Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Federal Trade v. Edebitpay

August 28, 2012

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
EDEBITPAY, LLC; DALE PAUL ODW-AJW CLEVELAND; WILLIAM RICHARD WILSON,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:07-cv-04880-

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Silverman, Circuit Judge:

FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

Argued and Submitted

August 6, 2012-Pasadena, California

Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Barry G. Silverman, and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Silverman

9993

OPINION

The Federal Trade Commission sued Defendants EDebitPay, LLC, Dale Cleveland, and William Wilson, alleging that their online marketing of prepaid debit cards and short-term loans to consumers in the subprime market violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. The parties settled and stipulated to the terms of a Final Order. Thereafter, the FTC applied for an order to show cause why Defendants should not be held in contempt for violating the Final Order through their marketing of two products: a shopping club membership program and a "no cost" debit card. The district court held Defendants in contempt and awarded the FTC the full amount of loss by consumers, $3,778,315.04. We affirm the contempt order in its entirety.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

EDebitPay markets online prepaid charge cards and related products. Cleveland and Wilson own EDebitPay and serve as its Chief Executive Officer and President, respectively.

The FTC filed suit, alleging that Defendants violated the Federal Trade Commission Act in several respects. Defendants and the FTC ultimately settled the matter and stipulated to the terms of a Final Order, which the district court approved.

The Final Order, in part, enjoins Defendants from:

Subsection I.B

Misrepresenting . . . expressly or by implication, any fact material to a consumer's decision to apply for or purchase any product or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.