Consumers Group Consumer Protection

Produced in cooperation with the Yellow Pages Publishers Association and the United States Postal Inspection Service

Businesses across the country are receiving what appear to be invoices for ad space in the familiar, locally distributed, Yellow Pages directories. But, in fact, some of these “invoices” are solicitations for listings in alternative business directories that differ from the well-known Yellow Pages. These alternative directories often are not widely distributed, or may not be published at all. Businesses are being deceived into paying for what they erroneously believe to be their usual Yellow Pages ad.

What Causes the Confusion?

The familiar “walking fingers” logo and the name “Yellow Pages” are not protected by any federal trademark registration or copyright. Therefore, you may be led to believe that anyone who uses the logo and the name is affiliated with the publisher that distributes the telephone books and Yellow Pages directories to all households and businesses in a particular geographic area. There is no connection between publishers of alternative directories and those of the well-known Yellow Pages.

Alternative directories differ significantly from the traditional Yellow Pages directories primarily because of distribution. Alternative business directories generally are not available or distributed to the public. Therefore, they provide little, if any, benefit to businesses who pay to advertise in them.

Characteristics of a Phony Yellow Pages Invoice

The solicitation from an alternative business directory may have the appearance of an invoice. It may bear the “walking fingers” logo and feature the name “Yellow Pages.” It also may falsely suggest that the publisher is affiliated with your local telephone company or with another bona fide Yellow Pages publisher you recognize. Further, the solicitation may lead you to believe that your business already has been listed in the telephone directory and you are now being billed when, in fact, you are only being solicited for placing an ad.

Typical language used on the ad solicitations, such as “present listing information;” “prompt payment is necessary to guarantee ad placement in the directory;” “renewal payment stub;” and “directory listing renewal invoice” also may appear on Yellow Pages invoices. This adds to the confusion.

How To Protect Yourself

Examine the piece of mail you have received and determine whether it is a solicitation or an invoice. If it is a solicitation, you should see a disclaimer required by the U.S. Postal Service. It states, THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS A SOLICITATION. YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PAY THE AMOUNT STATED ABOVE UNLESS YOU ACCEPT THIS OFFER. But whether you see this solicitation disclaimer or not, be wary.

Consider taking the following additional precautions:

l Investigate the company and its product before responding.

l Ask for a copy of a previous directory edition.

l Ask the publisher for written information about its directories. Ask for distribution figures, the method of distribution, and the directory’s life span.

l Ask where the directories are distributed and whether they go to all local telephone customers.

l Ask if directories are available free. If there is a fee, ask for the cost.

l Call your local Yellow Pages publisher to learn if it is associated with the company soliciting your business. If more than one Yellow Pages publisher distributes directories in your area, call the publishers whose books you are considering for your ad; ask if they are associated with the company that sent you the solicitation.

l Check with consumer protection officials in your state and in the state where the company is located to learn if they have received any complaints about the publisher. Keep in mind, however, that suspect companies often leave before complaints are registered or before local authorities have a chance to act. Just because your local consumer protection agency has no complaints on file against a company, that does not mean the business is legitimate.

What To Do if You Are a Victim

If you believe you have been the victim of this misrepresentation scheme, contact your Postmaster or local Postal Inspector. Look in your telephone directory under “U.S. Government, Postal Service U.S.” for local listings. If there is no listing, write: Chief Postal Inspector, United States Postal Service, Washington, D.C. 20260-2100, or call (202) 268-4267.

You also may direct questions about Yellow Pages directory publishers to the Yellow Pages Publishers Association (YPPA), a private trade association representing over 140 Yellow Pages publishers throughout the United States. Write: Yellow Pages Publishers Association, 340 E. Big Beaver Road, 5th Floor, Troy, MI 48083, or call (313) 680-8880.

For More Information

To learn how to protect yourself from other fraudulent sales practices that may affect your business, send for the free brochure, Buying by Phone. Write: Public Reference, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. 20580. You also may write to this address for a free copy of Best Sellers, which lists all the FTC’s consumer and business publications.

 Mail this post

Posted under Other Scams

Prepared in cooperation with Call For Action, Inc., a Washington, D.C.-based international network of radio and television consumer hotlines.

If you’ve taken the bait and lost money to a telemarketer, expect that the same or another telemarketer will try to hook you again. Consumers who have been victimized often are placed on what is known in the trade as “sucker lists” and then victimized again. “Sucker lists” contain the names, addresses, phone numbers, and sometimes other information of people who have responded to bogus telephone solicitations. These lists, which are created, bought, and sold by some telemarketers, are invaluable because unscrupulous promoters know that consumers who have been tricked once are vulnerable to additional scams. These telemarketers hope that consumers believe that “this time” they will win the “grand prize.” Most often, however, these consumers simply lose more money.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is investigating complaints about some telemarketing firms that
take your money, not just once, but repeatedly. Such activity is known as “reloading” or “double-scamming.”

This brochure explains how reloading scams work, what precautions you can take
to avoid becoming a victim, and where to go if you have a complaint about a telemarketer.

How the Scam Works

“Reloaders” or “double-scammers” use a variety of approaches to retarget consumers. For example, if you have lost money to a telemarketer you may be contacted by an individual claiming to represent a government agency, private company, or consumer organization that works, for a fee, to recover lost money or a product or prize. The problem is that the second caller may be just as bogus as the first. And, if you’ve paid the recovery fee — you guessed it — you’ve been double-scammed. In some instances, the second caller works for the firm that took your money in the first place.

Understand that some local government agencies and consumer organizations do provide assistance to consumers who have lost money. But they will not guarantee to get back your money and they will not charge a fee.

In another approach, a telemarketer may use prize incentives to persuade you to purchase merchandise. If you buy, you may get a call back saying that you now qualify for a more valuable prize. They lead you to believe that making an additional purchase could increase your chances of winning. If you buy a second time, the telemarketer may contact you yet a third time, repeating the same salespitch. The only change is that you are now a “grand prize” finalist and, by buying more merchandise you could win the “grand prize.”

Of course the telemarketer wants payment when you agree to the purchase usually by a credit card phone order or the delivery of a check by courier service. However, it may be several weeks or more before you get your products and prizes. When your merchandise or prizes do arrive, you may discover that you paid too much for inferior products and that you did not win the “grand prize” after all. By that time your credit card account has been charged and your checks cashed.

How to Protect Yourself

To avoid being victimized by a reloading operation, consider the following precautions.

Beware of individuals claiming to represent companies, consumer organizations, or government agencies that will recover your lost money for a fee. National, state, and local consumer enforcement agencies, such as your Attorney General and consumer protection offices and non-profit organizations, such as Call For Action, or the National Fraud Information Center, do not charge for their services.

Before you make a purchase by phone from a company you do not know, ask the company to send you written materials about its operation. You may be on a “sucker list.” Even if you don’t get information, you can still check out the organization with your state or local consumer protection office before you send any money.

Be skeptical of promoters who repeatedly contact you, stating that if you purchase more of their merchandise, you have a better chance of winning valuable prizes.

Make sure you receive and inspect your original purchase or prize before making additional purchases.

If You Have a Complaint

Always try to resolve complaints with the company first, but be careful. Don’t let the company representative persuade you to accept a substitute product or award if this truly isn’t what you want. If you want your money back, say so and don’t accept less.

If that does not work and you believe you have been defrauded, contact the National Fraud Information Center at 1-800-876-7060, 9 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. EST, Monday - Friday; Call For Action (CFA) at (202) 537-0585; TDD (202) 537-1551; your state Attorney General; local consumer protection office; and Better Business Bureau, to report the company.

The National Fraud Information Center is a private, non-profit organization that operates a consumer assistance hotline to provide services and assistance in filing complaints. Call For Action (CFA) is a Washington, D.C.-based international network of radio and television consumer hotlines. The CFA Network of 800 volunteers helps consumers retrieve money or services.

In addition, you may wish to file a complaint with the FTC by writing to: Correspondence Branch, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. 20580. Although the FTC generally does not intervene in individual disputes, the information you provide may help to indicate a pattern of possible law violations requiring action by the Commission.

For More Information

The FTC has a series of Facts for Consumers that explain fraudulent sales practices and precautions you can take to avoid becoming a victim. Titles include:

Swindlers are Calling Telemarketing Fraud Telephone Investment Fraud Prize Offers

These and other brochures are listed in the FTC’s Best Sellers for Consumers. To obtain a free copy, contact: Public Reference, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. 20580; (202) 326-2222. TDD (202) 326-2502.

 Mail this post

Posted under Other Scams

If someone calls to say that you’ve won a trip or valuable prize in a major sweepstakes,
it may sound like a dream come true. But listen very carefully.

If you’re told to send money immediately to collect the prize, don’t do it. Instead of winning something, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) warns that you could lose hundreds of dollars. This brochure explains how you can tell whether you truly are a sweepstakes winner or the target of a scam.

* Recognizing a Scam

In recent months, fraudulent telemarketers have been posing as representatives of the major sweepstakes, such as American Family Publishers, Publishers Clearing House, and Reader’s Digest. If you become a target, you may receive an official-looking letter that instructs you to call an ‘800′ number. Or, you may receive an unexpected phone call.

You may think the notification means you’ve won a prize, especially if you’ve already entered one or more sweepstakes. However, watch out if you’re told to:

* Pay money upfront

You may be asked to send several hundred dollars _ by overnight delivery services or Western Union _ to “prepay taxes,” make a “refundable” deposit, or cover shipping and handling costs. This is a clue to a questionable offer. With legitimate sweepstakes, you do not have to pay anything to collect your prize. If you have won merchandise, like a necklace or car, the sweepstakes promoter will pay the delivery charges. If you win cash, the sweepstakes promoter either will withhold taxes from the cash award or report the winnings to the Internal Revenue Service.

Overnight delivery services may be used in fraudulent schemes for several reasons. The scam operators may want to get your money before you become suspicious and change your mind. They also may avoid mail fraud charges by using a courier.

* Give a credit card number

To show your eligibility, you may be asked for your credit card number. Never give your credit card number over the phone to someone you do not know. The number may be used to make unauthorized charges on your account. Legitimate sweepstakes do not need your credit card number to award a prize.

* Take action immediately

High pressure tactics may be used to get your money quickly and give you little or no time to verify the caller’s identity. Be especially wary if you’re called during evenings or on weekends when you will not be able to call legitimate sweepstakes promoters.

* Checking it Out

If you are contacted by someone who says you have won a major sweepstakes _ and they ask for money or your credit card number _ call the sweepstakes promoter yourself to verify any winnings. For the phone numbers of some major sweepstakes, see the box below.

Publishers Clearing House 1-800-645-9242

American Family Publishers 1-800-237-2400

Million Dollar Dream Sweepstakes (Time, Inc.) 1-800-541-1000

Reader’s Digest Sweepstakes 1-800-234-9000

Getting More Information or Filing a Complaint

If you have questions about a sweepstakes promotion _ or if you think you’ve been victimized by a sweepstakes scam _ call the National Fraud Information Center at 1-800-876-7060 (9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST, Monday - Friday). Also contact your local consumer protection agency or attorney general’s office.

In addition, the FTC would like to hear from you. Write: Correspondence Branch, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580. Although the FTC does not handle individual disputes, the information you provide may help the agency in its enforcement efforts.

 Mail this post

Posted under Other Scams

I had gotten several messages about the famous 809 area code scam, but they were all sketchy and sounded like an urban myth. But this version is sufficiently detailed that it’s unlikely to be an urban myth, even if I haven’t checked their facts for myself. In any case, my point in sending it out is not to warn of this particular scam, but to raise the theme of pay-per scams in general. Lots of commonplace scenarios for the near-future of the Internet involve mechanisms that transfer money easily and instantaneously from my bank account to your bank account. As these mechanisms come online, scams will arise, seeking out niches like mutating germs and then replicating madly in any niche that proves sufficiently remunerative. Think, for example, of “rights management” technologies — the ones that permit intellectual property owners to sell online access to their goods in small increments. Perhaps you are presented with a Web page that says, among other things, “Our year-long investigation reveals Microsoft’s plan for world domination; US$0.03 for full details, click here”. You click, US$79.95 is transferred from your account to a numbered account in the Cayman Islands, and you are none the wiser until your monthly statement arrives. By the time the word spreads about this scam, the scammer (who is sitting on a nice deck, overlooking a beach somewhere and typing away on a laptop) has long since generated another one. Maybe the scams are customized, with information about your buying habits, demographic profile, and history of entering contests all used to fit you into the optimal “market segment”. Some people will be told that the year-long investigation reveals impeachable offenses by the President; other people will be told that the Nobel Prize for Medicine has just been awarded to that Swiss doctor who recently announced a cure for cancer. Of course, the same flexibility that permits the Internet to serve as a platform for these proliferating scams also supports mechanisms for containing them. America Online, for example, can advertise a code of practice for organizations selling things through its interface, promise to provide dispute resolution services to its customers, and so on, while happily informing the public about the shark-infested waters outside its walls. The very mention of America Online, though, suggests to me that my imagination is stuck in the past. Someone who gets burned buying a too-good-to-be-true offer from Too-Good-To-Be-True Online Enterprises Inc will no doubt get labeled as a whiner. But that’s just one model among many; returning phone calls to a toll-free or long-distance phone number is another. From now on, every model of Internet interaction that has any possibility of transferring money or anything else of value, such as personal information, will have to be designed with scammability in mind. It’s not good enough to design a rights management technology, for example, based on simple scenarios of use and simple security scenarios such as people listening in to capture credit card numbers. This is a much wider range of fraud prevention issues that, while highly developed in certain very specialized areas such as credit card and long-distance telephone companies, will now have to become democratized and applied to a much wider variety of design problems. Let’s not allow the Internet to get the same swamp-fever reputation as 900 telephone numbers.]

---

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More On The “809″ SCAM: Internet ScamBusters Uncovers
Additional Serious Implications For The Infamous “809″ Scam
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Monday we sent out a Special Alert to notify subscribers of the “809″ Scam. We’ve been doing a lot of research on this scam all week, and getting *a lot* of email. Last night we uncovered information which results in much broader implications of this scam than we’ve seen reported anywhere. So, we’re sending out this additional issue of Internet ScamBusters to warn you about the new developments.

Brief review: The “809″ scam has many permutations but they all involve a message to you (either by email, phone or pager) that you immediately call a number in the “809″ area code to avoid some bad consequence (such as litigation, or to receive information about someone who has been arrested or died) or to gain some good benefit (such as winning a wonderful prize).

The “809″ area code is in the Caribbean, yet most people are not aware that they are making an international call when they dial the “809″ area code. “809″ calls can be “pay-per-call” numbers (such as 900 numbers in the US) - and there are no legal requirements that callers be informed that they are being charged extra. When you return a “pay-per-call” 809 call, they try to keep you on the phone as long as possible, and you are charged very high rates for the call, reportedly up to $25 per minute.

New information: Until recently, the “809″ area code covered the entire Caribbean. However, that’s changed. There are now a series of new area codes for different countries in the Caribbean. That means there are now additional area codes which victims can unknowingly call with the same results as the original “809″ scam. The “268″ area code is already reportedly being used by scam artists. And you can be sure that the scammers won’t take long to start using these new codes in a big way.

According to representatives at AT&T, here are the new area codes and
their effective dates:
Country Code Effective Date
Bahamas 242 October 1, 1996
Barbados 246 July 1, 1996
Antigua 268 April 1, 1996
Cayman Islands 345 September 1, 1996
Monsterrat 664 July 1, 1996
St. Lucia 758 July 1, 1996
Puerto Rico 787 March 1, 1996
St. Kitts/Nevis 869 October 1, 1996
Jamaica 876 October 1, 1996 (conflicting reports-
may still be 809)

Bermuda now has the area code of 441.

A few more countries will be changing their area codes in 1997:
N. Commonwealth
of Mariana Is. 670 July 1, 1997
Trinidad &
Dominica 767 October 1, 1997
Tobago 868 June 1, 1997 (however, this may have
already have occurred according to AT&T)

Several countries are keeping the 809 area code, such as the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Virgin Islands, Martinique, St. John (although St. John may change to 268), St. Thomas, and St. Vincent.

(Please note: We spoke with three representatives at AT&T, and they all gave us slightly different information. For example, they varied on whether the effective date for Antigua’s change was March 1 or April 1, 1996 and whether Jamaica has a new area code. However, our concern is with the major concepts rather than with the specific details.)

And there’s more. AT&T supplied us with a long list of “pay-per-call” numbers. The numbers on this list may include adult sex lines, resume lines, and other “pay-per-call” numbers.

(Please note: this list does not include all of the “pay-per-call” numbers in the Caribbean - and there may be numbers included below that are not “pay-per-call” numbers. Our purpose here is to warn readers of the scope of this problem.)

Antigua / St. John
268-404-4000 to 404-6999
809-404-7411

Dominican Republic
809-404-4000 to 404-6999
809-412-0785 to 412-0787
809-412-0960 to 412-0964
809-414-1000 to 414-1499
809-470-0000 to 414-1949
809-474-0001 to 474-9996
809-476-0105 to 476-0112
809-476-0131 to 476-0135
809-476-0314 to 476-0319
809-476-1001 to 476-1020
809-476-1200 to 476-1229
809-476-1350 to 476-1399
809-476-1400 to 476-1446
809-476-1600 to 476-1629
809-476-1765 to 476-1796
809-476-1930 to 476-1999
809-537-0300 to 537-0899
809-540-5000 to 540-5199
809-563-0000 to 563-0199
809-563-0300 to 563-0699
809-563-9000 to 563-9199
809-563-9300 to 563-9899

St. Vincent
809-456-0000 to 456-9999
809-457-0000 to 457-9999
809-458-0000 to 458-9999
809-485-0000 to 485-9999
809-490-0000 to 490-9999
809-493-0000 to 493-9999

Summary: Be very careful returning phone numbers to area codes you don’t recognize, especially when you receive calls, emails or pages with urgent messages that you call these numbers. Call your long distance phone company’s operator to find out where the area code is located (or look it up on the net), and only call numbers that make sense to you.

---

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Two additional “pay-per-call” number scams:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SCAM: Some 800 numbers reportedly roll over to “809″ and other foreign “pay-per-call” numbers with little or no warning.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A representative at AT&T warned us of a common scam she encounters. Here’s how it works: You see an ad on the Internet or in a newspaper for an overseas job opportunity as a “secret shopper” or a “mystery shopper.” You call the listed 800 number to either learn more or to apply for the job. You are left on hold for 15 to 20 minutes. You are either warned that the call is being rolled over to a toll call, or you’re not warned. However, even when people are warned, they don’t realize that the roll over is to an international, “pay-per-call” number. When you are finally connected, you’re told all the positions have been filled. When you receive your phone bill, you have a very large charge.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SCAM: “809″ and other “pay-per-call” numbers can be used to cheat businesses who offer fax back services.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks to Lee Jones, who alerted us to this scam: Many companies offer a computerized fax-back service where the company faxes requested documents to a phone number entered by the caller. The caller can get the fax-back service to call back their “pay-per-call” number. When the business calls this “pay-per-call” fax number to send the documents, they are charged the very inflated rates. You should consider protecting your business from this scam by blocking area codes such as those listed above.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

An update on the Internet version on the 809 scam we described in the last issue of Internet ScamBusters:

On October 8th, we looked up the domain name and ISP of “Global Communications,” the company that had posted the “809″ message we included in the last issue. We discovered that the domain name, demon.net, is owned by Demon Systems Limited, in London. We tried calling Demon many times, but their phone was always busy. We emailed them asking what they intended to do about this scam, but we received no reply (other than their automated response that they had received our email).

We also searched the newsgroups to see whether they had posted any additional information. We found three relevant posts. Here is part of the response from Mike Whitaker, Duty Postmaster, Demon Internet Ltd., postmaster@demon.net:

This message originates from one of our customers and is clearly a ’scam’ to persuade people to call the number listed. Demon take a very dim view of such behaviour, and appropriate action is being taken.

Demon Internet has closed “Global Communications” account and is considering further action.

You can be sure that “Global Communications” and other companies like them will be back soon with different names, phone numbers, email addresses and messages. Again, it’s not the specifics of this scam that are important - it’s watching out for the general principles.

Incidentally, if you’re curious, several people called the 809 phone number “Global Communications” posted to discover what actually happened when you called. Ryan J. Donmoyer, in MONEY Daily on October 9th, reports:

“Callers to the number are led to believe they are talking to a live person, but in fact it is a clever recording that responds to the caller’s voice. Among other things, an irate-sounding man with a British accent warns, ‘Your check will come round or we’ll come round to get it.’ The recording seems designed to keep callers on the line as long as possible, and is reportedly billed at $25 per minute.”

Others reported that this “man” with a British accent kept telling them to hold on while he picked up other phone calls and supposedly yelled at his staff. He continued to yell at the callers as well, saying “send the money,” and yelled into other ringing phones as long as the callers remained on the line.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Corrections and Clarifications to Issue #8 Of Internet ScamBusters:

- According to our sources at AT&T, the number listed in the email (809 496 2700) is located in the Dominican Republic, not in the British Virgin Islands or the Bahamas as we reported.

- We had a typo in the last issue that implied that the Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands were the same country - obviously, that’s not true. (Thanks to Kathryn Morris for pointing this out.)

- Finally, we hope it goes without saying that we do not view all Caribbean businesses as fraudulent. Obviously, most Caribbean businesses are honest. Nor did we name the West Indian language as “broken English.” What we said was the person who answers the phone in these scams sometimes speaks broken English and pretends not to understand you to keep you on the line. We certainly did not, and do not, view West Indian language as “broken English.”

 Mail this post

Posted under Other Scams

Unwary investors are in danger today of being taken for a ride on the information superhighway. State securities regulators are concerned about the surge in illicit investment schemes on commercial online services (such as Prodigy, America Online and Compuserve), dedicated bulletin boards and the informal web of computer networks that make up the Internet. Four million U.S. households with computers and modems providing access to the online world are already being exposed to hundreds of fraudulent and abusive investment schemes, including stock manipulations, pyramid scams and Ponzi schemes.

On June 30, 1994, the New Jersey Bureau of Securities and the Securities Division of the Missouri Secretary of State announced the first major regulatory actions against consumer fraud and abuse in cyberspace. At least seven state securities agencies now have a total of more than two dozen investigation into investment-related cyberschemes underway, according to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), the national voice of the 50 state securities agencies.

As NASAA President and Iowa Securities Bureau Chief Craig Goettsch explains: “Unfortunately, the same technology that works to inform and empower small investors is now being used to pick their pockets. I want to make it clear that state securities regulators are not ‘technophobes.’ We are not here to bash the commercial online services or to suggest that people steer clear of the Internet. Our sole concern is with the swindlers and other sharp operators who are exploiting cyberspace. The problem is not cyberspace; the problem is the misuse and abuse of cyberspace.”

 Mail this post

Posted under Other Scams

Case:

State of Minnesota,
by its Attorney General,
Hubert H. Humphrey III,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Carolyn McClendon,

Defendant.

VENUE

5.   Venue is proper in Ramsey County pursuant to Minn. Stat.
(1994) because plaintiff’s cause of action arose in part
in Ramsey County.

FACTS

6.   Defendant offers a health  product named “Vitalium Plus”
for  sale  to  consumers.    This  product  contains  germanium
sesquioxide (also known as  “germanium”), a bio-available form of
the trace mineral germanium;  and  feverfew,  an herb.  Defendant
advertises a key ingredient of this product, “Germanium,” through
CompuServe, an on-line computer communication service.

7.   In the on-line advertisement referred to in paragraph 6,
above (attached as Exhibit A), and in materials subsequently sent
through  the  United  States  mail,  by  defendant  to consumers,
defendant makes  false,  fraudulent,  misleading,  incomplete and
unsubstantiated claims about  the  health  benefits of Germanium,
including, but not limited to, the following:

- 2 -

a. Germanium  has   powerful  antioxidant  properties,
helping fortify, protect,  and  strengthen  the cells against
harmful free radicals;

b.   Germanium  greatly   increases  tissue  oxygenation
throughout the body;

c.   Germanium works with oxygen to maximize cell
through its specialized electron  transfer ability, making
it an excellent energy booster;

d.   Germanium is an effective pain reliever;

e.   Germanium  has  been  studied  in  clinical  trials

involving  medical  diseases   and  conditions  that  include

rheumatoid  arthritis,   cancer,   asthma,   diabetes,  liver

disease, cardiac  disorders,  eye  diseases, headaches, heavy

metal  toxicity,  osteoporosis,   chronic  fatigue  syndrome,

candida yeast infections, hepatitis, digestive disorders, and

ces chosen to be studied as a treatment for AIDS.

8.   Defendant lacks adequate substantiation  for each of the
claims in paragraph 7,  specifically  with respect to defendant’s
claims regarding  studies  about  Germanium’s  effect  on certain
diseases.  Such  claims  are  misleading  because they imply that
persons with  AIDS  and  the  other  diseases  listed  above, may
benefit from taking Germanium, when  in fact there is no adequate
substantiation for these claims,  and  when in fact Germanium may
be harmful in that it may cause irreversible kidney damage.

9.   Further, defendant fails to disclose to potential buyers
of the product the material fact that  there is an FDA ban on the
import of Germanium due  to  health  concerns, and that Germanium
may cause irreversible kidney damage.

COUNT ONE

10.  Plaintiff  realleges   the   allegations   contained  in
paragraphs 1 through 9.

11.  The Deceptive Trade Practices Act provides in part:

A person engages in a  deceptive trade practice, when in
the course  of  business,  vocation,  or occupation, the
person:

(5) represents that goods  or services have sponsorship,
approval, characteristics,  ingredients, uses, benefits,
or quantities that they do not have . . . or

(13)  engages  in  any  other  conduct  which  similarly
creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.

12.  By  making  unsubstantiated  representations  about  the

health  benefits  of  “Germanium,”  and  by  failing  to disclose
material information about the  product, defendant has engaged in
multiple violations of the Deceptive  Trade Practices Act,  Minn.
Stat.

COUNT TWO

13.  Plaintiff  realleges   the   allegations   contained  in
paragraphs 1 through 12.

14.  The False  Statement  in  Advertisement  Act provides in
part:

Any person, firm, corporation,  or association who, with
intent to  sell  or  in  anyway  dispose of merchandise,
securities, service, or anything offered by such person,
firm,   corporation,   or   association,   directly   or
indirectly, to the public,  for sale or distribution, or

with intent to increase  the  consumption thereof, or to
induce the  public  in  any  manner  to  enter  into any
obligation  relating  thereto,  . . .  makes, publishes,
disseminates, circulates, or  places  before the public,
or causes directly or indirectly, to be made, published,
disseminated, circulated, or  placed  before the public,
in this  state,  in  a  newspaper  or other publication,
. . . or in any other  way, an advertisement of any sort
regarding merchandise,  securities,  service or anything
so offered to the public, for use, consumption, purchase
or  sale,  which  advertisement  contains  any  material
assertion, representation, or statement of fact which is
untrue, deceptive, or misleading,  shall, whether or not
pecuniary or other specific  damage to any person occurs
as a direct result thereof,  be guilty of a misdemeanor,
and any such act is declared to be a public nuisance and
may be enjoined as such.

15.  By placing before Minnesota consumers false, fraudulent,
and misleading advertisements  about  “Germanium” via CompuServe,
and through  the  U.S.  mails,  defendant  has committed multiple
violations of Minn. Stat. { 325F.67 (1994).

COUNT THREE

16.  Plaintiff  realleentation,
misleading statement  or  deceptive  practice,  with the
intent that others rely  thereon  in connection with the
sale of any merchandise,  whether  or not any person has
in fact been  misled,  deceived,  or damaged thereby, is
enjoinable as provided herein.

18.  By making unsubstantiated  claims regarding the supposed
health  benefits  of  “Germanium,”  and  by  failing  to disclose
material  information  about  the  product,  defendant  committed
multiple  violations  of  the  Consumer  Fraud  Act,  Minn. Stat.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for  judgment against defendant as

follows:

I.   Declaring that  defendant’s  conduct  as described above
violates  the  Deceptive   Trade   Practices   Act,  Minn.  Stat.
{ 325D.44, subd. 1 (1994),  the  False Statement in Advertisement
Act, Minn. Stat. { 325F.67  (1994),  and  the Consumer Fraud Act,
Minn. Stat. { 325F.69, subd. 1 (1994).

II.  Enjoining   defendant   and   her   employees,   agents,
successors, and assigns from engaging in the violations mentioned
above.

III. Enjoining   defendant   and   her   employees,   agents,
successors, and assigns from  making any false or unsubstantiated
representations to  consumers  regarding  the  health benefits of
“Germanium.”

IV.  Requiring  defendant  to   disclose   to  consumers  all
material information about “Germanium,” including but not limited
to, information about the FDA  ban  on the import of “Germanium,”
and the health risks related with taking “Germanium.”

V.   Requiring defendant to make restitution to all consumers

injured as a result of  defendant’s  conduct as described in this
complaint and awarding redress and such other relief as the Court
finds necessary  to  remedy  injury  to  consumers resulting from
defendant’s  violations  of   the  consumer  protection  statutes
identified in this complaint.

VI.  Awarding plaintiff civil  penalties against defendant in
the amount of $25,000 each  per  violation  of law as provided in
Minn. Stat. { 8.31, subds. 1 and 3 (1994).

VII. Granting such other  legal  or  equitable relief as this
Court deems  just  and  proper,  together  with  judgment against
defendant for investigative  costs, disbursements, and reasonable
attorney’s fees incurred on behalf of plaintiff.

 Mail this post

Posted under Other Scams