Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 1 of 30

UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT
FO R TH E SO UTH ER N DISTRICT OF FLO RIDA

yjtEo By

.

-

CASENO.)q'(jl%1
'3V5
:J##
'
# N0v122219
X-/'
X//t'
5'
/1 1dX szEvsrqM
.

FEDERAL TRAD E COM M ISSION , and

LARIMORE

CU
ERK
s.
ol
sz.cT.
s()
oru.
yt
A .w p:
.

STA TE OF FLO RIDA ,

Plaintiffs,
V.

lnbound CallExperts,LLC also d/b/a A dvanced Tech
Support,

alimitedliabilitycompany,

guy)e-gkezzG ul')
,

A dvanced Tech Supportco LLC,a lim ited liability com pany, CO M PLAINT FOR
,
psusjxxsxv yxgux cTlo x

PC Vitalware, LLC,a lim ited liability company,
superPC Support,LLC,a lim ited liability com pany,
RobertD .D eignan,individually and asan officeroflnbound
CallExperts,LLC,A dvanced Tech Supportco,LLC,PC
V italware,LLC,and SuperPC Support,LLC,
PaulM .Herdsm an,individually and asan officeroflnbound
CallExperts,LLC,PC V italware,LLC,and Super PC
Suppol't,LLC,
Justin M .W right,individually and asan officeroflnbound
CallExperts,LLC,PC V italw are,LLC,and Super PC
Suppol't,LLC,
PC Cleaner,Inc.,a corporation,
N etcom 3 Global,lnc.,a corporation,
N etcom 3,Inc.also d/b/a N etcom 3 Software Inc.and
CashierM yricks,Jr.a/k/a CashierM yrick,individually and
asan officerofPC Cleaner,lnc.,N etcom 3 G lobal,lnc.,and
N etcom 3,lnc.,
Defendants.

AND OTHER EQUITABLE
RELIEF
sjjetjsutjer seaj

o.c.

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 2 of 30

Plaintiffs,theFederalTradeCommission (ûûFTC'')andtheStateofFlorida,Officeofthe
Attorney General(ssstateofFlorida'')fortheirComplaintallege:
The FTC brings this action under Sections 13(b) and 19 ofthe FederalTrade

Commission Act (ESFTC Act''), 15 U.S.C.jj 53(b) and 57b,and the Telemarketing and
ConsumerFraud and Abuse Prevention Act(iiTelemarketing Act''),l5 U.S.C.jj 6101-6108,as

amended,to obtain temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief,rescission or
reform ation of contracts, restitution, the refund of m onies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten
m onies,and other equitable relief for the Defendants'acts or practices in violation of Section

5(a)oftheFTC Act,15U.S.C.j45(a),andinviolationoftheFTC'STelemarketingSalesRule
(û$TSR'') 16 C.F.R.Pal4310,asamended.
2.

The State of Florida, by and through its Attorney G eneral, Pamela Jo Bondi,

bringsthisaction undertheFloridaDeceptiveand UnfairTradePracticesActCAFDUTPA'D,Fla.

Stat.j 50l.201 c/ seq.,to obtain temporary,preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
rescission orreform ation ofcontracts,restitution,the refund ofm onies paid,disgorgem entofil1gotten m onies, and other equitable relief, as w ell as civil penalties, for Defendants' acts or
practices in violation ofthe FD UTPA . The State ofFlorida has conducted an investigation,and

the head ofthe enforcing authority,Attorney GeneralPam ela Jo Bondi,has determ ined that an
enforcem entaction servesthepublic interest.
JUR ISDICTIO N AN D VENUE

ThisCourthassubjectmatterjurisdictionpursuantto28U.S.C.jjl331,l337(a),
and 1345,and 15 U.S.C.jj45(a),53(b),57b,6102(c),and 6105(b).

Page 2 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 3 of 30

This Courthas supplementaljurisdiction over the state of Florida's claims
pursuantto28U.S.C.j1367.
Venueisproperinthisdistrictunder28U.S.C.jl39l(b)(1-3),(c)(1-2),and (d),
and 15U.S.C.j53(b).
PLAIN TIFFS
The FTC is an independentagency of the United States Governm ent created by

statute. 15U.S.C.jj41-58. TheFTC enforcesSection 5(a)ofthe FTC Act,15 U.S.C.j45(a),
w hich prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting com merce. The FTC also

enforces the Telemarketing Act, l5 U.S.C. jj 6101-6108, as amended. Pursuant to the
Telem arketing Act,the FTC prom ulgated and enforces the TSR, 16 C.F.R.Part 310,w hich
prohibitsdeceptive and abusive telem arketing actsorpractices.
The FTC is authorized to initiate federaldistrict courtproceedings,by its ow n

attorneys,toenjoinviolationsoftheFTC ActandtheTSR,andtosecuresuchequitablereliefas
m ay be appropriate in each case,including rescission orreformation of contracts,restitution,the

refund of monies paid,and the disgorgementof ill-gotten monies. l5 U.S.C.jj 53(b),
56(a)(2)(A)-(B),57b,6102(c),and6105(b).
8.

The State of Florida is the enforcing authority under the FDU TPA pursuant to

FloridaStatutesSection501.20342)andisauthorizedtopursuethisactiontoenjoinviolationsof
the FD UTPA and to obtain legal,equitable or other appropriate relief including rescission or
reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of m onies paid, disgorgem ent of ill-gotten

monies,civilpenalties,orotherreliefas may be appropriate. Fla.Stat.jj 50l.207,501.2075
and 501.2077.

Page 3 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 4 of 30

DEFEN DAN TS

DefendantlnboundCallExperts,LLC d/b/aAdvancedTechSupport(t1lCE''),isa
Florida lim ited liability com pany w ith itsprincipalplace ofbusinessat4800 TRex Avenue,Suite

350,Boca Raton,Florida. lCE transactsorhastransacted business in thisdistrictand throughout
the United States. Atalltimesm aterialto this Com plaint,acting alone orin concertwith others,
ICE hasadvertised,m arketed,distributed,orsold computersecurity ortechnicalsupportservices
to consum ersthroughoutthe United States.

DefendantAdvancedTech Supportco,LLC ($$ATS'')isaFloridalimited liability
com pany w ith its principal place of business at 700 Banyan Trail, Suite 200, Boca Raton,
Florida. A TS transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United
States. Atalltimes m aterialto this Com plaint,acting alone or in concertw ith others,A TS has

advertised, m arketed,distributed, or sold com puter security or technical support services to
consum ersthroughoutthe United States.

Defendant PC Vitalware, LLC (EEPC Vitalware''),is a Florida limited liability
com pany w ith its principal place of business at 700 Banyan Trail, Suite 200, Boca Raton,
Florida. PC Vitalware transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the
United States. Ata1ltim esm aterialto thisComplaint,acting alone orin concertwith others,PC
V italware has advertised,m arketed,distributed,or sold com puter security or technicalsupport
servicesto consum ersthroughoutthe United States.

DefendantSuperPC Support,LLC (eisuperPC Suppolf),isa Florida limited
liability com pany w ith its principal place of business at4800 TRex Avenue, Suite 350,Boca

Raton, Florida. Super PC Support transacts or has transacted business in this district and
throughoutthe United States. Atalltim es m aterialto this Com plaint,acting alone or in concert

Page 4 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 5 of 30

w ith others,SuperPC Supporthasadvertised,m arketed,distributed,orsold computersecurity or
technicalsupportservicesto consum ersthroughoutthe United States.

l3.

DefendantRobertD.Deignan (lllleignan'')isthe CEO of lCE and Super PC

Support,and the M anagerofA TS and PC V italware. At al1tim es materialto this Complaint,
acting alone or in concertw ith others,he hasform ulated,directed,controlled,had the authority
to control,or participated in the acts and practices of ICE,A TS,PC V italw are,and Super PC
Supportsetforth in this Com plaint. DefendantDeignan resides in Lighthouse Point,Florida and,
in connection w ith the m atters alleged herein,transactsorhas transacted business in this district
and throughoutthe United States.

14.

DefendantPaulM .Herdsman ('illerdsman'') is the Chief Operating Officer of

lCE and Super PC Support and a m anager of PC Vitalw are. A t all tim es m aterial to this

Com plaint,acting alone orin concertw ith others,he has fonnulated,directed,controlled,had the
authority to control,orparticipated in the actsand practicesofICE,A TS,SuperPC Supportand

PC Vitalw are set forth in this Com plaint. Defendant Herdsm an resides in Deerfield Beach,
Florida and,in connection w ith the m attersalleged herein,transactsorhastransacted business in

thisdistrictand throughoutthe United States.

l5.

DefendantJustin M .W right(ûûWrighf')isthe PresidentoflCE and SuperPC

Supportand isa manager of PC Vitalware. Atalltimesm aterialto thisComplaint,acting alone
or in concertw ith others,he hasform ulated,directed,controlled,had the authority to control,or
participated in the acts and practicesofICE,A TS,PC Vitalw are and SuperPC Supportsetforth

in this Com plaint. D efendantW rightresides in Boynton Beach,Florida and,in connection w ith
the m attersalleged herein,transacts or hastransacted business in this districtand throughoutthe

United States.

Page 5 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 6 of 30

16.

DefendantPC Cleaner,lnc.(EûPC Cleaner'')isa California corporation with its

principalplace of business at 220 N .Center Drive,Suite 197,N ewportBeach,California. PC
Cleanertransacts orhastransacted business in this districtand throughoutthe United States. At
alltim es m aterial to this Com plaint, acting alone or in concert w ith others, PC Cleaner has

advertised,m arketed,distributed,orsold com putersecurity servicesto consum ersthroughoutthe
United States.

l7.

DefendantNetcom3 Global,lnc.(ûûNetcom3 Global'')isa California corporation

w ith its principal place of business at 30025 A licia Parkw ay, Suite 106, Laguna N iguel,
California. N etcom 3 G lobaltransacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout
the United States. Atalltim es m aterialto this Com plaint,acting alone orin concertw ith others,
N etcom 3 G lobal has advertised, m arketed, distributed, or sold com puter security services to
consum ersthroughoutthe U nited States.
18.

Defendant N etcom 3, Inc., also doing business as Netcom 3 Software, lnc.,

(ûûNetcom3'') is a California corporation with its principalplace ofbusiness at 30025 Alicia
Parkway, Laguna N iguel, California. Netcom 3 transacts or has transacted business in this
districtand throughoutthe United States.Atalltim esm aterialto this Com plaint,acting alone or
in concertw ith others,N etcom 3 has advertised,m arketed,distributed,orsold com puter security

servicesto consum ersthroughoutthe United States.

19.

DefendantCashierM yricks,Jr.a/k/a CashierM yrick (ûûM yricks'')isthe principal

of PC Cleaner,N etcom 3 Globaland N etcom 3. Atal1tim es m aterialto this Complaint,acting
alone or in concertw ith others, he has form ulated,directed,controlled,had the authority to
control,orparticipated in the actsand practicesofPC Cleaner,N etcom 3 G lobaland Netcom 3 set

forth in this Com plaint. Defendant M yricks resides in N ewport Coast, California and, in

Page 6 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 7 of 30

connection w ith the m atters alleged herein,transacts or has transacted business in this district

and throughoutthe United States.
20.

Defendants1CE and ATS arehereinaftercollectively referred to as EIICE/A TS.''
Defendants ICE, A TS, PC Vitalware and Super PC Support are hereinafter

collectively referred to asthe SSICE Corporate Defendants.''
22.

DefendantsICE,A TS,PC Vitalware,SuperPC Support,Deignan,H erdsm an,and

W rightare hereinaftercollectively referred to asthe ;ilCE D efendants.''
Defendants

Cleaner, N etcom 3 G lobal, and N etcom 3, are hereinafter

collectively referred to asthe IIPC CleanerCorporate Defendants.''
24.

Defendants PC Cleaner,N etcom 3 G lobal,N etcom 3 and M yricks are hereinafter

collectively referred to astheEûPC CleanerDefendants.''
CO M M ON EN TERPRISES
The lCE Corporate Defendants have operated as a com m on enterprise w hile

engaging in the illegal acts and practices alleged below. The lCE Corporate D efendants have
conducted the business practices described below through interrelated companies that have

com m on ownership,officers,m anagers,business functions,em ployees,and office locations. For
exam ple,D eignan,Herdsm an and W right are allofficers and m anagers of ICE,PC V italw are,

and SuperPC Support. The rem aining 1CE Corporate Defendant,A TS,operates solely as ad/b/a
of ICE,and ism anaged by Deignan. ln addition,allofthe lCE Corporate Defendants share the

sametwoaddresses(700 Banyan Trailand 4800T Rex Avenuein Boca Raton)and usethem
interchangeably on corporate records, license applications, bank records, and in business
correspondence.

Page 7 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 8 of 30

26.

The lCE Corporate D efendants are interrelated. Forexam ple,in correspondence

between Deignan and theBetterBusiness Bureau (ûûBBB'')regarding the BBB'Sdecision to
revoke ICE/ATS'S BBB accreditation, Deignan references his com panies as tûlnbound Call
Experts d/b/a Advanced Tech Support.'' ICE also filed a com plaint in Florida Circuit Court

identifying itselfastdlnbound CallExpertsd/b/a A dvanced Tech Support.'' ICE is the registrant
forthe lCE Corporate D efendants'dom ain,advancedtechsupport.com . lCE hiresem ployees,but
em ployees are instructed to tellconsum ers thatthey are from ATS. Further,PC V italw are and
SuperPC Supportare also interrelated w ith ICE/ATS. Corporate bank accounts forboth entities

are in D eignan's name. PC Vitalware produces PCM RIsoftw are,one of the productsthatthe
ICE Corporate Defendants upsellto consum ers. Super PC Supportadvertises rem ote technical
assistance on itsw ebsitesand directsconsum ersto the ICE/A TS callcenter.

Because the lCE Corporate Defendants have operated as a com m on enterprise,

each individualentity isjointly and severally liable forthe actsand practicesalleged below.
D efendants Deignan, H erdsm an and W right have form ulated, directed, controlled, had the
authority to control,or participated in the acts and practices of the lCE Corporate Defendants
thatconstitute the com m on enterprise.

28.

Sim ilarly, the PC Cleaner Corporate Defendants have operated as a com m on

enterprise w hile engaging in the illegal acts and practices alleged below . The PC Cleaner
Corporate Defendants have conducted the business practices described below through

interrelated com panies that have com m on ownership, officers, m anagers,business functions,
em ployees, and office locations. For exam ple, Cashier M yricks is the President of N etcom 3

G lobaland PC Cleaner. H e registered the dom ain pc-cleaners.com ,a website thatrefers to the
corporate entities together as SSPC Cleaner lnc.m etcom 3 Global,Inc.'' M yricks also registered

Page 8 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 9 of 30

the dom ain netcom 3global.com . This w ebsite is identicalto the website netcom 3.com and the
dom ain inform ation for netcom 3.com lists netcom 3global.com as the w ebsite title. PC Cleaner
Pro,aproductoffered by PC Cleaner,isavailable fordow nload on thenetcom 3.com website.
Because the PC Cleaner Corporate Defendants have operated as a com mon

enterprise,eachindividualentityisjointly and severally liablefortheactsandpracticesalleged
below . Defendant M yricks has form ulated,directed, controlled,had the authority to control,or
participated in the actsand practices ofthe PC CleanerCorporate D efendants thatconstitute the
com m on enterprise.
C OM M ERCE
all tim es m aterial to this Com plaint, the Defendants have m aintained a

substantialcourse oftrade in or affecting com m erce,as tdcom m erce''is defined in Section 4 of

theFTC Act,15U.S.C.j44 and FloridaStatutesj50l.203(8).
DEFEN DAN TS'BU SIN ESS AC TIVITIES
O verview

Defendants operate a m assive lnternet-based schem e in which they lure
consum ers,m any of w hom are senior citizens,to call an inbound call center and then dupe
consum ers into purchasing com puter technical support services and unnecessary com puter

security software. Consumers spend from $150 to $500 to fix non-existentproblemswith their
computers.

32.

By exploiting consum ers' concerns about lnternet threats like spyw are and

viruses,Defendants scare consumers into believing thattheir computers are in im m inentdanger
in order to sellconsum ers software protection products and unnecessary com puter security or
technicalsupportservices.

Page 9 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 10 of 30

The IC E D efendantsLure Consum ersto CallTheir Inbound CallCenter
Since at least 2012,the lCE D efendants have em ployed a variety ofm ethods to

lure consumersto calltheirinbound callcenterknown asATS,such as:(l)posting Internetbasedadvertisements;(2)advertising inconnectionwithwebsearchresults'
,(3)partneringwith

developersofcomputersecurity products;and (4)purportedly assisting with technicalsupport
forcomputersecurity software com panies.
ln som e instances,consum ers see lnternetadvertisem ents for com puter repair or
com puter updates. lf they click on these advertisements, they are directed to call a phone

num berthatleadsto the lCE D efendants.
The lCE Defendants also lure consum ersthrough web searches. Forexam ple,the

lCE Defendants pay for Google A dw ords accounts. Google Adwords is a paid service used to
link consum ersto particularw ebsites based on key search term s. ln som e instances,consum ers
have called the lCE Defendants using num bers they found through Google searches related to

com putertechnicalissues. The lCE Defendants also registered and paid for approxim ately 150
dom ains,mostofwhich appearto relate to com m on problem s and anti-virus software,including
freetechsupport.com ,

advancedtechsupport.com ,

m alw areexperts.com ,

Pcmri.com ,

pcm riforlife.com ,superpcsupport.com ,and pcvitalware.com .
36.

The lCE Defendants partner w ith computer security softw are com panies to

purportedly provide technicalsupportforparticularsoftware. ln those instances,unbeknow nstto
the consum er,the ICE Defendants pay for the phone num ber that appears on the softw are
partner's w ebsite. W hen consum ers callthe software com pany for assistance w ith a particular

product,ratherthan reaching that software developer,they reach ICE/A TS,atwhich pointthey

are subjected to the lCE Defendants'salespitch. ln some instances,the 1CE Defendants'
Page 10 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 11 of 30

telem arketers do not even try to assist consum ers with their particular software problem ,but
instead sim ply convince consum ers they need unrelated and unnecessary technicalsupportand
additionalsecurity softw are products.
In other instances,the lCE Defendants partner with softw are com panies pitching

various com puter security products,such as Speedypc,PC Utility K it,Geek Tech Toolbox,PC

CleanerPlus,Spam Fighter,andPC CleanerPro (discussed indetailbelow). Afterconsumers
purchase one of these softw are products,they are directed to calla phone num ber in order to
activate their new software. ln m ostinstances,the lCE Defendants pay forthe phone num ber
displayed,and consum erswho callthe phone num berreach ICE/A TS.
The PC C leaner Defendants'Deceptive Practices

PC Cleaner Pro is a registry softw are productcreated and distributed by the PC
Cleaner Defendants.A registry software product is software designed to identify and resolve

problem sw ith the W indows registry,a database thatstoresconfiguration settings and optionson
M icrosoft W indow s operating system s. ln numerous instances, the PC Cleaner Defendants

m arket PC Cleaner Pro on the PC Cleaner D efendants' websites and through pop up
advertisem ents. ln som e instances,consum ersGnd PC CleanerPro through search engines,such
asGoogle.
In m any instances, the PC Cleaner Defendants initially hook consum ers by
offering free trials oftheir softw are or free scans ofconsum ers'com puters to identify potential

problem s. Once consum ers dow nload the free program , PC Cleaner Pro appears to run a
ûûsystem scan''that invariably detects a host of m alicious or otherwise dangerous files and
program s, including m alware and system errors. ln m any instances, PC Cleaner Pro's initial

scan identifies thousands of purported problem s on a single computer. lndeed,the scan is

Page l1 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 12 of 30

designed to falsely identify problem s on consum ers' com puters, exaggerate m inor issues and
otherwise deceive consum ersinto thinking thattheircom putersare significantly com prom ised.
40.

For exam ple, PC Cleaner Pro scans consumers'computers to identify whether

they block 926 specitk pieces of m alware. PC Cleaner Pro w ill then separately count as a

ûûproblem ''each specim en thatisnotblocked. These particular926 pieces ofm alware,however,
date back to at least 2004 and have not been active threats in m any years. Because these
m alw are specim ens have been inactive for so long, M icrosoft does not even include them as
specific blocks in defaultW indow s installationsthatcom e pre-installed w ith W indows Defender,
a comprehensive anti-m alw are program . The result is that alm ostevery com puter currently in
operation w illfail to block these 926 m alw are specim ens,and accordingly, PC Cleaner Pro's
scan w ill alw ays find at least 926 tdproblem s'' on nearly any com puter, even though these
specim ensare no longeractive and blocking them providesno defense againstm odern m alw are.
ln som e instances,PC CleanerPro also falsely identifiesnon-existentmalware on
a com pletely fresh installation ofW indows ora brand new com puter.

ln addition, the free scan falsely claim s that m any innocuous files such as
tem poral'
y files, w eb brow ser cookies, and W indow s default settings are Gûproblem s.''
W indow soperating system is constantly creating tem porary files as partof its norm albehavior

and these files do not constitute an actualproblem ,but are m erely artifacts of normalsystem
behavior thatare alw ays present in a com puter running W indow s. In addition,web browsing
cookies are alm ost alw ays benign. W eb brow sers use cookies to provide routine features for
consum ers,such as storing consum ers'prcferences. Finally,it ism isleading to calla W indow s

defaultsetting a ûtproblem .'' A screenshotofPC C leaner's free scan appears below .

Page 12 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 13 of 30

43.

The PC Cleaner D efendants'w ebsite then extends to consum ers the opportunity

to rid their com puters ofthese fake or exaggerated problem s by offering the paid version of its
software program ,PC Cleaner Pro. M any consum ers exposed to the PC Cleaner Defendants'

false scan results pay $29.99 ormore forthe software program . Once consumerspay forthe
software,the order confirm ation page instructs them to call a toll-free telephone number to
activate the softw are. A screenshotofthe confirm ation page appearsbelow .

Page l3 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 14 of 30

in som e instances,the toll-free num berdisplayed on the confirm ation page isowned by the lCE
Defendantsand routesconsum ersto the ICE/ATS callcenter.

45.

Between2011and2013,consumersdownloadedPC CleanerPro(freeand/orpaid

versions)morethan 450,000 times.
The ICE DefendantsScare Consum ers into Buying Unnecessary
TechnicalSupportand Security Sof- are Products

46.

A fter consum ers call the 1CE Defendants' call center,telem arketers w alk the

consum erthrough a scripted salespitch designed to convince consum ersthattheircom putersare
in im m ediate need ofrepair,regardlessofwhetherthe com puterhasa problem .

47.

ln m any instances, the telem arketers direct the consum ers to a rem ote access

website in orderto gain rem ote access to their com puters. The lCE Defendants use a website
Page 14 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 15 of 30

they have registered,such as t5x22.com and fsxm el.com ,ora third-party rem ote access softw are
com pany,like LogM eln. The telem arketersthen instructconsum ersto entera code ordow nload
a software application to allow the telem arketers rem ote access to the consum ers' computers.

O nce rem otely connected,the telem arketers can com pletely controlthe consum ers'com puters
and can, for example,m ove the cursor,enter com m ands,run applications, and access stored
inform ation. The lCE D efendants' telem arketers then typically walk the consum er through a

four-partdiagnostic processthat includes displaying (l)the computer'stask manager,(2) the
M icrosoft System Configuration Utility (ûdmsconfig'') services tab,(3) the msconfig start-up

menu,and(4)theEventViewer.
First, the ICE D efendants' telem arketers show consum ers the W indow 's task
m anager and look atthe num ber of processes running to determ ine how hard the computer is

w orking. ln m any instances, the technician tells consum ers that their com puters should be
running approxim ately 40 to 80 processesata tim e.

49.

Second,the lCE Defendants'telem arketers open the built-in M icrosoft System

Configuration Utility toolknow n as ûûm sconfig''and tellconsum ers that softw are, even after it is
un-installed,w illleave behind ûûrunning services''and Sdtrace elem ents.'' The telem arketers then
tell consum ers thatthese ddtrace elem ents''can create error codes that build up over tim e and
eventually cause a ûEblue screen''orthe com puterto crash.

50.

The claim sdiscussed in Paragraph 49 are false. M sconfig issimply a built-in tool

that show s W indow s services and other software that are setto startautom atically, and the vast

majority ofsohwareuninstallersproperly removeallassociatedprocesses. çs-l-raceelements''is
nota w idely-used term in the inform ation technology industry, and Elrunning services''have no
relation to the abilit'
y to installor uninstallsoftware or to ûtblue screens.'' The lCE D efendants

Page 15 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 16 of 30

m islead consum ersw ho do notunderstand these m essages'technicalsignificance into believing
thattheircomputersare com prom ised.
Third,in som e instances,the lCE Defendants' telem arketers open the startup
m enu to look atthe program sthatare setto load when the com puterstarts. The 1CE D efendants

tellconsum ersthem ore program sthatare installed,the slow erthe com puterw illbe on startup.
The final diagnostic test the lCE Defendants conduct is on the Event V iew er
screen. This diagnostic test isthe ttcloser''forthe sales pitch. The EventVieweris a log ofthe
various activities that occur during a com puter's operation. M any of the entries in the Event

V iewer sim ply reflect successful com pletion of a com puter operation. Other entries,m arked
w ith a red X or a yellow triangle,are error or w arning m essages that indicate that a particular
com puter operation w as not successful. If, for exam ple, a program failed to run correctly
because the user w as not connected to the lnternet,the Event V iew er m ay record an error or
w arning m essage. Despite theirpotentially alarm ing appearance,these messages are innocuous.
They are generated during the nonnaloperation of a computer. A screenshotofthe W indow 's
EventV iewerappearsbelow :

Page 16 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 17 of 30

W F1*

to+àppdtMiôrçttve Ctititd Errtkr.Wzmim.ibuxa .Numberefom zndTirle

burt.

z'
iwWaf
ning

11/5/xl:1:.*a$AM
11/4/M 41mm PM

t
lurProfi
l
esoice

GroupPolicyDriveMzpr

4% (2)

l.Warning
J,Waming

lt/3/mN 11:43:55PM
11/3/m141:43;22PM

tlserProfilegervice
W ilnstzller

152 None
1*1 None

114/M 41M3:2.2PM

Mslnst.ller

1% None

11/3/X1411+ 136AI@
11/3/M 411:R 35AM

Mslnmller
Menolkr

1œ1 Neo:
1% Ncne

AoWaming
,

1);W.rnir:g

.

15.
* N:tk
e

1l?
3/m143:
16:
14PM
11/3/1143*26PM

vlrr
o?

Iù/1I/MI11:
t$:
1'
)PM

gdeësi
dz

Mslnm ller
Msilnm ller
tlserPrdilegefvice
UserPrvfil.krknte

1œ1 Nen:
1+ Npnt
1$.
K Nerle
1jA) Non:

s.

i,War
ni
ng

IQ/DJz)
1411m1
46AM

Gt
eupPeli
tyDr
i
eeM4ps

*% (2)

l.Warning
.l.
Warning
tWdrnirfg

10/23/1142:49:92PM
10,œ/M 42+ 53VM
lû/2&M 41A:19PM

syfnantecAntivirus
Symantt'
tAnti#irus
GfeepPolik'yDriveMzps

129 None
129 Nepe
4% (2)

vEf
or
WErer
@ Ert
p

1(
F+/)
141:
23:7AM
11/24/1147*49AM
IIJ22/M41:
22:
16AM

îi
deësidt
sym4ntecAnti
kir
us
si
doside

1Q,
?X/>l41.1:28:33AM

symantecAntivirus

11 None

10/21/M 41::*35AM
10/21/M 41:* 25AM

UserPrefileservice
tlserPpofik %reite

151 Nene
15* Nene

1 W:ming
J.,Wdming
'Wzming
.
.)
.t
uW.minj

tsW.ming
i.Warning
12Warninj
jaWatning
JwWzrning
.

1û/31/M 43:211 FM
19/31/1143:21.* PM
19/31/1112195:% PM
19/1//142:37* PM

19/21/M 45:47:1 PM
1*21/1144A:1 PM

Appl
i
t4ti
enErr
pr
Appl
kati
onfrr
er

EVU D THkC...

vEl
'
mr
# Eror

lzW.mitig
A,W.r/tirlg

53.

495

tevè

521n.11t% AntiViyut
GrouppolicyDriveM4ps

1c (1œ)
1c (11)
* Npn:

1 None
51 Nen:
K)Non:

129 Npne
<)% (2)

A fteropening up the com puter's EventV iew er,the lCE D efendants highlightthe

errors and w arnings listed in the log. The 1CE Defendants'telem arketers tellconsum ers that
these errors and w arnings are red flags thatindicate significantdam age. ln som e instances,the

telem arketersreferto som ething called ûûtrace dam age,''which they claim iscaused by currentor
past com puter infections. Telem arketers tell consum ers that if left unrepaired, this tttrace
dam age''can build up and cause the com puterto crash. The lCE D efendants'telemarketersalso
tellconsum ersthatthistype ofdam age cannotbe fixed by software products,butm ustbe fixed
m anually by a certified technician.
54.

The claim s discussed in Paragraph 53 are false. W indow 's Event View er

program com m only displays errors and warnings thatare not indicative ofcom puter problem s.
Com putersthatare com pletely free ofdamage,virusesorothermalware w illstillcreate warning
and errorm essages in theirEventV iewers during norm aloperation and the num berofw arnings
Page 17 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 18 of 30

and errors is not an indication of the severity of any com puter issues. The lCE Defendants

m islead consum ersw ho do notunderstand these m essages'technicalsignificance into believing
thattheircom putersare com prom ised.
Having convinced consum ers that their computers are in danger, and that they

m ust be fixed m anually by a certified technician, the lCE D efendants' telem arketers tell

consumersthatthey have two options: (1)they can havetheircomputerrepaired by a wellknown retailerthatw illbe very costly and cause them to be w ithouta com puterforseveraldays;

or (2) they can purchase technicalsupportdirectly from the ICE Defendants and have their
com puterrepaired the sam e day while they sitin the com fortoftheirown hom e.
56.

lf consum ers do not agree to pay for the services, the lCE Defendants'

telem arketers typically pressure the consum ers. For exam ple, the telem arketers w ill w arn

consum ers about the harm that w ill befall their computers if they do not allow the lCE
Defendantsto repairthepurported problem sim m ediately.

The lCE Defendants charge consumers approximately $150 to $300 for their
technical support services. ln som e instances,they also charge a recurring fee for ongoing

technicalsupportranging from approximately $14.99 per month to $19.99 per month. The
recurring fees continue untilconsum erscancelthe service.
In addition to convincing consum ers they need to buy the ICE/ATS technical
support services,the ICE Defendants'telem arketers also, in m any instances,attem ptto upsell
software security program s, such as Panda lnternet Security,at an inflated price. Even w hen
consumers already have anti-virus program s installed on their com puters,the ICE Defendants
stilltellconsum ersthey need betteranti-virusprotection. A lthough the longestlicense available

for Panda lnternet Security is for three years and the cost for one com puter is approximately

Page l8 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 19 of 30

$82.00,thelCE Defendantstellconsumerstheycanbuythesamesoftwareprogram forIfetime
protection atacostof$500.
59.

Afler convincing consum ers to purchase ICE/ATS'S technicalservices, the lCE

D efendants' telem arketers then transfer the consum er's rem ote access session to a purported

technician to perform idrepairs.'' ln som e instances,the lCE Defendants'technicians delete the
innocuous files found in the EventV iewerthatthe telem arketers falsely claim ed were evidence
ofûûtrace dam age.'' Thisdoesnotactually im prove the security ofthe com puterand, aftera few
short hours of nonnal com puter use, the logs w ill again contain new w arnings and errors

com m only associated w ith typicalcomputeractivity.
ln som e instances,the lCE Defendants'technicians clear consum ers' brow sing
histories and install cleanup and backup utilities such as Toolbar Cleaner, Glal'
y Utilities (to

removeclutter)andKaspersky TDSSKi1ler(to removemalware). The lCE Defendantsaccept
the license agreem ents ofthese utility program s on behalfofconsum ers w ithouttheirconsentor
know ledge. ln addition,in som e instances,the 1CE Defendants'technicians installem ergency
recovery tools that are incom patible with the computer's operating system , rendering them
uselessto the com puter.

ln som e instances,the lCE Defendants'technicianscause actualdam age- such as
deleting files or disabling software - to consum ers' com puters during the ûûrepair'' process.

Therefore, in addition to the hundreds of dollars consum ers pay for these services, m any
consum ers have had to pay an outside third-part
'y to repair dam age done to their com puters by
the 1CE Defendants'techniciansorhave lostthe use oftheircom putersentirely.

Page l9 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 20 of 30

The R ole ofRobertD .D eignan
62.

Deignan isthe CEO oflCE and SuperPC Support,and the m anager ofATS and

PC V italw are. Deignan is one of the nam ed subscribers for the hundreds of phone num bers

ow ned by the lCE Defendants. ln addition,he used his business creditcard to pay fortelephone
num bers and corporate dom ains,including advancedtechsupport.com ,inboundcallexperts.com ,
pcm ri.com ,and t5x22.com . The lCE Defendants use these dom ainsto lure consum ersto callthe
lCE /A TS callcenterand to gain rem ote accessto consum ers'com puters. Deignan also has used
his business creditcard to pay LogM eln,a third party rem ote access software com pany the ICE

D efendants use to connectto consum ers'com puters,and anti-virus vendors whose products the
lCE Defendantsupsellto consum ers.
D eignan isthe registrant and paid for nearly 150 tech-related dom ains,one-third
ofw hich w ere setup using a privacy protection service. These privacy servicescan be used by
registrants attem pting to hide theiridentitiesbecause publicly-available toolsforsearches related

to a particular dom ain w illshow only the nam e of the service,notthe nam e of the registrant.
D eignan's privacy-protected dom ains include: freetechsupport.com , pcm riforlife.com ,
m alw areexperts.com and Superpcsupport.com .

64.

Since 2012,Deignan hasused corporate creditcardsto pay for more than $2.2

m illion in businessexpensesforthe lCE Defendants.
65.

O n or about A ugust 21, 2013, the BBB in Florida revoked ICE/ATS'S

accreditation due to the com pany's failure to appropriately address and elim inate the pattern of
consum er com plaints to the BBB. Deignan is the BBB'S point of contact for ICE/ATS,and
responded to com plaints and correspondence from the BBB. ln his com m unications w ith the
BBB,Deignan acknow ledged thathe and the com pany w ere aw are ofthe com plaints,butpressed

Page 20 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 21 of 30

the BBB to reinstate itsaccreditation on appeal. Deignan appeared before the BBB atan appeals
hearing to argue the issue. ln N ovem ber20l3,the BBB agreed to reinstate theiraccreditation,

how everthe BBB continues to receive com plaints and has received over 190 com plaintsw ithin
the lastthree years.
The Role ofPaulM .H erdsm an

Herdsm an is the Chief Operating O fficer of lCE and Super PC Supportand a
m anager of PC Vitalware. Herdsm an w as the LogM eln account holder for accounts the lCE
Defendants used to rem otely connect to consum ers' com puters. This account w as opened in

October 20ll and used until Janual'
y 2014. ln addition, Herdsm an is one of the nam ed
subscribers forthe hundreds ofphone num bers consumers use to callthe lCE Defendants'call
center,and he used his businesscreditcard to pay forICE/ATS telephone num bers. H erdsm an

also used his business credit card to pay for num erous business expenses, including the lCE
Defendants'LogM eln accounts,anti-virusvendorswhose productsthe lCE Defendants upsellto
consum ers,and online advertisem ents used to solicitnew sales employees.

67.

Since 2012,Herdsman hasused corporate creditcardsto pay formorethan $1.7

m illion in businessexpenses forthe 1CE D efendants.
The Role ofJustin M .W right
68.

W right is the President of lCE and Super PC Supportand is a m anager of PC

V italw are. W right used his business credit card to pay for num erous business expenses,

including paym ents to anti-virus vendors whose products the lCE D efendants upsell to
consum ers,G oogle adwords,and online advertisem entsused to solicitnew salesem ployees.

69.

Since2012,W righthasused corporate creditcardsto pay formorethan $400,000

in businessexpensesforthe ICE Defendants.

Page 2lof30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 22 of 30

W right also contacted ThreatTrack Security, an anti-virus company w hose
product, VIPRE, blocks içbad domains.'' ThreatTrack Security blocked the lCE Defendants'
dom ain,advancedtechsupport.com ,due to a significantnum berofconsum ercom plaintsand the
BBB'S revocation of the com pany's accreditation. W right exchanged num erous em ails w ith a

m alware researcherat ThreatTrack to attem ptto rem ove the lCE Defendants'dom ain from the
blocked list. The researcher inform ed W right about complaints against the com pany and
supplied him w ith linksto these com plaints.
TheR ole ofCashierM yricks,Jr.

71.

M yricks isthe PresidentofPC Cleaner,N etcom 3 G lobaland N etcom 3. A private

plaintiff filed a class action law suit againstPC Cleaner, lnc.on M ay 4,2012 in United States

District Courtfor the Central D istrict of California. The suit charged that PC Cleaner,lnc.'s
product,PC CleanerPro,m isrepresented to consum ers,through its free trialversion,thatthere
w ere errors and problem s on the com puter. lt exaggerated the severity and existence of errors

and problem sand induced consumersto purchase the fullversion to getrid ofthese non-existent
problem s. M yricks subm itted a declaration in this class action law suitadm itting that he is the
PrincipalofPC Cleaner.
72.

M yricks registered the dom ains pc-cleaners.com and netcom 3global.com . The

pc-cleaners.com website refers to the corporate entities together as EEPC Cleaner lnc.m etcom 3

G lobal, lnc.'' M yricks lists him self as President of Netcom 3 on the website netcom 3pccleaner.com . M yricksusesthree Eûcorporate addresses''forhis com panies,butin realit'y,each
ofthe addresses isa postalbox.

Page 22 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 23 of 30

VIO LATIO N S OF SECTIO N 5 OF TH E FTC A CT

73. Section5(a)oftheFTC Act,l5U.S.C.j45(a),prohibitsûûunfairordeceptiveacts
orpractices in oraffecting com m erce.''
74.

M isrepresentations or deceptive om issions of material fact constitute deceptive

actsorpracticesprohibitedbySection5(a)oftheFTC Act.
CO UN T l- TH E 1CE DEFEND ANTS
Deceptive Representations

(ByPlaintiffFTC)
75.

In num erous instances,in the course of m arketing,offering for sale,and selling

Com puter Security Or technical support services, the 1CE Defendants represent or have
represented, expressly Or by implication, through a variety of m eans, including through
telephone calls and Internetcom m unications,thatthey have identified problem s on consum ers'

com puters, including viruses, spyware, system errors and/or dam age, that w ill affect the
perform ance orsecurity ofconsumers'computers.
76.

ln truth and in fact, in num erous instances in which the lCE Defendants have

m ade the representations set forth in Paragraph 75, many problem s that the lCE Defendants
represent that they have identified do not affect the perform ance or security of consumers'
com puters.

Therefore,the lCE Defendants'representations as set forth in Paragraph 75 are

false,m isleading,orwere notsubstantiated atthe tim e they were m ade,and thus,they constitute

deceptiveactsorpracticesin violation ofSection 5(a)oftheFTC Act,15U.S.C.j45(a).

Page 23 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 24 of 30

CO UN T 11 - TH E PC CLEA NER DEFENDA NTS
Deceptive R epresentations

(By PlaintiffFTC)
78.

ln num erous instances,in the course of m arketing,offering for sale,and selling

com puter security softw are or services, the PC Cleaner Defendants represent or have

represented,expressly orby im plication,through a variety of m eans,including through lnternet
advertisem entsand software-generated reports,thatthey have identified problem s on consum ers'
com puters, including m alware, system problem s and privacy concerns, that w ill affect the
perform ance orsecurity ofconsum ers'com puters.
79.

In truth and in fact,in num erous instances in w hich the PC Cleaner Defendants

have m ade the representations set forth in Paragraph 78, m any problem s that the PC Cleaner

D efendants represent that they have identified do not affect the perform ance or security of
consum ers'com puters.

80.

Therefore,the PC Cleaner Defendants'representations as set forth in Paragraph

78 are false,m isleading,or w ere not substantiated atthe tim e they w ere m ade,and thus,they

constitutedeceptiveactsorpracticesinviolation ofSection 5(a)oftheFTC Act,15 U.S.C.j
45(a).
V IO LATIO N S O F TH E TELEM AR K ETIN G SALES RULE
Congress directed the FTC to prescribe rules prohibiting abusive and deceptive

telemarketing actsorpracticespursuanttothe Telemarketing Act,15 U.S.C.jj 6101-6108,in
l994. The FTC adopted the originalTelem arketing Sales Rule in l995,extensively am ended it

in 2003,and am ended certain provisionsthereafter.
82.

The ICE Defendants are sellers or telem arketers engaged in ççtelem arketing''as

defined by theTSR,16C.F.R.j310.2(aa),(cc),and (dd).

Page 24 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 25 of 30

The TSR prohibits any seller or telem arketer from m aking a false or m isleading
statement to induce any person to pay for goods or services or to induce a charitable

contribution. 16 C.F.R.j310.3(a)(4).
84.

The TSR'S prohibition againstm aking false or m isleading statem ents applies to

a1l statem ents regarding upsells, whether the statem ents were m ade during an outbound call

initiatedbythetelemarketeroraninboundcallinitiatedbyaconsumer.16C.F.R.j310.6(4).
85.

Pursuantto Section 3(c)ofthe Telemarketing Act,15 U.S.C.j 6102(c)and

Section l8(d)(3)oftheFTC Act,15 U.S.C.j 57a(d)(3),aviolation oftheTSR constitutesan
unfairordeceptive actorpractice in oraffecting commerce,in violation ofSection 5(a)ofthe

FTC Act,15U.S.C.j45(a).
CO UN T III- TH E ICE D EFEND ANTS
Deceptive Telem arketing Calls in Violation ofthe TSR

(ByBothPlaintiffs)
86.

In num erousinstances,in the course oftelem arketing theirgoodsand services,the

lCE Defendants have m ade false or m isleading statements,directly or by im plication,to induce
consum ers to pay for goods or services, including, but not lim ited to, m isrepresentations that

they have identified problem s on consum ers' com puters that w ill affect the perform ance or
security ofconsum ers'com puters.

The lCE Defendants'acts or practices,as described in Paragraph 86 above,are

deceptivetelemarketingactsorpracticesthatviolatetheTSR,l6 C.F.R.j 310.3(a)(4);16C.F.R.
j 310.6(4).

Page 25 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 26 of 30

V IO LATIO N S O F TH E FLO R IDA DECEPTIVE A ND
UNFA IR TM DE PRACTICES ACT
88.

Section 50l.204 of FDUTPA , Chapter 501, Part ll, Florida Statutes, prohibits

ûtunfairordeceptive actsorpracticesin the conductofany trade orcom m erce.''
CO UN T IV - lCE DEFENDAN TS
Florida Deceptive and U nfairTrade PracticesActV iolation

(ByPlaintiffStateofFlorida)
A ssetforth in Paragraphs 1 through 72 above,which allegationsare incorporated
as if set forth herein, in num erous instances,in the course of m arketing,offering for sale,and
selling com puter security or technical supportservices,the lCE Defendants represent or have

represented, expressly or by implication, through a variety of m eans, including through
telephone calls and Internetcom m unications,thatthey have identified problem s on consum ers'

com puters,including viruses,spyw are,system errorsand/ordam age,thataffectthe perform ance
orsecurity ofconsum ers'com puters.
ln truth and in fact, in numerous instances in w hich the 1CE Defendants have
m ade the representationssetforth in Paragraph 89,m any problem sthatthe lCE D efendantshave
identified do notaffectthe perform ance orsecurity ofconsum ers'com puters.

The lCE Defendants' representations as set fol'th in Paragraph 89 of this
Com plaint are false and m isleading and likely to m islead consumers acting reasonably,and/or
consum ers w ithin the State of Florida were actually m isled by the 1CE Defendants'
m isrepresentationsin violation ofSection 501.204 ofFD UTPA .
CO UNT V - TH E PC CLEANER D EFEND ANTS
Florida Deceptive and U nfairTrade PracticesActV iolation

(ByPlaintiffStateofFlorida)
A ssetforth in Paragraphs 1 through 72 above,which allegations are incorporated

as if set forth herein,in num erous instances,in the course of m arketing,offering for sale,and
Page 26 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 27 of 30

selling com puter security software or services,the PC Cleaner Defendants represent or have
represented,expressly or by im plication,through a variety of means,including through lnternet
advertisem entsand software-generated reports,thatthey have identified problem son consumers'
computers, including m alware, system problem s and/or privacy concerns, that affect the

perform ance orsecurity ofconsum ers'com puters.
ln truth and in fact,in num erous instances in which the PC Cleaner D efendants
have m ade the representations set forth in Paragraph 92,m any problem s thatthe PC Cleaner
Defendantshave identified do notaffecttheperfonnance orsecurity ofconsumers'com puters.

94.

The PC Cleaner Defendants'representations as set forth in Paragraph 92 of this

Com plaint are false and m isleading and likely to m islead consum ers acting reasonably,and/or
consumers w ithin the State of Florida w ere actually m isled by the PC Cleaner D efendants'
m isrepresentationsin violation of Section 50l.204 ofFDUTPA .
C ON SUM ER INJURY

95. Consumershavesuffered andwillcontinueto suffersubstantialinjuryasaresult
of the Defendants' violations of the FTC A ct, the TSR and the FDUTPA . ln addition,the

Defendantshavebeen unjustly enrichedasaresultoftheirunlawfulactsorpractices. Absent

injunctivereliefby thisCourt,the Defendantsare likelyto continueto injure consumers,reap
unjustenrichment,andharm thepublicinterest.
TH IS CO URT 'S POW ER TO G M NT R ELIEF

96.

Section l3(b)oftheFTC Act,15 U.S.C.j 53(b),empowersthisCourtto grant

injunctiveandsuch otherreliefastheCoul'tmay deem appropriatetohaltandredressviolations
of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. The Court, in the exercise of its equitable
'

Jurisdiction, m ay award ancillary relief, including rescission or reform ation of contracts,

Page 27 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 28 of 30

restitution,the refund ofm onies paid,and the disgorgem entof ill-gotten m onies,to preventand
rem edy any violation ofany provision oflaw enforced by the FTC.

Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. j

and Section 6(b) of the

Telemarketing Act,15 U.S.C.j 6105(b),authorize this Courtto grantsuch reliefasthe Court

findsnecessaryto redressinjuryto consumersresulting from theDefendants'violationsofthe
TSR,including the rescission orreform ation ofcontracts,and the refund ofm oney.

98. Pursuantto28 U.S.C.j 1367,thisCourthassupplementaljurisdiction to allow
Plaintiff State of Florida to enforce its state law claim s against D efendants in this Courtfor
violationsofthe FDU TPA . Florida Statutes Sections501.207,50l.2075,and 50l.2077 authorize

this Courtto grantsuch relief as the Courtfinds necessary to redress injury to consumers

resulting from Defendants'violation oftheFDUTPA,including injunctiverelief,rescission or
reform ation of contract,the refund of m onies paid,the disgorgem ent of ill-gotten m onies,and
civilpenalties.

PM Y ER FOR R ELIEF

W herefore,PlaintiffFTC,pursuantto Sections 13(b)and 19 ofthe FTC Act,l5 U.S.C.
jj 53(b)and 57b,the TSR,andtheCourt'sownequitable powers,and PlaintiffStateofFlorida,
pursuantto Florida Statutes Sections 50l.207,501.2075,and 501.2077 and as authorized by the
Court's ow n equitable powers,requestthatthe Coul'
t:

Award Plaintiffs such preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief as may be
necessary to avertthe likelihood ofconsumerinjury during thependency ofthisaction and to
preserve the possibility of effective final relief, including but not lim ited to temporary and

preliminary injunctions,and anorderprovidingforimmediate access,theturnoverofbusiness

Page28 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 29 of 30

records, an asset freeze, the appointm ent of a receiver, and the disruption of dom ain and
telephone services'
,

EnterapermanentinjunctiontopreventfutureviolationsoftheFTC Act,theTSR
and FD UTPA by the Defendants;

Award such reliefasthe Courtfindsnecessary to redressinjury to consumers
resulting from the D efendants'violations ofthe FTC Act,the TSR and FDUTPA ,including but
not lim ited to,rescission orreform ation ofcontracts,restitution,the refund ofm onies paid,and
the disgorgem entofill-gotten m onies;and

D.

Aw ard Plaintiff FTC the costs of bringing this action, and Plaintiff State of

Florida its attorneys'fees and costs in bringing thisaction,asw ellassuch otherand additional

reliefastheCourtmaydeterminetobejustandproper.

Respectfully subm itted,
JON ATHAN E.N UECHTERLEIN
GeneralCounsel
/

Dated:Nîtve.

'/()j:e/c/
#'

c
Colleen B.Robbins,SpecialBar N o.A 5500793
Em ily Cope Burton,SpecialBarNo.A
FederalTrade Com m ission
600 Pennsylvania Ave.N W
W ashington,DC 20580

(202)326-2548;crobbins@ ftc.gov
(202)326-2728;eburton@ftc.gov

AttorneysforPlaintiff
FED ERAL TRAD E COM M ISSION

Page 29 of30

 Case 9:14-cv-81395-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2014 Page 30 of 30

PA M ELA JO B ON D I
ATTO RN EY GEN ER AL
STATE O F FLORID A

Dated: lxlwwv/v ï(), ptzit
Katherine A .K izia
A ssistantAttorney General
Florida BarN umber0017585
1515 N .FlaglerDrive
Suite 900
W estPalm Beach,Florida 33401

(561)837-5007

Attorney forPlaintiff
STA TE O F FLORID A

Page 30 of30