Expand, Inc.
Also known as: Gigats, Gigats.com, EducationMatch, SoftRock Inc..
In its first action against an education lead generator, the FTC alleged Gigats.com posed as pre-screening job applicants for employers while actually steering them to schools that paid $22 to $125 per lead. The employers had never authorized it.
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. Expand, Inc., also d/b/a Gigats, et al. (FTC case 152-3124, M.D. Fla., 2016)
- Jurisdictions
- United States (federal)
A job application that no employer ever saw
Gigats.com collected job advertisements posted by multinational companies, government agencies and other employers, summarized them on its own site, and appeared to accept applications for them.
According to the FTC, many of those openings were not current, and for the ones that were, the employers had not authorized Gigats to collect applications or to screen or interview anyone. The defendants never sent the information they collected to the employers at all.
Where the information actually went
Applicants, having handed over the personal details a job application normally asks for, were directed to call the company’s “employment specialists,” who steered them toward enrolling in education programs that had paid for consumer leads. Many were passed to “education advisors” presented as independent, who only ever recommended schools that had agreed to pay, typically $22 to $125 per lead meeting the school’s enrollment requirements.
This was the FTC’s first enforcement action against an education lead generator.
The order
The defendants are barred from these misrepresentations, from promoting job openings without a reasonable basis to believe employers are currently hiring for them, and from passing personal information to a third party without clearly disclosing the transfer and the relationship. They may not use the information covered by the order unless the person affirmatively opts in.
The order imposes a $90.2 million judgment, suspended on payment of $360,000, becoming due in full if the defendants misrepresented their finances.
What is not established
A stipulated order resolves allegations without any admission or finding of wrongdoing.
Sources
Every claim above rests on one of these. Open them and check.
- Enforcement action April 28, 2016
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 marketing & creative entries
See all marketing & creative entries, or browse the full record.
First recorded April 28, 2016 · Last updated April 28, 2016