Sweepstakes Marketer Banned from Iowa and Required to Refund Consumers

June 25, 2015

sweepstakesLast Monday, the Iowa Attorney General’s Office announced that it has settled its concerns with Florida-based Tactical Marketing Inc. d/b/a Prize Research Agency (PRA) and Prize Finders Network (PFN) (“Tactical Marketing”), as well as the company’s owner and president, Mr. Raymond Jastrzemski. The sweepstakes marketer has been permanently banned from delivering allegedly deceptive direct mail “reports” and must refund a number of its customers.

What put Tactical Marketing on the Attorney General’s radar, and how can sweepstakes marketers and sponsors avoid similar enforcement action?          

Tactical Marketing’s Promotional Materials

According to the Iowa Attorney General’s Office, Tactical Marketing and Mr. Jastrzemski informed recipients through direct mail “sweepstakes cash & prize” and “enumeration” reports that they were entitled to substantial prize winnings. Although consumers were allegedly encouraged to pay a $25 “research,” “document” or “administration” fee and led to believe that they had won a prize, the mailings included disclosures that consumers were actually purchasing a list of publicly available sweepstakes and contests.

Attorney General Tom Miller claimed that consumers likely thought that they were required to pay the sweepstakes marketer’s fee in order to collect prize winnings. “These sweepstakes report mailings are designed to deceive . . . . Only in fine print do the mailings admit that they are not award notifications and that the recipient has won nothing,” stated Mr. Miller.

Settlement Agreement

After conducting an investigation of consumer tips and banking records, the Iowa Attorney General’s Office targeted Tactical Marketing and Mr. Jastrzemski for sending the subject promotional materials. On June 15, 2015, the sweepstakes marketer and AG’s Office reached a settlement agreement, which permanently bans Tactical Marketing and Mr. Jastrzemski from the advertisement and sale of reports and newsletters identifying sweepstakes, games and/or contests that are directed to residents of Iowa or conducted from an Iowa location.

The settlement also requires the subject sweepstakes marketer to stop billing Iowans and to issue full refunds to Iowa consumers, including any Iowan who requests such a refund.

Sweepstakes Marketers: Keep Your Promotions Legal

As Tactical Marketing’s run-in with the Iowa Attorney General’s Office demonstrates, sweepstakes and contests that appear unfair or deceptive are often investigated by state and federal regulatory authorities. Sweepstakes marketers whose promotional materials do not comply with applicable regulations risk substantial – and sometimes personal – liability.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic or pursuing a sweepstakes-related venture, 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

Related Blog Posts:

Yahoo Brings Fraud Counterclaims in March Madness Sweepstakes Lawsuit

FTC Targets Sweepstakes Scam . . . That Targets the FTC?

$9.5 Million Penalty, Lifetime Ban for Deceptive Sweepstakes Promotion


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.

Trending Topics

TCPA vicarious tcpa law woman holding cellphone telemarketing laws

TCPA Vicarious Liability

An Illinois federal district court judge recently held that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) may be vicariously liable for alleged Telephone Consumer

Read More »