Franchise & Business Opportunity
Case Summaries: 1999 - 2000

FTC v. Advanced Public Communications Corp., et al., Civ. No. 00- 00515 (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 7, 2000, as amended, June 13, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Advanced Public Communications Corp, Michael Portman, John Taylor, James L. Bianco, Jr. and Michael Drucker, a/k/a Michael Davis, violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in selling payphone vending opportunities by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; (2) that purchasers will receive profitable locations; and (3) that purchasers will receive their payphones within 45 days of purchase. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Franchise Rule by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$200k yr pot'l" advertised.

FTC v. American Universal Vending Corp., et al., Civ. No. 00-0155 (W.D.N.Y.), filed Feb. 14, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that American Universal Vending Corp, d/b/a Universal Vending, Inc.; 466733 Ontario Limited d/b/a Universal Payphone Systems, Inc.; and George Katsoulakis a/k/a Constantin Katsoulakis and George Kats, violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in selling payphone and other vending opportunities by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; and (2) that purchasers will receive profitable locations for their vending machines. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Franchise Rule by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$250K yr. Potential" advertised.

FTC v. Ameritel Payphone Distributors, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-0514 (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 7, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Ameritel Payphone Distributors, Inc. and Roy B. Goodman violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in selling payphone vending opportunities by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; and (2) that purchasers will receive "prime" profitable locations. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Franchise Rule by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$200k yr pot'l" advertised.

FTC v. AMP Publications, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-112 (C.D. Cal.), filed Feb. 1, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that AMP Publications, Inc., Computer & Web Publications, Inc., and Ranjit Narayan d/b/a Nationwide Financial Publications, Inc. violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in selling work-at-home business opportunities by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; (2) that purchasers will receive work from companies with which the defendants have established business relationships; and (3) that the defendants will provide refunds to purchasers without restrictions or conditions.

FTC v. Car Wash Guys Intn’l., Inc. et al., Civ. No. 00-8197 (C.D. Cal.) filed Jul. 31, 2000.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that The Car Wash Guys International, Inc., Washguy.com, Inc., Lance Winslow, III and Michelle Portney violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; and (2).that purchasers would receive a "turn-key" business with initial and ongoing support. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Franchise Rule by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; and (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their claims.

FTC v. Data Medical Capital, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 99-1266 (C.D. Cal.), filed Oct. 14, 1999.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Data Medical Capital, Inc., d/b/a DataMed and MedCo, and Brian D'Antonio violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in selling medical billing business opportunities by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; and (2) that purchasers will received work from physicians with whom the defendants have established business relationships.

FTC v. Home Professions, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-111(C.D. Cal.), filed Feb. 1, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Home Professions, Inc., Telesalescenter.com and Mike Petok violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in selling medical billing business opportunities by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; (2) that purchasers will receive computer billing software that will allow them to process medical claims from their homes; (3) that purchasers will receive work from physicians with whom the defendants have established business relationships; and (4) that the defendants will provide full refunds to purchasers upon request.

FTC v. iMall, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 99-03650 (C.D. Cal.), filed Apr. 7, 1999.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that iMall, Inc., Craig R. Pickering and Mark R. Comer violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in the sale of Internet consultant business opportunities by misrepresenting how much purchasers can earn. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Franchise Rule by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; and (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims.

FTC v. Innovative Productions, et al., Civ. No. 3-00-0312 (N.D. Tex.), filed Feb. 10, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Innovative Productions and Shane D. Walls violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in selling envelope stuffing work-at-home business opportunities by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; (2) that will pay purchasers $4 for every envelope stuffed; and (3) that the defendants will provide unconditional, unrestricted refunds within 90 days if purchasers are not satisfied.

FTC v. Marketing and Vending Concepts, L.L.C., et al. Civ. No. 00-1131 (S.D.N.Y.), filed Feb. 15, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Marketing and Vending Concepts, L.L.C. and Michael Cavallo violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in selling candy vending opportunities by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; and (2) that purchasers will receive profitable locations for their vending machines. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Franchise Rule by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; and (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims.

FTC v. Mediworks, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-01079 (C.D. Cal.), filed Feb. 1, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Mediworks, Inc., United Medical Associates, d/b/a United Legal & Medical Associate and Mediworks, Robert D. Seals, Tate Stringer and Corey Dixon, d/b/a Medipros violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in selling medical billing business opportunities by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; (2) that purchasers will receive the names and addresses of physicians who are likely to use the purchasers to process their medical claims; (3) that the defendants will provide full refunds to purchasers upon request; and (4) that the defendants will provide partial refunds to consumers upon request..

FTC v. MegaKing, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-00513 (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 7, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Megaking, Inc. and Richard Goodman violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in selling snack and soda vending opportunities by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; and (2) that purchasers will receive profitable locations for their vending machines. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Franchise Rule by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$500-1000 Wkly" and "$100K yearly" advertised.

FTC v. Star Publishing Group, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-023 (D. Wyo.), filed Feb. 2, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Star Publishing Group, Inc., d/b/a National Consumer Services, and Kent Hopkins violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in selling employment guide work-at-home business opportunities by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; (2) that defendants are affiliated with the U.S. government or that purchasers will be employed as refund tracers for the U.S. government; (3) that the defendants will provide refunds after 90 days if purchasers are not satisfied; and (4) that defendants' National Tracer Program contains everything purchasers need to work as a refund tracer for the U.S. government.

FTC v. Target Vending Systems, L.L.C., et al., Civ. No. 00-0955 (S.D.N.Y.), filed Feb. 8, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Target Vending Systems, L.L.C., East West Vending Systems, Inc. and Barry Richman violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in selling snack and soda vending opportunities by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; and (2) that purchasers will receive profitable locations for their vending machines. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Franchise Rule by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$4000+/Mo. Income" advertised.

FTC v. Transworld Enterprises, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-8126 (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 17, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Transworld Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a ATM International, Mark Goldstein, a/k/a Mark Davis, and James A. Mackey, Jr. violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in selling ATM machine vending opportunities by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; and (2) that purchasers will receive profitable locations for their ATM machines; and (3) that defendants will provide purchasers with all the support necessary in all areas of the ATM business. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Franchise Rule by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; and (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims.

FTC v. Vaughn Williams, III, d/b/a Encore Networking Services, Civ. No. 00-01083 (C.D. Cal.), filed Feb. 1, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Vaughn Williams, III, d/b/a Encore Networking Services, violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in selling medical billing business opportunities by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; (2) that purchasers will receive medical billing work from physicians with whom the defendant has established business relationships; and (3) that the defendants will provide full refunds to purchasers upon request, without restrictions or conditions.

In re LS Enterprises, LLC, et al., Dkt. No. C-3884 (FTC), filed July 13, 1999.

The Commission's administrative complaint alleges, inter alia, that LS Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Freepromo.com, Enterprise Publications, and LRS Publications; Internet Promotions, LLC, d/b/a Cyberpromoters.com; and Louis Salatto; violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in selling work-at-home opportunities by misrepresenting: (1) how much purchasers can earn; and (2) that the defendants have a reasonable basis for their earnings claims.

United States v. 21st Century Systems, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-6219 (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 14, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that 21st Century Systems, Inc. and Sara R. Miller violated the Franchise Rule in selling Pringles™ potato chip vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; and (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims.

United States v. American Coin-Op Services, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-0126 (N.D.N.Y.), filed Feb. 7, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that American Coin-Op Services, Inc., Daryl J. Chase and Craig J. Schieder violated the Franchise Rule in selling candy and mint vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$1,000/wk potential" advertised.

United States v. Astratel, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-06215 (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 14, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Astratel, Inc., Eugene Rega and Don Manfredonia violated the Franchise Rule in selling payphone, phone card and candy vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "9k/Mo. Pot'l" advertised.

United States v. Automatic Merchandising Corp., et al., Civ. No. 00-8142 (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 14, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Automatic Merchandising Corp. and Alan R. Manning violated the Franchise Rule in selling breath mint vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a basic disclosure document; and (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims.

United States v. Cigar Factory Outlet, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-6209 (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 11, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Cigar Factory Outlet, Inc., Osvaldo Padilla, Monica L. Feinstein, and Bruce Feinstein violated the Franchise Rule in selling cigar vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$100K-$150K potential" advertised.

United States v. Cigar Manufacturers Outlet, Inc., et al., Civ No. 00-6210 (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 11, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Cigar Manufacturers Outlet, Inc., Jose Ernesto San Martin, and Peter Dillon violated the Franchise Rule in selling cigar vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$100K pot'l" advertised.

United States v. Discount Manufacturing, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-8136 (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 11, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Discount Manufacturing, Inc. and Karl Marx violated the Franchise Rule in selling snack and soda vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; and (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims.

United States v. Elite Business Designs, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-0127 (N.D.N.Y.), filed Feb. 7, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Elite Business Designs, Inc. and James R. MacArthur violated the Franchise Rule in selling greeting card display rack opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a basic disclosure document; and (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims.

United States v. Emily Water & Beverage Co., Inc., et al., Civ. No. 4-00-00131 (W.D. Mo.), filed Feb. 7, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Emily Water & Beverage Co., Inc., Nick Labruzzo, and Tammy Hankins violated the Franchise Rule in selling bottled water vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$35$70K Potential" advertised.

United States v. Galaxies, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-079 (D. Del.), filed Feb. 7, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Galaxies Inc. and M. W. Walley violated the Franchise Rule in selling flavored popcorn display rack opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$50-$100K PT/FTl" advertised.

United States v. Great Pacific Vending Corp., et al. Civ. No. 00-01588 (C.D. Cal.), filed Feb. 14, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Great Pacific Vending Corp. and Collie Wainer violated the Franchise Rule in selling snack and soda vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; and (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral claims.

United States v. Greeting Card Depot, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-6212 (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 11, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Greeting Card Depot, Inc., William Moran and Robert Runte violated the Franchise Rule in selling greeting card display rack opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$27K-$40K+yr." advertised.

United States v. K. V. Hill, d/b/a Southeastern Photo Supply, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-0302 (N.D. Ala.), filed Feb. 7, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that K. V. Hill and James D. Carter, d/b/a Southeastern Photo Supply, Inc., violated the Franchise Rule in selling photo supply vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a basic disclosure document; and (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral claims.

United States v. Jumping Java Coffee, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-6211 (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 11, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Jumping Java Coffee, Inc. and Mitchell Berman violated the Franchise Rule in gourmet coffee vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$45K+/year" advertised.

United States v. Douglas C. McGlothin, d/b/a International Cigar Consortium, et al., Civ. No. 00-0243 (D. Ariz.), filed Feb. 9, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Douglas C. McGlothin and Anthony Simeonov, d/b/a International Cigar Consortium, violated the Franchise Rule in selling cigar vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$150K pot." advertised.

United States v. National Vending Consultants, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-0155 (D. N.M.), filed Feb. 7, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that National Vending Consultants, Inc., Patrick Abeyta, Jr., and Debra Abeyta violated the Franchise Rule in selling snack and soda vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a basic disclosure document; and (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims.

United States v. North American Marketing Systems, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-317 (D. Colo.), filed Feb. 11, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that North American Marketing Systems, Inc., and Patrick Wherley violated the Franchise Rule in selling gourmet gumball vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$1000/wk Potential" advertised.

United States v. Old Dominican Tobaccos, Inc., et al. Civ. No. 00-6221 (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 14, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Old Dominican Tobaccos, Inc. and Neil Young violated the Franchise Rule in selling cigar vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$100K annual potential" advertised.

United States v. Kenneth Sterling, Cr. No. 99-6105 (S.D. Fla.), filed May 18, 1999.

Twenty-count criminal contempt indictment filed against Kenneth Sterling for continuing failure to comply with a May 1996 court order prohibiting violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Franchise Rule in connection with the sale of coffee rack displays and coffee bar business opportunity ventures.

United States v. United Payphones of America, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 00-6218 (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 14, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that United Payphones of America, Inc. and Andrew Marcus violated the Franchise Rule in selling payphone vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$160K/yr poten'l" advertised.

United States v. Vending Communications, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 00-00596(S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 14, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Vending Communications, Inc., Interactive Communications Services, Inc., and Alberto J. Susi violated the Franchise Rule in selling payphone, snack and soda vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$165K/yr." advertised.

United States v. Worldwide Coffee, Inc., et al., 00-8137 Civ. No. (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 11, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Worldwide Coffee, Inc., Jeffrey M. Salley and Terri Salley violated the Franchise Rule in selling expresso coffee vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$2K/wkly" advertised.

United States v. World Wide Vending Corp., et al., 00-00597 (S.D. Fla.), filed Feb. 14, 2000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that World Wide Vending Corp. and Robin Lafer violated the Franchise Rule in selling snack and soda vending opportunities by failing to provide potential purchasers with: (1) a complete basic disclosure document; (2) an earnings claim document substantiating their oral and written claims; and (3) advertising disclosures of the number and percent of prior purchasers making as much as the "$1500 wkly" advertised.