Brandon
Asheville,#2Author of original report
Tue, December 06, 2005
I've read through some more complaints and articles that were posted here and elsewhere which are all true in my case as well. I dont understand how they're still operating after all this evidence, isnt this America? I am being hounded by Duvera Financial collection agency to pay StoresOnline for nothing because I signed a faulty contract under misconceptions! -A lawsuit, filed by the San Diego law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, on behalf of iMergent shareholder Elliot Firestone, in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, alleges StoresOnlines' software packages were illegally marketed as "franchises" or "business opportunities" because StoresOnline "didn't provide any of the disclosures required by law regarding ownership, sales period, description of services, financial statements, training and security description, delivery date, earnings representations, legal actions, bankruptcy information or a sample copy of the contract." (I never recieved a copy of the contract) -In addition, the suit said iMergent had been extending credit to customers with subprime credit "without disclosing the company didn't require these customers to meet its credit standards, and without disclosing that the financing of these customers was a gamble because if they didn't generate sufficient business off their Web sites, the loans would not be repaid and iMergent's purported revenue stream could simply vanish." (I myself was working frying funnel cakes for $7.00 an hr in Los Angeles and was on food stamps and financial assistance through the county when StoresOnline allowed me a loan of $4,553.00 under the assurance that I would be making enough money to pay this off within a few months.) -A lawsuit was filed against StoresOnline in the state of Washington due in part because StoresOnline failed to disclose material information regarding the business opportunity, including, but not limited to: i. The contract failed to state Do not sign this contract if any spaces for agreed terms are blank. Do not sign this contract unless you receive a written disclosure. You are entitled to a copy of this contract an the time you sign it. ii. The contract failed to state Do not sign this contract unless you received a written disclosure document from the seller at least forty-eight hours before signing. iii. The contract failed to state You are entitled to a copy of this contract at the time you sign it. iv. The contract failed to notify the prospective purchaser that he has seven days to cancel the contract for any reason. Conclusions state several violations in the Business Opportunity Fraud Act - The Federal Court in Case C-02-1227 JF (Pvt) in 2002 said the following with respect to the User Agreement. "Having considered the terms of the User Agreement generally and the arbitration clause in particular, as well as the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that the User Agreement and arbitration clause are substantively unconscionable under California law and that arbitration cannot be compelled herein. " The case is awaiting a hearing by the 9th circuit court of appeals which is expected to give a bye. As well as many complaints for hidden fees/charges, did not disclose costs prior to finalizing sale, lied, terrible customer service, online software old, clunky, doesn't work, took months to work on site and still doesn't have an online store built. Check out the report from Greensboro, NC for an exhausting list of articles on StoresOnline Investigations. I hope this company goes down and I would love to help in any way I can to wipe their smug little grins off their faces. With all of these complaints mounting all their scheduled demonstrations should be suspended nationwide until further investigations!