Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 35 PageID 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`CASE NO. 6:20-cv-52
`
`FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`GRAND BAHAMA CRUISE LINE, LLC, a Florida limited
`liability company,
`ULTIMATE VACATION GROUP, LLC also d/b/a ROYAL
`BAHAMAS CRUISE LINE, LLC, a Florida limited liability
`company,
`TROPICAL ACCOMMODATIONS LLC also d/b/a GRAND
`CELEBRATION CRUISE LINE, a Florida limited liability
`company,
`VSC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and as an owner
`of Florida V.S.C. Inc.,
`CABB GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
`FLORIDA V.S.C. INC., a Florida corporation,
`JOHNATHAN BLAKE CURTIS, a/k/a Blake Curtis, individually
`and as a manager of Ultimate Vacation Group, LLC also d/b/a Royal
`Bahamas Cruise Line, LLC, Grand Bahama Cruise Line, LLC,
`Tropical Accommodations, LLC also d/b/a Grand Celebration
`Cruise Line, and VSC, LLC,
`ANTHONY DIGIACOMO, individually and as a manager of
`Ultimate Vacation Group, LLC also d/b/a Royal Bahamas Cruise
`Line, LLC, Grand Bahama Cruise Line, LLC, Tropical
`Accommodations, LLC also d/b/a Grand Celebration Cruise Line,
`and VSC, LLC,
`CHRISTOPHER A. COTRONEO, individually and as a manager
`of Tropical Accommodations, LLC,
`CHRISTINA R. PETERSON, individually and as an owner and
`manager of Cabb Group, LLC, and
`ROBERT J. PETERSON II, individually and as a manager of
`Cabb Group, LLC,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 35 PageID 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES, PERMANENT INJUNCTION,
`AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 16(a)(1) of
`
`the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 56(a)(1), for its complaint alleges:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action under Sections 5(a), 5(m)(1)(A), 13(b), 16(a) and 19 of
`
`the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 45(m)(1)(A), 53(b), 56(a) and 57b, and Section 6 of the
`
`Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (the “Telemarketing Act”), 15
`
`U.S.C. § 6105, to obtain monetary civil penalties, permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement,
`
`damages and other equitable relief from Defendants for their violations of Section 5(a) of the
`
`FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the Commission’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), as
`
`amended, 16 C.F.R. Part 310.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`2.
`
`Between 2011 and 2012, Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. (“CCL”), a Florida-based
`
`cruise line company, operated a massive telemarketing campaign that placed billions of survey
`
`robocalls to consumers offering “free” cruise vacations aboard the MS Bahamas Celebration, a
`
`cruise ship that departed from the Port of Palm Beach. In 2015, the FTC and its state partners
`
`filed charges against—and reached settlements with—all of the defendants in the case See FTC
`
`v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., et al., No. 0:15-cv-60423 (S.D. Fla.). Among other things, the
`
`settlement prohibits CCL from engaging in illegal telemarketing. Although not named in the
`
`lawsuit, during that same time-period, Defendants Johnathan Blake Curtis and Anthony
`
`DiGiacomo each owned and operated a telephone call center that marketed the “free” cruise
`
`vacations for CCL.
`
`3.
`
`Both prior to and after settlement of the original lawsuit, the owners of CCL have
`
`operated cruise-related companies that provided fulfillment of “free” cruise vacation packages.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 3 of 35 PageID 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Beginning in September 2013, Curtis and DiGiacomo jointly owned and/or operated several
`
`business enterprises that flooded American consumers with millions of unwanted telephone calls
`
`offering “free” cruise vacation packages on behalf of these subsidiary fulfillment companies.
`
`4.
`
`Curtis and DiGiacomo spearheaded the formation and operation of Ultimate
`
`Vacation Group, LLC also d/b/a Royal Bahama Cruise Line, LLC (“Ultimate Vacation Group”
`
`and “Royal Bahama”), Grand Bahama Cruise Line, LLC (“GBCL”), Tropical Accommodations,
`
`LLC also d/b/a Grand Celebration Cruise Line (“Tropical Accommodations”), and VSC, LLC
`
`(“VSC”) (collectively, “GBCL Corporate”), which initiated, caused the initiation of, and assisted
`
`and facilitated the initiation of, millions of violations of the TSR, including millions of calls to
`
`numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry (“DNC Registry”).
`
`5.
`
`The following chart illustrates the structure of GBCL Corporate’s telemarketing
`
`operation and the call process:
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 4 of 35 PageID 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Royal Bahama and GBCL contracted with various third-party lead generators to
`
`place calls to consumers using prerecorded messages, including calls to numbers on the DNC
`
`Registry, to generate potential customers for the sale of the “free” cruise vacation packages
`
`(customers paid federal port taxes and fees, and the cost of vacation upgrades.) After asking
`
`several automated survey questions wholly unrelated to the cruises, the prerecorded messages
`
`typically informed consumers that they were entitled to “two free boarding passes for an all-
`
`inclusive cruise to the Bahamas,” which would cost $59 per person in port taxes. Consumers
`
`who confirmed their interest in the “free” cruise offer either received a subsequent call within 24
`
`hours or were immediately transferred to a telemarketer at a telephone call center working on
`
`behalf of Royal Bahama and GBCL.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 5 of 35 PageID 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Since at least 2014, GBCL Corporate has known or consciously avoided knowing
`
`that many of the survey robocalls dialed by the lead generators and the subsequent outbound
`
`telephone calls to consumers were unlawful. GBCL Corporate includes recidivist companies
`
`that have been investigated and/or sued by state government agencies and private litigants
`
`challenging unlawful telemarketing calls. Nevertheless, GBCL Corporate continued to help
`
`survey robocall lead generators make illegal robocalls and provided other telemarketers and
`
`vendors with the tools they needed to make unlawful telemarketing calls for years.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants Cabb Group, LLC (“Cabb Group”) and Florida V.S.C., Inc. (“Florida
`
`V.S.C.”) (collectively, the “Call Centers”) operated telephone call centers that employed
`
`telemarketers. After logging into an automated web-based dialing platform (“autodialer”), the
`
`Call Centers notified GBCL Corporate that their telemarketers were available to speak to
`
`consumers. Consumers were typically pre-screened for eligibility and interest during a
`
`prerecorded message, and sometimes were transferred to an available telemarketer. The
`
`Defendants refer to these transferred calls as “inbound transfers.” In other instances, and usually
`
`within 24 hours, the Call Centers placed outbound calls to eligible and interested consumers.
`
`9.
`
`The Call Centers utilized marketing materials and scripts provided by GBCL
`
`Corporate to sell consumers various items, including cruise excursions, pre-boarding hotels,
`
`enhanced accommodations, and other travel packages related to the cruise offers.
`
`10.
`
`The Call Centers knew or consciously avoided knowing that the survey robocalls
`
`and outbound telephone calls placed to consumers were unlawful. They regularly received
`
`complaints from consumers who had received telephone calls despite the fact that their telephone
`
`numbers were on the DNC Registry or that they had previously stated they did not wish to
`
`receive outbound telephone calls made by or on behalf of the seller whose goods or services
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 6 of 35 PageID 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`were being offered. Nevertheless, the Call Centers substantially assisted GBCL Corporate’s
`
`illegal telemarketing operation by receiving inbound transfers and/or placing outbound telephone
`
`calls to consumers, in violation of the TSR.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331, 1337(a), 1345, and 1355, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(m)(1)(A), 53(b), 56(a) and 57b. This
`
`action arises under 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2), (d) and 1395(a),
`
`and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b).
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`13.
`
`Defendant Grand Bahama Cruise Line, LLC (“GBCL”) is a former for-profit
`
`Florida limited liability company that dissolved on February 21, 2017. GBCL was a seller and
`
`telemarketer that initiated, caused the initiation of, and assisted and facilitated the initiation of
`
`outbound telephone calls to induce consumers to purchase cruise vacation packages. GBCL has
`
`been the subject of multiple consumer class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Telephone
`
`Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). See Bartlett v. Grand Bahama Cruise Line, LLC, No. 6:15-
`
`cv-01530 (M.D. Fla. 2015); Phan v. Grand Bahama Cruise Line, LLC, No. 115cv286216 (Cal.
`
`Super. Ct. 2015) [removed to N.D. Cal. No. 5:15-cv-5019]. At times material to this Complaint,
`
`GBCL has performed various business functions on behalf of Royal Bahama, or overseen such
`
`business functions, including advertising, marketing, lead generation, and customer service.
`
`GBCL, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacted business in this district and
`
`throughout the United States.
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 7 of 35 PageID 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Defendant Ultimate Vacation Group, LLC also d/b/a Royal Bahama Cruise Line
`
`(“Ultimate Vacation Group” or “Royal Bahama”) is a former for-profit Florida limited liability
`
`company that dissolved on September 22, 2017. Royal Bahama was a seller and telemarketer
`
`that initiated, caused the initiation of, and assisted and facilitated the initiation of outbound
`
`telephone calls to induce consumers to purchase cruise vacation packages. Royal Bahama is a
`
`recidivist telemarketer that has been the subject of a state enforcement action involving
`
`violations of the Do Not Call Registry and a consumer class action lawsuit alleging violations of
`
`the TCPA. See In the Matter of Ultimate Vacations Group, LLC dba Royal Bahama Cruise Line,
`
`No. 2014-0035 (State of New York Dept. of State, consent order, May 19, 2016); Shields v.
`
`Ultimate Vacation Group, et al., No. 3:14-cv-00285 (S.D. Tex.). Royal Bahama, in connection
`
`with the matters alleged herein, transacted business in this district and throughout the United
`
`States.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant Tropical Accommodations LLC also d/b/a Grand Celebration Cruise
`
`Line (“Tropical Accommodations”) is a for-profit Florida limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business at 555 Winderley Place, Suite 300, Maitland, Florida 32751. Tropical
`
`Accommodations is a seller that caused the initiation of, and assisted and facilitated the initiation
`
`of, outbound telephone calls to induce consumers to purchase cruise vacation packages. At all
`
`times material to this Complaint, Tropical Accommodations has performed various business
`
`functions on behalf of Royal Bahama, GBCL, and VSC, or overseen such business functions,
`
`including fulfillment, payment processing, customer service, verification service, authorization,
`
`and quality assurance. Also at all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert
`
`with others, Tropical Accommodations has assisted and facilitated the acts or practices set forth
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 8 of 35 PageID 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in this Complaint. Tropical Accommodations, in connection with the matters alleged herein,
`
`transacted business in this district and throughout the United States.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant VSC is a for-profit Delaware limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business at 2950 Lake Emma Road, Suite 3020, Lake Mary, Florida 32746.
`
`VSC is a seller and telemarketer that initiated, caused the initiation of, and assisted and
`
`facilitated the initiation of outbound telephone calls to induce consumers to purchase cruise
`
`vacation packages. At times material to this Complaint, VSC has performed various business
`
`functions on behalf of Royal Bahama and GBCL, or overseen such business functions, including
`
`advertising, marketing, customer service, verification service, authorizations, and quality
`
`assurance. Also at times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, VSC
`
`has assisted and facilitated the acts or practices set forth in this Complaint. VSC, in connection
`
`with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this district and
`
`throughout the United States.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant Johnathan Blake Curtis is a manager of VSC. Defendant Curtis also
`
`was a manager of Royal Bahama and a de facto manager of GBCL and Tropical
`
`Accommodations. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others,
`
`Curtis has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts
`
`and practices of GBCL Corporate set forth in this Complaint. Defendant Curtis resides in
`
`Sanford, Florida, and in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted
`
`business in this district and throughout the United States.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant Anthony DiGiacomo is a manager of VSC. Defendant DiGiacomo
`
`also was a manager of Royal Bahama and a de facto manager of GBCL, Tropical
`
`Accommodations, and Florida V.S.C. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 9 of 35 PageID 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`concert with others, DiGiacomo has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control,
`
`or participated in the acts and practices of GBCL Corporate set forth in this Complaint.
`
`Defendant DiGiacomo resides in Sanford, Florida, and in connection with the matters alleged
`
`herein, transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United States.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant Christopher A. Cotroneo is the sole owner and manager of Tropical
`
`Accommodations. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others,
`
`Cotroneo has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the
`
`acts and practices of GBCL Corporate set forth in this Complaint. Defendant Cotroneo resides in
`
`Sanford, Florida, and in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted
`
`business in this district and throughout the United States.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant Cabb Group, LLC (“Cabb Group”) is a for-profit Florida limited
`
`liability company with its principal place of business at 2400 S Ridgewood Avenue, Unit #25,
`
`South Daytona, Florida 32119. Cabb Group is a seller and telemarketer that initiated, caused the
`
`initiation of, and assisted and facilitated the initiation of outbound telephone calls to induce
`
`consumers to purchase cruise vacation packages. Cabb Group, in connection with the matters
`
`alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United
`
`States.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant Florida V.S.C. is a former for-profit Florida limited liability company
`
`that dissolved on September 28, 2018. Florida V.S.C. was a wholly-owned subsidiary of VSC,
`
`with its principal place of business at 2950 Lake Emma Road, Suite 3020, Lake Mary, Florida
`
`32746. Florida V.S.C. is also a seller and telemarketer that initiated, caused the initiation of, and
`
`assisted and facilitated the initiation of outbound telephone calls to induce consumers to
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 10 of 35 PageID 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`purchase cruise vacation packages. Florida V.S.C., in connection with the matters alleged
`
`herein, transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United States.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant Christina R. Peterson is an owner and manager of Cabb Group. At all
`
`times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Christina R. Peterson had
`
`the authority and responsibility to prevent or correct the unlawful telemarketing practices of
`
`Cabb Group, and formulated, directed, controlled, or participated in the acts and practices of
`
`Cabb Group, including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Defendant Christina R.
`
`Peterson resides in Osteen, Florida, and in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts
`
`or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United States.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant Robert J. Peterson II is a manager of Cabb Group. At all times
`
`material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Robert J. Peterson II had the
`
`authority and responsibility to prevent or correct the unlawful telemarketing practices of Cabb
`
`Group, and formulated, directed, controlled, or participated in the acts and practices of Cabb
`
`Group, including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Defendant Robert J. Peterson
`
`II resides in Osteen, Florida, and in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has
`
`transacted business in this district and throughout the United States.
`
`24.
`
`Defendants Christina R. Peterson and Robert J. Peterson are hereinafter
`
`collectively referred to as the “Petersons.” Defendants Cabb Group, Florida V.S.C., and the
`
`Petersons are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Call Center Defendants.”
`
`COMMON ENTERPRISE
`
`25.
`
`The GBCL Corporate entities—Ultimate Vacation Group also d/b/a Royal
`
`Bahama, GBCL, Tropical Accommodations, VSC, and Florida V.S.C. (collectively, the
`
`“Common Enterprise Defendants”) —have operated as a common enterprise while engaging in
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 11 of 35 PageID 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the acts and practices alleged below. Royal Bahama began as a d/b/a of Ultimate Vacation
`
`Group in 2013. GBCL was incorporated in June 2014 and took over relevant business operations
`
`from Royal Bahama in approximately January 2015. Tropical Accommodations and VSC also
`
`joined the common enterprise in 2014; they took over the interests of Royal Bahama and GBCL,
`
`which both ceased operations in 2017. Florida V.S.C. was incorporated in February 2015, when
`
`it took over the relevant in-house call center operations. (Because of Florida V.S.C.’s dual role—
`
`as a wholly-owned subsidiary of VSC and as a call center—it is both a Common Enterprise
`
`Defendant and a Call Center Defendant.)
`
`26.
`
`The Common Enterprise Defendants conducted the business practices described
`
`below through an interrelated network of companies that have common management,
`
`coordinated business functions, shared office space, employees and resources, and that marketed
`
`and sold common products, shared revenues, and comingled funds. Because the Common
`
`Enterprise Defendants operated as such, each of the entities that comprise the enterprise is jointly
`
`and severally liable for the acts and practices of Royal Bahama, GBCL, Tropical
`
`Accommodations, VSC, and Florida V.S.C. during the time in which they participated in the
`
`common enterprise. At all times material to this Complaint, Curtis, DiGiacomo, and Cotroneo
`
`formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and
`
`practices of the defendants that constitute the Common Enterprise Defendants.
`
`COMMERCE
`
`27.
`
`At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a substantial
`
`course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act,
`
`15 U.S.C. § 44.
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 12 of 35 PageID 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE
`
`28.
`
`Congress directed the Commission to prescribe rules prohibiting abusive and
`
`deceptive telemarketing acts or practices pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-
`
`6108. The Commission adopted the original TSR in 1995, extensively amended it in 2003, and
`
`amended certain provisions thereafter. See 16 C.F.R. Part 310.
`
`29.
`
`Among other things, the 2003 amendments to the TSR established a do-not-call
`
`registry, maintained by the Commission (the “National Do Not Call Registry” or “DNC
`
`Registry”), of consumers who do not wish to receive certain types of telemarketing calls.
`
`Consumers can register their telephone numbers on the Registry without charge either through a
`
`toll-free telephone call or over the Internet at donotcall.gov.
`
`30.
`
`Consumers who receive telemarketing calls to their registered numbers can
`
`complain of Registry violations the same way they registered, through a toll-free telephone call
`
`or over the Internet at donotcall.gov, or by otherwise contacting law enforcement authorities.
`
`31.
`
`The Commission allows sellers, telemarketers, and other permitted organizations
`
`to access the Registry over the Internet at telemarketing.donotcall.gov, to pay the fee(s) if
`
`required, and to download the numbers not to call.
`
`32.
`
`Under the TSR, a “telemarketer” is any person who, in connection with
`
`telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls to or from a customer or donor. 16 C.F.R.
`
`§ 310.2(ff). A “Seller” is any person who, in connection with a telemarketing transaction,
`
`provides, offers to provide, or arranges for others to provide goods or services to the customer in
`
`exchange for consideration. Id. § 301.2(dd).
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 13 of 35 PageID 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Under the TSR, an “outbound telephone call” is a telephone call initiated by a
`
`telemarketer to induce the purchase of goods or services or to solicit a charitable contribution.
`
`16 C.F.R. § 310.2(x).
`
`34.
`
`The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from initiating an outbound telephone
`
`call to numbers on the Registry. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B).
`
`35.
`
`The TSR also prohibits sellers and telemarketers from initiating an outbound
`
`telephone call to any person when that person previously has stated that he or she does not wish
`
`to receive an outbound telephone call made by or on behalf of the seller whose goods or services
`
`are being offered. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(A).
`
`36.
`
`As amended, effective September 1, 2009, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v) of the TSR
`
`prohibits initiating an outbound telephone call that delivers a prerecorded message to induce the
`
`purchase of any good or service unless the seller has obtained from the recipient of the call an
`
`express agreement, in writing, that evidences the willingness of the recipient of the call to
`
`receive calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or on behalf of a specific seller. The express
`
`agreement must include the recipient’s telephone number and signature, must be obtained after a
`
`clear and conspicuous disclosure that the purpose of the agreement is to authorize the seller to
`
`place prerecorded calls to such person, and must be obtained without requiring, directly or
`
`indirectly, that the agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or service. 16
`
`C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v)(A).
`
`37.
`
`The TSR also requires that sellers and telemarketers transmit or cause to be
`
`transmitted the telephone number of the telemarketer and, when made available by the
`
`telemarketer’s carrier, the name of the telemarketer, to any caller identification service in use by
`
`a recipient of a telemarketing call, or transmit the customer service number of the seller on
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 14 of 35 PageID 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`whose behalf the call is made and, when made available by the telemarketer’s carrier, the name
`
`of the seller. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(8).
`
`38.
`
`It is a violation of the TSR for any person to provide substantial assistance or
`
`support to any seller or telemarketer when that person knows or consciously avoids knowing that
`
`the seller or telemarketer is engaged in any practice that violates Sections 310.3(a), (c) or (d), or
`
`310.4 of the TSR. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b).
`
`39.
`
`Pursuant to Section 3(c) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6102(c), and
`
`Section 18(d)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), a violation of the TSR constitutes an
`
`unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of the
`
`FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).
`
`GBCL CORPORATE’S BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
`
`Formation of GBCL Corporate
`
`40.
`
`Beginning in 2011, the owners of CCL operated multiple subsidiary companies
`
`that entered into fulfillment agreements with dozens of companies that ran illegal telemarketing
`
`campaigns on their behalf. These telemarketers offered, and the subsidiary companies fulfilled,
`
`“free” cruise vacations aboard the MS Bahamas Celebration cruise ship, until the ship struck an
`
`object and was badly damaged on October 31, 2014.
`
`41.
`
`In January 2015 (shortly after the MS Bahamas Celebration was damaged), the
`
`owners of CCL formed a new cruise line company called Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line and
`
`purchased a new cruise ship, which they named the MV Grand Celebration.
`
`42.
`
`Under Florida law, any person or business that sells or promotes travel-related
`
`services must register annually as a seller of travel with the Florida Department of Agriculture
`
`and Consumer Services. Fla. Stat. § 559.928 (2018).
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 15 of 35 PageID 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`43.
`
`In 2013, Curtis and DiGiacomo registered Ultimate Vacation Group as a licensed
`
`seller of travel that procured its own survey robocall leads and utilized other third-party call
`
`centers—in addition to its own in-house call center—to market cruise vacation packages to its
`
`own sales leads on behalf of CCL. Also in 2013, Ultimate Vacation Group began doing business
`
`as Royal Bahama Cruise Line because Curtis and DiGiacomo thought the company needed a
`
`better name.
`
`44.
`
`In June 2014, Curtis and DiGiacomo assisted with the incorporation of GBCL,
`
`and appointed the office administrator for Royal Bahama as the titular manager of GBCL.
`
`GBCL registered as a licensed seller of travel, but essentially lay dormant for several months.
`
`45.
`
`In September 2014, Curtis and DiGiacomo assisted with the incorporation of
`
`Tropical Accommodations, and appointed Christopher Cotroneo, an IT and quality assurance
`
`employee of Royal Bahama, as the titular owner and manager of Tropical Accommodations.
`
`Cotroneo is the only employee Tropical Accommodations has ever had. He registered Tropical
`
`Accommodations as a licensed seller of travel, registered websites for it, and signed contracts on
`
`its behalf. But behind the scenes, Curtis and DiGiacomo also operated as de facto managers of
`
`Tropical Accommodations, formulating, directing, controlling, and participating in the acts and
`
`practices of the company.
`
`46.
`
`In November 2014, Curtis and DiGiacomo incorporated VSC to provide
`
`administrative services for the entire telemarketing operation, including customer service,
`
`verification service, authorization, and quality assurance.
`
`47.
`
`In or around January 2015, GBCL effectively took over relevant business
`
`operations from Royal Bahama. GBCL had no employees of its own. Behind the scenes, Curtis
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 16 of 35 PageID 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and DiGiacomo operated as de facto managers of GBCL, formulating, directing, controlling, and
`
`participating in the acts and practices of the company.
`
`48.
`
` In or around February 2015, Tropical Accommodations acquired Royal
`
`Bahama’s merchant account—the account it used to process credit card payments from
`
`consumers—and began processing consumer payments on behalf of the entire telemarketing
`
`operation.
`
`49.
`
`The entire telemarketing operation functioned as it had before the crash, but for
`
`the new cruise ship, the MV Grand Celebration.
`
`50.
`
`In 2017, Royal Bahama and GBCL officially dissolved, leaving their business
`
`interests to Tropical Accommodations and VSC.
`
`
`
`Agreements with Cruise Lines’ Subsidiary Fulfillment Companies
`
`51.
`
`Notwithstanding the FTC’s lawsuit in 2015 and the settlement order in 2016, the
`
`owners of CCL continued operating subsidiary companies that fulfilled “free” cruise vacations
`
`marketed and sold by companies running telemarketing campaigns.
`
`52.
`
`Between 2013 and 2017, Royal Bahama, GBCL, and Tropical Accommodations
`
`entered into several agreements with the cruise lines’ subsidiary fulfillment companies wherein
`
`Royal Bahama, GBCL, and Tropical Accommodations agreed to market and sell cruise vacation
`
`packages, and operate a telephone call center business, in order to sell cruise vacation packages.
`
`Agreements with Call Centers
`
`53.
`
`Beginning in 2013, Royal Bahama, Curtis, and DiGiacomo operated their own in-
`
`house call center that employed telemarketers who marketed and sold cruise vacation packages
`
`fulfilled by the cruise lines’ subsidiary companies. In February 2015, Florida V.S.C.
`
`incorporated and took over the relevant in-house call center operations.
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 17 of 35 PageID 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`54.
`
`Beginning in mid-to-late 2014, GBCL Corporate also developed and managed an
`
`external telemarketing program conducted by third-party call centers; GBCL Corporate
`
`sometimes referred to the call centers as “independent agents.”
`
`55.
`
`Between 2014 and 2017, Curtis negotiated “Commission Agreement Call Center
`
`Contracts” (“Call Center Contracts”) for Florida V.S.C, Cabb Group, and other third-party call
`
`centers, to provide call center services to registered sellers of travel. Royal Bahama was the first
`
`such seller of travel, followed by GBCL and non-party entities such as Blue Star Cruises LLC
`
`and Atlantic Accommodations & Cruises, LLC. Upon information and belief, GBCL, Blue Star
`
`Cruises, and Atlantic Accommodations (none of which was formally owned by Curtis or
`
`DiGiacomo) were simply buffer companies; they served no other purpose than to conceal that
`
`GBCL Corporate was actually the true party to the Call Center Contracts.
`
`56.
`
`Pursuant to the Call Center Contracts, the Call Centers employed telemarketers
`
`who received inbound transfers and/or made outbound telephone calls to induce consumers to
`
`purchase “free” cruise vacation packages. GBCL Corporate provided the Call Centers with
`
`marketing materials and scripts. DiGiacomo periodically conducted training sessions at the
`
`offices of the Call Centers, instructing the telemarketers on sales techniques to market and sell
`
`the cruise vacation packages.
`
`57.
`
`Although consumers received a nominally free 2-day cruise, the Call Centers’
`
`telemarketers typically made aggressive sales pitches designed to induce consumers to purchase
`
`vacation upgrades, such as hotels, rental cars, extended stays, and additional excursions that
`
`could result in significant additional charges to consumers. The Call Centers earned
`
`commissions paid by GBCL Corporate based upon the specific vacation packages sold to
`
`consumers.
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00052-RBD-GJK Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 18 of 35 PageID 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`58.
`
`GBCL Corporate agreed to fulfill all cruise packages by corresponding with the
`
`cruise ship operator (and/or its agents) to ensure that the Call Centers’ customers were able to
`
`secure the accommodations and other services purchased. VSC provided administrative services
`
`for the Call Centers, which included customer service, verification, authorization, and quality
`
`assurance.
`
`Survey Robocall Lead Generation Program
`
`59.
`
`GBCL Corporate’s illegal telemarketing operation involved two steps. First,
`
`Royal Bahama and GBCL purchased sales leads, i.e., a way to identify consumers who were
`
`interested in a cruise, from lead generators that placed survey robocalls to consumers. The
`
`survey robocalls offered “free” cruise vacation packages to consumers who were willing to
`
`answer a few questions about topics wholly unrelate