A company dealing in e-commerce services has agreed to change course after customers complained the company promised Web hits -- but struck out.
"Visible.net and Captures.com promised small businesses that they`d be `blown away` by achieving top Internet search results," said Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna said. "But merchants who paid thousands of dollars hoping to increase sales found the defendants couldn`t always deliver on their promises." The settlement requires Visible.net and Captures.com to represent their services accurately and "will enable us to provide restitution for some customers," McKenna added.
The AG`s office sued Redmond-based Visible.net, which also does business as Captures.com and WebMarketingSource.com, and owner Gilbert Walker in November 2008.
The company sells website design, search-optimization and other Internet marketing services, along with providing e-commerce services to process online purchases. They promote their business through their websites and by telemarketing. Packages include an initial startup fee of $3,749.99 up to $9,749.99, plus a monthly fee of $39.99 to $99.99.
When the suit was filed, McKenna`s office and the Better Business Bureau had received nearly 90 complaints about the defendants, showing a pattern of recurring problems since at least 2005. Since then, there have been an additional 70 complaints.
In April 2010, a King County Superior Court judge found the defendants in violation of the state`s telemarketing law. The settlement filed late in King County Superior Court resolves the state`s remaining allegations of consumer protection law violations. The defendants agree to pay $250,000 to the Attorney General`s Office.
Settlement terms
Under the settlement, the defendants must not:
• Misrepresent their ability to significantly increase traffic to customer websites by achieving top search-engine rankings.
• Fail to provide refunds or honor cancellation requests.
• Claim to provide around-the-clock customer support, technical advice or consultations, unless available. The attorney general`s office claims the defendants misrepresented customer service representatives could be reached at any time.
• Fail to register with the Department of Licensing as a commercial telephone solicitor.
• Charge consumers` credit cards without authorization.
• Misrepresent their affiliation with other marketers.
