FORT MYERS – The Federal Trade Commission recently suffered a loss in a dispute with a call center company when the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a motion to reinstate a freeze on the company's assets.
U.S. District Judge Sheri Chappell issued a 24-page ruling on Sept. 11, in the FTC lawsuit against call center company Vylah Tec LLC, Express Tech Help LLC, Tech Crew Support LLC, Angelo Cupo, Robert Cupo and Dennis Cupo.
The FCC is suing the company over an alleged deceptive scheme in regards to sales of products and pitches leading to those sales.
According to court filings, on May 1, 2017, FTC "sued defendants for violating the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) (through) scripted sales pitches and selling antivirus software." The filings said, "The government takes specific issue with defendants (1) using popup messages with allegedly phony warnings that a virus infected the consumer’s computer; (2) using scripted sales pitches to falsely diagnose consumers’ computers with technical problem and misleading consumers into buying software and repairs; and (3) misrepresenting Vylah Tec as a Microsoft affiliate and its employees as Microsoft-certified technicians"
FTC also claimed the deceptive scheme "has swindled more than $1.8 million from consumers."
On May 2, 2017, an ex parte temporary restraining order was issued "that shutdown Vylah Tec’s business, appointed a receiver, and froze defendants’ assets." Vylah Tec and the other defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which affirmed the previous decision, except for the freeze on assets.
In her ruling, Chappell mentioned that in denying the motion to refreeze assets, the court "understands the government has a light burden for an asset freeze," but that same burden "goes to approximating defendants’ ill-gotten gains, which no party disputes is around $1.8 million."
She also stated the company's gains were much higher than the assets it owned. "The court also understands that defendants’ assets do not cover their alleged ill-gotten gains," Chappell said.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, case number 2:17-cv-228-FtM-99MRM