2023 0317 – FTC – Consultation – Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees – FTC-2023-0064

  • 2023 0317 – FTC- Consultation – Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees – FTC-2023-0064  —  [BonkNote]
    • ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/rulemaking-unfair-or-deceptive-fees
    • Regulations.gov – [link]
      • Comments – 3.3k – [link]
    • Federal Register – [link]
    • SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) in the Federal Register , titled “Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees,” which would prohibit unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees for goods or services, specifically, misrepresenting the total costs of goods and services by omitting mandatory fees from advertised prices and misrepresenting the nature and purpose of fees. The NPRM announced the opportunity for interested parties to present their positions orally at an informal hearing. Seventeen commenters requested to participate at the informal hearing. The Commission’s Chief Presiding Officer, the Chair, has appointed an Administrative Law Judge for the Federal Trade Commission, the Honorable Jay L. Himes to serve as the presiding officer of the informal hearing.
    • DATES
      • COMMENTS must be received on or before:  January 8, 2024.
      • HEARING DATE: The informal hearing will be conducted virtually on April 24, 2024, at 10 a.m. Eastern.
  • [Comments – 3.3k – [link]
  • AFSA – American Financial Services Association –
    • AFSA Comment on FTC Unfair and Deceptive Fees NPRM FINAL – combined (1)_Redacted
      • AFSA agrees with the FTC that hidden and misleading fees harm consumers. Our members want their customers to understand the costs of products and services and to be able to compare costs with those charged by other providers.
    • However, the proposed rule is flawed. To begin with, the underlying construct supporting this proposed rulemaking seems to be the belief that all transactions have a finite all-in cost that can be readily disclosed. That’s simply not true. Some products, like mortgage loans, are complicated and there isn’t one number that conveys the cost and can be disclosed upfront in an advertisement. In other instances, the consumer’s needs may change or not be known when the contract is entered into.
  • ALTA – American Land Title Association –
    • ALTA_FTC Unfair and Deceptive Fees_Comment Letter_2_7_24_Redacted
    • While the American Land Title Association1 (ALTA) supports thoughtful and targeted efforts to protect consumers from deceptive practices and pricing2 we believe this proposed rule is outside the scope of the Federal Trade Commission’s authority and will only serve to increase consumer confusion and create regulatory conflict.
    • This letter outlines four key areas of specific concern.
      • First, ALTA believes that the McCarran Ferguson Act makes it clear that the FTC does not have the authority to apply this proposal to regulated insurance products and services, including title insurance and real estate settlement services.
        • Thus, the FTC must, should it move forward with its proposal, explicitly exempt from the definition of businesses under its proposal the business of insurance, including products and services provided by the title insurance and settlement services industry.
      • For example, in the title and settlement services industry there are a number of fees that can change based on the consumer decision to purchase certain additional or optional coverages or services. As a result, any final rule must make explicit that a practice is not unfair or deceptive if the ultimate price the consumer pays is due to the choices made by the consumer in the course of the transaction.
      • Lastly, in agreement with points made by the United States Chamber of Commerce, ALTA believes an attempt to regulate “excessive” fees is beyond the FTC’s jurisdiction.
    • The FTC Must Explicitly State that the Business of Insurance is Not Subject to the Rule
    • Any Final Rule Must Make Explicit that a Practice is Not Unfair or Deceptive if the Ultimate Price the Consumer Pays is Due to the Choices Made by the Consumer in the Course of the Transaction
      • These unknown variables make it impossible to accurately disclose a total price to the consumer at the beginning of a transaction.
        • The proposed rule’s attempt to regulate “surprise” price changes conflicts with the right of the consumer to make choices about their needs.
    • In all states the cost of title insurance is set by the type of policy and the amount of insurance, and there can be no variance from the filed, promulgated, or ra􀆟ng bureau rates and fees.

FTC – Consultations

  • 2023 0317 – FTC- Consultation – Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees – FTC-2023-0064  —  [BonkNote]
    • ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/rulemaking-unfair-or-deceptive-fees
    • Regulations.gov – [link]
      • Comments – 3.3k – [link]
    • Federal Register – [link]
    • SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) in the Federal Register , titled “Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees,” which would prohibit unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees for goods or services, specifically, misrepresenting the total costs of goods and services by omitting mandatory fees from advertised prices and misrepresenting the nature and purpose of fees. The NPRM announced the opportunity for interested parties to present their positions orally at an informal hearing. Seventeen commenters requested to participate at the informal hearing. The Commission’s Chief Presiding Officer, the Chair, has appointed an Administrative Law Judge for the Federal Trade Commission, the Honorable Jay L. Himes to serve as the presiding officer of the informal hearing.
    • DATES
      • COMMENTS must be received on or before:  January 8, 2024.
      • HEARING DATE: The informal hearing will be conducted virtually on April 24, 2024, at 10 a.m. Eastern.

Christopher Coyle

2023 1006 – Family First Life Lawsuit Witnesses – PHP Agency Recruiter Interviewing Job Applicant – Scamming New Agents!

  • 11 – Brokers vs Agents vs Producers
  • 16 – Average Monthly income after 6 months – 8-12 per month
  • 18 – David – I’m gonna bust your chops – Business Opportunity Law – The numbers you gave me are completely made up number. Multiple years in jail, damages. What you are doing for this company you is completely contrary to law.
    • The People that are running your company may end up in jail.
  • 20 – Sahid – So, you are saying that Patrick Bet-David who is worth 500 Million dollars is going to end up jail?
    • And the same … did the partnership with Integrity Marketing, a company that is worth over 20 Billion Dollars.
    • So, what you are telling me is that these companies pretty much have Shit Lawyers and Attorneys?
    • Because if that was the case the company would have then been sued.
  • David – We have good news. FFL – Christopher Coyle Lawsuit. Oklahoma.
  • Sahid – Judge – Reddit Source
  • David – Links to court case – Oklahoma
  • Sahid – How come we haven’t gotten sued? We’ve been around for 14 years.
  • FFL – Family First Life – Christopher Coyle Lawsuit
  • Sahid – Judge – Reddit Source
  • David – Links to court case – Oklahoma
  • Sahid  – How come we haven’t gotten sued? We’ve been around for 14 years.
  • David – 8-12 per month is Hooey
  • Sahid – Transparency for PHP of what everybody is making
  • David – Are you have anybody sign anything – Income Disclosure. Are they aware that 77% of people don’t make any money.
    • 2021 – PHP – Income Disclosure Statement – 1p
  • Sahid – You’ve never been in the business. So, how do you know?
  • Sahid – Nobody talks about Real Estate agents now making any money. Bamboo. Costs to get into PHP.
  • David – Do you want to change your story about income? Law
  • Sahid – Reddit Anti-MLM – 
  • David – 2021 – PHP – Income Disclosure Statement – 1p – 
  • Sahid – Then, I’m waiting for a Lawsuit on PHP. 
  • David – Are you aware of their 2022 Income Disclosure
  • Sahid – Lebron James example. Elon Musk. What would you like me to do?
  • David – Verify what I am saying for your own benefit.  
  • Sahid – So, you are saying I am liable if people don’t work? Starbuks example.
  • David – Law. Business Opportunity. 10 years in jail and civil penalties.
  • Sahid – 
  • David – Do you tell these other people..
  • Sahid – People who are putting in the work are making this money and people who don’t don’t.
  • David – Look up Christopher Coyle Lawsuit and I would get a Lawyer.
  • Sahid – Oh, PHP has plenty of them.  That’s the benefit of it.
  • David – Coffeezilla – Anti-Scammer youtuber – with PBD
  • David – This Recruiter (Sahid) has no idea about the Income Disclosure.  This interview with Sahid is evidence that people are not informed. This gentleman is scamming people. Making up numbers for people to spend a couple of hundred dollars and months of their life.

Family First Life Lawsuit Witnesses - VIDEOS

  • 2022 0608 - Family First Life Manager Whistleblows on Lead Fraud at Integrity Marketing Group - [VIDEO-YouTube-46:26]
    • Tyra from Oregon, a level 125 commission agent at FFL, Family First Life, calls our office and tells us inside-inside information that only the top-level executives at FFL and Integrity Marketing Group should be privy to.
    • Comment - bryandubon573 - 1year ago - Recording her without her consent was a lame move though. Interesting interview though.
  • 2023 1006 - Family First Life Lawsuit Witnesses - PHP Agency Recruiter Interviewing Job Applicant - Scamming New Agents!  ---  [BonkNote]  ---  [VIDEO-YouTube-34:17]
  • 2024 0224 - Family First Life Lawsuit Witnesses - Radio Interview: Legal Remedies for Victims of MLM Scammers - [Building Fortunes Radio] - [VIDEO-YouTube-01:21:47]
  • 2024 0225 - Family First Life Lawsuit Witnesses - Christopher Coyle Explains His Lawsuit Against Family First Life - [Building Fortunes Radio] - [VIDEO-YouTube-47:49]   
  • 2024 0312 - Gus Fox - Family First Life Agent Who Was Scammed Explains that Shawn Meaike is a Sociopath  - [VIDEO-YouTube-01:50:23 - <Bad Link>]
    • 8 - Jail - Shawn Meike - Elder Abuse - Churning
    • 9 - Extortion, Blackmail
    • 12 - Americo - So easy to replace later -  1 year later
    • 14 - re: Spencer Faggioni - Churning. 
    • 15 - Cultish - All in on something that no one else knows
    • 16 - Leads
    • 22 - Americo  - Jail - Gentleman's Agreement so that FFL can replace policies.
    • 25 - LeadCo - FFL Leads - Premium Leads - CRM - resold 50 times
    • 27 - Corruption
    • 29 - 
    • 44 - FFL = Fraud Machine
    • 47 - Gullible Insurance Agents
    • 49 - Interviews - Brittany the Fraudster / Jamel - Bounty Leads
    • 56 - Shawn Meike - Narcissist - Former Addict (Cocaine / Alcohol) - Pathological Liar - No Empathy - Bully - Trick and Lie to - Inability to let it go - 
    • 57 - FFL lawsuit against David Ruttstein
    • 01:00:00 - Americo
    • 01:02:00 - FFL is suing David Rutstein's daughter
    • 01:06:00 - Now focusing on IULs and Annuities - 401ks - 
    • 01:08:00 - Break his knees - Shawn Meike
    • 01:13:00 - I've made a shitload of money
    • 01:17:00 - Equis Financial Guy -> FFl won't be around too long.
    • 01:19:00 - Andrew Taylor buys all the leads - lady at LeadCo - FFL - Mortgage side - "Recycled Leads" - WordPlay - 
    • 01:31:00 - Why are you doing this? What's your motivation? - Are you in competition with FFL? Are you an IMO? No. 
    • 01:31:00 - Six Day per week Conference - Shawn Meike thought I was too honest. You don't have to rip people off. Lead Website - 
    • 01:36:00 - Jamel Bronson from Jacksonville
    • 01:40:00 - nobody is going to fire you - 
    • 01:41:00 - Pacific Life - FG&L - Mutual Insurance Company - Easier to sell big policies - Mutual of Omaha - IUL's - Dividends - Fidelity Investments 

DSSRC – Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council

  • bbbprograms.org/programs/all-programs/dssrc
    • DSSRC was established in 2019 to proactively monitor the marketplace and enforce program standards to promote truth and transparency in the growing direct-selling industry, including on social media platforms.
    • The Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council (DSSRC) provides impartial monitoring, enforcement, and dispute resolution regarding product claims or income representations (including lifestyle claims) disseminated by direct selling companies and their sales force members. This program provides a robust challenge process that also includes the opportunity for a company to appeal a decision.
    • What is your relationship with DSA?
      • The Direct Selling Association (DSA) provides funding for DSSRC. However, substantively, DSSRC operates autonomously from DSA.  

MDL-581 – LC – Baldwin-United

  • [Bonk: Contagion-?]
  • In the meantime, a movement was afoot within the life insurance industry led by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, as well as the securities brokerage industry, to put together an enhanced rehabilitation plan which would raise the crediting rate on the SPDAs from 5.5% to at least 7.5%.
    • This effort was motivated not only by a desire to salvage the reputation of SPDAs as an investment vehicle, but also to make the SPDA holders whole and thus eliminate damage claims in the many suits filed against the brokers who sold SPDAs.
    • Forty of those cases had been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and came to be known as MDL 581, (The Honorable Charles Brieant presiding); In re Baldwin-United Corporation Litigation, 581 F. Supp. 739 (J.P.M.L. 1984).
    • Any commitment to such a plan, financial or otherwise, was initially contingent upon a resolution of the dispute between the rehabilitators and the Debtors.
    • If this could not be accomplished by early 1985, the possibility of an enhancement plan was threatening to evaporate.

1987 1016 – LC – Matter of Baldwin-United Corp, (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1987) – United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D.  Oct 16, 1987 – casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c194add7b049347ba6af

⇒  CITATION CODES – 79 B.R.321, DOCKET NO. – Bankruptcy No. 1-83-02495.

Baldwin-United – Lawsuits

  • [Bonk: Contagion-?]
  • In the meantime, a movement was afoot within the life insurance industry led by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, as well as the securities brokerage industry, to put together an enhanced rehabilitation plan which would raise the crediting rate on the SPDAs from 5.5% to at least 7.5%.
    • This effort was motivated not only by a desire to salvage the reputation of SPDAs as an investment vehicle, but also to make the SPDA holders whole and thus eliminate damage claims in the many suits filed against the brokers who sold SPDAs.
    • Forty of those cases had been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and came to be known as MDL 581, (The Honorable Charles Brieant presiding); In re Baldwin-United Corporation Litigation, 581 F. Supp. 739 (J.P.M.L. 1984).
    • Any commitment to such a plan, financial or otherwise, was initially contingent upon a resolution of the dispute between the rehabilitators and the Debtors.
    • If this could not be accomplished by early 1985, the possibility of an enhancement plan was threatening to evaporate.

1987 1016 – LC – Matter of Baldwin-United Corp, (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1987) – United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D.  Oct 16, 1987 – casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c194add7b049347ba6af

⇒  CITATION CODES – 79 B.R.321, DOCKET NO. – Bankruptcy No. 1-83-02495.

  • 1980s – LC – MDL-581 – In re Baldwin-United Corp. Sec. Litig.(S.D.N.Y.)  —  [BonkNote]
  • 1984 – LC – Stoller v. Baldwin-United Corp., 41 B.R. 884, 885-86 (S.D.Ohio 1984).
  • 1985 – LC – In re Baldwin-United Corp., No. 1-83-02495 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio, July 30, 1985) 
  • 1985 – LC – Paine Webber Group, Inc. v. Baldwin-United Corp. (In re Baldwin-United Corp. Litigation), 765 F.2d 343, 348 n. 4 (2d Cir.1985
  • 1985 – LC – In re Baldwin-United Corp. (Single Premium Deferred Annuities Insurance Litigation), 607 F.Supp. 1312 (D.C.N.Y.1985).
  • 1985 – LC – Baldwin-United Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Co., Inc., No. C-1-85-1579 (S.D. Ohio filed September 25, 1985)
  • 1986 – LC – M.A. SHAPIRO v. MERRILL LYNCH CO, United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D, Date published: Feb 25, 1986, 634 F. Supp. 587 (S.D. Ohio 1986)

  • 1987 – LC – Matter of Baldwin United Corp, (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1987) – United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D. – Oct 16, 1987

William C. Scheel

  • 1979 – AP – The Effects of Risk Reduction Inherent in Universal Life Insurance, by William C. Scheel
    • 1981 – AP – The Effects of Risk Reduction Inherent in Universal Life Insurance: Comment, by Michael L. Smith, The Journal of Risk and Insurance, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Dec., 1981), pp. 674-681 (8 pages) – JSTOR
      • 2 The origin of the term and the concept is disputed. Scheel traces it (10, p, 521 to a paper presented by J.C.H. Anderson at the Seventh Pacific Insurance Conference and later published but G.R. Dinney also claims its origination [2, p. 301].
        • [Bonk: paper = 1975/1999 – SOA – The Universal Life Insurance Policy, by James C. H. Anderson, Society of Actuaries – 10p]
      • And as an historical footnote. a company known as the Universal Life probably was the first to offer guaranteed cash surrender  values [3, p. 21].
  • 1979 – AP – The Effects of Risk Reduction in Universal Life Insurance, Part II, by William C. Scheel
    • The Journal of Risk and Insurance
    • Vol. 46, No. 3 (Sep., 1979), pp. 451-482 – 32p
  • Task Force on Life Insurance Disclosure System – LIDS – NAIC  —  [BonkNote]
  • I am William C. Scheel, Associate Professor of Finance and insurance, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.
  • My remarks today are my own; they are uncompensated and may only coincidentally be views shared by anyone else.
  • Introduction
    • During my last encounter with this task force, I questioned whether the group was just playing another game of Dungeons and Dragons.
    • The Chairman assured me that; indeed, pink worms, gnomes, Merlin and ghouls were not on the Committee’s agenda and that we would soon be witnessing the claims of what has proven to be the best D&D game in town for the last decade.
    • Never in my wildest imagination did I think we would be handed by this task force the single most important regulatory proposal in life insurance and annuities — ever!
    • The Life Insurance Cost Disclosure System (LIDS) is, indeed, a crowning achievement. It breathes new life into this creaky mechanism we call state insurance regulation.
      • Some of us who have lost the faith can only humble ourselves and marvel at this reinstatement of independence and new found strength of state insurance regulation.
  • LIDS clearly heralds a re-emergence of bold initiative and is an historical turning point. In the words of a well-known celebrity: “How sweet it is.”

1981-4, NAIC Proceedings

2016 1207 – Forum 400 – Battle for the Soul of the US Life Industry – [Joseph Belth] – VIDEO

  • 2016 1207 – Forum 400 – Battle for the Soul of the US Life Industry – [Joseph Belth]  —  [BonkNote]  —  [VIDEO-YouTube-48:28]
    • Description – Sunday, January 22, 11:00 a.m. – 11:40 a.m. Speaker: Dr. Joseph Belth In this session, Dr. Belth will share his candid observations on practices in the US life industry that should cause every insurance professional to sit up and take notice.
    • For those who genuinely care about their clients, the continuation of low interest rates has accelerated practices that are detrimental to policyholders from: carriers dropping consumer friendly products, increasing the cost of insurance, spinning off US life insurers, and masking their true financial condition with financial engineering that we know as captive reinsurance.
    • Dr. Belth will engage Forum members in a no holds barred discussion. 
  • Ralph Nader of the Life Insurance Industry
  • Academic Freedom
  • Consumers Union Study
  • Alfred Kinsey
  • Insurance Forum
  • Censorship – Insurance Industry, Academics
  • Who has Clout? Who is the industry afraid of?
    • Rating Agencies, State Regulators
  • State Regulation is a historical Accident – We are stuck with it. No Uniformity, Underfunded, 
  • 8 – Executive Life – Did the Ratings Agencies miss the boat?
  • 11 – Long-Term Care – I fear the worst
    • 12 – Insolvencies – Guaranty Fund
    • 200 companies reduced to 12
    • Premium Increases, Actuaries, Assumptions
    • Combining Long-term Care Insurance and Life Insurance.
  • 15 – Fixed Income Annuities
    • I don’t understand adequately
  • 16 – DOL – Department of Labor Fiduciary Rule
  • 17 – Transferring blocks of business
    • I’ve been fighting that war for 25 years. No policyholder consent.
      • [Bonk: 198x – GOV – ]
  • 19 – Company sold, Private Equity – I’m troubled by that. Long-term view vs Short-term view. Rating Agencies hamstrung.
  • 21 – Glass-Steagall Act – 
  • 22 – Mutual Companies Advertising – Dividends, Interest rates, Dividend Rates
    • Is that misleading? – 7%
    • Expense component – Companies won’t tell that
  • 23 – Solomon Huebner – American College, 
  • 24 – Teaching vs Researching – Greatest Interest was research
  • 25 – Companies hiding the ball. How the questions were answered, if they were answered at all. Running around the main issues. Tried to get to the bottom of it. Never discouraged, kept my adrenaline going. 
  • 27 – Surprised? – Low interest rates, 
  • 28 – Companies that don’t exist anymore.
    • Connecticut Mutual, 
    • Connecticut Mutual – Practically destroyed by the Tontine (Gimmick)
  • 29 – Does the Industry have a heart?
  • 30 – Ethical Company vs Ethical people in the company – Long-term of 
  • 30 – New York Cost of Insurance Premium Increases of Universal Life Policies.
    • Price of Protection – [Bonk: SIV/CIV]
  • 33 – AL Williams / Primerica
    • North Carolina Department of Insurance Banned Insurance Forum Issue
    • Belth – We sued the North Carolina Department of Insurance
  • 35 – King for a Day – What would you do if you were an Insurance Regulator
  • 36 – Variable Life – Investing vehicle vs Insurance – 
  • Life Insurance vs Annuities
  • 37 – Agents / Advice / Unbiased Advice / High-Level – Controversy / Fiduciary Standard vs Suitability Standard of Care – Clients Interest First
  • 39 – Commissions – I see nothing wrong with commissions, except when…
    • Companies are to some degree responsible for this.
    • Ad – It happened to be about annuities, but the same principle applies.
      • Single Premium Deferred Annuity – differences
        • Higher Surrender Charges and Higher Commissions
      • Companies are driving that.
  • 42 – New Agents
  • 43 – Domestic Insurance companies being purchased by International Insurance companies
  • 43 – Equitable / AXA – Demutualized
    • New York
  • 44 – Stock vs Mutual Companies