KFJ Marketing, LLC
The FTC alleged that KFJ Marketing and co-defendants made illegal robocalls with false energy-savings claims to generate leads for solar installers. A court order settled the charges and required the defendants to pay $155,000.
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. KFJ Marketing, LLC (FTC case 152-3166, 2016)
- Jurisdictions
- United States (federal)
Solar lead generators settled robocall charges
The FTC alleged that KFJ Marketing, LLC and co-defendants operated a telemarketing campaign that made millions of illegal prerecorded calls. The calls promised consumers energy savings and were used to generate prospective-customer leads for solar panel installation companies.
According to the complaint, defendants controlled by Francisco Salvat called consumers whose numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry. The FTC alleged that callers claimed to represent a nonprofit organization seeking to reduce consumers’ energy costs. Recorded messages referred to an urgent energy bill issue or an expected 14 percent increase and directed recipients to press a number to lower their electric bills. Consumers who expressed interest in solar panels were transferred to telemarketers. Appointments were then scheduled with private solar installers, and consumer information was sold to those companies as leads.
The FTC also alleged that the defendants transmitted false caller identification information and continued calling some consumers after they asked not to receive more calls. The complaint charged violations involving registry calls, company-specific do-not-call requests, caller identification information, and robocalls.
A stipulated court order resolved the charges against KFJ Marketing, Sunlight Solar Leads, Go Green Education, Francisco J. Salvat, and Julio E. Salvat. It imposed telemarketing bans and restrictions. The order imposed a $1.4 million civil penalty that was partially suspended upon payment of $155,000.
What is not established
The supplied release describes allegations and a stipulated final order. It does not state that the defendants admitted the alleged conduct or provide a consumer-loss total.
Sources
Every claim above rests on one of these. Open them and check.
- Enforcement action November 8, 2017
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 November 8, 2017 · Last updated November 8, 2017