6 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
6 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Text-Messaging Spammer Selling 'Morgage Modifications' Hit With Judgment, Injunction

by Patrick Pretty
5 replies
A California man who sent 5 million text spams, caused cell-phone bills to rise, planted the seed he was affiliated with the government and hawked purported mortgage-modifications and debt-relief services is on the receiving end of a $58,000 judgment and permanent injunction, the FTC said.

Phillip A. Flora violated the CAN-SPAM Act and the FTC Act, the agency said, adding that he also harvested leads from his spamming and sold them to third parties.

FTC Settlement Bans Alleged Spammer from Sending Unsolicited Text Messages

Patrick
#hit #injunction #judgment #modifications #morgage #selling #spammer #textmessaging
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    Serves him right. I still find text message spam, or phone solicitations in general more annoying than email spam, though both are bad. I find it hard to believe that its even profitable to send unsolicited text messages, but I suppose if even .01% of people respond, it could be worth it...till the FTC gets you that is.
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4784620].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
    $58,000 fine (if I read it right?) and a ban on doing it again? And he impersonated a Government agency? Isn't that a felony offense which could (and should) require some jail/prison time?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4784701].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
      No jail time for civil matters. He'll probably break the law again given the nature of his prior conduct - although that seems to be a lot of work to make a comparatively small amount.

      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4784743].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tim Franklin
    There is usually more to the story that what you read, this is likely no different, however there is a lesson to be learned here, they are starting to enforce the can spam act, and that could cause a lot of marketers grief, including some that operate here and have been emailing me over the last two weeks.

    One guy has been using this title, ( Congratulations you just made an affiliate sale)

    This would be a violation of the Can Spam act, as well as the new dot com disclosure FTC guides, that specifically state that you cannot send an email with a deceptive title. (which this is, if you have not actually made an affiliate sale), and someone sends you an email that says, you made an affiliate sale, when you clearly did not, that is deceptive and it could result in a $16,000.00 fine per email address this was sent to, as you can imagine it would not take long to find yourself in a real bind.

    What really surprises me is that this is coming from WSO sellers and their affiliates, I made four purchases from four different WSO sellers, in the last two weeks now I am getting email from 8 different Associates of those four WSO sellers, this is also a violation, to be honest, this is really the low end of the marketing spectrum, and it just plain sucks, most WSO marketers are cool dudes or dude, etts, but a few of them are actively selling email addresses of those that purchase their WSO products.

    Its sad, that we have sellers that are stooping lower than a snake belly in a wagon rut to try and make a buck by hook or crook as they say, just know that eventually you name might show up on one of these posts, and the more you operate without knowing the deal in the new FTC guides the more likely you might find yourself in an orange or red jumpsuit...
    Signature
    Bitcoin | Crypto | AI software tools and development|
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4784970].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Patrick Pretty
      Originally Posted by Tim Franklin View Post

      There is usually more to the story that what you read, this is likely no different . . .
      One of the things I found interesting about this case is the remarkably compressed time frame from the complaint being filed (February 2011) to the settlement (approved by a federal judge in August 2011). We're talking more or less six months, which suggests to me the FTC had a strong case, the defendant knew it -- and knew that dragging things out would only put him further in the hole. It is very likely that his scheme cost him every penny he had and resulted in the effective clawback of proceeds from the scheme. He has to pony up $32,000 to settle, and the FTC is suspending the balance of the $58,000 judgment based on his professed inability to pay.

      Patrick
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4785180].message }}

Trending Topics