Work-at-Home Operators Banned from Selling Business Opportunities and Business Coaching Services

The FTC sued the operators of the scheme in August of this year for deceptive business practices

Work-at-Home Operators Banned from Selling Business Opportunities and Business Coaching Services
Image: Pexels
December 14, 2017

The operators of a work-at-home scheme are now banned from selling business opportunities and business coaching services under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Lured Consumers with False Promises

The FTC sued the operators of the scheme in August of this year for deceptive business practices, alleging that they lured consumers into buying an online system and falsely promised that they would earn thousands of dollars working from home.

Operating as Work At Home EDU, Work At Home Program, Work At Home Ecademy, Work At Home University, Work At Home Revenue, and Work at Home Institute, the FTC says that the defendants used online "native" advertising—promotional content that resembles the non-advertising material beside it—to reach consumers who were researching work-at-home opportunities on the internet.

For example, they placed a link to their Work At Home EDU website near an article about working from home on the website Forbes.com.

Violated FTC Rules

The defendants in this case—Bobby J. Robinson, Michael Sirois, Bob Robinson LLC, Mega Export 2005 Inc., Mega Export USA Inc., and Netcore Solutions LLC—were charged with violating the FTC Act and the FTC's Business Opportunity Rule. The Rule requires business opportunity sellers to make certain disclosures to help consumers evaluate the opportunity, and prohibits such sellers from making earnings claims without adequate substantiation.

For instance, a business opportunity seller is required to provide consumers with a written statement that explains how many other consumers actually achieved the earnings the seller claimed are possible, among other things.

$35.1 million Judgment

The settlement order also prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting material facts about any product or service, imposes a partially suspended judgment of $35.1 million, and requires the defendants to turn over funds and assets valued at approximately $1.5 million.