COMPLAINT

-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TAMPA DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, and 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF 

LEGAL AFFAIRS, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC, a Florida 

limited liability company, also d/b/a 

CHARGEBACKS911, 

GARY CARDONE, individually and as an 

officer of GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC, and

MONICA EATON, individually and as an 

officer of GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 8:23-cv-00795 

COMPLAINT FOR 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION, 

MONETARY RELIEF, AND 

STATUTORY RELIEF

Plaintiffs, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), and the Office of the 

Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs (“Florida Attorney 

General”), sue Global E-Trading, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, also 

d/b/a Chargebacks911, Gary Cardone, individually and as an officer of Global 

E-Trading, LLC, and Monica Eaton, individually and as an officer of Global 

E-Trading, LLC, and for their Complaint allege: 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 1 of 51 PageID 1
COMPLAINT

-2- 

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

Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), which authorizes the FTC to 

seek, and the Court to order, permanent injunctive relief for Defendants’ acts or 

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

2. The Florida Attorney General brings this action under the Florida 

Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Chapter 501, Part II, 

Florida Statutes, to obtain equitable, permanent injunctive, and other statutory 

relief, including but not limited to restitution and civil penalties, for violations of 

FDUTPA in connection with Defendants’ chargeback mitigation services, which 

are marketed and sold to their clients. 

SUMMARY OF CASE 

3. Defendants operate a chargeback mitigation business under the name 

“Chargebacks911.” Chargebacks911 helps merchants respond to consumer 

chargebacks. Consumers can initiate chargebacks to dispute a charge on their 

credit card when, among other things, they believe that they have been subject to 

fraud or unfair business practices. The merchant involved in a disputed transaction 

generally has an opportunity to refute the consumer’s chargeback request and, if 

successful, retain the consumer’s funds. Chargebacks911 submits documentation 

to banks to dispute the validity of chargebacks that consumers have filed against its 

merchant clients. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 2 of 51 PageID 2
COMPLAINT

-3- 

4. Since at least 2016, Chargebacks911 has, for numerous clients, used 

misleading information to contest chargebacks. It has routinely submitted 

screenshots of webpages to support the claim that consumers were informed of 

terms and conditions that appeared on those pages, even in situations where 

consumers made the disputed purchase on a different webpage. 

5. Chargebacks911 has ignored red flags indicating that the webpage 

screenshots it has submitted to banks are misleading. In some cases, the company 

has affirmatively edited webpage screenshots to add disclosures to the screenshot 

that did not appear on the underlying webpages. These practices have likely 

resulted in consumers being denied chargebacks that otherwise should have been 

approved. 

6. In addition, from 2013 to 2019, Chargebacks911 offered a service, 

“Value Added Promotions” (or “VAP”), which enabled its clients to run smallvalue transactions, known as “microtransactions,” that artificially lower a 

merchant’s overall chargeback rate by inflating the total number of transactions run 

through the merchant’s account. Chargebacks911’s VAP service enabled 

fraudulent merchants to evade or delay chargeback monitoring programs, fines, 

and account terminations designed to protect consumers from fraud.

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 3 of 51 PageID 3
COMPLAINT

-4- 

7. By disputing chargebacks with misleading information and 

manipulating merchants’ chargeback rates, Chargebacks911 has engaged in unfair 

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

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the FTC’s claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), and 1345, and this Court has supplemental 

jurisdiction over the Florida Attorney General’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(a) because those claims are so related to the claims brought under federal 

law that they form part of the same case or controversy, and because those claims 

arise out of the same transactions or occurrences as the claims brought pursuant to 

Section 5(a) and 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 53(b). 

9. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1), (b)(2), 

(c)(2), and (d), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

PLAINTIFFS 

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

created by the FTC Act, which authorizes the FTC to commence this district court 

civil action by its own attorneys. 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. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 4 of 51 PageID 4
COMPLAINT

-5- 

11. The Florida Attorney General is an enforcing authority of the 

FDUTPA. The Florida Attorney General has conducted an investigation of the 

matters alleged herein, and this enforcement action serves the public interest. 

12. As an enforcing authority under FDUTPA, the Florida Attorney 

General is authorized to pursue this action seeking injunctive, equitable, and other 

statutory relief, including but not limited to restitution, disgorgement of ill-gotten 

monies, civil penalties and reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 

FDUTPA. 

DEFENDANTS 

13. Defendant Global e-Trading, LLC, also doing business as 

Chargebacks911 (hereinafter “Chargebacks911”), is a Florida limited liability 

company with its principal office or place of business at 18167 North US Highway 

19, Clearwater, FL 33784. At all times relevant to this Complaint, 

Chargebacks911 has transacted business in this District and throughout the United 

States. 

14. Defendant Gary Cardone is the CEO and co-founder of 

Chargebacks911. At all times relevant 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 of Chargebacks911, including the acts and 

practices set forth in this Complaint. In particular, Defendant Gary Cardone 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 5 of 51 PageID 5
COMPLAINT

-6- 

marketed the company’s services to new clients, negotiated pricing, and directed 

the company’s “VAP” service (see Section F below). Defendant Gary Cardone 

resides in this District and, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts 

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

15. Defendant Monica Eaton is the COO and co-founder of 

Chargebacks911. At all times relevant to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert 

with others, she has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, 

or participated in the acts and practices of Chargebacks911, including the acts and 

practices set forth in this Complaint. In particular, Defendant Monica Eaton 

headed the operational side of the company’s chargeback dispute service, set 

company policies and procedures, trained employees, managed compliance, and 

was involved in the company’s VAP service. Defendant Monica Eaton resides in 

this District and, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has 

transacted business in this District and throughout the United States. 

COMMERCE 

16. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a 

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

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

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 6 of 51 PageID 6
COMPLAINT

-7- 

17. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants engaged in “trade 

or commerce” as defined in Section 501.203(8), Florida Statutes, by marketing, 

offering, and the provision of chargeback dispute services. 

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 

A. Background on the Chargeback System 

18. When consumers believe that they have been subject to fraud or unfair 

business practices, or when merchants fail to provide refunds that consumers are 

entitled to or make such refunds difficult to obtain, consumers may choose to 

dispute specific charges on their credit cards by seeking what is commonly known 

as a “chargeback.” Chargebacks therefore offer an important protection to 

consumers who use their credit cards to make purchases, especially when shopping 

online. 

19. Consumers initiate chargebacks by contacting their “issuing bank,” 

which is the bank that issued the credit card to the consumer. The issuing bank 

credits the consumer’s account and notifies the merchant’s “acquiring bank” of the 

chargeback. The merchant then has an opportunity to dispute the chargeback by 

submitting documentation, known as a “representment,” establishing that the 

charge is valid. If the issuing bank decides that the charge is valid, it will debit the 

consumer’s account for the disputed amount, reversing the initial credit to the 

account. If the issuing bank decides that the charge is not valid, it seeks to recover 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 7 of 51 PageID 7
COMPLAINT

-8- 

the chargeback amount from the acquiring bank, which, in turn, collects the 

chargeback amount from the merchant. If the merchant or consumer disagree with 

the issuing bank’s decision, the chargeback may be escalated to additional stages 

of dispute resolution. 

20. Excessive chargebacks are a primary indicator that a merchant is 

engaged in fraudulent, illegal, or unauthorized practices. Accordingly, card 

networks, such as Visa, set thresholds for excessive chargebacks—for example, 

100 or more chargebacks in one month, in combination with a monthly ratio of 

chargebacks to total transactions (or “chargeback rate”) of 0.9% or greater. 

Merchants that exceed the card network thresholds are subject to additional 

monitoring requirements and, in some cases, penalties and termination. 

B. Background on Chargebacks911 

21. Since at least 2011, Chargebacks911 has offered chargeback 

mitigation services to merchants. A significant portion of Chargebacks911’s client 

base has been composed of online merchants that engage in negative-option free 

trial marketing—whereby a consumer receives goods or services for free, or for a 

nominal fee, for a trial period, after which the merchant can automatically begin 

charging a fee unless the consumer affirmatively cancels—in particular, for 

nutritional supplements and skin care products. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 8 of 51 PageID 8
COMPLAINT

-9- 

22. Chargebacks911 has offered merchants a variety of services, 

including disputing consumer chargebacks, monitoring and analyzing the 

merchant’s chargeback statistics, providing preventative chargebacks alerts, and 

conducting an ostensible marketing service called Value-Added Promotions (or 

“VAP”). 

23. Chargebacks911 has billed itself as “a global risk management and 

chargeback remediation solution developed by merchants, for merchants. . . . We 

don’t just claim to be experts in chargeback reduction or dispute resolution: we 

spent years as successful online merchants ourselves, only to watch as chargebacks 

relentlessly chipped away at our profitability. . . . We took our experience as 

merchants and our expertise as industry leaders to create proprietary technologies 

and services that simply did not exist before . . . and have not been surpassed by 

any other source. [After] honing the solution on our own business, we decided to 

share our wealth of knowledge and expertise with fellow merchants.” 

C. Chargebacks911’s Chargeback Disputes Service 

24. Since its inception, Chargebacks911 has assisted merchants in 

disputing chargebacks. 

25. Chargebacks911 has claimed in its ads that “[e]ach undisputed 

chargeback leaves money on the table,” and that more than 80% of consumers who 

exercise their right to initiate a chargeback are actually engaged in “friendly 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 9 of 51 PageID 9
COMPLAINT

-10- 

fraud”—in other words, the chargeback reason provided by the consumer is false, 

and it is the consumer who is defrauding the merchant, not the other way around. 

26. Three of the company’s major clients, Apex Capital, LLC, F9 

Advertising, LLC, and AH Media Group, LLC, have been sued by the FTC for 

engaging in deceptive negative-option marketing practices. Customers of these 

merchants reported that they had signed up for a free trial offer and were charged 

for an ongoing subscription without their knowledge or consent. 

27. Chargebacks911 disputed more than forty-seven thousand 

chargebacks for Apex Capital from January 2016 to November 2018, more than 

seventy-seven thousand chargebacks for AH Media and the related entity Zanelo, 

LLC, from January 2017 to July 2019, and more than forty-one thousand 

chargebacks for F9 Advertising from September 2016 to January 2018. 

28. To dispute consumer chargebacks, Chargebacks911 has drafted and 

submitted representments on behalf of its clients. The representment documents 

have included information that Chargebacks911 collects from the merchant and 

third-party information sources, as well as material generated by Chargebacks911. 

29. Chargebacks911’s representments have typically included a set of 

screenshots purporting to represent key webpages from the merchant’s website, 

including, for example, the product information page, the checkout page, and the 

terms and conditions page (“Representment Screenshots”). 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 10 of 51 PageID 10
COMPLAINT

-11- 

30. Chargebacks911 has included the Representment Screenshots in its 

representments to show that the consumer filing the chargeback saw or should 

have seen disclosures about key offer terms, such as the free trial and subscription 

terms, on the merchant’s website, and agreed to those terms in making a purchase. 

31. Instead of taking screenshots of the actual webpages that a consumer 

used to make the specific disputed purchase at issue in a chargeback, 

Chargebacks911 has typically used what it refers to as the merchant’s “bank page,” 

as described below. Chargebacks911 has been aware that the bank page is not 

necessarily the actual webpage from which a consumer made the disputed 

purchase. 

32. To apply for credit card processing, merchants must provide their 

acquiring bank with a variety of information. In the case of online merchants, they 

must provide the URL of the website that they intend to use to sell their products. 

Merchants typically submit the website’s homepage. When communicating with 

clients, Chargebacks911 has referred to this webpage as the “bank page,” or “the 

URL you tell the bank you sell on.” 

33. After capturing the Representment Screenshots from the merchant’s 

bank page, Chargebacks911 has added markup and callout boxes highlighting, 

among other things, where disclosures purportedly are located on the webpage. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 11 of 51 PageID 11
COMPLAINT

-12- 

For an example of Chargebacks911’s use of markup and callout boxes, see Figure 

A below. 

34. Chargebacks911’s representments have also typically included 

statements by Chargebacks911 that the consumer saw or should have seen 

disclosures about key offer terms, and agreed to those terms, including, for 

example: 

a. “The customer was provided with proper disclosures of a 

cancellation/refund/renewal policy”; 

b. “Terms & Conditions are clearly displayed on our Check-out 

page”; and 

c. “The customer agreed to the terms and conditions prior to being 

charged.” 

D. Chargebacks911 Has Ignored Red Flags that Its 

Chargeback Disputes Are Misleading 

35. Chargebacks911 has ignored numerous red flags that have put the 

company on notice that its representments are inaccurate and misleading. For 

example, as described below, Chargebacks911 overlooked obvious mismatches in 

the branding of AH Media and Apex Capital products, facial inconsistencies in 

AH Media’s website disclosures, conflicting website screenshots made public in 

lawsuits against Apex Capital and F9 Advertising, and suspicious behavior 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 12 of 51 PageID 12
COMPLAINT

-13- 

involving the merchant accounts registered to Apex Capital, F9 Advertising, and 

AH Media. See Sections D.1–4 below. 

36. As a result, Chargebacks911 has submitted numerous representments 

that include Representment Screenshots that show disclosures that did not appear 

on the actual sales webpages that the consumer visited. Numerous such 

representments have also falsely claimed that consumers saw or should have seen 

disclosures about key offer terms, and agreed to those terms. 

37. These misleading representments have made it more likely that an 

issuing bank would reject a consumer’s chargeback request, despite the merchant 

failing to properly disclose material terms of a transaction to the consumer. 

// 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 13 of 51 PageID 13
COMPLAINT

-14- 

38. For example, in numerous chargeback disputes for AH Media, 

Chargebacks911 used webpage screenshots from AH Media’s “bank pages,” which 

included disclosures about the offer’s material terms. The Representment 

Screenshot excerpted in Figure A below depicts a webpage that requires consumers 

to check a box acknowledging disclosure text concerning the subscription offer 

before proceeding with the transaction. 

Fig. A: Excerpt of website screenshot from AH Media chargeback dispute

39. AH Media processed their actual sales, however, from consumerfacing websites that lacked clear and conspicuous disclosures about the trial offers. 

The screenshot excerpted in Fig. B below depicts an actual AH Media sales 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 14 of 51 PageID 14
COMPLAINT

-15- 

webpage. The page does not include any disclosures about the subscription terms, 

and consumers do not have to affirmatively acknowledge the terms of the offer 

before proceeding with the transaction. As described below, Chargebacks911 

knew or should have known that it was disputing chargebacks using 

Representment Screenshots that featured disclosures that did not appear on 

AH Media’s actual sales webpages. 

Fig. B: Excerpt of payment page from AH Media actual sales website

40. Issuing banks have likely relied on the Representment Screenshots 

that Chargebacks911 included in AH Media representments, as well as the false 

claims that consumers agreed to the offer, in denying consumers chargebacks that 

otherwise would have been approved. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 15 of 51 PageID 15
COMPLAINT

-16- 

41. Despite the red flags indicating that Chargebacks911’s representments 

were misleading, the company continued with its same chargeback dispute 

practices, and chose not to investigate the accuracy of information provided by its 

negative-option clients, terminate negative-option clients providing misleading 

information, or notify banks that the representments it had previously submitted 

may have included misleading material. 

42. Indeed, Chargebacks911 has taken direct steps to prevent banks from 

assessing whether its clients are engaged in prohibited practices. For example, 

Chargebacks911’s policy has been to omit URL information from its 

Representment Screenshots. In January 2016, Defendant Monica Eaton reminded 

Chargebacks911 employees with responsibilities for representments: “It is a 

policy that we never show any website address or URL on a screenshot. The 

reason for this is that if we show the bank a [URL] that is not registered to the 

[merchant account] related to a chargeback, the merchant will be liable for a fine of 

up to $250K and must prove that he is not making sales on this URL. I understand 

that sometimes merchants will give us incorrect URLs, but the only information we 

need to supply for the banks is an illustration to represent how the site operated (it 

is never our place to provide the [URL]).” 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 16 of 51 PageID 16
COMPLAINT

-17- 

E. Branding Mismatches 

43. When preparing a chargeback dispute, Chargebacks911 has gathered 

data from the merchant concerning the product at issue in the chargeback, 

including the product’s brand name. 

44. In thousands of instances, the branding of the product at issue in the 

chargeback has conflicted with the branding depicted in the Representment 

Screenshots. Such conflicts indicate that the merchant may be engaged in a 

misleading or prohibited practice, such as conducting sales on a different website 

from the website registered to the merchant account, and, accordingly, that the 

Representment Screenshots may not depict the website that the consumer saw 

when purchasing the product. 

45. For example, when onboarding AH Media as a client, 

Chargebacks911 ignored conspicuous mismatches in branding between the 

chargeback data and the Representment Screenshots. 

46. Chargebacks911’s typical practice has been to create an initial “test” 

representment as a template when onboarding a new client. Chargebacks911 has 

scrutinized the test representment for accuracy. 

47. The test representment that Chargebacks911 created for AH Media 

around December 2016 involved a skin care product branded as “Lucienne,” based 

on order information data that Chargebacks911 received from AH Media and 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 17 of 51 PageID 17
COMPLAINT

-18- 

included in the test representment. See Fig. C below (“Description: Lucienne 

Vitamin C”). 

Fig. C: Excerpt of order information from AH Media test representment 

// 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 18 of 51 PageID 18
COMPLAINT

-19- 

48. The Representment Screenshots included with the test representment, 

however, depicted a product branded as “Aehart.” See Fig. D below (“Aehart EYE 

SERUM”). 

Fig. D: Excerpt of website screenshot from AH Media test chargeback 

49. Despite the conspicuous evidence that the Representment Screenshots 

included in the AH Media test chargeback were from an entirely different website 

than the one the consumer visited when purchasing the Lucienne skin care product, 

Chargebacks911 failed to address the discrepancy. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 19 of 51 PageID 19
COMPLAINT

-20- 

50. In fact, Chargebacks911 disputed more than two thousand 

chargebacks supposedly involving Aehart-branded websites from January 2017 to 

August 2018, but in only a handful of cases was the product actually branded as 

“Aehart” in the order information data. In nearly all of the representments, the 

products were branded “Parisian Glow,” “Lucienne,” or “AmaBella Allure.” The 

data that revealed these discrepancies was readily available to Chargebacks911. 

As with the test representment above, however, Chargebacks911 did not address 

these obvious conflicts. 

51. Chargebacks911 submitted representments for AH Media in 

numerous other cases in which the branding depicted in the chargeback’s order 

information data was inconsistent with the Representment Screenshots. 

// 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 20 of 51 PageID 20
COMPLAINT

-21- 

52. Similarly, Chargebacks911 submitted representments for Apex 

Capital using Representment Screenshots that were facially inconsistent with the 

chargeback’s order information data. For example, in numerous instances, 

Chargebacks911 disputed chargebacks lodged against Apex Capital for a supposed 

male enhancement product called “Evermax.” The Representment Screenshots 

that Chargebacks911 submitted, however, were branded “NeuroXR” and touted a 

purported cognitive enhancement product. See Fig. E below (The “Merchant 

Name” field refers to “Evermax,” but the site is branded “NeuroXR.”). 

 

Fig. E: Excerpt of Representment Screenshot from 

Apex Capital chargeback dispute (April 2016)

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 21 of 51 PageID 21
COMPLAINT

-22- 

53. As with AH Media, Chargebacks911 failed to address the 

inconsistencies in the Apex Capital representments. 

F. Inconsistencies in AH Media Disclosures 

54. Chargebacks911’s typical practice has been to conduct an “initial 

threat assessment” when onboarding a new client. In the initial threat assessment, 

Chargebacks911 has checked various aspects of the client’s sales practices, 

including its websites, confirmation emails, and customer service phone numbers. 

Chargebacks911 has reviewed the client’s websites for, among other things, 

disclosures and checkboxes related to the client’s subscription and sales practices. 

55. In December 2016, Chargebacks911 conducted an initial threat 

assessment of certain AH Media bank pages. The threat assessment noted that the 

pages included a checkbox acknowledging the subscription terms as part of the 

sales flow. See Fig. F below. 

Fig. F: Screenshot excerpt from initial Chargebacks911 threat assessment 

for client AH Media 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 22 of 51 PageID 22
COMPLAINT

-23- 

56. Only a few weeks later, Chargebacks911 conducted a second threat 

assessment for AH Media on an entirely different set of URLs, writing to the 

client: “This is the diagnostic report using just your live sites like you requested” 

(emphasis added). Chargebacks911 noted in this second threat assessment that 

some of AH Media’s “live sites” were missing the disclosures identified in the 

initial assessment on AH Media’s bank pages. See Fig. G below (“No recurring 

billing checkbox”). Accordingly, consumers making purchases on these “live 

sites” were not informed of the terms of the negative option subscription offer, and 

did not affirmatively express their consent to the offer. 

Fig. G: Screenshot excerpt of second Chargebacks911 threat assessment for 

client AH Media 

57. Some of the “live sites” that were missing disclosures, according to 

this second threat assessment, were branded “Lucienne.” “Lucienne” is the same 

brand of the product that appeared in Chargebacks911’s misleading test 

representment for AH Media. See ¶ 47 above. Although Chargebacks911 disputed 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 23 of 51 PageID 23
COMPLAINT

-24- 

many chargebacks involving a Lucienne-branded product, it never used 

screenshots of a website that was actually branded Lucienne. 

58. The AH Media test representment, order information data, and threat 

assessments, taken together, indicated strongly that AH Media was selling its 

products from a different website (branded “Lucienne”) than its bank pages 

(branded “Aehart”), and that the Lucienne-branded websites lacked disclosures 

that appeared on the Aehart-branded websites. 

59. Despite this evidence, Chargebacks911 continued using misleading 

Representment Screenshots to dispute chargebacks sought by consumers who had 

been deceived by AH Media’s fraudulent marketing practices. 

G. The FTC’s Lawsuits Against Apex Capital and F9 Advertising 

60. The FTC sued Apex Capital in November 2018. At or around the 

time that the FTC sued Apex Capital, Defendants Gary Cardone and Monica Eaton 

became aware of the lawsuit. 

61. The FTC alleged, among other things, that Apex Capital’s sales 

webpages inadequately disclosed key offer terms or lacked disclosures entirely. 

Screenshots in the complaint showed sales webpages that lacked disclosures of key 

offer terms and that did not include a checkbox acknowledging the subscription 

terms. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 24 of 51 PageID 24
COMPLAINT

-25- 

62. Apex Capital was a client of Chargebacks911 at the time of the FTC 

lawsuit. The screenshots that Chargebacks911 had used to dispute chargebacks on 

behalf of Apex Capital, which did include disclosures and a checkbox 

acknowledging the subscription terms, were inconsistent with the Apex Capital 

sales webpages described in, depicted in, and attached to the FTC’s pleadings. It 

was apparent from the allegations in the FTC’s complaint that Chargebacks911 had 

likely used misleading Representment Screenshots to dispute Apex Capital 

chargebacks. 

63. Similarly, in February 2019, the FTC sued F9 Advertising. Attorneys 

for the FTC sent an email to Chargebacks911 in connection with the 

F9 Advertising lawsuit on Feb. 26, 2019, and Defendant Monica Eaton forwarded 

the email internally the next day. The owner of F9 Advertising was indicted in 

May 2019. 

64. The FTC alleged, among other things, that, from at least February 

2016 through at least August 2017, F9 Advertising’s sales webpages had 

inadequately disclosed key offer terms or lacked disclosures entirely. Screenshots 

in the complaint showed sales webpages that used inconspicuous disclosures of 

key offer terms, or lacked disclosures entirely, and that did not include a checkbox 

acknowledging the subscription terms. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 25 of 51 PageID 25
COMPLAINT

-26- 

65. The FTC also alleged that F9 Advertising had disputed chargebacks 

using misleading screenshots of “clean” sales webpages that F9 Advertising did 

not actually use to conduct sales. The “clean” webpages included moreconspicuous disclosures and a checkbox. The complaint included an example of 

these sanitized sales webpages. 

66. F9 Advertising had been a client of Chargebacks911 during the time 

at issue in the FTC lawsuit. The screenshots that Chargebacks911 had used to 

dispute chargebacks on behalf of F9 Advertising did not match the actual sales 

webpages depicted and discussed in the FTC’s complaint, but they were consistent 

with the misleading “clean” sales webpage. It was therefore apparent from the 

allegations in the FTC’s complaint that Chargebacks911 had likely used 

misleading Representment Screenshots to dispute F9 Advertising chargebacks. 

67. Even after becoming aware of the Apex Capital and F9 Advertising 

lawsuits, Chargebacks911 did not take meaningful steps to investigate whether the 

Representment Screenshots that it used to dispute chargebacks on behalf of its 

negative-option clients were misleading. Instead, Chargebacks911 continued to 

dispute chargebacks on behalf of negative-option clients such as AH Media using 

misleading Representment Screenshots. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 26 of 51 PageID 26
COMPLAINT

-27- 

H. Suspicious Behavior by Chargebacks911 Clients 

68. Suspicious behavior by numerous clients should have put 

Chargebacks911 on notice that those clients were engaged in misleading marketing 

practices. 

69. When merchants generate persistently high chargeback rates, 

acquiring banks may terminate their existing accounts and prevent them from 

opening new ones. As a result, fraudulent merchants frequently open new 

merchant accounts to replace accounts that have been closed, and conduct sales 

though a large number of accounts to maintain access to payment processing as 

their accounts are closed. In addition, fraudulent merchants may use numerous 

different corporate entities to open merchant accounts to prevent acquiring banks 

from linking the accounts to the merchant—which may be barred from opening 

new merchant accounts—and to secure more processing than would be allowed for 

a single merchant under acquiring bank underwriting standards. 

70. For Chargebacks911 to dispute chargebacks on a merchant’s behalf, it 

needs access to information about the client’s merchant accounts, including the 

name of the nominal entity that registered the account. 

71. Accordingly, Chargebacks911 should have been alerted to potential 

misconduct when its clients conducted sales using a revolving door of merchant 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 27 of 51 PageID 27
COMPLAINT

-28- 

accounts registered to many different corporate entities, especially when the 

merchant used those accounts to sell the same or similar products. 

72. Chargebacks911, however, has disregarded red flags in its clients’ 

behavior and continued to dispute chargebacks filed against them. For example: 

a. From January 2016 to July 2018, Chargebacks911 disputed 

more than five thousand chargebacks for Apex Capital related to a single 

product (“Evermax”) despite the fact that the product was sold through more 

than one hundred separate merchant accounts. In total, Chargebacks911 

fought chargebacks filed against Apex Capital on nearly three hundred 

separate merchant accounts registered to more than thirty different corporate 

entities. 

b. From January 2017 to January 2018, Chargebacks911 disputed 

more than twenty thousand chargebacks for F9 Advertising related to a 

single product (“Revived Youth Cream”) that was sold on nearly two 

hundred separate merchant accounts. In total, Chargebacks911 fought 

chargebacks filed against F9 Advertising on more than two hundred and 

twenty separate merchant accounts registered to more than forty different 

corporate entities. 

c. From February 2017 to April 2019, Chargebacks911 disputed 

more than ten thousand chargebacks for AH Media related to a single 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 28 of 51 PageID 28
COMPLAINT

-29- 

product (“Parisian Glow Skin Cream”) that was sold on more than one 

hundred and fifty separate merchant accounts. In total, Chargebacks911 

fought chargebacks filed against AH Media and the related entity Zanelo on 

more than four hundred merchant accounts registered to nearly one hundred 

separate corporate entities. 

73. A pattern of persistently high chargeback rates is also indicative of 

misleading marketing practices. Numerous Chargebacks911 clients have 

consistently generated high chargeback rates for extended periods of time. For 

example, from April 2017 through March 2019, the combined chargeback rate for 

all AH Media domestic merchant accounts monitored by Chargebacks911 did not 

drop below 1% in any single month, and regularly exceeded 6%. AH Media’s 

combined domestic chargeback rate for that entire twenty-four-month time period 

was more than 6%. 

74. Similarly, from October 2015 through September 2018, the combined 

chargeback rate for all Apex Capital domestic merchant accounts monitored by 

Chargebacks911 did not drop below 1% in any single month, and regularly 

exceeded 4%. Apex Capital’s combined domestic chargeback rate for that entire 

thirty-six-month period exceeded 3%. The combined rate for Apex Capital’s 

offshore merchant accounts over the same period was nearly 5%. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 29 of 51 PageID 29
COMPLAINT

-30- 

75. Moreover, as described in Section F below, Apex Capital used 

Chargebacks911’s VAP service to artificially lower its chargeback rate. Apex 

Capital’s rates would have been even higher without the use of VAP. Indeed, that 

Apex Capital resorted to VAP to avoid chargeback monitoring was itself a major 

red flag about its marketing practices. 

76. At no point, however, did Chargebacks911 seek to ensure that its 

representments were accurate by looking into the marketing practices of Apex 

Capital, AH Media, or other clients whose transaction and chargeback data 

exhibited troubling patterns. 

I. Chargebacks911 Has Affirmatively Altered the Representment 

Screenshots 

77. For some clients, Chargebacks911 has doctored the Representment 

Screenshots to add disclosures that would support the merchant’s case. For 

example, in the 2016 to 2017 timeframe, Chargebacks911 added disclosure 

language to the Representment Screenshots it took for a client selling products 

related to weight loss. In 2017, Chargebacks911 blurred out the disclosure in 

Representment Screenshots it took for a client that operated a pornographic 

website and superimposed disclosure language that would help win chargeback 

disputes. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 30 of 51 PageID 30
COMPLAINT

-31- 

78. Representment Screenshots that have been altered to add or modify 

disclosures are likely to mislead the banks reviewing those chargeback disputes, 

and could result in consumers losing valid chargeback requests. 

J. Chargebacks911 Offered Clients Microtransactions to Lower 

Their Chargeback Rate 

79. From 2013 to 2019, Chargebacks911 offered a select group of clients 

access to its so-called Value-Added Promotions, or “VAP,” service. VAP was 

ostensibly designed to help merchants generate sales from their existing customers 

or prospective customers. The promotional trappings of VAP were merely a 

pretext, however, for the service’s true purpose—artificially lowering the client’s 

chargeback rate. 

80. VAP involved running small-value transactions (e.g., $1.95) through a 

client’s merchant accounts using prepaid gift cards. Small-value transactions that 

do not reflect bona fide sales to consumers are commonly referred to as 

“microtransactions.” Running microtransactions through a merchant account 

inflates the total number of transactions, and thereby artificially lowers the 

account’s monthly chargeback rate, which is calculated as the number of 

chargebacks requested divided by the total number of transactions processed on the 

merchant account. Fraudulent merchants that are able to manipulate their 

chargeback rate can evade or delay scrutiny, and consequently maintain or prolong 

their access to merchant accounts. See ¶ 20 above. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 31 of 51 PageID 31
COMPLAINT

-32- 

81. Chargebacks911 actively participated in effecting VAP 

microtransactions in a variety of ways. Chargebacks911 procured the gift cards for 

clients, provided calculations of the number of VAP transactions that had to be run 

through a given merchant account by the end of the month to ensure that the 

chargeback ratio would drop below a certain threshold, and caused the VAP 

transactions to occur. 

82. Typically, the VAP client would supply Chargebacks911 with a list of 

current or prospective customers. Chargebacks911 would associate each VAP 

charge with a specific consumer and trigger the VAP charge. The consumer 

received an email saying that they could claim the promotional credit by calling a 

customer service phone number. In reality, few consumers called to claim the 

credit. Regardless of whether the consumer claimed the credit, however, the 

transaction would count toward the merchant’s total transactions for the month. 

83. Internal emails demonstrate that Defendants Gary Cardone and 

Monica Eaton were aware of the service’s true purpose. For example: 

a. In May 2016, Defendant Gary Cardone wrote to a VAP client: 

“[I]t looks like you need 6775 [VAP transactions] based on current stats at [a 

target chargeback rate of] 2.75% . . . .” 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 32 of 51 PageID 32
COMPLAINT

-33- 

b. In September 2016, Defendant Monica Eaton wrote to 

Defendant Gary Cardone reminding him to help a client with VAP, noting 

that “this would help guarantee his [merchant accounts] are open.” 

c. In April 2017, a Chargebacks911 employee wrote to 

Defendants Gary Cardone and Monica Eaton about a client, “They need 

triage to lower ratio. I suggest we just get them on vap.” 

84. In addition, various internal glossaries and training documents 

referred to the true purpose of VAP. For example, the glossary in a 

Chargebacks911 “Client Relations Manual” explained that VAP’s purpose was “to 

reduce or dilute the chargeback ratio by increasing the transaction count with 

supplemental transactions in addition to the regular sales.” 

85. Internal emails also demonstrate that Chargebacks911 sought to 

conceal the service’s true purpose. For example: 

a. In April 2017, Defendant Gary Cardone wrote to a 

Chargebacks911 employee to express his concern that a VAP client was 

waiting until too late in the month to run VAP, because running numerous 

small-value transactions at the end of the month would be a red flag for the 

client’s acquiring bank: “[I] [don’t] like the way [a client is] running vap, 

too much all too late...let’s get a call with [the client] and say dude, . . . 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 33 of 51 PageID 33
COMPLAINT

-34- 

either run this stuff or don’t but it’s too cheap [to] run this way and [it’s] 

going to alert their [acquirers] . . . .” 

b. In June 2016, a VAP client asked a Chargebacks911 employee 

to initiate VAP transactions at a slow pace to avoid detection: “[S]ince it’s a 

bigger order [of VAP] can [you] drip them a little slower to not make it look 

suspicious[?]” The Chargebacks911 employee responded: “No 

problem . . . .” 

86. More than 30 merchants used Chargebacks911’s VAP service, 

including Apex Capital. Chargebacks911 was involved in more than four million 

individual VAP transactions. 

87. Chargebacks911’s VAP service harmed consumers by delaying the 

consequences faced by online merchants that generated a significant number of 

chargebacks. For example: 

a. Referring to one large VAP client, Defendant Gary Cardone 

claimed in a September 2016 internal email, “[We] got them out of the ECP 

excessive chargeback program.” 

b. A Chargebacks911 employee wrote in an April 2017 internal 

email about a client: “They are in the visa program and using vap to get 

out.” 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 34 of 51 PageID 34
COMPLAINT

-35- 

88. Chargebacks911 typically charged merchants a fee between $1–2 per 

VAP transaction. Altogether, Chargebacks911 took in more than $6 million from 

its VAP service. 

K. Role of Individual Defendants 

89. Defendant Gary Cardone co-founded Chargebacks911 with his wife 

Defendant Monica Eaton, and he has been the CEO of the company since nearly its 

founding. His responsibilities have included marketing the company’s chargeback 

dispute service and VAP service to prospective clients. He has negotiated pricing 

for the services and signed contracts with clients, including Apex Capital and 

AH Media. He also directed the operations of the VAP service. 

90. Defendant Monica Eaton has been the COO of Chargebacks911 since 

the company was founded. She has directed the operations of the company’s 

chargeback dispute service, including setting company policies and procedures, 

training employees, and managing compliance. In the course of these duties, she 

has reviewed test chargebacks, initial threat assessments, and quarterly reporting 

for clients. She devised the VAP service together with Defendant Gary Cardone, 

and was involved in administering it. 

91. Defendants Gary Cardone and Monica Eaton have been on notice that 

Chargebacks911’s chargeback dispute service has relied on misleading 

documentation. For example, Defendant Monica Eaton has been deeply involved 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 35 of 51 PageID 35
COMPLAINT

-36- 

in the operational side of the representment service, see ¶ 90 above, and they both 

were aware of the FTC’s lawsuit against Apex Capital. See ¶¶ 60–66 above. They 

were also aware of the VAP service’s true purpose and actively participated in 

administering VAP. See, e.g., ¶¶ 83, 85, 87 above. 

L. Defendants’ Unlawful Conduct 

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

FTC has reason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about to violate laws 

enforced by the Commission because, among other things: 

a. Defendants engaged in their unlawful acts and practices over a 

period of several years; 

b. Defendants continued their unlawful acts or practices with 

respect to chargeback disputes despite their awareness of numerous red 

flags; 

c. Defendants engaged in their unlawful acts and practices with 

respect to microtransactions knowingly; and 

d. Defendants remain in the chargeback mitigation business and 

maintain the means, ability, and incentive to continue or resume their 

unlawful conduct. 

 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 36 of 51 PageID 36
COMPLAINT

-37- 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

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

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

94. 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 themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits 

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

Count I 

Unfairly Injuring Consumers by Submitting 

Misleading Chargeback Documentation 

95. As described in Paragraphs 35–78 above, in numerous instances, 

Defendants have submitted to financial institutions, on behalf of their clients, 

misleading or inaccurate documentation in connection with disputing consumer 

chargeback requests. 

96. Due to Defendants’ actions, numerous consumers have likely been 

denied a chargeback of the disputed transaction. Defendants’ actions have caused 

or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that consumers cannot 

reasonably avoid themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits 

to consumers or competition. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 37 of 51 PageID 37
COMPLAINT

-38- 

97. Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 95 

constitute unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 45(a), (n). 

Count II 

Unfairly Injuring Consumers by Administering a Microtransactions Service 

98. As described in Paragraphs 79–88 above, in numerous instances, 

Defendants have effected, or caused to be effected, microtransactions that 

artificially lowered a merchant’s overall chargeback rate by inflating the total 

number of transactions run through the merchant’s account. 

99. Due to Defendants’ actions, fraudulent online merchants were likely 

able to evade or delay detection by chargeback monitoring systems, and thus likely 

avoided or forestalled monitoring programs, penalties, and terminations that would 

have protected consumers. Defendants’ actions have caused or are likely to cause 

substantial injury to consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid themselves 

and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 

100. Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 98 

constitute unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 45(a), (n). 

 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 38 of 51 PageID 38
COMPLAINT

-39- 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR 

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 

101. The purpose of FDUTPA is to “protect the consuming public and 

legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of 

competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the 

conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.202(2). 

102. Under FDUTPA, unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct 

of any trade or commerce are unlawful. Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1). 

Count III (Against Chargebacks911) 

(By Plaintiff Florida Attorney General) 

103. As set forth in Paragraphs 1–15 and 17–88 above, which allegations 

are incorporated as if set forth herein, Chargebacks911 has committed acts and 

practices that are unfair or deceptive in violation of FDUTPA. 

104. In the course of Chargebacks911’s trade or commerce, 

Chargebacks911 has violated FDUTPA by submitting misleading or inaccurate 

documentation in connection with disputing consumer chargeback requests on 

behalf of their clients, as more fully described above in Paragraphs 35–78. Due to 

Chargebacks911’s actions, numerous consumers were likely denied a chargeback 

of the disputed transaction. 

105. In the course of Chargebacks911’s trade or commerce, 

Chargebacks911 has violated FDUTPA through its VAP service by effecting, or 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 39 of 51 PageID 39
COMPLAINT

-40- 

causing to be effected, microtransactions that artificially lowered a merchant’s 

overall chargeback rate by inflating the total number of transactions run through 

the merchant’s account, as more fully described above in Paragraphs 79–88. Due 

to these actions, fraudulent online merchants were likely able to evade or delay 

detection by chargeback monitoring systems, and thus likely avoided or forestalled 

monitoring programs, penalties, and terminations that would have protected 

consumers. 

106. The actions and related business practices of Chargebacks911 as set 

forth in this Complaint shock the conscience. 

107. Through the actions and related business practices set forth in this 

Complaint, Chargebacks911 is committing acts or practices in trade or commerce 

that offend established public policy and are unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, 

or substantially injurious to consumers. 

108. Chargebacks911’s actions and related business practices set forth in 

this Complaint cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that 

consumers cannot reasonably avoid themselves and that is not outweighed by 

countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 

109. Therefore, Chargebacks911 engaged in unfair or unconscionable acts 

or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce in violation of 

Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 40 of 51 PageID 40
COMPLAINT

-41- 

110. Chargebacks911 should be subject to civil penalties for willful 

violations of FDUTPA in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) for each 

violation pursuant to Section 501.2075, Florida Statutes, and Fifteen Thousand 

Dollars ($15,000) for each violation that victimized, or attempted to victimize, a 

senior citizen pursuant to Section 501.2077, Florida Statutes. 

111. Chargebacks911 engaged in and could continue to engage in 

deceptive and unfair acts and practices in that Chargebacks911 knew or should 

have known that the methods, acts, or practices alleged herein were and are unfair, 

deceptive, unconscionable, and prohibited by law. 

112. These above-described acts and practices of Chargebacks911 have 

caused substantial injury to the public and will likely continue to cause injury and 

prejudice the public. 

113. Unless Chargebacks911 is permanently enjoined from engaging 

further in the acts and practices complained of herein, Chargebacks911’s actions 

will continue to result in irreparable injury to the public for which there is no 

adequate remedy at law. 

Count IV (Against Gary Cardone) 

(By Plaintiff Florida Attorney General) 

114. As set forth in Paragraphs 1–15, 17–89, and 91 above, which 

allegations are incorporated as if set forth herein, Gary Cardone has committed acts 

and practices that are unfair or deceptive in violation of FDUTPA. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 41 of 51 PageID 41
COMPLAINT

-42- 

115. Under FDUTPA, once corporate liability is established, an individual 

defendant may be individually liable if he participated directly in the deceptive or 

unfair practices or acts or he possessed the authority to control them. Therefore, 

Paragraphs 104–13 above are incorporated as if set forth herein, which relate to the 

corporate liability of Chargebacks911. 

116. Gary Cardone is a co-founder of Chargebacks911 and at all times 

relevant to this action, he has been the CEO and in charge of the operations of 

Chargebacks911. 

117. At all times relevant to this action, Gary Cardone has had personal 

knowledge and control of Chargebacks911’s business practices at issue in this 

Complaint, including but not limited to the acts and practices related to chargeback 

dispute services and the VAP service. 

118. At all times relevant to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with 

others, Gary Cardone has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to 

control, or participated in the acts and practices of Chargebacks911, including the 

acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. 

119. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Gary Cardone has marketed 

Chargebacks911’s chargeback dispute services to new clients. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 42 of 51 PageID 42
COMPLAINT

-43- 

120. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Gary Cardone has been aware, 

or should have been aware, that Chargebacks911’s chargeback services relied on 

misleading documentation when submitting representments. 

121. Even after learning of the FTC’s suit against client, Apex Capital, 

Gary Cardone had the ability to control but did not change any business practices 

regarding Chargebacks911’s chargeback dispute services, including but not limited 

to using misleading or inaccurate documentation or only using “bank pages” for 

representments. 

122. At times relevant to this action, Gary Cardone negotiated pricing for 

services and signed contracts on behalf of Chargebacks911 with clients. 

123. At times relevant to this action, Gary Cardone was not only aware of 

the company’s VAP service and its true purpose, he also directed the operations of 

the VAP service, including but not limited to directing Chargebacks911 employees 

as to how the VAP service should be administered to avoid detection by the 

merchants’ acquiring banks. Even though Gary Cardone was aware of the 

company’s VAP service and its true purpose, or at a minimum, he should have 

been aware of the intent behind the VAP service, he did nothing to terminate or 

change such business practices. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 43 of 51 PageID 43
COMPLAINT

-44- 

124. At times relevant to this action, Gary Cardone also communicated 

with Chargebacks911’s clients as to how to use the VAP service to achieve a target 

chargeback rate. 

125. Through the actions and related business practices set forth in this 

Complaint, Gary Cardone has committed or is committing acts or practices in trade 

or commerce that offend established public policy and are unethical, oppressive, 

unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers. 

126. The actions and related business practices of Chargebacks911, and of 

Gary Cardone as CEO of Chargebacks911, as set forth in this Complaint shock the 

conscience. 

127. Through the actions and related business practices set forth in this 

Complaint, Gary Cardone is engaging in or has engaged in acts or practices that 

have caused substantial injury to consumers. This substantial injury is not 

reasonably avoidable by the consumers themselves and is not outweighed by 

countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 

128. Thus, Gary Cardone is engaged in or has engaged in unfair, deceptive, 

or unconscionable acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce in 

violation of Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes. 

129. Gary Cardone should be subject to civil penalties for willful violations 

of FDUTPA in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) for each violation 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 44 of 51 PageID 44
COMPLAINT

-45- 

pursuant to Section 501.2075, Florida Statutes, and Fifteen Thousand Dollars 

($15,000) for each violation that victimized, or attempted to victimize, a senior 

citizen pursuant to Section 501.2077, Florida Statutes. 

130. At all times material to this action, Gary Cardone has willfully 

engaged in and continues to engage in deceptive and unfair acts and practices in 

that he knew or should have known that the methods, acts, or practices alleged 

herein were and are unfair, deceptive, unconscionable, and prohibited by law. 

131. Unless Gary Cardone is permanently enjoined from engaging further 

in the acts and practices complained of herein, his actions will continue to result in 

irreparable injury to the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law. 

Count V (Against Monica Eaton) 

(By Plaintiff Florida Attorney General) 

132. As set forth in Paragraphs 1–15, 17–88, and 90–91 above, which 

allegations are incorporated as if set forth herein, Monica Eaton has committed acts 

and practices that are unfair or deceptive in violation of FDUTPA. 

133. Under FDUTPA, once corporate liability is established, an individual 

defendant may be individually liable if he participated directly in the deceptive or 

unfair practices or acts or he possessed the authority to control them. Therefore, 

Paragraphs 104–13 above are incorporated as if set forth herein, which relate to the 

corporate liability of Chargebacks911. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 45 of 51 PageID 45
COMPLAINT

-46- 

134. Monica Eaton is a co-founder of Chargebacks911 and at all times 

relevant to this action, she has been the COO and has controlled the day-to-day 

operations of Chargebacks911. 

135. At all times relevant to this action, Monica Eaton has had personal 

knowledge and control of Chargebacks911’s business practices at issue in this 

Complaint, including but not limited to the acts and practices related to chargeback 

dispute services and the VAP service. 

136. At all times relevant to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with 

others, Monica Eaton has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to 

control, or participated in the acts and practices of Chargebacks911, including the 

acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. 

137. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Monica Eaton has directed the 

operations of the Chargebacks911’s chargeback dispute service, including setting 

company policies and procedures, training employees, and managing compliance. 

In the course of these duties, she has reviewed test chargebacks, initial threat 

assessments, and quarterly reporting for clients. 

138. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Monica Eaton has been aware 

that Chargebacks911’s chargeback services relied on misleading documentation 

when submitting representments. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 46 of 51 PageID 46
COMPLAINT

-47- 

139. As further discussed in Paragraph 29 above, Monica Eaton directed 

Chargebacks911’s employees to remove information from screenshots presented to 

banks, specifically the website address or URL on the Representment Screenshots. 

140. Even after learning of the FTC’s suit against clients, Apex Capital and 

F9 Advertising, Monica Eaton had the ability to control but did not change any 

business practices regarding Chargebacks911’s chargeback dispute services, 

including but not limited to using misleading or inaccurate documentation or only 

using “bank pages” for representments. 

141. Monica Eaton devised the VAP service together with Defendant, Gary 

Cardone, and at all times relevant to this Complaint, she was actively involved in 

administering Chargebacks911’s VAP service. 

142. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Monica Eaton was aware of 

the company’s VAP service and its true purpose, or at a minimum, she should have 

been aware of the intent behind the VAP Service, and she did nothing to terminate 

or change such business practices. 

143. Through the actions and related business practices set forth in this 

Complaint, Monica Eaton has committed or is committing acts or practices in trade 

or commerce that offend established public policy and are unethical, oppressive, 

unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 47 of 51 PageID 47
COMPLAINT

-48- 

144. The actions and related business practices of Chargebacks911, and of 

Monica Eaton as COO of Chargebacks911, as set forth in this Complaint shock the 

conscience. 

145. Through the actions and related business practices set forth in this 

Complaint, Monica Eaton is engaging in or has engaged in acts or practices that 

have caused substantial injury to consumers. This substantial injury is not 

reasonably avoidable by the consumers themselves and is not outweighed by 

countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 

146. Thus, Monica Eaton is engaged in or has engaged in unfair, deceptive, 

or unconscionable acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce in 

violation of Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes. 

147. Monica Eaton should be subject to civil penalties for willful violations 

of FDUTPA in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) for each violation 

pursuant to Section 501.2075, Florida Statutes, and Fifteen Thousand Dollars 

($15,000) for each violation that victimized, or attempted to victimize, a senior 

citizen pursuant to Section 501.2077, Florida Statutes. 

148. At all times material to this action, Monica Eaton has willfully 

engaged in and continues to engage in deceptive and unfair acts and practices in 

that she knew or should have known that the methods, acts, or practices alleged 

herein were and are unfair, deceptive, unconscionable, and prohibited by law. 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 48 of 51 PageID 48
COMPLAINT

-49- 

149. Unless Monica Eaton is permanently enjoined from engaging further 

in the acts and practices complained of herein, her actions will continue to result in 

irreparable injury to the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law. 

CONSUMER INJURY 

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

substantial injury as a result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act and the 

Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Absent injunctive relief by this 

Court, Defendants are likely to continue to injure consumers and harm the public 

interest. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Plaintiffs request that the Court: 

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

Act and FDUTPA by Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, 

attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them, who 

receive actual notice of the injunction; 

B. Award monetary and other relief within the Court’s power to grant; 

C. Enter a judgment in favor of the Florida Attorney General against 

Chargebacks911 on Count III; 

D. Enter a judgment in favor of the Florida Attorney General against 

Gary Cardone on Count IV; 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 49 of 51 PageID 49
COMPLAINT

-50- 

E. Enter a judgment in favor of the Florida Attorney General against 

Monica Eaton on Count V; 

F. Award such legal, equitable or other relief against Defendants, jointly 

and severally, as is just and appropriate pursuant to Section 501.207(3), Florida 

Statutes, including but not limited to restitution to consumers and disgorgement of 

all ill-gotten gains; 

G. Assess civil penalties against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the 

amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) for each violation for each violation of 

Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Section 501.2075, Florida 

Statutes, and Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) for each violation that 

victimized, or attempted to victimize, a senior citizen in accordance with 

Section 501.277(2), Florida Statutes; 

H. Award the Florida Attorney General all expenses in bringing and 

maintaining this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 

Sections 501.2105 and 501.2075, Florida Statutes, and as otherwise may be 

allowable by applicable statutes or law; and 

I. Award any additional relief as the Court determines to be just and 

proper, including but not limited to all equitable relief allowed pursuant to 

Section 501.207(3), Florida Statutes. 

 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 50 of 51 PageID 50
COMPLAINT

-51- 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: April 12, 2023 

EVAN ROSE (Lead Counsel) 

Cal. Bar No. 253478 

ROBERTA DIANE TONELLI 

Cal. Bar No. 278738 

90 Seventh St, Suite 14-300 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Email: erose@ftc.gov; rtonelli@ftc.gov 

Tel: (415) 848-5100; Fax: (415) 848-5184 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

ASHLEY MOODY 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 

Jennifer Hayes Pinder (Lead Counsel) 

Assistant Bureau Chief, Tampa 

Fla. Bar No.: 17325 

Email: Jennifer.Pinder@myfloridalegal.com 

Office of the Attorney General 

Department of Legal Affairs 

3507 East Frontage Rd, Suite 325 

Tampa, FL 33607 

Phone: 813-287-7950 

Fax: 813-281-5515 

Case 8:23-cv-00796 Document 1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 51 of 51 PageID 51