United States of America
Federal Trade Commission
Washington D.C. 20580
Division of Enforcement
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Elaine D. Kolish
April 12, 2002
Dan Lawrence, Vice President
Juno Online Services, Inc.
2555 Townsgate Road
Westlake Village, CA 91361-2650
Re: Juno Online Services, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4016
Dear Mr. Lawrence:
The Division of Enforcement staff has completed its review of Juno's submissions dated August 7, 2001, August 23, 2001, September 7, 2001, January 18, 2002, March 14, 2002, March 26, 2002 and April 8, 2002, which Juno has filed to show the manner and form of its compliance with the above-referenced Order issued on June 25, 2001.
The staff has determined that some of Juno's advertisements violate parts III, V, and VI of the Order because they do not contain all of the disclosures required or because the disclosures are not clear and conspicuous. Accordingly, the staff is rejecting the following attachments to Juno's submissions: Exh. A2-6; B2-3; C1; E11-26; G2, G3, G5, G6, G8; and I1-2. Juno, however, has advised the staff that it has ceased disseminating or has revised all of the above material.
In addition, the staff determined that, for some consumers, the disclosures in current ads on Juno's website are not clear and conspicuous because those consumers would have to scroll down in Order to see the disclosures. Juno has agreed to move the disclosures up so that they will be visible without scrolling down.
The staff has also determined that Juno mailed an incorrect redress form to the consumers described in Part X.A.1 of the Order. Accordingly, the staff is rejecting Exh. K4. Juno has stated that it will mail new redress forms to the consumers described in Part X.A.1 of the Order who did not submit application forms. Finally, Juno informed some consumers that their applications were insufficient because they did not submit proof of payment when in fact, pursuant to Part X.D of the Order, consumers who submitted a declaration affirming the costs they had incurred but did not produce proof of payment were entitled to redress in an amount up to $50. Accordingly, the staff is rejecting Exh. K5. Juno has stated that it will provide redress to all such consumers in an amount up to $50.
The staff has concluded, on the assumption that the information submitted is accurate and complete, that no compliance action is indicated at this time. We will not be precluded, however, from recommending to the Commission an appropriate action if the submitted information is inaccurate or incomplete or if Juno violates the terms of the Order. Please be advised that the opinions expressed in this letter are those of the staff and not necessarily those of the Commission or of any Commissioner. You will be advised of the General Counsel's determinations concerning Juno's request for confidential treatment of certain documents by separate letter.
Elaine D. Kolish
Associate Director for Enforcement