Connect with us

Published

on

Packages move along a conveyor belt at an Amazon Fulfillment center on Cyber Monday in Robbinsville, New Jersey, on Nov. 28, 2022.

Stephanie Keith | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Jamaal Sanford received a disturbing email in May of last year. The message, whose sender claimed to be part of a “Russian shadow team,” contained Sanford’s home address, social security number and his daughter’s college. It came with a very specific threat.

The sender said Sanford, who lives in Springfield, Missouri, would only only be safe if he removed a negative online review.

“Do not play tough guy,” the email said. “You have nothing to gain by keeping the reviews and EVERYTHING to lose by not cooperating.”

Months earlier, Sanford had left a scathing review for an e-commerce “automation” company called Ascend Ecom on the rating site Trustpilot. Ascend’s purported business was the launching and managing of Amazon storefronts on behalf of clients, who would pay money for the service and the promise of earning thousands of dollars in “passive income.”

Sanford had invested $35,000 in such a scheme. He never recouped the money and is now in debt, according to a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit unsealed on Friday.

His experience is a key piece of the FTC’s suit, which accuses Ascend of breaking federal laws by making false claims related to earnings and business performance, and threatening or penalizing customers for posting honest reviews, among other violations. The FTC is seeking monetary relief for Ascend customers and to prevent Ascend from doing business permanently.

It’s the latest sign of the FTC’s crackdown on e-commerce money-making schemes on top of some of the internet’s leading marketplaces, like Amazon and Airbnb. Since mid-2023, the agency has sued at least four automation companies, alleging deceptive marketing practices and falsely telling customers that they could generate passive income.

The FTC isn’t just focused on e-commerce automation businesses. On Wednesday, the agency said it’s stepping up enforcement against companies that use artificial intelligence “as a way to supercharge deceptive or unfair conduct that harms consumers.” The agency pointed to Ascend as a company that it took action against in part because of its claims that it used AI “to maximize clients’ business success.”

The FTC has also pledged to go after companies that try to suppress negative reviews online as part of new rules issued this year targeting fake reviews.

Automation businesses like Ascend promote their easy money opportunities on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube. But their promises go mostly unfulfilled, and often the storefronts get shut down for violating policies around dropshipping — the selling of products to customers without ever stocking inventory — or counterfeits.

The FTC’s complaint against Ascend accused co-founders Will Basta and Jeremy Leung of defrauding consumers of at least $25 million through their scheme. Formed in 2021, Ascend has done business under several entity names with operations registered in states including Texas, Wyoming and California.

Lina Khan, Chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), testifies before the House Appropriations Subcommittee at the Rayburn House Office Building on May 15, 2024 in Washington, DC. 

Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The filing shows that the threats against Sanford grew more menacing. Two days after the initial email, Sanford’s wife’s phone lit up with a text message containing an image of a severed head that again urged the removal of the unflattering review.

“Your husband has angered some people with his ignorance,” the text message said. “The type he does not wish to anger.”

Sanford soon purchased a security system for his home.

Sanford said in an interview that Ascend had promised his Amazon storefront would generate enough revenue to cover the cost of inventory the company bought each month on his behalf. Months went by and his store amassed a “smorgasbord” of items, from LED lights to vitamins, which Ascend purchased from other retailers like Macy’s and Home Depot and then sold on Amazon, Sanford said. The company used the dropshipping model, Sanford said, which often led to the stores getting suspended on Amazon.

Amazon prohibits merchants from dropshipping unless they identify themselves as the seller of record, meaning their name is listed on the invoice, packing slip and other materials.

‘Depleted bank accounts’

As Sanford’s sales sputtered and his debts swelled, he made a series of complaints to Basta and Leung. When they went unanswered, he left the negative reviews. Sanford said Ascend eventually offered to refund him $20,000 if he would take down the review, but he declined.

“I think I’m resigned to the fact that I won’t be getting my money back and now I just want accountability,” he said.

Karl Kronenberger, a lawyer for Ascend, said in a statement that the company denies ever threatening customers and it attempted to resolve any disputes “in good faith.”

“We are investigating whether a competitor of Ascend may be the driving force behind some of the allegations in the case,” Kronenberger said.

Ascend’s marketing pitch claimed customers could quickly earn thousands of dollars from sales generated on Amazon, Walmart and other platforms. The company said it had developed proprietary artificial intelligence tools that it used to identify top-selling products.

E-commerce automation companies are increasingly exploiting Amazon’s third-party marketplace, which now hosts millions of merchants and accounts for more than half of all goods sold on the site.

Amazon didn’t provide a comment for this story.

Ascend promoted the scheme as “risk free,” the FTC said, because of its buyback guarantee, which effectively committed to make clients whole if they didn’t recoup their investment within 36 months.

“After consumers invest, the promised gains never materialize, and consumers are left with depleted bank accounts and hefty credit card bills,” the regulator wrote in its complaint.

To add an air of legitimacy, Ascend falsely claimed it had been featured in media outlets like Forbes, Yahoo! Finance and Business Insider, the FTC said. It primarily advertised its business on social media platforms TikTok, X, YouTube and Instagram.

Ascend faces two lawsuits in California that allege breach of contract and other claims, according to the FTC. In January, an arbitration action was filed against Ascend in Florida on behalf of 30 customers. Nima Tahmassebi, an attorney representing the Ascend customers, told CNBC that the clients chose to withdraw the claim once they learned of the FTC case.

Tahmassebi said he has been contacted by hundreds of individuals who “all but begged for legal assistance” because they lost money after paying for Ascend’s automation services.

“I’m talking to people who said I can’t get Christmas gifts this year because of my situation with them,” Tahmassebi said. “People took money they could have applied to their kid’s college tuition. Now it’s gone, and they’re left bewildered.”

WATCH: How Amazon became 2023’s top apparel and footwear seller

How Amazon became 2023's top apparel and footwear seller

Continue Reading

Technology

Former Trump advisor Dina Powell McCormick leaves Meta board after eight-month stint

Published

on

By

Former Trump advisor Dina Powell McCormick leaves Meta board after eight-month stint

Dado Ruvic | Reuters

Dina Powell McCormick, who was a member of President Donald Trump’s first administration, has resigned from Meta’s board of directors.

Powell McCormick, who previously spent 16 years working at Goldman Sachs, notified Meta of her resignation on Friday, according to a filing with the SEC. The filing did not disclose why McCormick was stepping down from Meta’s board, but said her resignation was effective immediately.

Meta does not plan on replacing her board role, according to a person familiar with the matter who asked not to be named due to confidentiality. Powell McCormick is considering a potential strategic advisory role with Meta, but nothing has been decided, the person said.

Powell McCormick joined Meta’s board in April along with Stripe co-founder and CEO Patrick Collison. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a statement at the time that the two executives “bring a lot of experience supporting businesses and entrepreneurs to our board.”

Powell McCormick served as a deputy national security advisor to President Trump during his first stint in office and was also an assistant secretary of state during President George W. Bush’s administration.

She is married to Sen. Dave McCormick, R-Pa, who took office in January.

Powell McCormick is the vice chair, president and head of global client services at BDT & MSD Partners, which formed in 2023 after the merchant bank BDT combined with Michael Dell’s investment firm MSD.

With her departure, Meta now has 14 board members, including UFC CEO Dana White, Broadcom CEO Hock Tan and former Enron executive John Arnold.

WATCH: TikTok signs joint venture to create TikTok USDS Joint Venture.

TikTok signs joint venture to create TikTok USDS Joint Venture

Continue Reading

Technology

Musk’s $56 billion Tesla pay package must be restored as court rules cancellation was too extreme

Published

on

By

Musk's  billion Tesla pay package must be restored as court rules cancellation was too extreme

Elon Musk's 2018 Tesla pay package must be restored, Delaware Supreme Court rules

Elon Musk‘s 2018 CEO pay package from Tesla, worth some $56 billion when it vested, must be restored, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled Friday.

“We reverse the Court of Chancery’s rescission remedy and award $1 in nominal damages,” the judges wrote in their opinion.

In the decision, the Delaware Supreme Court judges said a lower court’s decision to cancel Musk’s 2018 pay plan was too extreme a remedy and that the lower court did not give Tesla a chance to say what a fair compensation ought to be.

The decision on the appeal in this case, known as Tornetta v. Musk, likely ends the yearslong fight over Musk’s record-setting compensation.

Musk’s net worth is currently estimated at around $679.4 billion, according to the Forbes Real Time Billionaires List.

Dorothy Lund, a professor at Columbia Law School, told CNBC that while the Friday opinion may restore the 2018 pay plan for Musk, it leaves the rest of the lower court’s decision unaddressed and intact.

“The court had previously decided that Musk was a controlling shareholder of Tesla and that the Tesla board and he arranged an unfair pay plan for him,” she said. “None of that was reversed in this decision.”

“We are proud to have participated in the historic verdict below, calling to account the Tesla board and its largest stockholder for their breaches of fiduciary duty,” lawyers representing plaintiff Richard J. Tornetta said in an e-mailed statement.

Tesla did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Delaware Supreme Court issued the order per curiam with no single judge taking credit for writing the opinion and no dissent noted.

Read more CNBC tech news

Musk’s 2018 CEO pay package from Tesla, comprised of 12 milestone-based tranches of stock, was unprecedented at the time it was proposed. After it was granted, the pay plan made Musk the wealthiest individual in the world.

Tesla shareholder Tornetta sued Tesla, filing a derivative action in 2018, accusing Musk and the company’s board of a breach of their fiduciary duties.

Delaware’s business-specialized Court of Chancery decided in January 2024 that the pay plan was improperly granted and ordered it to be rescinded.

In her decision, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick also found that Musk “controlled Tesla,” and that the process leading to the board’s approval of his 2018 pay plan was “deeply flawed.”

Among other things, she found the Tesla board did not disclose all the material information they should have to investors before asking them to vote on and approve the plan.

After the earlier Tornetta ruling, Musk moved Tesla’s site of incorporation out of Delaware, bashed McCormick by name in posts on his social network X, formerly Twitter, where he has tens of millions of followers, and called for other entrepreneurs to reincorporate outside of the state.

Tesla also attempted to “ratify” the 2018 CEO pay plan by holding a second vote with shareholders in 2024.

In November, Tesla shareholders voted to approve an even larger CEO compensation plan for Musk.

The 2025 pay plan consists of 12 tranches of shares to be granted to the CEO if Tesla hits certain milestones over the next decade and is worth about $1 trillion in total. The new plan could also increase Musk’s voting power over the company from around 13% today to around 25%.

Shareholders had also approved a plan to replace Musk’s 2018 CEO pay if the Tornetta decision was upheld on appeal. That plan is now nullified.

As CNBC previously reported, a law firm that currently represents Tesla in this appeal penned a bill to overhaul corporate law in Delaware earlier this year. The bill was passed by the Delaware legislature in March, and if it had applied retroactively, it could have affected the outcome of this case.

Read the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling here.

Ron & Michael Baron on Elon Musk, Tesla and the next big, currently-overlooked opportunities in the market

Continue Reading

Technology

Cramer says Boeing is a buy here — plus, Wells Fargo and bank stocks keep rolling

Published

on

By

Cramer says Boeing is a buy here — plus, Wells Fargo and bank stocks keep rolling

Continue Reading

Trending