|
|
NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
RESOURCES
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
Share |
| Automotive Education Employment Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Insurance Pets Shopping Travel |
|
|
|
![]() |
"Discount Club" To Pay $3 Million |
|||
|
WASHINGTON, August 1, 2002 -- American Savings Discount Club (ASDC), which allegedly bilked consumers out of $50 million, will pay about $3 million to settle federal and state charges. The company and two of its owners will also be subject banned for life from any credit-related telemarketing, and will face a lifetime telemarketing bond of $500,000. ASDC has agreed to these provisions in order to settle a complaint that the Federal Trade Commission filed jointly with the Attorney General's Offices of Virginia, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. The complaint alleged that the company pitched a fraudulent advance-fee loan promotion to hundreds of thousands of consumers nationwide. "I was contacted about becoming a member. During this conversation I was asked for my Visa information to pay for shipping of the membership materials so I gave it to them. Two days later my Visa was debited for $100," Ellen of Colorado Springs said in a ConsumerAffairs.com complaint in November 2001. Like most other complainants, Ellen received nothing of value for her money. According to the FTC, the defendants enrolled consumers who signed up for the purported advance-fee loan program, without their knowledge, in a "discount club," and required them to be "members" of the club for three months prior to applying for the promised loan. Additionally, the defendants charged consumers a $30 monthly membership fee to remain in the club and be "eligible" to apply for the loan. "The defendants took advantage of consumers who were in financial need, providing little or nothing in return for their up-front payment, and misled them about the likelihood of securing a low-interest loan," said J. Howard Beales III, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "It is believed that the defendants collected almost $50 million over five years, with only $9 million paid out to consumers through loans, discounts, or other benefits," Beales said. The defendants' telemarketers allegedly represented that consumers would get a low-interest loan between $500 and $1,500 in exchange for an upfront payment of $100. That $100 consisted of a $40 administrative fee and the first and last monthly loan payments of $30 each. If the consumer agreed, the defendants deducted $100 from his or her bank account almost immediately via electronic transfer. According to the complaint, the defendants told many consumers who tried to cancel that the $40 fee was non-refundable. Only after the money was debited did consumers find that the defendants had enrolled them in a "discount club," in which consumers could purportedly receive reduced prices on gas, oil changes, prescription drug purchases, and other items. The consumers also learned that, contrary to what they thought, they had not been "pre-approved" for the loan, but could only apply for a loan after paying the $30 membership fee for three months. Those consumers who did get a loan paid a loan repayment fee - above and beyond the monthly fee - resulting in total payments of nearly $41 per month for a 12-month, $500 loan. In addition, according to the FTC, those consumers who chose not to cancel their "discount club" membership found that it was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. That is, the sole source of the loans to other consumers was the defendants' own funds, with an ever-increasing number of consumers needed to fund the new loans. If the defendants charged one consumer $100 on one day, for example, they would have to find four additional consumers to be able to loan that first consumer $500. Consumer expectations thus grew exponentially, with less and less money available to pay out. Under the terms of the order, the defendants will pay nearly $3 million, with a net amount of approximately $2.5 million available for consumer redress. If they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition or to have hidden assets, however, the order would require the court to enter a $40 million judgment against the defendants. |
|||
Back to the top | |
||||
Advertisement
|
|
Custom Search
|
||||
|
AUTOMOTIVE Dealers Manufacturers Service Extended Warranties Lemon Laws Recalls Tires Transporters FAMILY Aging Children, Parenting Recalls Dating Education Entertainment Pets Weddings |
FINANCE Annuities Banks Credit Cards Debt Collection Debt Counseling Insurance Investing Loans Mortgages Payday Loans Student Loans Tax Prep HEALTH Doctors Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOUSE & HOME Appliances Cookware Furniture Home Improvements Lawn & Garden Movers Pools & Spas Realtors, Rental Agents Recalls Utilities ELECTRONICS Cable TV/DBS Cameras Cell Phones Computers Home Electronics Internet Access Local Phone Service Long Distance VoIP |
SHOPPING In-Home Online Retail Stores Sporting Goods Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Lemon Laws |
CONSUMER NEWS Latest News Automotive Telecom Financial Health Homeowners Scams Seniors Travel More ... RECALLS Automotive Children's Products Drugs Food Household Products Sporting Goods ABOUT US FAQ Privacy Policy Advertise With Us Newsroom Syndication Terms of Use |
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|