Philip A. Flora
The FTC alleged that Philip A. Flora sent millions of unsolicited commercial text messages, misrepresented a government affiliation, and sold respondent information as debt settlement leads. A federal court entered a settlement banning unsolicited commercial texts and requiring $32,000.
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. Philip A. Flora (FTC case 102-3005, 2011)
- Other handles
- loanmod-gov.net
- Jurisdictions
- United States (federal)
Court order banned unsolicited commercial text messages
The FTC alleged that Philip A. Flora operated a text messaging campaign that sent millions of unsolicited commercial messages pitching mortgage modification assistance, debt relief, and other services. Additional court documents cited by the agency said that more than 5.5 million messages were sent during one 40 day period. The FTC alleged that consumers could incur carrier fees for receiving the unwanted messages.
One advertised site, loanmod-gov.net, claimed to provide official home loan modification and audit assistance information and displayed an American flag. According to the complaint, Flora collected information from people who responded, including people who asked that the messages stop, and sold the information to marketers as debt settlement leads. The FTC also charged that email used to advertise text blasting services lacked required opt out methods and a physical mailing address.
A federal court entered a settlement that bans Flora from sending or helping others send unsolicited commercial text messages. It also bars false or misleading claims about goods or services, including government affiliation, and bars violations of the CAN-SPAM Act. The order imposed a $58,946.90 judgment that would be satisfied by turning over $32,000, based on sworn financial representations.
What is not established
The stipulated order was for settlement purposes and did not constitute an admission that the law was violated.
Sources
Every claim above rests on one of these. Open them and check.
- Enforcement action February 23, 2011
- Enforcement action September 29, 2011
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 February 23, 2011 · Last updated September 29, 2011