FTC Targets Tech Support Companies for Deceptive Pop-Up Marketing

October 13, 2016

pop-up-marketingYesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that a temporary restraining order had been issued by a court of law against five related tech support companies and their respective principals (the “Defendants”), that allegedly had engaged in a campaign of deceptive pop-up marketing.  Specifically, the FTC contends that dating back to 2013, the Defendants had used pop-up advertisements that “warn” consumers that their computers have been “hacked, infected, or otherwise compromised” in an effort to sell Defendants’ tech support services.  Although represented by counsel, the Defendants have yet to respond to the FTC’s complaint.

What Pop-Up Advertisements Led to a Charge of Deceptive Marketing?

FTC Brings Deceptive Pop-Up Marketing Claim Against Tech Support Companies

According to the complaint filed by the FTC, in marketing their respective products, the Defendants employed a tactic known as “browser hijacking.”  This practice involves tech companies (and their affiliates) using pop-up advertisements to deceive consumers into believing that their computers have been infected by viruses when, in fact, they have not.  Consumers are instructed by the subject advertisements to call a toll-free number to have the viruses removed.  Upon calling the telephone number listed in the pop-up, consumers are told by Defendants’ telemarketers that they are speaking with representatives of Microsoft or Apple, when this is not in fact the case.  The telemarketers allegedly claim that there is something wrong with the consumers’ computers and that only the Defendants’ software is capable of remedying the issue.  During the calls, the telemarketers claim that they are running a test on the applicable consumer’s computer.  However, the FTC alleges that no such tests actually take place.  In the end, if the telemarketers are successful with their pitch, “Defendants charge consumers approximately $200 for a ‘one-time fix’ of the purported problem, or approximately $400 for a one-year technical support plan.”

The FTC has already obtained a temporary restraining order against the Defendants, which: 1) prohibits the Defendants from continuing to engage in such deceptive pop-up marketing; and 2) freezes their assets.

Protect Yourself

Earlier this year, we blogged about the FTC’s aggressive initiative to “crack down” on deceptive marketing campaigns.  With the prospect of significant regulatory and legal liability at stake, it is more important than ever to speak with an experienced attorney before launching any marketing campaign.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic, please visit the Telemarketing Law practice area of our website.  If you have been served with process concerning your marketing practices in general, please e-mail us at info@kleinmoynihan.com or call us at (212) 246-0900.

The material contained herein is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney.  Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.

Attorney Advertising

Similar blog posts:

Health Insurance Marketer Settles FTC Deceptive Marketing Practices Lawsuit

Mobile Operators Must be Weary of Deceptive Marketing Laws

New York Attorney General to Investigate T-Mobile for Deceptive Marketing Practices

Share:

David Klein

David Klein is one of the most recognized attorneys in the technology, Internet marketing, sweepstakes, and telecommunications fields. Skilled at counseling clients on a broad range of technology-related matters, David Klein has substantial experience in negotiating and drafting complex licensing, marketing and Internet agreements.

Prerecorded Voice Claims Must be Factually Supported

On November 26, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued a noteworthy decision highlighting the importance of carefully contesting a plaintiff’s prerecorded voice claims. In Davis v. Rockloans Marketplace, LLC, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, in part,finding

Read More »

Trending Topics

Blog

Prerecorded Voice Claims Must be Factually Supported

On November 26, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued a noteworthy decision highlighting the importance of carefully contesting a plaintiff’s prerecorded voice claims. In Davis v. Rockloans Marketplace, LLC, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, in part,finding

Read More »