Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 39 

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 

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM 

OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS 

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS JASJIT GOTRA 

AND ALLIANCE SECURITY INC. 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 39 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 

II. Statement of Facts.................................................................................................................. 4 

A. The Telemarketing Sales Rule and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ......................................... 4 

B. Defendants .............................................................................................................................. 5 

C. Defendants’ Business Model Relies On Illegal Calls and Credit Checks .............................. 6 

D. Defendants Are Recidivists With an Extensive History of Unlawful Telemarketing ............ 8 

E. Alliance and Its Co-Defendant Telemarketers Placed at Least 1,058,725 Calls to Numbers 

on the DNC Registry........................................................................................................... 9 

F. Alliance Requires Its Telemarketers to Hide Alliance’s Identity From Consumers ............ 10 

G. Defendants Performed More Than 400,000 Unauthorized Credit Checks Between March 

2016 and September 2017................................................................................................. 11 

H. Consumer Declarations Confirm the Illegal Dialing and Credit Practices ........................... 13 

I. Defendants Misrepresent Their Telemarketing Practices to Consumers and the FTC......... 14 

III. ARGUMENT........................................................................................................................ 16 

A. This Court has Authority to Grant the Requested Relief...................................................... 16 

B. The FTC Need Only Prove a Likelihood of Success on the Merits and That the Public 

Equities Outweigh Any Private Interests, As Irreparable Harm Is Presumed .................. 17 

C. The FTC Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits........................................................................ 18 

1. The Defendants Initiated Calls to Numbers on the DNC Registry (Count II of 

the Complaint) ............................................................................................. 18 

2. Defendants Are Sellers Who Are Liable for Their Telemarketers’ Illegal Calls 

to Numbers on the Registry (Count II of the Complaint) ............................ 20 

ii 
 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 3 of 39 

3. Defendants Violated the TSR by Assisting and Facilitating Calls to Numbers 

on the DNC Registry (Count V(a) of the Complaint).................................. 22 

4. Defendants Violated the TSR by Assisting and Facilitating Outbound 

Telemarketing Calls that Failed to Identify the Seller (Count V(b) of the 

Complaint) ................................................................................................... 23 

5. Alliance Violated the FCRA by Obtaining Consumer Credit Information from 

TransUnion Without Any Permissible Purpose........................................... 24 

D. The Public Equities Far Outweigh the Defendants’ Private Interests................................... 27 

E. Jay Gotra Is Personally Liable and Should Be Subject to Injunctive Relief ........................ 27 

F. The Requested Relief in the Proposed TRO Is Necessary and Appropriate Given 

Defendants’ History of Recidivism and Ongoing Violations........................................... 29 

IV. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ........................................... 30 

iii 
 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 4 of 39 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

A. Cases Page(s) 

Amadi v. Department of Children & Families, 245 F. Supp. 3d 316 (D. Mass. 2017) ...................v 

Asseo v. Pan American Grain Co., 805 F.2d 23 (1st Cir. 1986) .....................................................v 

CCBN.com, Inc. v. c-call.com, Inc., 73 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D. Mass. 1999) ......................................v 

CFTC v. Hunt, 591 F.2d 1211 (7th Cir. 1979)...............................................................................17 

FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999)....................................................17 

FTC v. Amy Travel Service, Inc., 875 F.2d 564 (7th Cir. 1989)....................................................17 

FTC v. Chapman, 714 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2013)........................................................................28 

FTC v. Direct Marketing Concepts, Inc., No. 04-cv-11136, 2004 WL 1399185 

(D. Mass. June 23, 2004) .............................................................................................17, 27 

FTC v. Direct Mktg. Concepts, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 285 (D. Mass. 2008)..................................28 

FTC v. Jones, No. 17-cv-00058 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2017)...........................................................29 

FTC v. Gem Merchandising Corp., 87 F.3d 466 (11th Cir. 1996) ................................................16 

FTC v. H.N. Singer Inc., 688 F.2d 1107 (9th Cir. 1982) ...............................................................17 

FTC v. IAB Marketing Associates, LP, 746 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2014).................................18, 28 

FTC v. J.K. Publications, Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d, 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2000) ........................................28 

FTC v. Lifewatch, 176 F. Supp. 3d 757 (N.D. Ill. 2016) .........................................................21, 22 

FTC v. Lifewatch, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-05781 (N.D. Ill.) ..................................................................36 

FTC v. Patriot Alcohol Testers, Inc., No. 91-cv-11812, 1992 WL 27334 

(D. Mass. Feb. 13, 1992)..............................................................................................17, 18 

FTC v. Ramsey, No. 9:17-cv-80032-KAM (S.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2017)........................................6, 15 

iv 
 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 5 of 39 

FTC v. Seismic Entertainment Products, Inc., No. 04-cv-377, 2004 WL 2403124 

(D.N.H. Oct. 21, 2004) ................................................................................................18, 27 

FTC v. Think Achievement Corp., 144 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (N.D. Ind. 2000) ..................................17 

FTC v. Transnet Wireless Corp., 506 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (S.D. Fla. 2007).....................................28 

FTC v. Univ. Health, Inc., 938 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1991)...........................................................18 

FTC v. World Travel Vacation Brokers, Inc., 861 F.2d 1020 (7th Cir. 1988)...............................27 

FTC v. World Wide Factors, Ltd., 882 F.2d 344 (9th Cir. 1989) ..................................................18 

In re: Alliance Security, Inc., Case 1:17-bk-11190 (R.I. Bankr.) ..................................................27 

In re Monitronics International Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, 

No. 1:13-cv-02493 (N.D. W. Va.) ...................................................................................1, 8 

SEC v. Mangement Dynamics, Inc., 515 F.2d 801 (2d Cir.1975)..................................................27 

United States v. Cox, No. 11-cv-01910 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2013)..................................................30 

United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 667 F. Supp. 2d 952 (C.D. Ill. 2009).........................17, 20 

United States v. Dish Network, LLC, 75 F. Supp. 3d 942 (C.D. Ill. 2014)....................................20 

United States v. Dish Network, LLC, 256 F. Supp. 3d 810 (C.D. Ill. 2017)..................................21 

United States v. Sonkei Communications, Inc., No. 11-cv-01777 

(C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014)...................................................................................................30 

U.S. v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) ................................................................................17 

USA v. Versatile Marketing Solutions, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-10612 (D. Mass. Mar. 10, 2014) .......1, 2 

B. Statutes, Rules, and Other Sources Page(s) 

15 U.S.C.§ 45.................................................................................................................................17 

15 U.S.C. § 53................................................................................................................................16 

15 U.S.C. § 57a..............................................................................................................................17 

v 
Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 6 of 39 

15 U.S.C. § 1681..............................................................................................................................1 

15 U.S.C. § 1681a..........................................................................................................................25 

15 U.S.C. § 1681b....................................................................................................................24, 25 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s ..........................................................................................................................17 

15 U.S.C. § 6102............................................................................................................................17 

16 C.F.R. § 310.2...........................................................................................................................17 

16 C.F.R. § 310.3.............................................................................................................................4 

16 C.F.R. § 310.4.........................................................................................................................3, 4 

Local Rule 7.1(d) 

vi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 7 of 39 

TABLE OF EXHIBITS 

PX Number Description First Page Last Page 

1 Complaint FTC-0000001 FTC-0000010 USA v. Versatile Marketing Solutions, et al. 

2 Stipulated Final Order FTC-0000011 FTC-0000030 USA v. Versatile Marketing Solutions, et al. 

Composite exhibit: settlement agreements

3 between Defendants and states of FTC-0000031 FTC-0000063 

Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Wisconsin 

4 Declaration of Stephen Arlinghaus, Consumer FTC-0000064 FTC-0000067 

5 Declaration of John Dolan, Consumer FTC-0000068 FTC-0000070 

6 Declaration of Phillip Hamrick, Consumer FTC-0000071 FTC-0000074 

7 Declaration of Mitchell Hodus, Consumer FTC-0000075 FTC-0000075 

8 Declaration of David Howell, Consumer FTC-0000076 FTC-0000105 

9 Declaration of Tyler Kahler, Consumer FTC-0000106 FTC-0000110 

10 Declaration of David Larson, Consumer FTC-0000111 FTC-0000116 

11 Declaration of Vincent Lucas, Consumer FTC-0000117 FTC-0000119 

12 Declaration of David Pippin, Consumer FTC-0000120 FTC-0000127 

13 Declaration of Kevan Sunderland, Consumer FTC-0000128 FTC-0000130 

14 Declaration of Michael Zimring, Consumer FTC-0000131 FTC-0000133 

Declaration of Tyler Hall, Former Employee of 15 FTC-0000134 FTC-0000166 an Alliance Telemarketer 

Declaration of Nathaniel McDonald, Former 16 FTC-0000167 FTC-0000168 Alliance Employee 

17 Declaration of Jeff Hall, Employee of FTC FTC-0000169 FTC-0000173 Vendor InterImage, Inc. 

18 Declaration of Patricia Blystone (1), Employee FTC-0000174 FTC-0000178 of FTC Vendor InterImage, Inc. 

19 Declaration of Patricia Blystone (2), Employee FTC-0000179 FTC-0000181 of FTC Vendor InterImage, Inc. 

20 Declaration of Benjamin Brookhart, CEO of FTC-0000182 FTC-0000187 Power Home Technologies, LLC 

vii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 8 of 39 

PX Number Description First Page Last Page 

21 

Transcript of Deposition of Anthony

Bolognese, Corporate Designee for Defendant

Alliance Security Inc. and former Chief

Technology Officer 

FTC-0000188 FTC-0000218 

22 

Transcript of Deposition of Barry Crins, 

Former VP of Sales for Defendant Alliance 

Security Inc. 

FTC-0000219 FTC-0000231 

23 

Transcript of Deposition of Defendant Jasjit

Gotra, CEO of Defendant Defendant Alliance 

Security Inc. 

FTC-0000232 FTC-0000261 

24 

Transcript of Deposition of Justin Ramsey, 

former Lead Generator and Telemarketer for 

Defendant Alliance Security Inc. 

FTC-0000262 FTC-0000319 

25 Declaration of Lynn Prindes, Employee of

TransUnion FTC-0000320 FTC-0000326 

26 Declaration of Lynn Quinn, Employee of 

TransUnion FTC-0000327 FTC-0000424 

27 Declaration of Darren Wright, FTC 

Investigator FTC-0000425 FTC-0000858 

Notes on exhibits: In support of this Memorandum, the FTC submits 27 exhibits, including 5 

self-authenticating court records (consolidated into 3 exhibits), 4 deposition transcripts 

(excerpted), and 20 declarations. Many of the declarations contain attachments. All exhibits cited 

in the Memorandum are referenced as “PX [exhibit number].” References include citations to 

relevant paragraphs by number, and to relevant attachments by page number. The 858 pages of 

exhibits are consecutively numbered. 

In considering an application for a TRO or preliminary injunction, the Court may rely on 

affidavits and hearsay materials. Asseo v. Pan Am. Grain Co., 805 F.2d 23, 26 (1st Cir. 1986) 

(“Affidavits and other hearsay materials are often received in preliminary injunction 

proceedings. The dispositive question is not their classification as hearsay but whether, weighing 

all the attendant factors, including the need for expedition, this type of evidence was appropriate 

given the character and objectives of the injunctive proceeding.”); see also Amadi v. Dep't of 

Children & Families, 245 F. Supp. 3d 316, 319 (D. Mass. 2017) (“In the preliminary injunction 

context, however, a court ... may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence, including hearsay”); 

CCBN.com, Inc. v. c-call.com, Inc., 73 F. Supp. 2d 106, 113 (D. Mass. 1999) (Saris, J.) 

(“reliance on hearsay appropriate in the context of an expedited preliminary injunction 

proceeding”) (citing Asseo). 

viii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 9 of 39 

I. Introduction 

The FTC asks the Court to immediately halt ongoing abusive and invasive telemarketing 

and consumer credit checks by recidivist defendants Alliance Security, Inc. (“Alliance”) and 

Jasjit Gotra (“Gotra”)1 who willfully defy the law and a 2014 Order by this Court.2 

Defendant Alliance installs residential home security systems and solicits sales through 

illegal telemarketing by its own employees and by its affiliate, third-party telemarketing 

network. Alliance and its CEO and majority owner, Gotra, (collectively, “Defendants”) are 

recidivist violators of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), 16 C.F.R. § 310 et seq.

3 The 

evidence described below establishes more than 500,000 illegal calls by Alliance, and more than 

1 million additional illegal calls by two of Alliance’s third-party telemarketers, defendants 

Defend America, LLC (“Defend America”) and Power Marketing Promotions, LLC (“Power 

Marketing”). Many of these calls resulted in multiple violations of the TSR. These calls are just 

the tip of the iceberg: The records related to Alliance’s third-party telemarketers cover just a 

short stretch of time in the spring of 2016, and they represent but two out of Alliance’s hundreds 

of third-party telemarketers. 

Alliance has also made at least 424,026 unauthorized and illegal credit inquiries, 

violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. 

In 2014, the United States of America sued Defendants in this Court for violating the 

TSR by calling numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry (“DNC Registry”) and continuing 

1 The FTC has contemporaneously filed two proposed stipulated final orders to settle the FTC’s claims 

against the four remaining defendants in this case. See ECF 2-1 and 3-1. 

2 See PX 2, 2014 Order, ECF 13, USA v. Versatile Marketing Solutions, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-10612 (D. 

Mass. Mar. 10, 2014). 

3 Defendants’ recidivism also includes settling prior telemarketing cases brought by at least three states: 

Pennsylvania in 2010; Kentucky in 2011; and Wisconsin in 2014. These settlements are attached as a 

combined exhibit, PX 3. Private lawsuits against Alliance and several affiliated companies for similar 

telemarketing violations were consolidated into a multi-district class action, In re Monitronics 

International Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, No. 1:13-cv-02493 (N.D. W. Va.). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 10 of 39 

to call people who had previously asked Alliance to stop calling.4 Defendants agreed to a 

Stipulated Final Order (the “2014 Order”) to resolve the claims. This Court entered the Order on 

April 24, 2014.5 Among other things, the 2014 Order prohibited Defendants from calling any 

consumer’s telephone number listed on the DNC Registry, unless Defendants could prove they 

had express written consent from or a pre-existing business relationship with the consumer. In 

2015, Defendants admitted to the FTC that, after entry of the 2014 Order, they had placed 

120,000 calls to numbers on the DNC Registry that violated both the TSR and the 2014 Order.6 

Nevertheless, they kept violating the law and do so to this day. 

By way of recent example, on January 10, 2018, a consumer emailed the FTC to 

complain about an unwanted robocall on his personal cellular telephone number, which is listed 

on the DNC Registry. He listened to the robocall, which purported to come from “National 

Home Security.” Having received numerous prior unsolicited calls with similar messages 

advertising home security systems, he feigned interest to learn who was responsible for the call. 

He was transferred to a live operator who set an appointment for an installer to visit his home 

and then was transferred a second time to a validation department where he was asked several 

more questions. It was during this second transfer to the validation department that he heard a 

prompt for a telephone menu that mentioned the name Alliance. Hours later, he received an 

email from his credit monitoring service alerting him that Safe Home Security, which he would 

later learn is an Alliance affiliate, obtained his credit report without his knowledge or 

permission.7 He subsequently received a call to verify the appointment. During this verification 

4 See PX 1, Complaint, ECF 1, USA v. Versatile Marketing Solutions, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-10612 (D. Mass. 

Mar. 10, 2014). 

5 See PX 2, 2014 Order, ECF 13, id. 6 See PX 27, Declaration of Darren Wright, Attachment D at FTC-0000459. 

7 See PX 8, Declaration of Consumer David Howell ¶¶ 5-17. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 11 of 39 

call, he was told the original caller and the installer were with Alliance. Two days later, an 

Alliance installer arrived at his home. 

The FTC is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims that Defendants are responsible 

for: (1) violations of the TSR rules related to the DNC Registry; (2) violations of the TSR’s 

requirement to “promptly” identify the “seller” in an outbound sales call; and (3) violations of 

the FCRA’s prohibition on obtaining consumer reports without a permissible purpose.8 The 

conduct is ongoing, abusive, invades consumers’ privacy, and is in blatant defiance of this 

Court’s prior 2014 Order. It should be halted immediately. 

The FTC requests relief in the form of a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from 

continuing to engage in telemarketing and continuing to obtain any consumer’s credit report or 

credit score, without prior, written authorization from the consumer. 

As discussed in Section III.F below, the requested relief is appropriate and necessary 

given the evidence presented in this memorandum, the legal precedent, and the fact that 

Defendants can continue operating using alternative sales channels, beyond telemarketing. On 

that final point, Gotra owns 62% of Power Home Technologies, LLC, (“PHT”) a former 

competitor of Alliance, through a holding company, and Gotra and other PHT executives have 

repeatedly told the FTC—under penalty of perjury—that PHT does not engage in any 

8 In addition to these three claims, the Complaint also alleges that Defendants are liable for: (1) making 

misrepresentations and/or assisting and facilitating numerous calls in which Alliance’s third-party 

telemarketers misrepresented themselves and Alliance as being affiliated with competing entities, such as 

ADT, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act (Count VI) and 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(vii) (Count IV); 

(2) assisting and facilitating those misrepresentations in violation of 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b) (Count V(c)); 

and (3) assisting and facilitating numerous calls using spoofed caller ID numbers that violate 16 C.F.R. 

§ 310.4(a)(8) (Count V(d)). The requested relief would address these counts as well. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 12 of 39 

telemarketing.9 In light of their experience, Defendants could use of door-to-door sales, or add 

online sales like other companies, and stop violating telemarketing laws. 

II. Statement of Facts 

A. The Telemarketing Sales Rule and the Fair Credit Reporting Act 

In 1994, Congress directed the FTC to prescribe rules prohibiting abusive and deceptive 

telemarketing acts or practices pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108. The 

FTC subsequently promulgated the TSR. 16 C.F.R. Part 310. The TSR established the DNC 

Registry, and a provision that prohibits telemarketers from initiating, or sellers from causing 

telemarketers to initiate, outbound telephone calls to a consumer’s telephone number on the 

DNC Registry. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B). The TSR further prohibits calls that “fail to 

disclose truthfully, promptly, and in a clear and conspicuous manner to the person receiving the 

call ... [t]he identity of the seller,” id. § 310.4(d); calls that used inaccurate caller ID 

information, id. § 310.4(a)(8), commonly known as “spoofed” calls; and calls that deliver 

prerecorded messages, id. § 310.4(b)(v), commonly known as “robocalls.” The TSR also 

prohibits any person from providing material support or assistance to any seller or telemarketer 

“when that person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the seller or telemarketer is 

engaged in acts practices that violate these TSR sections.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b). 

The FTC is authorized to enforce the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681x. Under the FCRA, 15 

U.S.C. § 1681b(f), it is unlawful for any “person to use or obtain a consumer report for any 

purpose unless,” that person has a specific permissible purpose enumerated in 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681b(a). Credit reports and credit scores are types of consumer reports. 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d). 

9 See, e.g, PX 20, Declaration of Benjamin Brookhart; see also PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 17 and Att. F at 

FTC-0000547 (Declaration of Ricardo Diaz). 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 13 of 39 

B. Defendants 

Alliance is a Delaware corporation, which recently moved its principal place of business 

from Cranston to Providence, Rhode Island.10 Alliance initially incorporated in Massachusetts as 

Versatile Marketing Solutions, Inc.11 In 2013, Versatile Marketing Solutions incorporated in 

Delaware, and shortly thereafter, changed its name to Alliance.12 Alliance installs home security 

systems in this district and throughout most of the United States.13 Alliance is a closely held 

corporation owned by three individuals: Ricardo Diaz (7% owner); Brian Fabiano (31% owner); 

and Defendant Gotra (62% owner).14 

Gotra lives in Rhode Island.15 In addition to owning 62% of Alliance, he is the 

company’s founder16 and Chief Executive Officer.

17 Gotra had authority to control Alliance’s 

telemarketing practices and personally participated in Alliance’s telemarketing at all times 

relevant to this case. For example, Gotra directed a third-party telemarketer to purchase data lists 

from an Alliance lead generator and arranged for Alliance to pay for the data lists instead of the 

telemarketer.18 Gotra also personally corresponded with consumers who sent Alliance 

complaints about unwanted telemarketing calls, telling them he had personally added their names 

to Alliance’s internal do not call list.19 Gotra was also the only person at Alliance with the 

10 See ECF 439, In re: Alliance Security, Inc., No. 1:17-bk-11190 (Bankr. R.I. Mar. 8, 2018). 

11 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 5 and Att. A (DE Corp. Records). 

12 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 6-7 and Att. A (DE Corp. Records) 

13 PX. 23, Deposition of Jasjit Gotra, Tr. 44:7-22 at FTC-0000243 ; see also 

https://www.alliancesecurity.com/security-company/ (last visited Mar. 12, 2018). 

14 PX. 23 , Gotra Tr. 58:25-59:2 at FTC-0000247 . 

15 PX. 23 , Gotra Tr. 5:5-7 at FTC-0000234; see also PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ and Att. B. 

16 PX. 23, Gotra Tr. 40:22-41:6 at FTC-0000242-243. 

17 PX. 23 , Gotra Tr. 44:22-25 at FTC-0000243. 

18 PX 3, Wright Dec. ¶ 46 and Att. T at FTC-0000759. 

19 See, e.g., PX. 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 20 and Att. I at FTC-0000621. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 14 of 39 

authority to terminate the company’s lead generators, according to the testimony of Alliance’s 

former Vice President of Sales, Barry Crins.20 

C. Defendants’ Business Model Relies On Illegal Calls and Credit Checks 

Alliance solicits the sale of its home security systems through telemarketing. Alliance 

employees place outbound sales calls to consumers. 

21 These salespersons attempt to set an 

appointment for Alliance’s alarm installation technicians to visit consumers’ homes; they also 

arrange the general terms of the sale, and obtain consumers’ personal information such as their 

name, address, telephone number, and date of birth—and on occasion, their full or partial social 

security numbers.

22 

To identify consumers for its salespersons to call, Alliance purchases leads—which 

contain merely a consumer’s name and telephone number—from lead generators.23 One of 

Alliance’s largest lead generators for many years was Justin Ramsey,24 a recidivist unlawful 

telemarketer who has been sued by the FTC, several states, and private individuals for unlawful 

telemarketing.25 Alliance provides its lead generators with access to its copy of the DNC 

Registry and sends them reminders to download the DNC Registry and Alliance’s internal do not 

call list,

26 as well as a list of “people who sue” that Alliance calls its “no fly” list.27 

Notwithstanding these gestures, Alliance knows its lead generators place illegal calls to generate 

leads. 

20 PX 22 , Deposition of Barry Crins, Tr. 70:11-13 at FTC-0000226. 

21 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 10 and Att. D at FTC-0000451-52. 

22 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 17 and Att. F at FTC-0000555-56; see also PX 15, Declaration of Tyler Hall ¶ 18 

and Att. C; PX 16, Declaration of Nathaniel McDonald ¶ 4. 

23 Ramsey Tr. 90-91 at FTC-0000285; PX 22, Crins Tr. 78-79 at FTC-0000228. 

24 PX 22, Crins Tr. 69:15-70:5 at FTC-0000226. 

25 See, e.g., FTC v. Ramsey, No. 9:17-cv-80032-KAM (S.D. Fla. Jan 13, 2017). 

26 PX 21, Bolognese Tr. 267-268 at FTC-0000213. 

27 PX. 24, Ramsey Tr. 139-140 at FTC-0000297; PX 21, Bolognese Tr. 205-213 at FTC-0000196-198. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 15 of 39 

In addition to having its own employees engage in telemarketing, Alliance also contracts 

with third-party telemarketing companies that it calls “dealers.” In 2016, Alliance informed the 

FTC that it had 575 such “dealers.” 28 These dealers call consumers, try to persuade consumers to 

purchase a home alarm system, arrange details of the sale, and set appointments for the 

installation of alarms by Alliance technicians.29 Alliance provides its dealers with an on-line 

portal through which the dealers can view Alliance’s calendar to determine when its installation 

technicians are available to visit consumers’ homes.30 Alliance also provides its dealers with 

access to its own copy of the DNC Registry and its internal do not call list,31 and it contractually 

requires these dealers to provide Alliance with copies of their do not call policies.32 Settling codefendants Power Marketing and Defend America were Alliance dealers. Here too, such gestures 

do not correct the fact that Alliance knew its dealers violated the TSR. 

Alliance does not provide a service to monitor the alarms it installs. Instead, Alliance 

enters into contracts with consumers for monthly alarm monitoring service and then sells those 

contracts to an alarm monitoring company. From April 2008 until July 2017, Alliance had an 

agreement with Monitronics International, Inc. (“Monitronics”), an alarm monitoring company, 

under which Monitronics had a right of first refusal to purchase Alliance’s alarm monitoring 

contracts.33 This agreement made Alliance an exclusive telemarketer and seller for Monitronics. 

In turn, Monitronics paid Alliance a percentage of the total contract value, based primarily on the 

28 PX 27, Wright Dec. Att. E. at FTC-0000502. 

29 PX 24, Deposition of Justin Ramsey at 91-92. 

30 PX 23, Gotra Tr. 201:24-202:9 at FTC-0000255. 

31 PX 21, Deposition of Alliance 30(b)(6) declarant, Anthony Bolognese, Tr. 270-271 at FTC-0000214. 

Alliance’s “dealer development department” even sent emails to dealers reminding them to download 

Alliance’s internal do not call list. E.g., PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ and Att. U at FTC-0000762. 

32 See PX 27, Wright Dec. Att. D at FTC-0000452. 

33 See ECF 36-2, In re: Alliance Security, Inc., No. 1:17-bk-11190 (R.I. Bankr. July 24, 2017). 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 16 of 39 

length of the contract and the credit score of the consumer.34 When Alliance installed an alarm 

after one of its dealers had set the appointment, Alliance paid its dealer a portion of the money it 

received from Monitronics. This payment, too, was based in part on the consumer’s credit score. 

After Alliance filed bankruptcy in July 2017, it asked the court to reject its contract with 

Monitronics and permit it to enter into a contract to sell alarm monitoring contracts to a different 

alarm monitoring company, Security Systems, Inc., and its owner, David Roman.35 Mr. Roman 

and one of his other home security companies, Safe Home Security, are defendants in an FTC 

action that is pending in the Northern District of Illinois.36 

D. Defendants Are Recidivists With an Extensive History of Unlawful Telemarketing 

Before this Court entered the 2014 Order, Defendants had already settled cases brought 

by Pennsylvania and Kentucky alleging unlawful telemarketing. 37 After the Court entered the 

2014 Order, Defendants settled a similar case with Wisconsin.38 

Defendants also have been sued in numerous cases by private individuals alleging 

violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Class action claims against Alliance were 

consolidated into a single action in the Northern District of West Virginia by the United States 

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. That case, In re Monitronics Int’l Inc., Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act Litig., No. 1:13-cv-02493 (N.D. W. Va.), is now stayed against 

Alliance due to its bankruptcy. Monitronics is a co-defendant with Alliance in that case. Kevin 

Klink, a settling co-defendant in this action, also owns a now defunct business sued in that 

action. Monitronics has agreed to a $28 million settlement and filed a proof of claim in 

34 Id. at 36. 

35 See ECF 37, In re: Alliance Security, Inc., No. 1:17-bk-11190 (R.I. Bankr. July 24, 2017). 

36 See FTC v. Lifewatch, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-05781 (N.D. Ill.). 

37 See PX. 3 at FTC-0000039-53 ( Pennsylvania) and FTC-0000031-38 (Kentucky). 

38 See PX. 3 at FTC-0000054-63. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 17 of 39 

Alliance’s bankruptcy alleging that Alliance was responsible for the conduct attributed to 

Monitronics in that case.39 

E. Alliance and Its Co-Defendant Telemarketers Placed at Least 1,058,725 Calls to 

Numbers on the DNC Registry 

To protect consumers from abusive telemarketing, it is illegal to call consumers who list 

their numbers on the DNC Registry, absent exceptions not relevant here. Defendants concede, as 

they must, that their employees placed 120,000 calls to numbers listed on the DNC Registry 

without any legal basis under the TSR or the 2014 Order.40 To the detriment of consumers, they 

engaged in many more violations. The following table provides snapshots of certain periods 

showing that more than one in ten of Alliance’s calls were illegally placed to numbers listed on 

the DNC Registry. 

530,117 Calls to DNC Registry Initiated by Alliance 

Dialer Date Range Calls DNC Calls DNC Hit Rate 

Alliance’s 

Employees 

2014-04-01 – 

2015-07-31 

2,089,146 155,924 7.5% 

Alliance’s 

Employees 

2015-01-02 – 

2015-07-31 

2,169,245 229,497 10.6% 

Alliance’s 

Employees 

2015-09-01 – 

2016-04-18 

618,106 52,705 8.53% 

Alliance via Dialing 

Vendor 

2016-04-25 – 

2016-06-04 

3,145,723 91,991 2.92% 

528,608 Calls to DNC Registry Initiated by Two Alliance Third-Party Telemarketers 

(In Spring 2016) 

Dialer Date Range Calls DNC Calls DNC Hit Rate 

Power Marketing via 

Dialing Vendor 

2016-04-27 – 

2016-06-27 

684,789 125,009 18.26% 

Defend America via 

Dialing Vendor 

2016-03-21 – 

2016-05-06 

492,089 403,599 82.02% 

Totals for Alliance and its 

Telemarketers 

Calls DNC Calls DNC Hit Rate 

9,199,098 1,058,725 11.5% 

39 See ECF 53-1, In re: Alliance Security, Inc., No. 1:17-bk-11190 (R.I. Bankr. July 24, 2017). 

40 See PX 27, Wright Dec. Att. D at FTC-0000459. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 18 of 39 

Call records and analyses of the calls identified above show that the day after this Court 

entered the 2014 Order, Alliance placed 622 calls to numbers listed on the DNC Registry,41 

violating both the TSR and the 2014 Order. On the first anniversary of the 2014 Order, Alliance 

placed at least 1,729 illegal calls to numbers listed on the DNC Registry.42 

Defendants’ former telemarketers and employees have also confirmed these illegal 

practices. A former employee of one of Defendants’ third-party telemarketers has confirmed that 

his company used illegal robocalls, used spoofed caller ID numbers, and called consumers 

without “scrubbing” its list to remove numbers on the DNC Registry.43 A former Alliance 

employee complained to the FTC that Alliance “did not follow any do not call lists.44” 

F. Alliance Requires Its Telemarketers to Hide Alliance’s Identity From Consumers 

Alliance prohibits its lead generators and third-party telemarketers from disclosing 

Alliance’s name during telemarketing calls, unless a consumer directly asks who will be 

installing the alarm. When asked at his deposition whether Alliance’s “dealers” are permitted to 

use Alliance’s name, Gotra answered “No. Absolutely not.”45 Later in the same deposition, after 

substantial discussion of the topic, Gotra clarified that “if someone says, asks them who is going 

to do the installation, it is their right to say to the customer Alliance Security will do the 

installation.”46 Alliance’s lawyer added his own statement for the record at that same deposition, 

explaining for the FTC that “Jay [Gotra] is right, during telemarketing, they can’t identify 

41 See PX. 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 27 and Att. L at FTC-0000646. 

42 See PX. 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 28 and Att. M at FTC-0000655. The FTC’s process for obtaining the call 

records and having them analyzed by a third-party vendor is set forth in Mr. Wright’s Declaration. See PX 

27 at ¶¶24-41. 

43 PX 15. Declaration of Tyler Hall ¶¶ 4, 22. Mr. Hall formerly worked for a massive robocall enterprise 

and settled claims with the FTC. See ECF 28, Stipulated Final Order, FTC v. Jones, 8:17-cv-00058-DOCJCG (Jan. 20, 2017). 

44 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 72 and Att. X 

45 PX. 23, Gotra Tr. 197:9-13 at FTC-0000254. 

46 PX. 23, Gotra Tr. 212:9-19 at FTC-0000257. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 19 of 39 

themselves as Alliance or affiliated with Alliance.”47 Alliance also confirmed in writing to the 

FTC that its third-party telemarketers are not “permitted to represent themselves as Alliance or 

otherwise affiliated with Alliance during their telemarketing campaigns.”48 

As a result of this policy, Defendants’ telemarketers have placed countless calls on behalf 

of Alliance that do not promptly disclose Alliance’s identity. Defendants’ exclusive telemarketer, 

Defend America, placed at least 492,089 telemarketing calls during less than three months in the 

spring of 2016 that failed to identify Alliance. During the same period, Power Marketing placed 

684,789 calls to solicit the sale of home security systems for Alliance—all of which failed to 

identify Alliance. 

For the calls by Defend America, the FTC has obtained audio copies of the prerecorded 

messages, which the FTC has transcribed.49 None of the recordings disclosed the name of any 

actual company. Some of the different variations even used a false, generic company name: 

“Home Security Center.” None of these calls promptly identified Defend America (the calling 

party), Alliance (the alarm installer), or Monitronics (the alarm monitoring company).50 

G. Defendants Performed More Than 400,000 Unauthorized Credit Checks Between 

March 2016 and September 2017 

To protect consumers’ privacy and safeguard their financial information, the FCRA 

prohibits unauthorized access to credit reports and credit scores. The telemarketing sales scripts 

Alliance produced explicitly show that Alliance’s general practice was not to tell consumers that 

47 PX. 23, Gotra Tr. 211:22-212:1at FTC-0000257. 

48 PX. 27, Wright Dec. Att. D at FTC-0000452. 

49 See PX. 3, Wright Dec. ¶ 43 and Att. S. 

50 Defend America placed these calls through Alliance’s vendor, Avatar Technologies, which used a 

technology called “soundboard,” or “avatar” in which live operators played prerecorded messages to 

consumers. 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 20 of 39 

Alliance was obtaining their credit scores or credit reports. 51 Indeed, the standard sales script 

does not mention credit inquiries,52 and in the sales “rebuttals” script, Alliance instructs its 

employees to disclose that Alliance obtains their credit reports only if customers persist in asking 

several times.53 Declarations and complaints from former Alliance telemarketers and employees 

confirm this flagrant disregard for the FCRA. 

For example, former Alliance telemarketer Tyler Hall states that Alliance obtained 

consumer credit scores for his telemarketing company without consumers’ knowledge or 

permission.54 Another former employee, Nathaniel McDonald, who worked at Alliance as a 

salesperson in the summer of 2014,55 declared that his “manager at Alliance told [him he] should 

not tell customers that Alliance checked their credit . . . even if a customer directly asked me if 

Alliance would check his or her credit, I should say no.”56 McDonald declared that these 

practices were pervasive and widely known at Alliance. Another former employee complained to 

the FTC that, “the lack of concern for customer’s personal information (especially the credit 

reports and social security numbers obtained without customer’s knowledge or permission) was 

disturbing.”57 Yet another former Alliance employee complained to the FTC that “they do not 

inform consumers that they are running their credit.58” 

TransUnion produced documents to the FTC showing that, between March 1, 2016 and 

September 9, 2017, Alliance initiated at least 715,186 requests to obtain consumer credit reports 

51 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 17 and Att. F at FTC-0000555-56; PX 15, Hall Dec. ¶¶ 5, 12-13 and Att. C; PX 

16 , McDonald Dec. ¶ 4. 

52 PX 27, Wright Dec. Att. F at FTC-0000555-56; PX 15, Hall Dec. ¶¶ 5, 11-13 and Att. C. 

53 PX 27, Wright Dec. Att. F at FTC-0000555-56; PX 15, Hall Dec. ¶¶ 14-15 and Att. D. 

54 PX 15, Hall Dec. ¶¶ 5, 12-13. 

55 PX 16, McDonald Dec. ¶ 2. 

56 PX 16, id. ¶ 6. 

57 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 73 and Att. Y. 

58 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 72 and Att. X. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 21 of 39 

or credit scores.59 Of those 715,186 requests, TransUnion explained that 2,897 were blocked 

because the consumer account belonged to a minor or was frozen.60 The requests that were 

blocked included inquiries about the following individuals’ credit:

61 

• August 9, 2016—“Bill Clinton, [redacted private residential address], Washington, DC” 

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

• October 19, 2016—Barrack [sic] Obama, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC” 

• March 15, 2017—“Mike Pence, 3450 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC.” [This 

is the address of the United States Naval Observatory and the Vice President’s residence.] 

• August 17, 2017—“Donald Trump, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC” 

In addition to the blocked inquiries, Alliance initiated 291,161 consumer credit inquiries 

for which TransUnion was unable to locate a consumer with a credit score or credit report.62 As a 

result, during the eighteen-month time span from March 1, 2016 through September 9, 2017, 

Alliance’s 715,186 consumer credit inquiries submitted to TransUnion system resulted in 

Alliance obtaining 424,026 consumer credit reports or credit scores on actual consumers.63 

Among those 424,026 illegal credit inquiries was an inquiry by Alliance to obtain the 

credit report of Mitchell Hodus. 

64 As noted in Mr. Hodus’ declaration, he had never heard of 

Alliance, let alone given Alliance permission to obtain his credit report or credit score. 

Moreover, he had no interest in obtaining a new home security system.65 

H. Consumer Declarations Confirm the Illegal Dialing and Credit Practices 

The FTC submits eleven consumer declarations confirming Defendants’ TSR and FCRA 

violations. Many of these consumers personally confirmed that Alliance was responsible for the 

59 PX 25, Prindes Dec. ¶ 8 at FTC. 

60 PX 25, id. 

61 PX 25, id. 

62 PX 25, id. 

63 PX 25, id. at ¶ 9. 

64 PX 7, Declaration of Mitchell Hodus. 

65 PX 7, id., Hodus Dec. ¶¶ 3-5. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 22 of 39 

unwanted, illegal calls by having Alliance installers come to their home. None of these 

consumers actually wanted Alliance to install an alarm. Rather, feeling outraged by the abusive 

calls, they wanted to learn the identity of who was responsible for the calls or wanted a face-toface opportunity to ask them to stop calling. A chart66 within the declaration of FTC investigator 

Darren Wright summarizes these eleven consumer declarations and, in almost every instance, 

independently confirms the contents of the consumers’ declarations through evidence produced 

by Defendants, Kevin Klink (the owner of Power Marketing), or other third parties. 

I. Defendants Misrepresent Their Telemarketing Practices to Consumers and the FTC 

After this Court entered the 2014 Order, Defendants—including Gotra, personally—have 

made numerous false or contradictory statements to consumers and the FTC about their 

telemarketing and business practices. This conduct buttresses the need for preliminary relief and 

demonstrates why any lesser form of relief reliant upon Alliance’s truthful and forthright 

answers would be difficult, if not impossible, to monitor and enforce. Below are three of the 

most egregious instances concerning: (1) calls to the DNC Registry; (2) Alliance’s relationship 

with its dealers aka telemarketers; and (3) Alliance’s purported termination of lead generators as 

required under 2014 Order. 

First, Defendants have made numerous false statements to consumers and the FTC about 

their practice of removing numbers on the DNC Registry from their call lists. On July 9, 2015, 

Gotra emailed a consumer who had filed a DNC complaint with legal@alliancesecurity.com, 

telling the consumer that: (1) Alliance does not call numbers on the DNC Registry; and (2) 

Alliance’s system will not even accept a sales lead containing a number listed on the DNC 

66 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 67. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 23 of 39 

Registry. 67 Alliance’s sales scripts, produced to the FTC, also instruct Alliance’s salespersons to 

tell consumers the same thing.68 However, internal emails exchanged between Alliance 

employees show this is not true, and that their lead generators did in fact submit leads with 

numbers listed on the DNC Registry, and Alliance then called those numbers, 69 

Second, as part of their effort to distance themselves from their third-party telemarketers, 

Defendants, on December 14, 2015, informed the FTC that “Alliance does not provide calling 

lists, advertisements or marketing materials, or telemarketing scripts to” its dealers or lead 

generators.

70 In fact, Gotra had personally arranged the provision of calling lists for Alliance’s 

third-party telemarketer, Power Marketing.

71 In addition, in January 2016, Alliance employee 

Jeremy Valentino (who worked in the company’s business development department) sent emails 

to Alliance’s third-party telemarketer, Trensafe Home Security, aka F.S.P. Home Security, with 

Alliance’s sales scripts for Trensafe to use in telemarketing.”72 

Third, the 2014 Order required Defendants to terminate their relationship with any lead 

generator that failed to comply with the TSR or the 2014 Order. Defendants misled the FTC 

about their compliance with this provision of the 2014 Order. In July 2014, Alliance sent the 

FTC an email—copying Gotra—stating that Defendants had terminated their relationship with 

“Data Guru” and “Armor All Protection” based on a high volume of complaints from 

consumers.73 Data Guru was a company owned and operated by Justin Ramsey.

74 Defendants did 

67 See PX 27, Wright Dec. Att. I at FTC-0000598. 

68 PX 27, Wright Dec. Att. F at FTC-0000552-54. 

69 PX 27, Wright Dec. Att. I at FTC-0000614. 

70 PX 27, Wright Dec. Att. D at FTC-0000454. 

71 PX 27, Wright Dec. Att. T at FTC-0000759. 

72 PX 15, Hall Dec. ¶ 10 and Atts. A and B. 

73 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 10 and Attachment C. 

74 See e.g., ECF 1, Complaint, FTC v. Ramsey, No. 9:17-cv-80032-KAM (S.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2017). 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 24 of 39 

not tell the FTC that they continued working with Ramsey through other companies and actually 

increased their dealings with him.75 Another lead generator Alliance claimed it had terminated, 

“Armor All Protection,” was owned by Maroon Deek.76 After facing questions at its deposition 

about why Alliance had called “Armor All” more than 360 times in 2015, after it had purportedly 

terminated “Armor All,”77 Defendants admitted to the FTC that Mr. Deek had continued to own 

another Alliance “dealer” (i.e., telemarketer) called “The Alarm Group.”78 

III. ARGUMENT 

To halt ongoing and persistent violations of the TSR and FCRA, to prevent future 

violations, and to protect consumers’ privacy, the FTC respectfully requests that the Court issue 

a preliminary injunction that: (1) bans Defendants from engaging in telemarketing; and (2) bans 

Defendants from obtaining or using consumer credit reports or scores without consumers’ prior, 

written authorization. The Court has the authority to order the requested relief, the evidence 

demonstrates that the FTC is likely to succeed on the merits, the equities weigh in favor of the 

requested relief, Gotra is personally liable and must be subject to the injunction, and the 

requested relief is necessary to protect consumers. 

A. This Court has Authority to Grant the Requested Relief 

Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), authorizes the FTC to seek, and this 

Court to grant, preliminary and permanent injunctions against any practices that violate any law 

enforced by the FTC. See FTC v. Gem Merch. Corp., 87 F.3d 466, 468 (11th Cir. 1996); accord 

75 As noted above, in December 2015, Gotra arranged for Alliance to pay Ramsey to provide consumer 

phone number lists to one of Alliance’s telemarketers, Power Marketing. See PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 45 

and Att. T at FTC-0000759. Then, in the spring of 2016, Alliance began letting Ramsey directly transfer 

telephone calls to Alliance’s employees in Alliance’s headquarters in Rhode Island. See PX 27, Wright 

Dec. ¶ and Att. H at FTC-0000578. 

76 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 10 and Attachment C. 

77 PX 21, Bolognese Tr. 255-259 at FTC-0000210-211. 

78 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 11 and Att. E at FTC-0000504. 

16 
 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 25 of 39 

FTC v. Amy Travel Service, Inc., 875 F.2d 564, 572 (7th Cir. 1989); FTC v. H.N. Singer Inc., 688 

F.2d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 1982); FTC v. Direct Marketing Concepts, Inc., 2004 WL 1399185, at 

*4-5 (D. Mass. June 23, 2004); FTC v. Patriot Alcohol Testers, Inc., 1992 WL 27334, at *3 (D. 

Mass. Feb. 13, 1992). Here, Defendants’ telemarketing activities are in flagrant violation of the 

law and this Court’s 2014 Order, and have been for many years. Moreover, consumer harm is 

ongoing and significant. Under such circumstances, injunctive relief is warranted. See Direct 

Marketing Concepts, Inc., 2004 WL 1399185, at *6 (holding “immediate and irreparable harm to 

consumers will result from ongoing violations”).

79 The laws enforced by the FTC, for which the 

FTC may obtain injunctive relief under this Court’s authority, include both the TSR and the 

FCRA. “Any violation of the TSR constitute[s] an unfair and deceptive act or practice in or 

affecting commerce in violation of § 5(a) of the FTC Act.” United States v. Dish Network, 

L.L.C., 667 F. Supp. 2d 952, 955 (C.D. Ill. 2009) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 57a(d)(3), 6102(c)). 

Violations of the FCRA also constitute violations of Section 5(a) the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 45(a). See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a). 

B. The FTC Need Only Prove a Likelihood of Success on the Merits and That 

the Public Equities Outweigh Any Private Interests, As Irreparable Harm Is 

Presumed 

In determining whether to grant preliminary relief under Section 13(b), a court must 

consider two factors: (1) the FTC’s likelihood of ultimate success, and (2) whether the public 

equities outweigh any private equities. See Patriot Alcohol Testers, Inc., 1992 WL 27334, at *3; 

see also FTC v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1233 (9th Cir. 1999); FTC v. Univ. Health, 

Inc., 938 F.2d 1206, 1217 (11th Cir. 1991). “Under the public interest standard, the FTC need 

79 Injunctive relief is appropriate even in less serious circumstances when a defendant has ceased its 

illegal activities if there is a “cognizable danger of recurrent violation,” U.S. v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 

629, 633 (1953), and the commission of past illegal conduct is “highly suggestive of the likelihood of 

future violations.” CFTC v. Hunt, 591 F.2d 1211, 1220 (7th Cir. 1979); see also Direct Mktg. Concepts, 

648 F. Supp. 2d at 202; FTC v. Think Achievement Corp., 144 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1017 (N.D. Ind. 2000). 

17 
 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 26 of 39 

not prove irreparable harm” in order to obtain injunctive relief. FTC v. Seismic Entertainment 

Productions, Inc., 2004 WL 2403124, at *2 (D.N.H. Apr. 9, 2004); see also FTC v. IAB Mktg. 

Assoc., LP, 746 F.3d 1228, 1232 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Univ. Health, Inc., 938 F.2d at 1218); 

FTC v. World Wide Factors, Ltd., 882 F.2d 344, 347 (9th Cir. 1989). Because irreparable injury 

is presumed, the burden of establishing success on the merits is decreased, and the district court 

“need only find some chance of probable success on the merits” in order to award preliminary 

relief. Patriot Alcohol Testers, Inc., 1992 WL 27334, at *3 (citing World Wide Factors, Ltd., 882 

F.2d at 347) (further citation omitted)). 

C. The FTC Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits 

The voluminous evidence attached to this Motion proves more than two million 

violations of the TSR by Defendants’ employees and their third-party telemarketers, including 

more than 1 million calls to numbers on the DNC Registry and more than 1 million calls that fail 

to identify the seller of the product or service at issue. Each call violates the 2014 Order. 

Defendants’ further violated the privacy of American consumers and the FCRA, at least 424,026 

times, when they pulled credit reports and credit scores on consumers without a permissible 

purpose or consumers’ consent. 

1. The Defendants Initiated Calls to Numbers on the DNC Registry 

(Count II of the Complaint) 

As noted above, Alliance admits that it placed 120,000 calls that violate both the TSR 

and the 2014 Order. However, as shown below, Alliance’s own employees have placed at least 

438,126 illegal calls to numbers on the DNC Registry, and Alliance initiated an additional 

91,991 calls to numbers on the DNC through its dialing vendor. Alliance has explicitly 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 27 of 39 

disclaimed its affirmative defenses that it had express written consent or an established business 

relationship that would permit it to call numbers on the DNC Registry.

80 

Under the TSR, Alliance is both a seller and a telemarketer subject to the prohibitions on 

calls to numbers on the DNC Registry. Alliance is a seller because, in connection with 

telemarketing calls, it offers goods and services to customers in exchange for consideration—it 

charges customers for the first month of alarm monitoring services.81 In addition, Alliance 

arranges for others to provide goods or services to the customer in exchange for consideration— 

it arranges for customers to pay third-party alarm monitoring companies, like Monitronics, to 

monitor their alarms. Alliance is a telemarketer because it initiates outbound calls to customers.82 

Defendants’ employee dialed at least 438,126 calls to numbers on the DNC Registry.83 

Defendants are responsible for all of those calls. Alliance is also responsible for at least 91,991 

calls to numbers listed on the DNC Registry by Alliance’s dialing vendor, Avatar Outsourcing 

(“Avatar”). Alliance sent Avatar the list of consumer phone numbers to dial, among other acts.

84 

For the calls by Avatar, the number of violations is particularly significant given the small 

sample size of call data produced to the FTC. The records produced by this vendor spanned just a 

short period from April through June of 2016. Those calls dialed by Avatar resulted in 546 

consumer complaints filed with the FTC.85 

80 PX 27, Wright Decl. ¶ and Att. D at FTC-0000451. 

81 The TSR defines a “seller” as 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. Id. § 301.2(dd). 

82 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. Id. § 310.2(ff). 

83 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 24-28, 44. 

84 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 42 and Att. R. 

85 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 44. 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 28 of 39 

In addition, the FTC has received numerous other complaints from consumers about calls 

from or on behalf of Alliance, even though the consumers’ numbers were listed on the DNC 

Registry.86 As recently as January 2018, consumer David Howell contacted the FTC about 

repeated unwanted calls from Alliance, even though his number had been listed on the DNC 

Registry for years.87 As former Alliance employee Kyle Conlan reported to the FTC in 

December 2015, “the company did not follow any do not call lists.”88 

2. Defendants Are Sellers Who Are Liable for Their Telemarketers’ 

Illegal Calls to Numbers on the Registry (Count II of the Complaint) 

Defendants also are liable for the abusive practices of their telemarketers Defend 

America and Power Marketing under the TSR. As a seller under the TSR, Alliance is legally 

responsible for its telemarketers’ abusive telemarketing calls to telephone numbers on the DNC 

Registry by causing the telemarketers to engage in the prohibited conduct. See 16 C.F.R. 

§ 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B), see also United States v. Dish Network, LLC, 667 F. Supp. 2d 952, 958-59 

(C.D. Ill. 2009). In Dish, the court held that a seller “causes” the telemarketing activity of a 

telemarketer by retaining the telemarketer and authorizing the telemarketer to market the seller’s 

products and services. Id. at 959. The Dish Court explained, “[a] person may cause an outcome 

intentionally, unintentionally, recklessly, negligently, innocently, accidentally or otherwise. The 

relevant section of the TSR, § 310.4(b)(1), contains no additional language that would either 

limit the degree of connection between the action and the outcome, or add an intent or motive 

requirement.” Id. The Dish Court reiterated this standard in two subsequent opinions. United 

States v. Dish Network, LLC, 75 F. Supp. 3d 942, 1007 (C.D. Ill. 2014); United States v. Dish 

86 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶¶ 44, 67; see also PX 4, Arlinghaus Dec. (complaint about calls during August 

2017); PX 8, Howell Dec. (complaint about calls during January 2018); PX 6, Hamrick Dec. (complaint 

about calls during May 2017); PX 11, Lucas Dec. (complaint about calls from October 2016 through May 

2017). 

87 PX 8, Howell Dec. ¶4. 

88 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 72. 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 29 of 39 

Network, LLC, 256 F. Supp. 3d 810, 932-933 (C.D. Ill. June 5, 2017); see also FTC v. Lifewatch, 

176 F. Supp. 3d 757, 783 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (adopting and applying the standard set forth in Dish). 

Thus, to establish Alliance’s liability for its telemarketers Defend America and Power 

Marketing’s violations of the TSR’s do not call provisions, the FTC must show that: (1) Alliance 

retained Defend America and Power Marketing; (2) Alliance authorized them to market its 

products and services; and (3) Defend America and Power Marketing violated the TSR. Id. The 

FTC has met that standard. 

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants are “sellers” under the TSR. As sellers, the 

Defendants are liable for “causing” their third-party telemarketers Defend America and Power 

Marketing to initiate 528,608 calls to numbers on the DNC Registry, in violation of 16 C.F.R. 

§ 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B). First, there is overwhelming evidence that Alliance retained and authorized 

Defendants Defend America and Power Marketing to telemarket home security systems on their 

behalf. Defend America had an exclusive agreement to telemarket on behalf of Alliance.

89 Power 

Marketing was formed specifically to become an Alliance dealer.90 Alliance also provided these 

telemarketers with access to Alliance’s copy of the DNC Registry, Alliance’s own internal do 

not call list, and Alliance’s calendar so the telemarketers could determine the availability of 

Alliance’s alarm installation technicians.91 

Moreover, prior to the illegal calls at issue here by Defend America, which were placed 

from March 21, 2016 through May 6, 2016, Alliance had previously received complaints about 

Defend America but continued its relationship with the company.92 Similarly, before it even 

89 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 21 and Att. J at FTC-0000623. 

90 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶¶ and Att U at FTC-000772-774. 91 See above notes 28-30. 

92 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 20 and Att. I at FTC-0000598. 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 30 of 39 

began transacting business with Power Marketing, Alliance was aware of the history of 

complaints about unlawful telemarketing by the company’s owner, Defendant Kevin Klink.93 

These 528,608 do not call violations are based on a few months of records by just two of 

Alliance’s hundreds of telemarketers. Indeed, Tyler Hall, who ran an autodialer for one of 

Alliance’s other telemarketers, Trensafe Security, confirmed that his company intentionally 

called numbers on the DNC Registry, despite having the ability to avoid doing so.94 

3. Defendants Violated the TSR by Assisting and Facilitating Calls to 

Numbers on the DNC Registry (Count V(a) of the Complaint) 

In addition to Defendants’ liability for causing the initiation of illegal calls by Defend 

America and Power Marketing, both Alliance and Gotra are also liable under the TSR’s assisting 

and facilitating provision. See FTC v. Chapman, 714 F.3d 1211, 1216–17 (10th Cir. 2013) 

(affirming liability under the TSR’s assisting and facilitating provision where the defendant “was 

the one who provided the services and products [that were] marketed to consumers in misleading 

ways”); see also Lifewatch Inc., 176 F. Supp. 3d at 782. 

Both entities received directions from Alliance—such as periodic emails instructing them 

to use Alliance’s copy of the DNC Registry and Alliance’s internal do not call list. Both entities 

also placed calls on Alliance’s behalf, used Alliance’s calendar to schedule installations for 

consumers to the benefit of both Alliance and the telemarketer responsible for telemarketing 

Alliance’s installation services and the products and services that Alliance was selling, and 

received payment from Alliance. 

93 Klink was a co-defendant with Alliance and Gotra in the multi-district class action lawsuit and two of 

his prior companies—competitors of Alliance—were also co-defendants. Gotra purchased one of those 

competitors and received a schedule of pending telemarketing litigation. 

94 PX 15, Hall Dec. ¶ 4. 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 31 of 39 

4. Defendants Violated the TSR by Assisting and Facilitating Outbound 

Telemarketing Calls that Failed to Identify the Seller (Count V(b) of 

the Complaint) 

Alliance has assisted and facilitated its telemarketers, including Defend America and 

Power Marketing, in violating the TSR’s requirement, under 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(d), to “promptly” 

identify the seller. Prompt identification of either Alliance or Monitronics would satisfy this 

requirement. Alliance installs the alarms, collects the pre-payment from consumers, and provides 

consumers with the contracts to sign, and Monitronics monitored the alarms and collected the 

remaining payments from consumers. Thus, all of Alliance’s telemarketing calls, and those by its 

third-party telemarketers must promptly disclose Alliance or Monitronics’ identity. 

Defendants have knowingly provided material assistance or support to their telemarketers 

and sellers, including Power Marketing and Defend America, whom they knew or consciously 

avoided knowing were engaged in telemarketing calls that used fake company names and 

otherwise failed to promptly disclose Alliance or Monitronic’s identity. 

But Defendants did not merely assist and facilitate their telemarketers’ failure to 

promptly identify Alliance, they contractually required it. Alliance repeatedly reminds its 

telemarketers that they must not identify Alliance or Monitronics in any of their outbound sales 

calls and even threatens them with termination for failing to comply with this requirement.95 

Operating under those contractual requirements and threats, Power Marketing placed at 

least 684,78996 telemarketing calls through their vendor, all of which failed to identify the seller 

from March through June of 2016. During the same general period, and operating under an 

exclusive agreement with Alliance, Defend America placed at least 492,089 telemarketing calls 

through the same vendor to solicit the sale of home security systems for Alliance, all of which 

95 See PX. 21, Bolognese Tr. 287-288 at FTC-0000215. 

96 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 41. 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 32 of 39 

failed to identify the seller.

97 Some of Defend America’s calls even used a false, generic 

company name: “Home Security Center.”98 

Thus, combining the calls by Power Marketing and those by Defend America, Alliance 

assisted and facilitated at least 1,176,878 calls that failed to promptly identify the seller. This 

violation of the TSR—and this intentional policy of not permitting telemarketers to identify 

Alliance or Monitronics—undermines consumers’ and the FTC’s ability to trace unlawful calls 

to the responsible parties. This is the reason so many consumers resorted to feigning interest in 

an alarm just to learn who was responsible for the unwanted sales calls pitching home security 

systems in order to stop them.

99 In each instance, these consumers learned Alliance was 

responsible for the calls. 

5. Alliance Violated the FCRA by Obtaining Consumer Credit 

Information from TransUnion Without Any Permissible Purpose. 

Alliance simply has no legal basis for obtaining consumer credit scores and credit reports, 

and none of the permissible purposes set forth in Section 1681b(a) is applicable here.100 

Even the purported permissible purposes that Alliance told TransUnion for obtaining 

consumer credit scores and credit reports are plainly inapplicable. For example, on December 28, 

2016, Alliance asserted to TransUnion that its permissible purpose for obtaining consumer 

97 Id., Wright Dec. ¶ 43 and Att. S. 

98 Id. 99 See PX 4, Arlinghaus Dec. ¶ 3; PX 5, Dolan Dec. ¶ 5; PX 6, Hamrick Dec. ¶ 4; PX 8, Howell Dec. ¶ 6; 

PX 10, Larson Dec. ¶¶ 3-4; PX 11, Lucas Dec. ¶4; PX 13, Sunderland Dec. ¶¶ 4, 8; PX 14, Zimring Dec.¶ 

5. 

100 Many of the permissible purposes set forth in Section 1681b(a) are inapplicable. E.g., pursuant to a 

court order or grand jury subpoena (15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(1)); for employment purposes (15 U.S.C. § 

1681b(a)(3)(B)); for purpose of underwriting insurance (15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(C)); in connection with 

issuance of government issued credit card (15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(G)); in connection with child support 

payment issues (15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(4)-(5)); or in response to a request from the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation or the National Credit Union Administration (15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(6)). 

24 
 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 33 of 39 

reports was “account review,”101 which authorizes businesses to obtain credit information about 

their current or past customers for purposes of collecting on an account or monitoring their 

current customers’ ongoing credit worthiness pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681(a)(3)(A) and 

(a)(3)(F). Then, on January 12, 2017, Alliance’s Chief Financial Officer, Douglas Anderson, 

certified that Alliance would request “Consumer Report Information solely” for its legitimate 

business need “in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer.102” 

(emphasis added.) This is a permissible purpose set forth under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(F)(i). 

Yet, neither justification was true. Alliance and its third-party telemarketers cold call consumers 

who have never even heard of Alliance, and then obtain their credit reports without their 

knowledge or permission. Alliance, not the consumer, initiates these transactions. 103 Moreover, 

Alliance had no relationship with those consumers, and therefore was not obtaining their credit 

information for purposes of “account review.”104 

Alliance also obtains credit reports on individuals who are not even potential customers. 

For example, one consumer, Mitchell Hodus, informed the FTC that he never spoke with 

Alliance, has never heard of Alliance, had not been shopping for a new home security system in 

at least three years, and had no idea why Alliance would have obtained his credit report or credit 

score under the auspices of “account review.”105 

101 See PX 26, Quinn Dec. ¶18 ant Att. H at FTC-0000418. 

102 See PX 26, Quinn Dec. ¶18 ant Att. I at FTC-0000420. 

103 See PX 4, Arlinghaus Dec. at ¶ 6; PX 5, Dolan Dec. at ¶ 3; PX 6, Hamrick Dec. at ¶7; PX 7, Hodus 

Dec. at ¶5; PX 10, Larson Dec. at ¶19. 

104 Several consumers have informed the FTC that their credit reports showed inquiries by Alliance under 

the “account review” section of their credit report, despite never having any account with Alliance. See 

PX 4 , Arlinghaus Dec. at ¶ 7; PX 6 , Hamrick Dec. at ¶¶6- 7; PX 7, Hodus Dec. at ¶¶ 2-3; PX 9, Kahler 

Dec. at ¶¶ 7-8; PX 11, Lucas Dec. at ¶¶ 7-8; PX 12, Pippin Dec. at ¶ 4. 

105 PX 7, Hodus Dec. ¶¶ 2-5. 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 34 of 39 

Alliance also obtained consumer credit information for thousands of consumers who 

lived in areas where Alliance did not conduct sales. For example, in 2016, Alliance obtained 

3,024 consumer reports from TransUnion for consumers living in the states of Colorado, Maine, 

and Oregon,106 even though Alliance does not conduct sales there.107 

The pervasiveness of these illegal practices are explained in declarations and complaints 

submitted to the FTC by former Alliance employees and telemarketers. The company has a 

policy of not informing consumers about credit checks, and Alliance’s sales representatives are 

instructed to deny to consumers that Alliance obtained their credit.108 Even Alliance’s sales 

scripts that it produced to the FTC state that consumers should not be told about credit checks 

unless they persist in asking several times.109 

Finally, Alliance has not instituted controls to ensure that employees do not abuse 

TransUnion’s system to obtain—or attempt to obtain—credit reports without any permissible 

purpose for obtaining the reports. As a result, Alliance employees have used TransUnion’s 

system in an attempt to obtain credit scores or credit reports of public figures, including 

Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump, and Vice Presidents Biden and Pence. Records produced 

by TransUnion show that all of these inquiries were unsuccessful and therefore did not violate 

the FCRA, because no consumer information was unlawfully obtained; however, these inquiries 

show, in addition to the evidence of hundreds of thousands of FCRA violations, that Alliance 

failed to exercise any control over its employees accessing consumer credit reports. Indeed, the 

106 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶¶ 74. 

107 https://www.alliancesecurity.com/security-company/ (last visited Mar. 12, 2018). 

108 PX 15, Hall Declaration ¶¶ 12-15 ; PX 16, McDonald Declaration ¶ 6; PX 27, Wright Declaration, ¶¶ 

72-73 and Attachments X and Y (complaints from former Alliance employees). 

109 PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶¶ 17 and Att. F at FTC-0000563. 

26 
 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 35 of 39 

attempt to obtain President Trump’s credit information occurred after Alliance knew that the 

FTC was examining Alliance’s FCRA compliance. 

D. The Public Equities Far Outweigh the Defendants’ Private Interests. 

When the court balances the equities, the public interest “must receive far greater weight” 

than any private concerns. FTC v. World Travel Vacation Brokers, Inc., 861 F.2d 1020, 1029 

(7th Cir. 1988); see also World Wide Factors, Ltd., 882 F.2d at 347. “In such statutory 

enforcement cases, the government proceeds ‘not as an ordinary litigant, but as a statutory 

guardian charged with safeguarding the public interest in enforcing the ... laws.’” Direct Mktg. 

Concepts, Inc., No. 04-cv-11136-GAO, 2004 WL 1399185, at *6 (D. Mass. June 23, 2004) 

(quoting SEC v. Mgmt. Dynamics, Inc., 515 F.2d 801, 808 (2d Cir.1975)). Thus, “[w]hen, as 

here, the FTC demonstrates a likelihood of success, a showing of private concerns implicated by 

the proposed injunction is not enough to deny injunctive relief.” Seismic Entm’t Prods., Inc., 

2004 WL 2403124, at *4 (consumer declarations describing violations of the FTC Act outweigh 

defendants’ “individual interests in ... business activities and profit [which] are of little weight”). 

Here, in the face of ongoing and persistent law violations, the FTC has a strong interest in 

protecting consumers from unwanted and abusive telemarketing calls, as well as unlawful, and 

unauthorized credit inquiries. Defendants have no valid or legitimate interest in continuing their 

unlawful telemarketing in violation of the TSR and continuing to obtain credit reports without a 

permissible purpose in violation of the FCRA. 

E. Jay Gotra Is Personally Liable and Should Be Subject to Injunctive Relief 

Under the FTC Act, an individual defendant is liable and subject to injunctive relief for 

violations committed by a corporate entity if he “either directly participated in the [unlawful] 

acts or practices or had authority to control them; it is not necessary to show that the individual 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 36 of 39 

personally” engaged in the unlawful conduct. FTC v. Direct Mktg. Concepts, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 

2d 285, 310 (D. Mass. 2008), aff'd, 624 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010); see also FTC v. IAB Mktg. 

Assocs., LP, 746 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2014). Authority to control “may be demonstrated 

by active participation in the corporation’s affairs as a corporate officer” Direct Mktg. Concepts, 

Inc. at 310 (citing Amy Travel Serv., Inc., 875 F.2d at 573). “An individual’s status as a corporate 

officer gives rise to a presumption of ability to control a small, closely-held corporation.” FTC v. 

Transnet Wireless, 506 F. Supp. 2d 1247, 1270 (S.D. Fla. 2007); see also J.K. Publ’ns, Inc., 99 

F. Supp. 2d at 1176, 1204 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (holding “status as a corporate officer and authority 

to sign documents on behalf of the corporate defendant can be sufficient to demonstrate the 

requisite control” for individual liability). 

As shown in Section II.B above, Gotra is the CEO, founder, and majority shareholder of 

Alliance. At all relevant times, he has exercised his authority as CEO and actively participated in 

Alliance’s corporate affairs, including signing the 2014 Order on behalf of Alliance, signing 

contracts on behalf of Alliance, and terminating lead generators.110 Gotra has also controlled, 

participated in, and had knowledge of the unlawful acts. For example, Gotra personally 

communicated with consumers who complained about unlawful telemarketing calls,111 directed 

an Alliance telemarketer to purchase data lists from Alliance’s lead generator (Justin Ramsey), 

and arranged for Alliance to pay for the data lists instead of the telemarketer.112 In addition, 

Alliance’s unlawful telemarketing113 and FCRA violations114 continued even after the FTC made 

Gotra aware of them. 

110 PX 22, Crins, Tr. 70:11-13 at FTC-0000226. 

111 See, e.g., PX. 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 20 and Att. I at FTC-0000598 and FTC-0000621. 

112 PX. 27, Wright Dec. ¶ 45 and Att. T at FTC-0000759. 

113 Compare PX 23, Gotra Tr. (Dec. 2015 Deposition), with, e.g., PX 27, Wright Dec. ¶41; PX 8. Howell 

Dec (unwanted calls to number on DNC Registry on Jan. 10, 2018). 

28 
 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 37 of 39 

F. The Requested Relief in the Proposed TRO Is Necessary and Appropriate 

Given Defendants’ History of Recidivism and Ongoing Violations 

Based on the Defendants extensive history of recidivism, and their continued violations 

of the TSR—even after agreeing to the 2014 Order and even while knowing they were being 

investigated by the FTC for violating that Order—the requested relief is needed and appropriate 

to stop ongoing violations and prevent future violations by these Defendants. 

Through their unwillingness to comply with the TSR, Defendants have shown that a 

clear, bright-line ban on all telemarketing is necessary to prevent future violations of the TSR. 

An equally clear, bright-line is needed to ensure Defendants stop violating the FCRA; the FTC 

therefore requests that, as a matter of preliminary relief, Defendants be banned from obtaining 

consumers credit reports or credit scores, without prior written authorization from the consumer. 

The requested relief will prevent Defendants from continuing to engage in the illegal 

conduct at issue while still allowing them to continue in business. Although they would not be 

able to continue advertising and selling their products and services using their current primary 

method (telemarketing), they could continue selling home security systems through on-line sales 

or door to door sales. Indeed, Gotra’s other home security sales company (Power Home 

Technologies) has told the FTC—under penalty of perjury—that it does not engage in any 

telemarketing. Accordingly, the Defendants could continue in business without telemarketing. 

And their door to door or on-line sales would provide opportunities for prior-written 

authorization to obtain consumer credit reports or credit scores. 

Although not litigated, the FTC has previously obtained full telemarketing bans in three 

cases based solely on egregious violations of the TSR’s prohibitions on abusive telemarketing. 

See ECF 88, Entry of Default Judgment and Final Order for Permanent Injunction, FTC v. Jones, 

114 PX 8, Howell Dec. ¶¶ 10-11(credit report obtained illegally on Jan. 10, 2018). 

29 
 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 38 of 39 

No. 17-cv-00058 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2017) (permanent ban on telemarketing based on DNC 

Registry violations and illegal robocalls); ECF 22, Stipulated Judgment and Order for Permanent 

Injunction, United States v. Cox, No. 11-cv-01910 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4 2013) (permanent ban on 

telemarketing for DNC Registry violations, illegal robocalls, and spoofed caller ID numbers); 

ECF 63, Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction, United States v. Sonkei 

Communications, Inc., No. 11-cv-01777 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014) (permanent ban on 

telemarketing and robocalling for assisting and facilitating DNC Registry violations, illegal 

robocalls, and spoofed caller ID numbers). 

The facts of the present case are particularly egregious because Alliance is also alleged to 

have violated the FCRA, Section 5 of the FTC Act, and is a recidivist TSR violator. Moreover, it 

is uncontested that Defendants have engaged in prior violations of the TSR. Indeed, Defendants 

admitted that they placed 120,000 calls that violate both the TSR and the 2014 Order. Moreover, 

as shown above, Defendants’ violations of the law have continued well after Defendants learned 

they were being investigated. And their violations are ongoing. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT 

The FTC filed this action to stop ongoing violations of laws and regulations designed to 

protect consumers’ privacy rights. The FTC respectfully requests that the Court grant the FTC’s 

Motion and issue the requested preliminary injunction against Defendants Alliance Security, Inc. 

and Jasjit Gotra. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d), the FTC respectfully requests oral argument. 

Given the nature, importance, and urgency of the requested relief, the FTC believes that the 

Court’s deliberations would be significantly aided by oral argument. 

30 
 

_____________________________ 

Case 1:18-cv-10548-GAO Document 8 Filed 03/23/18 Page 39 of 39 

Dated: March 23, 2018 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Ian Barlow 

Ian Barlow 

Danielle Estrada 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mailstop CC-8528 

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 

31