http://www.covers.com/post/showmessage.asp?spt=9&ur=142370656&sub=1450
It seems that this is one of Grand Centrals owner.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/9706/idealcon.htm
and this is Peter Jacoby:
FOR RELEASE: FEBRUARY 16, 1994
FTC GARNERS $1 MILLION FOR CONSUMERS
AND BAN ON ANY ROLE IN FUTURE PRIZE-PROMOTION SCHEMES,
IN SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS IN LAS VEGAS TELEMARKETING CASE
The principal officers of three Las Vegas-based telemarketing
companies have agreed to pay $1 million for redress to consumers,
and neither the officers nor their companies could play a future
role in any type of sweepstakes or prize-promotion scheme, as part
of a settlement of Federal Trade Commission charges. The FTC
charged in court last year that these defendants conducted a
nationwide telemarketing scheme in which they falsely told con-
sumers they had won valuable prizes and then used a variety of
misrepresentations to induce the consumers to purchase cosmetics,
vitamins, water purifiers and other products for prices from $399
to thousands of dollars.
The defendants are Sierra Pacific Marketing, Inc., which also
did business as American Premier Products; Legacy Unlimited, Inc.,
of Nevada and Legacy Unlimited, Inc., of Arizona; and corporate
officers and owners Steven Morris Rowe, Gary D. Hosman, and Robert
Morris Rowe.
According to the February 1993 complaint detailing the FTC
charges, the defendants made unsolicited telephone calls to
consumers, telling the consumers they had won one of four or five
listed prizes (one of which often was a car) as part of special
promotions. Many of the victims were elderly, the FTC said. The
ensuing sales pitch to entice consumers to purchase the promoted
merchandise allegedly included misrepresentations about the value
of the prizes, which typically turned out to be watches or jewelry
for which the defendants had paid less than $60 each, the FTC
- more -
Sierra Pacific--02/16/94)
alleged. Some consumers were solicited to buy again -- or
"reloaded" -- before they had a chance to see the first prize they
had won, based on alleged promises that the additional purchases
would make them more likely to win even more valuable prizes. The
defendants also allegedly aided and abetted other telemarketers
engaging in similar deceptive practices, the FTC charged.
The proposed consent judgment to settle these charges, which
requires the court's approval to become binding, would require
Steven and Robert Rowe to pay a total of $500,000 and Hosman to
pay the other $500,000 within 90 days. A court-ordered receiver-
ship and freeze on these defendants' assets will remain in effect
until the payments are made. If practical, the money will be used
to provide redress to consumers.
As noted above, the judgment also would permanently bar all
six defendants from participating in, or assisting others in any
way to run, a prize-promotion scheme. This would include any
scheme that involves any sweepstakes or other contest where a
prize or gift is offered, whether or not the defendants are trying
to sell a product or service.
Further, in connection with any other marketing program they
run, or any telemarketing program they assist others to run, the
defendants would be prohibited from:
-- misrepresenting any material fact, such as the value or
nature of the product or service being marketed or the
incentive item offered as an inducement to purchase; or
-- resoliciting a telemarketing customer before he or she has
received an ordered item and any incentive item associated
with it.
In addition, in connection with such efforts, the consent
judgment would require the defendants to:
-- provide customers a statement with all material terms and
conditions of any sale before obtaining their credit-card
information or agreement to purchase;
-- disclose any refund policy they may offer or that may be
required by law and provide an easily-understandable
statement of the steps to take to get a refund, or clearly
state that they do not offer refunds;
-- state up front to consumers that the purpose of the
contact is to make a sales presentation;
Sierra Pacific--02/16/94)
-- disclose the reasonable retail value of any incentive item
they offer when asked by consumers;
-- take reasonable steps to monitor employees to ensure they
are complying with the settlement, and to terminate those who
do not; and
-- investigate and promptly resolve consumer complaints they
receive.
Moreover, when assisting other telemarketers under certain
circumstances, the defendants would be required to obtain their
clients' agreement to comply with the settlement, and to make a
reasonable evaluation of their marketing program both before
taking them on as clients and on an ongoing basis thereafter.
Finally, the settlement would prohibit the defendants from
providing information about prior customers to any third party.
The Commission vote to accept the settlement for filing in
court was 5-0. It was filed on Feb. 15 in U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada, in Las Vegas. The investigation and liti-
gation were handled by the FTC's Seattle Regional Office.
NOTE: This consent judgment is for settlement purposes only and
does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law
violation. Consent judgments have the force of law when signed by
the judge.
A free FTC fact sheet for consumers titled "Prize Offers"
lists tips on avoiding scams. Copies of the fact sheet, as well
as the settlement and other documents associated with this case,
are available from the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130,
6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580;
202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 202-326-2502.
# # #
MEDIA CONTACT: Bonnie Jansen, Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2161
STAFF CONTACT: Tracy S. Thorleifson, Seattle Regional Office
2806 Federal Building, 915 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98174
206-220-6350
(FTC Matter No. X930020)
(Civil Action No. CV-S-93-134-PMP(RJJ))
(sierra2)
It seems that this is one of Grand Centrals owner.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/9706/idealcon.htm
and this is Peter Jacoby:
FOR RELEASE: FEBRUARY 16, 1994
FTC GARNERS $1 MILLION FOR CONSUMERS
AND BAN ON ANY ROLE IN FUTURE PRIZE-PROMOTION SCHEMES,
IN SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS IN LAS VEGAS TELEMARKETING CASE
The principal officers of three Las Vegas-based telemarketing
companies have agreed to pay $1 million for redress to consumers,
and neither the officers nor their companies could play a future
role in any type of sweepstakes or prize-promotion scheme, as part
of a settlement of Federal Trade Commission charges. The FTC
charged in court last year that these defendants conducted a
nationwide telemarketing scheme in which they falsely told con-
sumers they had won valuable prizes and then used a variety of
misrepresentations to induce the consumers to purchase cosmetics,
vitamins, water purifiers and other products for prices from $399
to thousands of dollars.
The defendants are Sierra Pacific Marketing, Inc., which also
did business as American Premier Products; Legacy Unlimited, Inc.,
of Nevada and Legacy Unlimited, Inc., of Arizona; and corporate
officers and owners Steven Morris Rowe, Gary D. Hosman, and Robert
Morris Rowe.
According to the February 1993 complaint detailing the FTC
charges, the defendants made unsolicited telephone calls to
consumers, telling the consumers they had won one of four or five
listed prizes (one of which often was a car) as part of special
promotions. Many of the victims were elderly, the FTC said. The
ensuing sales pitch to entice consumers to purchase the promoted
merchandise allegedly included misrepresentations about the value
of the prizes, which typically turned out to be watches or jewelry
for which the defendants had paid less than $60 each, the FTC
- more -
Sierra Pacific--02/16/94)
alleged. Some consumers were solicited to buy again -- or
"reloaded" -- before they had a chance to see the first prize they
had won, based on alleged promises that the additional purchases
would make them more likely to win even more valuable prizes. The
defendants also allegedly aided and abetted other telemarketers
engaging in similar deceptive practices, the FTC charged.
The proposed consent judgment to settle these charges, which
requires the court's approval to become binding, would require
Steven and Robert Rowe to pay a total of $500,000 and Hosman to
pay the other $500,000 within 90 days. A court-ordered receiver-
ship and freeze on these defendants' assets will remain in effect
until the payments are made. If practical, the money will be used
to provide redress to consumers.
As noted above, the judgment also would permanently bar all
six defendants from participating in, or assisting others in any
way to run, a prize-promotion scheme. This would include any
scheme that involves any sweepstakes or other contest where a
prize or gift is offered, whether or not the defendants are trying
to sell a product or service.
Further, in connection with any other marketing program they
run, or any telemarketing program they assist others to run, the
defendants would be prohibited from:
-- misrepresenting any material fact, such as the value or
nature of the product or service being marketed or the
incentive item offered as an inducement to purchase; or
-- resoliciting a telemarketing customer before he or she has
received an ordered item and any incentive item associated
with it.
In addition, in connection with such efforts, the consent
judgment would require the defendants to:
-- provide customers a statement with all material terms and
conditions of any sale before obtaining their credit-card
information or agreement to purchase;
-- disclose any refund policy they may offer or that may be
required by law and provide an easily-understandable
statement of the steps to take to get a refund, or clearly
state that they do not offer refunds;
-- state up front to consumers that the purpose of the
contact is to make a sales presentation;
Sierra Pacific--02/16/94)
-- disclose the reasonable retail value of any incentive item
they offer when asked by consumers;
-- take reasonable steps to monitor employees to ensure they
are complying with the settlement, and to terminate those who
do not; and
-- investigate and promptly resolve consumer complaints they
receive.
Moreover, when assisting other telemarketers under certain
circumstances, the defendants would be required to obtain their
clients' agreement to comply with the settlement, and to make a
reasonable evaluation of their marketing program both before
taking them on as clients and on an ongoing basis thereafter.
Finally, the settlement would prohibit the defendants from
providing information about prior customers to any third party.
The Commission vote to accept the settlement for filing in
court was 5-0. It was filed on Feb. 15 in U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada, in Las Vegas. The investigation and liti-
gation were handled by the FTC's Seattle Regional Office.
NOTE: This consent judgment is for settlement purposes only and
does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law
violation. Consent judgments have the force of law when signed by
the judge.
A free FTC fact sheet for consumers titled "Prize Offers"
lists tips on avoiding scams. Copies of the fact sheet, as well
as the settlement and other documents associated with this case,
are available from the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130,
6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580;
202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 202-326-2502.
# # #
MEDIA CONTACT: Bonnie Jansen, Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2161
STAFF CONTACT: Tracy S. Thorleifson, Seattle Regional Office
2806 Federal Building, 915 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98174
206-220-6350
(FTC Matter No. X930020)
(Civil Action No. CV-S-93-134-PMP(RJJ))
(sierra2)