FTC versus Innovative Marketing et al – developments
Motions for default judgment have been filed.
There are three individual motions, one against Daniel Sundin, one against Sam Jain, and one against Innovative Marketing.
The monetary relief sought in all three motions is identical - $163,167,539.95 - being the "total revenues, minus funds returned to consumers through refunds and charges, from the conduct alleged in the FTC's complaint from 2004-2008".
Information about revenues, refunds etc was obtained from Innovative Marketing’s financial records for the period 2004 - 2006 that had been submitted in the Canadian lawsuit combined with testimony from Jettis Technologies. Jettis Technologies were the management company for the payment processor the Defendants used between 2006- 2008 to sell their scareware products. The Canadian lawsuit is the lawsuit that was filed by Innovative Marketing against Marc D'Souza and Maurice D'Souza in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
It is important to note that the figure of $163,167,539.95 is NOT the sum total of all of the Defendants’ activities from 2004-2008 and, as stated by the FTC in its motions, "certainly undercounts the total consumer injury at issue in this case".
All three motions also ask for Permanent injunctive relief.
The Defendants, as well as their Representatives, be permanently restrained and enjoined from, directly or indirectly, engaging or participating in the marketing, distributing, installing, downloading, providing customer support for, offering for sale, or sale of any Computer Security Software.
The Defendants, as well as their Representatives, be permanently restrained and enjoined from, directly or indirectly, engaging or participating in the marketing, distributing, installing, downloading, providing customer support for, offering for sale, or sale of 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; or
G. installs other advertising Software on consumers’ computers;
In connection with the marketing, distributing, or sale of, or the provision of customer support for, any goods or services, the Defendants, as well as their Representatives, be permanently restrained and enjoined from:
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;
C. 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 quantity of, any goods 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
D. Providing substantial assistance to any third party to make any material misrepresentation, including, but not limited to, those misrepresentations prohibited by Paragraph C, above.
There are orders for compliance monitoring and reporting, as well as record keeping provisions and orders for distribution (that is, who must be informed of the order).