UTAH DIVISION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION IS ATTEMPTING TO AVOID ITS RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PERMITS UTAH-BASED COMPANIES TO RUN WILD WITHOUT ANY ACCOUNTABILITY WHATSOEVER!

If you have filed a complaint against either Storesonline or Professional marketing International (PMI) with the Utah Division of Consumer Protection after November 1, 2010, then you may have received this letter from Mr. David Furlong of the Utah Division of Consumer Protection.

This letter states that "We are closing your complaint for the following reasons:"

1) "That the issues raised involve a transaction that occurred entirely outside of Utah.  Thus, the Division has no jurisdiction to take action, even though the company may be located in Utah.  You need to file a complaint in the state where the transaction occurred, as the laws of that state would apply."

2) "This is a purchase made for primarily business purposes which are not covered under the Utah Consumer Sales Practice Act.  You may want to pursue your claim through an attorney, small claims court action, or contact your own state to see if any of its statutes apply to business transactions."

3) "NOTICE: On May 19, 2010, the Utah Division of Consumer Protection advised Business Recovery Systems (BRS) that the Division lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the types of complaints submitted by BRS customers.  BRS continued to advise its customers to file complaints with the Division.  A second notice was sent on November 9, 2010, stating that.'Future BRS-generated complaints falling outside of our jurisdiction will be forwarded to the Arizona Attorney General's Office for potential violations against BRS of the applicable Arizona Consumer Fraud statutes'".

4) "If, after the date of November 9, 2010, you have been advised by BRS to file a consumer complaint with the Utah Division of Consumer Protection, please contact the Arizona Attorney General's office.  A complaint can be filed online at http://www.azag.gov/consumer/complaintform.html."


Unfortunately, Mr. Furlong's letter doesn't hold any water.  This is true for the following four reasons:

1) Past Precedent - On August 28, 2006, the Utah Division of Consumer Protection, through its own action, admitted that it is the Utah government agency that is responsible for consumer complaints related to out-of-state complaints against Utah companies by filing a Cease and Desist Order against Storesonline.

2) Mr. Furlong's own letter - Please note that Mr. Furlong suggests that the Utah Division of Consumer Protection does not have jurisdiction over transactions with Storesonline because the "transaction occurred entirely outside of Utah."

This simply isn't true.  The initial solicitation originates in Utah, as evidenced by the return address on the postcards sent to potential clients, inviting them to the 90-minute presentation.  To add insult to injury, the actual transaction takes place in Utah, as evidenced by the credit card billing statement received by Storesonline clients, which indicates that the transactions actually take place in Orem, Utah.  Mr. Furlong's letter is insulting in regards to this point.

3) Mr. Furlong's own letter - Please note that Mr. Furlong suggests that "This is a purchase made for primarily business purposes which are not covered under the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act."  Again, Mr. Furlong has a very vague understanding of the relationship between most clients and Storesonline at the time of purchase, as this is a consumer-to-business transaction.

Storesonline's own websites, http://www.storesonlinepro.com/services/business-services/ and http://www.storesonlinepro.com/ecommerce/merchant-accounts/ provide irrefutable evidence that this is truly a consumer-to-business transaction.  The services mentioned in the aforementioned links are not provided to the person who already owns his/her own business.  This clearly indicates that this is designed for the person who is just starting a business, and this confirms that this is truly a consumer-to-business transaction, and not a business-to-business transaction, as Mr. Furlong suggests.

4) Opinion of the Utah Attorney General's Office - On October 13, 2009. the Utah Attorney General's Office weighed in on exactly which agency is responsible to follow-up on consumer complaints against Utah companies.  The result:  "The Utah Division of Consumer Protection is the proper agency that handles complaints about Utah companies."

Conclusion:  Mr. Furlong's letter seems to lack any factual basis to support his point-of-view, while BRS' position is supported by four (4) different and separate facts that provide a strong and logical factual basis for BRS' position.

BRS does not endorse or condemn any company.  Therefore, it is BRS' recommendation that all people who feel they were victims of either Storesonline or PMI contact the Utah Division of Consumer Protection and insist that the Utah Division of Consumer Protection handle your complaint, as indicated in the aforementioned letter from the Utah Attorney General's Office.


To return to the Home Page, click here.