Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 1 of 26
`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 1 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT M
`
`EXHIBIT M
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 2 of 26
`Case 2: 17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 1 of 25
`
`Darren H. Lubetzky
`Savvas S. Diacosavvas
`Karen Dahlberg
`Federal Trade Commission
`Northeast Region
`One Bowling Green, Suite 318
`New York. NY I 0004
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Federal Trade Commission
`
`lN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF UT AH
`
`FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`THRIVE LEARNING, LLC, also doing business as
`BUSINESS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
`FOCUS, LIGI-ITWA VE WEB BUILDER, and
`THRIVE LEARNING INSTITUTE, a Utah limited
`liability company,
`
`MATTHEW RASMUSSEN, individually and as a
`manager and an owner of THRIVE LEARNING,
`LLC, and
`
`DA YID RASMUSSEN, individually and as a
`manager and an owner of THRIVE LEARNING,
`LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-00529-DN
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT
`INJUNCTION AND OTHER
`EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 3 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 2 of 25
`
`Plaintiff, lhe Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), for its Complaint alleges:
`
`I.
`
`The FTC brings this action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission
`
`Act ("FTC Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse
`
`Prevention Act ("Telemarketing Act"), I 5 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108, to obtain permanent injunctive
`
`relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement
`
`of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief for Defendants' acts or practices in violation of
`
`Sections S(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the FTC's trade regulation rule entitled
`
`Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR" or "Rule"), 16 C.F.R. Part 310 .
`
`.roRJSDJCTION AND VENUE
`
`2.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ I 331, I 337(a),
`
`and 1345, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 53(b), 6l02(c), and 6105(b).
`
`3.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 {b) and (c), and 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 53(b).
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`4.
`
`The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government created by
`
`statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The FTC enforces Section S(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 4S(a},
`
`which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTC also
`
`enforces the Telemarketing Act. Pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, the FTC promulgated and
`
`enforces the TSR. 16 C.F.R. Part 310, which prohibits deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts
`
`or practices.
`
`5.
`
`The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its own
`
`attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Act, and to secure such
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 4 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 3 of 25
`
`equitable relief as may be appropriate in each case, including rescission or reformation of
`
`contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies.
`
`15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 56(a)(2)(A)-(B), and 61 OS(b).
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Thrive Learning, LLC ("Thrive"), also doing business as Business
`
`Education Depanment, Focus, Lightwave Web Builder, and Thrive Learning Institute, is a
`
`closely held Utah limited liability company with its principal place of business at 512 West 800
`
`North, Orem, Utah 84057. In August 2013, Thrive sold its assets to Lift International, LLC, and
`
`in 2014, Thrive filed Articles of Dissolution. Thrive has transacted business in this district and
`
`throughout the United States.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Matthew Rasmussen is a resident of Orem, Utah. He was an owner
`
`and a managing member of Thrive. Until at least August 2013, acting alone or in concert with
`
`others, he formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts
`
`and practices set forth in this Complaint. Defendant Matthew Rasmussen, in connection with the
`
`matters alleged herein, transacted business in this district and throughout the United States.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant David Rasmussen is a resident of Orem, Utah. He was an owner and a
`
`managing member of Thrive. Until at least August 2013, acting alone or in concert with others,
`
`he formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and
`
`practices set forth in this Complaint. Defendant David Rasmussen, in connection with the
`
`matters alleged herein, transacted business in this district and throughout the United States.
`
`9.
`
`At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a substantial
`
`COMMERCE
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 5 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 4 of 25
`
`course of trade in or affecting commerce, as "commerce" is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act,
`15 u.s.c. § 44.
`
`DEFENDANTS' BUSINESS ACTIVITY
`
`Overview of the Deceptive Telemarketing Scheme
`
`10.
`
`from approximately March 2008 to August 2013, Thrive sold purported
`
`personalized business coaching services and related products and services (the "Business
`
`Coaching Program") to consumers trying to start a home-based Internet business. Thrive
`
`marketed its products and services through telemarketing calls.
`
`I 1.
`
`Thrive engaged numerous telemarketing sales 0oors ("Sales Floors") to market
`
`and sell the Business Coaching Program. The Sales Floors used a variety of deceptive sales
`
`tactics described herein to induce consumers to purchase the Business Coaching Program.
`
`Consumers typically paid thousands of dollars - most of it charged on their credit cards - for the
`
`Business Coaching Program based on false promises that these services would enable consumers
`
`to start their own successful Internet business.
`
`12.
`
`Thrive sold the Sales Floors "leads" (contact information for potential customers
`
`to call) and then provided the coaching and related services sold by the Sales Floors. The Sales
`
`Floors split the sale proceeds with Thrive.
`
`13.
`
`The Sales Floors typically did not disclose to consumers that Thrive provided Lhe
`
`actual coaching services they were selling. When communicating to consumers while providing
`
`the coaching services, Thrive employees typically represented that they were associated with the
`
`Sales Floor or used a generic brand name like "Focus" or "Mentor Group." Thus, consumers
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 6 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 5 of 25
`
`typically were not even aware that Thrive provided the purported coaching services they
`
`purchased.
`
`14.
`
`After consumers purchased the Business Coaching Program, Thrive continued to
`
`target them for additional telemarketing calls designed to induce additional sales. During these
`
`upsells, Thrive offered to sell consumers a host of additional products and services through other
`
`telemarketing entities they engaged, including entity setup, drop shipping, and marketing
`
`services.
`
`15. Most consumers who purchased services from Thrive did not develop a successful
`
`online business as promised, earned little or no money, and ended up heavily in debt. Thousands
`
`of consumers have lost millions as a result of this deceptive telemarketing scheme.
`
`Thrive's Business Practices
`
`16.
`
`Thrive began operating in 2008. Matthew Rasmussen and David Rasmussen were
`
`the principal owners of Thrive and helped formulate its sales practices. Each one was a
`
`signatory on multiple bank accounts and merchant accounts used by Thrive.
`
`17.
`
`Thrive entered into agreements with Sales Floors to sell its Business Coaching
`
`Program, which included its coaching services and related "ndd-on" products and services.
`
`These "add-on" products and services included a monthly membership to access online materials
`
`and webinars as well as various eBay and website software packages.
`
`18.
`
`Thrive provided the Sales Floors with marketing materials that described the
`
`Business Coaching Program to include individualized training from "experienced instructors"
`
`with access to a "curriculum" consisting of on line video tutorials and webinars about eBay,
`
`affiliate marketing, dropshipping, and building a website.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 7 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 6 of 25
`
`19.
`
`Thrive also provided the Sales Floors with testimonials of people purportedly
`
`having success and making money from the Business Coaching Program. The Sales Floors
`
`placed these testimonials on their own websites and referred to these success stories in their sales
`
`calls.
`
`20.
`
`ln addition, Thrive provided the Sales Floors with retail prices that the Sales
`
`Floors were to charge consumers for different coaching services and "add on" products as part of
`
`the Business Coaching Program. The variety of products and services available enabled the
`
`Sales Floors to assemble packages at a wide range of price points, and in tum, charge consumers
`
`varying amounts based on what available credit or savings the consumer had, ranging from
`
`several thousand dollars to over ten thousand dollars, to participate in the Business Coaching
`
`Program.
`
`21.
`
`Thrive priced its coaching based on the number of weeks of service. For
`
`example, in 2013, Thrive provided coaching packages with retail prices that ranged from a 4-
`
`week package for $1,600 to a 20-week package for $8,000. The wholesale price was 10%,
`
`which in this example meant that the Sales Floor paid Thrive $40 for each week of coaching.
`
`Thus, the Sales Floors charged consumers $8,000 for a 20-week coaching program and paid
`
`Thrive $800 to provide the coaching services for the Business Coaching Program.
`
`22.
`
`Thrive also sold customer leads to the Sales Floors. Thrive purchased the leads
`
`from entities that marketed work-at-home or on line business opportunities over the Internet.
`
`Many of these lead generators touted a purportedly lucrative work-at-home program that usually
`
`cost $97 dollars or less.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 8 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 7 of 25
`
`23.
`
`Among the online offers that generated leads that Thrive purchased and then
`
`resold to the Sales Floors included ones marketed under brand names "Mobile Money Code" and
`
`"Coffee Shop Millionaire," which have been the subject of thousands of consumer complaints.
`
`24.
`
`The Sales Floors then made outbound calls to consumers identified as leads to sell
`
`Thrive's business coaching services for thousands of dollars. Once consumers purchased the
`
`Business Coaching Program, Thrive sent consumers emails that included representations that
`
`consumers would receive personalized advanced training that would enable them to build a
`
`successful online business.
`
`25.
`
`For example, since at least 20 I 0, Thrive sent consumers a "Welcome Call" email
`
`from a generic email address, scheduling@coachwebmail.com, that touted "we will provide you
`
`with access to the most advanced training and tools to aid your success," followed by
`
`instructions on how to access its "exclusive Elibrary," and then stating "we look forward to work
`
`hand in hand in building your successful online business."
`
`26. While the consumers were enrolled in the Business Coaching Programt Thrive
`
`provided their customer contact infonnation to other telemarketers to call these consumers to
`
`"upsell" additional products and services. These "upsell" telemarketers usually charged
`
`consumers thousands of dollars more and remitted a portion of their sales back to Thrive and the
`
`Sales Floors. Thrive received up to 35% or 40% of the amounts charged to the consumers.
`
`27.
`
`Thrive coordinated the upsells. For example, Thrive typically arranged for
`
`telemarketers selling entity setup servicest business planning, bookkeeping, tax planning, and
`
`other similar services to call the consumers during the third week of the coaching program.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 9 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 8 of 25
`
`These calls were usually the first upsell attempt to consumers who had purchased business
`
`coaching services fi-om Thrive.
`
`28.
`
`Thrive continued to target consumers with more upsells later in its coaching
`
`program. For example, after the initial upsell at three weeks into the program, Thrive typically
`
`arranged for telemarketers to call consumers again in order to sell website building packages and
`
`marketing services.
`
`29.
`
`Thrive knew that the telemarketers with whom Thrive shared consumers' contact
`
`information and received a portion of the sale proceeds repeatedly charged these consumers
`
`thousands of dollars for various upsell packages after they enrolled in the Business Coaching
`
`Program.
`
`30.
`
`In addition, In numerous instances, Thrive and the SaJes Floors required
`
`consumers to agree to remove any negative comments or complaints they published on line or
`
`reported to the Better Business Bureau in order to receive a refund.
`
`Thrive's Merchanting Relationship with the Sales Floors
`
`3 I.
`
`During at least 2011 to 2013, Thrive also provided several SaJes Floors access to
`
`several merchant accounts It set up under generic brand names like "Business Coaching" and
`
`ususiness Education Department" in order to process telemarketing sales transactions initiated
`
`by the Sales Floors.
`
`The Merchant Account Process
`
`32.
`
`A "merchant account" is a type of account that allows businesses to process
`
`consumer purchases by credit or debit card. Merchant accounts are available through financial
`
`institutions called .. member acquiring banks" or "acquirers." Without access to a merchant
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 10 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 9 of 25
`
`acquiring bank, which is a member of one or more of the credit card associations such as
`
`MasterCard and VISA, merchants are not able to accept consumer credit or debit card payments.
`
`33. Merchant acquiring banks frequently enter into contracts with entities known as
`
`"payment processors" that manage the bank's merchant processing program. Before a payment
`
`processor will establish a merchant account, the merchant has to meet the bank and processor's
`
`underwriting criteria. Some companies are denied merchant accounts because the payment
`
`processor concludes that the company applying for the merchant account is too much of a risk.
`
`34.
`
`Consumers have the ability to dispute charges that appear on their credit card bills
`
`by initiating what is known as a "chargebackn with their issuing bank. The chargeback process
`
`is intended to protect consumers from fraud and unauthorized charges on their credit card bills.
`
`35.
`
`Credit card associations - such as VISA and MasterCard - have rules regarding
`
`their chargeback process. Those rules provide that when a consumer disputes a charge through
`
`the chargeback process, the consumer's issuing bank provisionally credits the consumer's credit
`
`card for the amount of the disputed charge. The customer's dispute is then relayed to the
`
`merchant, which in tum, may challenge the attempted chargeback by arguing that the charge
`
`was, in fact, valid. If the merchant challenges the attempted chargeback, the credit card
`
`association rules govern the manner in which the dispute is resolved. lf the merchant Is
`
`successful in disputing the chargeback, then the issuing bank reverses any provisional credit
`
`issued to the consumer, and the consumer becomes financially responsible for the disputed
`
`charge. If the consumer prevails and the chargeback is sustained, then the disputed charge is
`
`removed from the consumer's account pennanently or an offsetting credit is issued, and the
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 11 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 10 of 25
`
`charge amount is recouped from the merchant. A chargeback rate greater than 1 % is considered
`
`excessive by the credit card associations.
`
`36.
`
`To assist in the process of underwriting merchant accounts, the credit card
`
`associations have created programs to track merchants and individuals that previously have had
`
`merchant accounts tenninated by merchant acquiring banks for, among other things, excessive
`
`chargebacks. MasterCard, for example, maintains the Member Alert to Control High-Risk
`
`Merchants ("MATCH") list. This list includes merchants (and principals) whose merchant
`
`accounts were terminated by merchant acquiring banks for certain reasons, including fraud,
`
`excessive chargebacks, or other violations of the credit card association•s operating rules.
`
`Thrive Provided the Sales Floors Access to Its Merchant Accounts
`
`37.
`
`Thrive made available its merchant accounts to several Sales Floors in exchange
`
`for a fee, typically I 0% of the total sales initiated by the Sales Floors that were processed
`
`through one ofThrive's merchant accounts.
`
`38.
`
`Among the Sales Floors that entered these merchanting arrangements with Thrive
`
`was (i) one floor that operated in Las Vegas, Nevada under the names Global Education, Inc. and
`
`Education Mentoring Group, and (ii) another floor that operated in St. George, Utah under the
`
`name Successful Education Online, LLC, whose principal had previously been placed on the
`
`MATCH list for excessive chargebacks.
`
`39.
`
`As a result of this merchanting arrangement, Thrive received notices about
`
`numerous chargeback requests from dissatisfied consumers who disputed payments for coaching
`
`services processed through Thrive•s merchant accounts.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 12 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 11 of 25
`
`40.
`
`Thrive's merchant accounts used to process sales initiated by its Sales Floors had
`
`excessive chargeback rates indicative of deceptive or fraudulent sales practices. For example,
`
`one Thrive merchant account opened under the DBA name "FCS Education" had a year-to-date
`
`chargeback rate of 10% as of May 2012. Another Thrive merchant account opened under the
`
`DBA name "Business Coaching»' had a chargeback rate over 8% for all 20 I 2 transactions.
`
`4 J.
`
`Thrive was aware of the chargeback rates and also worked with the Sales Floors
`
`to dispute the chargebacks.
`
`Deceptive Sales Practices
`
`42.
`
`Thrive engaged multiple Sales Floors to initiate telephone calls to consumers
`
`throughout the United States to induce sales of the Business Coaching Program.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`The Sales Floors typically operated under various DBA names.
`
`The Sales Floors engaged by Thrive to sell the Business Coaching Program made
`
`a number of misrepresentations outlined below to generate sales.
`
`45. Many of the Sales Floors used similar recycled scripts that guided sales
`
`representatives during the telemarketing calls when selling the Business Coaching Program.
`
`46.
`
`The Sales Floors' sales pitch typically lasted for more than an hour over the
`
`course of one or more telemarketing calls. In numerous instances, the initial call was designed
`
`for the Sales Floors' representatives to "probe" consumers' personal financial information and
`
`personal goals or hardships ("pains") under the guise of a qualification screening process.
`
`47.
`
`Once consumers provided their personal information, they were typically then
`
`transferred to, or called later, by different sales representatives who tried to "close" the sale.
`
`During the "close," the sales representatives typically told consumers what the cost was to
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 13 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 12 of 25
`
`"invest" in the Business Coaching Program, which varied greatly depending in part on the
`
`consumer's personal finances. The sales representatives typically encouraged the consumers to
`
`use their personal credit cards to pay for the program as part of a so-called "OPM" strategy,
`
`specifically, using Other People's Money (e.g .• the bank's money).
`
`48.
`
`In numerous instances, the sales representatives claimed that the Business
`
`Coaching Program was open only to select applicants who qualified to participate. The sales
`
`representatives also appealed to the consumer's expressed goals, hardships, and "pains" to
`
`pressure the consumer into purchasing the Business Coaching Program.
`
`Misrepresentations about the Purpose of the Call, the Nature of the Program, and
`The Need for Consumers' Personal Financial Information
`
`49.
`
`In numerous instances, the Sales Floors started their sales calls by claiming they
`
`were calling as part of the work-at-home product or service that the consumers previously
`
`purchased from the lead source and did not promptly and clearly identify themselves or disclose
`
`that the purpose of the calls was to sell another product or service.
`
`50.
`
`Later, the Sales Floors' representatives told the consumers that they were calling
`
`to screen candidates for an exclusive program in which qualifying participants would get
`
`specialized assistance from an expert coach.
`
`51.
`
`In numerous instances, the Sales Floors' representatives told consumers that the
`
`Business Coaching Program had limited spots, was not available lo everyone, and/or that only
`
`qualified people could be accepted into the program.
`
`52.
`
`The Sales Floors' representations about the limited availability of the Business
`
`Coaching Program were false because there were no limits on how many sales of the Business
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 14 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 13 of 25
`
`Coaching Program the Sales Floors could make and there were no qualifications for entry into
`
`the program other than the consumer's willingness to pay whatever the Sales Floors charged.
`
`53.
`
`As part of the purported screening process, the Sales Floors' representatives asked
`
`consumers about their financial circumstances, including income, savings, debts, and credit card
`
`balances and limits. The Sales Floors' representatives claimed they needed this infonnation to
`
`determine whether the consumer qualified for a program and/or to develop a business plan for
`
`the consumer to reach his or her goals.
`
`54.
`
`The Sales Floors' representations about the use of consumers' financial
`
`information were false because the Sales Floors did not use the information to assess a
`
`consumer's qualifications or develop a business plan. Instead, in numerous instances, the Sales
`
`Floors used this information to decide how much to charge consumers for the Business Coaching
`
`Program.
`
`Misreprcsentntions about the Scope and Nature of Products and Services Provided
`
`55.
`
`In numerous instances, the Sales Floors' representatives told consumers that if
`
`they purchased the Business Coaching Program, they would receive: (a) specialized one-on-one
`
`expert training tailored to the consumers' specific needs or business; (b) access to specialized
`
`market research to find profitable products they could sell on eBay or on their own ecommerce
`
`websites; (c) specialized assistance to develop ecommerce websites that were highly ranked by
`
`search engines; or (d) marketing techniques lhat would drive consumers to their ecommerce
`
`websites.
`
`56.
`
`The Sales Floors' representations about the scope and nature of products and
`
`services provided were false.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 15 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 14 of 25
`
`57.
`
`In numerous instances, purchasers did not receive specialized expert training or
`
`access to any specialized market research. Instead, in numerous instances, the only training that
`
`consumers received in the Business Coaching Program consisted of basic information available
`
`for free online, such as how to open an account on eBay or Paypal.
`
`58.
`
`In numerous instances, purchasers did not end up with ecommerce websites that
`
`are highly ranked by search engines or that generate substantial consumer traffic.
`
`Misrepresentations about Earnings
`
`59.
`
`In numerous instances, the Sales Floors encouraged consumers to purchase the
`
`Business Coaching Program by representing that consumers were likely to earn substantial
`
`income from the Business Coaching Program.
`
`60.
`
`The Sales Floors' earnings representations, which took many fonns, left
`
`consumers with the impression they would be able to recoup the cost of their purchase and earn
`
`several thousand dollars a month from the Business Coaching Program.
`
`61.
`
`For example, in numerous instances, the Sales Floors' representatives told
`
`consumers that within a number of months, they could earn several thousand dollars a month
`
`from the Business Coaching Program.
`
`62.
`
`In numerous instances, the Sales Floors' representatives encouraged consumers to
`
`charge the cost of the Business Coaching Program on their personal credit cards. The Sales
`
`Floors' representatives often told consumers they would not actually be paying the charges out of
`
`their own pocket because they would make enough money from their future businesses to pay
`
`the balance plus have money left over as profit.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 16 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 15 of 25
`
`63.
`
`In numerous instances, the Sales Floors' representatives asked consumers about
`
`their financial goals and how much they wanted to earn from their future business. In numerous
`
`instances, the Sales Floors' representatives told consumers that their stated financial goals of
`
`several thousand dollars a month were attainable if they participated in the Business Coaching
`
`Program. The Sales Floors' representatives also told consumers that the cost of the Business
`
`Coaching Program (which varied widely but was typically at least several thousand dollars) was
`
`an appropriate investment for their stated financial goals.
`
`64.
`
`In numerous instances, the Sales Floors' representatives also told consumers that
`
`if they were willing to devote just ten hours (or less) a week on the Business Coaching Program,
`
`they would be successful.
`
`65.
`
`In numerous instances, the Sales Floors' representatives also told consumers that
`
`other participants in the Business Coaching Program became "success stories" and/or referred to
`
`testimonials provided by Thrive that purported to be from consumers who made money through
`
`the Business Coaching Program.
`
`66.
`
`Jn numerous instances, the Sales Floors' representatives also told consumers that
`
`there was no risk of losing money because the company would provide a "warranty" and would
`
`continue working with them and/or provide free services if the consumer was not satisfied.
`
`67.
`
`These earning claims were false because the overwhelming majority of consumers
`
`who purchased the Business Coaching Program did not earn substantial income and/or could not
`
`recoup the purchase program costs from future business income. In fact, in most instances,
`
`consumers who purchased the Business Coaching Program were never able to establish an
`
`operating business.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 17 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 16 of 25
`
`VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT
`
`68.
`
`Section S(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts
`
`or practices in or affecting commerce."
`
`69. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive
`
`acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.
`
`70.
`
`As set forth below, Defendants have engaged in violations of Section 5(a) of the
`
`FTC Act in connection with the telemarketing and sale of the Business Coaching Program.
`
`Count I
`MisrepresenCations Regarding Earnings
`
`7 I.
`
`ln numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion,
`
`offering for sale, or sale of the Business Coaching Program, Defendants have represented,
`
`directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that consumers who purchased and used the
`
`Business Coaching Program were likely to earn substantial income, such as several thousand
`
`dollars a month.
`
`72.
`
`In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which Defendants have made the
`
`representations set forth in Paragraph 71 of this Complaint, consumers who purchased the
`
`Business Coaching Program did not earn substantial income, such as several thousand dollars a
`
`month, or any income al all.
`
`73.
`
`Defendants' representations as set forth in Paragraph 71 of this Complaint were
`
`false or misleading or were not substantiated at the time the representations were made.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 18 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 17 of 25
`
`74.
`
`Therefore, Defendants' representations as set forth in Paragraph 71 of this
`
`Complaint were false and misleading and constitute a deceptive act or practice in violation of
`
`Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).
`
`Count II
`Misrepresentation Regarding Products and Services Provided
`
`75.
`
`In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion,
`
`offering for sale, or sale of the Business Coaching Program, Defendants have represented,
`
`directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that the Business Coaching Program:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`was only open to a select number of qualified participants; or
`
`included specialized one-on-one expert training tailored to the consumers'
`
`specific needs or business, access to specialized market research to find profitable
`
`products they could sell on eBay or on their own ecommerce websites, specialized
`
`assistance to develop ecommerce websites that were highly ranked by search
`
`engines, and/or marketing techniques that would drive consumers to their
`
`ecommerce websites.
`
`76.
`
`In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which Defendants have made the
`
`representations set forth in Paragraph 75 of this Complaint:
`
`a.
`
`there were no qualifications for entry into the program other than the
`
`consumer's willingness to pay whatever fees were charged; and
`
`b.
`
`Defendants did not provide the products and services they represented
`
`they would provide, including bul not limited to: specialized one-on-one expert
`
`training tailored to the consumers' specific needs or business, access to
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 19 of 26
`Case 2:17-cv-00529-DN Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 18 of 25
`
`specialized market research to find profitable products to sell on eBay or on
`
`ecommerce websites, specialized assistance to develop ecommercc websites that
`
`were highly ranked by search engines, and marketing techniques that would drive
`
`customer traffic to the consumers' ecommerce websites.
`
`77.
`
`Therefore, Defendants' representations as set forth in Paragraph 75 of this
`
`Complaint were false and misleading and constitute a deceptive act or practice in violation of
`
`Section S(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).
`
`Count ill
`Misrepresentation Regarding Need for Financial Information
`
`78.
`
`ln numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion,
`
`offering for sale, or sale of the Business Coaching Program, Defendants have represented,
`
`directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, they needed consumers' financial infonnation
`
`to detennine whether consumers were qualified for a program and/or to develop a business plan
`
`for consumers to reach their financial goals.
`
`79.
`
`ln truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which Defendants have made the
`
`representations set forth in Paragraph 78 of this Complaint. Defendants did not use consumers'
`
`financial information to determine whether consumers were qualified for a program and/or to
`
`develop a business plan for consumers to reach their financial goals. Instead, the Defendants
`
`used consumers' financial information to decide how much to charge them for the Business
`
`Coaching Program.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00833-SHS Document 261-13 Filed 06/14/21 Page 20 of 26
`