InPhonic, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment, 24584-24586 [E7-8403]

Download as PDF 24584 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices Agreement, the Settling Party will pay the entire proceeds of an insurance claim in the amount of $672,397 to EPA and NJDEP and transfer title to the Property to EPA. The Settling Party will remit 85% of the insurance proceeds to EPA and 15% of the proceeds to NJDEP. In exchange, EPA will grant a covenant not to sue or take administrative action against the Settling Party for reimbursement of past or future response costs pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA. EPA will consider any comments received during the comment period and may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement if comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA’s response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Regional Counsel, 290 Broadway—17th Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866. Telephone: (212) 637–3111. DATES: Comments must be provided within June 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Regional Counsel, 290 Broadway—17th Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866 and should refer to: Dover Municipal Well ι4 Superfund Site, U.S. EPA Docket No. CERCLA–02–2006– 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Regional Counsel, 290 Broadway—17th Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866. Telephone: (212) 637– 3111. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of the proposed administrative settlement may be obtained in person or by mail from Diego Garcia, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway—19th Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866. Telephone: (212) 637–4947. George Pavlou, Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, Region 2. [FR Doc. E7–8441 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank VerDate Mar 15 2010 05:02 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 18, 2007. A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034: 1. Wilson–Gardner Family Control Group, Jackson, Mississippi, which consists of Alice King Harrison, Forrest City, Arkansas; Fred Gillaspy Wilson, Jackson, Mississippi; John Frederick Wilson, Jackson, Mississippi; Margaret Gardner Wilson, Ridgeland, Mississippi; Margaret Wilson Ethridge, Madison, Mississippi; Ermis King Wilson, Sterlington, Louisiana; Edna Earl Douglas, Memphis, Tennessee; Alison Wilson Page, Sterlington, Louisiana; and Ermis M. Wilson, Sterlington, Louisiana; to retain control of Commerce Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Bank of Commerce, both of Greenwood, Mississippi. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 30, 2007. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7–8481 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 18, 2007. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 752012272: 1. Professional Capital, Inc., Dallas, Texas; to engage de novo in management consulting activities, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(9)(i)(A) of Regulation Y. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 30, 2007. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7–8482 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210–01–S FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 062 3066] InPhonic, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment ACTION: FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Federal Trade Commission. Proposed consent agreement. AGENCY: BILLING CODE 6210–01–S Sfmt 4703 SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to ‘‘InPhonic, Inc., File No. 062 3066,’’ to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: E:\FEDREG\03MYN1.LOC 03MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room 159–H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005).1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form as part of or as an attachment to e-mail messages directed to the following email box: consentagreement@ftc.gov. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at http://www.ftc.gov. As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ ftc/privacy.htm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew D. Gold, FTC Western Regional Office, 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San Francisco, CA 94103, (415) 848–5100. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the 1 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). VerDate Mar 15 2010 05:02 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for April 27, 2007), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/ os/2007/04/index.htm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130–H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326–2222. Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before the date specified in the DATES section. Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from InPhonic, Inc. (‘‘InPhonic’’). The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for reception of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement’s proposed order. InPhonic, located in Washington, DC, is an online marketer of wireless telephone packages. Each wireless telephone package includes a namebrand wireless device and a wireless service contract with a national or regional wireless carrier. This matter concerns allegedly deceptive and unfair practices regarding InPhonic’s advertised mail-in rebates. The FTC complaint alleges that in representing that substantial mail-in rebates were available to purchasers of its wireless telephone packages, InPhonic failed to disclose, or failed to adequately disclose that: (1) Consumers would not be able to submit a rebate request until at least three or six months after purchase; (2) consumers would be required to submit wireless bills establishing three or six months of continuous wireless service in good standing; (3) consumers would not receive their rebate check until approximately six or nine months after purchase; (4) an e-mail address would be required to be eligible for the rebate; (5) consumers who changed their wireless phone numbers after purchase would be disqualified from receiving a rebate; and (6) any rebate submission that did not strictly comply with all rebate terms and conditions or that was PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 24585 deemed in any way illegible could be rejected with little or no opportunity to resubmit. The complaint alleges that the failure to disclose or adequately disclose these material facts is a deceptive practice. The complaint also alleges that InPhonic misrepresented that consumers seeking to redeem its ‘‘customer appreciation rebate’’ needed to establish that their first three months of wireless service had been paid in full. According to the complaint, numerous consumers who waited to submit their fourth wireless bill in order to establish that their first three months of wireless service had been paid in full were unable to submit the rebate request within the 120-day time period specified in the offer, and InPhonic rejected such rebate requests as untimely. The complaint further alleges that Inphonic misrepresented that consumers whose rebate requests contained missing, incorrect, or illegible information would be given a reasonable opportunity to resubmit their request. According to the FTC complaint, in numerous cases, InPhonic rejected rebate requests, or consumers were prevented from submitting valid requests, because InPhonic failed to supply to consumers with one or more pieces of required documentation and consumers, despite their best efforts, were unable to obtain such documentation from InPhonic. According to the complaint, many consumers did not receive the required rebate redemption form, a box containing a required UPC code, and/or a required ‘‘Guide to Wireless Service’’ and, despite repeated attempts to contact respondent, were unable to obtain the documentation. The complaint alleges that this constitutes an unfair practice. Finally, according to the complaint, InPhonic promised to provide consumers with rebate checks within 12 weeks of rebate submission, if they purchased a wireless phone and service plan, and submitted a valid rebate request with supporting documentation. The complaint alleges that after receiving rebate requests in conformance with these terms, InPhonic extended the time period in which it would deliver the rebates without consumers agreeing to this extension of time and failed to deliver the rebates to consumers within the promised time period. According to the complaint, this constitutes an unfair business practice. The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent InPhonic from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future and to redress E:\FEDREG\03MYN1.LOC 03MYN1 mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB 24586 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices consumers. Part I.A. of the proposed order prohibits InPhonic from making a claim about the amount of any rebate, unless it discloses, clearly and conspicuously, unavoidably, and prior to consumers incurring any financial obligation: any time period that consumers must wait before submitting a rebate request; that consumers who change their wireless phone numbers after purchase are disqualified from receiving a rebate, if that is the case; that any rebate submission that does not strictly comply with all rebate terms and conditions, or that is deemed in any way illegible, may be rejected with little or no opportunity to resubmit, if that is the case; any requirement for submitting bills, records, or any other documentation, with a rebate request; when consumers can expect to receive their rebates; and that an e-mail address is required to be eligible for the rebate, if that is the case. Part I.B. of the proposed order prohibits InPhonic from making a claim about the amount of any rebate unless it also discloses, clearly and prominently, on any rebate coupon or form, all terms, conditions, or other limitations of the rebate offer. Part II of the proposed order prevents InPhonic from misrepresenting what documentation consumers must submit with any rebate request and from misrepresenting any material terms of any rebate program. Part III of the proposed order prohibits InPhonic from representing that consumers will have the opportunity to resubmit deficient rebate requests, unless it gives consumers a reasonable period of time in which to resubmit such requests and notifies them precisely how to correct any deficiencies. Part IV.A. of the proposed order prohibits InPhonic from failing to provide, or to make reasonably available to consumers, all required rebate documentation. Part IV.B. prohibits InPhonic from making any representation about the time in which any rebate will be mailed, or otherwise provided to purchasers, unless it has a reasonable basis for the representation at the time it is made. Part IV.C. prohibits InPhonic from failing to provide any rebate within the time specified or, if no time is specified, within thirty days. Part V of the proposed order requires InPhonic to send rebates to eligible purchasers. Eligible purchasers include consumers whose rebate requests were previously denied solely on the basis of one or more of the following reasons: (1) The consumer changed his/her wireless phone number; (2) the signature on the rebate form was illegible; (3) InPhonic VerDate Mar 15 2010 05:02 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 failed to provide the consumer with required information or documents; (4) the e-mail address was missing from the rebate form; or (5) the request was late due to the consumer’s submission of a fourth wireless bill. In addition, eligible purchasers include consumers whose requests were denied due to a curable deficiency, but where the consumer was not given at least thirty days to resubmit the request. Parts VI through IX of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part X of the proposed order is a ‘‘sunset’’ provision, dictating that the order will terminate twenty years from the date it is issued or twenty years after a complaint is filed in Federal court, by either the United States or the FTC, alleging any violation of the order. The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms. By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7–8403 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750–01–P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 062 3094] Soyo, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment Federal Trade Commission. Proposed consent agreement. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to ‘‘Soyo, Inc., File No. 062 3094,’’ to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room 159–H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005).1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form as part of or as an attachment to e-mail messages directed to the following email box: consentagreement@ftc.gov. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at http://www.ftc.gov. As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ ftc/privacy.htm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda K. Badger, FTC Western Regional Office, 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San Francisco, CA 94103, (415) 848–5100. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for April 27, 2007), on the 1 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). E:\FEDREG\03MYN1.LOC 03MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 85 (Thursday, May 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24584-24586]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8403]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 062 3066]


InPhonic, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public 
Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged 
violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or 
practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to 
Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft 
complaint and the terms of the consent order--embodied in the consent 
agreement--that would settle these allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. 
Comments should refer to ``InPhonic, Inc., File No. 062 3066,'' to 
facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form 
should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and 
should be mailed or delivered to the following address:

[[Page 24585]]

Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room 159-H, 600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments containing 
confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly 
labeled ``Confidential,'' and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 
16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005).\1\ The FTC is requesting that any comment filed 
in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, 
because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission 
is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments 
that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in 
electronic form as part of or as an attachment to e-mail messages 
directed to the following e-mail box: consentagreement@ftc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for 
confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for 
the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment 
to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted 
or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with 
applicable law and the public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 
16 CFR 4.9(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the 
collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as 
appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed 
in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and 
will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent 
practicable, at http://www.ftc.gov. As a matter of discretion, the FTC 
makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals 
from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on 
the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by 
the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew D. Gold, FTC Western Regional 
Office, 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San Francisco, CA 94103, (415) 
848-5100.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and Sec.  2.34 of 
the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given 
that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order 
to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to 
final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record 
for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public 
Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the 
allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of 
the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page 
(for April 27, 2007), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2007/04/index.htm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public 
Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.
    Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission 
in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as 
prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or 
before the date specified in the DATES section.

Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final 
approval, an agreement containing a consent order from InPhonic, Inc. 
(``InPhonic'').
    The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for 
thirty (30) days for reception of comments by interested persons. 
Comments received during this period will become part of the public 
record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the 
agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should 
withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed 
order.
    InPhonic, located in Washington, DC, is an online marketer of 
wireless telephone packages. Each wireless telephone package includes a 
name-brand wireless device and a wireless service contract with a 
national or regional wireless carrier. This matter concerns allegedly 
deceptive and unfair practices regarding InPhonic's advertised mail-in 
rebates.
    The FTC complaint alleges that in representing that substantial 
mail-in rebates were available to purchasers of its wireless telephone 
packages, InPhonic failed to disclose, or failed to adequately disclose 
that: (1) Consumers would not be able to submit a rebate request until 
at least three or six months after purchase; (2) consumers would be 
required to submit wireless bills establishing three or six months of 
continuous wireless service in good standing; (3) consumers would not 
receive their rebate check until approximately six or nine months after 
purchase; (4) an e-mail address would be required to be eligible for 
the rebate; (5) consumers who changed their wireless phone numbers 
after purchase would be disqualified from receiving a rebate; and (6) 
any rebate submission that did not strictly comply with all rebate 
terms and conditions or that was deemed in any way illegible could be 
rejected with little or no opportunity to resubmit. The complaint 
alleges that the failure to disclose or adequately disclose these 
material facts is a deceptive practice.
    The complaint also alleges that InPhonic misrepresented that 
consumers seeking to redeem its ``customer appreciation rebate'' needed 
to establish that their first three months of wireless service had been 
paid in full. According to the complaint, numerous consumers who waited 
to submit their fourth wireless bill in order to establish that their 
first three months of wireless service had been paid in full were 
unable to submit the rebate request within the 120-day time period 
specified in the offer, and InPhonic rejected such rebate requests as 
untimely. The complaint further alleges that Inphonic misrepresented 
that consumers whose rebate requests contained missing, incorrect, or 
illegible information would be given a reasonable opportunity to 
resubmit their request.
    According to the FTC complaint, in numerous cases, InPhonic 
rejected rebate requests, or consumers were prevented from submitting 
valid requests, because InPhonic failed to supply to consumers with one 
or more pieces of required documentation and consumers, despite their 
best efforts, were unable to obtain such documentation from InPhonic. 
According to the complaint, many consumers did not receive the required 
rebate redemption form, a box containing a required UPC code, and/or a 
required ``Guide to Wireless Service'' and, despite repeated attempts 
to contact respondent, were unable to obtain the documentation. The 
complaint alleges that this constitutes an unfair practice.
    Finally, according to the complaint, InPhonic promised to provide 
consumers with rebate checks within 12 weeks of rebate submission, if 
they purchased a wireless phone and service plan, and submitted a valid 
rebate request with supporting documentation. The complaint alleges 
that after receiving rebate requests in conformance with these terms, 
InPhonic extended the time period in which it would deliver the rebates 
without consumers agreeing to this extension of time and failed to 
deliver the rebates to consumers within the promised time period. 
According to the complaint, this constitutes an unfair business 
practice.
    The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent 
InPhonic from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future and 
to redress

[[Page 24586]]

consumers. Part I.A. of the proposed order prohibits InPhonic from 
making a claim about the amount of any rebate, unless it discloses, 
clearly and conspicuously, unavoidably, and prior to consumers 
incurring any financial obligation: any time period that consumers must 
wait before submitting a rebate request; that consumers who change 
their wireless phone numbers after purchase are disqualified from 
receiving a rebate, if that is the case; that any rebate submission 
that does not strictly comply with all rebate terms and conditions, or 
that is deemed in any way illegible, may be rejected with little or no 
opportunity to resubmit, if that is the case; any requirement for 
submitting bills, records, or any other documentation, with a rebate 
request; when consumers can expect to receive their rebates; and that 
an e-mail address is required to be eligible for the rebate, if that is 
the case. Part I.B. of the proposed order prohibits InPhonic from 
making a claim about the amount of any rebate unless it also discloses, 
clearly and prominently, on any rebate coupon or form, all terms, 
conditions, or other limitations of the rebate offer.
    Part II of the proposed order prevents InPhonic from 
misrepresenting what documentation consumers must submit with any 
rebate request and from misrepresenting any material terms of any 
rebate program.
    Part III of the proposed order prohibits InPhonic from representing 
that consumers will have the opportunity to resubmit deficient rebate 
requests, unless it gives consumers a reasonable period of time in 
which to resubmit such requests and notifies them precisely how to 
correct any deficiencies.
    Part IV.A. of the proposed order prohibits InPhonic from failing to 
provide, or to make reasonably available to consumers, all required 
rebate documentation. Part IV.B. prohibits InPhonic from making any 
representation about the time in which any rebate will be mailed, or 
otherwise provided to purchasers, unless it has a reasonable basis for 
the representation at the time it is made. Part IV.C. prohibits 
InPhonic from failing to provide any rebate within the time specified 
or, if no time is specified, within thirty days.
    Part V of the proposed order requires InPhonic to send rebates to 
eligible purchasers. Eligible purchasers include consumers whose rebate 
requests were previously denied solely on the basis of one or more of 
the following reasons: (1) The consumer changed his/her wireless phone 
number; (2) the signature on the rebate form was illegible; (3) 
InPhonic failed to provide the consumer with required information or 
documents; (4) the e-mail address was missing from the rebate form; or 
(5) the request was late due to the consumer's submission of a fourth 
wireless bill. In addition, eligible purchasers include consumers whose 
requests were denied due to a curable deficiency, but where the 
consumer was not given at least thirty days to resubmit the request.
    Parts VI through IX of the proposed order are reporting and 
compliance provisions. Part X of the proposed order is a ``sunset'' 
provision, dictating that the order will terminate twenty years from 
the date it is issued or twenty years after a complaint is filed in 
Federal court, by either the United States or the FTC, alleging any 
violation of the order.
    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the 
proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official 
interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any 
way their terms.

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-8403 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P