‘As Seen On TV’ Products Company Allegedly Uses Deceptive Upsell Scheme

A class action lawsuit filed in federal court in California accuses Ontel Products Corporation of using a bait-and-switch scheme to upsell consumers purchasing the company’s “as seen on TV” products.

Lead plaintiff Paul Martin says Ontel offers its products at a low price, then “tricks” consumers into paying for more units or add-on features they had not intended to purchase.

Ontel sells the majority of its “as seen on tv” products, such as Micro Mechanic, Huggle Hoodie and Turbo Scrub 360, through direct-to-consumer e-commerce websites, according to the class action lawsuit.

“Defendant executes this bait and switch scheme by way of subtle, hidden, confusing, deceptive, and misleading features woven throughout the ordering process on its ecommerce websites,” the class action lawsuit says. “This massive marketing con comprises a substantial portion of Defendant’s enormous revenues.”

The plaintiff alleges Ontel uses “ambiguous and confusing language” to describe its promotional offers, which leads consumers to order more products than they had intended.

Ontel also fails to provide an opportunity for consumers to edit or confirm their order to ensure accuracy, the plaintiff alleges. The company captures billing information early in the order process and “fails to advise consumers that Defendant will process their order before providing them with order details.”

Rather than directing consumers to a page detailing their order, Martin says the site redirects them to another page with advertising and promotions for another product. Consumers have to navigate through several pages, all of which contain various promotions, in order to get to an order confirmation page that states, “Thank you. Your order is complete.”

This confirmation page does not give the consumer the opportunity to edit or cancel the order, nor does it display a phone number consumers can to call to edit or cancel. 

“If a consumer does not click through every single promotional offer, they never see the confirmation page and would reasonably believe they never placed their order,” the class action lawsuit says. “This is problematic because Defendant has already collected the consumer’s financial information and processed the sale.”

Furthermore, Ontel includes upsell offers in the sale, but fails to clearly inform consumers of the total cost before they are expected to accept the offer.

Because of this upsell technique, consumers allegedly pay more than they were expecting for Ontel’s products.

When a consumer has purchased a product, an option is preselected that says, “Yes! I’d like to DOUBLE my offer for just an additional $19.99,” the class action lawsuit says. Because the offer is preselected, consumers are then charged the extra $19.99 plus shipping for products they didn’t intend to buy.

For example, Martin says he fell victim to this “double offer” upsell scheme and was charged an extra $19.99 for products he didn’t want.

Martin claims he didn’t notice the overcharges until he had made his purchase and his bank account was debited for the order.

The defendant also allegedly fails to state the quantity of the items ordered and charges “online shipping insurance” without obtaining consumers’ consent and without disclosing the terms and conditions.

In addition to the upsell allegations, the plaintiff says Ontel advertises a “60 Day Money Back Guarantee,” but fails to tell consumers their processing, shipping and handling charges are not included in that refund.

Martin maintains Ontel’s false advertising practices violate California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Business and Professions Code.

The proposed Class includes anyone who purchased the relevant products via Ontel’s direct-to-consumer website or telephone ordering system in the U.S. “or, alternatively, the State of California, for personal use and not for resale during the” four years before the filing of the class action lawsuit.

The plaintiff demands a jury trial and asks the Court to order Ontel to stop advertising and selling products in an unfair and unlawful manner; to award damages in an amount to be determined at trial, pre- and post-judgement interest, restitution and/or disgorgement, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and any further relief deemed appropriate.

Have you purchased an “as seen on TV” product? Did the company try to upsell you when placing the order? Tell us about it in the comments below.

The plaintiff is represented by Ryan J. Clarkson, Matthew T. Theriault and Zach Chrzan of Clarkson Law Firm.

The “As Seen On TV” Upsell Class Action Lawsuit is Paul Martin, et al. v. Ontel Products Corp., Case No. 2:20-cv-08158-DSF-PVC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

Trump Administration Diverts Money from Major 9/11 Health Program

Diversity Visa Lottery Winners Don’t Have to Quarantine Out of Country, Judge Says

Is There a Lemon Law for Used Cars in New Jersey?

Are Juul Pods Safe If You Have a History of Seizures?