Recently Resolved Matters


Consumer Protection Unit

Consumer Complaints

Consumer Education





Wyoming Specific Cases

The Attorney General's Office conducts investigations and takes enforcement actions against businesses that appear to be violating the Wyoming Consumer Protection Act. Here are some recent cases that the Wyoming Attorney General has resolved on behalf of consumers:

Iowa Steak Company, L.C. (Case No. 2014-05, Docket 183-071): The complaint in this matter alleged that Iowa Steak Company, and three of its salesmen violated the Wyoming Consumer Protection Act by making false and deceptive claims regarding price discounts for door-to-door meat sales. The complaint also alleged that the defendants failed to comply with Wyoming's door-to-door solicitation requirements. The consent judgment requires that Iowa Steak Company comply with the terms of the Act and offer refunds to all the Wyoming residents who purchased product. It also requires that Iowa Steak Company pay a civil penalty of $5,000. The individual salesmen were also required to pay civil penalties.

Iowa Steak Company, L.C. (Docket 183-071) Refunds offered to all Wyoming purchasers. Civil Penalty: $5,000.00


Silver King International (Case No. 2013-27): This matter involved a company that called consumers to conduct a purported survey that was allegedly used to screen leads for the sale of its product. After the survey was conducted, Silver King International called consumers to offer a free prize and would also schedule in-home demonstrations of its product. Although Silver King International denied that its actions constituted any violation of law, it agreed to a number of restrictions on all future transactions with Wyoming consumers, including the following: Silver King International will not make unsolicited telephonic sales calls to consumers on the federal or state do-not-call lists, it will comply with the notice requirements of Wyoming's prize and home solicitation statutes, and it will not make false or misleading statements to consumers.



Mygreenbeanextract, LLC (Case No. 2014-07): Consumers complained that they were charged unauthorized fees for products purchased from the company pursuant to a free 14 day trial offer. Consumers thought that they only had to pay the nominal shipping fee to test out the product and were surprised when they learned that they were being charged for the full price of the product. Consumers also complained that they had a difficult time obtaining refunds. An investigation revealed that the company represented that it was based in Cheyenne, Wyoming when in fact it had no connection to Wyoming other than the fact that it was a Wyoming entity and had mail forwarding services from locations in Wyoming. The company and its owner agreed to resolve the matter by offering refunds to all Wyoming consumers who had paid anything beyond the nominal shipping charge. The company and its owner also agreed to strict disclosure requirements and agreed not to present the company as being based in Wyoming unless it had an actual presence or office in Wyoming.

Mygreenbeanextract, LLC (Case No. 2014-07) Refunds offered to all Wyoming purchasers. Some purchasers accepted refunds.


The Sharps Rifle Company, Inc. (Case No. 2012-11): This case involved a firearm manufacturer which took deposits and payments on handguns from consumers. Despite the passage of many months and even years, consumers never received the final product from the manufacturer. The company, and the CEO of a predecessor of the company agreed to resolve the matter by refunding in full the 140+ consumers who made deposits or other payments for the firearms. The company and the former CEO agreed to abide by the 30 day rule. They also agreed not to market, advertise, sell or take deposits or payments on any merchandise that was not in final production.


Al Jones (Case No. 2012-11) Total Refunds: $5,000.00.


Worldwide Points Solutions, LLC, American Points Exchange, LLC and Jim Cintron a/k/a Demetrio Cintron (Case No. 2013-10): Consumers complained about misrepresentations made to them with respect to a timeshare point plan. The companies involved, and their owner, agreed to refund the complaining consumers. They also agreed not to make inaccurate claims about affiliated companies, or make any claims about the expected earnings or returns that might be made by engaging in the timeshare point plan. 



Doug Scholl d/b/a Scholl Landscaping and Tree Service (Case No. 2013-13): This case arose out of the activities of a landscaper. Consumer complained that the landscaper was taking deposits for work on their property, but failed to follow through with the projects. The landscaper agreed to refund the complaining consumers. The landscaper also agreed not to accept a deposit or payment from any consumer for landscaping, yard maintenance or tree removal services prior to fully completing all services as promised.

Doug Scholl (Case No. 2013-13) Total Refunds: $2,615.00.


Carlos Palomo, Victoria Adenusi, VC Merchant Systems, LLC, Vendors Merchant Network, Vendors Choice Merchant Systems, V.C. Direct Solutions, LLC, and Progressive Media Group, LLC (Case No. 2012-03): This case arose out of consumer complaints about a home business opportunity. Consumers were told they would make money processing credit cards. They were then sold thousands of dollars in “leads” that typically yielded no profit. The companies and their owners agreed to refund the consumers. They also agreed to certain disclosures about restrictions on the representations they could make to consumers.



SeoWorldwide.com, LLC and Robert Raskin (Case No. 2013-20): This case involved complaints about representations the company made about its search engine optimization services. The company and its owner agreed to make refunds and agreed to restrictions on the representations they could make about the services provided. 



Gerald David Manzanares a/k/a Gerald David Shupe Jr., David Manzanares, David Roderick, Gerald David Shupe-Roderick (Case No. 2012-09): This case arose out of complaints about a nonlawyer holding himself out as a lawyer and performing legal services for consumers. This case was resolved with the stipulation that all advertisements and representations regarding legal services would have to cease and no assistance could be provided with drafting legal documents and/or filing documents in court.



In the Matter of Meridian Construction Company, a Colorado Corporation and Energy Efficient Homes Alliance of North America, a Colorado nonprofit corporation (Case No. 2012-07): This case arose out of consumer complaints about telephone calls ostensibly made for the purpose of conducting an energy audit, but which turned into marketing calls and appointments for home improvement services. The companies agreed to cease from calling Wyoming consumers on the do-not-call lists and agreed to pay nominal civil penalties.




National and Multistate Cases

The Attorney General also participates in national level, multistate actions. Here are some recently resolved multistate cases that the Wyoming Attorney General has participated in on behalf of Wyoming residents.


DirecTV, Inc., Docket 177-426: This case involved allegations regarding DirecTV's advertising practices, disclosures, programming availability and various misleading representations. As part of the consent judgment against DirecTV, DirecTV agreed to clearly state all costs, services offered, length of contracts and terms of cancellations and refunds. The judgment also provided for restitution to certain affected consumers.



Affinion Group, Inc., Trilegiant Corporation and Webloyalty.com, Inc., Docket 181-698: This case addressed several of Affinion’s marketing practices that misled consumers, including a lack of clear and conspicuous disclosure about Affinion’s identity, and the cost and ongoing nature of the charges. Most troubling were two marketing practices of Affinion – live checks and online data pass. In a live check solicitation, consumers were sent via direct mail an offer that appeared to be a check – but when consumers endorsed and deposited the checks, the consumers unknowingly authorized Affinion to enroll them in membership programs, and to bill them each month indefinitely. In an online data pass offer, consumers were presented an Affinion offer immediately after an online purchase from a retailer. Affinion was then able to enroll and bill consumers without acquiring any of their account information because the marketing partner would pass that information to Affinion. Both practices are prohibited under the judgment. Additionally, the judgement resulted in a total of roughly to Wyoming residents. A deposit will be made to the Consumer Protection Trust Fund in the amount of $25,000.00.



Lenders Processing Services, Inc., LPS Default Solutions, Inc., and DOCX, LLC, Docket 180-691: This case addressed surrogate signing of title documents, as well as related practices. The judgment requires proper execution of documents and prohibits signatures by unauthorized persons or those without first-hand knowledge of facts attested to in the documents. It also includes enhanced oversight of the default services provided, and a review of all third-party fees to ensure that the fees have been earned and are reasonable and accurate. Lenders Processing Services, Inc., also agreed to review documents executed during the period of January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010 to determine what documents, if any, need to be re-executed or corrected. If LPS is authorized to make the corrections, it will do so.