Washington State Orders Web Firm To Pay Back More Than $1 Million to Consumers for 'Deceptive Practices'
Internet Order and its CEO, Daniel Roitman, were ordered to repay consumers more than $1 million for unfair and deceptive practices, said a news release from Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson's (D) office. The Philadelphia-based online company was accused…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
of using deceptive “negative option” marketing to lure consumers into buying language instruction courses in violation of the federal Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act and the state Consumer Protection Act, it said. The lawsuit alleged consumers who bought the introductory set for $9.95 were unknowingly and automatically enrolled in a “negative option” purchase plan that obligated them to receive up to four advanced-level additional courses at a cost of $256 each for a total of as much as $1,024. To avoid charges, consumers were required to ship the advanced-level courses back to the company at their own expense within 30 days. If they failed to do so, they were automatically charged $256 on the credit card they used to buy the introductory “Quick and Simple Course.” The suit also alleged consumers who refused to pay were hounded with letters and threatened with collection agency action. Internet Order must pay the states of New York, Pennsylvania and Washington $288,000 of any future profit from Pimsleur Language Learning sales made between July 2016 and June 2019, Ferguson's office said. Internet Order has always aimed to be fair, honest and transparent in its marketing efforts to its consumers, said Roy Hibberd, Internet Order general counsel. The "negative option" marketing model the company uses is a lawful model as recognized by the FTC, he said. The company has taken corrective action to its online marketing and how it deals with customers, Hibberd said. The company's language learning method was never in question, he said: "The issue had to do with the extent of disclosure of our pricing model and we entered the settlement on that basis."