Business Blog
FTC has no time for allegedly deceptive “unlimited minutes” claims
“UNLIMITED Minutes.” “UNLIMITED TALK.” “‘UNLIMITED MINUTES’ We do not charge ‘per-minute’.” Those are notable claims for anyone shopping for telecom services, including consumers who want to maintain family ties with relatives who are incarcerated. But according to an FTC lawsuit, two companies and two individuals bilked unsuspecting parents, spouses, children, and other loved ones out of more than $1 million by selling them misleading “unlimited” inmate calling plans.
Marc Grisham, Courtney Grisham, Disruption Theory LLC, and Emergent Technologies LLC operate websites – including inmatecall.com – that purport to sell unlimited calling plans to inmates’ families. From the homepage, customers navigate through the purchase process by selecting one-, three-, or twelve-month plans. On multiple places throughout the site, the defendants describe those plans as “unlimited minutes” or “unlimited talk.” With COVID-19 making it impossible for families to visit, the defendants doubled down on their promotional promises by claiming to offer an “extended sale” on their plans.
But according to the FTC, the defendants’ “talk” claims are all talk, but no real talk – meaning that the plans don’t offer the advertised benefit. In fact, prison and jail calls are provided by specialized service providers who have contracts with correctional facilities and charge for calls at predetermined per-minute rates. Those providers don’t currently offer unlimited calling plans.
The complaint alleges that family members who bought the defendants’ unlimited plans later learned they would have to open and fund separate pre-paid accounts with the service provider at the specific jail or prison. In other words, even though they forked over for the defendants’ “unlimited” plans, they still have to pay the going per-minute rate charged by the service provider.
The FTC says the defendants compounded the deception by falsely claiming an affiliation with the companies that actually were approved providers. The complaint alleges defendants posed as approved providers to bolster their credibility and induce consumers to purchase their plans.
What happened when family members learned they wouldn’t get the promised unlimited minutes? The FTC says the defendants weren’t responsive to calls to their customer service line and made it difficult for deceived buyers to get their money back.
A federal court entered a temporary restraining order against the defendants on October 6th.
It is your choice whether to submit a comment. If you do, you must create a user name, or we will not post your comment. The Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes this information collection for purposes of managing online comments. Comments and user names are part of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) public records system, and user names also are part of the FTC’s computer user records system. We may routinely use these records as described in the FTC’s Privacy Act system notices. For more information on how the FTC handles information that we collect, please read our privacy policy.
The purpose of this blog and its comments section is to inform readers about Federal Trade Commission activity, and share information to help them avoid, report, and recover from fraud, scams, and bad business practices. Your thoughts, ideas, and concerns are welcome, and we encourage comments. But keep in mind, this is a moderated blog. We review all comments before they are posted, and we won’t post comments that don’t comply with our commenting policy. We expect commenters to treat each other and the blog writers with respect.
We don't edit comments to remove objectionable content, so please ensure that your comment contains none of the above. The comments posted on this blog become part of the public domain. To protect your privacy and the privacy of other people, please do not include personal information. Opinions in comments that appear in this blog belong to the individuals who expressed them. They do not belong to or represent views of the Federal Trade Commission.