OnlineYellowPagesToday.com Inc.
The FTC alleged that OnlineYellowPagesToday.com billed organizations for unwanted online directory listings after contacting them under the guise of confirming existing listing information, then used deceptive collection tactics. A settlement order followed.
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. OnlineYellowPagesToday.com Inc. (FTC case 132-3043, 2014)
- Locations
- Montreal, Canada
- Jurisdictions
- United States (federal)
Settlement restricted an online directory billing operation
The FTC alleged that the Montreal-based OnlineYellowPagesToday.com operation contacted small businesses and other organizations under the guise of confirming information in a directory where they already appeared. The defendants then billed those organizations $479.95 or more for online directory listings. Invoices and other correspondence used the walking fingers image associated with local yellow page directories.
According to the FTC, disputed invoices were followed by deceptive collection tactics. The defendants allegedly played altered or incomplete audio recordings to create the false impression that an employee had authorized a listing. The complaint charged the defendants with misrepresenting that they had a preexisting business relationship with the recipients, that the recipients had agreed to buy listings, and that money was owed. The affected organizations included businesses, churches, nonprofits, and local governments.
A March 2015 release said owner Oni Nathifa Julien would be banned from the business-directory industry under a settlement with the FTC. The order prohibited misrepresentations about goods, services, business relationships, purchases, and debts. It also barred continued collections from past customers and profiting from or retaining their personal information. The order imposed a $3,081,969 judgment, but the release said the judgment would be suspended because of Julien’s inability to pay. The court entered the order on March 10, 2015.
What is not established: The supplied releases describe a stipulated settlement order but do not report an admission of wrongdoing. They do not state an amount that Julien was required to pay under the suspended judgment.
Sources
Every claim above rests on one of these. Open them and check.
- Enforcement action July 17, 2014
- Enforcement action March 26, 2015
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 July 17, 2014 · Last updated March 26, 2015