|
|
CONSUMER NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters Spanish |
|
|
![]() |
Court Rules Against General Steel In Consumer Fraud Case |
|||||
|
December 13, 2004
"Beyond any legitimate question, General Steel for years engaged in sales practices that were riddled with misrepresentations and omissions," the judge wrote. "The Court's clear and decisive ruling in this case sends a strong message about the consequences of deceptive sales practices in Colorado," Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar said. "These defendants disregarded good business ethics and notions of fair and truthful advertising to line their pockets at the expense of consumers throughout the country. These practices will not be tolerated." The state alleged during an eight-day trial in October that General Steel carried out a deceptive marketing and sales program designed to create the false impression that it was a manufacturer of steel buildings that had an inventory of buildings available to consumers at factory-direct sale or "clearance" prices. The state also alleged that consumers, responding to national radio, television and other advertising, were falsely led to believe that only a limited number of such clearance buildings were available and that they had to act quickly to submit a substantial deposit to claim a building. In his ruling, Chief Judge Jackson found that General Steel engaged in numerous false and deceptive sales practices, including: Misrepresentations that General Steel was a manufacturer; In its ruling, the court imposed the maximum allowable fine of $200,000 against General Steel's president, Jeffrey Knight. Four additional company employees were also fined by the Court $20,000 each. General Steel was also ordered to pay restitution to consumer victims who testified at trial in amounts ranging from $3,000 to $10,000 per victim. The Court also ordered General Steel to pay the state's costs and attorney fees for its investigation and prosecution. The court entered a permanent injunction against all of the defendants prohibiting a continuation of the deceptive practices. General Steel also will remain subject to third-party monitoring of its sales practices. Finally, the court directed the parties to establish a proposal for resolving the state's restitution claims for other General Steel consumers injured by the company's deceptive practices.Report Your Experience
|
|||||
Back to the top | |
||||||
|
|
||||
|
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 Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOMEOWNERS & RENTERS 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 Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Class Actions 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 © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|