UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. -----

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

POINTBREAK MEDIA, LLC, a limited liability company, 

also d/b/a Point Break Media, Point Break Solutions, and 

Kivanni Marketing, 

DCP MARKETING, LLC, a limited liability company, also 

d/b/a Point Break, 

MODERN SPOTLIGHT LLC, a limited liability company, 

MODERN SPOTLIGHT GROUP LLC, a limited liability 

company, also d/b/a Modern Spotlight, 

MODERN INTERNET MARKETING LLC, a limited 

liability company, 

MODERN SOURCE MEDIA, LLC, a limited liability 

company, also d/b/a Modern Source, 

PERFECT IMAGE ONLINE LLC, a limited liability 

company, 

DUSTIN PILLONA TO, individually and as an officer of 

Pointbreak Media, LLC, DCP Marketing, LLC, and Modern 

Source Media, LLC, 

JUSTIN RAMSEY, individually and as an officer of 

Pointbreak Media, LLC, 

AARON MICHAEL JONES, a/k/a Michael Aaron Jones 

and Mike Jones, individually and as an officer of Pointbreak 

Media, LLC, 

RICARDO DIAZ, individually and as an officer of 

Pointbreak Media, LLC, 

FILED BY 

MAY - 7 2018 

STEVEN M LARIMORE 

CLERK U.S. DIST. CT. 

S.D. OF FLA. FT LAUD. 

COMPLAINT FOR 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE 

RELIEF 

Filed Under Seal 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 1 of 31 
MICHAEL POCKER, individually and as an officer of 

Modem Spotlight LLC and Modem Spotlight Group LLC, 

STEFF AN MOLINA, individually and as an officer of 

Modem Spotlight Group LLC and Perfect Image Online 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC" or "Commission"), 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 temporary, preliminary, and 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)(2-3), (d) and 15 U.S.C. 

§ 53(b). 

PLAINTIFF 

4. 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. 

5. 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 

Page 2 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 2 of 31 
appropriate in each case, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund 

of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 56(a)(2)(A). 

DEFENDANTS 

6. Defendant Pointbreak Media, LLC ("Point Break"), also doing business as Point 

Break Media, Point Break Solutions, and Kivanni Marketing, is a Delaware limited liability 

company with its principal place of business in Boca Raton or Deerfield Beach, Florida. Point 

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

7. Defendant DCP Marketing, LLC ("DCP Marketing"), also doing business as 

Point Break, is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Boca 

Raton, Deerfield Beach, or Lake Worth, Florida. DCP Marketing transacts or has transacted 

business in this district and throughout the United States. 

8. Defendant Modem Spotlight LLC ("Modem Spotlight") is a Florida limited 

liability company with its principal place of business in Boca Raton -0r Deerfield Beach, Florida. 

Modem Spotlight LLC transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the 

United States. 

9. Defendant Modem Spotlight Group LLC ("Modern Spotlight Group"), also doing 

business as Modern Spotlight, is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of 

business in Boca Raton or Deerfield Beach, Florida. Modern Spotlight Group transacts or has 

transacted business in this district and throughout the United States. 

I 0. Defendant Modern Source Media, LLC ("Modern Source"), also doing business 

as Modem Source, is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in 

Boca Raton or Deerfield Beach, Florida. Modern Source transacts or has transacted business in 

this district and throughout the United States. 

Page 3 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 3 of 31 
11. Defendant Modem Internet Marketing LLC ("Modem Internet Marketing") is a 

Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Boca Raton or Deerfield 

Beach, Florida. Modem Internet Marketing transacts or has transacted business in this district 

and throughout the United States. 

12. Defendant Perfect Image Online LLC .("Perfect Image Online") is a Florida 

limited liability company with its principal place of business in Boca Raton or Deerfield Beach, 

Florida. Perfect Image Online transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout 

the United States. 

13. Defendant Dustin Pillonato ("Pillonato") is an owner and manager of Point Break, 

DCP Marketing, and Modem Source. At times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in 

concert with others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or 

participated in the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Pillonato resides in West Palm 

Beach, Florida and, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted 

business in this district and throughout the United States. 

14. Defendant Justin Ramsey ("Ramsey") is an owner and manager of Point Break. 

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

directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices set forth 

in this Complaint. Ramsey resides in Boca Raton, Florida and, in connection with the matters 

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

States. 

15. Defendant Aaron Michael Jones ("Jones") is an owner and manager of Point 

Break. At times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, he has 

formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and 

Page 4 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 4 of 31 
practices set forth in this Complaint. Jones resides in Irvine, California and, in connection with 

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

United States. 

16. Defendant Ricardo Diaz ("Diaz") is an owner and manager of Point Break. Diaz 

also served as treasurer of Point Break. At times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in 

concert with others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or 

participated in the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Diaz resides in Cranston, Rhode 

Island and, at times material to this complaint, resided in Miramar, Florida. In connection with 

the matters alleged herein, Diaz transacts or has transacted business in this district and 

throughout the United States. 

17. · Defendant Michael Pocker ("Pocker") is an owner and manager of Modem 

Spotlight and Modem Spotlight Group. At times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in 

concert with others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or 

participated in the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Pocker resides in Boca Raton, 

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

this district and throughout the United States. 

18. Defendant Steffan Molina ("Molina") is an owner and manager of Modem 

Spotlight Group and Perfect Image Online. Acting alone or in concert with others, he has 

formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and 

practices set forth in this Complaint. Molina resides in Boca Raton, Florida and, in connection 

with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this district and 

throughout the United States. 

Page 5 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 5 of 31 
COMMON ENTERPRISE 

19. Defendants Pointbreak Media, LLC, DCP Marketing, LLC, Modern Spotlight 

LLC, Modern Spotlight Group LLC, Modern Internet Marketing LLC, Modern Source Media, 

LLC, and Perfect Image Online LLC (collectively, "Corporate Defendants") have operated as a 

common enterprise while engaging in the acts and practices alleged below. As described in more 

detail in paragraphs 88-167, Corporate Defendants have conducted these acts and practices 

through a maze of interrelated companies under common or overlapping control, with common 

employees, in shared office space, and with commingled funds. 

20. Because these Corporate Defendants have operated as a common enterprise, each 

is jointly and severally liable for the acts and practices alleged below. Defendants Pillonato, 

Ramsey, Jones, Diaz, Pocker, and Molina (collectively, the "Individual Defendants") have 

formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and 

practices of the Corporate Defendants that constitute the common enterprise. The Individual 

Defendants each had knowledge of the unlawful acts and practices of the Corporate Defendants 

that constitute the common enterprise. 

COMMERCE 

21. At all times material to this Complaint, the 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 

Overview 

22. As described in more detail in paragraphs 28-74, Defendants operate a 

telemarketing scam in which they target small business owners with false threats of removal 

Page 6 of31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 6 of 31 
from Google's search engine and false promises of unique keywords in order to convince them 

to purchase a Google "claiming and verification" service. Defendants explain that keywords are 

search terms for which the consumer's business will appear prominently in search results. 

Defendants charge $300-$700 for the claiming and verification service. 

23. Defendants also target each paying consumer with an upsell that falsely promises 

that the consumer's business will receive first-page placement in Google search results. 

Defendants charge a flat fee.of $949.99 and an additional monthly recurring charge of$169.99 

or $99.99 for these search engine optimization services. 

24. In late October 2017, when Defendants lost the ability to process credit card 

transactions, they wrote themselves $100 checks from at least 250 consumers' bank accounts 

without those consumers' knowledge or authorization. 

Google My Business 

25. Defendants' initial sales pitch relates to Google's "Google My Business" service. 

Google My Business allows business owners to manage their business listings, including 

updating their business information (such as hours of operation and address), adding 

photographs, and responding to reviews. 

26. A business owner gains control of his or her Google My Business listing by either 

claiming a preexisting listing or creating a new listing and then verifying that he or she is 

authorized to manage the business. The owner usually verifies his or her authority to manage the 

business by providing a verification code that Google mails to the business address. Claiming 

the business takes no more than 15 minutes, and verifying it after receipt of the code takes no 

more than three minutes. 

Page 7 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 7 of 31 
27. Google does not charge business owners for claiming and verifying their business 

listings, and the process does not involve identifying or claiming "keywords." Claiming and 

verifying a business with Google does not guarantee first-page placement in search results. 

Defendants Target Consumers With Threatening Robocalls 

28. Since November 2016 at the latest, Defendants have placed threatening robocalls 

to small business owners and other consumers, in an effort to induce them to "press one" to 

speak to a live sales agent. Many consumers receive multiple robocalls daily from Defendants. 

29. On these robocalls, Defendants deliver recorded messages frequently claiming to 

be authorized by Google. The calls threaten that Google will label the consumer's business 

"permanently closed" unless the consumer takes action. The robocalls then invite the consumer 

to "press one" to speak with a "Google specialist." 

30. One robocall, frequently used while Defendants operated as Point Break, states in 

full: 

Hi, this is Jennifer Taylor, data service provider for Google and 

Bing. This is an urgent message for the business owner. We have 

tried numerous times to contact you through mail and now by 

telephone regarding your Google listing webpage. This is your 

final notice. If you do not act soon, Google will label your 

business as permanently closed. Press one now to speak with me 

or another Google specialist. 

Did you know that 74 percent of your customers search online 

before making a purchase? If your Google listing is shut down, 

you will lose on all of those potential customers. It is critical that 

you, the business owner, take advantage of this rare opportunity to 

get ahead of your competition. Press one now to find out how to 

validate your free Google listing. 

This message applies to all business owners. If you are the 

business owner, press one now. Press two if this is not a business 

or you would like to be removed from our calling list. 

Page 8 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 8 of 31 
31. Another robocall, frequently used while Defendants operated as Modem 

Spotlight Group, states in full: 

Your Google Business listing may be inactive. Immediate action 

is required. 

Please press one to speak with a representative and avoid being 

removed from Google. 

Please press eight to be removed from this list. 

32. A third robocall, also used while Defendants operated as Point Break, states in 

full: 

Hi, this is Jonathan Smith, third party service provider for Google 

and Bing. This is an urgent message for the business owner. We 

have tried numerous times to contact you by telephone regarding 

your Google listing webpage. Press one now to speak with me or 

another listing specialist. 

Did you know that up to 74 percent of your customers could search 

online before making a purchase? It is critical that you, the 

business owner, take advantage of this rare opportunity to get 

ahead of your competition. Press one now to find out how to 

validate your listing. 

This message applies to all business owners. If you are the 

business owner, press one now, or press two if this is not a 

business or you would like your number to be removed from the 

calling list. Thank you. 

33. These robocalls and others used by Defendants contain numerous false or 

misleading statements. 

34. The Defendants are not "service providers" for Google and have no affiliation 

with or authorization from the company. 

35. Additionally, the small businesses called by Defendants face no real risk of being 

removed from Google search results. Google does not label a business as permanently closed or 

Page 9 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 9 of 31 
"remove" it from ~earch results simply because the business's owner has not claimed and 

verified the business. 

36. Moreover, Defendants place their robocalls to many business owners who have, 

in fact, already claimed and verified their businesses through Google My Business. 

37. Although Defendants' robocalls present a "press two" or "press eight" option to 

be removed from the Defendants' calling list, Defendants do not remove consumers who press 

two or eight from their call lists. Defendants continue to call these consumers several times daily 

or weekly. 

Defendants' Sales Agents Use False Statements to Sell Google Listing Services 

38. Defendants transfer consumers who press one in response to the robocalls to a 

live sales agent. The agent uses a script to lead these consumers through a sales pitch in which 

he or she claims that (1) Defendants are authorized by, or affiliated with, Google; (2) the 

consumer needs to pay Defendants to claim and verify the consumer's business in order to avoid 

having the business removed from, or marked permanently closed by, Google; and (3) paying 

Defendants will allow the consumer to link certain "keywords" to the consumer's Google listing, 

resulting in prominent search result placement in response to searches for those keywords. 

39. These claims are all false or misleading. 

40. Defendants Ramsey and Pillonato drafted the script used by Point Break's sales 

agents. Modern Spotlight Group and Perfect Image Online continue to use a similar script that 

features the same three misrepresentations. 

Defendants' Claims of Google Authorization or Affiliation 

41. On many calls, Defendants' sales agents expressly tell consumers that they work 

for Google. 

Page 10 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 10 of 31 
42. On other calls, Defendants' sales agents admit to working for one of the 

Corporate Defendants rather than Google, but call their employer an "authorized Google My 

Business agency" or a contractor for Google. 

43. For example, on one call recorded by a consumer, one of Defendants' sales agents 

twice identified Defendant Modem Spotlight Group as "an authorized Google My Business 

agency," later adding that Google had authorized Modem Spotlight Group to "claim and verify 

Google business listings." 

44. A different sales agent made the same representation on a call with an undercover 

FTC investigator, identifying Modem Spotlight Group as an "authorized Google - Google My 

Business agency." The agent claimed that Google had "contract[ed] out" with Modem Spotlight 

Group. Later on the same call, a different sales agent identified hims~lf as a "senior authorized 

Google My Business representative" and again identified Modem Spotlight Group as an 

"authorized Google My Business agency." 

45. On another call recorded by a consumer, one of Defendants' sales agents 

explained that Point Break is "like the umbrella under Google." On yet another call recorded by 

a different consumer, a sales agent from Point Break claimed, "We work directly parallel with 

Google .... Google Corporate ... , they would reach out to like Walmart, Costco, Target, 

Starbucks, because they have multiple locations in just one distinctive area. That's why they 

have companies like us to reach out to small to medium size companies." 

46. Even when Defendants' sales agents do not affirmatively claim that one of the 

Corporate Defendants is an "authorized Google My Business agency," they fail to correct the 

misrepresentation made on many of the immediately preceding robocalls that the caller is a 

"service provider for Google." Instead, for example, the script drafted by Ramsey and Pillonato 

Page 11 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 11 of 31 
builds on the robocall's misrepresentation by directing the sales agents to start the call by 

declaring themselves "here to assist you with your Google listing" and stating that "our system" 

"shows your Google Listing (for name of company) has not been claimed or verified." The 

script directs Defendants' sales agents only to identify their employer if directly asked. 

47. Defendants' claims described in paragraphs 41-46 are false. 

48. Google has not authorized any of the Defendants to act on its behalf, and Google 

is in no way affiliated with any of the Defendants. Google has not contracted with Defendants to 

claim and verify Google listings. Google also does not approve, sponsor, or endorse the 

Defendants' services. 

Defendants' Threats of Removal from Google 

49. Defendants' sales agents usually start their sales calls by claiming that the 

consumer's Google business listing "has not been claimed or verified." 

50. The sales agents proceed to state that because the consumer has not claimed and 

verified his or her business, the business "run[ s] the risk of possibly being removed from the 

search engine or pushed so far down the search engine that no one will find you." 

51. Defendants' sales agents then offer to help consumers avoid removal from Google 

by claiming and verifying the consumer's Google business listing on the consumer's behalf. 

52. When consumers attempt to decline Defendants' services, the sales agents 

frequently return to threats of removal from Google. For example, when an undercover FTC 

investigator asked what would happen if she did not pay Defendant Point Break's fee, the agent 

replied, "Well, ma'am, then you are going to be running the risk of possibly being removed from 

Google. Google did give you a designated time slot to verify your business with them and you 

Page 12 of31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 12 of 31 
did not meet that." When the investigator nevertheless declined, the agent replied, "Have fun 

being removed from the Internet" and hung up. 

53. On another undercover call with Defendant Modem Spotlight Group, an FTC 

undercover investigator confirmed, "[I]f I don't claim and verify, do I get removed from Google? 

Is that how this works?" The agent replied, "Yes." The agent then proceeded to claim that, 

"You actually have the basic listing .... It's a basic listing that Google gave to every business 

five years ago. It's a simple name, address, and phone number listing. But right now, as the 

owner, it is your job to have the listing claimed and verified, marked as a trusted, open-forbusiness company because you guys are at risk of being removed because you're showing up 

improperly." 

54. Similarly, the script drafted by Ramsey and Pillonato for Point Break states, "Four 

years ago Google gave every business in the United States a Google Plus Page in hopes that 

businesses would claim and verify themselves." 

55. Defendants' claims described in paragraphs 49-54 are false. 

56. Google does not "remove" a business from the search engine simply because the 

business owner has not claimed and verified it. 

57. In fact, unclaimed business listings often appear in Google search results. 

58. Defendants also claim that consumers' businesses are not claimed and verified 

even when that statement is untrue. 

59. Google did not give "every business" a "basic listing" or a "Google Plus Page" 

five years ago. 

Page 13 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 13 of 31 
Defendants' Promises of Unique Keywords Linked to the Consumer's Business 

60. After making their threats of removal from Google, Defendants' sales agents 

pivot to offering the consumer certain "keywords" as part of the claiming and verification 

process. 

61. The Point Break script directs agents to explain that "[p ]art of the claiming and 

verification process is registering your keywords, so you come up prominently when someone is 

searching for your goods and services." 

62. Defendants' sales agents tell consumers that their businesses will appear on the 

first page of search results when potential customers search on Google for the keywords. 

63. On some calls, Defendants' sales agents promise consumers that these keywords 

will be unique to the consumers' business, such that no other business can use them. 

64. For example, on one call recorded by a consumer, Point Break's sales agent stated 

that the business owner would get "a list of keywords that nobody else can use in the world 

because they are your keywords." When the consumer sought to confirm that "nobody else can 

use the [keywords]," the agent responded, "Yes, sir, no one else can use them." 

65. Similarly, an undercover FTC investigator asked, "[W]ith the service I guess the 

keywords are-are specifically for my business and no one else can use the keywords[?]" Point 

Break's sales agent confirmed that this was correct. 

66. Defendants' claims described in paragraphs 60-65 are false. 

67. Defendants do not register or claim any keywords for consumers with Google, 

much less "unique" keywords. 

68. In fact, Google does not provide the option to "register," or claim, "keywords" as 

part of the Google My Business claiming and verification process. 

Page 14 of31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 14 of 31 
69. Consumers who have signed up for Defendants' services see no change in their 

search results, even when searching for the keywords that Defendants claim to have registered 

for them. 

70. After this sales pitch, Defendants' sales agents tell consumers that there is a 

purported one-time fee for the claiming and verification "services" offered by Defendants. That 

fee generally ranges from $300-700. If consumers ask earlier in the call whether there will be a 

cost, the sales agent sometimes tells the consumer that he or she is not yet sure. Other times, the 

sales agent does not provide a specific cost, and instead claims that a computer will generate a 

fee that depends on the consumer's industry and location. 

71. Consumers who sign up for Defendants' services provide either their credit card 

or checking account information to Defendants. 

72. When a consumer provides checking account information, Defendants generate a 

remotely created check that draws on the consumer's account. 

73. A remotely created check is processed through the banking system much like a 

traditional check, but without a consumer's signature, instead bearing a statement such as 

"Authorized by Account Holder." The check is created by the payee-here, one of the 

Corporate Defendants-rather than the individual or business on whose account the check is 

drawn. 

74. · After paying Corporate Defendants, some consumers receive a contract that 

Defendants' sales agents ask them to sign electronically. In the contract, Corporate Defendants 

promise to "build out the Google Maps link, a Google Plus page and a Google my Business 

listing" and to "use specific keywords and/or phrases set forth to impose the above business [sic] 

online visibility on Google." The contract does not set forth any keywords or phrases. 

Page 15 of31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 15 of 31 
Defendants Upsell Consumers on a "Citation Program" 

75. Shortly after making the initial payment, consumers receive an email or phone 

call from a "senior business analyst" working for one of the Corporate Defendants, typically 

either Point Break or Modem Source. The analyst claims he or she was assigned to the 

consumer's new Google listing and is calling to finalize the business listing. 

76. On the follow-up call, rather than finalizing the business listing, the "senior 

business analyst" promotes a "Citation Program" that he or she claims will result in the 

consumer's business being listed on fifty additional search engines. 

77. Defendants tell consumers that this program will ensure prominent placement on 

Google. They usually tell consumers that their business will become the first search result or one 

of the first search results. Defendants sometimes tell consumers that the service has never failed 

a single customer. On one call, a Modem Source sales agent told an undercover FTC 

investigator, "I don't care if you're pizza or if you're a plumber, I have seen this [program] work 

every single time." He elaborated, "[W]e have a little over 4,500 clients in this secondary 

program, and it has worked for every one of them." 

78. The senior business analyst does not correct any of the misrepresentations made 

on the Defendants' previous conversations with the consumer. The analyst, for example, does 

not correct the prior misrepresentation that the Defendants are authorized by, or affiliated with, 

Google. 

79. The Citation Program costs a one-time fee ofup to $949.99 and recurring monthly 

payments typically equal to $169.99 or $99.99. Defendants tell consumers that the monthly 

payments are necessary because completing the work will take several months. There is no end 

date for the recurring charges. 

Page 16 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 16 of 31 
80. Consumers pay for the Citation Program by providing their credit card or 

checking account information to Defendants. Then, Defendants either charge the credit card or 

generate a remotely created check that they deposit into one of their bank accounts. 

81. Defendants send consumers who agree to this upsell a "Citation Services and 

Reporting Agreement" to sign electronically. The contract states that one of the Corporate 

Defendants "is authorized to use the specific keywords and/or phases [sic] set forth below for 

development and improving the ranking in Citations and/or directories that are most frequently 

used by the general public which are defined below." The contract, however, never sets forth 

any keywords or directories. 

82. The contract also promises that the consumer's "search results will be strong and 

constantly improve." 

83. Defendants' claims are false or misleading. No third party, including Defendants, 

can guarantee that a business will appear on the first page of Google search results. 

84. Consumers who sign up for the Citation Program see little or no improvement in 

their search results. 

Defendants' Unauthorized Consumer Billing 

85. In late October 2017, Bank of America Merchant Services closed Point Break's 

merchant account because of Point Break's "predatory services, scare tactics and processing 

history with high chargeback ratios." As a result, Point Break lost the ability to accept payments 

by credit card. 

86. In response, Defendants simply took money, usually $100, from at least 250 of 

their prior or existing customers' checking accounts without those customers' advance 

Page 17 of31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 17 of 31 
knowledge, consent, or authorization, and without any apparent reason or justification. Prior to 

this time, Defendants had not sold any services for which they regularly charged $100. 

87. Defendants took this money by generating remotely created checks written out to 

Point Break Media, often with "Google/ Apple/Bing" in the memo line. Defendant Ramsey 

endorsed each check before depositing it into one of two different Point Break checking accounts 

at two different banks. 

DEFENDANTS' COMMON ENTERPRISE AND 

SHIFTING CORPORATE IDENTITIES 

88. Since November 2016, Defendants have operated their common enterprise 

through a series of business aliases and limited liability companies. These entities have all 

performed functions related to the unfair and deceptive practices outlined above. They have 

shared owners, managers, office space, and employees, and have commingled funds. 

Pointbreak Media, LLC 

89. Pointbreak Media, LLC formed in Delaware in May 2016. 

90. Point Break filed in July 2017 for authorization to transact business in Florida. 

The filing identified Point Break's principal office and mailing address as 951 Broken Sound 

Parkway, Suite 188, Boca Raton, FL 33487. 

91. Point Break's July 2017 filing identified Defendants Pillonato, Ramsey, Jones, 

and Diaz as "Managing Members" of Point Break. The filing also identified Diaz as Point 

Break's Treasurer and registered agent. 

92. Ramsey swore to the accuracy of the July 2017 filing, and Diaz also signed the 

filing as Point Break's registered agent. 

93. From November 2016 until December 2017, Point Break engaged in the unlawful 

acts and practices described in paragraphs 22-87 above. Specifically, Point Break used deceptive 

Page 18 of31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 18 of 31 
claims to sell Google "claiming and verification" services to consumers, upsold those victims on 

the Citation Program service by using additional deceptive claims, and then, in October 2017, 

took $100 from over 250 consumers without authorization. 

94. From November 2016 until March 2017, Point Break did business as "Kivanni 

Marketing." 

95. Since March 2017, Point Break has done business as Point Break Media and Point 

Break Solutions. 

96. Ramsey opened at least three merchant bank accounts for Point Break, through 

which Point Break processed credit card transactions. Two of the merchant accounts operated 

under the "Kivanni Marketing" name, while a third operated as "Pointbreak Media, LLC." 

97. Defendants have held money obtained from consumers in at least two checking 

accounts and one savings account. Ramsey and Pillonato are signatories on both checking 

accounts. Ramsey is a signatory on the savings account. 

98. In March 2017, Pillonato, acting on behalf of Point Break, signed a "cloud contact 

center" Master Services Agreement with a telecommunications company from which Pillonato 

obtained toll-free numbers that both Point Break and Modern Source provided to consumers. 

99. Defendant Point Break sent or received money, either directly or indirectly, to and 

from Defendants Ramsey, Pillonato, Jones, Diaz, DCP Marketing, Modern Spotlight, Modern 

Spotlight Group, and Modern Internet Marketing. 

100. For most of 2017, Point Break paid the rent at the Defendants' 951 Broken Sound 

Parkway, Suite 188, Boca Raton, FL 33487 address. Diaz signed a lease for use of that office 

space on behalf of non-party ConsultMe, LLC. 

Page 19 of31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 19 of 31 
101. Throughout Point Break's existence, but especially in late 2017, it faced mounting 

obstacles, primarily in the form of increased public awareness of its scam and increased scrutiny 

from banks and credit card processors. 

102. In July 2017, for example, a private plaintiff sued Point Break, Ramsey, and 

Pillonato for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Within a few weeks, the 

plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case after reaching a settlement agreement with Defendants. 

103. Two months later, in September 2017, a different plaintiff filed a new Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act complaint. In early November 2017, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed 

the case. 

104. Throughout this time period, consumers repeatedly made complaints about Point 

Break, both to the FTC and on public internet forums. Point Break's own Google business 

listing, for example, was littered with reviews from angry consumers. 

105. In October 2017, a reporter from Boston's local Fox affiliate showed up 

unannounced at Point Break's call center to confront Ramsey. Ramsey declared that he was 

"follow[ing] all the rules," but admitted that he was doing "Google listings" work. Shortly 

thereafter, the Fox affiliate aired, and posted to its website, a story highlighting Ramsey and 

Point Break's robocall operation. 

106. At around the same time, on October 20, 2017, a representative from Bank of 

America Merchant Services contacted Ramsey to inform him that the bank had decided to close 

the account that Point Break used to process credit card transactions. The bank's internal notes 

blame the closure on "the merchant's predatory services, scare tactics and processing history 

with high chargeback ratios." In the first twenty days of the month, Point Break had processed 

over $125,000 in credit card charges. 

Page 20 of31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 20 of 31 
107. Ramsey attempted to export his Point Break customer list from Bank of America 

Merchant Services on or around October 23, 2017. Ramsey also sought to transfer all of Point 

Break's recurring charges to another payment gateway. 

108. Having lost the ability to receive credit card payments and apparently in need of 

cash, Point Break simply started writing checks to itself out of consumers' bank accounts, taking 

over $25,000 in just three days. Ramsey endorsed all of these checks. 

109. At around the same time, on October 21, 2017, Ramsey opened a new Point 

Break checking account, the company's first account at Wells Fargo Bank. On October 25, 

2017, Ramsey added Pillonato as a signatory to that account, identifying him as a "part owner" 

of Point Break. 

110. Defendants split their deposits of the unauthorized checks between their existing 

Bank of America and new Wells Fargo checking accounts between October 24, 2017 and 

October 26, 2017. 

111. Once it had reestablished itself at Wells Fargo, Point Break continued operations, 

but told consumers that they could only pay by providing bank account information rather than 

by credit card. 

112. By early December 2017, Point Break had stopped making new sales. In January 

2018, it withdrew its authorization to conduct business in Florida. Since January 2018, Point 

Break has continued to answer calls from consumers who previously had signed up for its 

services. 

DCP Marketing, LLC 

113. Pillonato formed DCP Marketing, LLC in Florida in March 2016. 

114. Pillonato is the registered agent and sole manager for DCP Marketing. 

Page 21 of31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 21 of 31 
115. Pillonato is the sole signatory on at least two of DCP Marketing's checking 

accounts. 

116. In late August and early September 2017, as pressure mounted on Point Break, 

DCP Marketing received over $61,000 from Point Break and funneled the money through 

Defendant Modern Internet Marketing and Defendant Molina to Defendant Modern Spotlight. 

117. Specifically, between August 25 and August 31, 2017, Point Break wired over 

$71,000 to DCP Marketing. Between August 25 and September 15, DCP Marketing then 

transferred over $61,000 of that $71,000 to Modern Internet Marketing. Modern Internet 

Marketing, in turn, transferred the· money received from DCP Marketing to Modern Spotlight, 

either directly or through Molina. 

118. These transactions occurred at around the same time that Pocker and Molina 

formed and began operating Modern Spotlight Group. 

119. Additionally, on November 13, 2017, just weeks after Point Break lost the ability 

to charge consumers' credit cards, DCP Marketing established a merchant account, doing 

business as "Point Break." 

120. DCP Marketing used this account to continue Point Break's recurring charges-of 

either $169.99 or $99.99 per month-of consumers who had enrolled in the Citation Program. 

121. At around the same time, DCP Marketing started to deposit into its own account 

remotely created checks written to Point Break Media. Ramsey endorsed these checks. 

122. In November 2017, DCP Marketing also paid the monthly rent at the Defendants' 

951 Broken Sound Parkway, Suite 188 address, despite the lease remaining in the name of 

Defendant Diaz's ConsultMe, LLC. 

Page 22 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 22 of 31 
123. Additionally, in early December 2017, when Point Break stopped paying 

employees, DCP Marketing started paying some of those employees. Modem Spotlight Group 

began paying others on November 22, 2017. 

124. DCP Marketing sent or received money, either directly or indirectly, to and from 

Defendants Pillonato, Molina, Point Break, Modem Spotlight, Modem Spotlight Group, Modem 

Internet Marketing, and Modem Source Media. 

Modern Spotlight LLC and Modern Spotlight Group LLC 

125. Defendant Pocker and non-party Paul DeCamara formed Defendant Modem 

Spotlight LLC in Florida on March 6, 2017. 

126. Pocker is a manager of Modem, Spotlight and its registered agent. 

127. Pocker is a signatory on at least two Modem Spotlight checking accounts. 

128. Between March and June 2017, Modem Spotlight sold Google "claiming and 

verification" services to consumers. 

129. On March 14, 2017, Pocker, on behalf of Modem Spotlight, signed a lease to rent 

550 Fairway Drive, Suite 104, Deerfield Beach, FL 33441. Both Modem Spotlight and Modem 

Spotlight Group have made rent payments pursuant to this lease agreement. 

130. As described in paragraphs 116-117 above, beginning in late August, Modem 

Spotlight received over $61,000 from Point Break, via Defendants DCP Marketing, Molina, and 

Modem Internet Marketing. 

131. On August 30, 2017, Pocker and Molina formed Modem Spotlight Group LLC in 

Florida. Pocker and Molina opened two Modem Spotlight Group checking accounts on 

September 13, 2017. 

Page 23 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 23 of 31 
132. Packer is Modern Spotlight Group's registered agent, and Packer and Molina are 

Modern Spotlight Group's sole managers. 

133. Modern Spotlight Group has at least two checking accounts, for which Pocker and 

Molina are also the sole signatories. 

134. Modern Spotlight Group incorporated at 550 Fairway Drive, Suite 104, Deerfield 

Beach, FL 33441 and lists this address on its website. 

13 5. Modern Spotlight Group also has or had a call center at 951 Broken Sound 

Parkway, Suite 188, Boca Raton, FL 33487. Point Break and DCP Marketing have paid rent at 

this address. 

136. Modern Spotlight Group has participated in the deceptive acts and practices 

described above by using claims of affiliation with Google, threats of removal from Google, and 

promises of unique keywords to sell Google "claiming and verification" services to small 

business owners, as described in paragraphs 28-74. 

13 7. In late September 2017, Modern Spotlight Group started to pay most of the 

employees whom, until the week prior, had been paid by Modern Spotlight. 

138. In mid-November 2017, Modern Spotlight Group also started to pay most of the 

employees whom, until the week prior, had been paid by Point Break. 

139. Consumers who purchased Google listing services from Modern Spotlight Group 

or Point Break received virtually identical welcome emails. 

140. Modern Spotlight Group uses or used a "Google Business Listing Agreement" 

that is substantially similar to the "Google listing Agreement" that Point Break used. 

141. On one call with an undercover FTC investigator, a Modern Spotlight Group sales 

agent confirmed the connection between Point Break and Modern Spotlight Group. When asked 

Page 24 of31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 24 of 31 
whether Point Break and Modem Spotlight Group were the same, the agent stated, "So our 

company, we're-we're a new-we merged companies. So that company was not the greatest. 

So my company bought out-the company that I work for now bought the other company out." 

142. Modem Spotlight and Modem Spotlight Group have sent or received money, 

either directly or indirectly, to and from each other and Defendants Pocker, Molina, Point Break, 

DCP Marketing, Modem Internet Marketing, and Modem Source Media. 

143. Modem Spotlight Group and Modem Spotlight LLC each voluntarily dissolved 

on February 7, 2018. 

144. At around the same time that Modem Spotlight Group and Modem Spotlight 

voluntarily dissolved, Modem Spotlight Group representatives emailed the company's existing 

customers to introduce themselves as "the representative assigned to your google listing." 

145. On February 23, 2018, an FTC undercover investigator called the phone number 

provided in Modem Spotlight Group's email. The representative who had sent the email told the 

investigator that Modem Spotlight Group had "relocated offices three weeks ago." When the 

investigator asked for Modem Spotlight Group's new address, the representative answered that it 

was 4730 NW 2nd Avenue, Suite 200, Boca Raton, Florida. Perfect Image Online also uses this 

office space. 

146. When the investigator asked if "everything else was still the same," the 

representative stated, "Everything else is still the same. We just relocated offices." 

Modern Source Media, LLC 

147. Pillonato formed Defendant Modem Source in Florida on November 13, 2017. 

148. Pillonato is the registered agent and sole manager of Modem Source. 

Page 25 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 25 of 31 
149. Pillonato is a signatory on at least one Modem Source checking account. DCP 

Marketing made the initial deposit into this account. 

150. Modem Source incorporated at 550 Fairway Drive, Suite 104, Deerfield Beach, 

FL 33441 and lists this address on its website. 

151. Pillonato also opened a merchant account on behalf of Modem Source, through 

which it has charged consumers' credit cards. That merchant account also uses the 550 Fairway 

Drive address. 

152. Since November 2017, Modem Source has engaged in the acts and practices 

described in paragraphs 75-84 above. Specifically, Modem Source has built on Modem 

Spotlight Group's deceptive acts and practices by deceptively upselling Modem Spotlight 

Group's victims on the Citation Program. 

153. After telling an FTC undercover investigator that his company "just recently went 

to [sic] a change," a Modem Source sales agent informed the investigator that Modem Source 

and Modem Spotlight were "sister compan[ies]." 

154. That same sales agent also said that he had "been with these guys for almost two 

years now," despite the fact that Modem Source had formed less than two months prior to the 

conversation. The agent later added that "the old name, it was Pointbreak is what they were 

going by" and then confirmed that "it went from Pointbreak to Modem Spotlight." 

155. Over two weeks prior to Modem Source's formation, Point Break obtained a tollfree number that Modem Source now lists on its website. 

156. For consumers who agree to the upsell, Modem Source uses virtually the same 

Citation Services and Reporting Agreement as Point Break. 

Page 26 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 26 of 31 
157. Modem Source has sent or received money, either directly or indirectly, to and 

from Defendants Pillonato, DCP Marketing, and Modem Spotlight Group. 

Perfect Image Online LLC 

158. Defendant Molina formed Perfect Image Online LLC in Florida on December 29, 

2017. 

159. Molina is the registered agent and sole manager of Perfect Image Online. 

160. Molina is the sole signatory on at least one Perfect Image Online checking 

account. 

161. Perfect Image Online shares with Modem Spotlight Group the office space at 

4 730 NW 2nd A venue, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL 33431. 

162. Since February 2018, Perfect Image Online has participated in the deceptive acts 

and practices described in paragraphs 28-74 above, by using claims of affiliation with Google, 

threats of removal from Google, and promises of unique keywords to sell Google "claiming and 

verification" services to small business owners. 

Modern Internet Marketing LLC 

163. Non-party Sean Pocker, the brother of Defendant Michael Pocker, formed 

Defendant Modem Internet Marketing in Florida in July 2017. 

164. Modem Internet Marketing is located at 550 Fairway Drive, Suite 104, Deerfield 

Beach, FL 33441. 

165. As described in paragraphs 116-117 above, beginning in late August, Modem 

Internet Marketing facilitated the transfer of over $61,000 from Defendant Point Break to 

Defendant Modem Spotlight. 

Page 27 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 27 of 31 
166. Modem Internet Marketing also has transferred almost all of the other money it 

has received directly to Modem Spotlight. 

167. Modem Internet Marketing has sent or received money, either directly or 

indirectly, to and from Defendants Molina, Point Break, DCP Marketing, and Modem Spotlight. 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5 OF THE FTC ACT 

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

or practices in or affecting commerce." 

169. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive 

acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

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

likely to cause, substantial injury to consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid and that 

is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 15 U.S.C. § 45(n). 

COUNT I - Deceptive Representations 

171. In numerous instances, in the course of marketing, offering for sale, and selling 

Google listing or search engine optimization services, Defendants represent or have represented, 

expressly or by implication, that: 

A. Defendants are authorized by, or affiliated with, Google. 

B. Consumers' businesses are in imminent danger of being marked 

permanently closed by Google or removed from Google's search results 

because consumers have not "claimed and verified" those businesses with 

Google. 

Page 28 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 28 of 31 
C. Defendants, as part of claiming and verifying the consumers' businesses, 

can assign certain keywords to those businesses that will result in the 

prominent display of the businesses' websites or listings. 

D. Defendants can guarantee prominent, first-page, or first-place placement 

in Google search results to consumers who pay for the Defendants' 

Citation Program. 

172. In truth and in fact: 

A. Defendants are not authorized by, or affiliated with, Google. 

B. Consumers' businesses are not in imminent danger of being marked 

permanently closed by Google or removed from Google's search results. 

C. Defendants cannot, as part of claiming and verifying consumers' 

businesses, assign to those businesses certain keywords that will result in 

the prominent display of the businesses' websites or listings. 

D. Defendants cannot guarantee prominent, first-page, or first-place 

placement in Google search results to consumers pay for the Defendants' 

Citation Program. 

173. Therefore, Defendants' representations as set forth in Paragraph 171 are false, 

misleading, or were not substantiated at the time they were made, and thus, they constitute 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

COUNT II- Unfair Billing Practices 

174. As described in Paragraphs 85-87, in numerous instances, Defendants have 

obtained consumers' bank account information and caused billing information to be submitted 

for payment on those accounts without consumers' authorization. 

Page 29 of 31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 29 of 31 
175. Defendants' actions caused substantial injury to consumers that consumers could 

not reasonably avoid and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or 

competition. 

176. Therefore, Defendants' practices described in Paragraph 174 of this Complaint 

constitute unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U .S.C. §§ 45(a) 

and 45(n). 

CONSUMER INJURY 

177. 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 

178. 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 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. Award Plaintiff such preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief as may be 

necessary to avert the likelihood of consumer injury during the pendency of this action and to 

Page 30 of31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 30 of 31 
preserve the possibility of effective final relief, including but not limited to temporary and 

preliminary injunctions, and an order providing for immediate access, the turnover of business 

records, an asset freeze, the appointment of a receiver, and the disruption of domain and 

telephone services; 

B. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act by 

Defendants; 

C. 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 illgotten monies; and 

D. Award Plaintiff FTC the costs of bringing this action, as well as such other and 

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

Respectfully submitted, 

ALDEN F. ABBOTT 

Acting General Counsel 

Dated: May 7, 2018 

Evan M. Mendelson, Special Bar No. A5502430 

Christopher J. Erickson, Special Bar No. A5502434 

Brian M. Welke, Special Bar No. A5502432 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

Mailstop CC-9528 

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-3320; emendelson@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-3671; cerickson@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-2897; bwelke@ftc.gov 

Fax: (202) 326-3197 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Page 31 of31 

Case 0:18-cv-61017-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 31 of 31