Oi'f~f-\Vt:.U t }t~1⁄2r:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 1 of 39 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRiCT OF. TEXAS 

3 

State of Ohio ex rel ,Attorney v enernl 

4 Dave Yost, No. 3:19-CV-196 

5 Plaintiffs, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

6 FOR PERMANENT 

V. INJUNCTION AND OTHER 

7 EQUITABLE RELIEF Eciti.ta"te Centre Services, Inc., a New 

8 Jersey co1poration, also dba Credit Card 

Services, Card Services, Ctedit Card 

9 Financial Services, Cate Net, Tripletcl 

Inc., Revit Educ Srvc, L.L. Vision, Cate 10 Value Services, and Card Value Services, 

)I 

Tripletel, Inc., a Delawai:e corporation, 

12 

Prolink Vision, S.R.L.~ a D ominican 

13 Republic llini.ted liability company, 

14 9896988 Canada Inc., a Canadian 

company, 15 

16 Globex Telecom, Inc., a Nevada 

corporation, 

17 

9506276 Canada, Inc., dba Globex 

18 Telecom, Inc., a Canadian company, 

19 Sam Madi, individually and as an owner, 

20 officer, member, and/ or manager of 

Educare Centre Services, Inc., 21 

Mohammad Souheil a/ k/ a 

22 Mohammed Souheil and Mike 

Souheil, individually and as an own er, 23 officer, member, and/ or manager of 

24 E ducare Ceotte Services, Inc., 9896988 

Canada, Inc., Globex Telecom, Inc., 

25 9506276 Canada, Inc., and Prolink 

Vision, S.R.L., 26 

Wissam Abedel Jalil a / k/ a Sam Jalil, 27 individually and as an owner, officer, 

28 mem ber, and/ or manager of Tdpletel, 

Inc., and Prolink Vision, S.R.L , 

1 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

,. Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 2 of 39 

Charles Kharouf, individually and as an 

owner, officer, member, and/ or manager 

of Educare Centre Services, Inc., and 

J>rolink Vision, S.R.L., 

Defendants. 

Plaintiffs, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and the St.ate of Ohio, for their 

First Amended Complaint ("FA Complaint'') allege: 

1. The FTC brings this action under Sections 13(b) and 19 of the Federal Trade 

Conunission Act ("FTC Act''), 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b ), 57b, and the Telemarketing and Consumer 

Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act ("Telemarketing Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108, to obtain 

temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of 

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

appointment of a receiver, an asset freeze, and other equitable relief for Defendants' acts or 

practices in '1iolation of Section S(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and in violation of 

the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), 16 C.F.R. Part 310. 

2. The State of Ohio, by and through its Attorney General, Dave Yost, brings 

th.is action pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6103, the Ohio Consumer Sales 

Practices Act ("CSPA"), 0.R.C. 1345.07, and the Ohio Telephone Solicitation Sales Act 

("TSSA''), O.R.C. 4719.01 et seq., in order to obtain temporary, preliminary, and permanent 

injunctive relief, consumer damages, and other equitable relief from Defendants. 

JURISDICT ION AND VENUE 

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

1337(a), 1345, and 1367. 

2 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 3 of 39 

4. Venue is proper in this disttict under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c), 

and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

SUMMARY OF THE CASE 

5. Since at least Feb1uary 2016, Sam Madi, Mohammad Souheil (a/k/ a 

Mohammed Souheil and Mike Souheil) ("Souheil"), Wissam Abedel Jaiil (a/k/ a Sam Jaiil), 

Charles Kharouf, Educare Centre·Services, Inc. ("Educare"), Tripletel, Inc. ("Tripletel"), 

Prolink Vision, S.R.L. ("Prolink"), 9896988 Canada, Inc. ("988") (collectively the "Educare 

Defendants"), Globex Telecom, Inc., aod 9506276 Canada, Inc. ("276") have engaged in or 

assisted and facilitated n deceptive telemarketing scheme that markets a credit card interest 

rate ·reduction service ("CCIRR service") to consumers throughout the United States. 

6. The Educare Defendants cold-call consumers, using live calls and 

prerecorded messages (commonly known as "robocalls"), promising that, in exchange for a 

fee ranging from $798 to $1,192, they will obtain substantially lower interest rates on 

consumeJ.-s' credit cards. To help lure consumers to purchase the CCIRR service, the 

Educare Defendants promise a 100% "money-back guarantee".if tl1e Educare Defendants 

fail to deliver the promised, substantially lower interest 1'ate or the consumers are otherwise 

dissatisfied witl1 the service. 

7. The Educate Defendants' promises are false or unsubstantiated. For the vast 

majority of consumers who pay their fee, if not all, the Educare Defendants do not secure 

the promised substantial rate reduction. In addition, the Educare Defendants routinely fail 

to honor their money-back guarantee. 

8. The Educate Defendants collect their service fee ftotn consumers through 

remotely created checks or remotely created payment ordei:s (collectively "RCPOs") drawn 

against consumers' checking accounts. The TSR expressly prohibits such use of RCPOs in 

connection with telemarketing sales. 

3 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

,. Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 4 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

9. Madera Merchant Services, LLC, an El Paso, Texas-based company, and 

associated companies ("Madera"), which run an unlawful payment processing scheme, 

provide the Educate Defendants with the means to collect payments from consumers 

through RCPOs. With Madera's suppod, the Educate Defendants have taken at least $11.5 

million from consumers' bank accounts via RCPOs. The Educare Defendants have taken 

money from consume.ts located in the Western District of Texas. In addition, Madera, on 

behalf of the Educare Defendants, deposited money into and withdrew money from banks 

located in the Western District of Texas that the Educare Defendants obtained from 

consumers. 

10. Concun:ently witl1 this action, the FTC and the St.ate of Ohio filed an action 

against Madera and its principals. See r"TC ,1. Madera Merchant Services, LLC (WD. Tex. filed 

Jul.18,2019). 

11. Globex Telecom, Inc. and 276 have assisted and facilitated the Educate 

Defendants' scheme by providing communication services and facilities. 

12. The Educare Defendants' deceptive CCIRR service scheme violates the FTC 

Act, the TSR, and Ohio's CSPA, and has injured numerous financially distressed consumers 

across the United States. 

PLAINTIFFS 

13. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government created 

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

§·4S(a), which prohibits unfair ot deceptive acts 01· practices in or affecting commerce. 

14. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district cout-t proceedings, by its 

owi1 attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and the TSR to secure such equitable 

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

4 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

,. Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 5 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgetnent of ill-gotten tnotlies. 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 53(b ), 57b. 

15. Plaintiff State of Ohio is one of the fifty sovereign states of the United 

States, and by and through its Attorney General, Dave Yost, it brings this action under 

O.R.C. 1345.01 et seq. and 0.R.C. 4719.01 ct seq. Pursuant to the authority found in the 

Telemarketing Act at 15 U.S.C. § 6103(a), Plaintiff State of Ohio is also authorized to initiate 

federal district court proceedings to enjoin telemarketing activities that violate the TSR, and 

in each such case, to obtain damages, restitution, and other compensa~on on behalf of Ohio 

residents. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff State of Ohio's state law 

claitns under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

DEFENDANTS. 

16. The Educare Defendants sell the CCIRR service at issue; Prolink operates a 

call center that telemarkets the CCIRR service to consumers on behalf of Educate; 988 

maintained Educare's customer relationship management system ("CRM") and billing 

reconciliation; aod Globex Telecom, Inc. and 276 provided interconnected Voice over 

Internet Protocol ("VoIP") communication services and facilities to Educare. 

17. The four individual defendants are, or were during times relevant to the FA 

Complaint, officers or tnaoagers of Educare, Prolink, 988, Globex Telecom, Inc., or 276, 

and have directly participated in or cont.rolled 01· had the authority to control the unlawful 

conduct challenged by the FA Complaint. 

The Corporate Defendants 

18. Educate Centre Services, Inc., also dba Credit Card Services, Card 

Services, Credit Card Fjnancial Services, Care Net, Trjplete~ Inc., Revit Educ Stvc, L.L. 

Vision, Care Value Services, and Card Value Services is a New Jersey corporation with its 

registered address at 244 Sd• Avenue, Suite 11417, New York, NY 10001. 

5 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

'. Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 6 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

19. Educare has no website and does not appear to have a physical location in 

the United States. Its president, director, and nominal owner is Satn Madi. 

20. Souheil is the de.facto principal behind Educare. He appears to operate the 

company from Canada. 

21. Educare sells the CCIRR service at issue in the FA Complaint. 

22. Educate contracts with and supervises telephone call cente.t'S, including 

Prolink, to market the CCIRR service. 

23. Educare has been the subject of more than 100 Better Business Bureau 

("BBB") consumer complaints and it and its dbas, including Credit Card Services and Care 

Net, have received a "D +" or "F" rating f.rom the BBB serving the Metropolitan New York 

area. Educare routinely fails to respond to consumer complaints to the BBB. 

24. At all times material to this FA Complaint, acting alone or in concert with 

others, Educate has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold the products and services at 

issue in this FA Complaint to consumers throughout the United States. Educate transacts or 

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

25. Tripletel, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its registered address at 910 

Foulk Road, Suite 201, Wilmington, DE 19803. Wissam AbedelJalil is the president and 

owner of Tripletel. 

26. Tcipletel is a dba of Educare, which received $2.3 tnillion in deposits &om 

Madera. 

27. Prolink Vision, S.R.L. is a Dominican Republic limited liability company 

wit;h its principal place of business at Av. 27 de Febrero Esq. Tiradentes, Plaza Merengue, 

Segundo Piso, Local 214, Ens. Nace, Santo Domingo. 

28. Prolink is a telemarketer operating a telephone call center in the Dominican 

Republic. It has been marketing the CCJRR setYice sold by Educate since at least February 

6 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

I • Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 7 of 39 

2016. In its marketing of the CCIRR service sold by Educare, Prolink telemarketers have: 

(A) initiated numerous unsolicited telephone calls, including robocalls, to U.S. consumers; (B) 

made unlawful telemarketing sales pitches regarding the CCIR.R service sold by Educare; (C) 

collected U.S. consume.ts' personal information, such as a Social Security number, email 

address, credit card issuer and number, and bank account and routing numbers; and (D) 

initiated three-way telephone calls with the U.S. consume1-s and the customer service 

departments of the U.S. banks that issued the credit cards to the U.S. consumers. 

29. Prolink received more than $1.8 million in wire payments from the US.-

based Educare. 

30. Prolink has an English language website at ,vww.prnlinkvision.com and a 

Facebook webpage at www.facebook.co1u/Prolinkvision. 

·31. Prolink's officers Mohammed Souheil and Charles Kharouf, and previous 

officer Wissam Abedel Jalil, appear to operate Prolink out of Canada. 

32. Madi has identified himself as the General Manager of Prolink. 

33. At all times material to this FA Complaint, acting alone or in concert with 

others, Prolink has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold the products and services at 

issue in this FA Complaint to consumers throughout the United States. Pro link transacts or 

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

34. 9896988 Canada Inc. is a Canadian corporation with a registered address of 

7075 Place Robert-Joncas, Suite 225, St. Laurent, Quebec H4M 2Z2, Canada. Souheil is the 

sole owner and president of 988. 

35. At Souheil's direction, 988 operated Educare's ClUvf, participated in the 

debiting of consumers' accounts, and coordinated and reconciled the funds Educate had 

withdrawn from consume1-s' checking accounts via unlawful RCPOs. 

7 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 8 of 39 

36. In pei_:fonning operations related to 988, Souheil used the email address 

mike@globextelecom.net. 

37. 988 paid Madi almost $100,000 CAD during 2017 and 2018, ~nd Souheil 

more than $172,000 CAD from 2017 through 2019. Since at least Februaty 2016, Educare 

transferred at least $1 million to 988. 988 also received more than $100,000 from Globex 

Telecom, Inc. 

38. 988 transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the 

United States. 

39. Globex Telecom, Inc. ("Globex") is a Nevada corporation. Its U.S. address 

is 112 North Curry Street, Carson City, NV 89703. Globex also has an address in Canada at 

7075 Robert-Joncas, Montreal, Quebec, H4M 2Z2 and 10 Four Seasons Place, 10th Floor, 

Toronto, ON, M9B 6H7. It was previously organized under Delaware law and had a 

Delaware address of 910 Foulk Road, Suite 201, Wilmington, Delaware 19803. Globex uses 

the website address globextelecom.net. 

40. Globex is an interconnected VoIP service provider. As an interconnected 

VoIP service provider, Globex provides information services pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 153 of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 

41. Souheil has been Globex's chief executive officer, president and secretary, as 

well as a di.rector. Globex funds have been used for Souheil's personal benefit. 

42. On or about October 22, 2015, Globex entered into a Master Services 

Agreement with Educate to provide Educare with "communication services and facilities." 

Souheil executed the Agreement on behalf of Globex. Between February 2016 and June 

2018, Educate transfer.red more than $1.6 million to Globex. 

43. Globex transacts 01· has transacted business in this district and throughout 

the United States. 

8 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

I • Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 9 of 39. 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

44. 9506276 Canada, Inc., also dba Globex Telecommunications and Globex 

Telecom, is a Canadian corporation. It lists its address as 225-7075 Place Robert-Joncas 

Montreal, Quebec H4M2Z2 Canada. Souheil has been the president, treasurer, and secretary 

of 276. 

45. 276 is an interconnected VoIP sei-vice provider. As an interconnected VoIP 

service provider, 276 provides info1mation services pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 153 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 

46. Since at least February 2016, 276 has received m?te than $3 million from 

Globex. 276 transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United 

States. 

The Individual Defendants 

47. Sam Madi ("Madi") is a Canadian citizen who resides in Montreal, Quebec. 

48. Madi is the president, di.rector, and titular owner of closely-held Educate, 

which he appears to operate from Canada. Madi executed an application for Educare's 

,rirtual office at 244 51

" Avenue, Suite 11417, New.York, NY 10001. Madi executed 

agreements on Educare's behalf with Madel'a and Globex. He also has signatory authority 

on multiple business checking accounts in the United States in the name of Educate and has 

written thousands of dollars in checks against Educare's bank accounts that were cashed for 

his own benefit. 

49. Between August 2, 2016 and May 28, 2019, Madi transferred more than $1.1 

million in Educare funds th.rough Sama Investments and Trading, Inc., a Dearborn, 

Miclugan money transmitter, to an Altaif, Inc. account in the name of Mohammad Souheil. 

50. Bet\veen May 17, 2016 and March 28, 2017, Madi transferred more than 

$280,000 in Educate funds through Sama Investments and Trading, Inc. to an Altaif, Inc. 

account in the name of Wissam Abedel JaW. 

9 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

,. Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 10 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

51. In or Around September 2017, Madi visited Prolink's office in the Dominican 

Republic to, among other things, present reward certificates to several Prolink employees. 

During his visit, Madi Also took photos with Prolink employees; one such photo is posted to 

Prolink's Facebook page, identifying Madi as Prolink's "Genet-al Manager." 

52. On or about May 16, 2018, Madi sent an email to Mo!1ammad Souheil from a 

Prolink Vision email address in whicl1 Madi identified himself as the General Manager o f 

Prolink. 

53. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, 

Madi has formulated, directed, controlled, had tl1e authority to control, or participated in the 

acts and practices of Educue, including the acts Oi' practices set forth in this Complaint. 

Madi transacts or has transacted business in this distt·ict and throughout the United States. 

54. Mohammad Souheil, a/k/ a Mohammed Souheil and Mike Souheil 

("Souheil") is a Canadian citizen who resides in Montreal, Quebec. 

55. Souheil is the 51 % owner and president of Prolink and the sole owner and 

president of 988, which, together, have received wire transfers from Educare totaling more 

than $4 million. 

56. Souheil was Educare's point of contact with Madera, Educare's El Paso, 

Texas-based payment processor. Souheil regularly communicated with Madera via email, 

text message, and telephone concerning Educare's ptocessing settlements and consumers' 

authorization for RCPOs. Souheil, using the email address 1nikesouheil@gmail.com, sent or 

received more than 1200 emails to or from. Madera concerning Madera's processing of 

Educare payments. 

57. Souheil knew that Educare's charges were being processed through RCPOs. 

58. Soheil knew that Educate was telemarketing CCIRR services. 

10 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 11 of 39 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

59. Souheil knew that Educate RCPOs had return rates of 10 to 20% and that 

financial institutions had shut down Madera accounts used to process Educare payments. 

60. According to Madera's owner and president, Bruce C. Woods, during the 

four years that Madera processed payments for Educate, Souheil "always appeared to [him] 

to be in charge of Educare." 

61. In an email dated August 22, 2016, Souheil asked Woods if Educare can have 

two logins under the Educate merchant account ("educare 2") because "I have a 

[telemarketing] room i (sic) am opening and wanted to separate the login and the reports for 

each how can we get that done?" 

62. In an email dated October 13, 2016, Souheil informed Madera that Educare's 

''[v]olume will double in the next 60-75 days .. [W]e are aiming at [$]1M a month in 

processing on educare 2 this is what we are working hard to accomplish and it will be done i 

(sic) am sure, ... nothing will change th.is is why it takes time. I make sure the business model 

stays the same and we grow in quality." 

63. In an email dated May 22, 2018, Souheil requested that Madera set up a new 

account fol' Educare under the descriptot "L.L. Vision" "so we move to it and start ghring 

this out to NEW clients." 

64. On numerous occasions, Souheil received Educate funds via an account in 

his name at a Canadian money transmitter, Altaif, Inc. From January 18, 2016 through May 

25, 2019, Souheil received more than $1.1 million from Educru:e via the Altaif, Inc. account. 

65. Between 2008 and 2009, Souheil and defendant Wissam Abedel Jalil opet:ated 

a company known as FCS International ("FCS"), which exploited its membership in an 

American Express affiliate program to market and sell CCIRR setvices to American Express 

cardholders. 

11 I 

I 

·1 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 12 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

" 

66. In 2009, American Express terminated its affiliate relationship with FCS after 

recehring numerous complaints from cardholders about FCS's service. Consumers 

complained that FCS failed to delivet on its promise to lower their credit card interest rates 

in exchange for a fee, and submitted credit card applications on behalf of consumers 

without autho1ization. 

(,7. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in conceit with others, 

Souheil has formulated, directed, controlled, bad the authority to control, or participated in 

the acts and practices of Educare, Prolink, 988, Globex Telecom, Inc., and 276, including 

the acts or practices set forth in this Complaint. Souheil, in connection with tlle matters 

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

States. 

68. Wissam Abedel Jalil a/k/ a Sam Jalil ("Jalil") is a Canadian citizen who 

resides in Montteal, Quebec. Jalil is the president and owner of Tripletel. 

69. Jalil executed an application fc;>r Educarc's virrual office at 244 S"' Avenue, 

Suite 11417, New York, NY 10001. He also has signatory authority on a busin~ss checking 

account in the i1ame of Tripletel Inc., a dba of Educate, which received approximately $2.3 

million in deposits from Madera. 

70. On numerous occasions co-defendant Madi used Sama Investments and 

Trading, Inc., a Dearborn, Michigan money transmitter, to funnel Educare funds to Jalil via 

an account in Souheil's name with a Canadian money transmitter, A.ltaif, Inc. Jalil received 

more than $283,000 from Educate via the Altai£, Ioc., account in JaW's name. 

71. As described in Paragraphs 65-66 above, between 2008 and 2009,Jalil (along 

with Souheil) operated a CCIRR scheme known as FCS, which marketed and sold CCIRR 

services to American Express cardholders llnd genernted numerous complaints about 

deceptive acts and practices. 

12 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 13 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

72. Jalil was an owner and officer of Prolink from at least October 19, 2015 until 

at leastj:muary 10, 2018. 

73. At all 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 

ads and practices of Prolink, including the acts or practices set forth in this Complaint. Jalil, 

in connection with the mattets alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this 

district and throughout the United States. 

74. Charles Kharouf is a Canadian citizen who resides in Montreal, Quebec. 

75. Kharouf became an owner and officer of Prolink on or around January 10, 

2018, more than two years after Prolin.k began telemarketing Educare's CCIRR sei:vice. 

76. Kharouf is also an owner and officer of 9322-4756 Quebec Inc. also dba 

Devcostrat, a call center lead generator. Before Kharouf acquired ownership in Prolinlc, 

Devcostrat received mo.re than $41,000 in wire transfers from Educate. 

77. Kharouf has received more than $28,000 in wire transfers from Educate. 

78. At all times material to th.is Con1plaint, acting alone or in concert with others, 

Kharouf has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in 

the acts and practices of Prolink, including the acts or practices set forth in this Complaint. 

Kl1arouf, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business 

in this district and tbroughout the United States. 

COMMON ENTERPRISE 

79. Defendants Educare, Prolink, 988, and Tcipletel have operated as a common 

enterprise while engaging in the unlawful acts and pr:ictice alleged in this Complaint. 

Educare, Proli.nk, and Tripletel sold the CCIRR services at issue in this Complaint. 988 

operated the CRM and coordinated h:iving funds withdrawn fron1 consumets' accounts via 

unlawful RCPOs. Souheil is the majority owner of Prolink, the sole owner of 988, and the 

13 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 14 of 39 

de facto principal of Educare. Both Madi and Jalil have executed applications for Educare's 

virtual office at its New York address. Tripletel as a dba of Educate received $2.3 million in 

deposits from Madera. 

80. Educate, Prolink, 988, and Tripletel have conducted business p1-actices 

described herein through interrelated companies, which have a common business purpose, 

business functions, and employees; and that marketed and sold common services, shared 

revenues, and corningled funds. 

81. Because Educa1·e, Prolinlc; 988, and Tripletel operated as a common 

enterprise, each of the entities is jointly and severally liable for the acts and practices alleged 

in this FA Complaint. At all times material to this Complaint, Souheil, Kharouf, Madi and 

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

and practices of Educate, Prolink, 988, and Tripletel which constitute the Educate 

Defendants common enterprise. 

82. Defendants Globex Telecom, Inc. and 276 (collectively, "the Globex 

Defendants") also have operated as a common enterprise while engaging in the unlawful acts 

and practice alleged in trus FA Complaint. They have conducted business practices 

desctibed herein through intei:related companies, which have a common business purpose, 

business functions, and officers; have used the same name, shared revenues, and com.ingled 

funds. 

83. Because the Globex Defendants operated as a common enterprise, each is 

jointly and severally liable for the acts and practices alleged against them in this FA 

Complaint At all times material to this Complaint, Souheil formulated, directed, controlled, 

had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices of the Globex 

Defendants. 

14 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 15 of 39 

COMMERCE 

84. At all times material to this FA 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. 

REMOTELY CREATED PAYMENT ORDERS 

AND REMOTELY CREATED CHECKS 

85. An RCPO is a check or order of payment that the payee (typically a 

merchant or its agent) creates electronically, with software, using the payor's (typically a 

consumer) bank account information. . 

86. Unlike with a conventional check, the payor does not sign the RCPO. 

Instead, the RCPO usually bears a statement indicating that the account holder (the account 

from which the inoney is to be drawn) authorized the check, such as "autho1·ized by account 

holder" or "signature not required" 

87. RCPOs can be printed and manually deposited into the check clearing system 

like a conventional check. An electronic version of an RCPO that looks like a paper check, 

but never exists in paper form, can also be deposited into the check clearing system using 

remote deposit capture-a system that allows a depositor to scan checks remotely and 

transmit the check images to a bank for deposit. 

88. RCPOs are generally subject to less oversight and monitoring than more 

prevnlent med1ods of consumer payments, such as Automated Clearinghouse ("ACH") and 

debit and credit card transactions. 

89. Payments cleared through the ACH network are subject to oversight by 

NACH.A - The Electronic Payments Association (''NACHA"), a self-regulatory trade 

association that enforces a system of rules, monitoring, and penalties for noncompliance. 

15 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 16 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

NACHA monito1·s the levels at which ACH debits are returned (or rejected) by consumers 

or consumers' banks, among otl1et t~sons, because high rates of returned transactions can 

be indicative of unlawful practices by merchants. 

90. The credit and debit card networks ("catd networks"), such as MasterCard 

and Visa, also have rules regarding ooboarding and monitoring of merchants, and penalties 

for noncompliance. These include heightened monitoring requirements for merchants 

designated as high risk, such as telemarketers. 

91. The card networks require network participants - including merchants, 

payment processors and merchant banks - to monitor transactions for unusual activity 

indicative of fraud or deception. One prominent indicator is a high chargeback rate. 

Chargebacks occur when customers contact their credit card issuing bank to dispute a charge 

appea1i.ng on their credit card account statement. Merchants with high chargeback rates may 

be placed in a monitoring program and their sponsoring banks may be subject to fees and 

fines. 

92. Unlike ACH aud debit and credit card transactions, RCPOs are not subject to 

centralized and systemic monitoring. 

93. Since June 13, 2016, the TSR has prohibited sellers and telemarketers from 

using RCPOs in: telemarketing sales. The FTC added this prohibition to the TSR because, 

after an extensive notice and comment process, it found little record of legitimate 

telemarketing business using RCPOs. 

DEFENDANTS' UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES 

94. Since at least February 2016, the Educate Defendants have engaged in a 

telemarketing scheme that markets a CCIRR service to consumers using false or 

unsubstantiated claims. The Educare Defendants promise to reduce significantly the interest 

rate on consumers' credit cards, and further promise a 100% money back guarantee if the 

16 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 17 of 39 

promised rate reduction does not materialize or the consumer is dissatisfied with the CCIRR 

service. As desC1'ibed below, these promises ate false or unsubstantiated. 

95. The Educare Defendants use RCPOs to collect payments from consumers in 

violation of the TSR, which expressly prohibits using RCPOs in connection with 

telemarketing sales. 

, Defendants' D eceptive Telemarketing Campaign 

96. Since at least Febtuary 2016, the Educare Defendants have engaged in a plan, 

program, or campaign to advertise, market, promote, offer for sale, or sell a CCIRR service 

tluough interstate telephone calls to consumers throughout the United States. 

97. In numerous instances, the Educare Defendants have initiated, ot directed 

others, including telemarketers with ~rolinlc, to initiate unsolicited telemarketing calls that 

offer consumers an opportunity to lower their credit card interest rates. 

98. In numerous instances, the Educare Defendants' telemarketing calls deliver 

p~erecorded voice messages. These messages offer consumers the opportunity to secure 

credit card interest rates that are substantially lower from those consumers were paying, and 

instruct consumers to press a button on the telephone keypad to hear more about the 

service. 

99. Consumers who press a button on their telephone lceypad to hear more 

about the service are connected to a live telemarketer who continues the deceptive sales 

pitch, as described below. Man}', if not all, of these telemarketers are associated with 

Prolink's call center. 

100. In numerous instances, the Educate Defendants' telemarketers fail to 

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

identity of the seller of the CCIRR service. Instead, the Educate Defendants' telemarketers 

routinely identify themselves as representatives of "Credit Card Services," "Credit Card 

17 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

C'ase 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 18 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

Financial Services," or similar Educate dbas that sound like the name of a bank or credit 

card compan}', 

101. In many instances, the Educare Defendants' telemarketers know the last four 

digits of at least one of the consumer's credit cards. That fact often leads consumers to 

assume that they are speaking with a representative ot agent of their bank oi: credit card 

company. 

102. The Educare Defendants' telemarketers guarantee to consumers that they 

can substantially reduce consumers' credit card interest rates. 

103. In numerous instances, the Educare Defendants' telemarketers have told 

consumers holding credit cards with high double-digit interest rates that the CCIRR service 

would .reduce the interest rates on the consumers' cards to 0%-10%, 01· transfer the balance 

to credit cards with such substantiali}' lower interest rates. 

104. For example, one telemarketer placed a consumer oo. hold, and returned a 

few minutes later stating that the Educate Defendants had permanent!}' lowered tl1e interest 

rate 011 one of consumer's credit cards to 3%, and would similarly lower the interest rates on 

the consumer's otl1er credit cards if tl1e consumer signed an online agreement. 

105. Another of the Edu care Defendants telemarketers told a consumer paying 

about 29% on a combined credit balance of oeady $8,000 that the Educate Defendants 

worked with a bank that would give the consumer one new credit card with a 6.9% interest 

rate and a credit limit exceeding the consumer's combined balance. 

106. In nμmerous instances, the Educate Defendants' telemarketers tell 

consumers that using the CCIRR service will not ha.rm the consumers' credit histOr}', Some 

of the Educi'lre Defendants' telemarketers have represented that the CCIRR service will 

improve the consumers' credit history because the consumer will be able to pay off his or 

her credit card debt faster. 

18 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 19 of 39 

107. The Educare Defendants' telemarketers typically instruct consumers to 

provide their personal information, such as a social securit}' number, email address, credit 

card issuer and number, and bank account and routing numbers. 

108. Either before or after the consumers provide this information, the Educare 

Defendants' telemarketers tell consumers that they have to pay an up-front fee for the 

CCIRR service, which typically ranges from $798 to $1,192. 

109. In numerous instances, the Educate Defendants' telemarketers have told 

consumers that the significant savings the CCIRR service provides to the consumer would 

offset the fee payment. 

110. The Educate Defendants' telemarketers typically ask if the consumer agrees 

to the fee and the CCIRR service, and tell consumers that their responses are being 

recorded. 

111. The Educate Defendants' telemarketers often tell consumers that the)' will 

recehre a w1-itten agreement describing the CCIRR service in the mail. In numerous, if not 

all,.instances, the consumers do not receive the promised agreement in the mail. 

112. In numerous instances, the Educare Defendants' telemarketers tell 

consumers that they will receive a text or email message asking them to confirm that they 

want to purchase the CCIRR service. For example, one consumer i-eceived the following 

text message: "Dear [consumer's name), Please reply '{ES to this msg to authorize the fee 

of $798 for services rendered by educate split into 5 payments. Thank you!" 

· 113. As in the above instance, the Educare Defendants' telemarketers often do 

not disclose the identity of Educare or its dbas up front. Instead, Educare or its dbas appear 

for the fu:st time in the confirmation-request email 01· text. 

114. Consumers ,~ho respond to the confirmation-request text or email message 

typic_ally i-eceive a subsequent text or email message confirming the fee authorization. For 

t9 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 20 of 39 

example, one consumer received the following text message: "[Consumer's name]: You have 

approved 5 payment of $159.60 for a total of $798 to be debited from your Account ~X.'X 

Cst Srv: 866-456-1676" 

115. In numerous instances, the Educare Defendants' telemarketers and customer 

service agents have refused to honor requests to cancel set-vice from consumers who have 

become concerned with or suspicious of the CCIRR set-vice, including requests made on the 

same day the service was purchased. 

116. For example, in 2018, a telemarketer who identified himself as William Silva 

and a "financial advisor" for "Card Services," refused a consumer's cancellation request after 

the consumer agreed to pay for the CCIRR service but then attempted to back out of the 

deal up011 realizing during the telephone call that Mr. Silva did not represent his credit card 

company. 

117. Another Educare Defendants telemarketer told a consumer who requested to 

cancel the CCIRR service on the same day of the purchase that it was too late because the 

consumer had already agreed to the charges. 

118. The Educal'e Defendants have also threatened consumers who sought to 

cancel the CCJRR service with sending the consumers' accounts to collections. 

119. For example, a telemarketer who identified himself as Jacob Scott with Care 

Value Sel'vices told one consume!' who requested cancellation of the CCIRR service that the 

consumer could not cancel, and that the Educal'e Defendants were still going to debit the 

fees from consumer>s checking account, and if the consumer did not pay, the Educate 

Defendants would tack on additional fees and sue him in court. 

120. In numerous instances, the Educate Defendants have drawn, or caused to be 

drawn, payments from accounts of consumers who requested to cancel the CCIRR service 

and instructed the Educare Defendants not to draw funds from their accounts. 

20 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

C~se 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 21 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

121. For example, in mid-2018, Educate debited nearly $800 over a period of 5 

months from the checking account of a consumer who told the Educate Defendants' 

telemarketers aod customer service agents not to charge his account and made repeated 

requests to cancel the CCIRR service. 

Unlawful RCPOs Drawn Against Consumets' Checking Accounts 

122. To collect the fee for the CCIRR service, the Educate Defendants, with the 

help of payment processor Madera, use personal infortnation they solicit from consumers, 

including bank account and routing number, to cause the creation of RCPOs drawn against 

consumers' bank accounts. 

123. Many such RCPOs are returned by the consumers' banks for reasons such as 

"stop payment," "forget}':' "closed actount," and "unable to locate." 

124. During the relevant period, several bank accounts opened by Madera under 

various dbas of Educate had return rates of 20% or more. 

125. Since January 2016, Madera has transferred to Educare at least $11.5 million 

in consumer funds collected through RCPOs. The Educare Defendants and Madera have 

collected more than $7 million of that amount from consumers after June 13, 2016, the date 

on which the TSR started banning the use of RCPOs in connection with any telemarketing 

sales. 

Defendants Fail to Deliver the Promised Substantial Rate-Reduction 

126. In some instances, after the consumers authorized the fee payment, the 

Educate Defendants' telemarketets initiate three-way telephone calls with the consumers and 

the customer service departments of the banks that issued the credit cards to the consumer. 

During these three-way calls, the Educate Defendants' telemarketers request, 01' prompt the 

consumers to request, that the bank reduce the interest rate on the consumets' credit cards. 

21 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 22 of 39 

127. In some instances, the Educate Defendants' telemarketers have asked 

consumers to misrepresent or fabricate persom1l information to bank representati,res. 

128. Io most instances, the tluee-way calls that the Educate Defendants' 

telemarketers initiate with the consumers and the credit card issuing banks do not lead to the 

promised substantial interest rate reduction, if any at all. 

129. In numerous instances, the Educate Defendants use the information they 

obtain from consumers to apply on behalf of consumers, or advise the consumer to apply, 

for new credit cards with low introductory 1-ates (commonly known as "teaser rates") and 

transfer their existing credit card balances to those new cards. 

130. For example, an Educare Defendants' telemarketer promised a consumer a 

new credit card with a 0% APR for 1 year and a 6.99% fixed rate thereafter, but the 

consumer actually received a new credit card with a 0% APR for 9 months and over 20% 

APR thereaftc.r. 

131. In some instances, Educare Defendants' telemarketers apply fol' new cl'edit 

cards with teaser rates on behalf of consume1-s witl1out consumers' knowledge or consent. 

132. For example, the consumer whose unsuccessful efforts to cancel the CCIRR 

service are discussed in Paragraph 116 of this Complaint received an emnil from Experian 

Credit Reporting stating that two credit card applications were submitted using hjs personal 

information. Soon thereafter, the consumer L'eceived a telephone call from a representative 

of Chase Bank seeking to verify his application for a credit card, which the consumer had ·110 

prior knowledge of and did not authorize. 

133. The Educare Defendants' balance transfer tactic does not typically deliver the 

promised substantial rate reduction. Consumers often cannot qualify for the new credit 

cards, and in any event, the reduced rates are only temporary and commonly followed by 

double-digit rates. 

22 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 23 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

134. After securing the consumer's payment and failing to prmTide the promised 

substantial rate reduction, the Educare Defendants often stop returning the consumer's 

phone calls and othetwise cease communicating with the consumer, 

The Edi.1care Defendants Routinely Refuse to Issue Refunds 

135. In their sales pitches, the Educate Defendants' telemarketers routinely tout a 

100% money-back guarantee if the Educate Defendants fail to deliver the promised 

substantially lower credit card interest rate, or if tl1e consumer is othenvise dissatisfied witl1 

the CCIRR service. 

136. In numerous instances, the Educare Defendants do not honor the refund 

promises. Instead, the Educare Defendants routinely make it extremely difficult, if not 

impossible, for consumers to reach a representative via telephone to process refund requests. 

137. Many consumers have discovered that the contact number tl1e Educare 

Defendants' telemarketer provided is no longer in service. 

138. Consumers who have been able to reach a representative of the Educare 

Defendants by telephone have reported being strung along with no refund or even partial 

refund issued. 

139. For example, one consumer made over 20 telephone calls· to Educare in an 

effort to cancel the CCIRR service and get a refund, and spoke with various representatives 

who were difficult to understand, evasive, condescending, transferred her to a "manager" 

that never answered tl1e phone, or misrepresented that Educare had delivered the promised 

interest mte reduction even though it had not done so. 

140. In addition, Educate has routinely failed to respond to consumer complaints 

and refund requests sent to it by the Better Business Bureau and state attorneys general. 

23 
Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 P~ge 24 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

IO 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

The Ed11ca1·e Defendants' Abusive T elemarketing Practices 

141. In numerous instances, the Educate Defendants, acting directly or through 

one or moJ:e intermediaries, have initiated telemarketing calls to consumers throughout the 

United States that delivered a prerecorded message promoting the CCIRR service, without 

first having obtained the consumers signed express written agreement to receive such calls 

by ot on behalf of the Educate Defendants. 

142. In marketing the CCIR.R setvice, in numerous instances, the Educate 

Defendants, acting directly or through one or more intermediaries, have called telephone 

numbers listed in various area codes throughout the United States, including telephone 

numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry maintained by the FTC, without the 

Educare Defendants' fu-st paying the annual fee for access to the telephone numbers within 

such area codes. 

143. In numerous instances, the Educate Defendants have received fees they 

caused to be drawn from conswnets' bank accounts during or immediately aftet the 

telemarketing call offering the CCIR.R service, but before the Educate Defendants had 

undertaken any efforts to reduce the consumers' credit card interest rates. This is illegal 

under the TSR. 

144. Io numerous instances, the Educate Defendants, acting directly or ~ttough 

one or more intermediaries, have caused the creation of RCPOs as payment fot the CCIRR 

service offered or sold through telemarketing. 

T he Globcx Defendants Assisted and Facilit~ted Educa1·e•s Telemarketing Schem e 

145. The Globex Defendan~ provided substantial assistance to the Educare 

Defendants by providing them with the means to call consumers throughout the United 

States via interconnected VoIP communication services and facilities. 

24 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 25 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

146. Since circa January 2016, the Globex Defendants and their owner and dcja'1o 

principal, Souheil, knew or consciously avoided knowing that Educare was violating the TSR 

in its telemarketing of CCIRR set-vices: Souheil and the Globex Defendants knew or 

consciously avoiding knowing that, among other things, Educate: 

A. Misrepresented that consumet'S who purchase the CCIRR service (1) 

would have their credit card interest rates reduced substantially; or 

(2) would be entitled to a full refund if the Educare Defendants 

could not obtain a lower interest rate or if the consumer was not 

completely satisfied with the CCIRR service; 

B. Created or caused to be created, directly or inditectly, a remotely 

created payment order as payment for goods or se1vices offered or 

sold through telemarketing, duci.ug the time periods set forth in the 

FA Complaint; 

C. Charged or received a fee in advance of providing debt relief service; 

D. Initiated outbound telephone calls that delivered unlawful; 

prerecorded messages; or 

E. Failed to disclose the identity of the seller of the CCIRR service 

ttuthfully, promptly, and in a clear and conspicuous manner to the 

person receiving the call. 

147. Between January 2016 and November 2018, Educare caused more than $9.5 

million in unreimbursed consumer harm to consumers in the United States. The Globex 

Defendants are jointly and severally liable with the Educate Defendants for that harm, which 

was caused by their provisioμ of communication services and facilities to the Educare. 

25 
Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 26 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

IO 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Ohio>s Telephone Solicitor's Registration Requirement 

148. Ohio's Telephone Solicitation Sales Act, O.R.C. 4719.01 el seq., genei-ally 

requires telephone solicitors that make telephone solicitations to individuals in Ohio to 

register with and file a copy of a surety bond with the Ohio Attorney General. 

149. Defendants Educate and Prolink have been solicitors that make telephone 

solicitations to individuals in Ohio. Nevertheless, they have neither registered as telephone 

solicitots with, nor provided a copy of a surety bond to, the Ohio Attorney General. 

150. Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiffs 

have reason to believe that the Educare Defendants and the Globex Defendants are violating 

or are about to violate laws enforced by the Commission and the Ohio Attorney General. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

151. Section S(a) of the FfC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits "unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices in or affecting commerce." 

152. :Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute 

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

COUNT ONE (EDUCARE DEFENDANTS) 

False or Unsubstantiated Credit Card Interest Rate Reduction and Refund Claims 

153. In numerous iost;nces, in connection with the advertising, marketing, 

promotion, offering for sale, or sale of a debt relief service, the Educate Defendants have 

tepresented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that: 

A. Consumers who purchase the CCIRR service would have their credit 

card interest rates reduced substantially; and/ or 

B. Consumers who purchase the CCIRR service would be entitled to a 

full refund if Defendants could not obtain a lower interest rate or if 

the consumer was not completdy satisfied with the CCIIUl service. 

26 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 27 of 39 

. 

154. In ttuth and in fact, in numerous instances in which the Educare Defendants 

have made the rep.t:esentations set forth in Paragraph 153 of this Complaint: 

A. Consumers who purchase the CCIRR service do not have their credit 

card interest rates reduced substantially; and/ or 

B. Consumers who purchase the CCIRR service and do not obtain a 

lower interest rate 01" are not completely satisfied with the CCIRR 

service do not provided a full refund. 

15~. Therefore, the Educare Defendants' representations as set forth in Paragraph 

153 of this Complaint are false or misleading and constitute a deceptive act or practice .irt 

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

THE TELEMARKETJNG SALES RULE 

l 56. In 1994, Congress directed the FTC to prescribe rules prohibiting abusive 

and deceptive telemarketing acts or practices pursuant to the Telem.'lrketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 

6101-6108. The FTC adopted the original TSR 1n 1995, extensively amended it in 2003, and 

amended certain sections thereafter. 

157. Defendants are all "sellers" or "telem::irketers" engaged in ''telemarketing" as 

defined by the TSR, 16 C.ER. § 310.2(dd), (ff), and (gg). For purposes of the TSR, a "seller" 

is any person who, in connection with a telemarketing transaction, provides, offers to 

provide, or arranges for others to provide goods or services to a customer in exchange for 

consideration. 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(dd). A "telemadceter" means any person who, ii1 

connection with telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls to or from ·a customer or 

donor. 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(ff). 

158. "Telemarketing' means a plan, program, or campaign which is conducted to 

induce the purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution, by use of one or mo1·e 

27 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 28 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

telephones and which it1volves more than one int'-:rstate telephone call. 16 C.F.R. § 

310.2(gg). 

159. The Educate Defendants are sellers or telemarketers of "debt relief services" 

as defined by the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(0). Under the TSR, a "debt relief service" is any 

. program or service represented, directly or by implication, to renegotiate, settle, or in any 

way alter the terms of payment or other terms of the debt between a person and one or 

more unsecured creditors, itlclucling, but not limited to, a reduction in the balance, interest 

rate, or fees owed by a person to an unsecured creditor or debt collector. 16 C.F.R. § 

310.2(0). 

160. The TSR p1'0hibits sellers and telemarketers from misrepresenting, directly or 

by implication, any material aspect of any debt-relief service, including but not limited to, 

the amount of money or the percentage of the debt amount that a customer may -save by 

usitlg the service. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(x). 

161. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from re<1uesting or receiving 

payment of an}' fee or consideration for any debt relief service until and unless: 

A. The seller or telemarketer has renegotiated, settled, reduced, or othenvise 

altered the terms of at least one debt pursuant to a settlement agreement, 

debt management plan, or other such valid contractual agreement 

executed by the customer; 

B. The customer has made at least one payment pursuant to that settlement 

agreement, debt management plan, or othex valid contractual agreement 

between tl1e customer and the creditor or debt collector; and 

C. To the extent tl1at debts enrolled in a service are renegotiated; settled, 

reduced, or othe1wise altered individually, the fee or consideration either: 

28 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 29 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

1. Bears the same proportional relationship to the total fee for 

renegotiating, settling, reducing, or alterir1g the terms of the 

entire debt balance as the individual debt amount bears to the 

entire debt amount. The individual debt amount and the entire 

debt amount are those owed at the time the debt was enrolled in 

the service; or 

u. Is a percentage of the amount saved as a result of the 

renegotiation, settlement, reduction, or alteration. The percentage 

charged cannot change from one individual debt to another. The 

amount saved is the difference between the amount owed at the 

time the debt was enrolled in the se1-vice and the amount actually 

paid to satisfy the debt. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(S)(i). 

162. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from creating or causing to be 

created, directly or indirectly, a remotely created payment order as payment for goods or 

services offered or sold through telemarketing. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(9). A remotely created 

payment order includes a remotely created check.16 C.f .R. § 310.2( cc). 

163. The 2003 amendments to the TSR established the National Do Not Call 

Registry, maintained by the FfC, of consumers who do not wish to receive certain types of 

telemarketing calls. Consumers can register their telephone numbers on the Regisu:y without 

charge either through a toll-free telephone call or over the Internet at www.donotcall.gov. 

164. The FfC allows sellers, telemarketers, and other permitted organizations to 

access the Registry over the Internet at www.telemarketing.donotcall.gov, to pay any required 

fce(s), and to download the numbers not to call. 

165. The TSR prohibits selle1-s and telemarketers from calling any telephone 

number within a given area code unless the seller on whose behalf the call is made has paid 

29 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 30 of 39 

the annual fee for access to the telephone numbers within that area code included in the 

Registry. 16 C.F.R. § 310.8. 

166. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from .initiating an outbound 

telephone call to telephone numbe.ts on the Registry. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(ili)(B). 

167. 'TI1e TSR prohibits initiating a telephone call that delivers a prerecorded 

message to induce the purchase of any good or service unless the seller has obtained from 

the recipient of the call an express agreement, in writing, that evidences the willingness of 

the recipient of the call to receive calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or on behalf of 

a specific seller. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v)(A). 

168. The TSR requires telemarketers in an outbound telephone call or internal or 

external upsell to induce the purchase of goods or services to disclose the identity of the 

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

call. 16 C.RR. § 310.4(d)(1). 

169. It is a deceptive teletnarketing act or practice and a violation of this Rule for 

a person to provide substantial assistance or support to any seller or telemarketer when that 

person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the seller or telemarketer is engaged in any 

act or practice that violates Sections 310.3(a), (c) or (d) or Section 310.4 of this Rule. 16 

C.F.R. § 310.3(b). 

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

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

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

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

30 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 31 of 39 

l 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

(By the FTC- and the State of Ohio) 

COUNT TWO (EDU CARE DEFENDANTS) 

Misrepresentations of Material Aspects of a Debt Relief Service 

171. In numerous instances since February 2016, in connection with the 

telematketing of a debt relief service, the Educare Defendants have misrepresented, dfrectly 

or by implication, material aspects of the service, including, but not limited to, that: 

A. Consumers who purchase the CCIRR service would have their credit 

card interest rates reduced substantially; and/ or 

B. Consume.rs who purchase the CCIRR service would be entitled to a 

full refund if the Educare Defendants could not obtain a lower 

intetest rate or if the consumer was not completely satisfied with the 

CCIRR service. 

172. · The Educare Defendants' acts and practices, as set forth in Paragraph 171 

above, are deceptive telemarketing acts or practices that violate the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 

310.3(a)(2)(x). 

COUNT THREE (EDUCARE DEFENDANTS) 

Charging or Receiving a Fee in Advance of Providing 

Debt Relief Service 

173. In numerous instances since February 2016 in connection with the 

telemarketing of a debt relief service, the Educare Defendants have requested or received 

payment of a fee or consideration for a debt relief service before: (a) they have 

renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise nltered the terms of at least one debt pursuant to 

a settlement agreement, debt management plan, or other such valid contractual agreement 

31 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

.. Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 32 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

executed by the consumer; and (b) the consumer has made at least one payment pursuant to 

that agreen1ent. 

17 4. The Educate Defendants' acts or practices, as set forth in Pai-agraph 173 

above, are abusive telemarketing acts or practices that violate the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 

310.4(a)(S)(i). 

COUNT FOUR (EDU CARE DEFENDANTS) 

Use of Remotely Created Payment Orders 

in Connection with Telemarketing 

. 175. In numerous instances since June 13, 2016, the Educare Defendants have 

created or caused to be created, directly or indirectly, a remotely created payment order as 

payment for goods or services offered or sold through telemarketing. 

17 6. The Educate Defendants acts or practices, as set forth in Paragraph 17 5 

above, are abusive telemarketing acts or practices that violate the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 

310.4(a)(9). 

COUNT FIVE (EDUCARE DEFENDANTS) 

Initiating Unlawful Prerecorded Messages 

177. In numerous inst.ances since February 2016, in connection with 

telemarketing, the Educare Defendants have engaged in, or caused a telemarketer to engage 

in, initiating outbound telephone calls that deliver prerecorded messages in violation of the 

TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v)(A). 

COUNT SIX (EDUCARE DEFENDANTS) 

Failing to Pay National Registry Fees 

178. In numerous instances since February 2016, in connection with 

telemarketing, the Educare Defendants have initiated, or caused others to initiate, an 

outbound telephone call to a telephone number within a given area code when the Educate 

32 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 33 of 39 

Defendants had not, either directly or through another person, paid the required annual fee 

for access to the telephone numbers within that area code that are included in the National 

Do Not Call Regis tty, in violation of the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.8. 

COUNT SEVEN (EDUCARE DEFENDANTS) 

Failure to Make Oral Disclosures Required by the TSR 

179. In numerous instances since February 2016, in connection with 

telemarketing, tl1e Educare Defendants have initiated, or caused others to initiate, an 

outbound telephone call to induce the purchase of a CCIRR service that failed to disclose 

the identity of the seller of the CCIRR service truthfully, promptly, and in a clear and 

conspicuous manner to the person receiving the call, in violation of the TSR, 16 C.F.R. 

§ 310.4(d)(1). 

COUNT EIGHT (GLOBEX DEFENDANTS) 

Assisting and Facilitating 

180. As described in paragrap\1s 16-17, 42, 67, 82-83, 145-47, above, the Globex 

Defendants have, in numerous instances, provided substantial assistance and support, 

though the provision of communication services and facilities, to one or more sellers or 

telemarketers, whom the Globex Defendants knew, or consciously avoided knowing, were 

violating§§ 310.3(a)(2)(x), 310.4(a)(S)(i), 310.4(a)(9), 310.4(b)(1)(v)(A), and 310.4(d)(1) of the 

TSR by: 

A. Misrepresented that consumers who purchase the CCilUl service 

(1) would have their credit card interest rates reduced substantiall}•; or 

(2) would be entitled to a full refund if the Educare Defendants could 

not obtain a lower interest rate or if the consumer was not completely 

satisfied with the CCilUt service; 

B. Charging or receiving a fee in advance of providing debt relief service; 

C. Using RCPOs as payment for goods or services offered or sold through 

telemarketing; 

33 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 34 of 39 

D. Initiating outbound telephone calls that deliver unlawful prerecorded 

messages; or 

E. Faili.ng to disclose the identity of the seller of the CCIRR service 

truthfully, promptly, and in a clear and conspicuous manner to tl1e person 

receiving the call. 

181. The Globex Defendants' acts or practices, as described in Paragraph 181 

above, violate the TSR, 16 C.F.R.; § 310.3(b). 

VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT 

(By the State of Ohio) 

182. Ohio's CSPA, O.R.C. 1345.01 et seq., generally prohibits "suppliers" from 

engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connect.ion with "consumer transactions." 

183. Defendants are "suppliers" as defined in 0.R.C. 1345.01 (C) because they, at 

all times relevant hereto, were engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer 

transactions, whether or not they dealt directly with consumers. 

COUNT NINE (EDU CARE DEFENDANTS) 

Failing to Deliver Services or Provide Refunds 

184. As described in paragraphs 16-149 above, the Educare Defendants 

committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Failure to Deliver Rule, 

O.A.C. 109:4-3-09(A) and the CSPA, O.R.C. 1345.02(A), by accepting money from 

consumers for goods or senrices, and specifically offering services to reduce the consumers' 

credit card rates, and then permitting eight weeks to elapse without making shipment or 

delivery of the goods or services ordered, making a full refund, advising the consumer of the 

du1:ation of an extended delay and offering to send a refund with.in two weeks if so 

requested, or furnishing similar goods or se1-vices of equal or greater value as a good faith 

substitute. 

34 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 35 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

COUNT TEN (EDUCARE DEFENDANTS) 

Misrepresenting Characteristics of the Transaction 

185. As described in paragraphs 16-149 above, the Educate Defendants 

committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CSPA, O.R.C. 1345.02(A), 

by misrepresenting that the subject of a consumer ti-ansaction has sponsorship, approval, 

performance characteristics, uses, or benefits that it did not have, and specifically by (1) 

misrepresenting that their services will substantially reduce consumexs credit card interest 

rates, (2) misrepresenting that their services have a 100% money-back guarantee, and (3) 

misrepresenting that they will send consumers a written agreement packet in the mail after 

consumers agree to the service over the telephone. 

COUN'l:' ELEVEN (EDUCARE DEFENDANTS) 

Using Remotely Created Payment Orders in Connection with Telemarketing 

186. As described in paragraphs 16-149 above, the Educare D efendants 

committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CSPA, 0.R.C. 1345.02(A), 

by creating or causing to be created, directly or indirectly, a remotely created payment order 

as payment for goods or services offered or sold through telemarketing. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO TELEPHONE SOLICITATION SALES ACT 

(by the State of Ohio) 

187. Defendants initiated "telephone solicitations" to "purchasers," as they were 

at all times relevant herein, engaged in in.itiati.ng "communications" on behalf of "telephone 

solicitors" or "salespersons" to induce persons to purchases "goods or services," as those 

terms are defined in the TSSA, 0.R.C. 4719.0t(A). 

188. Defendants are "telephone solicito1-s" as that term is defined in the TSSA, 

O.R.C. 4719.0t(A)(B), as they wete at all ti.mes relevant herein, engaged in initiating 

35 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

l ' c'ase 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 36 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

telephone solicitations directly or duough one or more salespersons from a location in Ohio 

or from a location outside of Ohio to persons in Ohio. 

COUNT TWELVE (EDU CARE DEFENDANTS) 

Failure to Comply with Registration and Surety Bond Requirements 

189. As described in paragraphs 16-149 above, the Educate Defendants 

co1111rutted unfair or deceptive acts and practices in violation of the TSSA, O.R.C. 

4719.02(A) and 4719.04(A), and tl1e CSPA, O.R.C. 1345.02(A), by acting as a telephone 

solicitor without first having obtained a certificate of registration from the Ohio Attorne)' 

General, and filing a copy of a su.tety bond in the amount of at least fifty thousand dollars 

with the Ohio Attorney Gene.ta}. 

COUNT THIRTEEN (EDUCARE DEFENDANTS) 

Failure to Disclose the True Name of the Solicitor and Business 

190. As described in paragraphs 16-149 above, the Educare Defendants 

committed unfair or deceptive acts and practices in violation of the TSSA, O.R.C. 

4719.06(A) and the CSPA, O.R.C. 1345.02(A), by failing to disclose the solicitor's ttue name 

and tlle name of the company on ,vhose behalf solicitations were made, with.in the first sixty 

seconds of the telephone call. 

COUNT FOURTEEN (EDUCARE DEPENDANTS) 

Failure to Obtain Signed Written Confirmation of Sales 

191. As described in pa1'agraphs 16-149 above, the Educate D efendants 

committed unfair or deceptive acts and practices in violation of the TSSA, O.R.C. 4719.07 

and tlle CSPA, O.R.C. 1345.0Z(A), by taking payment fron1 a consumer as the result of a 

telephone solicitation and not providing to, and receiving back from tlle consumer, a written 

confirmation that meets the requirements of O.R.C. 4719.07. 

36 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

' ' c ·ase 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 37 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

CONSUMER INJURY 

192. Consumers are suffering, have suffered, and will continue to suffer 

substantial i.nju1-y as a result of Defendants' violations of the FTC Act, the TSR, the CSPA, 

and the TSSA. 

193. The Educate Defendants' fraudulent telema1·keting scheme has caused more 

than $11.5 million to be withdrawn from consumers' checking accounts. 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. 

T HIS COURT' S POWER 'TO GRANT RELIEF 

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

grant injunctive and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to halt a11d redress 

violations of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. 

195. The Court, in the exercise of its equitable ju1isdictlon, may award.ancillary 

relief, .including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies 

paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, to pre,rent and remedy any violation of any 

provision of law enforced by the FTC. 

196. Pw:suaot to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction to 

allow Plairitiff State of Ohio, Office of Attorney General, to enforce its state law claims 

against Defendltnts .in tJ,js Court for violations of tl1e CSPA and the TSSA, including 

.injunctive relief,.rescission or reformation of contracts, the refund of monies paid; and the 

d.isgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs rTC and the State of Ohio, pursuant to Sections 13(b) 

and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 57b; the TSR; Section 1345.07 of the Ohio 

37 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

'Case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 38 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

·23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

CSPA; Section 4719.22 of the Ohio TSSJ\; and the Coutt's own equitable powers, request 

that the Court: 

A. Award Plaintiffs such preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief as may be 

necessary to avert the likelihood of consumer inju1-y during the pendency of this action and 

to preserve the possibility of effective final relief, including temporary and preliminary 

injunctions, m1d an order providing for the turnover. of business records, an asset freeze, 

immediate access, the appointment of a receiver, and disruption of telephone service; 

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

the TSR, the Ohio CSPA, and the Ohio TSSA by Defendants; 

C. Award Plaintiffs such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress inju1y to 

consumers resulting from Defendants' violations of the FTC Act, the TSR, the Ohio CSPA, 

and the Ohlo TSSA, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund 

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

D. Award Plaintiffs 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 

Chcistp er E. Brown 

Dated: 

J. Ronald Brooke, Jr. 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Mailstop CC-8528 

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-2825 / cbrown3@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-3484 / jbi:ooke@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

DAVE YOST 

Ohio Attorney General 

38 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

' ' ·case 3:19-cv-00196-KC Document 81 *SEALED* (Ex Parte) Filed 12/03/19 Page 39 of 39 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

-

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

Erin Leahy (Ohio Bar #69509) 

Assistant A ttomeys General 

Consumer Protection Section 

30 E. Broad Street, 141h Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 · 

(614) 466-8831 

e.cin.leahy@OhioAttorneyGeneraLgov 

Attorneys for PWntiff 

STATE OF OHIO 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

STA TE OF OHIO 

39