Federal Trade Commission et al v. One Technologies, LP et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filed byFederal Trade Commission, State of Ohio, State of Illinois. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Abbe, Kenneth) (Filed on 11/17/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

SARAH E. SCHROEDER, Calif. Bar No. 221528
KENNETH H. ABBE, Calif. Bar No. 172416
EVAN ROSE, Calif. Bar No. 253478
YAN FANG, Calif. Bar No. 279737
901 Market Street, Suite 570, San Francisco, CA 94103
415-848-5100 (T); 415-848-5184 (F); [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
PAUL A. ISAAC, Ill. Bar No. 6300087
500 S. Second Street, Springfield, IL 62706
217-782-4436 (T); 217-782-1097 (F); [e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff STATE OF ILLINOIS
MIKE DEWINE, Attorney General
JEFFREY R. LOESER, Ohio Bar No. 0082144
30 E. Broad Street, 14th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
614-728-1172 (T); 877-650-4712 (F); [e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff STATE OF OHIO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
STATE OF ILLINOIS, and
STATE OF OHIO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ONE TECHNOLOGIES, LP, a limited partnership,
also d/b/a SCORESENSE, ONE TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., and MYCREDITHEALTH,
ONE TECHNOLOGIES MANAGEMENT, LLC, a
limited liability company, individually and as
general partner of ONE TECHNOLOGIES, LP, and
ONE TECHNOLOGIES CAPITAL, LLP, a limited
liability partnership, individually and as a limited
partner of ONE TECHNOLOGIES, LP,
Defendants.

23

CASE NO.
COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION & OTHER
EQUITABLE RELIEF

Plaintiffs, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), the State of Illinois, and the State of

24

Ohio, for their Complaint allege:

25

1.

26

Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 57b, and Section 5 of the Restore Online Shoppers’

27

Confidence Act (“ROSCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 8404, to obtain permanent injunctive relief, rescission

28

or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten
COMPLAINT
Page 1 of 16

The FTC brings this action under Sections 13(b) and 19 of the Federal Trade Commission

1

monies, and other equitable relief for Defendants’ acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of

2

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and in violation of Section 4 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8403.

3

2.

4

and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“Illinois Consumer Fraud Act”), 815 ILCS § 505/7(a),

5

and Section 6 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8405, to obtain a preliminary and permanent injunction

6

against Defendants for engaging in deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Illinois

7

Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS §§ 505/1 et seq., and in violation of Section 4 of ROSCA, 15

8

U.S.C. § 8403.

9

3.

10

Chapter 1345 of the Ohio Revised Code, O.R.C. §§ 1345.01 et seq., and Section 6 of ROSCA,

11

15 U.S.C. § 8405, to obtain a preliminary and permanent injunction and restitution against

12

Defendants for engaging in deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales

13

Practices Act, O.R.C. §§ 1345.01 et seq., and in violation of Section 4 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C.

14

§ 8403.

The State of Illinois brings this action under Section 7(a) of the Illinois Consumer Fraud

The State of Ohio brings this action under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act,

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

15
16

4.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the FTC’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

17

§§ 1331, 1337(a), and 1345; 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 53(b), and 57b; and Section 5(a) of ROSCA, 15

18

U.S.C. § 8404(a).

19

5.

20

and State of Ohio pursuant to Section 6(a) of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8405(a), as well as

21

supplemental jurisdiction over their claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

22

6.

23

§ 53(b).

24

7.

25

transacted business with Defendants reside in San Francisco County.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of Plaintiffs State of Illinois

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and (b)(3), and 15 U.S.C.

Assignment to the San Francisco Division is proper because thousands of consumers who

PLAINTIFFS

26
27

8.

The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government created by statute.

28

15 U.S.C. §§ 41–58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), which
COMPLAINT

Page 2 of 16

1

prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTC also enforces

2

ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 8401 et seq., which prohibits certain methods of negative option

3

marketing on the Internet.

4

9.

5

to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and ROSCA, and to secure such equitable relief as may be

6

appropriate in each case, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund

7

of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 56(a)(2)(A),

8

56(a)(2)(B), 57b, and 8404.

9

10.

10

Madigan is the duly elected and qualified Attorney General acting for Plaintiff State of Illinois,

11

and brings this action for and on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, pursuant to the

12

provisions of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS §§ 505/1 et seq., Section 6 of ROSCA,

13

15 U.S.C. § 8405, and her common law authority as Attorney General to represent the People of

14

the State of Illinois.

15

11.

16

DeWine is the duly elected and qualified Attorney General acting for Plaintiff State of Ohio, and

17

brings this action for and on behalf of the People of the State of Ohio, pursuant to the Ohio

18

Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. §§ 1345.01 et seq., and Section 6 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C.

19

§ 8405.

The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its own attorneys,

Plaintiff State of Illinois is one of the fifty sovereign states of the United States. Lisa

Plaintiff State of Ohio is one of the fifty sovereign states of the United States. Mike

DEFENDANTS

20
21

12.

Defendant One Technologies, LP is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal

22

place of business at 8144 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 600, Dallas, Texas 75231. One Technologies,

23

LP has done business as ScoreSense, One Technologies, Inc., and MyCreditHealth. One

24

Technologies, LP transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United

25

States.

26

13.

27

with its principal place of business at 8144 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 600, Dallas, Texas 75231.

28

One Technologies Management, LLC is the general partner of Defendant One Technologies, LP.

Defendant One Technologies Management, LLC is a Texas limited liability company

COMPLAINT

Page 3 of 16

1

One Technologies Management, LLC transacts or has transacted business in this district and

2

throughout the United States.

3

14.

4

principal place of business at 8144 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 600, Dallas, Texas 75231. One

5

Technologies Capital, LLP is the limited partner of Defendant One Technologies, LP. One

6

Technologies Capital, LLP transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the

7

United States.

Defendant One Technologies Capital, LLP is a Texas limited liability partnership with its

COMMERCE

8
9

15.

At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a substantial course

10

of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15

11

U.S.C. § 44.
DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS PRACTICES

12
13

16.

Since 2008, Defendants have used deceptive marketing tactics to enroll consumers in

14

their credit monitoring program.

15

17.

16

credit scores, but fail to disclose, or fail to disclose adequately, that by accessing their score,

17

consumers will be enrolled in Defendants’ credit monitoring program and will incur a $29.95

18

recurring monthly fee until they call Defendants to cancel their membership. Although some of

19

Defendants’ websites contain statements about the recurring charge, those statements are not

20

conspicuous. Accordingly, many consumers’ overall net impression of Defendants’ websites is

21

that Defendants offer consumers “free” credit scores with no further payment obligation.

22

18.

23

through the sale of their credit monitoring program. At least 210,000 consumers have

24

complained about Defendants’ business practices, as described below, to their bank, their credit

25

card company, a law enforcement agency, or the Better Business Bureau.

On their websites, Defendants purport to offer consumers “free” online access to their

Since 2008, Defendants have caused tens of millions of dollars in injury to consumers

Defendants’ Products

26
27

19.

In 2008, Defendants launched MyCreditHealth, a product that monitors consumers’ credit

28

reports for fraudulent activity and provides access to their credit score. In early 2010,
COMPLAINT

Page 4 of 16

1

Defendants launched ScoreSense, a product substantially similar to MyCreditHealth. For the

2

purposes of this Complaint, “Defendants’ credit monitoring program” means MyCreditHealth,

3

ScoreSense, and similar products offered by Defendants.
Defendants’ “Free” Credit Score Offer

4
5

20.

Defendants market their credit monitoring program through at least 50 websites,

6

including FreeScore360.com, FreeScoreOnline.com, and ScoreSense.com.

7

21.

8

institutions use credit scores to determine whether to extend credit to a consumer. Some

9

employers and property owners also use a consumer’s credit score before transacting business

10

with the consumer.

11

22.

12

As a result, consumers who enter terms such as “free credit report” into the search engine often

13

see an ad for one or more of Defendants’ websites near the top of the search results, in the

14

sponsored links or ads section. (See, e.g., Exhibit 1) Defendants’ most prominent online ad

15

states, “View your latest Credit Scores from All 3 Bureaus in 60 seconds for $0!”

16

23.

17

emails often inform consumers that “Your Complimentary Credit Scores Are Waiting For You.”

18

(See, e.g., Exhibit 2)

Defendants attract consumers to their websites by offering “free” credit scores. Financial

Defendants purchase keyword advertising on search engines, such as Google and Bing.

Defendants also entice consumers to their websites through email solicitations. The

Defendants’ Sign-Up Process

19
20

24.

Consumers generally learn about Defendants’ websites through Defendants’ search

21

engine ads or through offers from third-party affiliate marketers, whom Defendants pay to direct

22

consumers to Defendants’ websites. All consumers who click on links in Defendants’ ads or

23

their affiliate marketers’ offers are directed to an online sign-up path controlled by Defendants.

24

25.

25

websites is the landing page (“Landing Page”). The focal point of the Landing Page is a blank

26

form, which in some instances is emphasized by large arrows, asking consumers to enter their

27

name, email address, and zip code. A large, brightly colored button labeled “Get Yours Now,”

28

“View Your Free Scores Now,” or similar language sits below or next to the blank entry fields.

Landing Page: The first webpage consumers see upon arrival at any of Defendants’

COMPLAINT

Page 5 of 16

1

The webpage attached as Exhibit 3.a is materially similar to the Landing Page for FreeScore360

2

.com as it appeared to consumers in mid-2012. The webpage attached as Exhibit 3.b is

3

materially similar to the Landing Page for FreeScoreOnline.com as it appeared to consumers in

4

mid-2012. The webpages attached as Exhibit 4 are materially similar to the Landing Page for

5

Defendants’ websites, as they have appeared to consumers since late 2012.

6

26.

7

credit score are directed to a page that requests more personal information, including their name,

8

address, and phone number (“Address Form”). A large, brightly colored button labeled “Submit

9

& Continue” or similar language sits at the bottom of this page. The Address Form is materially

10

similar to the webpage attached as Exhibit 5.

11

27.

12

“Submit & Continue” button are directed to a webpage that requests the consumers’ Social

13

Security number and birthdate (“Social Security Form”). A large, brightly colored button

14

labeled “Continue” or similar language sits at the bottom of the page. The Social Security Form

15

is materially similar to the webpage attached as Exhibit 6.

16

28.

17

“Continue” are directed to a webpage that asks several questions based on information in the

18

consumers’ credit report to verify the consumers’ identity (“Verification Form”). The

19

Verification Form is materially similar to the webpage attached as Exhibit 7.

20

29.

21

information and will be done shortly.” The pop-up screen is materially similar to the webpage

22

attached as Exhibit 8.

23

30.

24

comparing the consumer’s debt to an average consumer’s debt (“Payment Form”). The screen

25

also proclaims, “[Y]our credit scores are ready!”, and directs consumers to enter credit or debit

26

card information in the “Verification Information” section. Immediately above the credit card

27

field is the following statement or similar language: “Tell us which card you would like to use

28

for our $1.00 refundable processing fee.” In numerous instances, consumers believed that

Address Form: Consumers who click the button on the Landing Page to access their free

Social Security Form: Consumers who complete the Address Form and click the large

Verification Form: Consumers who complete the Social Security Form and click

After consumers verify their identity, a screen pops up, stating, “[W]e’re processing your

Payment Form: After a few moments, the pop-up screen expands to feature a bar graph

COMPLAINT

Page 6 of 16

1

Defendants needed their debit or credit card information to verify their identity or to charge a $1

2

fee to process their credit score. A large, brightly colored button labeled “View Scores” or

3

similar language sits near the bottom of the pop-up screen. The Payment Form is materially

4

similar to the webpage attached as Exhibit 9.

5

31.

6

Scores” are directed to a page that states, “Thank You – your order is complete,” or similar

7

language (“Confirmation Page”). This page displays the consumer’s membership number for

8

Defendants’ credit monitoring program. Directly below the membership information sits a large,

9

brightly colored “Continue” button. The Confirmation Page is materially similar to the webpage

10

attached as Exhibit 10.

11

32.

12

Confirmation Page to the home page of Defendants’ credit monitoring program, which displays

13

consumers’ credit scores from various credit bureaus (“Home Page”). The Home Page also

14

features general information about identity protection and credit pitfalls, in addition to a large

15

button requesting to “Learn More” about Defendants’ “Complete Monitoring Package.” The

16

Home Page is materially similar to the webpage attached as Exhibit 11.

17

33.

18

experience a sign-up process similar to that described in Paragraphs 25 to 32, above. The

19

Landing Page that consumers see on their mobile device is materially similar to the webpages

20

attached as Exhibit 12.

21

34.

22

credit monitoring program until they discovered a $29.95 charge on their bank or credit card

23

statement. Some consumers did not notice the recurring charge for several billing cycles. Many

24

of these consumers are on tight budgets and could not afford the unexpected charges.

Confirmation Page: Consumers who complete the Payment Form and click “View

Credit Monitoring Homepage: Consumers who click “Continue” are directed from the

Mobile Sign-Up: Consumers who visit Defendants’ websites on a mobile device

In numerous instances, consumers did not know they had been enrolled in Defendants’

Defendants’ Purported Disclosures

25
26

35.

Defendants’ websites have contained purported disclosures referring to the $29.95

27

recurring charge associated with Defendants’ credit monitoring program. In late 2012,

28

Defendants added a disclaimer in small text on a gray strip at the top of their Landing Page that
COMPLAINT

Page 7 of 16

1

states, “Free 7-Day trial when you order your 3 Free Credit Scores. Membership is then just

2

$29.95 per month until you call to cancel.” (Exhibit 4) However, due to the size and location of

3

the text, many consumers do not see this disclaimer. Other features, such as graphics, logos,

4

forms, and large buttons, distract consumers from the inconspicuous disclosure. In addition,

5

consumers who interacted with Defendants’ websites prior to late 2012 saw no disclosure on the

6

Landing Page. (Exhibit 3)

7

36.

8

the Social Security Form, below the field where consumers enter their Social Security number

9

and birthdate. (Exhibit 6) Sandwiched between the logos for security firms McAfee and

10

VeriSign and the brightly colored “Continue” button, is small black text that typically states:

On Defendants’ websites, a second purported disclosure has appeared in a hyperlink on

11

By clicking on the ‘Continue’ button below, you agree to the Offer Details, to the

12

Terms and Conditions, acknowledge receipt of our Privacy Policy and agree to its

13

terms . . . .

14

The “Offer Details” link triggers a small pop-up window that reads:

15

By submitting your secure order you will be immediately charged a $1 refundable

16

processing fee, be eligible to receive your 3 Free Credit Scores, and begin your

17

trial membership in ScoreSense credit monitoring. At the end of the 7-day trial

18

period, your credit/debit card will be charged $29.95 on a monthly basis until you

19

call to cancel. You can cancel by calling 1-800-972-7204.

20

The majority of consumers did not click on the Offer Details link, and thus failed to see this

21

disclosure. The Offer Details pop-up is materially similar to the pop-up window in Exhibit 13.

22

37.

23

(Exhibit 9) The Payment Form contains a graphic showing the consumer’s debt, the payment

24

field, security firm logos, and a large “View Scores” button. The page also features a side panel

25

that contains various information about credit scores and credit profiles. The side panel contains

26

a box titled “Offer Details” that describes Defendants’ $29.95 per month continuity plan.

27

However, many consumers did not see this disclosure. The offer details box is in white font on a

28

light gray background, a color combination that one of Defendants’ employees noted “has been

On Defendants’ websites, the last purported disclosure appears on the Payment Form.

COMPLAINT

Page 8 of 16

1

known to cause seizures in lab rats.” The offer details box is also in small print and on the right

2

side of the page away from the credit card field. Consumers’ eyes are not drawn to the gray side

3

panel, but instead to the credit card field and large orange button below the credit card field that

4

states, “View Scores.”

5

38.

6

score offer were even less likely than desktop users to see Defendants’ disclosures because the

7

mobile sign-up path did not contain any disclosures about the recurring charge.

Until March 2013, consumers who used a mobile device to accept Defendants’ free credit

Defendants’ Cancellation Policy

8
9

39.

Consumers who want to stop recurring charges for Defendants’ credit monitoring

10

program must call Defendants’ toll-free customer service number. Defendants do not permit

11

consumers to cancel their membership online or via email.

12

40.

13

membership and to request a refund. In numerous instances, consumers informed Defendants’

14

agents that they were unaware that they had been enrolled in Defendants’ credit monitoring

15

program. Some consumers had to call Defendants’ customer service department multiple times

16

to cancel their membership in the program.

17

41.

18

not knowingly enroll in Defendants’ credit monitoring program.

Many consumers have called Defendants’ customer service number to cancel their

In numerous instances, Defendants denied refunds to consumers who claimed they did

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT

19
20

42.

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or

21

practices in or affecting commerce.”

22

43.

23

practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.

Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive acts or

24

Count 1

25

Failure to Adequately Disclose Offer Terms

26

44.

Through the means described in Paragraphs 16 to 38, above, Defendants have

27

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that consumers could obtain their

28

credit score for free or for a $1 processing fee.
COMPLAINT

Page 9 of 16

1

45.

In numerous instances in which Defendants have made the representation set forth in

2

Paragraph 44, above, Defendants have failed to disclose, or failed to disclose adequately, to

3

consumers the material terms and conditions related to the costs of the offer, including:
a.

4

That Defendants would automatically enroll consumers in a negative option
continuity plan with additional charges;

5
b.

6

That consumers must affirmatively cancel the negative option continuity plan
before the end of a trial period to avoid additional charges;

7
c.

8

That Defendants would use consumers’ credit card information to charge
consumers monthly for the negative option continuity plan;

9
10

d.

The costs associated with the negative option continuity plan; and

11

e.

The means consumers must use to cancel the negative option program to avoid
additional charges.

12
13

46.

Defendants’ failure to disclose or disclose adequately the material information described

14

in Paragraph 45, above, in light of the representation described in Paragraph 44, above,

15

constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.

16

§ 45(a).
VIOLATIONS OF THE RESTORE ONLINE SHOPPERS’ CONFIDENCE ACT

17
18

47.

In 2010, Congress passed the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, 15 U.S.C.

19

§§ 8401 et seq., which became effective on December 29, 2010. Congress passed ROSCA

20

because “[c]onsumer confidence is essential to the growth of online commerce. To continue its

21

development as a marketplace, the Internet must provide consumers with clear, accurate

22

information and give sellers an opportunity to fairly compete with one another for consumers’

23

business.” Section 2 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8401.

24

48.

25

goods or services sold in transactions effected on the Internet through a negative option feature,

26

as that term is defined in the Commission’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), 16 C.F.R.

27

§ 310.2(u), unless the seller (1) clearly and conspicuously discloses all material terms of the

28

transaction before obtaining the consumer’s billing information, (2) obtains the consumer’s

Section 4 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8403, generally prohibits charging consumers for

COMPLAINT

Page 10 of 16

1

express informed consent before making the charge, and (3) provides a simple mechanism to

2

stop recurring charges. See 15 U.S.C. § 8403.

3

49.

4

any goods or services, a provision under which the consumer’s silence or failure to take an

5

affirmative action to reject goods or services or to cancel the agreement is interpreted by the

6

seller as acceptance of the offer.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(u).

7

50.

8

Defendants’ credit monitoring program to consumers through a negative option feature as

9

defined by the TSR. See 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(u).

10

51.

11

of a rule promulgated under Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a.

The TSR defines a negative option feature as: “in an offer or agreement to sell or provide

As described in Paragraphs 16 to 38, above, Defendants have advertised and sold

Pursuant to Section 5 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8404, a violation of ROSCA is a violation

12

Count 2

13

Failure to Disclose All Material Terms

14

52.

In numerous instances, Defendants have charged or attempted to charge consumers for

15

Defendants’ credit monitoring program through a negative option feature while failing to clearly

16

and conspicuously disclose all material terms of the transaction before obtaining consumers’

17

billing information.

18

53.

19

of Section 4(1) of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8403(1), and are therefore a violation of a rule

20

promulgated under Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a.

Defendants’ acts or practices, as described in Paragraph 52, above, constitute a violation

21

Count 3

22

Failure to Obtain Consumers’ Express Informed Consent

23

54.

In numerous instances, Defendants have charged or attempted to charge consumers for

24

Defendants’ credit monitoring program through a negative option feature while failing to obtain

25

consumers’ express informed consent before charging their credit card, debit card, bank account,

26

or other financial account for Defendants’ credit monitoring program.

27

///

28

///
COMPLAINT

Page 11 of 16

1

55.

Defendants’ acts or practices, as described in Paragraph 54, above, constitute a violation

2

of Section 4(2) of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8403(2), and are therefore a violation of a rule

3

promulgated under Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a.

4

Count 4

5

Failure to Provide a Simple Cancellation Method

6

56.

In numerous instances, Defendants have charged or attempted to charge consumers for

7

Defendants’ credit monitoring program through a negative option feature while failing to provide

8

simple mechanisms for consumers to stop recurring charges from being placed on their credit

9

card, debit card, bank account, or other financial account.

10

57.

11

of Section 4(3) of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8403(3), and are therefore a violation of a rule

12

promulgated under Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a.

Defendants’ acts or practices, as described in Paragraph 56, above, constitute a violation

13

VIOLATIONS OF ILLINOIS LAW

14

Count 5

15

58.

Defendants have engaged in a course of trade or commerce which constitutes unfair and

16

deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful under Section 2 of the Illinois Consumer Fraud

17

Act, 815 ILCS § 505/2, in connection with marketing and selling free credit scores by:
a.

18

Failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose the material fact that consumers

19

were being signed up for a 7-day free trial which would automatically bill

20

consumers’ credit cards until they cancelled by telephone;
b.

21

obtaining the express, informed consent of consumers to assess such charges;

22
c.

23

Representing expressly or by implication that Defendants offer free credit scores
when, in fact, access to such credit scores cost consumers $1;

24
d.

25

Misrepresenting the purpose for obtaining a consumer’s credit or debit card
number; and

26
e.

27
28

Unfairly assessing a monthly charge against consumers’ credit cards without

Failing to honor consumer cancellation requests.

///
COMPLAINT

Page 12 of 16

1

VIOLATIONS OF OHIO LAW

2

Count 6

3

59.

Defendants have engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the

4

Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. § 1345.02, the Exclusions and Limitations in

5

Advertisements Rule, O.A.C. 109:4-3-02, the Use of Word ‘Free’ Etc. Rule, O.A.C. 109:4-3-04,

6

and the Substantiation of Claims in Advertising Rule, O.A.C. 109:4-3-09, in connection with

7

their solicitation and provision of credit monitoring services by:
a.

8

Misrepresenting, directly or by implication, that consumers could obtain their
credit score for free or for a $1 processing fee; and

9
b.

10

Failing to disclose all material terms of the transaction, including:
i.

11

The fact that Defendants would automatically enroll consumers in a

12

negative option continuity plan that required consumers to affirmatively

13

cancel to avoid additional charges;
ii.

14

The fact that Defendants would use consumers’ credit card information to
charge them monthly for the negative option continuity plan;

15
16

iii.

The costs associated with the negative option continuity plan; and

17

iv.

The means consumers must use to cancel.

18

60.

Such acts and practices have been previously determined by Ohio courts to violate the

19

Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. §§ 1345.01 et seq. Defendants committed said violations

20

after such decisions were available for public inspection pursuant to O.R.C. § 1345.05(A)(3).
CONSUMER INJURY

21
22

61.

Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result of

23

Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, ROSCA, and the laws of the State of Illinois and the

24

State of Ohio. In addition, Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful

25

acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue to

26

injure consumers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm the public interest.

27

///

28

///
COMPLAINT

Page 13 of 16

THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF

1
2

62.

Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), empowers this Court to grant injunctive

3

and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to halt and redress violations of any

4

provision of law enforced by the FTC. The Court, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction,

5

may award ancillary relief, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the

6

refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, to prevent and remedy any

7

violation of any provision of law enforced by the FTC.

8

63.

9

authorize this Court to enjoin Defendants’ further violations of ROSCA.

10

64.

11

State of Illinois to enforce its state law claims against Defendants in this Court for violations of

12

the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS §§ 505/1 et seq., and to grant such relief as provided

13

under state law, including injunctive relief, restitution, and such other relief to which the State of

14

Illinois may be entitled. Section 7 of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS § 505/7,

15

authorizes this Court to grant civil penalties, injunctions, and other relief the Court deems

16

appropriate. Section 6 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8405, also authorizes this Court to grant relief

17

the Court deems appropriate.

18

65.

19

State of Ohio to enforce its state law claims against Defendants in this Court for violations for

20

the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. §§ 1345.01 et seq., and to grant such relief as

21

provided under state law, including injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, restitution, civil

22

penalties, and such other relief to which the State of Ohio may be entitled. Section 6 of ROSCA,

23

15 U.S.C. § 8405, also authorizes this Court to grant relief the Court deems appropriate.

Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, and Section 5 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8404,

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction to allow Plaintiff

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction to allow Plaintiff

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

24
25

Wherefore, Plaintiff FTC, pursuant to Sections 13(b) and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.

26

§§ 53(b), 57b, Section 5 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8404, and the Court’s own equitable powers,

27

and Plaintiffs State of Illinois and State of Ohio, pursuant to Section 6 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C.

28

§ 8405, and applicable state law, request that the Court:
COMPLAINT

Page 14 of 16

A.

1

Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act, the

2

Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and ROSCA by

3

Defendants;
B.

4

Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers

5

resulting from Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the Ohio

6

Consumer Sales Practices Act, and ROSCA, including but not limited to rescission or

7

reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-

8

gotten monies; and

9

///

10

///

11

///

12

///

13

///

14

///

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
COMPLAINT

Page 15 of 16

From:
To:
Sent: Tue, Mar 12, 2013
Subject:
, Your Complimentary Credit Scores Are Waiting For You

Complaint Exhibit 3.a

Email

First Name

Zip Code

Last Name

I am interested in receiving special offers from ScoreSense and partners.

Copyright © 2012 www.freescoreonline.com and ScoreSense®. All rights reserved.
Contact Us
Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy

Home

Member Login

Credit Tips

Sample Report

FAQ

Familiarizing yourself with the credit report process and ensuring that your credit report does not contain errors is crucial to strong financial security. The 3 national credit reporting agencies:
Experian, Equifax and TransUnion - gather information for your credit report, update your credit report, and provide your credit report to landlords, businesses, and employers who
need to assess your financial responsibility.

Why Is It Important To View My Credit Report?

It is prudent to view your credit report on a frequent basis for fraudulent activity. If someone has accessed your Social Security number, very little additional information is required to commit

Complaint Exhibit 3.b

Free 7-Day trial when you order your 3 Free Credit Scores. Membership is then just $29.95 per month until you call to cancel.

Member Login

Get Your Credit Scores
From All 3 Bureaus
TransUnion, Equifax, Experian Scores (View a Sample)
Daily Credit Monitoring & Alerts
New Credit Reports and Scores each month
$1,000,000 ID Theft Insurance**

Checking your credit will NOT harm your score!

Why do I need to check my Credit Score?
A good credit score is your passport to competitive interest rates for
mortgages, cars, credit card offers, job offers, insurance premiums and
more. A strong score is worth money because it saves you in excess costs.

Credit FAQs

CONTACT US

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

PRIVACY POLICY

© 2014 One Technologies, L.P. All rights reserved.
ScoreSense ® is a trademark of One Technologies, L.P.
One Technologies, L.P. is the proud owner of this website, as well as ScoreSense.com, FreeScoreOnline.com, FreeScore360.com, NationalCreditReport.com, CheckYourCredit.us,
CreditReportCenter.us, CreditScoreCenter.us, CreditScoreOK.net, CreditScoreTracker.net, TripleScores.us, YourCreditScores.co, FS360.co, for a complete list of our properties click here.
Identity Theft Insurance underwritten by insurance company subsidiaries or affiliates of American International Group, Inc. The description herein is a summary and intended for informational
purposes only and does not include all terms, conditions and exclusions of the policies described. Please refer to the actual policies for terms, conditions, and exclusions of coverage. Coverage may
not be available in all jurisdictions. Coverage is not available to residents of New York.

* Credit scores and ranking shown above are examples only.
** Identity theft insurance underwritten by subsidiaries or affiliates of American International Group, Inc. The description herein is a summary and intended for informational purposes only and does
not include all the terms, conditions, and exclusions of coverage. Coverage may not be available in all jurisdictions. Download the PLAN SUMMARY for more details.

.a

.b

Complaint Exhibit 7

Complaint Exhibit 7

Android

.a

IOS - Apple

.b