Category: Personal Finance Articles

You can buy practically anything online, including used cars. But before you shell out any hard-earned cash, here’s a warning about scammers trying to sell cars they don’t have or own.

Here’s how the scam works: Criminals post ads on online auction and sales websites, like eBay Motors, for inexpensive used cars (that they don’t really own). They offer to chat online, share photos, and answer questions. They may even tell you the sale will go through a well-known retailer’s buyer protection program. Recently, sellers have been sending fake invoices that appear to come from eBay Motors and demanding payment in eBay gift cards. If you call the number on the invoice, the scammer pretends to work for eBay Motors. Trusting buyers have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past year alone.

So how can you tell if an online car sale is fake?

• You find bad reviews online. Check out the seller by searching online for the person’s name, phone number and email address, plus words like “review,” “complaint” or “scam.”
• Sellers try to rush the sale. Resist the pressure. Scammers use high-pressure sales tactics to get you to buy without thinking things through.
• They can’t or won’t meet in person or let you inspect the car. Scammers might have an excuse, like a job transfer, military deployment, or divorce, for why you can’t see them or the car. But experts agree that you should have an independent mechanic inspect a used car before you buy it.
• They want you to pay with gift cards or by wire transfer. If anyone tells you to pay that way, it’s a scam. Every time.
• The sellers demand more money after the sale for “shipping” or “transportation” costs.
• The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) doesn’t match the VIN for the car you’re interested in. A vehicle history report can help you spot such discrepancies.

This article by the FTC was distributed by the Personal Finance Syndication Network.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) recently announced a settlement with Student CU Connect CUSO, LLC (CUSO), a company set up to hold and manage private loans for students at ITT Technical Institute. 

The Bureau filed a complaint and a proposed stipulated judgment in federal district court for the Southern District of Indiana alleging that CUSO provided substantial assistance to ITT Educational Services, Inc. (ITT) in engaging in unfair acts and practices. ITT operated ITT Technical Institute until it filed for bankruptcy and ceased operations in 2016. The Bureau’s complaint alleges that CUSO was actively involved in the creation and the implementation of the CUSO loan program. The complaint alleges that ITT induced its students to take out the loans by a variety of means, and that CUSO knew or was reckless in not knowing that many student borrowers did not understand the terms and conditions of the CUSO loans and could not afford them.

Under the terms of the proposed stipulated judgment, CUSO must stop collecting on all outstanding CUSO loans, discharge all outstanding CUSO loans, and ask all consumer reporting agencies to which CUSO furnished information to delete tradelines relating to CUSO loans. The order also requires CUSO to provide notice to all consumers with outstanding CUSO loans that their debt has been discharged and is no longer owed and that CUSO is seeking to have the relevant tradelines deleted. The total amount of loan forgiveness is currently estimated to be $168 million.

Forty-four states plus the District of Columbia have also settled with CUSO today on the same terms.

The CFPB complaint is available at: https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_student-CU-connect-cuso-llc_complaint_2019-06.pdf

The CFPB proposed stipulated judgment is available at: https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_student-CU-connect-cuso-llc_proposed-stipulated-judgment_2019-06.pdf

This article by was distributed by the Personal Finance Syndication Network.

Whether your summer plans include replacing your air conditioning, installing new flooring, or riding the range, you will probably read customer reviews to learn what people say about their experiences with a business or product. Shoppers benefit from knowing what others have to say, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) protects people’s ability to share their truthful experiences and opinions.

The FTC enforces the CRFA and recently sued three businesses (and two of their owners) for violating that law. According to the FTC, the companies used form contracts that barred customers from sharing negative comments and that imposed financial penalties against customers who did so. Under proposed agreements with the FTC, the businesses — including an HVAC and electrical contractor, a flooring seller, and a company that takes people on horseback rides — will stop using, and will not enforce, those contract provisions. They will also inform people who signed the contracts that the provisions can’t be enforced.

The CRFA protects your ability to share your honest opinions about a business’s products, services, or conduct in any forum, including social media. You can publish your honest review even if you say something negative about a business or the services it performed for you. If you have a signed form contract that restricts you from sharing reviews or penalizes you for doing that, the business may not be able to enforce those restrictions. If a business tries to enforce a restriction or penalty, let the business know about the CRFA, and please report it to the FTC or your state consumer protection agency.

This article by the FTC was distributed by the Personal Finance Syndication Network.

Crowdfunding is one way to support a project you believe in and get rewards for that support. But the project you’re backing is only as good as the people behind it. Some dishonest people can take your money but produce nothing – no product, no project, and no reward.

Here’s how crowdfunding works: People called “creators” ask for small amounts of money from lots of people to fund projects through websites like Kickstarter or Indiegogo. In exchange, creators offer rewards to contributors, like a product that the creators are trying to make. Sounds great…unless the creators don’t create anything but profit for themselves.

In its lawsuit against iBackPack, the FTC says people shelled out over $800,000 via crowdfunding campaigns. The company said those funds would help it provide consumers with backpacks and shoulder bags with built-in batteries for charging mobile devices. But, according to the FTC, iBackPack’s claims that bags would soon be going out to consumers were lies. What’s more, the FTC’s investigation found that the money the creators took in from their campaigns generally didn’t go toward what they said it would. Instead, the FTC says, iBackPack’s CEO pocketed a large part of the funds for his own personal use. And when people began to complain, the CEO allegedly threatened some of them – adding that he knew their addresses and other personal information.

If you’re thinking about contributing to a crowdfunding campaign, take a minute to research the creator’s background and reviews before you pay. For example, has the creator engaged in previous campaigns? How did those campaigns turn out?

This article by the FTC was distributed by the Personal Finance Syndication Network.

Parents be warned: some dating apps – like FastMeet, Meet24 and Meet4U – allow adults to find and communicate with children. Concerned parents should remove these apps if they’re on children’s devices. You also can set your kids’ devices so they must get parental approval before purchasing any new apps. Here are a few more things you should know.

FastMeet, Meet24 and Meet4U let children create public dating profiles. So, adults can use these apps to connect with children. If that’s not scary enough, the apps collect users’ real-time location data. In other words, adults – including sexual predators – can search by age and location to identify children nearby.

The FTC recently issued a warning letter to Wildec, LLC, the Ukraine-based maker of the three apps, because the company appears to be violating both the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and the FTC Act. COPPA requires app providers to give notice and get consent from parents before collecting or sharing any personal information about children under age 13, and the FTC Act prohibits unfair acts or practices. As the FTC’s letter states, “the ability to identify and communicate with children – even those over age 13 – poses a significant risk to children’s health and safety.”

As of May 3, 2019, Apple and Google Play have removed FastMeet, Meet24, and Meet4U from their stores, although it’s possible that updated versions of these apps could appear in the future – but only for adults. To find information on how to delete existing versions of these apps, go to Apple’s website (for iPhones) or Google’s website (for Android phones).

For help talking with your kids about online safety, check out Net Cetera: Chatting with Kids about Being Online. To learn more about your COPPA rights, read the FTC’s Protecting Your Child’s Privacy Online. And, if you think a company has violated your COPPA rights, report it at ftc.gov/complaint.

This article by the FTC was distributed by the Personal Finance Syndication Network.

A while back, we warned you about the “one ring” scam. That’s when you get a phone call from a number you don’t know, and the call stops after just one ring. The scammer is hoping you’ll call back, because it’s really an international toll number and will appear as a charge on your phone bill — with most of the money going to the scammer. Well, the scam is back with a vengeance, and the FCC just issued a new advisory about it. Read the FCC’s advisory for more detail, but the advice from both agencies remains the same if you get one of these calls:

This article by the FTC was distributed by the Personal Finance Syndication Network.

In 2018, the FTC settled claims against the companies and individuals responsible for the Amazing Wealth System — also known as Amazon Wealth Systems, FBA Stores, AWS, Insider Online Secrets, Online Auction Learning Center, and Online Seller. The defendants ran ads and held live workshops promoting a business opportunity scheme, and claimed people could use their system to “Get started on Amazon and Make $5,000-$10,000 in the next 30 days . . . even if you have never sold anything online before.”

The settlements ban the defendants from selling business opportunities and business coaching services and require them to surrender money they took from consumers. The FTC and a court-appointed receiver have been working to collect as much money as possible with the aim of returning it to people affected by the scheme.

Here is information for people who paid Amazing Wealth System or a related company:

I paid for an Amazing Wealth System workshop. How can I make sure the FTC knows?

Report your experience to the FTC at FTC.gov/complaint. Include as much personal information as you choose. Your information will go into a secure database that the FTC and other law enforcement agencies use for investigations. When you go to FTC.gov/complaint, click on:

• Education, Jobs, and Making Money, then

• Business Opportunities, Work-at-Home-Plans, Franchise or Distributorships, then

• Business Opportunity or Work-at-Home Plan.

I saved my receipts and other paperwork. What should I do with them?

Keep the originals and copies of:

• payment records, including invoices, bank statements, credit card statements and cancelled checks;

• postal mail, email and material that you received from the defendants, including messages about your account, marketing material and handouts you received at workshops; and

• other documents, postal mail or email that refers to your Amazon account or business with Amazing Wealth System or the related companies.

Will I get my money back?

The FTC is working to return as much money as possible to each person affected by this scheme. The amount the FTC is likely to return to affected consumers depends on various factors, including how much the defendants are able to pay, how many people were affected, and the amount each person paid to the defendants. Sometimes the FTC can’t return any money.

How long will it take to get my money back?

The FTC and the receiver must complete their collection efforts before the FTC can determine whether it will be able to give refunds and to whom. It could take the FTC and the receiver several more months to collect the assets that may be used for consumer refunds.

I saw another business that looked like Amazing Wealth System.

Please report what you saw to the FTC at FTC.gov/complaint.

Where can I get more information about the case?

You can read the press release or related case documents. When there is new information, we will publish another blog post or press release, and list it with the case documents.

This article by the FTC was distributed by the Personal Finance Syndication Network.

Defendants failed to use consumer funds to produce high-tech backpack

The Federal Trade Commission has taken legal action against the operator of a deceptive crowdfunding scheme who told consumers he was raising money to develop a high-tech backpack and other products, but failed to deliver any of the products and instead used much of the funds for himself.

In its complaint, the FTC alleges that Douglas Monahan, operating through his company, iBackPack of Texas, LLC, raised more than $800,000 from consumers through four crowdfunding campaigns, falsely claiming the funds would be used to develop a handful of products. This included an “iBackPack” that would incorporate batteries for charging laptops and phones, cables and a Bluetooth speaker.

“If you raise money by crowdfunding, you don’t have to guarantee that your idea will work,” said Andrew Smith, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “But you do have to use the money to work on your idea—or expect to hear from the FTC.”

According to the FTC’s complaint, Monahan first sought funding in 2015 for the iBackPack through the crowdfunding site Indiegogo, saying contributions would go to develop, produce, and distribute the product by March 2016. The campaign raised more than $720,000 by November 2016, according to the complaint.

Despite missing the delivery date for the iBackPack, Monahan started a second crowdfunding campaign in March 2016 via Kickstarter to produce and distribute the iBackPack 2.0, an updated version of the still-unproduced original iBackPack, according to the complaint. This campaign ended in April 2016 after raising more than $76,000 without ever delivering the promised product.

During the same time period, Monahan started two additional crowdfunding campaigns on Indiegogo, which raised a total of about $11,000, according to the complaint. One campaign claimed it was raising funds to produce and distribute the “MOJO,” a shoulder bag that incorporated batteries, cables and other features. The other campaign claimed to be raising money to produce and distribute the “POW” Smart Cable, a magnetic USB cable system with various technological features.

Monahan made a number of false statements to consumers about the status of products as well as to the crowdfunding sites to keep from being kicked off their platforms. These include announcing in August 2016 that the POW Cables were “on their way here” or were “done/finished/shipped over with” or would be received within six weeks.

Despite repeated assurances, Monahan did not use the contributions received from the crowdfunding campaigns for the promised products, the FTC alleged. Instead, he spent most of the money on personal expenses and marketing efforts to try to raise additional funds, according to the complaint. Hundreds of consumers complained on the crowdfunding platforms about Monahan and his company’s failure to provide the promised products and about threats they received from Monahan after they contacted him with their concerns.

This article by the FTC was distributed by the Personal Finance Syndication Network.

The popularity of video streaming services has taken off in the past few years. It’s become easier to stream video through smart TVs, streaming boxes that connect to your not-so-smart TV, and even streaming sticks. These devices let you stream video through popular apps like Hulu, Netflix, SlingTV, Amazon Prime Video, and YouTube TV. Unfortunately, there are other apps that let you watch illegal pirated content. And hackers are using those apps to spread malware. Here’s what you need to know.

Illegal pirated content is nothing new. We’ve alerted you that websites offering free movies and TV shows can infect your computer with malware. But the landscape is shifting. Purveyors of pirated content are now spreading apps and add-ons that work with popular streaming devices. If you download one of these illegal pirate apps or add-ons, the chances are good that you’ll also download malware.

If malicious software on the pirate app gets inside your wireless network, it may try to infect other devices connected to your network. That could put at risk the computer you use for sensitive transactions like online banking or shopping. It could also expose your photos and other personal information. The malware could allow hackers to:

• Steal your credit card information and sell it to other hackers on the dark web.
• Steal the log in credentials for sites you shop on and go on a spending spree.
• Steal the log in credentials for your bank account and steal your money.
• Use your computer to commit crimes.

Malware may also make your computer slow or non-responsive, serve pop-up windows or ads, or take you to sites you didn’t want to visit.

If you want to avoid downloading malware when you stream video, don’t watch pirated content. Period. Not online and not through a video streaming device.

This article by the FTC was distributed by the Personal Finance Syndication Network.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) today filed a complaint against PGX Holdings Inc. and subsidiaries Progrexion Marketing Inc., Progrexion Teleservices Inc., eFolks LLC, and CreditRepair.com Inc.; and against John C. Heath, Attorney at Law PLLC, which does business as Lexington Law.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. district court in Utah, alleges the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by requesting and receiving payment of prohibited upfront fees for their credit repair services. Under the rule, companies can only charge fees for telemarketed credit repair services after providing consumers with documentation reflecting that the promised results have been achieved. That documentation cannot be provided to consumers until more than six months after the results were achieved. The Bureau also alleges that Progrexion and its subsidiaries violated the TSR and the Consumer Financial Protection Act by making deceptive representations in its marketing, or by substantially assisting others in doing so. 

Heath and Progrexion are headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah and do business throughout the United States.

A copy of the complaint filed in federal district court in the District of Utah is available at: https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_pgx-holdings_complaint_2019-05.pdf

This article by was distributed by the Personal Finance Syndication Network.