A two year-old case against the purveyors of an alleged work-at-home scheme has been wrapped up by the Federal Trade Commission.
The FTC announced on Friday that the last two defendants, Carl J. Shelton Jr. and Jeremy Wilson, have settled and that the commissioners approved it by a vote of 5-0.
Among other things, the defendants are prohibited from renting mailing lists or personal information on consumers who signed up for the programs.
In addition, they surrendered frozen assets, and these will be used, in part, for consumer redress. But monetary judgments totaling over $1.4 million were suspended. These funds would be demanded if the defendants misrepresented their financial status, according to the FTC.
While not admitting the allegations, Shelton and Wilson also agreed to not misrepresent any products or services.
In addition to Shelton and Wilson, three “relief” defendants settled with the FTC: Marianna Shelton, Julie Shelton and M. Edward Shelton Hypnotherapy LLC. While not accused of wrongdoing, the relief defendants received monies to which they were not entitled, the FTC stated.
Four defendants in the case — Wholesale Marketing Group LLC, Wholesale Marketing Group Inc., Robert M. Gomez and Luis D. Aviles, settled last year. But the FTC dismissed its amended complaint against Mark E. Shelton “following a separate court finding that he was in contempt of a previous order,” the commission said.
According to the FTC, the defendants offered envelope-stuffing and brochure-mailing “opportunities” via classified newspaper ads and a Web site.
Consumers who dialed a toll-free number were sent form letters promising up to $1,062 in weekly income. However, they first had to pay fees ranging from $65 to $175 to cover registration and mailing materials.
But many of those consumers received “no response from defendants,” the FTC said in an amended complaint filed in 2006. Others were informed that they would be paid not for mailings they completed but “only on a commission basis, by selling gift certificates, ladders or other products featured in the brochures,” the FTC continued.
In addition, victims often found that “most of the address labels” were invalid, the commission charged.
Network
