June 2009 - Posts

FTC v Innovative Marketing – the agreement with James Reno and Byte Hosting

 

Back on the 11th I reminded everybody that I expected the proposed stipulated final order between the FTC, Reno and ByteHosting to be filed within days.  As luck would have it, a Final Order For Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment as to James M. Reno and ByteHosting Internet Services, LLC was filed with the Court the very next day.

Below are the proposed terms of the Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment. 

Bear in mind, when you read about the monetary judgment, that earlier court documents have disclosed that “after weeks of searching, the FTC has located only $174,000 of the defendants' assets. ... The bulk of these funds belong to James Reno.

Also bear in mind, the Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment has not yet been signed by the Judge Hon. Richard D. Bennett.

The Order is described as "remedial in nature, and no portion of any payments paid herein shall be deemed or construed as payment of a fine, damages, penalty or punitive assessment".

Take a deep breath ladies and gentlemen, there is a lot of information here… “Defendants” refers to Reno and ByteHosting Internet Services.

CONDUCT PROHIBITIONS

Reno and ByteHosting Internet Services, as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise, are PERMANENTLY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from:

A. directly or indirectly misrepresenting, expressly or by implication, that:

(1) a computer can or any other type of remote or local computer analysis has been performed; or
(2) security or privacy problems have been detected on a computer,

B. publishing, disseminating, distributing, installing, downloading or providing customer support for any software that interferes with a consumer's computer use, including but not limited to software that:

(a) changes consumers' preferred Internet homepage settings;
(b) inserts a new advertising toolbar onto consumers' Internet browsers;
(c) generates numerous "pop up" advertisements on consumers' computer screens when consumers' Internet browsers are closed;
(d) adds advertising icons to the computer's desktop;
(e) tampers with, disables, or otherwise alters the performance of other programs, including anti-spyware and anti-virus programs;
(f) alters Internet browser security settings, including the list of safe or trusted websites;
(g) installs other advertising Software on consumers' computers;
(h) conducts, or purports to conduct, a computer scan that purports to detect security or privacy threats that do not exist on the scanned computer; or
(i) creates security or privacy threats on a computer for the purpose of selling Software to eliminate those problems.

C. concealing or attempting to conceal their identities by, among other things:

(a) using any domain names that have been registered using false or incomplete information;
(b) claiming that they place advertisements on behalf of, or otherwise represent, individuals or entities, unless they possess written authorization to represent such individuals or entities.

D. engaging in commercial activity of any kind - whether as a partner, employee, employer, officer, director, control person, independent contractor, consultant, service provider, or otherwise - with Innovative Marketing, Inc., Sam Jain, Daniel Sundin, Marc D'Souza, Maurice D'Souza, or Kristy Ross, or any entity controlled by Innovative Marketing, Inc., Sam Jain, Daniel Sundin, Marc D'Souza, Maurice D'Souza, or Kristy Ross.

 

In connection with the marketing, distributing, or sale of, or the provision of customer support for, any goods or services, Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise, are PERMANENTLY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from:

(a) misrepresenting, directly or by implication, to any potential purchaser of any goods or services, any material fact, including but not limited to:

(1) the total cost to purchase, receive, or use, or the quality of, any good or services that are subject to the sales offer;
(2) any material restrictions, limitations, or conditions to purchase, receive or use the goods or services; or
(3) any material aspect of the nature or terms of a refund, cancellation, exchange, or repurchase policy for the goods or services; or

(b) providing substantial assistance to any third party to make any material misrepresentation including but not limited to those misrepresentations prohibited by paragraph (a) above.

MONETARY JUDGMENT

(a) Judgment in the amount of $1,859,954.93 jointly and severally against the defendants.
(b) The monetary judgment be suspended upon defendants compliance with certain conditions, including that within 15 days after the date of entry of the Order, the defendants pay:

(1) $17,827 from bank accounts listed in an attachment to the order to the IRS and State of Ohio;
(2) the remaining balance of all bank accounts listed in the attachment (approximately $98,870) to the Commission (with the defendants allowed to withdraw and retain just $7,500.00).  Monies paid to the FTC or its agent are to be used for "equitable relief, including but not limited to consumer redress, and any attendant expenses for the administration of such equitable relief".

If the defendants have failed to disclose any material asset or materially misstated the value of any asset in certain financial statements or related documents, or have made any other material misstatement or omission in the financial statements or related documents, then the Order shall be reopened and suspension of the judgment shall be lifted for the purpose of requiring payment of the full judgment (less anything already paid).  If such a reinstatement occurs, the Court shall make an express determination that the monetary judgment shall be immediately due and payable (with interest).

COMPLIANCE MONITORING

So that the Commission can monitor and investigate compliance with any provision of this order and investigate the accuracy of any defendants' financial statements:

(a) The defendants shall submit within 10 days of receipt of written notice from a representative of the Commission, additional written reports which are true and accurate and sworn to oath under penalty of perjury; produce documents for inspection and copying; appear for deposition; and provide entry during normal business hours to any business location in each Defendants' possession or direct or indirect control to inspect the business operation.

The Commission is authorized to use all other lawful means, including but not limited to:

(1) obtaining discovery from any person, without further leave of the court, using certain prescribed Federal procedures;
(2) posing as consumers and suppliers to the Defendants, their employees, or any other entity managed or controlled in whole or in part by any defendant, without the necessity of identification or prior notice; and

(c) Defendants shall permit representatives of the Commission to interview any employer, consultant, independent contractor, representative, agent, or employee who has agreed to such an interview, relating in any way to any conduct subject to this order (the person interviewed may have counsel present).

The Defendants must, for a period of 5 years from the date of entry of the order, notify the Commission of:

(a) any changes in the defendant's residence, mailing address and telephone number within 10 days of the date of such change;
(b) any changes in the defendant's employment status (including self-employment) and any change in such defendant's ownership in any business entity, within 10 days of such change.  Such notice will include the name and address of each business that such defendant is affiliated with, employed by, creates or forms, or performs services for; a detailed description of the nature of the business; and a detailed description of such defendant's duties and responsibilities in connection with the business or employment; and
(c) any changes in the defendant's name or use of any aliases or fictitious names.
(d) any changes in structure of the corporate defendant or any business entity that any defendant directly or indirectly controls, or has an ownership interest in, that may affect compliance obligations arising under the order.
(e) 180 days after the date of entry of the order, and annually thereafter for a period of 5 years, defendants shall each provide a written report to the FTC, which is true and accurate and sworn to under penalty of perjury, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they are complied with the order.
(f) Each defendant shall notify the Commission of the filing of a bankruptcy petition by such defendant within 15 days of filing.

RECORD KEEPING PROVISIONS

For a period of 8 years from the date of entry of the order, defendants, for any business that such defendant directly or indirectly controls, or in which such defendant has a majority ownership interest, and their agents, employees, officers, corporations and those persons in active concern or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, are HEREBY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from failing to create and retain as set out in the order:

(a) accounting records
(b) personnel records
(c) customer files
(d) complaints and refund requests
(e) records reflecting contact information and detailed payment history for all persons or entities engaged in the marketing, sale, distributing or installing of software at the direction of, or for the benefit of, the defendants
(f) copies of all scripts and training materials used in connection with the training of staff in customer support
(g) all records and documents necessary to demonstrate full compliance with each provision of the order

DISTRIBUTION OF ORDER

Every 5 years from the date of entry of the order, defendants shall deliver copies of the order to:

(a) Corporate Defendant: all principals, officers, directors and managers; and all employees, agents and representatives who engage in conduct related to the subject matter of the order; and any business entity resulting from any change in structure set forth in the Order
(b) Individual defendant as control person: for any business that the individual defendant controls, directly or indirectly, or in which such defendant has a majority ownership interest - all principals, officers, directors and managers; and all employees, agents and representatives who engage in conduct related to the subject matter of the order; and any business entity resulting from any change in structure set forth in the Order.
(c) Individual defendant as employee or non-control person (aka Reno himself): for any business where the individual defendant is not a controlling person of a business but otherwise engages in conduct in connection with the selling, distributing, marketing or provision of customer support for computer security software, such defendant must deliver a copy of the order to all principals and managers of such business before engaging in the conduct.
(d) Defendants must secure a signed and dated statement acknowledging receipt of the Order from all persons receiving a copy of the order.

COOPERATION WITH THE FTC

Defendants shall, in connection with this action or any subsequent investigations related to or associated with the transactions or the occurrences that are the subject of the FTC's complaint, cooperate in good faith with the FTC and appear at such places and times as the FTC shall reasonably request, after written notice, for interviews, conferences, pretrial discovery, review of documents and for such other matters as may be reasonably requested by the FTC.

 

One last thing…..

I noticed tonight that visitors to bytehosting.com (and several other Reno owned domains) are being redirected to google.com.  That is a trick that I have seen being used quite a few times to divert visitors away from malvertizing domains.

image

Posted by sandi with 4 comment(s)
Filed under: ,

The number one rule of technical support, which Symantec seems to have forgotten, is ***PAY ATTENTION***

image

 

I sent a request for technical support to Symantec today – I thought, foolishly it seemed, that it was clear, succinct, and to the point.  My message was:

Unable to download hotfix ftp://ftp.symantec.com/public/english_us_canada/hotfix/defutil/KB20080828105226EN.exe

Error when attempting download:

220 spftp/1.0.0000 Server [68.177.231.161]
501 Syntax incorrect
421 Service not available, closing control connection

I have been trying to download the hotfix for 48 hours.

Norton error requiring hotfix: - "The virus definitions required by Norton Internet Security are not valid. You cannot run a scan until this problem is resolved."

The Norton systray icon is RED.

Symantec technical support sent me the following response:

“I understand from your message that you have installed Norton Internet Security (NIS) 2009 and you are encountering an error message Error: "(3038,100)" when you run a Full System Scan with your Norton 2009 product.

This issue may occur if the virus definitions are not up to date, In order to resolve this issue we need to update the virus definitions using Intelligent Updater and run Full System Scan. For step by step instructions, please click on  the link provided below:

Title: 'Error: "(3038,100)" when you run a Full System Scan with your Norton 2009 product'
Document ID: 20081007220233EN
Web URL:
http://www.symantec.com/norton/support/kb/web_view.jsp?wv_type=public_web&ssfromlink=true&sprt_cid=8eafb964-d4eb-407c-a3ff-d8b5b42a18c0&seg=hho&ct=us&lg=en&docurl=20081007220233EN”

The KB article I was referred to advises me to, and I quote…

“Download the fix tool.

Save the file to the Windows desktop.

ftp://ftp.symantec.com/public/english_us_canada/hotfix/defutil/KB20080828105226EN.exe

For pity’s sake, which of the very first 4 words in my technical support request, being “Unable to download hotfix”, is so difficult to understand???

BTW, you will see that I did not actually tell Symantec that the error on the system in question was 3038,100 – that little gem of information was taken from a slew of system data that was added to the bottom of my request by support by the NIS support interface itself, unbeknownst to me (damned if I can understand why they need to know if I have an optical drive installed, or what the local time is where I am).  The error being reported the affected system was actually 3035,2 (but it seems that that error requires the same fix as 3038,100, so we’ll let them off for that one).

To save myself the grief that comes from beating my head against the brick wall that is Symantec technical support I sourced the hotfix via alternate means, ran the hotfix, rebooted TWICE and ran a Live Update.  Guess what… it actually WORKED.

 

UPDATE

I had replied to Symantec, before I was able to source the hotfix by other means, and asked that they send the hotfix direct to me via email.  I was less than polite, I am afraid.  This is what I wrote:

The VERY FIRST SENTENCE IN MY TECHNICAL SUPPORT REQUEST IS: " Unable to download hotfix ftp://ftp.symantec.com/public/english_us_canada/hotfix/defutil/KB20080828105226EN.exe.  Let me repeat the error message in hopes that somebody will actually READ it this time.

Error when attempting download:
220 spftp/1.0.0000 Server [68.177.231.161]
501 Syntax incorrect
421 Service not available, closing control connection

With that in mind, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU SEND ME TO A TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT that tells me to download a hotfix when I have already told you that it won't download???  Please send the fixes to me by email.
Also, PLEASE NOTE that the Norton Support Window refers me to the 3038,100 fix tool, BUT the NORTON PROGRAM ITSELF reports that the problem is 3035,2.  <--- PLEASE READ THAT VERY CAREFULLY - NORTON 360 IS ALSO REPORTING THE ERROR 3035,2.

I have another email here.  This time Symantec Technical support wrote:

“I understand that you are getting an error message with error code "(3038,100)" when you run a Full System Scan with your Norton 2009 product and you tried to download the fix tool and it failed with error code “220 spftp/1.0.0000 Server [68.177.231.161]”, “501 Syntax incorrect” and “421 Service not available, closing control connection” (My emphasis)

I would like to inform you that this issue might occur might due to lack of latest virus definition updates or if the virus definitions are corrupted.

In order to resolve it, we need to update the virus definitions of Norton by running the fix tool and then restart the PC. After restarting the computer, a Help & Support window may open and you may still see the error. Please exit the Help & Support window, and then restart the computer again. It must resolve the issue.

For further assistance with the steps that need to be followed, please go through the following link.

Web URL:

http://www.symantec.com/norton/support/kb/web_view.jsp?wv_type=public_web&ssfromlink=true&sprt_cid=8eafb964-d4eb-407c-a3ff-d8b5b42a18c0&seg=hho&ct=us&lg=en&docurl=20081007220233EN

The technician then continued on, telling me that if the hotfix did not work I would need to download the Norton Removal Tool.

Yeah, I didn’t believe it either.  I was referred back to exactly the same URL even after they acknowledged that I was not able to download hotfixes.  My response began with:

“Forget it.  Please close this Technical Support Incident as "customer gave up".”

Posted by sandi with 13 comment(s)
Filed under:

FTC versus Innovative Marketing et al – developments

So sayeth the Court....

This Court conducted a hearing yesterday on almost all outstanding motions in this case and rendered the following rulings for the reasons stated on the record:

  • Sam Jain's Motion to Stay (Paper No. 45) is DENIED;
  • Kristy Ross's Motion to Temporary Stay (Paper No. 48) is DENIED;
  • FTC's Motion for Order Holding Sam Jain and Kristy Ross in Contempt of Court and Requiring the Repatriation of their Assets (Paper No. 49) is DENIED;
  • Kristy Ross's Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Motion for an Extension of Time (Paper No. 51) is MOOT;
  • Sam Jain's Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Motion for an Extension of Time (Paper No. 52) is MOOT;
  • Sam Jain's Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction (Paper No. 58) is DENIED IN PART, with the Court withholding a ruling on the requested modification of the asset freeze;
  • Sam Jain's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) and 19 (Paper No. 60) is DENIED;
  • Kristy Ross's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) and 19 (Paper No. 61) is DENIED;
  • Marc D'Souza's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) and 19 (Paper No. 70) is DENIED; and
  • Marc D'Souza's Motion for Temporary Stay and Modification of Preliminary Injunction (Paper No. 71) is DENIED IN PART, with the Court withholding a ruling on the requested modification of the asset freeze.

Sam Jain's Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction (Paper No. 58), Marc D'Souza's Motion for Temporary Stay and Modification of Preliminary Injunction (Paper No. 71) and Kristy Ross's oral motion to modify the preliminary injunction all require further briefing and argument on the issue of whether the asset freeze in Section IV of the Preliminary Injunction should be modified.  Moreover, this Court withheld ruling on Maurice D'Souza's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) (Paper No. 90) so that limited jurisdictional discovery can occur and further briefing and argument.

On these outstanding issues, a hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 8, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.  Counsel for Sam Jain, Marc D'Souza, Kristy Ross and the FTC will each be permitted to smit an additional brief on whether the asset freeze should be modified by Tuesday, June 23, 2009.  Counsel for Maurice D'Souza and the FTC will also each be permitted to submit an additional brief on whether this Court has personal jurisdiction over Maurice D'Souza by the same date.  The briefs should be limited to ten (10) pages, excluding attachments and exhibits.

The Court will issue a scheduling order at the hearing on July 8, 2009.

As a brief recap, the arguments put forward by Sam Jain, Kristy Ross and Marc D’Souza in their Motions to Dismiss the FTC complaint under Rule 12(b)(7) and 19 (which were dismissed) were:

  • that the FTC had failed to join Innovative Marketing, a "necessary and indispensible party", claiming that the FTC had never served IMI (the FTC served IMI *twice*).
  • that Jack Palladino did not represent IMI and was not authorised to accept service, claiming that Palladino had not made the statements attributed to him
  • that the service of IMI in Belize was invalid under the local laws.

Previous relevant commentary:

http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks/archive/2008/12/17/1656984.aspx
http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks/archive/2009/02/10/1671117.aspx 
http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks/archive/2009/03/09/1676922.aspx
http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks/archive/2009/02/27/1674119.aspx

I didn't blog about the defendants’ claim that the service on IMI in Belize was invalid.  The gist of the argument was that the defendants were claiming IMI had not been properly served by the FTC when the FTC personally served IMI's registered agent in that country because the defendants had found a single State Department web page that advised that "Belize and the United States are parties to an agreement that requires all service of process in Belize to be sent exclusively to Belize's central authority".  Unfortunately for the defendants, it turned out that the web page on which the defendants were relying was "defunct".  A link to the cited web page on the United States Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs' main judicial assistance portal had been deactivated some years earlier due to inaccuracies that had developed over time, although some links to the web page remained on the CA web which were accessible to the public.  The cited web page itself was disabled on March 6, 2009 after it was discovered that it was still being linked to.  The FTC pointed out in its response to the defendants’ claim that if the defendants had checked with the State Department they would have been told that the information was wrong.

Sam Jain’s Motion to Stay (Paper No. 45) (which was denied) was his request that the FTC proceedings be stayed “until the ongoing parallel federal criminal case against him is resolved” because “to defend both cases simultaneously will effectively prevent him from defending either adequately and will force him to choose between sacrificing his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination or his right to defend the civil claims”.  Kristy Ross’s Motion to Temporary Stay (Paper No. 48) basically made the same arguments.

James Reno and Bytehosting Internet Services

Back on 18 March 2009 I reported that the FTC, James Reno and Bytehosting Internet Services had requested the Court stay further proceedings as to James Reno and Bytehosting for a period of 90 days.

The stay was requested so that the Commission's attorneys could seek approval of a "Stipulated Final Order for Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment As To Defendants James M. Reno and Bytehosting Internet Services, LLC".  Reno and Bytehosting executed a proposed stipulated final order on 11 March 2009, but this proposed stipulated final order must firstly be approved by the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection and then considered, voted on and approved by the full Commission; a procedure that can take up to 90 days.

The stay was granted on 18 March 2009, therefore I expect that the proposed stipulated final order will be lodged with the court any day now (assuming it is approved by the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection and then the full Commission).

Posted by sandi with 1 comment(s)
Filed under: ,

FTC versus Innovative Marketing… developments

Today was a big day…

“Motion Hearing held on Tuesday 9 June, 2009 re:

  • (51) MOTION to Strike (49) MOTION for Other Relief Order Holding Sam Jain and Kristy Ross In Contempt Of Court And Requiring The Repatriation Of Their Assets OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION to Strike (49) MOTION for Other Relief Order Holding Sam Jain and Kristy Ross In Contempt Of Court And Requiring The Repatriation Of Their Assets OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION for Extension of Time filed by Kristy Ross,
  • (45) MOTION to Stay filed by Sam Jain,
  • (106) MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) filed by Marc D'Souza,
  • (90) MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Maurice D'Souza,
  • (60) MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by Sam Jain,
  • (52) MOTION to Strike (49) MOTION for Other Relief Order Holding Sam Jain and Kristy Ross In Contempt Of Court And Requiring The Repatriation Of Their Assets or, in the Alternative, for Extension of Time to Respond MOTION to Strike (49) MOTION for Other Relief Order Holding Sam Jain and Kristy Ross In Contempt Of Court And Requiring The Repatriation Of Their Assets or, in the Alternative, for Extension of Time to Respond filed by Sam Jain,
  • (61) MOTION to Dismiss COMPLAINT filed by Kristy Ross,
  • (48) MOTION to Stay (Temporary) filed by Kristy Ross,
  • (71) MOTION to Stay Temporary filed by Marc D'Souza,
  • (70) MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by Marc D'Souza

The hearing was held before Judge Richard D Bennett and not concluded.

By the way, Innovative Marketing is still unrepresented and, as far as I know, have not paid a cent of the $8,000 per day fine levied by the Court (I may be wrong, I hope I’m wrong, but suspect that I am not).

Posted by sandi with no comments
Filed under: ,