Christopher Andrew Sterling
Also known as: sterlingvisa.com, rebatedataprocessor.com, creditcardworker.com.
The FTC alleged that Christopher Andrew Sterling's websites promised earnings of up to $1,000 per day from online data-entry work but did not deliver the claimed earnings or business. A proposed federal settlement banned him from work-at-home opportunities.
Resolved. Refunded, settled, ceased operating, or the claim did not hold up. Kept for the record.
Identity
Published so you can confirm this entry refers to the party you are checking, and not to somebody who shares a name.
- Registrations
- FTC v. Christopher Andrew Sterling (FTC case 122-3279, 2012)
- Other handles
- sterlingvisa.com · rebatedataprocessor.com · creditcardworker.com
- Jurisdictions
- United States (federal)
The FTC challenged online work-at-home earnings claims
Christopher Andrew Sterling marketed work-at-home opportunities through sterlingvisa.com, rebatedataprocessor.com, and creditcardworker.com. The FTC sued him in November 2012 as part of Operation Lost Opportunity.
The agency charged Sterling with violating the FTC Act and the Business Opportunity Rule. According to the complaint, his websites promised that consumers could earn up to $1,000 per day by doing online data-entry work processing rebate and credit card applications. The FTC alleged that the promised earnings and business were not delivered.
A proposed federal court settlement banned Sterling from selling work-at-home opportunities and business opportunities covered by the rule. It also prohibited misrepresentations about products and services, benefiting from consumers’ personal information, and failing to dispose of customer information properly.
The proposed order imposed a $69,289 judgment, but the release says that judgment would be suspended based on Sterling’s inability to pay. It identifies no lesser payment required before suspension, so no redress-ordered amount is recorded. The Department of Justice filed the proposed consent judgment for the FTC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, where it remained subject to court approval.
What is not established
The release describes FTC allegations and a proposed consent judgment. It does not report a finding after trial or state that Sterling admitted the allegations.
Sources
Every claim above rests on one of these. Open them and check.
- Enforcement action July 22, 2013
Right of reply
If you are named here and something is wrong, dispute this entry. There is no charge, the route never expires, and your response is published unedited.
Other coaching & business opportunity entries
See all coaching & business opportunity entries, or browse the full record.
First recorded July 22, 2013 · Last updated July 22, 2013