Obie, sorry to hear about this fiasco.
Do you by chance have an example of the solicitations in question? Showing that the solicitation was designed in good faith (and not to confuse people) can go a long way to quell the rumor mill.
Do you by chance have an example of the solicitations in question? Showing that the solicitation was designed in good faith (and not to confuse people) can go a long way to quell the rumor mill.
Facts:
- They clearly state that it's not a bill/invoice.
- The fine print explains that there is no obligation to subscribe.
- The fine print explains that they are not affiliated with the actual Yellow Pages.
- The fine print font is larger than your typical bank statement fine print.
- The typical Yellow Pages logo is prominently featured in the solicitation. This is probably not illegal, but can be seen as potentially misleading.
- The first line of the return card is addressed to YELLOW PAGES (as opposed to Yellow Pages United). Probably not illegal, but again, potentially misleading.
Opinion:
I think they (United Directories, not Hashrocket) adopted an unpleasant business model that I wouldn't want to be associated with. But considering Exibit A, it appears that as far as the solicitation goes, they may be operating within the borders of legality. It will be interesting to see what the court will decide.
"In September 2009, a Grand Jury sitting in the Northern District of Georgia indicted Charles Smith for committing mail fraud. He remains a fugitive."
But, hey, maybe there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Consider that they pulled records of how many business reply cards came into the PO box and compared that to how many names were actually published in the book. They compared that to the bank accounts. While I have my doubts that the actual solicitation was illegal and that the total dollar amounts were so high, there seems to be more here than just an out of control prosecutor.
If United billed far more names than they actually published in the book, that would be fraud.
"In November 2009, two victims from the Charles Smith/YPDP fraud scheme contacted the United States Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Georgia, indicating that they were still receiving fraudulent Yellow Pages solicitations..."
When they investigated and realized that the solicitation came from a company owned by Charles Smith's brother, I'm sure that was enough to launch a full fledged investigation.
According to the complaint, United Directories published 27,626 copies of the book in 2009. Exhibit A of the complaint is an advertisement they sent to a small business in North Las Vegas for the "National Business Edition" of the "Yellow Pages". I don't see how, with 27,626 copies printed, the United Directories' Yellow Pages could possibly meet the traditional definition of "the Yellow Pages" in a "National Business Edition".
So yes, while probably not illegal, its deceptive to use the term "Yellow Pages" when you're just publishing a lower circulation business to business directory.