I just got confirmation from a valid source that Federal Trade Commission is investigating My Online Business Empire better known as MOBE. The investigation is directly responsible for the MOBE website being offline and suspension of business operations. Our first confirmation comes from a Canadian-based contractor, citing an official announcement by MOBE’s “tech team”.
On Monday, June 4, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission, an agency of the United States of America (“FTC”), filed a civil lawsuit against the following persons and entities:
MOBE Ltd., d/b/a MOBE, d/b/a My Online Business Education, d/b/a My Own Business Empire (Malaysia)
MOBEProcessing.com, Inc. (US)
MOBETraining.com, Inc. (US)
Transaction Management USA, Inc. (US)
MOBE Pro Limited (UK)
MOBE Online Ltd. (Mauritius)
9336-0311 Quebec, Inc., d/b/a Business Education Training (Canada)
Matt Lloyd Publishing.com, Pty Ltd., d/b/a Matt Lloyd Publishing, d/b/a Home Business Builders (Australia)
MOBE Inc. (Panama)
Matthew Lloyd McPhee, a/k/a Matt Lloyd, a/k/a Matthew Lloyd
Russell W. Whitney, Jr.; and
Susan Zanghi
According to the receiver, Mark Bernet
In the lawsuit, the FTC alleged that the defendants operated a fraudulent internet business education program called “My Online Business Education,” or “MOBE,” through which the Defendants claimed they would reveal a “simple 21-step system that will show consumers how to quickly and easily start their own online business and make substantial income.” However, the FTC further alleged that, contrary to the Defendants’ representations, “the vast majority of consumers who join the MOBE program and purchase . . . costly MOBE memberships lose money.” According to the FTC, this “internet business” that consumers are taught to launch in Defendants’ program is nothing more than buying costly MOBE memberships for thousands of dollars and recruiting other consumers to pay thousands of dollars to purchase those same memberships. The FTC further alleged that by operating the business in the fashion they operated it, the Defendants violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §45(a).
As part of the lawsuit, the FTC also filed a motion requesting that the Court enter a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, to enjoin the Defendants from continuing to engage in the conduct that formed the basis for the lawsuit. At approximately 11:23 a.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2018, United States District Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. entered an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order (hereafter the “TRO”), a copy of which is posted to this website. In the TRO the Court made the following specific finding: There is good cause to believe that Defendants have engaged in and are likely to engage in acts or practices that violate Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and that [the FTC] is therefore likely to prevail on the merits of this action. . . . {T}he FTC has established a likelihood of success in showing that Defendants have made material misrepresentations that purchasers of their program are likely to earn substantial income quickly and easily and that dissatisfied purchasers can get their money back.
Among other things, the TRO:
Enjoins the Defendants from making false representations concerning what consumers are likely to earn through the MOBE system, or concerning consumers ability to obtain refunds from Defendants without conditions;
Enjoins the Defendants from making false representations concerning the Defendants’ refund policies;
Enjoins the Defendants from selling, copying, releasing or disposing of any customer information, including customer names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, etc.; and
Freezes the assets of the Defendants and enjoins them from transferring, selling, or otherwise disposing of any of their assets.
Additionally, in the TRO Judge Dalton appointed Mark J. Bernet as the Temporary Receiver for each of the nine companies identified in the first paragraph above (collectively, the “Receivership Defendants”). The TRO directed the Receiver to take control of the Receivership Defendants and their assets, but directed that the Receiver should “suspend business operations of the Receivership Entities if in the business judgment of the Receiver such operations cannot be continued legally and profitably.” TRO, Section XII. S., page 17. The Receiver presently has not been able to conclude that the business operations can be continued legally and profitably, and as a result, for the time being the business operations are suspended. Judge Dalton has scheduled a hearing for June 26, 2018, to determine whether the TRO should be terminated, extended or converted into a preliminary injunction. The outcome of that hearing will be provided on this website.