|
|
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 |
|
|
|
![]() |
Pyramid Scheme Operator Settles FTC ChargesBurnLounge promoted online music store 'opportunity' |
|||||||||||||
|
July 2, 2008
The settlement bars BurnLounge and its principals from participating in any pyramid scheme or other prohibited marketing scheme, bars false earning claims, and requires him to give up $20,000 in ill-gotten gains. In June 2007, the FTC charged that BurnLounge recruited consumers claiming they were likely to make substantial income operating on-line digital music stores. BurnLounge sold them so-called "product packages," ranging in price from $29.95 to $429.95 per year. More expensive packages purportedly provided participants with an increased ability to earn rewards through the BurnLounge compensation program. That compensation program primarily provided payments to participants for recruiting new participants, not for selling products or services, which the FTC alleges would result in a substantial percentage of participants losing money. The FTC contends that BurnLounge and Scott Elliott operated an illegal pyramid scheme, made deceptive earnings claims, and failed to disclose that most consumers who invest in pyramid schemes lose money. These practices violate the FTC Act. U.S. District Court Judge George Wu ordered a halt to the deceptive practices and froze the defendant's assets, pending a trial, to preserve them for consumer redress. The settlement announced today ends the litigation with Elliott. The settlement bars Elliott from participating in or assisting others in participating in prohibited marketing schemes, including pyramid schemes. It also prohibits misrepresentations about earnings in any multi-level marketing program or business venture. A judgment of $117,710.69 -- the entire amount earned by Elliott through BurnLounge -- is suspended subject to a payment of $20,000 based on his limited ability to pay. Should the court find that Elliott misrepresented his financial circumstances, the entire amount will be due. Report Your Experience
|
|||||||||||||
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. |
|