Source: https://leonardlawoffice.com/page/2/
Timestamp: 2020-04-09 09:43:35
Document Index: 741312728

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§227', '§ 227', '§ 64', '§ 227', '§ 105', '§ 2', 'art 1', 'art 3', '§ 227', '§ 105', '§ 104', '§ 105', '§1', '§ 37', '§ 37', '§ 27', '§ 37', '§ 1692', '§ 1692']

Leonard Law Office | Page 2
March 1, 2014 · 5:19 pm
Massachusetts State, County, and City Consumer Protection Offices
Massachusetts State Offices
617-727-8400 (Consumer Hotline)
Hangtime Text Message / Privacy Class Action Filed in Massachusetts Federal Court
The case is about unsolicited text messages that allegedly violate federal telemarketing and Massachusetts consumer protection law.
A text from hangtime is below:
The Hangtime TCPA Class action complaint (PDF) asserts:
– In a misguided effort to promote its mobile application or “app,” Hangtime engages in an invasive and unlawful form of marketing: the unauthorized transmission of advertising in the form of “text message” calls to the cellular telephones of consumers throughout the nation.
– By effectuating these unauthorized text message calls (“wireless spam”), Hangtime has violated consumers’ statutory rights and has caused consumers actual harm, not only because consumers were subjected to the aggravation that necessarily accompanies wireless spam, but also because consumers frequently have to pay their cell phone service providers for the receipt of such wireless spam.
– In order to redress these injuries, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals, and a Massachusetts subclass, brings action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“47 U.S.C. § 227”) (the “TCPA”), which prohibits unsolicited voice and text calls to cell phones, and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L. c. 93A, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
– Unlike more conventional advertisements, wireless spam invades privacy and can actually cost its recipients money, because cell phone users like Plaintiff must frequently either pay their respective wireless service providers for each text message call they receive or incur a usage allocation deduction to their text plan, regardless of whether or not the message is authorized.
– Over the course of an extended period beginning in at least 2013, Hangtime and its agents directed the mass transmission of wireless spam to the cell phones nationwide of what they hoped were potential customers of Hangtime’s social networking services.
– For instance, on or about December 29, 2013, Plaintiff’s cell phone rang, indicating that a text call was being received.
– The “from” field of the transmission was identified cryptically as “14158153107,” which is a special purpose telephone number known as a long code operated by Hangtime and its agents. The body of such text message read:
Mikey Leftside shared events with you on Hangtime. http://hangti.me/XiEpF6mLKc
– Hangtime’s and its agents’ use of a long code enabled Hangtime’s mass transmission of wireless spam to a list of cellular telephone numbers.
– Hangtime sent these messages using equipment with the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator and to dial such numbers
– By use of these methods, Hangtime sent text messages that were the same or practically the same as the message sent to Plaintiff, referenced in Paragraph 15 above, to numerous cell phones throughout the country.
– These text messages, including the text message sent to Plaintiff did not originate from, nor were they created by, the individuals referenced in the messages (though the messages were intended and made to appear that way). Rather, the messages sent to Plaintiff and other class members originated from and were created by Hangtime as a promotional device for its service.
Filed under Current Cases
Tagged as Hangtime, Massachusetts TCPA lawyer, TCPA
February 23, 2014 · 2:14 pm
Securities Fraud Class Action Investigation: Merge Healthcare Inc. (Nasdaq: MRGE)
Securities fraud takes a variety of forms. All dishonest actions on the part of publicly traded corporations can cause their investors serious financial harm. When the market reacts negatively to news of wrongdoing, share prices decrease, and investors lose money.
Merge Healthcare’s Falsified Contracts and Overstated Figures
On January 8, 2014, MRGE issued a corrective disclosure (PDF) confessing that the company had “falsified the existence or amount of certain customer contracts.” This is the second time Merge Healthcare has had problems with ethics. In 2009, the SEC charged two former senior executives with accounting fraud, in a scandal that caused the stock price to plummet. Continue reading →
Tagged as biotech stocks, Merge Healthcare, MRGE, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Securities Fraud
February 16, 2014 · 1:34 pm
Harvard University’s “Collossal” Payroll Blunder
According to two Harvard Law School professors (see below) Harvard’s initial handling of massive payroll error was misleading and inadequate.
Did Havard’s tax error and resulting payroll mistakes violate Massachusetts Wage and Hour Laws?
Does Harvard owe far more than it claims?
To: HLS Faculty and Staff
From: Professors Alvin Warren and Daniel Halperin
Re: Major Harvard Tax Error
We write in response to requests for our views regarding a letter from the Harvard Benefits Office dated January 21, 2014 concerning Harvard supplemental life insurance. If you received this letter, it is because the University reported too much taxable income for you to the federal and state governments for one or more taxable years beginning in 2009. If you did not receive the letter, you need not read any further.
In our view, the letter misstates the law and is misleading as to both the scope of the problem and the University’s responsibility to make some 11,000 employees whole for a monumental mistake by the central administration. After reviewing the letter, we met with a group of responsible personnel in Harvard’s central administration. The good news is that we think that they understand just how misleading the letter is. Although nothing has been decided, they are also aware of our position that the University must make its faculty and staff whole for excess taxes we paid on more than $20,000,000 of income that we did not receive, but which was erroneously reported by Harvard to the federal and state governments on our W-2 forms.
These are the facts as provided to us by the central administration: Prior to 2009, the University’s pricing of supplemental life insurance resulted in some employees receiving what the IRS regarded as taxable subsidies that had to be reported as income. In 2009, the University changed the pricing of the insurance so that there were no more taxable subsidies. The Harvard administration nonetheless continued to report taxable income to the federal and state governments, as though no change had been made. This taxable income was included on employees’ W-2 forms, so we paid taxes on income that we did not receive. The central administration first became aware of possible overreporting in October 2013. The first communication to the faculty and staff regarding the issue was the January 21, 2014 letter.
The letter misstates the law. It says that “IRS regulations do not allow the University to assist you in filing for a state or federal income tax refund.” There is no such regulation.
The letter does not accurately present the scope of the problem. It says that “For many people, the amount of the over-reported income was less that $200 per year.” That is true, but for some employees, the amount exceeds $10,000. Nowhere is the total scope of the problem frankly presented. We were told in our meeting that more than 11,000 current and former employees are affected, with the total amount of overreported income exceeding $20,000,000. In our judgment, to mention in the letter only those employees for whom the amount involved is less than $200 per year is misleading as to the true extent of the problem.
The letter fails to reveal all of the years for which there is a problem. The letter only discusses 2011-13, but the overreporting also occurred in 2009 and 2010. This fact is obscured by the vague expression in the first paragraph, which states that the problem involves “several years prior to 2014.” The full scope of the years involved is never disclosed. The federal statute of limitations has run for 2009, so no refund can be claimed for that year unless an employee’s tax return is still open due to, for example, an audit. The federal statute of limitations for 2010 runs on April 15, 2014, but the administration does not believe it can provide corrected W-2 forms by then.
Most grievously, the letter fails to accept Harvard’s responsibility to make its employees whole for its monumental error. Although 11,000 Harvard employees were victims of the administration’s error, the only remedy presented in the letter is for each of the victims to file amended tax returns with the state and federal governments. The only “resources” offered in the “Frequently Asked Questions” that accompanied the letter are a couple of links to federal (not state) government tax sites.
In our view, Harvard has a responsibility to make its employees whole for its colossal error. For taxable year 2013 (for which returns are due on April 15, 2014) , the central administration hopes to send us corrected W-2 forms somewhat earlier than the March 21 date mentioned in the letter. As to earlier years, it seems to us that the only viable choices are as follows: (1) For years in which amended returns are precluded by the statue of limitations (2009 and 2010, depending on the circumstances), Harvard should offer to reimburse employees for the excess taxes they paid due to the University’s error. These amounts should be compounded to present value. (2) For years in which amended returns are possible, the University should offer employees either (a) reimbursement of excess taxes paid (again compounded to present value) or (b) free professional preparation of amended tax returns. The latter might be done in easily accessible locations on campus or by reimbursement of professional fees for faculty and staff who preferred to use a different return preparer. Some employees might, of course, prefer not to accept either offer and to prepare their own amended returns.
To do anything less than the steps described in the preceding paragraph would indicate that the central administration does not believe that it has an obligation to take responsibility for its errors. Nothing could be further from the core values of truth and honesty that infuse teaching and research at this University. At our meeting with the central administration, we expressed this view with considerable force.
Finally, if you want to see the amount that was overreported for you, it does not appear on your W-2 form. As indicated at the top of the second page of the “Frequently Asked Questions” that accompanied the January 21 letter, that information can be found in a year-to-date total on your December paycheck for each year.
You received a letter from the Harvard Benefits Office dated January 21 regarding an error in IRS Forms W-2 in which Harvard incorrectly reported imputed income on supplemental life insurance for you and others. I offer my sincere apologies for the error itself and for the failure of the initial letter to communicate effectively, including about the nature and scope of the problem, and Harvard’s proposed response.
I write now to correct inaccuracies in the letter, to inform you of steps Harvard will take to assist affected individuals, and to provide additional information in the interest of greater clarity and transparency that you have every right to expect.
The University began to investigate a possible error in reporting of imputed income in October 2013. The problem resulted from a change in the structure of the supplemental life insurance plan in 2009 which meant that income should no longer have been imputed for the benefit.
Overall, the income incorrectly reported for years 2009 through 2013 was significant, estimated to be in excess of $20M for approximately 11,000 affected former and current University employees, while the effect on individual employee’s taxes varied widely. For example, in 2013, the error resulted in less than $200 of imputed income for approximately 60% of affected employees. However, the annual impact was significantly greater for some over $1,000 of imputed income in 2013 for about 13% of those employees affected last year and over $10,000 of imputed income in 2013 for a small number of individuals.
The initial letter misstated the type of assistance the University is able to provide in rectifying the erroneously imputed income. We had intended the letter to note that the University itself could not apply for a state or federal income tax refund on an employee’s behalf. The letter instead said that the University could not assist employees in filing for a refund. This was not accurate. Indeed, the University can provide assistance and, as described below, is actively considering how best to do so.
The original communication did not include steps Harvard would take to support affected members of the community. That was a mistake and we recognize our obligation to ensure that those affected do not incur any financial losses related to this situation. Specifically:
* For 2009 and 2010 we will make payments to current and former employees for excess taxes paid, plus interest. If taxes are due on the foregoing payments, we will reimburse individuals for taxes owed.
* For 2011 and 2012, affected employees can recover the excess tax payments by filing amended tax returns. We recognize that this represents an inconvenience and are committed to doing all that we can to help. We will reimburse individuals for out-of-pocket tax preparation costs, after taxes, if any, that they incur as a result of filing amended returns. We will offer educational programming on filing an amended return. We are also exploring the feasibility of making available tax preparation services that will provide confidential assistance and that will be independent of the University. For individuals with small refund claims, for whom the cost of filing a claim would exceed the amount to be refunded, we will offer the alternative of a cash payment by Harvard in lieu of the individual’s filing a refund claim. If taxes are due on these payments, we will reimburse individuals for taxes owed. We currently anticipate that corrected Forms W-2 for 2011 and 2012 will be available in the early summer.
* We are ahead of schedule for the issuance of corrected Forms W-2 for 2013 and expect they will be delivered earlier in March than originally anticipated and communicated. To avoid the need to file an amended tax return for 2013, we suggest that you delay your filing until you receive the corrected Form W-2.
Going beyond support for affected individuals, we plan to undertake a review, with the assistance of outside experts, of the tax treatment of our benefits programs to ensure there are no additional deficiencies in our processes and practices.
More details of the University’s mitigation efforts will be sent to you in the coming weeks. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Harvard Benefits at Benefits@harvard.edu.
In closing, please accept my sincere apology. We are working to remedy this situation and to ensure an error like this does not occur again.
Marilyn Hausammann
Harvard’s Mistake Costs 11,000 Employess (Boston Globe) (PDF)
Harvard / Yale Football Game – 2013
February 13, 2014 · 10:00 am
Michael’s Stores Credit Card Privacy / Unsolicited Marketing Case Settles
Massachusetts federal judge William G. Young granted preliminary approval on Wednesday February, 12, 2013 to an $875,000 settlement resolving a class action that accused arts-and-crafts retailer Michael’s Stores Inc. of improperly demanding ZIP Codes from its customers during transactions and then sending them junk mail. See the settlement docs: [PDF]
In this class action, Michael’s stores was sued for allegedly violating M.G.L. c. 93A sec 9 (Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act) and M.G.L. c. 93 sec. 105(a) (Massachusetts Credit Card Privacy Act). This is the seminal case in the area of credit card privacy under Massachusetts law. Class counsel took the case all the way to the SJC. In mid 2013, they won a decision from the Commonwealth’s highest state court declaring that (1) ZIP codes constitute “Personal Identification Information” in the context of M.G.L. c. 93 sec. 105(a); and (2) receipt of unsolicited marketing materials or junk mail occasioned by an underlying violation of sec. 105(a) is an injury under 93A.
Filed under Boston News
Tagged as junk mail, michael's stores settlement, michaels stores, ZIP code
January 12, 2014 · 3:18 pm
Phishing Attacks, Paypal Accounts, and Fraudulent Charges
What does it mean if you have fraudulent charges on your Paypal Account?
It probably means two things:
#1: You opened a “phishing” email.
#2: A keylogger is recording everything you type and capturing your secret login/password information, as well as other private materials, and sending it to all to a wrongdoer.
Phishing is a way to send a real-looking email to an unsuspecting victim to fraudulently obtain something of value. In the words of an actual phisher:
“PayPal’s security is not the best but it’s well secured. The probable reason for the fraudulent charges are phishing mails, that probably installed a Keylogger on his computer and got the Login details from that way. It’s the easiest way, if he doesn’t have a hi-tech antivirus software.”
A keylogger is a program that records each keystroke and sends the information to someone else through the Internet.
Successful phishing attacks depend on a valid-looking email, and a link contained in the email. Below is an example of one such email claiming to provide a death notification:
From: Hubbell Funeral Home <info@assortjapan.com>
Subject: Death notification
Hubbel Funeral Home
Simply Compassionate
We would like to express our deepest sorrow for the untimely death of your beloved
friend and inform you about the life service celebration that will take place at
Hubbell Funeral Home on February 20, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.
Please follow this link [malware link removed] to get funeral invitation.
Please be there to honor the memory of your friend with her closest people.
Our best wishes and prayers,
99 North Indian Rocks Road | Belleair Bluffs, Florida 33770
Phone 727-584-7671 | Fax 727-584-1073
(1) Be suspicious. First of all, a sender’s email address is easy to fake. There are ways to digitally forge information in such a way that an email appears to be from a trusted source – ie. security@citibank.com. So, just because you trust the sender, the message may not really be from a trusted source.
(1) If an email asks you for personal information, NEVER provide it. Banks and legitimate online businesses such as Ebay, Amazon, and Paypal do not send customers emails asking them for:
(2) Do not click on links within emails, unless you are 100% sure it is from a real person whom you trust, i.e a friend emailing you an interesting article from the New York Times. Unfortuntely, you can unknowingly download keylogging software or other malicous programs just by one click on the wrong hyperlink.
(3) Do not open software or attachments sent you to from an untrusted email sender.
Computer & Financial Account Security
It is foolish not to have a high quality anti-virus program that is up to date. AVG Free 2014, which doesn’t cost anything, may be good enough to scan for keyloggers and keep your machine secure.
If you have had fraudulent charges on a credit card, debit card, or Paypal account, you should have your cards inactivated and reissued.
The easiest way to compromise an account is by guessing the password. Never use an idiotic password such as “Password.” Frequently change all of your passwords, and do not use the same password for everything. A secure password has these characteristics:
Contains no words found in the dictionary
Consists of a blend of uppercase and lowercase letters
Has at least one number and one symbol
Is at least ten characters in length
Impossible to guess based on who you are
Known only to one person: you
Has not been used for your other accounts in the past
Varieties of Phishing Attacks
Phishing emails are infinitely creative. Scammers will stop at nothing to trick people into clicking on a link contained within an email. The notice below from February 2014, warns of a creative tactic used by criminals:
The federal judiciary has learned of an email scam, in which emails purporting to come from
federal and state courts are infecting recipients with computer viruses.
According to the Security Operations Center of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the
emails are instructing recipients to report to a hearing on a specified day and time. The emails
also instruct recipients to review an attached document for detailed case information. When the
attachments or links in the email are opened, a malicious program is launched that infects the
recipient’s computer. Several state courts have reported similar schemes, and also are warning
the public about potential viruses.
Unless you are actively involved in a case in federal court and have consented to receive court
notifications electronically, you generally will not be served with court documents electronically.
If you receive an email regarding a federal court case or matter of which you are unaware that is
purported to be from this district court, you should contact the CM/ECF help desk at 866-239-
6233 before opening any attachments or links. You may use the court locator
(http://www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx) to find contact information for other federal courts.
January 8, 2014 · 10:30 pm
DNA tester 23andMe Inc. has been hit with a class action in which the company is accused of falsely advertising its saliva collection kit and personal genome service product as accurately providing health reports on more than 240 genetic medical conditions.
December 20, 2013 · 12:51 pm
Target Data Breach Class Action Complaint Filed in Massachusetts
The Target Data Breach Class Action
Update (8/27/14)
The Consolidated National Target Data Breach Class Action Complaint (PDF) was filed on 8/25/14.
Update: (4/4/14)
The Target cases have been transferred (PDF) to Minnesota, Target’s home state.
Update: (1/21/14)
The Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) offer protection if your credit, ATM, or debit cards are lost or stolen.
Tagged as ATM, Brian Krebs, class action, Data breach, debit card, Federal Trade Commission, Identity theft, Personally identifiable information, Target, Theft
December 16, 2013 · 9:10 pm
The Incredible Nuisance of Junk Faxes
Unsolicited faxes damage their recipients. A junk fax recipient loses the use of its fax machine, paper, and ink toner. An unsolicited fax wastes the recipient’s valuable time that would have been spent on something else. A junk fax interrupts the recipient’s privacy. Unsolicited faxes prevent fax machines from receiving authorized faxes, prevent their use for authorized outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and tear on the recipients’ fax machines, and require additional labor to attempt to discern the source and purpose of the unsolicited message.
In 1991, Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (“TCPA”) to regulate the explosive growth of the telemarketing industry. In so doing, Congress recognized that “unrestricted telemarketing . . . can be an intrusive invasion of privacy . . .” See 47 U.S.C. § 227, Congressional Statement of Findings #5. Specifically, in enacting the TCPA, Congress outlawed telemarketing via unsolicited facsimile (“Junk Fax”). See 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(C).
Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act makes it “unlawful for any person within the United States. . . to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement.” See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C); see also 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(3).
Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited fax advertisements can file suit in federal or state court to collect the greater of $500 or actual damages for each violation, and/or obtain an injunction. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). If a court determines that the violations were willful or knowing, damages can be tripled. This means that every distinct junk fax sent out could result in damages of $1,500.
Example of a “Junk Fax”:
Hold the phone! Court awards Westwood lawyer $2,500 for receiving junk faxes (nj.com)
Win! U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Federal Jurisdiction Over Consumer Telemarketing Claims (gloucestercitynews.net)
‘Junk fax’ suit can go national, U.S. judge rules (thedailyrecord.com)
Tagged as junk fax, sue junk faxer, TCPA, Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
November 22, 2013 · 1:31 pm
FTC Finally Stops (well, not really) The Most Annoying Robocallers Ever: “Rachel from Card Services”
According to the FTC, the agency has reached a settlement with the people behind the “Rachel from Card Services” robocalls. The individuals mentioned are Emory L. “Jack” Holley IV and Lisa Miller. Going after the source of these obnoxious robocalls was one the most useful activities of the FTC in 2013. Unfortunately, however, it didn’t work. I received a call from Rachel on December 16, 2013.
FTC’s announcement:
“Final Six Defendants in ‘Rachel Robocall’ Scheme Settle FTC Charges – They Will Be Permanently Banned from All Telemarketing and Debt Relief Services – The final six of 10 defendants named in an alleged “Rachel from Cardholder Services” scam have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they misled consumers with bogus claims that they would lower their credit card interest rates.The FTC settlement bans Emory L. “Jack” Holley IV, Lisa Miller, and the remaining corporate defendants from telemarketing and marketing debt relief services or assisting others in such conduct, prohibits them from misrepresenting any products or services, and imposes a partially suspended $11.9 million judgment. The FTC filed its complaint in this matter in October 2012, alleging that the defendants violated Section 5 of the FTC Act and the agency’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by charging illegal up-front fees during telemarketing calls in which they made false promises to reduce the interest rate on consumers’ credit cards and save them thousands of dollars.”
How did they get away with it for so long?
Will they really stop?
Final Six Defendants in ‘Rachel Robocall’ Scheme Settle FTC Charges (ftc.gov)
FTC announces winners of robocall challenge (pubcit.typepad.com)
Deceptive Robocallers Permanently Shut Down In FTC Settlements (ftc.gov)
FTC disconnects ‘Rachel from Card Services’ robocalls (oregonlive.com)
FTC Settlement Bans Marketer from Selling Debt Relief Services, Telemarketing, and Robocalling (ftc.gov)
Rachel Robocall Complaint
Rachel Robocall Settlement
Rachel from Card Services is back at it as of December 16, 2013!
Call from Rachel from Card Services (December 16, 2013)
Tagged as Emory L. “Jack” Holley IV, Lisa Miller, Rachel from card services
November 7, 2013 · 5:20 pm
MAC Faces Privacy Class Action in Massachusetts
On November 5, 2013, the Leonard Law Office filed a class action lawsuit against MAC Cosmetics, alleging violations of Massachusetts credit card privacy and consumer protection laws.
MAC Cosmetics – Newbury Street
If you have information about MAC’s business practices related to credit card transactions, or believe you were affected by conduct that is the basis of this case (by MAC or any other Massachusetts retailer) you are welcome to contact us.
Excerpts of the class action complaint are pasted below:
“Plaintiff brings this action for redress of the unlawful practice of MAC of collecting ZIP codes at checkout at its Massachusetts stores from customers who make purchases with Credit Cards, recording that information as part of the Credit Card transaction, and then using that information for its own marketing and promotional purposes, including to send unsolicited marketing and promotional materials, or “junk mail.” This practice, which has affected Plaintiff and members of the Class, as described and defined herein, is an invasion of privacy and violates G. L. c. 93 § 105(a) and G. L. c. 93A, § 2.
Filed under Boston News, Class Action Lawsuits
Tagged as class action, MAC Cosmetics
October 24, 2013 · 1:01 pm
Do weight loss products containing Hydrocitric Acid (HCA) work as advertised? Do they contain as much HCA as advertised?
Does Hydroxycitric acid (“HCA”) work as a weight loss agent? If you have purchased a weight loss product containing Hydrocitric acid (HCA) or Garcinia Cambogia, and found that the results did not live up to product claims, you are welcome to contact us.
Top Garcinia (HCA) supplement brands
Puritan’s Pride Super Citrimax
Nature’s Plus Citrimax
Warning: Six HCA products on this list have been been found to contain 16% to 81% of the HCA claimed on the label. If you have purchased any of these products, and believe you were misled, you are welcome to contact us.
Must Know Tips For Selecting The Best Garcinia Cambogia Extract Supplements
Tagged as diet, HCA, hydro citric acid, Hydroxycitric acid
September 29, 2013 · 10:36 pm
Legal Discussion: Stalking, Harrassment, and Massachusetts Law
Massachusetts has several laws dealing with unwanted, harassing contact. Criminal charges for Stalking, under M.G.L. ch. 265 s. 43 can result in a term in state prison of up to 5 years or a fine of up to $1,000. Criminal Harassment under M.G.L. ch. 43A carries a sentence of up to 2 ½ years in prison. Some forms of electronic communication, i.e. harassing email, text messaging, or Facebook messages can result in a fine of $500 or imprisonment for not more than 3 months, under the “Annoying telephone calls or electronic communication law,” codified at M.G.L. ch 269 s. 14A. It is possible to to obtain a Harassment Prevention Order against a perpetrator under M.G.L. ch 258E.
Female Stalkers, Part 1: What is Stalking and Can Men Be Stalked by Women? (Shrink4Men.com)
Female Stalkers, Part 3: The Case of the Ex-Girlfriend Who Won’t Take ‘No’ for an Answer (Shrink4Men.com)
These Boots are Made for Stalking: Characteristics of Female Stalkers (US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health)
Cyber Stalking (tamingnadira.wordpress.com)
Missouri sheriff stalked, harassed woman, charges claim (stltoday.com)
Missouri sheriff says harassment, stalking charges against him baseless (kansas.com)
Batman Dad Harrassing Wife And Kids Vine Compilation (geekologie.com)
Who@ Working to Halt Online Abuse
Stalking laws lead to just 33 convictions in first six months (telegraph.co.uk)
September 27, 2013 · 11:15 am
Is National Union Fire Insurance Company / AIG A Company To Be Wary Of?
American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”)
Complaints about National Union Fire Insurance Company
Some consumers have complained about fees imposed by this company in a way they perceive as unfair and deceptive.
“My mother has been completely ripped off by this company! Do not do business with them! She is 77, functionally deaf, and has been taken advantage of..I’m at my wit’s end trying to work with National Union Fire Insurance Company my mother’s behalf and am getting nowhere. The company has stolen $2, 540.40 over the past 9+ years from my mother; $3, 445.00 with interest. They did it after signing her up for insurance without her consent and auto-withdrawing the monthly premiums from her bank account. They refuse to assist me, and continue to lie to me. My next step is to take the company to court. I think a class action lawsuit, seems like thousands of people have been wronged by these people.”
“I keep getting letters in the mail ( 8 so far) saying that I have a policy with National Union Fire and that it will be canceled if they do not receive a payment. I never even heard of them and have not had any policy with them. I just want to let people to watch out, this is some kind of a scam.“
“I am a huntington bank customer and just recieved these charges on my account. I did not authorize this, I did not get a gas card or sigh up for some kind of promotion. My bank is adamant that they did not give my account information to them, but admits they do advertize for them. I did fail to notice the 17.85 bill the first two times it appeared on my statement. I filed a dispute with my bank, and now have to wait till tomorrow to contact this bogus insurance agency to cancel as it is sunday. Does anyone have any class action information for this agency?...”
“I keep getting phone calls from the National Union Fire Insurance Co. offering a policy that I’ve already said I’m not interested in. I asked them the first time they called not to call me again.”I’ve gotten ten more calls since then today, and it’s only 3:30 EST!“
Rippoff Report (37 Complaints)
“National Union Fire Insurance NUF ACC INSR 88 is taking 38.55 from my account at U S Bank stating “phone authorization” and I’ve never spoken to or authorized National Union Fire Insurance Company to deduct money from my account.”
“The caller ID says GCS. When I answer there is no one there. I have called the number back many times – and it is answered by an automated message from National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PA“
“NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA PREYING ON ELDERLY SENDING FAKE COVERAGE LAPSE NOTICES“
Information about National Union Fire Insurance Company and AIG
The National Union Fire Insurance Company sells and provides insurance products to consumers and businesses. It operates as a subsidiary of American International Group, Inc. (“AIG“) (formerly Chartis U.S., Inc.). The CEO of NUFIC is Mr. John Q. Doyle. NUFIC’s primary place of business is located at 70 Pine St., New York, NY 10270. Their phone number is (212) 770-7000. AIG is led by Mr. Robert H. Benmosche, whose yearly compensation is $10,573,900. According to documents filed with the SEC, “In March 2012, the National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. (NUFI), an AIG Property Casualty company, became a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) of Pittsburgh.”
AIG Exec: Public Outrage Over Bonuses ‘Just As Bad’ As Lynchings In The South (talkingpointsmemo.com)
AIG’s Benmosche and Miller on Villains, Turnarounds and Those Bonuses (blogs.wsj.com)
AIG Using Science to Define ‘Broker Quality’ and Not Following Market: Benmosche (insurancejournal.com)
Tagged as AIG, American International Group, life insurance, NUFIC, Robert H. Benmosche
September 19, 2013 · 11:51 am
Legal Discussion: Foreign Driver’s Licenses in Massachusetts & International College Students
Do validly licensed foreign college students in the Commonwealth temporarily for school have an obligation to obtain Massachusetts Drivers Licenses? If so, what are the time frames that govern these requirements? If they remain in Massachusetts for over a year without leaving the U.S., does that change things?
Example A: Alfred, who is a citizen of Spain, has a valid driver’s license from Spain. He is admitted to Boston College and purchases a car upon arrival. Alfred registers the car in the Commonwealth. Must he obtain a Massachusetts driver’s license immediately? Can he drive here on his Spanish license temporarily? If so, how long does he have before the Spanish license becomes invalid here?
Example B: Assume same facts as above, except that Alfred returns home each summer for vacation and then returns in the fall. How does leaving and re-entering the country affect this situation?
Example C: Upon graduation, Alfred remains in Spain through the summer, then comes back to Massachusetts for a job. He does not obtain a Massachusetts driver’s license. Does the Commonwealth honor his Spanish driver’s license indefinitely? At what point must he obtain a Massachusetts driver’s license?
First, it is necessary to determine whether the foreign driver’s license in question is honored in the United States at all. That depends on whether the license was issued by a country which is one of the Parties to the 1949 Road Traffic Convention and the 1943 Inter-American Automotive Traffic Convention.
Explanation of the 1949 Road Traffic Convention and its application:
According the 1949 Road Traffic Convention, a non-resident foreign student from one of the countries listed therein who is at least 18 years of age and is validly licensed in his/her home country can drive a passenger type of vehicle authorized by the license for up to one (1) year in the U.S. on the valid foreign license.
If he/she is still here at the end of the 12-month year, they lose the right to operate a motor vehicle on their foreign license in the U.S.
If the student goes home at the end of the academic year and returns the following academic year (leaves in May-June and returns in September) then, a new one (1) calendar year period is established on return in September.
Brazilian Driver’s License
Filed under Legal Discussions, Uncategorized
Tagged as foreign license
September 6, 2013 · 12:32 am
Job Seekers: Be Alert to FCRA Violations!
Companies often violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when screening applicants.
Generally, there are five very important requirements that employers must follow when seeking an investigative consumer background report on employees or applicants.
Make a clear and accurate written disclosure to the employee/applicant of its intent to obtain the investigative consumer report;
Obtain express authorization from the employee/applicant to obtain the investigative consumer report;
Give the employee/applicant a pre-adverse action notice if the employer plans to take an adverse action against the employee/applicant based on the information contained in the investigative consumer report;
Provide the employee/applicant with an adverse action notice after taking the adverse action;
Provide an updated “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act” to employees/applicants when an employer provides the pre-adverse action notice.
If you have applied for a job, and the prospective employer failed to meet any of the above requirements, you are invited to contact us.
Federal law provides for stiff monetary penalties against FCRA violators.
FCRA Jury Award Highlights Compliance Risk (insideprivacy.com)
Federal Trade Commission Extracts Its Second Largest FCRA Fine (thesecuretimes.wordpress.com)
Tagged as Background check, Credit history, Fair Credit Reporting Act, FCRA
August 28, 2013 · 11:48 am
Class Action Investigation: Are Micro Center’s Return Policies Unlawful?
Some consumers in Massachusetts have complained about making software purchases at Microcenter, and then finding they cannot return the software at all because the box has been opened. If you have purchased software or games from Micro Center and were refused an opportunity to return the item, you are invited to contact us.
Refund, Return, and Cancellation Policies & Massachusetts Law
Below is a direct quote from the MA Attorney General’s website:
• Baltimore/Towson
August 21, 2013 · 5:24 pm
Brooks Brothers Faces Privacy Class Action
Massachusetts law prohibits businesses from requesting and recording a customer’s personal identification when accepting payment by credit card. Leonard Law Office, LLP and Bailey & Glasser, LLP are representing Massachusetts consumers in a privacy class action against Brooks Brothers, filed in August, 2013.
If you have received junk mailing from Brooks Brothers after using a credit/debit card at a retail location and providing Brooks Brothers with your zip code or home address, you are invited to contact us.
Brooks Brothers – Newbury St.
Brooks Brothers requests customers’ zip codes when they make a purchase using a credit card.
Brooks Brothers has a policy of automatically requesting a customer’s zip code in all credit or debit card transactions, and, if provided, recording the zip code electronically in connection with the transaction.
Brooks Brothers has a policy of using its customers’ zip codes, and information obtained from third party databases to send marketing materials to customers.
Brooks Brothers has a policy of sharing this information with other Brooks Brothers brands.
Brooks Brothers’ policies harm Massachusetts consumers by subjecting them to unwanted junk mail, and other marketing without their consent, and using customers’ personal information without their consent for its own business purposes. Continue reading →
Tagged as Brooks Brothers, brooks brothers class action, Claudio Del Vecchio, Credit card, Leonard Law Office, Massachusetts, ZIP code
August 17, 2013 · 1:09 pm
Papa John’s – “Never Frozen” Dough?
There is a dramatic controversy unfolding about claims made by pizza chain retailer Papa John’s.
August 15, 2013 · 11:57 pm
Equity Residential Faces Class Action Lawsuit About Heat and Water (Habitability) Issues at the Walden Park Apartments
Update (1/10/15)
If you reside at the Walden Park Apartments, you are welcome to contact us about heating issues such as lack of hot water or inadequate heat in your apartment.
THE SUIT SEEKS $3M IN DAMAGES FOR TENANTS
1. Class Action Complaint (PDF).
July 29, 2013 · 8:39 pm
LexisNexis Marketing Calls
July 18, 2013 · 12:26 pm
Protein Powders — Are they worth it?
Protein Powders — Separating Fact from Fiction
June 27, 2013 · 11:27 am
Under Investigation: Derma Silk
Questions about DermaSilk — False Advertising?
June 21, 2013 · 1:29 am
J. Crew Faces Privacy Class Action in Boston Federal Court (Settled Case)
July 25, 2014 – This case has settled. The official settlement website is www.millercrohnjcrewsettlement.com, where notices and claim forms can be found. Email notices went out on 7/25/14. The claim form can be downloaded here (pdf), or filled out and submitted online (recommended). The deadline to file a claim to receive a $20 J. Crew voucher is September 25, 2014.
If You Made a Credit Card Purchase at a J. Crew Massachusetts Retail Store Between June 20, 2009 and June 27, 2014, you could receive compensation from the Class Action Settlement.
This Settlement is for individuals who made a credit card purchase at one or more J. Crew retail stores in Massachusetts between June 20, 2009 and June 27, 2014 and whose Personal Identification Information (i.e. ZIP code or other information) was requested and recorded by J. Crew. The Settlement does not include purchases made online. Class Members will receive a voucher for $20 that may be redeemed at J. Crew retail stores in Massachusetts.
J. Crew Zip Code Settlement Notice (front)
J. Crew Zip Code Settlement Notice (reverse)
The email notice is not a scam.
From: “Miller and Crohn J. Crew Settlement Administrator ” <Administrator@qgemail.com<mailto:Administrator@qgemail.com>>
Date: July 25, 2014 at 2:00:27 PM EDT
Subject: LEGAL NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
NOTICE OF PENDING CLASS ACTION AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT MILLER V. J. CREW GROUP, INC.
If you engaged in a Credit Card transaction at a Massachusetts
J. Crew Store between June 20, 2009 and June 27, 2014 and your
Personal Identification Information (e.g., ZIP code) was requested and
recorded you may be entitled to receive a Voucher for $20 off your
next J. Crew Store purchase….etc.
June 30, 2013 – The Leonard Law Office is representing clients regarding credit card privacy claims against J. Crew. This class action alleges violations of Massachusetts privacy and consumer protection laws.
Information about the class action lawsuit against J. Crew
The complaint alleges that J. Crew collected ZIP codes at checkout at its Massachusetts stores from customers who made purchases with credit cards, recorded that information as part of credit card transactions, and then used that information for marketing purposes, including to send unsolicited marketing and promotional materials, or “junk mail.” The complaint further alleges that:
J. Crew does not collect, record, and use the customers’ ZIP code information in order to verify the customer’s identity or for any other legitimate purpose in connection with the Credit Card transaction.
J. Crew uses this information for its own marketing and promotional purposes. Possession of the consumer’s ZIP code information, together with the customer’s name, enables Defendant to identify the customer’s address and/or telephone number through the use of publicly available databases.
J. Crew uses the ZIP code information it collects from customers and the addresses and other information it then obtains, to send unsolicited marketing and promotional materials, or “junk mail,” to customers, including Plaintiff and Class members.
J. Crew also has the ability to sell the ZIP code information it collects from customers (including Plaintiff and Class members) and the addresses and other information it then obtains, to third parties for a profit or to use the information for other marketing and promotional purposes.
The proposed class would consist of all persons whose ZIP codes were collected and recorded at any J. Crew retail location in Massachusetts while making Credit Card purchases during the period from June 20, 2009 through June 20, 2013. The class has not yet been certified. If you have questions about whether you may be involved, you are welcome to contact the Leonard Law Office.
Information about J. Crew
J. Crew is a privately-held corporation, organized under the laws of Delaware with a principal place of business at 770 Broadway, New York NY 10003. J. Crew has sixteen retail locations in Massachusetts, three of which are factory outlets and the remainder of which are traditional retail stores.
Guitar Center faces suit in Boston federal court over ZIP code request (bizjournals.com)
Massachusetts High Court Strikes Down Arbitration Class Action Ban (pubcit.typepad.com)
Add J. Crew to the list of companies sued over what they do with customer Zip codes (Universalhub.com)
Woman sues second national chain over junk mail (Universalhub.com)
Two more chains sued over way they figure out customer addresses to send them junk mail (Universalhub.com)
No, the Cashier Doesn’t Really Need Your ZIP Code (dailyfinance.com)
Filed under Class Action Lawsuits, Current Cases
Tagged as class action, Consumer protection, Credit card, J. Crew, J. Crew class action, junk mail, Massachusetts, Miller and Crohn J. Crew Settlement, ZIP code
June 17, 2013 · 1:31 pm
SEO Company 29 Prime Faces TCPA (Robocall) Class Action
Actual complaint filed about 29 Prime a/k/a “Reliable Places”
July, 2016 – 29 Prime has filed for bankruptcy. This is not a surprise, since Russell Wallace filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009.
March 13, 2016 – Check out this blog about 29 Prime and Russell Wallace: 29 Prime Scam Warning – Exposing the truth behind 29prime.com -another Russell Wallace scam and the highly negative Yelp reviews about 29 Prime here: http://www.yelp.com/biz/29-prime-irvine
November 4, 2015 – If you receive unwanted robocalls to your cellphone, or prerecorded calls to your landline from 29 Prime (or whatever this company is calling itself now), contact the Federal Trade Commission here: www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov.
July 28, 2015 – This morning I received a robocall on my personal cell phone from someone regarding a free Google listing (caller id: 617-207-0003). The obnoxious fellow I spoke with said he was in Orange County California (caller id obviously spoofed). He claimed he was with “Lighthouse Marketing” and directed me to a website. I later learned that the owner of this business has been receiving complaints for over a year because someone has been giving out her company’s name when placing robocalls about free Google listings. Lighthouse Marketing is a reputable small business that does not place outbound sales calls about SEO optimization or Google rankings. Did 29 Prime robocall my cell phone?
July 27, 2015 – Please note: Our class action lawsuit against 29 Prime only addresses allegations of robocalls. If you have other complaints about 29 Prime (i.e. page ranking promises, quality of SEO services, billing problems, etc.) the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may be able to assist you. The link to register a complaint with the FTC is: www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov.
April 23, 2015 – Second Amended Class Action Complaint (pdf) filed in California against 29 Prime, Inc., OC Listing Inc., Local Zoom, Tony Redman, Russell Wallace.
September 4, 2014 – First Amended Class Action Complaint (pdf) filed, adding as defendants OC Listing, Inc., Local Zoom, Russell Wallace, and Tony Redman. Summons Issued as to Local Zoom, OC Listing, Inc., Tony Redman, Russell Wallace.
July 29, 2014 – The following transaction was entered into Pacer on 7/29/2014 at 2:47 PM EDT and filed on 7/29/2014 Case Name: Russell v. 29 Prime, Inc. Case Number: 1:13-cv-12814-NMG Docket Text: ELECTRONIC Clerk’s Notes for proceedings held before Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: Scheduling Conference held on 7/29/2014: Automatic Discovery to be completed by 8/12/14; Amendments and/or Supplements to the Pleadings due by 8/25/2014; written discovery served by 11/30/14, answered by 12/31/14; all fact Discovery to be completed by 3/6/2015; Motion for Class Certification due by 4/15/2015, opposition due by 5/15/2015, reply due by 5/31/2015. Motion Hearing set for 6/25/2015 03:00 PM in Courtroom 4 before Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton. (Court Reporter: No Court Reporter Used.)(Attorneys present: Pastor, Smith, Baruch (by phone), Salinger) (Patch, Christine)
July 25, 2014 – 29 Prime filed its Answer to the Class Action Complaint (Russell v. 29 Prime, Inc. Case Number: 1:13-cv-12814-NMG) (pdf)
July 15, 2014 – Judge Gorton’s Denial of Motion to Dismiss Opinion featured on Leagle:
“…I) PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT
29 PRIME’s phone calls to Massachusetts residents, through its resellers, also constitute sufficient contacts to satisfy the purposeful availment inquiry. See, e.g., Hudak v. Berkley Grp., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00089-WWE, 2014 WL 354676, at *3 (D. Conn. Jan. 23, 2014). 29 PRIME must contact prospective customers in order to secure sales but not all solicitations will result in business relationships. Because the forum selection, choice of law, and arbitration clauses only apply to customers who execute the Terms & Conditions sheet, it was reasonably foreseeable that these clauses would not govern all of 29 PRIME’s contacts with Massachusetts…”
…II) PUBLIC INTERESTS
The public interest factors do not compel jurisdiction in California. Massachusetts has a local interest in providing a convenient forum for its residents against foreign corporations. Rodriguez v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., 734 F.Supp.2d 220, 228 (D. Mass. 2010). California, however, also has an interest in remedying injuries caused by one of its resident corporations. See id. Given both interests, the public interest inquiry is a wash. Id. Because this Court defers to plaintiff’s choice of forum and the private factors weigh in favor of jurisdiction, defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue will be denied.”
July 14, 2014 – Law 360 Article – Tech Co. Can’t Escape Massachusetts TCPA Class Action (pdf).
“A Massachusetts federal judge on Thursday refused to toss a proposed class action accusing search engine optimizer 29 Prime Inc. of making mass phone calls to consumers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, rejecting its argument that the court lacked jurisdiction.
Plaintiff alleges that 29 Prime made mass solicitations to him and other putative class members using autodialers without their consent, but the company filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for improper venue to transfer this case…”
July 10, 2014 – 29 Prime’s Motion to Dismiss Denied – Memorandum and Order (pdf).
July 8, 2014 – Freedom of Information Act documents from the FTC (pdf) and FCC (pdf) about 29 Prime and robocalls.
February 5, 2014 – three months after our case, a copycat federal TCPA class action was filed against 29 Prime by Washington and California lawyers. The copycat case is Marlowe v. 29 Prime (pdf ).
Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Oppostion to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (pdf)
29 Prime’s Motion to Dismiss (pdf)
Affidavit of Russell Wallace (pdf)
On November 6, 2013, Leonard Law Office LLP, Pastor Law Office LLP, Sweetnam LLC, and Milberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit against California search engine optimization company 29 Prime for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The TCPA is a federal law that generally forbids telemarketing calls to cell phones.
A Summons [PDF here] was filed on November 18, 2013. 29 The Class Action Complaint [PDF here] alleges:
“Plaintiff brings this action for damages, and other legal and equitable remedies, resulting from the actions of Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placing calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) (i.e., “robocalls”) without his prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (“TCPA”).
Plaintiff is the primary user of the cellular telephone to which Defendant placed calls using an ATDS without his express consent and is a member of the class defined herein.
Defendant, 29 Prime, is a corporation organized under the laws of Nevada with its principal place of business at 9701 Jeronimo Road., Irvine, California, 92618. The nature of 29 Prime’s business is to place calls to telephones throughout the United States to solicit unsuspecting customers for search engine optimization services, making claims about their ability to improve Google rankings. Defendant has in the past and continues to operate under unincorporated alter egos with similar websites, such as “Reliable Places.” The company was founded in 2010 by Russell Wallace and Tony Redman. The Defendant placed robocalls to Plaintiff and other class members in violation of the TCPA, as alleged herein.” More Excerpts from the class action complaint are pasted at below.
If you have information about 29 Prime’s business practices, or have been affected by telemarketing to your cell phone, you are welcome to contact us.
Information about 29 Prime
29 Prime is a web site design and search engine optimization company. This is an industry whose validity and efficacy has been questioned. 29 Prime is apparently one of the most successful SEO companies. “In 2012, 29 Prime, Inc. placed 36 on Inc. Magazine‘s Inc. 5000 list, which ranks the fastest-growing companies in the country based on revenue growth. According to the list, the organization ranked sixth among the top 100 advertising and marketing companies in the United States, seventh among all companies in California, including fourth in Los Angeles and second in Orange County.”
Inc. Magazine’s online profile of the company describes 29 Prime as a company which “specializes in increasing small and midsize local businesses’ visibility on the Internet. The company guarantees front page placement on Google as well as placement on Yahoo and Bing, and also offers video SEO, coupons, and Facebook and Twitter strategies.” The article reported 2011 income of 6.4MM.
In October, 2012, the Orange County Business Journal [PDF] ranked 29 Prime as number one on the list of fastest growing private companies, with 2012 revenues of 8.7 MM, located at 9701 Jeronimo Road, third floor, Irvine CA 92618-2020.
Is 29 Prime’s Autodialler Responsible for the Company’s Explosive Growth?
“the dialer calls out”
29 Prime CEO Russell Wallace claims: “Our goal is to help business owners that aren’t Web savvy to get online, build their reputation and grow their business.” According to his Linkedin profile, Russell Wallace, 31, is “Co-Founder and CEO of 29 Prime, Inc.,” with “more than 10 years’ experience directing as many as 300 employees in companies with revenues in excess of $30 million.” Russell Wallace and Tony Redman founded the company in 2010.
Tagged as (206) 397-1615, 29 Prime, “29 Local Listing, ” “29 Live, ” “29 SEM, ” “29 Services, ” “29Maps, ” “29Search, ” “Big Fish SEM, ” “Billboard Local, ” “Collaborative Fusion SEO, ” “Eye 2 Eye SEO, ” “Giant SEM, ” “Green Thumb, ” “Green Thumb SEO, ” “Hot Spot SEM, ” “Local Choice SEO, ” “Locallistings.com, ” “Marquee Listing, ” “Neon Nexus, ” “Paramount SEO, ” “Place Fuel, ” “Placement Key, ” “Rankings Readless, ” “Summit SEM, ” “Victory SEM, ” “YMS Local, class action, complaints about 29 Prime, Local Zoom, OC Listing, Relevant Ads, relevantads.com, Reliable Places, Reliable Places SEM Marketing, Russell Wallace, SEO, TCPA, Your Local Merchant
Under Investigation: Acting and Modeling Gig Websites
UNDER INVESTIGATION: Are acting and modeling websites taking unfair advantage of people?
For example, is the company called “Explore Talent” (www.exploretalent.com) deserving of the litany of complaints below?
Complaints about Explore Talent:
There are 74 Complaints about Explore Talent at RipoffReport.com: http://www.ripoffreport.com/directory/Explore-Talent.aspx
“…such a headache as Explore Talent, just don’t bother signing up for the free account, and definitely DO NOT give Explore Talent ANY MONEY! You will regret it later on when they continue to charge you credit card even after you thought you canceled you account… http://www.ripoffreport.com/modeling-talent-agencies/explore-talent/explore-talent-an-obvious-scam-w3bbc.htm
“They are a scam. They post unpaid (low paid), outdated or phony castings. Every now and then there is a legit casting but they’ve more than likely stole it froanother website. So that is what your monthly fee goes for.” http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=30397 Continue reading →
June 4, 2013 · 11:44 am
Legal Discussion: Are debit/credit bank cards “credit cards” subject to the same privacy safeguards under Massachusetts Law?
There are a number of Massachusetts statutes governing the use and misuse of credit cards. Most address criminal conduct, and unfair business practices. Some define the term “credit card.” They were all enacted before debit/credit cards issued by banks became prevalent. Case law indicates that these debit card amounts to the functional equivalent of a credit card. This is important, because the Massachusetts credit card privacy law (G.L. c. 93, § 105) should also apply to debit cards.
G.L. c. 93 § 104 (definitions for § 105 Credit cards; checks; personal identification information)
“Credit Card”, any instrument or device, whether known as a credit card, credit plate, or by any other name, issued with or without fee by an issuer for the use of the card holder in obtaining money, goods, services, or anything else of value on credit. Credit card shall not include a check guarantee card.
G.L. c. 140D §1 (Consumer Credit Cost Disclsoure; definitions)
“Credit”, the right granted by a creditor to a debtor to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment.
“Credit card”, any card, plate, coupon book, or other credit device existing for the purpose of obtaining money, property, labor, or services on credit.
G.L. c. 266 § 37A (Misuse of credit cards; definitions)
“Credit card”, any instrument or device, whether known as a credit card, credit plate, or by any other name, issued with or without fee by an issuer for the use of the cardholder in obtaining money, goods, services or anything else of value on credit.
G.L. c. 266 § 37C (Fraudulent use of credit cards to obtain money, goods or services; false embossment of credit cards, multiple possession, presumption; arrest)
G.L. c. 140D § 27 (Unauthorized use of credit cards)
“a debit card fits within the ambit of a “credit card” as defined for purposes of G.L. c. 266, § 37C. COMMONWEALTH v. RYAN, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 179, 183-186) (2011) .
Using Your Bank Check Card/Debit Card on Vacation (ally.com)
Your Post Office can’t handle credit, debit cards (timesunion.com)
On Target with Money Practicalities (griffinsandgingersnaps.wordpress.com)
Tagged as Credit, Credit card, debit card
May 15, 2013 · 10:56 am
Fair Debt Collection in Massachusetts
The Massachusetts Attorney General‘s Debt Collection Regulations, 940 C.M.R. 7.00, prohibit many unfair debt collection practices by creditors, and regulations of the Massachusetts Division of Banks, 209 CMR 18.00, prohibit unfair debt collection practices by debt collection agencies.
Communication with Creditors and Collection Agencies
When communicating directly with you, creditors and collection agencies may not:
Call you at home more than twice for each debt in any seven-day period, or more than twice for each debt in any 30-day period at some place other than your home, such as your place of work.
Call you at work if you have requested that they not call. Your oral request that a collector not call you at work is valid for 10 days only. Written requests are valid until you write to the collector removing the restriction.
Call you without identifying both the name of the creditor and the name of the person calling. The caller may use a name other than his or her own, but the creditor or collection agency on whose behalf the call is being made must be able to identify that person.
Contact you directly, if you have told the creditor or collection agency you are represented by an attorney.
Cause expense to you in the form of long distance calls, express mail charges, wire fees, or other similar charges.
Falsely threaten to take legal action that the creditor does not take or reasonably intend to take.
Tell anyone (including your friends, neighbors, relatives, or employers) about your debt, without your written consent.
Mail to you any printed or written materials that reveal or imply that you owe a debt (for example, by using a postcard to contact you or using a descriptive return address).
Solicit post-dated checks from you.
Visit your home at times other than your normal waking hours. A collector may not visit you more than once in any 30-day period for each debt, unless you give permission for additional visits.
Call you at times other than your normal waking hours. If your waking hours are unknown, then the collector may only call between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
A creditor must allow you or your attorney to inspect any document on which the creditor is relying to prove that you owe the debt being collected, e.g., a credit card application, account statement, promissory note, ledger, account card, or similar record in the creditor’s possession, which reflects the date and amount of payments, credits and charges related to the debt. Failure to do so is an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Attorney General’s Debt Collection Regulations, 940 CMR 7.08 .
Under State and Federal Law, if you want all debt collection contact to stop, and it is a debt collection agency (as opposed to the creditor itself) that is contacting you, you have the right to make a request in writing that all such contact stop ( 15 U.S.C. 1692c(c), 209 CMR 18.14(3) ). Once you have made such a written request, the debt collection agency may not contact you again; however, the agency will still be permitted to sue you to try and collect the debt.
Locating a Debtor
Creditors and debt collection agencies are permitted to try to locate a debtor by contacting persons other than the debtor or persons residing in the debtor’s household, if the creditor or debt collection agency reasonably believes that it no longer has current information on the debtor’s location. However, it may not inform anyone it calls about your debt.
===============================================Source: Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, 2013, (http://www.mass.gov/ago/consumer-resources/consumer-information/credit-and-financial-literacy/consumer-credit/fair-debt-collection.html), last accessed 5/15/2013.
Occupy Wall Street group puts ‘zombie’ debt to rest (usatoday.com)
The Rich Get Richer From Tanking the Economy As The Poor Go To Jail For a Missed Payment (politicususa.com)
Debtor’s Prison (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Filed under Practice Areas
Tagged as Collection agency, Credit card, Debt, Debtor, Massachusetts Attorney General
May 3, 2013 · 12:14 pm
Zbiddy.com – a company to be wary of?
About Zbiddy.com
Zbiddy is an internet auction site. Unlike Ebay, the site charges users money to place bids (“Purchase your bids Bids cost $0.60 each and come in packs of all sizes starting as little as $13.50!.”)
Complaints about Zbiddy.com
Ripoff Report (79 Complaints)
“Gave my CC# in order to register – Zbiddy immeaditly charged my CC: 1st for $79.01 and 2nd for $30.00.”
“charged my account 159.00 I was told 59.00.The ENTIRE SITE IS FAKE!!! I want my money back or i will sue..”
Tagged as Zbiddy, Zbiddy.com
April 16, 2013 · 8:48 pm
Discussion: 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings
Update: One dead, one captured.
Boston will never forget those lost, and will never forget how our city came together. Continue reading →
Tagged as attack, Backpack, bomb, Boston, Boston marathon, explosion, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marathon, Nail bomb, Pressure cooking, terror
April 12, 2013 · 12:14 pm
Legal Discussion: Debt Collection –15 U.S.C. § 1692e — False or misleading representations
Federal law prohibits debt collectors from making false or misleading representations when they attempt to collect debts.
15 U.S.C. § 1692e. False or misleading representations
A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading
representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.
Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following
conduct is a violation of this section: Continue reading →
Tagged as Collection agency, Communication, Consumer, Debt, Deception, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Law, United States
April 10, 2013 · 1:55 pm
Dun & Bradstreet – A company to be wary of?
April 3, 2013 · 11:19 pm
Companies in the Spotlight: CVS to Pay $11 Million to Settle DEA Accusations
The seal of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Source: DEA Press Release
APRIL 3 (WASHINGTON) — CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and Oklahoma CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C., (collectively “CVS”), have agreed to pay $11,000,000 to the United States to settle civil penalty claims for record-keeping violations under the Controlled Substances Act and related regulations, announced Administrator Michele M. Leonhart of the Drug Enforcement Administration and Sanford C. Coats, United States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma. Continue reading →
Filed under Companies in the Spotlight
Tagged as Controlled Substances Act, CVS, CVS Pharmacy, DEA, Drug Enforcement Administration, Oklahoma, United States, United States Attorney
April 3, 2013 · 11:33 am
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THIS OFFICE ABOUT GREEN TREE SERVICING FOR ANY REASON. EMAILS AND VOICEMAILS ABOUT GREEN TREE WILL NOT BE RETURNED.
4/21/15 UPDATE: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS HELD GREEN TREE SERVICING ACCOUNTABLE.
National Mortgage Servicing Company Will Pay $63 Million to Settle FTC, CFPB Charges
Sudden Sleep is a new product from Biotab Nutraceuticals, the company behind Extenze. Biotab was on the receiving end of several actions from California authorities, and at least one class action lawsuit alleging false advertising. Continue reading →
March 30, 2013 · 12:41 pm
The Belly Burner Weight Loss Belt
Does the Belly Burner Weight Loss Belt work?
The Belly Burner makes some bold product claims:
(a) “Proven to burn more calories faster”
(b) “Just wrap up and slim down.”
Issues with the Belly Burner Weight Loss Belt
(a) Is there such thing as “spot reduction” of fat on the human body? In other words, is it possible to target one specific area of the body, such as the belly, by wearing a device around the midsection?
(b) Does a person burn more calories if their core body temperature is higher during exercise?
(c) Was the study that was done to support the claim that this product “burns more calories faster” valid?
Tagged as Belly Burner Weight Loss Belt, belly fat reduction, Fat belt
March 29, 2013 · 3:04 pm
Companies in the Spotlight: UPS
UPS and Illegal Presciption Drugs
Today the DEA announced that UPS agreed to forfeit forty million dollars in a non-prosecution agreement offered by federal prosecutors. According to the press release (below) DEA obtained UPS’s full cooperation with the investigation. However, UPS was allegedly on notice of the fact that it was being used to facilitate illegal prescription drug trafficking for at least five years. In the past, Google has been penalized for its role in the marketing of illicit overseas drugs to American consumers via “Google adwords.” Some of those words are what many poor souls spend most of their waking energy in pursuit of: Percocet and Oxycontin. If you are unaware of what has been going on, thousands of American prescription pill addicts have been buying drugs online and having them shipped via UPS to the States. With Google and now UPS having been hit with steep financial disincentives for playing a role in this illegal marketplace, will it dry up? Was Fedex investigated? American businesses have long profited from addiction. Apparently, so has UPS.
DEA NEWS: UPS AGREES TO FORFEIT $40 MILLION Continue reading →
Tagged as DEA, oxycontin, percocet, prescription drugs, UPS
March 23, 2013 · 1:21 pm
Companies in the Spotlight: Zipcar
“Zipcar was recently purchased by another company,” I recently overheard someone tell her friend.
“I wonder how long it will take them to ruin it?” he asked.
In the past, Zipcar has cultivated the image of being a hip, progressive company that cares about its customers. An abundance of carless urbanites, parking spaces all over major American cities, and brutal $50 late fees, (about which a class action lawsuit in Massachusetts failed) kept Zipcar’s operation running smoothly and profitably.
At some point, Zipcar became of the apple of Avis’s eye. Earlier this year, the rental car giant swallowed up Zipcar for about half a billion dollars. See: Bloomberg, “Avis Budget Embraces Car Sharing With Zipcar Acquisition”(2013) (here); CNN, “ZipCar CEO Scott Griffith resigns, hours after Avis acquisition” (2013) (here). It should be interesting to see how Zipcar changes. The first thing that I expect will happen is that Zipcar’s persona will undergo a subtle transformation. The cutesy, friendly emails will remain, but Avis will find ways to squeeze more money out of “Zipststers” and in so doing, will tick off a lot of the customers who used to love Zipcar.
Zipcar Complaints
One recent complaint came to me the other day. The story went like so: Continue reading →
Tagged as class action, complaints, Zipcar
March 13, 2013 · 11:41 pm
Class Action Investigation: Shen Min Hair Regrowth
Shen Min Hair Regrowth Investigation
There is a new product that the Leonard Law Office PC is investigating. According to the Shen Min website, “Shen Min is a natural line of dietary supplements designed to help reduce hair loss and enhance hair growth in men and women…Shen Min® formulas are specifically designed to help block the negative effects of DHT, the “bad” form of testosterone. This action helps prevent additional hair loss and enhances hair growth naturally. help reduce hair loss and enhance hair growth in men and women…”
These claims are in question.
If you have questions about this investigation or would like to share your experiences with this product, you are welcome to call Preston W. Leonard, Esq. at (617)329-1295.
Issues with Shen Min
What are the active ingredients of Shen Min?
Have there been any consumer complaints?
Advertisements seen in Boston, Massachusetts
Tagged as class action, Shen Min
March 13, 2013 · 11:12 pm
Companies in the Spotlight: Misconduct by Citizens Bank
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ORDERS CITIZENS BANK TO PAY $18.5 MILLION FOR FAILING TO CREDIT FULL DEPOSIT AMOUNTS
CFPB, OCC, and FDIC Take Action Against Bank For Ignoring Deposit Discrepancies
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) took action against Citizens Bank for failing to credit consumers the full amounts of their deposited funds. The bank kept money from deposit discrepancies when receipts did not match actual money transferred. Today’s CFPB consent order requires the bank to provide approximately $11 million in refunds to consumers and pay a $7.5 million penalty for the violations.
“Citizens Bank regularly denied customers the full credits of their deposits when there were discrepancies between deposit slips and the actual money transferred into the bank,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “The bank chose to ignore these discrepancies and harmed many consumers by pocketing the difference.”
Today’s CFPB action is against Citizens Bank, N.A., formerly known as RBS Citizens Bank, N.A.; Citizens Financial Group, Inc., formerly known as RBS Citizens Financial Group, Inc.; and Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania. The bank operates retail branches in about a dozen states and among its various products and services are deposit accounts. For the period at issue, the bank generally required its customers making a deposit to fill out a slip listing the checks or cash being deposited, and their total. The customer then turned the deposit slip over to the bank and got a receipt reflecting the amount on the deposit slip for the transaction. The bank scanned the deposit slip and deposit items at a central location.
The CFPB investigation found that from January 1, 2008 to November 30, 2013, Citizens Bank violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s prohibition on unfair and deceptive practices by failing to properly credit consumers’ checking and savings accounts. In cases where the bank’s scanner misread either the deposit slip or the checks, or if the total on the deposit slip did not equal the total of the actual checks, Citizens Bank did not take action to fix the mistake if it fell below a certain dollar amount. Over the years, by ignoring the discrepancies the bank shorted consumers millions of dollars. Specifically, Citizens Bank:
Failed to credit consumers the full amount of their deposits: Citizens Bank frequently did not give consumers full credit for their deposits when the amount scanned on the deposit slip was less than the amount of the checks and cash deposited. The bank credited the consumer’s account with what was read on the deposit slip, not the actual sum of money the consumer transferred into the bank. Citizens only investigated and fixed errors when they were above a certain threshold. From January 2008 to September 2012, the bank only looked into discrepancies greater than $50. From September 2012 to November 2013, the bank only looked into discrepancies greater than $25.
Falsely claimed that it would verify deposits: Citizens Bank told consumers that deposits were subject to verification, implying that the bank would take steps to ensure consumers were credited with the correct deposit amount. But the bank’s practice was not to verify and correct deposit inaccuracies unless they were above the $25 or $50 threshold. Although some consumers benefited by this policy, others lost money that rightfully belonged to them. The CFPB concluded that many of those consumers were harmed by this unfair and deceptive practice.
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices. Today’s order requires Citizens Bank to:
Pay approximately $11 million in redress to victims: Citizens Bank must pay $11 million to consumers who did not receive all the money that should have been deposited into their accounts. Citizens Bank must include any fees the consumer incurred related to the under-crediting, including but not limited to any overdraft fees, insufficient funds fees, and monthly maintenance fees. The bank must also include a reasonable estimate of interest on these amounts. Consumers are not required to take any action to receive their credit or check. If the consumers have an open account with the bank, they will receive a credit to their account. For closed accounts, Citizens Bank will send a check to the affected consumers.
End all violations of federal consumer financial law in connection with deposit discrepancies: Citizens Bank is prohibited from engaging in violations of unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices in connection with deposit transactions. Among other things, this means the bank must properly review its compliance management system to ensure no further violations relating to its processing of deposits, it must not misrepresent its processing practices, and it must incorporate corrective actions if the bank fails to process deposits consistent with federal consumer financial law. The bank has made a significant technology investment over the past year to address the issue.
Pay $7.5 million civil penalty: Citizens Bank will make a $7.5 million penalty payment to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund.
The CFPB is taking this action in coordination with the FDIC and the OCC. The FDIC separately ordered Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania to pay restitution and a $3 million civil penalty. The OCC separately ordered Citizens Bank, N.A., to pay restitution and a $10 million civil penalty. In total, Citizens Bank must pay about $11 million in consumer refunds and $20.5 million in federal penalties for these coordinated actions. As part of these actions, the FDIC and OCC are ordering additional relief relating to business accounts.
A copy of the CFPB consent order is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201408_cfpb_consent-order-rbs-citizens.pdf
Information about the FDIC action can be found at: https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2015/
Information about the OCC action can be found at: http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2015/index-2015-news-releases.html
Source: US Attorney’s Office Press Release (.pdf here).
Former Citizens Bank Teller Pleads Guilty to Embezzlement
“A Good Bank Helps Guard Against Fraud.”
BOSTON – A Rhode Island woman was convicted today of embezzling more than $375,000 from the accounts of Citizens Bank customers.
Maria DaSilva, 44, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns to violating the federal bank fraud statute.
From February 2008 through January 2012, while she was working as a bank teller at the North Attleboro branch of Citizens Bank, DaSilva embezzled over $375,000 from the accounts of three elderly bank customers by forging withdrawal slips on various accounts held by these customers.
Sentencing is scheduled for May 8, 2013. DaSilva faces up to 30 years in prison, to be followed by five years of supervised release and a $1,00,000 fine.
United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz and Richard DesLauriers, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Boston Field Division, made the announcement today. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeremy Sternberg of Ortiz’s Economic Crimes Unit.
Citizens candy jar
Tagged as Bank fraud, Bank teller, citizens bank, embezzlement, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rhode Island, Special agent, United States, United States Attorney, United States federal judge
March 12, 2013 · 11:48 pm
Companies in the Spotlight: MyFeePlan.com & Backgroundfee.com
Do not give your credit card information to:
There are many complaints online about these companies. They all follow a similar pattern: the consumers say that they went on the site to seek a background check or some type of public records search, which the site says can be done for a fee of $1.00. Continue reading →
Tagged as backgroundfee.com, canadian, FTC, jesse willms, myfeeplan.com
$5,000 Reward Offered for Evidence of Facebook Biometric Privacy Violations
Wanted: Facebook
Do Electronic Pest Repellent Devices (Riddex, Victor, Pest-a-cator, Emerson, etc.) Actually Work?
Under Investigation: Electronic Pest Repellent Devices
March 11, 2013 · 5:03 pm
Bed Bug “Bombs” & “Foggers” Class Action Investigation
March 8, 2013 · 11:11 pm
Cases in the Spotlight: Burger King Junk Fax Class Action
Junk Fax Class Action
On Friday, March 1, 2013 Jay Clogg Realty Group, Inc. sued Burger King in a putative national class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. See the Complaint (here). The plaintiff’s motion for certification, filed the same day, asked the Maryland Federal court to certify this case as a class action for “All persons or entities within the United States to whom Burger King sent, or caused to be sent, facsimile advertisements promoting Burger King and its services, at any time within four years prior to the filing of the instant Complaint.”
There have been many Junk Fax Class Actions, some with judgments running in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Congress enacted consumer protection legislation and the FCC has promulgate rules specifically intended to eliminate this form of annoying, wasteful advertising.
BK Fax
Filed under Cases in the Spotlight
March 8, 2013 · 10:45 pm
Class Action Investigation: Western Union
Under Investigation: Western Union Speedpay® Fees
Have you ever used Western Union Services to make a payment over the Internet? Western Union Speedpay®, can be used to make payments for utilities such as eletricity or home home heating oil, phone bills, auto installment contracts (car payments), cable/satellite, credit cards, insurance bills, mortgages, government agencies, and to make other payments. If you have used Western Union Speedpay® to make a payment online, please contact us. We are investigating fees Western Union assesses for making such payments.
Information About Western Union
Hikmet Ersek is the President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of The Western Union Company, also known as Western Union Financial Services, Inc. Western Union is headquarted at 12500 East Belford Avenue, Englewood, CO 80112. Western Union is publically traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol WU.
According to Bloomberg, the CEO of Western Union received compensation of 6.9MM in 2012, and the company’s “Consumer-to-Business segment provides options to make one-time or recurring payments from consumers to businesses and other organizations, including utilities, auto finance companies, mortgage servicers, financial service providers, government agencies, and other businesses.”
The company got it’s start in 1851 in Rochester New York under the name “New York and Mississippi Valley Printing Telegraph Company. After a merger in 1855, the company was reborn as The Western Union Telegraph Company. As the telephone replaced telegraphs around 1879, Western Union transitioned into the money transfer business. Western Union was one of the first companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Today, due to its steady acquisition of most of its competitors over the years, Western Union enjoys what many consider a monopoly on the U.S and global money transfer business.
Western Union & The Underground Economy
Does Western Union help support an illicit “Underground Economy?” The ability to send money without first depositing it into a checking account can sometimes be a convenience for legitimate purposes, such as quickly paying a bill, or sending cash to a friend or relative in need. However, Continue reading →
Tagged as underground economy, Western Union, Western Union Speedpay
March 8, 2013 · 10:39 pm
Cases in the Spotlight: Tyler v. Michael’s Stores
Original Post dated March 8, 2013 – Tyler v. Michael’s Stores
This case is an interesting one, and it’s not entirely over yet. The central issue in Tyler v. Michael’s stores is whether Massachusetts merchants are allowed to collect consumers’ zip codes at the time of purchase. It is the only “zip code” case that has been brought in Massachusetts. There have dozens of class actions concerning major national retailers collecting zip codes in violation of California law. In this case, the plaintiff was arguing for an interpretation of Massachusetts law that mirrored California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, which forbids the collection of zip codes at the time of purchase by brick and mortar retailers.
Filed under Cases in the Spotlight, Uncategorized
Tagged as Beverly Song Act, Tyler v. Michael's Stores
March 8, 2013 · 10:20 pm
Products in the Spotlight: Adidas Boost Shoes
What do you think of the new line of Adidas “Boost” running shoes? Below is a picture of the window display at store in Boston, Massachusetts on March 1, 2012:
Below is the window display from a different store. How do these shoes work? What do they do? Continue reading →
Filed under Boston News, Products in the Spotlight
March 8, 2013 · 9:57 pm
Junk Fax, Junk Text, and Junk Call Cases
Leonard Law Office, PC is representing clients who have been subjected to unwanted calls on their cell phones placed by autodialling equipment in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Unwanted text messages and faxes from business also usually violate the TCPA.
Homer Simpson’s Autodialer
Surprising, but True – Big Companies Violate the TCPA
Like Homer Simpson, some companies are stupid. Like Homer, it is as though they don’t know enough to stay out of trouble. However, it’s usually not funny when U.S. corporations break the law. Whenever a business uses autodialling equipment to contact consumers’ cell phones and they do not not have express written persmission to do so, it is unlawful. The same goes for text messages, and faxes. Companies such as Jiffy Lube, Walmart, Target, and Burger King have been hit with class actions for alleged violations of the TCPA. Continue reading →
Tagged as junk call, junk fax, junk text, TCPA
March 8, 2013 · 8:21 pm
Companies in the Spotlight: Apple
Is Apple a good company?
There have been criticisms of Apple’s use of child labor overseas.
Apple Store on Bolyston St. Boston MA
Why can’t iPhones be made by American adults under work conditions that are humane?
Filed under Boston News, Companies in the Spotlight
Tagged as Apple, Boston, Boylston
February 21, 2013 · 2:54 pm
Is Greystar a Good Landlord?
We are interested in learning more about Greystar’s Business Practices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
392,397 hits