Federal Trade Commission v. Roomster Corp.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided September 5, 2023·No. 1:22-cv-07389·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FEDERAL IRADE COMMISSION, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 1:22-cev-7389 STATE OF COLORADO, STIPULATED ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, STATE OF FLORIDA, MONETARY JUDGMENT, AND OTHER RELIEF AGAINST PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ROOMSTER CORP., JOHN SHRIBER, AND ROMAN ZAKS COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, ie and - || USDC SDNY PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, _ || DOC ELECTRONICALLY FILED Plaintiffs. DOC ee Sera DATE FILED: /207> V. ROOMSTER CORP., a corporation, JOHN SHRIBER, individually and as an officer of ROOMSTER CORP., ROMAN ZAKS, individually and as an officer of ROOMSTER CORP, and JONATHAN MARTINEZ, individually and doing business as APPWINN, Defendants.

Plaintiffs, the Federal Trade Commission (*“Commission” or “FTC”), and the People of the State of California, Attorneys General of the States of Colorado, Florida, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the People of the State of Illinois, and the People of the State of New York (“Plaintiff States.” and together with the FTC, “Plaintiffs’’), filed their Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Relief, and other Relief (*Complaint”), pursuant to Section

]

4 ee ON Ee Oe eee eee IEE NAD IS NADIE I EI

13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), the California Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seg. and 17500, et seq., the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colo. Rev. Stats. §§ 6-1-101, et seg., the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, Part 11, Florida Statutes, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, et seg.. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 2, and N.Y. Executive Law § 63(12) and N.Y. GBL §§ 349 and 350. Plaintiffs and Defendants Roomster Corp., John Shriber, and Roman Zaks stipulate to the entry of this Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Judgment. and Other Relief (“Order”) to resolve all matters in dispute in this action between them. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: FINDINGS l. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter. 2. The Complaint charges that Settling Defendants participated in deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 and state statutes, in connection with misrepresenting that endorsements were truthful reviews and by actual users of Roomster’s room and roommate finder platform, and misrepresenting that the platform has verified, authentic, or available listings. 3. Settling Defendants neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the Complaint, except as specifically stated in this Order. Only for purposes of this action, Settling Defendants admit the facts necessary to establish jurisdiction. 4, Settling Defendants waive and release any claims that they may have against the Plaintiffs that relate to this action, including but not limited to any claim that they may have under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, concerning the prosecution of this

MY 4 oe ONTO nn OE IEE IIS

action through the date of this Order, and agree to bear their own costs and attorney fees. 5. Settling Defendants waive all rights to appeal or otherwise challenge or contest the validity of this Order. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this Order, the following definitions apply: A. “Defendants” means all of the Individual Defendants and the Corporate Defendant, individually, collectively, or in any combination. B. “Corporate Defendant” means Roomster Corp. and its successors and assigns. C. “Individual Defendants” means John Shriber, Roman Zaks, and Jonathan Martinez individually and doing business as AppWinn. Dz “Settling Defendants” means Roomster Corp. and its successors and assigns, John Shriber, and Roman Zaks. E. “Individual Settling Defendants” means John Shriber and Roman Zaks. ORDER I. BAN ON CERTAIN REVIEW PRACTICES IT IS ORDERED that Settling Defendants, in connection with promoting or offering for sale any product or service, are permanently restrained and enjoined from: A. paying or otherwise providing incentives for any consumer review, whether directly or through an intermediary; or B. using or disseminating any consumer review or endorsement where there is a relationship between the author of the review or endorser and any Settling Defendant that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the review or endorsement.

Il. PROHIBITION AGAINST MISREPRESENTATIONS INVOLVING REVIEWS OR ENDORSEMENTS IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Settling Defendants, Settling Defendants’ officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, in connection with promoting or offering for sale any product or service are permanently restrained and enjoined from making any misrepresentation or assisting others in making any misrepresentation, expressly or by implication: A. that any consumer review or endorsement is truthful or by an actual user of such product or service; or B. through the use of any consumer review or endorsement of such product or service. II. PROHIBITION AGAINST OTHER MISREPRESENTATIONS IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Settling Defendants, Settling Defendants’ officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, in connection with promoting or offering for sale any product or service are permanently restrained and enjoined from misrepresenting or assisting others in misrepresenting, expressly or by implication: A. that a listing for a living arrangement is verified, authentic, or available; B. any other fact material to consumers concerning any product or service, such as: the total costs; any material restrictions, limitations, or conditions; or any material aspect of its performance, efficacy, nature, or central characteristics, including that the Settling Defendants’ platform is a safe community with real members worldwide.

—_— ee NN ND eR EE EID IDE ENED II NAD IND

IV. MONITORING AFFILIATES IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Settling Defendants and their officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of this Order, in connection with promoting or offering for sale any product or service through any affiliate program, are permanently restrained and enjoined from failing to: A. Prior to doing business with any marketing affiliate, or for any current marketing affiliate, no later than 10 days after the date of service of this Order: (1) provide each marketing affiliate a copy of this Order; (2) obtain from each such marketing affiliate a signed and dated statement acknowledging receipt of this Order and expressly agreeing to comply with Sections I-III of this Order; and (3) clearly and conspicuously disclose in writing to each marketing affiliate that engaging in acts or practices prohibited by this Order will result in immediate termination of any marketing affiliate and forfeiture of all monies owed to such marketing affiliate; B.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Federal Trade Commission v. Roomster Corp., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Federal Trade Commission v. Roomster Corp. (Federal Trade Commission v. Roomster Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related