtaining a home security system. 

Alliance then calls those consumers referred by existing customers without scrubbing those 

numbers against the DNC Registry, without express written consent from those consumers, and 

without a pre-existing business relationship with those consumers. 

65. In response to an FTC inquiry about unwanted telemarketing calls by Alliance or 

its telemarketers Alliance sent a letter to the FTC falsely informing the FTC that it “has 

discontinued treating referrals as leads and no longer places telemarketing calls to such 

numbers.” 

66. In truth, when Alliance sent that letter, it had not stopped treating referrals as 

leads and had continued placing telemarketing calls to such numbers. 

15 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 16 of 57 

67. Alliance later sent another letter to the FTC, as part of its continued response to 

the FTC’s inquiry about unwanted telemarketing calls, this time informing the FTC that: (a) it 

was still placing telemarketing calls to referral leads; and (b) it had continued calling referral 

leads without first scrubbing them to remove numbers listed on the DNC Registry. 

68. Since July 31, 2015, Alliance’s own employees have continued placing outbound 

telephone calls to numbers on the DNC Registry. For example, a sample of Alliance’s outbound 

telemarketing calls containing records of calls placed between September 1, 2015 and April 18, 

2016, showed that Alliance placed 618,106 outbound telephone calls, 52,705 of which were to 

numbers on the DNC Registry (8.53% hit rate). Alliance’s employees placed these post-July 

2015 outbound telephone calls to numbers on the DNC Registry without express written consent 

from the consumers who owned those telephone numbers, and without a pre-existing business 

relationship with those consumers. 

69. Alliance provides all of its lead generators with access to Alliance’s copy of the 

DNC Registry, access to Alliance’s own internal do not call list, and access to another do not call 

list that Alliance calls its “no fly list.” The “no fly list” is a list of telephone numbers belonging 

to consumers who either file lawsuits for telemarketing violations, threaten to file lawsuits, or 

complain frequently. 

70. Many of Alliance’s lead generators place cold calls to consumers and play a 

prerecorded message asking the consumers if they are interested in a home security system. 

Consumers who indicate interest are told they will receive a call back shortly. The lead 

generators then transfer the consumers’ telephone numbers to Alliance by logging into a web 

portal that Alliance created, hosts, and maintains. 

71. Alliance’s web portal has settings that can “scrub” the leads against the National 

Do Not Call Registry so that it rejects leads that contain numbers listed on the National Do Not 

Call Registry. If a lead is rejected, Alliance’s salespersons do not call that number. 

72. Alliance—and Gotra, personally—have told consumers that they never turn this 

scrubbing feature off. 

16 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 17 of 57 

73. In truth, however, Alliance sometimes turns off the DNC scrub so that its system 

accepts leads containing telephone numbers listed on the DNC Registry. These numbers on the 

DNC Registry are then called by Alliance telemarketers. 

74. Sometimes, when Alliance receives complaints from consumers who are on the 

DNC Registry, Alliance falsely tells the consumers that they must periodically renew their 

numbers on the DNC Registry or their number will be removed from the Registry. 

75. In truth, however, telephone numbers remain on the DNC Registry indefinitely 

unless the number is disconnected or reassigned to a different person. 

76. One incident from November 10, 2015 provides an example of Alliance turning 

off the DNC scrub feature, receiving a consumer complaint as a result of turning off the DNC 

scrub feature, and then falsely telling the consumer that she was called because she failed to 

renew her number on the DNC Registry. After receiving a complaint from this consumer on 

November 10, 2015, an Alliance employee sent the following email (the “November 10, 2015 

Email”) to Alliance’s DNC Administrator, who then forwarded it to Alliance’s Director of 

Compliance: 

Attached is the recording of a phone call that was made to a phone number 

that is on the Federal DNC list at approx. 10:39am this morning. 

The lead for this phone number was submitted into our system by the 

office ”HomeBiz”; which has the setting in Techspatch to opt-out of 

scrubbing the DNC lists when they submit their leads. 

I thought it would be smart to scrub all of their leads that they submitted 

today just to be safe, and found out that 58 out of 102 leads that were 

submitted by that dealer were just on Federal DNC lists. 

If you want me to go and remove those leads from the system or make any 

other changes in the system, let me know and I'll get to it ASAP. 

77. During the call with that consumer at 10:39 am on November 10, 2015, the 

consumer told the Alliance salesperson “I have my phone number on the National Do Not Call 

Registry.” The consumer asked why Alliance called her when her number is listed on the DNC 

Registry. The Alliance salesperson responded: “I am not entirely sure how we got in touch with 

17 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 18 of 57 

you. Our system typically scrubs for numbers that are on that list. When was the last time that 

you renewed that? You have to go and check every so often and make sure that it’s on there, 

‘cause it’s not like a one-time deal that it will stay permanently blocked.” 

78. The “office” called “HomeBiz” referenced in the November 10, 2015 Email was 

actually a lead generation campaign, conducted through telemarketing, by Justin Ramsey. 

79. From April 24, 2014 through April 29, 2016, Justin Ramsey (“Ramsey”) was one 

of Alliance’s largest lead generators, in terms of the number of leads Alliance purchased. 

80. Ramsey is also a recidivist robocaller who has been the subject of numerous law 

enforcement actions and private lawsuits concerning unlawful telemarketing calls. See, e.g., FTC 

v. Ramsey, et al., No. 9:17-cv-80032-KAM (S.D. Fla.); Indiana v. Ramsey, et al., No. 29D02-

1309-MI-9135 (Hamilton Cty. Sup. Ct.). 

81. Prior to the November 10, 2015 Email about Ramsey’s “HomeBiz” office, 

Alliance had received numerous complaints from consumers and Monitronics stemming from 

leads Alliance purchased from Justin Ramsey. Even after November 10, 2015, Alliance 

continued purchasing leads from Ramsey despite the 2014 Order’s requirement that Alliance 

cease purchasing leads from non-compliant lead generators. 

82. In fact, instead of terminating its relationship with Ramsey, Alliance expanded the 

scope of its dealings with him. In March 2016, Alliance began accepting direct, inbound 

transfers of telemarketing calls from Ramsey. Alliance and Ramsey called one of these 

campaigns “Danger Zone.” The Danger Zone campaign often worked in three steps: (1) Ramsey 

placed outbound telephone calls to consumers delivering prerecorded messages that asked them 

if they were interested in a home security system; (2) consumers who pressed 1 on their 

telephones or said yes to indicate interest were transferred to a call center where they were “prequalified;” and (3) consumers who were still interested and qualified were transferred directly to 

Alliance. Alliance had no capability to scrub the inbound calls against the DNC Registry. 

83. In March and April of 2016, Alliance received at least forty consumer complaints 

about the Danger Zone campaign. 

18 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 19 of 57 

84. Consumers also complained to the FTC about calls made as part of the Danger 

Zone campaign, including a complaint about the use of a false Caller ID number (“Caller ID 

spoofing”) that the FTC forwarded to Alliance on April 8, 2016. In that call, and many others, 

Ramsey used a specific type of Caller ID spoofing called “Neighbor Spoofing,” in which the 

Caller ID number was made to appear as if the call was coming from a phone number similar to 

the consumer’s phone number. 

85. On April 21, 2016, Ramsey sent an email to one of his business associates telling 

her that he was temporarily discontinuing much of his telemarketing because “I got way to [sic] 

much heat on my [sic] right now and so does alliance [sic]. Big heat I gotta let it blow over.” 

86. On May 9, 2016, Alliance informed the FTC that, as a result of the Caller ID 

spoofing complaint forwarded by the FTC (and other factors), Alliance had terminated its 

business relationship with Ramsey, effective April 29, 2016. 

87. Also during the spring of 2016, Alliance made a change to its lead generator 

program and began using a single vendor, Avatar Technologies, Inc. a/k/a Avatar Outsourcing, 

Inc. a/k/a Compliant Dialer, Inc. (“Avatar”), for the majority of its lead generation. Alliance sent 

Avatar lists of consumer telephone numbers to call. Avatar then placed outbound telemarketing 

calls to the numbers on those lists using what is known in the telemarketing industry as 

“soundboard” or “avatar” technology. 

88. Avatar’s soundboard technology and lead generation calls work as follows: 

a. Avatar has call center agents in the Philippines; 

b. Avatar uses its automated dialing program to place outbound telephone calls 

to consumers; 

c. if a consumer answers the phone, the consumer is then connected with one of 

Avatar’s agents; and 

d. Avatar’s agents then use Avatar’s software to play prerecorded messages to 

consumers. 

19 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 20 of 57 

89. The prerecorded messages Avatar’s agents played to consumers generally asked 

consumers if they were interested in a home security system, if they had an existing home 

security system, and if they were homeowners. Alliance referred to this part of the call as 

“prequalifying” or “opening.” Consumers who answered all three questions properly were 

deemed “prequalified” and then either transferred directly to Alliance or told they would receive 

a call back shortly. Alliance referred to the telemarketers who handled the transferred call or the 

call-backs as “closers.” 

90. In Alliance’s terms of service with Avatar, Alliance agreed that it was solely 

responsible for ensuring compliance with the TSR and the DNC Registry. Alliance also agreed 

that before sending Avatar any lists of telephone numbers, it would “scrub” those lists against the 

DNC Registry. 

91. From April 26, 2016 through June 4, 2016, Alliance’s prequalification calls 

placed by Avatar—using the data lists supplied by Alliance—generated at least 91,909 calls to 

numbers listed on the DNC Registry. Neither Alliance nor Avatar had express written consent 

from the consumers who owned those telephone numbers. Nor did Alliance or Avatar have a preexisting relationship with those consumers. Alliance initiated or caused the initiation of these 

91,991 calls by providing Avatar with the specific telephone numbers to call and instructing 

them to place the calls. During the same timeframe—April 26, 2016 through June 4, 2016— 

Alliance did not download the DNC Registry. 

-- Alliance’s Misleading Statements About Its Affiliation with ADT --

92. In addition to initiating or causing the initiation of calls to numbers listed on the 

DNC Registry, Alliance’s salespersons also made misleading or false statements to consumers 

during telemarketing calls. For example, on or about February 19, 2016, a consumer on the 

phone with an Alliance Security telemarketer asked “this is ADT right?” The Alliance 

salesperson responded “uh, yeah, ADT actually just got bought out, I’ve actually been receiving 

a lot of these calls.” The Alliance salesperson then put the consumer on hold. When he returned 

to the call, he told the consumer: “what I can actually do for you, because we actually just 

20 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 21 of 57 

recently got bought out, I’m not sure if you saw the news, so we can actually upgrade you to a 

newer system.” These statements misrepresent, in the sale of goods or services, Alliance’s 

affiliation with ADT. These statements also falsely represent that ADT was bought by Alliance 

in connection with the offering for sale or sale of goods or services. 

93. Prior to Alliance’s February 19, 2016 misleading statements and 

misrepresentations about ADT, Alliance had been accused of the same conduct by ADT. In July 

2015, ADT sued Alliance and alleged that Alliance employees falsely told existing ADT 

customers that Alliance bought ADT. Alliance later paid ADT $1.5 million to settle the lawsuit. 

See ADT v. Capital Connect Inc., No. 3:15-cv-02252-B (N.D. Tex.). 

-- Alliance’s Failures to Follow its Own Do Not Call Policy --

94. At all times since at least 2012, Alliance has had an internal do not call policy. In 

numerous instances since April 24, 2014, Alliance has failed to follow that policy. 

95. Alliance’s do not call policy requires the company to access and download the 

latest version of the Registry every two weeks. Several times since April 24, 2014, Alliance has 

failed to download the Registry even once a month. For example, Alliance did not download the 

registry between April 26, 2016 and June 16, 2016. Then, after downloading the Registry on 

June 16, 2016, Alliance did not download the Registry again until September 12, 2016. 

96. Since at least 2012, Alliance’s do not call policy has stated that consumers on do 

not call lists may not be called and that “there are no exceptions including the customer being a 

referral.” Nevertheless, Alliance later informed the FTC that it placed at least 120,000 calls to 

numbers listed on the Registry through its customer referral program. 

-- Alliance’s External “Dealer” Telemarketing Program --

97. In addition to placing its own outbound telemarketing sales calls, Alliance also 

contracts with third party telemarketers it calls “dealers” or “independent business operators.” 

98. Alliance has informed the FTC that it has written contracts with all of its 

“dealers.” 

21 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 22 of 57 

99. The written contracts between Alliance and its dealers characterize their business 

arrangement as one in which the dealer enters into an alarm monitoring contract with consumers 

and then later sells those contracts to Alliance. However, this does not reflect their actual 

business practices. In reality, the dealers initiate outbound telemarketing calls to consumers to: 

solicit the sale of Alliance home security systems and associated home security alarm monitoring 

services; arrange for the installation of the home security systems; and provide the consumers 

with a purchase price, a description of the equipment that will be installed, the length of the 

alarm monitoring contract, and other material terms of sale for the alarm monitoring contracts. 

The dealers then provide Alliance with the consumers’ contact information, scheduled date and 

time of installation, and certain details about the type of home security system the consumers 

want. Although the dealers arrange for installation and provide the consumers with a purchase 

price and other terms of sale, the dealers never accept payment from the consumers or provide 

Alliance with a written contract. 

100. After a dealer sets an appointment for Alliance’s installers to visit a consumer’s 

home, Alliance generally calls the consumer to confirm the appointment. After confirming the 

appointment, Alliance sends its installers to the consumer’s home with Alliance home security 

system equipment and an alarm monitoring contract. 

101. Alliance’s dealers set the appointment for installation—and determine the 

availability of Alliance’s installers—by logging into a web portal hosted by Alliance. Through 

that web portal, Alliance provides all of these third-party telemarketers with access to Alliance’s 

calendar, so that the telemarketers can schedule appointments for Alliance to install home 

security systems. 

102. Through the same web portal, Alliance also shares with these telemarketers a 

copy of its internal do not call list and Alliance’s copy of the DNC Registry. 

103. Alliance sends these dealers bi-weekly emails reminding them to download the 

DNC Registry from Alliance’s web portal. 

22 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 23 of 57 

104. Alliance prohibits these dealers from using Alliance’s name (or Monitronics’s 

name) in their telemarketing, unless a consumer specifically asks the name of the company that 

will be installing the alarm or the name of the company that will be monitoring the alarm. 

105. Although Alliance provides these telemarketers with access to its internal 

calendar, access to its internal do not call list, and access to Alliance’s copy of the DNC 

Registry, Alliance does no due diligence to ensure that its dealers have downloaded these lists. 

Nor does Alliance do sufficient due diligence to check whether its dealers comply with the TSR 

or other telemarketing laws. Alliance does not even ask its dealers to identify the person 

responsible for ensuring compliance with the TSR. 

106. In fact, Alliance does not do any due diligence to ensure that the written contracts 

with its “dealers” contain truthful and accurate information about the telemarketers’ names, 

identities, and contact information. For example, on January 8, 2015, Alliance entered into an 

“Independent Business Operator Agreement” with a company that identified itself in the contract 

as “sdf.” That contract shows that it was signed by “jhjkh.” The dealer listed its address as “jh, 

jkh, ri 02888.” Alliance accepted many similar contracts from its dealers. 

107. In another example—just two weeks after this Court entered the 2014 Order— 

Alliance entered into a contract with M & J Security. The contract was signed by “John Smith” 

who listed the company’s address as “1 first street, n.k., RI 02852.” However, the contract was 

actually submitted by Justin Ramsey, one of Alliance’s largest lead generators. 

-- Defend America’s Exclusive Telemarketing for Alliance --

108. Defend America was a telemarketing company that had a contract with Alliance 

to serve as an Alliance “dealer” or “independent business operator.” 

109. Defend America was one of Alliance’s largest dealers. From April 24, 2014 

through December 5, 2015, Alliance paid Defend America more than $2.8 million. 

110. On or about March 10, 2015, Defend America entered into an exclusive 

agreement with Alliance under which Defend America agreed that it would “NOT sell and/or 

market products or services, which are similar to that Alliance offers and SHALL NOT sell for 

23 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 24 of 57 

any other individual or entity.” Defend America’s owner, Defendant Jessica Merrick, signed that 

exclusivity agreement for Defend America using her prior name, Jessica Dudlicek. The 

agreement stated that it would be effective for three years. 

111. While Defend America was telemarketing for Alliance under the exclusive 

agreement, Alliance received numerous complaints about Defend America and other information 

indicating that Defendant America was not complying with telemarketing laws. For example: 

a. On December 4, 2015, Alliance received a complaint from Monitronics. The 

complaint stated that Defend America repeatedly placed unwanted calls to a 

consumer’s telephone number that was listed on the DNC Registry and that 

Defend America had informed the consumer it was affiliated with Alliance 

Security. Monitronics specifically told Alliance to “contact Defend America 

to ensure that they cease calls to this consumer immediately.” 

b. On February 9, 2016, Alliance received a complaint from a consumer in 

Georgia who threatened to sue Alliance for unwanted sales calls. On March 1, 

2016, the same consumer called Alliance’s DNC Administrator and let her 

know that he was still receiving unwanted home security telemarketing calls. 

On March 2, 2016, the same consumer agreed to set an appointment for an 

Alliance installer to come to his house. He did so in a desperate attempt to get 

the calls to stop. After setting the appointment, he called Alliance’s DNC 

administrator and told her that he had set the appointment. Also on March 2, 

2016, Alliance’s DNC administrator made a note in her file that “I saw in the 

work order that the lead provider was Defend America. I called Jessica and 

told her to remove him off their call list ASAP.” 

c. On March 1, 2016, Alliance received an email from Monitronics about a 

consumer in North Carolina who was complaining about unwanted sales calls 

from Alliance, despite being on the DNC Registry. Alliance’s DNC 

24 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 25 of 57 

Administrator responded to Monitronics and said “I do see a work order set up 

and Defend America was the dealer.” 

112. Despite these—and numerous other—complaints about unlawful calls that Defend 

America made while telemarketing for Alliance, Alliance continued its relationship with Defend 

America. 

113. From March 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016, while Defend America was still 

operating under its exclusive agreement with Alliance, Defend America used Avatar to place 

outbound calls to consumers. During this time period, Merrick sent Avatar the lists of consumer 

telephone numbers to dial, determined the number of pre-qualifiers or openers that Avatar would 

use for Defend America’s campaigns, paid the invoices sent by Avatar, and approved all of the 

scripts for the prerecorded messages played by Avatar’s agents. 

114. In its terms of service with Avatar, Defend America agreed that it was solely 

responsible for ensuring compliance with the TSR and the DNC Registry. Defend America also 

agreed that, before sending Avatar any lists of telephone numbers, it would “scrub” those lists 

against the DNC Registry. 

115. None of the prerecorded messages played by Avatar in its Defend America 

campaigns disclosed the identity of Avatar, Defend America, Alliance, or Monitronics. 

116. Using the data lists provided by Merrick, and playing the prerecorded message 

approved by Merrick, Avatar placed 492,089 outbound calls for Defend America between March 

1, 2016 and June 30, 2016. 

117. All 492,089 of these outbound telephone calls failed to promptly, truthfully, and 

clearly and conspicuously identify Alliance, Defend America, Avatar, or Monitronics, and 

therefore failed to identify the seller or telemarketer. 

118. All 492,089 of these outbound telephone calls failed to promptly, truthfully, and 

clearly and conspicuously identify Alliance as required by the 2014 Order. 

119. Of these 492,089 outbound telephone calls, 403,599 (82%) were to numbers listed 

on the DNC Registry. 

25 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 26 of 57 

120. Alliance caused the initiation of Defend America’s 492,089 outbound telephone 

calls from March 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016—including 403,599 to numbers listed on the 

DNC Registry. 

121. On September 6, 2016, Alliance sent Merrick a letter terminating its relationship 

with Defend America. In the termination letter, Alliance stated “Alliance has received consumer 

complaints from multiple sources regarding your marketing ... Specifically, Alliance has verified 

recent reports alleging that you have contacted individuals on the Federal Do-Not-Call list 

without consent.” 

-- Power Marketing Promotions’ Telemarketing for Alliance --

122. Power Marketing was formed in December 2014 as part of the transaction in 

which Alliance purchased its largest competitor. Klink was one of the owners or managers of 

that competitor. As part of the structure of the purchase, Klink resigned his position from the 

competitor, formed Power Marketing, and signed a contract for Power Marketing to serve as an 

Alliance dealer. Klink’s resignation from the competitor and the contract he signed for Power 

Marketing to become an Alliance dealer were both exhibits to Alliance’s contract purchasing the 

competitor. Also as part of that purchase, Alliance obtained documents providing it with notice 

of state law enforcement actions and private lawsuits against Klink’s former company. 

123. Also in December 2014, Gotra told Klink that Power Marketing should buy its 

data lists (of consumer telephone numbers) from Ramsey. Gotra told Klink that Alliance would 

pay Ramsey directly for supplying Power Marketing with these data lists. This arrangement 

continued at least until April 2016, when Alliance terminated its business relationship with 

Ramsey. At that point, Power Marketing continued obtaining data lists from Ramsey but paid 

Ramsey directly using Power Marketing funds. 

26 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 27 of 57 

124. At all times between April 27, 2016 and June 27, 2016, Power Marketing 

transacted business with Alliance pursuant to a written contract with Alliance (the “Power 

Marketing Contract”). 

125. The Power Marketing Contract anticipated that Power Marketing would engage in 

telemarketing to set appointments for Alliance to install home security systems. 

126. When Alliance entered into the Power Marketing Contract, which Klink signed 

for Power Marketing, Alliance was aware that Klink had previously owned, managed, or been an 

officer of other companies that were sued by: (a) the State of Indiana for making calls to 

telephone numbers listed on the Indiana do not call list; and (b) the State of Mississippi for 

violating the Mississippi Telephone Solicitation Act. 

127. As part of their business relationship under the Power Marketing Contract, and at 

all times between April 27, 2016 and June 27, 2016, Alliance provided Power Marketing with 

access to a copy of Alliance’s internal do not call list and Alliance’s copy of the DNC Registry. 

128. Between April 27, 2016 and June 27, 2016, Power Marketing conducted a 

telemarketing campaign under its DBA name, J Tele Alarms. The J Tele Alarms campaign 

placed outbound telemarketing calls to consumers to attempt to set appointments for the 

installation of alarms by Alliance. As part of this campaign, Power Marketing d/b/a J Tele 

Alarms used Avatar to place the calls and “pre-qualify” consumers who might be interested in 

obtaining a home security system. 

129. Klink determined the number of “pre-qualifiers” that Avatar would dedicate to the 

J Tele Alarms campaign, and he paid the J Tele Alarms invoices from Avatar using Power 

Marketing’s accounts and funds. Klink also agreed to Power Marketing’s terms of service with 

Avatar, which required Power Marketing to “scrub” its dialing lists against the DNC Registry. 

130. The dialing lists used in the J Tele Alarms campaign were provided by Ramsey, 

who sent them to Klink’s business associate in Pakistan. Klink’s Pakistani business associate 

then sent the dialing lists to Avatar. 

27 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 28 of 57 

131. Between April 27, 2016 and June 27, 2016, Avatar placed at least 684,789 

outbound telephone calls as part of the J Tele Alarms campaign. 

132. All 684,789 of these outbound telephone calls failed to promptly, accurately, and 

clearly and conspicuously identify Alliance, Power Marketing, Avatar, or Monitronics, and 

therefore failed to identify the seller or telemarketer. 

133. All 684,789 of these outbound telephone calls failed to promptly, accurately, and 

clearly and conspicuously identify Alliance as required by the 2014 Order. 

134. Of these 684,789 outbound telephone calls, 125,009 (18.26%) were placed to 

numbers listed on the DNC Registry. Neither Power Marketing nor Alliance had express written 

consent from the consumers who owned those numbers or a pre-existing business relationship 

with those consumers. 

135. Alliance caused the initiation of Power Marketing’s 684,789 outbound telephone 

calls from March 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016—including the 125,009 that were placed to 

numbers on the DNC Registry. 

136. Between April 27, 2016 and June 27, 2016, the outbound telephone calls in the 

J Tele Alarms campaign displayed (314) 526-2011 as the Caller ID number. 

137. Between April 27, 2016 and June 27, 2016, the FTC received over 300 complaints 

from consumers about unwanted calls displaying (314) 526-2011 as the Caller ID number. The 

content of many of these consumer complaints referenced home security products and/or 

specifically referenced Alliance. 

138. In addition, several consumers who received calls as part of Power Marketing’s 

J Tele Alarms campaign complained about those calls directly to Alliance. 

139. During this time frame, Alliance received many complaints about Power 

Marketing and Klink’s telemarketing. For example, on June 14, 2016, Alliance’s Legal 

Administrator sent an email to Alliance’s Director of Compliance telling him: 

I got another complaint about Kevin Klink and Haider. Called 815-[xxx]-

8314, this number is on the Federal and internal DNC and has been. 

28 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 29 of 57 

[Another Alliance employee] helped me contact the number 570-867-8743 

which is the number that showed up on this consumers [sic] caller ID and 

he followed through and confirmed this was klink [sic] and Haider. They 

said they were Alliance, ADT, Family Protection Technologies among 

other names. 

140. The statements—and others like them—made by Klink’s telemarketers that “they 

were ... ADT” are misrepresentations about a telemarketer’s affiliations. 

141. Also on June 14, 2016, an Alliance employee emailed Klink (with Gotra copied 

on the email) to inform Klink that he and Power Marketing were placing calls to consumers with 

telephone numbers listed on the DNC Registry who had previously asked to be removed from 

Power Marketing’s call lists. Instead of terminating its relationship with Klink and Power 

Marketing, Alliance informed Klink that: 

Below there is a list of name and phone numbers that you called and 

submitted to us that we got complaints about or appear on the federal or 

our internal no fly. I know you scrub your leads through the internal no-fly 

but you need to make sure that you are scrubbing the federal DNC list as 

well ... your office is calling customers multiple times a day when the 

customer have asked to be put on the DNC list and customer only 

scheduling an appointment with us to waste our time to tell us to stop 

calling them. 

142. The same day, on June 14, 2016, an Alliance employee sent another email to 

Klink with a subject line: “More DNC Phone Numbers.” 

143. On June 14, 2016, Power Marketing’s J Tele Alarms campaign placed outbound 

telephone calls to 7,538 numbers listed on the DNC Registry. The following day, June 15, 2016, 

Power Marketing’s J Tele Alarms campaign placed outbound telephone calls to 2,483 numbers 

listed on the DNC Registry. 

144. In the June 14, 2016 email from Alliance to Klink with the subject line “More 

DNC Phone Numbers,” Alliance included the phone number of a consumer from Howard 

County, Maryland with a telephone number (410) xxx-xxxx. On June 7, 2016, the J Tele Alarms 

campaign called this consumer. He had received so many unwanted sales calls pitching home 

security systems that when he received this call—the fourth alarm sales call of the day—he 

finally agreed to set an appointment for installation, just so he could learn the identity of the 

29 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 30 of 57 

company responsible for the calls and tell the company, face-to-face, to stop calling him. The 

consumer made this decision because all of his prior requests to remove his number from the call 

lists had been ignored, and because when he asked the name of company calling him, the calls 

were disconnected. When the installer arrived at this consumer’s home, the consumer told the 

Alliance installer that he had no interest in a home security system and just wanted them to stop 

calling him. Unbeknownst to this consumer—and without his permission or any other 

permissible purpose—before sending an installation technician to his home, Alliance obtained 

his credit score from a consumer reporting agency. This person was one of the many consumers 

who had scheduled an appointment just to tell Alliance to stop calling. 

145. After June 14, 2016, Alliance continued its business relationship with Klink and 

Power Marketing, continued permitting them to conduct telemarketing to set appointments for 

Alliance to install home security systems, and continued providing Klink and Power Marketing 

access to Alliance’s copy of the DNC Registry. 

146. On June 20, 2016, an Alliance employee sent another email to Klink telling him: 

“When they keep calling the customer, of course they are going to set up an appointment to have 

someone come out to their home to tell them to stop calling. This isn’t the first time we received 

a complaint about this situation.” 

147. Also on June 20, 2016, Klink emailed Alliance and said “[w]e go by whatever 

you provide for us to scrub since we’re calling on your behalf.” 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FCRA 

Count I: Obtaining Consumer Reports Without a Permissible Purpose 

(Alliance and Gotra) 

148. Section 604(f) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f), prohibits persons from using 

or obtaining consumer reports without a “permissible purpose” identified in the statute. 

149. As described in Paragraphs 9, 46-47, 50-59, and 144, and in multiple other 

instances, Defendants Alliance and Gotra knowingly obtained consumer reports without a 

permissible purpose. 

30 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 31 of 57 

150. By and through the acts and practices described in Paragraphs 9, 46-47, 50-59, 

144 and 149 above, and in multiple other instances, Defendants Alliance and Gotra have violated 

section 604(f) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f). 

151. The violations of the FCRA, as alleged above in paragraphs 9, 46-47, 50-59, 144, 

and 148-150, constitute violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

Count II: Calls to Persons Registered on the National Do Not Call Registry 

(All Defendants) 

152. In numerous instances, in connection with telemarketing, Defendants initiated or 

caused others to initiate an outbound telephone call to a person’s telephone number on the 

National Do Not Call Registry in violation of the TSR. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B). 

Count III: Calls to Induce the Purchase of Goods or Services that Fail to Identify the Seller 

(Defend America, Merrick, Power Marketing, and Klink) 

153. In numerous instances, in connection with telemarketing, Defendants Defend 

America LLC, Merrick, Power Marketing LLC, and Klink have initiated or caused others to 

initiate an outbound telephone call that failed to disclose the seller’s identity truthfully, promptly, 

and in a clear and conspicuous manner to the person receiving the call. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(d). 

Count IV: Misrepresentations Concerning a Seller or Telemarketer’s Affiliations 

(Alliance, Gotra, Power Marketing, and Klink) 

154. In numerous instances, in connection with telemarketing, Defendants Alliance, 

Gotra, Power Marketing LLC, and Klink made misrepresentations about their affiliations with 

other persons, including without limitation ADT. 

155. Defendants misrepresentations about their affiliations with other persons, as 

alleged, constitute violations of 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(vii). 

31 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 32 of 57 

Count V: Assisting and Facilitating Abusive or Deceptive Telemarketing Acts or Practices 

(Alliance and Gotra) 

156. In numerous instances, in connection with telemarketing, Defendants Alliance 

and Jasjit Gotra have provided substantial assistance or support to sellers or telemarketers whom 

it knew or consciously avoided knowing were engaged in the following violations of the TSR: 

a. causing others to engage in initiating or causing the initiation of an outbound 

telephone call to a person’s telephone number on the National Do Not Call 

Registry, in violation of the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B); 

b. causing others to engage in initiating or causing the initiation of an outbound 

telephone call that failed to disclose the seller’s identity truthfully, promptly, 

and in a clear and conspicuous manner to the person receiving the call, in 

violation of the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(d); 

c. making misrepresentations about their affiliations with other persons. 16 

C.F.R, § 310.3(a)(2)(vii); and 

d. failing to transmit or cause to be transmitted to any Caller Identification 

Service in use by a recipient of a Telemarketing call either: (i) the telephone 

number and name of the Telemarketer making the call; or (ii) Defendants’ 

name and customer service telephone number, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(8). 

157. Alliance’s substantial assistance or support as alleged in Paragraph 156 above 

violates the TSR, 16 C.F.R. §310.3(b). 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

158. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

159. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive 

acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

32 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 33 of 57 

Count VI: Misrepresentations in Violation of the FTC Act 

(Alliance, Gotra, Power Marketing, and Klink) 

160. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, 

offering for sale, or sale of home security systems and monthly alarm monitoring services, 

Defendants Alliance, Gotra, Power Marketing, and Klink have represented, directly or indirectly, 

expressly or by implication, that: 

a. Defendants were affiliated or associated with ADT or another competitor 

alarm installation or monitoring company; or 

b. Defendants were a successor company to ADT or another Alliance 

competitor. 

161. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which Defendants have made the 

representations set forth in Paragraph 160 of this Complaint: 

a. Defendants were not affiliated or associated with ADT or another 

competitor alarm installation or monitoring company; or 

b. Defendants were not a successor company to ADT or another Alliance 

competitor. 

162. Therefore, Defendants’ representations, as set forth in Paragraph 160 of the 

Complaint, are false or misleading and constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

CONSUMER INJURY 

163. Consumers in the United States have suffered and will continue to suffer injury as 

a result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, the TSR, and the FCRA. In addition, 

Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful acts or practices. Absent 

injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue to injure consumers, reap unjust 

enrichment, and harm the public interest. 

33 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 34 of 57 

THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF 

164. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), empowers this Court to grant 

injunctive and such other ancillary relief to halt and redress any violation of any provision of law 

enforced by the FTC, including the TSR. Section 621(a) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a), also 

authorizes this Court to issue a permanent injunction to prevent continued violations of the 

FCRA. The Court, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, may award ancillary relief, 

including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the 

disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, to prevent and remedy any violation of any provision of law 

enforced by the FTC. 

165. Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A), as modified by 

Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 2461, as 

amended, and as implemented by 16 C.F.R. § 1.98(d), authorizes this Court to award monetary 

civil penalties. From 2014 until July 31, 2016, the Court was authorized to award a penalty of up 

to $16,000 for each violation of the TSR. See 16 C.F.R. § 1.98(d) (2009). Effective August 1, 

2016, the maximum penalty amount was adjusted to $40,000 per violation, pursuant to the 

Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-74 § 

701 (further amending the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990), and Federal 

Trade Commission Rule 1.98, 16 C.F.R. § 1.98, 81 Fed. Reg. 42,476 (June 30, 2016). 

166. Defendants’ violations of the TSR were committed with the knowledge required 

by Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A). 

167. Section 621(a)(2)(A) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a)(2)(A), authorizes the 

Court to award monetary civil penalties in the event of a knowing violation of the FCRA, which 

constitutes a pattern or practice of violations. Defendants’ violations of the FCRA, as alleged in 

this Complaint, have been knowing and have constituted a pattern or practice of violations. As 

specified by the Federal Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 2461, as 

amended by the Debt Collection Improvements Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-134, § 31001(s)(1), 110 

Stat. 1321-373, the Court is authorized to award a penalty of not more than $3,500 per violation 

34 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 35 of 57 

for violations occurring before August 1, 2016, $3,756 per violation for violations occurring 

between that date and January 23, 2017, and $3,817 for violations occurring on or after January 

24, 2017. 

168. Each instance in which Defendants failed to comply with the FCRA constitutes a 

separate violation of the FCRA for the purpose of assessing monetary civil penalties under 

section 621 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s. Plaintiff seeks monetary civil penalties for every 

separate violation of the FCRA. 

169. This Court, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, may award ancillary relief 

to remedy injury caused by Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, TSR, and FCRA. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 

45(m)(1)(A), 53(b), and 1681s, and pursuant to the Court’s own equitable powers: 

A. Enter judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff for each law violation 

alleged in this Complaint; 

B. Award Plaintiff monetary civil penalties from Defendants for each violation of the 

TSR and FCRA, as alleged herein; 

C. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act, TSR, 

and FCRA by Defendants, as alleged herein; and 

D. Award Plaintiff the costs of bringing this action, as well as such additional relief 

as the Court may determine to be just and proper. 

35 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 36 of 57 

36 

Respectfully submitted, 

David Shonka 

Acting General Counsel 

Dated: March 22, 2018 ~~e.e,~~ 

Ian Barlow · 

Danielle Estrada 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-3120 (Barlow) 

(202) 326-2630 (Estrada) 

(202) 326-3395 (facsimile) 

ibarlow@ftc.gov 

destrada@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 
Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 37 of 57 

Exhibit 1 
Case 1:14-cv-10612 PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 1 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 38 of 57 

I 

j 

! 

l 

! 

I 

I 

j 

l 

j 

l 

j 

1 

{ 

! 

i 

' l 

I 

! 

~ j 

! 

} 

~ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICf OF MASSACHUSETTS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff; 

V. 

VERSATILE MARKETING SOLUTIONS, 

INC., a Massachusetts corporation, also doing 

business as VMS Alarm.5, VMS, Alliance Case No. 1: 14-cv-l 0612 

Security, and Alliance Horne Protection, 

and 

JASJIT GOTRA, individually and as an 

officer ofVersatile Marketing Solutions, Inc., 

Defendants. 

STIPULATED FINAL ORDER 

FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND CIVIL PENALTY JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff; the United States of America, acting upon notification and authorization to the 

Attorney General by the Federal Trade Commission (''Commission" or "FTC"), filed its 

Complaint fur Civil Penalties, Pennanent Injunction, and Other Relief ("Complaint'') in this 

matter, pursuant to Sections 5(a), 5(m)(I)(A), I 3(b), 16(a)(l), and 19 of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (''FTC Act''), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 45(m)(l)(A), 53(b), 56(a)(l), and 57b, and 

Section 6 of the Telemarketing and Conswner Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (the 

'VJ'elemarketing Act''), 15 U.S.C. § 6105. Defendants have waived service ofthe summons and 

the Complaint. Plaintiff and Defendants stipulate to the entry of this Stipulated Final Order for 

Permanent Injllllction and Civil Penalty Judgment (''Order'') to resolve all matters in dispute in 

this action between them. 
Case 1:14-cv-10612 PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 2 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 39 of 57 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as folbws: 

FINDINGS 

l. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter. 

2. The Complaint charges that Defendants engaged in deceptive acts or practices in 

violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the FTC's Telemarketing Sales 

Rule (the 'TSR" or ''Rule"), as amended, 16 C.F .R. Part 310, in the Telemarketing of their 

products and services. 

3. Defendants neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the Complaint, except 

as specifically stated in this Order. Only fur purposes of this action, Defendants admit the mets 

necessary to establish jurisdiction. 

4. Defendants waive any claim that they may have under the Equal Access to Justice 

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, concerning the prosecution of this action through the date of this Order, 

and agree to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. Defendants waive and release any claims 

that they may have against Plaintif~ the Co1Tlll1Bsion, and their agents that relate to this action. 

5. Defendants and Plaintiff waive aU rights to appeal or otherwise challenge or 

contest the validity of this Order. 

DEFINITIONS 

For the purpose of tlm Order, the foUowing definitions apply: 

A. ''Caller Identification Service" means a service that albws a telephone 

subscriber to have the telephone number, and, where available, name of the calling party 

transmitted contemporaneously with the telephone call, and displayed on a device in or 

connected to the subscriber's telephone. 

2 
Case 1:14-cv-10612 PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 3 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 40 of 57 

B. ''Defendants" means the Individual Defendant and the Corporate Defendant, 

individually, collectively, or in any combination. 

I. "Corporate Defendant" means Versatile Marketing Solutions, Inc., also 

doing business as VMS Alamis, VMS, Alliance Security, or Alliance 

Home Protection, and its successors and assigns. 

2. ''Individual Defendant" means Jasjit Gotra. 

C. "Entity-Specific Do Not Call List" means a list of telephone numbers 

maintained by a Seller or Telemarketer of persons who have previously stated that they do not 

wish to receive Outbound Telephone Calls made by or on behalf of the Seller or Telemarketer. 

D. "Established Business Relationship" means a relationship between a Seller and 

a person based on: (a) the person's purchase, renta~ or lease of the Seller's goods or services or 

a financ ia I transaction between the Seller and person, within the eighteen months immediately 

preceding the date of the Telemarketing calt or (b) the person's inquiry or application regarding 

a product or service offered by the Seller, within the three months immediately preceding the 

date of a Telemarketing call 

E. ''Lead Generator" means any person that provides, in exchange for 

consideration, consumer information to a Seller or Telemarketer for use in the marketing ofany 

goods or services. 

F. "National Do Not CaU Regis tty" means the "do-not-call" registry of telephone 

numbers maintained by the Commission pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(l)(iii)(B). 

G. ''Outbound Telephone Call" means a telephone call initiated by a Telemarketer 

to induce the purchase of goods or services or to solicit a charitable contribution. 

3 
Case 1:14-cv-10612 PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 4 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 41 of 57 

H. ''Representatives" means Defendant's officers, agents, servants, employees and 

those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order 

by personal service or otherwise. 

I. ''Seller" means any person who, in connection with a Telemarketing transaction, 

provides, offers to provide, or arranges for others to provide goods or services to the customer in 

exchange for consideration, whether or not such person is under the jurisdiction of the 

Cornnmsion. 

J. 'Telemarketer" means any person who, in connection with Telemarketing, 

initiates or receives telephone calls to or from a customer or donor, whether or not such person is 

under the jurisdiction of the Cornnmsion. 

K. 'Telemarketing" means a plan, program, or campaign which is conducted to 

induce the purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution, by use of one or more 

telephones and which involves more than one interstate telephone call. 

ORDER 

I. Prohibition Against 

Abusive Telemarketing Practices 

IT IS ORDERED that, in connection with Telemarketing, Defendants and their 

Representatives are pennanently restrained and enjoined from engaging in, causing others to 

engage in, or assisting others engaging in, any of the following practices: 

A. Initiating any Outbound Telephone Call to any person at a telephone number on 

the National Do Not Call Regi5try, unkss Defendants prove that: 

l. Defendants have obtained the express agreement, in writing, of such 

person to place calls to that person. Such written agreement shaU clearly 

evidence such person's authorization that calls made by or on behalf of 

4 
Case 1:14-cv-10612 PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 5 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 42 of 57 

Defendants may be placed to that person, and shalI include the telephone 

number to which the calls may be placed and the signature of that person; 

or 

2. Defendants have an Established Business Relationship with such person, 

and that person has not previously stated that he or she does not wish to 

receive Outbound Telephone Calls made by or on behalf of Defendants; 

B. Initiating any Outbound Telephone Call to a person when that person has 

previously stated that he or she does not wish to receive an Outbound Telephone Call made by or 

on behalf of Defendants; 

C. Initiating any Outbound Telephone Call to a telephone number within a given 

area code when the annual fee fur access to the telephone numbers within that area code that are 

on the National Do Not Call Registry has not been paid by or on behalf of Defendants, unless the 

telephone call is: 

1. a solicitation to induce charitable contributions; 

2. to a business; 

3. to persons who have given the Seller their express agreement, in writing 

and signed, to receive calls from Defendants; or 

4. to persons who have an Established Business Relationship with 

Defendants; 

D. Abandoning. or causing others to abandon, any Outbound Telephone Call to a 

person by failing to connect the call to a live operator within two seconds of the person's 

completed greeting, unless Defendants or their Representatives prove that the fullowing four 

conditions are met: 

5 
Case 1:14-cv-10612 PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 6 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 43 of 57 

I. Defendants and their Representatives employ technology that ensures 

abandonment of no more than three percent of all calls answered by a 

person, measured over the duration of a single calling campaign, if less 

than thirty days, or separately over each successive 30-day period or 

portion thereof that the campaign continues; 

2. Defendants and their Representatives, fur each Telemarketing call placed, 

allow the telephone to ring for at least fifteen seconds or four rings before 

disconnecting an unanswered call; 

3. Whenever a live operator is not available to speak with the person 

answering the call within two seconds after the person's completed 

greeting, Defendants or their Representatives promptly play a recorded 

message that states Defendants' name and telephone number; and 

4. Defendants or their Representatives retain records establishing compliance 

with the preceding three conditions; 

E. Initiating any Outbound Telephone Call in which Defendants or their 

Representatives fail to disclose truthfully, promptly, and in a clear and conspicuous manner the 

Defendants' identity, that the purpose of the call is to sell goods or services, and the nature of the 

goods or services; 

F. Initiating any Outbound Telephone Call in which Defendants or their 

Representatives fail to transmit or cause to be transmitted to any Caller Identification Service in 

use by a recipient of a Telemarketing call either: (0 the telephone number and name of the 

Telemarketer making the call; or (it) Defendants' name and customer service telephone number; 

6 
Case 1:14-cv-10612 PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 7 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 44 of 57 

G. Initiating any Outbound Telephone CaU that delivers a prerecorded message, 

other than a prerecorded message permitted for compliance with Section I.DJ of this Order, 

unless Defendants prove that: 

1 . Prior to making any such caU to induce the purchase of any good or 

service, Defendants have obtained from the recipient of the caU an express 

agreement, in writing, that: 

a. Defendants obtained only after a clear and conspicuous disclosure 

that the purpose of the agreement is to authorize Defendants to 

place prerecorded calls to such person; 

b. Defendants obtained without requiring, directly or indirectly, that 

the agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good 

or service; 

c. evidences the willingness of the recipient of the caU to receive 

calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or on behalf of 

Defendants; and 

d. includes such person's telephone number and signature; and 

2. In any such caU to induce the purchase of any good or service, 

Defendants: 

a. allow the telephone to ring for at least fifteen (15) seconds or four 

(4) ring5 before disconnecting an unanswered call; and 

b. within two (2) seconds after the completed greeting of the person 

called, plays a prerecorded message that promptly discloses 

Defendants' identity, that the purpose of the call is to seU goods or 

7 
Case 1:14-cv-10612 PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 8 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 45 of 57 

services, and the nature of the goods or services, followed 

immediately by a disclosure ofone or both of the following: 

i. in the case of a call that couki be answered in person by a 

consumer, that the person cal.led can use an automated 

interactive voice and/or keypress-activated opt-out 

mechanism to assert a do-not-calJ request at any time 

during the message. The mechanism must: 

(a) automatically add the number called to Derendants' 

Entity-Specific Do Not Call List; 

(b) once invoked, immediately disconnect the call; and 

(c) be available for use at any time during the message; 

and 

lL in the case of a call that couk:i be answered by an answering 

machine or voicemail servce, that the person called can use 

a toll free-number to assert a do-not-call request. The 

nwnber provided must connect directly to an automated 

interactive voice or keypress-activated opt-out mechanism 

that: 

(a) automatically adds the number called to 

Derendants' Entity-Specifo Do Not Call List; 

(b) immediately thereafter disconnects the call; and 

(c) is accessible at any time throughout the durafon of 

the Telemarketing campaign. 

8 
Case 1:14-cv-10612 PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 9 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 46 of 57 

Il. Lead Generator Review, Notice, and Termination 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 

A. Defendant or its Representatives shall, within ninety (90) days of the date of entry 

of this Order: 

l. Review and detennine the methods used by Defendants' existing Lead 

Generators to obtain the leads sokl or offered for sale to Defendants and, if 

those leads were obtained by means that do not comply with this Order, 

Defendants shall immediately cease purchasing such leads from the Lead 

Generator; 

2. Provide, electronically or otherwise, all of Defendants' existing Lead 

Generators with: (Q a copy of this Order; and (ii) a written not~e stating 

that, if the Lead Generator sells any leads to Defendants that do not 

comply with this Order, Defendants will immediately cease purchasing 

such leads from the Lead Generator; and 

3. Obtain from all of Defendants' existing Lead Generators an electronic 

acknowledgment or other signed and dated statement acknowledging 

receipt of this Order and the written not~e set forth in the preceding 

subparagraph. 

B. Prior to purchasing leads from any new Lead Generator, Defendants shall: 

1. Review and detennine the methods used by the Lead Generator to obtain 

leads offered for sale to Defendants and, if those leads were obtained by 

means that do not comply with this Order, Defendants are prohibited from 

purchasing such leads; 

9 
Case 1:14-cv-10612-PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 10 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 47 of 57 

2. Provide, electronically or otherwi<;e, each new Lead Generator with: (0 a 

copy of thi5 Order; and (it) a written notice stating that, if the Lead 

Generator sells any leads to Defendants that do not comply with thi<; 

0 rder, Defendants will immediately cease purchasing leads from the Lead 

Generator; and 

3. Obtain from each new Lead Generator an electronic acknowledgment or 

other signed and dated statement acknowledging receipt of thi<; Order and 

the written notice set furth in the preceding subparagraph. 

III. Monetary Judgment for 

Civil Penalty and Partial Suspension 

IT IS FURTI-IER ORDERED that: 

A. Judgment in the amount of Three Million, Four Hundred Thousand Dollars 

($3,400,000) 5 entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants, jointly and severally, as a civil 

penalty. 

B. Defendants are ordered to pay to Plaintiff, by making payment to the Treasurer of 

the United States, a total of Three Hundred Twenty Thousand, Seven Hundred Dollars 

($320,700) pursuant to the schedule, tenns, and conditions set forth below: 

I. Defendants stipulate that, at the time of Defendants' signing of thi<; Order, 

their undersigned counsel hokis in escrow Fifty-Two Thousand Dollars 

($52,000) ("Escrow Amount") fur no purpose other than payment to 

Plaintiff. Within seven (7) days of entry ofthis Order, the Escrow 

Amount shall be transferred to Plaintiff by electronic fund transfer in 

accordance with instructions provided by a representative of Plaintiff. 

10 
Case 1:14-cv-10612-PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 11 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 48 of 57 

2. Payment of the remaining Two Hundred Sixty-Eight Thousand, Seven 

Hundred Dollars ($268,700) must be made within thirty (30) days of entry 

of this Order, or by March I, 20 14, whichever is later, by electronic fund 

transfer in accordance with instructions provided by a representative of 

Plaintiff. 

3. Upon completion of both such payments, the remainder of the judgment is 

suspended, subject to the Subsections below. 

C. The Commission's and Plaintiffs agreerrent to the suspension of part of the 

judgment is expressly premised upon: 

l. The truthfulness, accuracy, and completeness ofDefendants' sworn 

financial stateirents and related documents (collectively, "financial 

representations") at the time submitted to the Commission, narrely: 

a. The Financial Staterrent of Individual Defendant Jasjit Gotra 

signed on October 23, 2013 and bearing Bates stamps FIN0100992 to 0101007; 

b. The Financia I Statement of Corporate Defendant VMS signed by 

Jasjit Gotra on October 23, 2013 and bearing Bates stamps FIN0101008 to 0101022; and 

c. The additional documentation submitted on Defendants' behalf by 

Defendants' counsel to Commission counsel Bikram Bandy 

bearing Bates stamps FIN-0100001 to 0100991 and FIN-0101023 

to 0101030; and 

11 
Case 1:14-cv-10612-PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 12 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 49 of 57 

2. Defendants' payment of Three Hundred Twenty Thousand, Seven 

Hundred Dollars ($320,700) in accordance with the schedule and all terms 

and conditions set forth in Subsection B, above. 

D. The suspension of the judgment will be lifted as to any Defendant it; upon motion 

by the Commi<;sion or Plaintiff; the Court finds that Defendant fulled to disclose any material 

asset, materially nmstated the value of any asset, or made any other material misstatement or 

omission in the financial representations identified above. 

E. lfthe suspension of the judgment is lifted, the judgment becomes immediately 

due as to one or both Defendants, as appropriate, in the amount specified in Subsection A above 

(whch the parties stipulate only for purposes ofthis Section represents the amount of the civil 

penalty for the vblations alleged in the Complaint), less any payment previously made pursuant 

to this Section, plus interest computed from the date of entry of this Order. 

F. Defendants relinquish dominion and aU legal and equitable right, title, and interest 

in aU assets transferred pursuant to this Order and may not seek the return of any assets. 

G. The facts alleged in the Complaint will be taken as true, without further proof; in 

any subsequent civil litigation brought solely by or on behalf of the Commi<;sion, including in a 

proceeding to enforce its rights to any payment or monetary judgment pursuant to this Order. 

H. Defendants agree that the judgment represents a civil penalty owed to the 

government of the United States, is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss, and, therefore, as 

to the Individual Defendant, it is not subject to di5charge under the Bankruptcy Code pursuant to 

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). 

I. Defendants acknowledge that their Taxpayer ldentifoation Numbers (Social 

Security Numbers or Employer Identification Numbers), may be used for collecting and 

12 
Case 1:14-cv-10612-PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 13 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 50 of 57 

reporting on any delinquent arrnunt arising out of this Order, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 

7701. 

IV. COOPERATION 

IT IS RJRTIIER ORDERED that Defendants must fully cooperate with representatives 

of Plaintiff and the Commission in this case and in any investigation related to or associated with 

the transactions or the occurrences that are the subject of the Complaint. Defendants must 

provide truthful and complete information, evidence, and testimony. Individual Defendant must 

appear and Corporate Defendant must cause its officers, employees, Representatives, or agents to 

appear for interviews, discovery, hearings, trials, and any other proceedings that a Plaintiff or 

Commission representative may reasonably request upon five days written notk:e, or other 

reasonable notk:e, at such places and times as a Plaintiff or Commission representative may 

designate, without the service of a subpoena. 

V. ORDER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

IT IS FURTIIER ORDERED that Defendants obtain acknowledgments of receipt of this 

Order: 

A. Each Defendant, within seven days of entry of this Order, must submit to the 

Commission an acknowledgment of receipt of thi5 Order sworn under penalty of perjlll)'. 

B. For five years after entry of this Order, Individual Defendant for any business that 

he, individually or collectively with any other Defendants, is the majority owner or controls 

directly or indirectly, and Corporate Defendant, must deliver a copy of this Order to: (1) all 

principals, officers, directors, and LLC managers and members; (2) all employees, agents, and 

other Representatives who participate in conduct related to the subject matter of the Order; and 

(3) any business entity resulting from any change in structure as set furth in the Section titled 

13 
Case 1:14-cv-10612-PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 14 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 51 of 57 

Compliance Reporting. Delivery must occur within seven days of entry of this Order for current 

personnel For au others, delivery must occur berore they assume their responsibilities. 

C. From each individual or entity to which a Derendant delivered a copy of this 

Order, that Derendant must obtain, within 30 days, a signed and dated acknowledgment of 

receipt of this Order. 

VI. COMPLIANCE REPORTING 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Derendants make timely submissions to the 

Commi5sion: 

A. One year after entry of this Order, each Derendant must submit a compliance 

report, sworn under penalty of perjury: 

I. Each Derendant must: (a) Kientify the primary physica~ posta~ and email 

address and telephone number, as designated points of contact, which 

representatives of the Commission and Plaintiff may use to communicate 

with Defendant; (b) identify all of that Derendant' s businesses by all of 

their names, telephone numbers, and physca~ pasta~ email, and Internet 

addresses; (c) describe the activities of each business, including the goods 

and services offered, the means of advertising, marketing, and sales, and 

the involvement of any other Derendant {which Individual Derendant must 

describe if he knows or should know due to his own involvement); 

(d) describe in detail whether and how that Derendant is in compliance 

with each Section of this Order; and { e) provide a copy of each Order 

Acknowledgment obtained pursuant to this Order, unless previously 

submitted to the Commission. 

14 
Case 1:14-cv-10612-PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 15 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 52 of 57 l 

f 

1 

I 

l 

l 

2. Additionally, Individual Defendant must: (a) identify all telephone 

nwnbers and all physica~ posta~ email and Internet addresses, including 

all residences; (b) identify all business activities, including any business 

for which he performs services whether as an employee or otherwise and 

any entity in which he has any ownership interest; and ( c) describe in 

detail his involvement in each such business, including title, role, 

responsibilities, participation, authority, contro~ and any ownership. 

B. For ten years after entry of this Order, each Defendant must submit a compliance 

notice, sworn under penalty of perjury, within fowteen days of any change in the following: 

I. Each Defendant must report any change in: (a) any designated point of 

contact; or (b) the structure of Corporate Defendant or any entity that 

Defendant has any ownership interest in or controls directly or indirectly 

that may affect compliance obligations arising under this Order, including: 

creation, merger, sale, or dissolution of the entity or any subsidiary, 

parent, or affiliate that engages in any acts or practices subject to this 

Order. 

2. Additionally, Individual Defendant must report any change in: (a) name, 

including aliases or fictitious name, or residence address; or (b) title or 

role in any business activity, including any business for which he performs 

services whether as an employee or otherwise and any entity in which he 

has any ownership interest, and identify the name, physical address, and 

any Internet address of the business or entity. 

15 
Case 1:14-cv-10612-PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 16 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 53 of 57 l 

I 

I 

j 

C. Each Defendant must submit to the Commission notice of the filing of any 

bankruptcy petition, in.solvency proceeding, or similar proceeding by or against such Defendant 

within fourteen days of its filing. 

D. Any submission to the Commission required by this Order to be sworn under 

penalty of perjwy must be true and accurate and comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, such as by 

concluding: ''I declare under penalty of perjwy under the laws of the United States of America 

that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on: __ " and supplying the date, signatory's 

full name, title (if applicable), and signature. 

E. Unless otherwise direclro by a O:mrnim1 rqxt:Saitmve in writing, all ~ 

to h: Canmim1 ~ to this Ord:!r must be emailed to DEhie1@ftc.gov oc sent by overnight 

courier (not the U.S. Postal Service) to: Associate Director for Enforcement, Bureau of 

Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20580. The subject line must begin: fTC v. Versatile Maikding Solutioos, Inc., 

Matter Number 1223162. 

VD. RECORDKEEPING 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must create certain records for ten years 

after entry of the Order, and retain each such record for five years. Specifically, Corporate 

Defendant, in connection with Telemarketing, and Individual Defendant for any business that he, 

individually or collectively with any other Defendants, is a majority owner or controls directly or 

indirectly, must create and retain the following records: 

A. accounting records showing the revenues from all goods or services sold; 

8. personnel records showing, for each person providing servces, whether as an 

employee or otherwise, that person's: name; addresses; telephone numbers; job title or position; 

dates of servce; and (if applicable) the reason for tennina tio n; 

16 
Case 1:14-cv-10612-PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 17 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 54 of 57 

C. records of aU conswner complaints concerning the subject matter of the Order, 

whether received directly or indirectly, such as through a third party, and any response; 

D. aU records necessary to demonstrate fuU compliance with each provision of this 

Order, including aU submissions to the Commission; and 

E. aU records relating to Lead Generators from whom Defendants purchase leads for 

Telemarketing, including contracts with such Lead Generators. 

Vlll. COMPUANCE MONITORING 

IT IS FURTI--IER ORDERED that, for the purpose of monitoring Defendants' compliance 

with this Order, including the financial representations upon which part ofthe judgment was 

suspended and any failure to transfer any assets as required by th.is Order: 

A. Within fourteen days of receipt ofa written request from a representative of the 

Commission or Plaintiff, each Defendant must: submit add itiona I compliance reports or other 

requested infurmation, which must be sworn Wtder penalty of perjury; appear for depositions; 

and produce docwnents for inspection and copying. The Commission and Plaintiff are also 

authorized to obtain discovery, without further leave of court, using any of the procedures 

prescribed by Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 29, 30 (including telephonic depositions), 31, 33, 

34, 36, 45, and 69. 

8. For matters concerning this Order, the Commission and Plaintiff are authorized to 

communicate directly with each Defendant Defendant must pennit representatives of the 

Commission and Plaintiff to interview any employee or other person affiliated with any 

Defendant who has agreed to such an interview. The person intervewed may have coW1Sel 

present. 

C. The Commission and Plaintiff may use aU other lawful means, including posing, 

through its representatives as conswners, suppliers, or other individuals or entities, to Defendants 

17 
1 

1 

! 

l 

i 

., 

1 

l 

or any individual or entity affiliated with Defendants, without the necessity of identification or 

pr.:>r notice. Nothing in this Order limits the Commission's lawful use of compulsory process, 

pursuant to Sections 9 and 20 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 49, 57b-1. 

IX. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 

lT IS FURTI-IER ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction of this matter fur 

purposes of constructbn, modification, and enfu~ement ofthis Order::"' S-~~ 

~ ~ ~ ~ ft,\. Cj004LC,o,du2, ~Jr/~ ~ ~u/lS~ 

SO ORDERED, this ---c2...¥ day of (i~, 2013. 

18 
Case 1:14-cv-10612-PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 19 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 56 of 57 ! 

l 

; 

i SO STIPULATED AND AGREED: 

FOR PLAINTIFF: 

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 

STUARTF.DELERY 

Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

Civil Division 

'MICHAEL S. BLUME 

Director 

Conswner Protection Branch 

ANDYCLARK 

Assistant Director 

Consumer Protection Branch 

U.S. Department ofJustice 

P.O.Box386 

Washington, D.C. 20044 

PHONE: 202-307-0067 

FAX:202-514-8742 

Andrew.Clark@usdoj.gov 

tZ-~-

ANNENTWIS1LE 

Trial Attorney 

Consumer Protection Branch 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O.Box386 

Washington, D.C. 20044 

PHONE: 202-305-3630 

FAX:202-514-8742 

Ann.Entwistle@usdoj.gov 

l 

I 

I 

I 

l 

-1 

! 

! • 

I 

l 

! 

1 

l 

; 

4 

l 

-1 

J 

19 
Case 1:14-cv-10612-PBS Document 13 Filed 04/24/14 Page 20 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-10548 Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 57 of 57 

t 

l 

! 

l 

l 

I t 

! 

' t 

! 

I 

1 

., 

l 

l 

l 

ram Bandy. 

Yiames E. Evans 

Attorneys 

federal Trade Commissk>n 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW 

Waslmgton, DC 20580 

(202) 326-2978, -2026 (direct) 

(202) 326-3395 (facsimile) 

bhandy@ftc.gov, jevansl@ftc.gov 

FOR DEFENDANTS: 

l 'l l 3 -

ildividually and as an oftx:cr or 

eting Solutions, Inc. 

,, . I'' . --~· -. / <· - 12.'13/13 

- Date Gerard M. Stegmaier, Esq. (VSB #45893) 

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. 

1700 K Street, NW, 5th Floor 

Washington, DC 20006 

(202) 973-8809 (direct) 

(202) 973-8899 (facsimile) 

gstegmaier@wsgr.com 

Attorney for Defendants 

20