1

JONATHAN E. NUECHTERLEIN 

General Counsel 

R. MICHAEL WALLER, GA State Bar 102886 

AMANDA B. KOSTNER 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Mail Stop CC-9528 

Washington, DC 20580 

rwaller@ftc.gov, 202-326-2902 

akostner@ftc.gov, 202-326-2880 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

PHOENIX DIVISION 

Federal Trade Commission, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Sitesearch Corporation, dba LeapLab, a 

Nevada corporation; 

LeapLab, LLC, an Arizona limited liability 

company; 

Leads Company, LLC a Nevada limited 

liability company; and 

John Ayers, an individual; 

 Defendants. 

No. 

COMPLAINT FOR 

PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF
 2

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), for its Complaint alleges: 

1. The FTC brings this action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), to obtain permanent 

injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the 

refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other 

equitable relief for Defendants’ acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) 

of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1337(a), and 1345, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 53(b). 

3. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) and 15 

U.S.C. § 53(b). 

CASE SYNOPSIS 

4. Defendants sold consumer payday loan applications containing consumer 

financial account numbers, Social Security numbers, and other sensitive 

personal information to non-lenders, without the consumers’ knowledge or 

consent. The sale of such sensitive information to non-lenders was likely to 

– and did – lead to substantial consumer injury. At least one of Defendants’ 

customers, Ideal Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Ideal Financial”), used the 
 3

sensitive consumer information to make unauthorized debits to consumer 

financial accounts. Defendants provided sensitive consumer information to 

Ideal Financial, knowing or having reason to know that Ideal Financial was 

using this information to make unauthorized charges to consumer bank 

accounts. As a result, Defendants caused millions of dollars in consumer 

harm. 

PLAINTIFF 

5. 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), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in or affecting commerce. 

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

own attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and to secure such 

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

contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of illgotten monies. 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 56(a)(2)(A), 56(a)(2)(B), and 57(b). 

DEFENDANTS 

7. Defendant Sitesearch Corporation, formerly LeapLab Corporation, 

(“LeapLab”) is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in 

Chandler, Arizona. LeapLab transacts or has transacted business in this 

district and throughout the United States. 
 4

8. Defendant Leads Company, LLC (“LeadsCo”) is a Nevada corporation 

with its principal place of business in Chandler, Arizona. LeadsCo transacts 

or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United States. 

9. Defendant LeapLab, LLC, formerly DirectROI, LLC, (“DirectROI”) is an 

Arizona limited liability company with its principal place of business in 

Chandler, Arizona. DirectROI transacts or has transacted business in this 

district and throughout the United States. 

10. Defendant John Ayers (“Ayers”) resides in the District of Arizona and, 

among other positions, is the founder, Chairman, and former CEO of 

LeapLab. He also founded and controlled DirectROI and LeadsCo. At all 

times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, he 

formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated 

in the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint, including the 

Defendants’ sale of consumer payday loan applications containing 

consumers’ Social Security and financial account numbers, as well as other 

sensitive information, without the consumers’ knowledge or consent, to third 

parties which used the information to commit fraud. In addition, Ayers 

knew about the business practices set forth in this Complaint, was recklessly 

indifferent to them, or was aware of a high probability of the fraud and 

intentionally avoided the truth. In connection with the matters alleged 
 5

herein, Ayers transacts or has transacted business in this district and 

throughout the United States. 

COMMERCE 

11. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a 

substantial course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is 

defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44. 

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 

12. From at least 2006 to late 2013, Defendants operated as data brokers, 

collecting and selling sensitive consumer information from consumer 

payday loan applications to non-lenders, including fraudsters, spammers, 

and telemarketers. Defendants sold this information to Ideal Financial 

Solutions, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Ideal Financial”), knowing 

or having reason to know that Ideal Financial used the information to make 

unauthorized debits from the consumers’ bank accounts. 

Defendants Collected and Sold Consumer Payday Loan 

Applications to Non-Lenders 

13. Defendants collected hundreds of thousands of consumer payday loan 

applications from thousands of payday loan websites (called, “publishers”). 

A payday loan is the common name used for a short-term, high-fee, 

unsecured loan, often made to consumers to provide needed funds in 

anticipation of an upcoming paycheck. 
 6

14. Publishers typically offer to help consumers obtain payday loans. To do so, 

they require consumers to fill out applications containing sensitive financial 

information. Payday lenders use this information to evaluate consumers’ 

loan applications and to transfer funds to consumers’ bank accounts if they 

approve the loan. 

15. Most applications collected by Defendants contained the consumer’s name, 

address, phone number, employer, Social Security number, and bank 

account number, including the bank routing number. 

16. Publishers transfer the applications to data brokers, which find buyers for 

the applications. Data brokers may transfer the applications to other data 

brokers in search of buyers. 

17. Defendants received payday loan applications from other data brokers. 

18. Defendants sold approximately five (5) percent of these applications to 

online lenders, which paid Defendants between approximately $10 and $150 

per lead. 

19. Defendants monetized the remaining 95 percent by selling these 

applications for approximately $0.50 each to non-lender third parties that did 

not use the information to assist consumers in obtaining a payday loan or 

other extension of credit. 

20. These non-lender third parties included (1) marketers that made unsolicited 

sales offers to the consumers via email, text message, or telephone call; (2) 
 7

data brokers that aggregated and then resold consumer information; and (3) 

phony internet merchants, including Ideal Financial, that used the 

consumers’ sensitive information to commit fraud by debiting consumers’ 

bank accounts for purported financial products that the consumers never 

purchased. 

21. These non-lenders have no legitimate need for the Social Security and 

financial account numbers contained in the payday loan applications. 

22. In many instances, Defendants sold the same consumer payday loan 

applications to multiple non-lender third parties. 

23. Selling a single consumer payday loan application to multiple buyers put 

the consumer at greater risk of fraud and violated Defendants’ agreements 

with the publishers. 

Defendants Sold Consumer Payday Loan Applications 

to Ideal Financial 

24. Defendants sold consumer payday loan applications or information 

assembled from them to Ideal Financial. 

25. Between 2009 and 2013, Ideal Financial purchased at least 2.2 million 

consumers’ financial information from data brokers and used it to make 

millions of dollars in unauthorized debits and charges. 
 8

26. Ideal Financial falsely told complaining consumers that they purchased its 

bogus financial management or counseling products at a payday loan 

website. 

27. Ideal Financial used the information it purchased from Defendants to debit 

consumers’ bank accounts for purported financial products that consumers 

never agreed to purchase. 

28. LeapLab provided Ideal Financial with financial account information for at 

least 16 percent of Ideal Financial’s victims. 

29. Consumers did not consent to these debits and only learned of them after 

Ideal Financial had debited their bank accounts. 

30. Defendants began selling consumer information to Ideal Financial in or 

about February 2012. 

31. On or about April 25, 2012, Jeff Petersen (“Peterson”), then-CEO of 

LeapLab, confronted Ayers about Ideal Financial’s illegal use of consumer 

information to make unauthorized charges to consumer bank accounts. 

32. Peterson resigned his position at LeapLab on or about May 4, 2012. 

33. In or about May 2012, Ayers hired Brian Jensen (“Jensen”) as Chief 

Marketing Officer of LeapLab. 

34. Immediately prior to joining LeapLab, Jensen was Vice President of 

Marketing at Ideal Financial, where, since May 2009, he managed the 
 9

information assembled from consumer payday loan applications that Ideal 

Financial purchased from Defendants and other data brokers. 

35. Jensen’s responsibilities demonstrate that he knew that Ideal Financial was 

illegally debiting consumer accounts. His responsibilities at Ideal Financial 

included developing Ideal Financial’s shell companies by recruiting straw 

officers and fabricating shell websites. Ideal Financial presented these 

websites to payment processors to meet their underwriting requirements, 

claiming that its customers purchased its products via the sites. Only eight 

(8) consumers purchased Ideal Financial’s products from the 85 sites that 

Jensen created between May 2009 and his departure in May 2012. 

36. During Jensen’s time at Ideal Financial, Ideal Financial processed at least 

1.5 million unauthorized charges, totaling over $47 million, to consumer 

bank accounts using information from consumer payday loan applications 

purchased from Defendants and other data brokers. 

37. While at Ideal Financial, Jensen learned that Ideal Financial used 

information from consumer payday loan applications to make unauthorized 

debits from consumers’ bank accounts. 

38. After Jensen began working for LeapLab in May 2012, he shared his 

knowledge of these practices with LeapLab’s Chief Operating Officer. 

39. Nonetheless, until October 2012, Defendants continued selling to Ideal 

Financial consumer payday loan applications, including consumers’ names, 
 10

addresses, dates of birth, Social Security and bank account numbers, and 

other sensitive information. 

40. Using only the consumer information provided by Defendants, Ideal 

Financial debited at least $4.12 million from consumer bank accounts 

without authorization. 

41. In some instances, consumers also were forced to close their bank accounts 

or suffered insufficient funds fees because of Ideal Financial’s unauthorized 

charges. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

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

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

43. Acts or practices are unfair under Section 5 of the FTC Act if they cause 

substantial injury to consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid 

themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to 

consumers or competition. 15 U.S.C. § 45(n). 

COUNT I 

44. As set forth in paragraphs 12 to 41 above, Defendants sold consumer 

payday loan applications that included consumers’ social security and 

financial account numbers to non-lenders that had no legitimate need for this 

sensitive personal information. These non-lenders included telemarketers, 
 11

text and email marketers, and phony online merchants, like Ideal Financial, 

that used the information to debit consumer accounts without authorization. 

45. By engaging in the activities referenced in paragraph 44 above, Defendants 

have caused or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, that they 

cannot reasonably avoid, and that is not outweighed by countervailing 

benefits to consumers and competition. 

46. Therefore, Defendants have engaged in unfair acts or practices in violation 

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

CONSUMER INJURY 

47. Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a 

result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act. 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. 

THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF 

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

grant injunctive and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to 

halt and redress violations of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. 

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

relief, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund 
 12

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. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 Wherefore, Plaintiff FTC, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 53(b), and the Court’s own equitable powers, requests that the Court: 

 A. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC 

Act by Defendants; 

 B. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to 

consumers resulting from Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, including but not 

limited to, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies 

paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies; and 

 C. Award Plaintiff the costs of bringing this action, as well as such 

other and additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper. 

DATED this day of December 22, 2014. 

 /s/ R. Michael Waller 

R. Michael Waller 

 Amanda B. Kostner 

 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION