FTC vs. Nationwide Comm., cramming

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by ontrack, Mar 15, 2006.

  1. ontrack

    ontrack Well-Known Member

    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/03/nationwide.htm

    "On February 27, Senior Judge Kenneth Ryskamp ordered an ex parte temporary restraining order freezing the assets of Nationwide Communications Inc., Access One Communications Inc., Network One Services Inc., and their principals, Willoughby Farr, Mary Lou Farr, Yaret Garcia, Erika Riaboukha, and Qaadir Kaid. The order appointed a temporary receiver over them and banned them from engaging in unauthorized billing."




    "For Release: March 15, 2006

    End of the Line for Phone Bill Crammers

    Defendants Collected Millions For Collect Calls That Were Not Made

    At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal judge has halted a massive fraudulent billing scheme that has collected more than $25 million in bogus collect call charges from hundreds of thousands of consumers. The FTC charged three companies and their principals with deceptive and unfair billing practices for ââ?¬Å?crammingââ?¬Â ââ?¬â?? the unauthorized billing of charges on phone bills ââ?¬â?? since at least January 2004.

    "Charging consumers for bogus collect calls is stealing," said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection." The Federal Trade Commission will not tolerate crooks who cram unauthorized charges onto phone bills."

    The FTC�s complaint alleges that, in many instances, the defendants initiated phony collect call charges, such as calls to telephone lines that were dedicated to computers and fax machines, and to phones where no one was present. In addition, some consumers'caller ID logs had no record of collect calls for which they were billed.

    The FTC charged the defendants with violating Section 5 of the FTC Act by representing that consumers owed money they did not owe, and by causing consumers to be billed for collect phone calls they neither received nor authorized. According to the FTC�s complaint, the defendants claimed that they submitted charges for billing on consumers'bills on behalf of long distance service providers, although the defendants have few, if any, long distance carriers as clients. The defendants' charges typically were buried on the last page of consumers'phone bills, with each charge typically in the range of $5 to $8."
     

Share This Page