• Report: #91863
Complaint Review:

Alyon

  • Submitted: Mon, May 17, 2004
  • Updated: Sat, July 09, 2005

  • Reported By:Tempe Arizona
Alyon
One Harmon Plaza Secacus, New Jersey U.S.A.

Alyon claims they resolve complaints; realized there were issues, implemented new policies that would prevent unauthorized billings to people's telephone bills Secacus New Jersey ..and ALYON'S RESPONSE TO REPORTS *UPDATE!! ..FTC punishes porn dialler firm ...I commend Rip-off Report; their persistence with the authorities, none of this would have happened today.

*Consumer Comment: FTC punishes porn dialler firm ...I commend Rip-off Report; their persistence with the authorities, none of this would have happened today.

*Consumer Comment: Alyon or "a-lyin" too bad a public forum is under attack from a company that was caught doing something shady

*Consumer Comment: ED - how disappointing

*Consumer Comment: Alyon Technologies fraudulent company. FTC should be investigated for letting this happen.

*REBUTTAL Individual responds: I will not pay my bill

*Consumer Comment: What erks me is that Alyon is announcing all over the internet that they have been "vindicated" by the ruling ..The FTC should be investigated for dropping this!

*Consumer Comment: What erks me is that Alyon is announcing all over the internet that they have been "vindicated" by the ruling ..The FTC should be investigated for dropping this!

*Consumer Comment: What erks me is that Alyon is announcing all over the internet that they have been "vindicated" by the ruling ..The FTC should be investigated for dropping this!

*Consumer Comment: What erks me is that Alyon is announcing all over the internet that they have been "vindicated" by the ruling ..The FTC should be investigated for dropping this!

*Consumer Comment: I stand corrected and offer my profuse apologies to ED

*Consumer Comment: FTC Settles Charges in Billing Scheme - agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges Stephane Touboul settled FTC charges $17 million in consumer complaints

REBUTTAL BOX™ | Respond to this Report! | Consumer Comment

What's this?
Corporate Advocacy Program

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

Set the record straight:
Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!


ALYON'S RESPONSE TO THE MANY REPORTS
Dear Consumers:

Due to the large number of reports posted on the Rip-Off Report about Alyon Technologies since December 2002, Rip-off Report and Alyon Technologies have worked together to investigate and address the recurrent issues reported in your complaints. To read Rip-off Report's Editor's Comment, click here.

The dialer software used by Alyon does not connect automatically to Alyon's gateway without user's consent
 Alyon's verification method

Alyon's procedure to refund consumers who were billed due to a connection initiated by a minor in their household, prior to June 2003

The FTC case against Alyon and the cases brought by the States
 The July 10, 2003 Order
 The October 17, 2003 Order

THE DIALER SOFTWARE USED BY ALYON DOES NOT CONNECT AUTOMATICALLY TO ALYON'S GATEWAY WITHOUT USER'S CONSENT

A number of Rip-off Report posters were offended and upset after receiving invoices for connecting to Alyon's gateway and by what they erroneously believed to be Alyon's billing practices. They chose the Rip-Off Report to express their concerns. Many rip-off reports claim that consumers have been connected to Alyon without their knowledge or consent. Some consumers complained that they received bills from Alyon for connecting when they were not at home, or complained that they do not have a computer.

There is no basis to support assertions that the dialer used by Alyon breaks down firewalls or perniciously causes a modem to self-activate and dial Alyon's gateway.

The only way to connect to Alyon's gateway is by clicking on a button to accept the terms and conditions which are displayed above the button. Also the user has to enter correctly the last four digits of his or her social security number. The terms and conditions displayed on the screen above the button state that, by clicking the button, one will be charged US$4.99/per minute. Once the connection is authorized and established the system tracks the length of the call, verifies the identity of the telephone line subscriber, and sends the bill to the subscriber of the telephone line used to establish modem connection.

ALYON'S VERIFICATION METHOD

Alyon's system verifies the identity of the user by matching it with reverse telephone number directories. Since June 2003, Alyon added an extra verification step to reduce the possibility of error in reverse matching the phone number to the phone line subscriber. It now requires the user to enter the last four digits of the user's social security number. What this does is that if the social security number information is not provided or does not match the last four digits of the phone line subscriber's social security number, the call is disconnected and no bill is issued. This extra step was approved by the Court (July 10 Order, p. 4).
40b79265a2e8608b6ab204" target="nw"> Click here to see the July 10 Order.

Alyon does not issue bills unless Alyon's gateway receives a computer modem call from the address to which the bill is issued. Alyon's gateway is set up to connect only calls that are placed by computer (through a modem). Alyon's server does not recognize or process calls placed from somebody's telephone number without a computer and without a modem; it simply drops the call, does not connect and so there is no CDR ("Call Details Record") recorded and therefore no bill can be issued).

ALYON'S PROCEDURE TO REFUND CONSUMERS WHO WERE BILLED DUE TO A CONNECTION INITIATED BY A MINOR IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD, PRIOR TO JUNE 2003

For charges incurred before the June 2003 implementation of the social security number verification step, parents who complained that Alyon billed them for charges made by their minor children had a procedure to obtain cancellation of their bill or a refund from Alyon. Alyon adopted this procedure in voluntary compliance with parameters for dispute resolution that were made part of a consent order submitted by Alyon to the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The consent order was entered by the Court on July 10, 2003. The procedure approved by the Court required that the child's parent(s) submit to Alyon a Minor Access Affidavit. The time set by the Court to use this procedure has now expired (the initial 90 days term was extended by Court for an additional 90 days term until January 20, 2004.

THE FTC CASE AGAINST ALYON AND THE CASES BROUGHT BY THE STATES

Several reports posted on the Rip-Off Report stated that due to the charges brought against Alyon by the FTC, on July 10, 2003 the Federal Court for the Northern District of Georgia issued an order prohibiting Alyon from billing, collecting or attempting to collect bills from its customers.

This is incorrect. The July 10 Order denied the FTC request for such order (so called "preliminary injunction") and denied it again on reconsideration on October 17, 2003. The Federal judge who issued the July 10 Order, Judge Richard W. Story, issued a later Order on October 17, 2003 expressly clarifying his decision. Judge Story stated:
"(T)he FTC argues that the July 10 Order should have stopped Defendants [Alyon] from billing, collecting, or attempting to collect from consumers for services provided prior to the time Defendants [Alyon] implemented their new practices and procedures under the AVC. Indeed, the Order did not prohibit Defendants [Alyon] from billing, collecting, or attempting to collect from past consumers. Instead, the Order set forth the parameters under which Defendants [Alyon] may continue to conduct these activities by use of the dispute resolution mechanism defendants had already implemented." (October 17 Order, p. 7). 2e8608b6ab204
" target="nw"> Click here to view the October 17 Order.

[A]lthough the Order entered July 10, 2003 (the July 10 Order) made the AVC's [Assurance of Voluntary Compliance] provisions enforceable against Defendants [Alyon], it was never based on a finding that Defendants [Alyon] were violating the law and was entered only with Defendants' [Alyon] consent (October 17 Order, p. 3). 2e8608b6ab204
" target="nw"> Click here to view the October 17 Order.


Judge Story denied the FTC's request that the Court reconsider its July 10 decision and issue a preliminary injunction because he considered the evidence presented by Alyon and the procedures of the AVC (which Alyon had already in place since June 2003) sufficient to protect consumers and let Alyon continue do business during the pendency of the case. Judge Story said:

"Based on Defendants' [Alyon] representations to this Court and the evidence presented, the Court concluded that Defendants' [Alyon] voluntary implementation of the practices and procedures set forth in the AVC met the standards for denying a motion for preliminary injunction as moot. FTC has therefore failed to meet the standards for a motion for reconsideration on this issue" (October 17 Order, p. 5). 2e8608b6ab204
" target="nw"> Click here to view the October 17 Order.


Since spring 2003, Alyon has been the target of several lawsuits at the Federal and State level. These cases parallel many of the unfounded and unsubstantiated statements discussed above, which were posted by consumers on the Rip-Off Report.

In May 2003, the FTC sought a Preliminary Injunction against Alyon in Federal Court in Georgia, alleging that Alyon's billing practices are deceptive and (censored) and that the Alyon billing method incorporates the use of a pernicious dialer.

In June 2003, at the Preliminary Injunction hearing Judge Richard W. Story denied the FTC Preliminary Injunction and accepted Alyon's offer to voluntarily submit to a consent order, which would make enforceable certain practices and procedures and a Consumer Dispute Resolution Mechanism, under the Court's supervision, so that Alyon could continue to conduct business.

On July 10, 2003, Judge Story entered the consent Order. 40b79265a2e8608b6ab204" target="nw"> Click here to see the July 10 Order.

On October 17, 2003, Judge Story issued a second Order denying the FTC request for reconsideration and confirming the July 10 Order. 2e8608b6ab204
" target="nw"> Click here to view the October 17 Order.


Alyon feels that consumers have abused both its services and the services of the Rip-Off Report and wasted public resources by engaging public authorities and the U.S. Courts in an unnecessary exercise just to avoid personal accountability for paying their bills. The FTC case and the cases brought against Alyon by the individual States are still pending. However, Alyon has not been found responsible for any wrong doing and no judgment issued against it. There are no findings of Alyon's using Trojan horse viruses, there are no pernicious or phantom dialers and there are no (censored) . The litigation process and the pendency of litigation have caused and continues to cause Alyon millions of dollars in legal fees, damages and losses. Solely as a necessary effort to contain damages and losses, Alyon is now considering settlement with several of the individual States.

Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on Alyon Technologies

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 05/17/2004 10:18 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/alyon/secacus-new-jersey-07094/alyon-claims-they-resolve-complaints-realized-there-were-issues-implemented-new-policies-91863. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Alyon

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 10Consumer 1Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment

FTC punishes porn dialler firm ...I commend Rip-off Report; their persistence with the authorities, none of this would have happened today.

AUTHOR: JC Walker - (U.S.A.)

First I want to say to the comment above. Your remarks about Rip-off Report, they are way off base. Did you know Mr Down-under Wally from Caloundra, Australia our Australian friend, that Rip-off Report was the victim here. Court records in The West Indies, New Jersey and in Arizona show that Rip-off Report must have endured hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Protecting us. I was one of thousands who received a letter in the snail mail, an e-mail and even got a phone call to verify that I filed a Rip-off Report, that I was real!, probably having to comply with some agreement with Alyon to get them off their back! If the Rip-off Report had to bend to get rid of this thieving monkey off their back, so be it. You need to read more of the Rip-off Reports about this. You are very misguided with your comments above. And, I commend Rip-off Report for posting them and protecting our rights and NOT giving out our information to Alyon so they can sue the victims like Alyon did with others. If it were not for Rip-off Report with almost 2,000 Reports filed, and their persistence with the authorities, none of this would have happened today. I know this for a fact from Federal Agencies who credit Rip-off Report.

==================



FTC punishes porn dialler firm ...



By John Leyden



Published Wednesday 8th December 2004 13:42 GMT

A US adult content payment processing firm has agreed to tear up disputed bills of $17m to settle Federal Trade Commission charges. Alyon Technologies has agreed not to pursue an estimated 200,000 consumers for their supposed use of adult videotext services.



Another $22m in bills may be forgiven if consumers challenge their charges. According to the FTC, Alyon downloaded a modem-dialling program onto user's computers that changed redirected dial-up into Alyon's network, charging them $4.99 per minute in exchange for access to pornographic content.



The FTC alleged that many consumers never visited the defendants' sites at all, and were charged due to billing service errors, of which the defendant was aware. Alyon also allegedly failed to get the informed content of its "customers" before installing its porn dialler software.



In May 2003, the FTC charged Alyon and its principal, Stephane Touboul, with illegally billing and collecting for videotext services. These charges were dropped this week after Alyon promised not to chase disputed bills predating June 2003. Alyon also pledged to clean up its business practices.



Widespread consumer complaints against Alyon resulted in charges against it in 16 US states. Alyon's Touboul told Reuters it expects to settle all 13 outstanding actions within a month.



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/08/alyon/
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

Alyon or "a-lyin" too bad a public forum is under attack from a company that was caught doing something shady

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

I'm sorry to see on the Internet that Rip-off Report is now to object of a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit to stop public participation) to the tune of $10,000,000. It's too bad that this technique is used by some to quiet those that dare question their questionable practices.



As far as Alyon's response, I have a few things to say about it.



>ALYON'S RESPONSE TO REPORTS

>Dear Consumers:



>Due to the large number of reports posted on the Rip-Off Report about Alyon Technologies since December 2002, Rip-off Report and Alyon Technologies have worked together to investigate and address the recurrent issues reported in your complaints. To read Rip-off Report's Editor's Comment, click here.



To the tune of $10,000,000 according to some websites.



> The dialer software used by Alyon does not >connect automatically to Alyon's gateway >without user's consent



In spring of 2003 this was not true. My son went to a game website and downloaded a "program" that was supposed to speed up games on his computer. It never really worked, so he deleted it. After that, porno popups started appearing on his computer, sometimes so fast that when you clicked "X" on one, three more would show up. After approximately four weeks we got a bill from Alyon Technologies for $160.78 for a visit to a porno website for 31 minutes. Nobody clicked on a d**n thing authorizing any connection to a porno website. Even if he did (which he didn't) he was a minor and still is.



> Alyon's verification method



> Alyon's procedure to refund consumers who were billed due to a connection initiated by a minor in their household, prior to June 2003



In my opinion, Alyon were caught red-handed and had to offer refunds or it wouldn't look good in federal court. Can you say "FCC"? I knew that you could.



> The FTC case against Alyon and the cases brought by the States

 The July 10, 2003 Order

 The October 17, 2003 Order



>THE DIALER SOFTWARE USED BY ALYON DOES NOT CONNECT AUTOMATICALLY TO ALYON'S GATEWAY WITHOUT USER'S CONSENT



Maybe after June 2003 but before it didn't. Not in our case. Check out IEaccess, minidialer, and eGroup fold information on the 'net. My son's computer had them with some other garbage. I removed them manually (according to instructions on several websites) and, to be sure, used a virus/trojan horse program to remove any remains. I also downloaded the service pack from Microsoft to "patch up" Internet Explorer.



My advice, do the same. Also get a spyware program and a good, up to date antivirus program and firewall. Make your computer invisible to the Internet. Most importantly, if you can, block game, music and freeware websites unless you are ABSOLUTELY SURE they are "clean". It's amazing to see a program like Zone Alert report "programs" trying to access the Internet without your knowledge. BTW, Cable and DSL connections are NOT immune to this nonsense.



>A number of Rip-off Report posters were offended and upset after receiving invoices for connecting to Alyon's gateway and by what they erroneously believed to be Alyon's billing practices. They chose the Rip-Off Report to express their concerns.



Sure. After repeated attempts to contact the company failed. I tried email (no response), landline (nobody answered) and regular mail (no response except more bills). It wasn't until after I contacted the FTC, FBI, FCC and other agencies and mailed Alyon (return receipt requested) letters of complaint with cc: FTC, FBI, FCC did I get a response. And that was after July 10!



> Many rip-off reports claim that consumers have been connected to Alyon without their knowledge or consent. Some consumers complained that they received bills from Alyon for connecting when they were not at home, or complained that they do not have a computer.



Yep. It happened to my son.



>There is no basis to support assertions that the dialer used by Alyon breaks down firewalls or perniciously causes a modem to self-activate and dial Alyon's gateway.



Wrong. Check the internet. There are many sites that deal with security that mention the exact software that appeared on people's computers. It did on my son's computer. Are they calling me a liar?



>The only way to connect to Alyon's gateway is by clicking on a button to accept the terms and conditions which are displayed above the button. Also the user has to enter correctly the last four digits of his or her social security number. The terms and conditions displayed on the screen above the button state that, by clicking the button, one will be charged US$4.99/per minute. Once the connection is authorized and established the system tracks the length of the call, verifies the identity of the telephone line subscriber, and sends the bill to the subscriber of the telephone line used to establish modem connection.



Maybe now....but not pre-court order. No verification at all. In fact, they cannot prove who made the call, just the number. Nothing more than a fancy caller-ID. So a program can call and nobody would know until the bill arrives.



>ALYON'S VERIFICATION METHOD



>Alyon's system verifies the identity of the user by matching it with reverse telephone number directories. Since June 2003, Alyon added an extra verification step to reduce the possibility of error in reverse matching the phone number to the phone line subscriber.



They did that prior to June 2003. They added an "extra" step to satisfy the AVC.



>It now requires the user to enter the last four digits of the user's social security number. What this does is that if the social security number information is not provided or does not match the last four digits of the phone line subscriber's social security number, the call is disconnected and no bill is issued. This extra step was approved by the Court (July 10 Order, p. 4).



First, I would not give ANY part of my social security number out over the Internet, especially to Alyon Technologies. Second, Alyon can get the subscriber's last four digit from the phone company? They shouldn't be allowed to do that.



>Click here to see the July 10 Order.



I have a copy. It says Alyon can't collect unless they have a way of verifying. Unfortunately, pre-July 10, we could be out of luck.



>Alyon does not issue bills unless Alyon's gateway receives a computer modem call from the address to which the bill is issued. Alyon's gateway is set up to connect only calls that are placed by computer (through a modem).



So you admit it! Placed "BY A COMPUTER (THROUGH A MODEM)." Alyon's words. Never said that a person initiates it. That's why the Trojan horse. Alyon had no way to tell who or what placed the call. PROVE A PERSON TYPED IN THE NUMBER! GO AHEAD.



>Alyon's server does not recognize or process calls placed from somebody's telephone number without a computer and without a modem; it simply drops the call, does not connect and so there is no CDR ("Call Details Record") recorded and therefore no bill can be issued).



>ALYON'S PROCEDURE TO REFUND CONSUMERS WHO WERE BILLED DUE TO A CONNECTION INITIATED BY A MINOR IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD, PRIOR TO JUNE 2003



>For charges incurred before the June 2003 implementation of the social security number verification step, parents who complained that Alyon billed them for charges made by their minor children had a procedure to obtain cancellation of their bill or a refund from Alyon. Alyon adopted this procedure in voluntary compliance with parameters for dispute resolution that were made part of a consent order submitted by Alyon to the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The consent order was entered by the Court on July 10, 2003. The procedure approved by the Court required that the child's parent(s) submit to Alyon a Minor Access Affidavit. The time set by the Court to use this procedure has now expired (the initial 90 days term was extended by Court for an additional 90 days term until January 20, 2004.



Implimented after the July 10th court order. Part of the AVC I bet. Received mine 8/29. I did that....to five addresses, return receipt requested on 9/6. It would have been nice if Alyon sent a little note that the bill was cancelled. Or are they waiting until the heat dies down and then start billing again?



>THE FTC CASE AGAINST ALYON AND THE CASES BROUGHT BY THE STATES



>Several reports posted on the Rip-Off Report stated that due to the charges brought against Alyon by the FTC, on July 10, 2003 the Federal Court for the Northern District of Georgia issued an order prohibiting Alyon from billing, collecting or attempting to collect bills from its customers.

>This is incorrect. The July 10 Order denied the FTC request for such order (so called "preliminary injunction") and denied it again on reconsideration on October 17, 2003. The Federal judge who issued the July 10 Order, Judge Richard W. Story, issued a later Order on October 17, 2003 expressly clarifying his decision. Judge Story stated:

"(T)he FTC argues that the July 10 Order should have stopped Defendants [Alyon] from billing, collecting, or attempting to collect from consumers for services provided prior to the time Defendants [Alyon] implemented their new practices and procedures under the AVC. Indeed, the Order did not prohibit Defendants [Alyon] from billing, collecting, or attempting to collect from past consumers. Instead, the Order set forth the parameters under which Defendants [Alyon] may continue to conduct these activities by use of the dispute resolution mechanism defendants had already implemented." (October 17 Order, p. 7). Click here to view the October 17 Order.

[A]lthough the Order entered July 10, 2003 (the July 10 Order) made the AVC's [Assurance of Voluntary Compliance] provisions enforceable against Defendants [Alyon], it was never based on a finding that Defendants [Alyon] were violating the law and was entered only with Defendants' [Alyon] consent (October 17 Order, p. 3). Click here to view the October 17 Order.



It was listed on a lot more websites than just Rip-off Report. The release I have says, "Under an Order issued by U. S. District Court Judge R. W. Story in the Northern District of Georgia, dxefendents Alyon Technologies, Inc., Telcollect, Inc., and Stephane Toulboul are prohibited from billing, collecting, or attempting to collect payment from consumers WITHOUT FULLY DISCLOSING THE MATERIAL TERMS OF THE SALE TO THE CONSUMER, OR SOMEONE AUTHORIZED TO ACT TO INCUR THE CHARGES AND ALSO VERIFYING THAT THE PERSON RECEIVING THE SERVICES WAS AUTHORIZED TO INCUR THE CHARGES. (Emphasis is mine) In my case they did not. But since it really applied after the court order of July 10th, anyone who incurred a charge before the court order could still be billed.



Alyon was not "vindicated". Voluntary Complaince is usually the first step in a long procedure. If they don't comply, things get tougher for them. They go back to court and have to explain why they didn't comply. They could then be fined. I've seen this many times in watching legal dealings with federal agencies. The courts cut them some slack. But the AVC is a way of saying, "Hey, we see you doing something wrong. You have a chance to fix it before we do." Sorry, Alyon was not "vidicated", just giving a chance to get out of their mess.





>Judge Story denied the FTC's request that the Court reconsider its July 10 decision and issue a preliminary injunction because he considered the evidence presented by Alyon and the procedures of the AVC (which Alyon had already in place since June 2003) sufficient to protect consumers and let Alyon continue do business during the pendency of the case. Judge Story said:

>"Based on Defendants' [Alyon] representations to this Court and the evidence presented, the Court concluded that Defendants' [Alyon] voluntary implementation of the practices and procedures set forth in the AVC met the standards for denying a motion for preliminary injunction as moot. FTC has therefore failed to meet the standards for a motion for reconsideration on this issue" (October 17 Order, p. 5). Click here to view the October 17 Order.



In other words, they "fixed" the problem so they can continue doing business.



>Since spring 2003, Alyon has been the target of several lawsuits at the Federal and State level. These cases parallel many of the unfounded and unsubstantiated statements discussed above, which were posted by consumers on the Rip-Off Report.



That a human told the computer to dial the porno website is ALSO UNFOUNDED. All ALyon had was a call coming in, not who made the call. Of course they parallel the cases, they probably all had the same d**n Trojan horse.



>In May 2003, the FTC sought a Preliminary Injunction against Alyon in Federal Court in Georgia, alleging that Alyon's billing practices are deceptive and (censored) and that the Alyon billing method incorporates the use of a pernicious dialer.



Gee, what was censored? Guess what? It did use a dialer.



>In June 2003, at the Preliminary Injunction hearing Judge Richard W. Story denied the FTC Preliminary Injunction and accepted Alyon's offer to voluntarily submit to a consent order, which would make enforceable certain practices and procedures and a Consumer Dispute Resolution Mechanism, under the Court's supervision, so that Alyon could continue to conduct business.



Hooray that Alyon had to follow the AVC. At least that's something.



>On July 10, 2003, Judge Story entered the consent Order. Click here to see the July 10 Order.



>On October 17, 2003, Judge Story issued a second Order denying the FTC request for reconsideration and confirming the July 10 Order. Click here to view the October 17 Order.



>Alyon feels that consumers have abused both its services and the services of the Rip-Off Report and wasted public resources by engaging public authorities and the U.S. Courts in an unnecessary exercise just to avoid personal accountability for paying their bills. The FTC case and the cases brought against Alyon by the individual States are still pending. However, Alyon has not been found responsible for any wrong doing and no judgment issued against it.



I abused them? Hmmm.....they claim our "connection" was on 2/3, they generated the bill on 2/6 with a due date of 2/19 then mailed it (and when did they mail it?)and we received it on 3/2, after the due date. Repeated attempts to contact Alyon with no response but bills an a letter from a collection agency. Who's doing what to who?



My son didn't do a darn thing. He never saw a porno website. IF they delievered a "Service", we never received it (not that we wanted it). Who's doing what to who?



Can I say, "the check is in the mail". "You didn't get it?" "Well, I sent it. Your problem." Yeah, right. I felt there was an attempt to rip me off, so I contacted the authorities. Alyon would do the same.



Alyon had to comply with a voluntary action to fix their "billing problems" or else they would get hauled back into court and face stiff penalties ("the judgement"). That means there WAS something shady going on.



>There are no findings of Alyon's using Trojan horse viruses, there are no pernicious or phantom dialers and there are no (censored).



As far as the Trojan horse issue, it would have to be proven that they bought the program and "planted" it on websites. A very difficult thing to do, and THEY KNOW IT. Mr. Toulboul is (I believe) French, the Trojan horse was written in France...interesting "coincidence".



>The litigation process and the pendency of litigation have caused and continues to cause Alyon millions of dollars in legal fees, damages and losses.



Probably just cut into Alyon's profit margin. It's company of fewer than 12 people. From the advertising on the 'net, Alyon seems to be expanding their business and offering to teach/help others how to use the Internet to make "sales" for a profit. In my opinion, Alyon seems to be doing quite well.



>Solely as a necessary effort to contain damages and losses, Alyon is now considering settlement with several of the individual States.



But some states have gone further than the FTC and required Alyon to make refunds. In those states, Alyon lost. Check the 'net.



In my case,

Fact: My son accidentally downloaded a Trojan horse from a game website. The Trojan horse is well documented on the Internet. It activated and called up the porno website for 31 minutes without anyone authorizing it or knowing about it. The only sign of anything was a flood of porno popups. I found it and squashed it. This was his computer, NOT MINE, so I wasn't looking for porn like some allegations. During that year, I would go on my computer after 11 PM. He would be on after school, often with me in the immediate vicinity so I could monitor his activities. No porno website ever showed on his screen, just popups. At that time, he thought porn was "yucky" and he just about cried when the popups showed up on the screen. He thought he was going to get in big trouble.



Fact: Alyon says there were no "Trojan horses..."

Then how come many people have found them on their computers. The same ones. Documented on the Internet. A lie?



Fact: Didn't know anything about Alyon until we got a bill after the due date. After I emailed Alyon I got a flood of porno spam emails (which may or may not be related but I did email Alyon from MY email address on MY computer).



Fact: They did not respond to my email or regular mail until after the July 10th court order. They never picked up the phone when I called. Their website offered no help, just a list of your "account". They claim to respond to consumers. Another lie?



Fact: I did finally receive a "Minor Access

Affidavit" on 8/29 which I mailed in 9/6 and I haven't heard a d**n thing from Alyon since! Is the bill cancelled? A lie of omission?



Fact: In one letter, Alyon claimed to have tried to contact me on "numerous times" but there was no FAX, message on the answering machine or list on the caller-ID (unless they have it blocked). Nothing but bills. Another lie?



Fact: In spite of what Alyon says, the FTC release of 7/16 does not say they can't collect, only if they don't follow certain proceedures.

Another lie?



We were victims of Alyon, but we were luckier than most. We didn't pay. Unfortunately, both my children were afraid to get on the Internet for weeks. Too bad this whole situation had this effect. I blame Alyon.



It's too bad a public forum is under attack from a company that was caught doing something shady. Rip-off Report does do a valuable service to the public. There was a lot of good information about how to fight this nonsense and it's also good to realize that you are not alone. It seems free speech is under attack also. I guess some don't like the light of truth and open discussion.



Alyon...we are watching you.



The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent, or are in no way encouraged by this or any other website. Same goes for my spelling mistakes, grammar errors and typos.

So there.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Comment

ED - how disappointing

AUTHOR: Wally - (Australia)

I have been an avid fan of this site for some time. I have admired the way ripoffreport.com has not ceded an inch to any business or individual reported. Now I read this report from ED and I hang my head in disappointment. It seems that Alyon has become ED's best buddy and they are going to live happily ever after. I guess we are witnessing the beginning of the end of a wonderful service. Having now set this precedent it is encumbant on ED to print retractions about any and all businesses/people that have been reported if he is to be seen to be fair. Your bottom feeding car dealers must be rubbing their hands with glee in eager anticipation of having this site as their best friend and promoter. Thank you ED for fighting the good fight for so long and commiserations for what has transpired on this momentous of days. A dialler is a dialler is a dialler and a ripoff is a ripoff is a ripoff!

RIP the consumers advocate.

Good luck to all from Australia
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Consumer Comment

Alyon Technologies fraudulent company. FTC should be investigated for letting this happen.

AUTHOR: Lupe - (U.S.A.)

I just want to thank Robert-Plainfield NJ for his

honest response on how Alyon Technology terrorized so many consumers. What it is amazing that they would even insinuate that there was no trojan horse involved in this situation and that a large majority of the reports that were filed by consumers that were victimized were false complaints. That is totally absurd and untrue to even suggest such a thing. There was a trojan horse involved on all of this and it did self-installed without the authorization of the consumer. Believe me, I lived through through it.

I was one of those consumers that became victim to such an unscrupulous company. In my opinion and thank god for freedom of speech, each and everyone of those reports are legit from legit consumers that became victims of such a predatory company. I on the other hand when I received such a fraudulent bill for hundreds of dollars, I attempted to contact the company, when that did not worked, then i filed reports with as many depts that handle fraud incidents as well as my attorney general. I am surprised that such a company has not been shut down and put out of business by our government which is supposed to protect the interest of the people of this country against predators like Alyon Technology.



I am going to quote the words of Robert-Plainfield NJ, as far as my spelling mistakes, grammar error or typos-it is freedom of speech it should not be a matter of importance to anyone but me. That is not what it is important. What it is important is that thousands of consumers have been victimized by a company that does not care for the consumers interest.



Everyone is entitle to express their opinions as best as they can. So what if they made mistakes on spelling,grammar errors or typos. The main issue is trying to help as many consumers that have become victims of Alyon Technologies. Furthermore I hope that our government officials that sit in the white house, take noticed and finally puts an end to this fraudulent company. FTC should be investigated for letting this happen.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 REBUTTAL Individual responds

I will not pay my bill

AUTHOR: Theresa - (U.S.A.)

I have asked to have you send me a bill atleast

a thousand times, I want a copy of all of my

records, sent to my home ...



I have a letter stating no one in our house was

on the computer the time you said we were on.

I have that letter from aol....



Please stop calling my house for money..

I will not pay the bill. I did not use your

service..



Thank you Theresa Polansky
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 Consumer Comment

What erks me is that Alyon is announcing all over the internet that they have been "vindicated" by the ruling ..The FTC should be investigated for dropping this!

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

Thank you Lupe! The way this list went quiet shows how a handful of people can intimidate many...or that their shady practices have stopped.



What erks me is that Alyon is announcing all over the internet that they have been "vindicated" by the ruling and are actually trying to sell to others how to make money on the internet. They got caught, corrected their practices (I hope) before they got fined and maybe will fade away. To keep things in perspective, Alyon compared to most companies, is something that most companies would scrape off of their shoe.



As far as the "typo" thing, it was more of a joke. I'm notorious for lousy typing, between that and dyslexia, I surprised I make any sense at all! (Another joke.)



As long as we have freedom of speech, the "bad guys" will be on the run. Even when SLAPPed, we should not stop. If handled in a professional manner (no "personal" attacks or outrageous accusations) their "suits" can't do a thing. I was a lucky one, I didn't send them a cent. I wonder other victims got refunds.......
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#7 Consumer Comment

What erks me is that Alyon is announcing all over the internet that they have been "vindicated" by the ruling ..The FTC should be investigated for dropping this!

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

Thank you Lupe! The way this list went quiet shows how a handful of people can intimidate many...or that their shady practices have stopped.



What erks me is that Alyon is announcing all over the internet that they have been "vindicated" by the ruling and are actually trying to sell to others how to make money on the internet. They got caught, corrected their practices (I hope) before they got fined and maybe will fade away. To keep things in perspective, Alyon compared to most companies, is something that most companies would scrape off of their shoe.



As far as the "typo" thing, it was more of a joke. I'm notorious for lousy typing, between that and dyslexia, I surprised I make any sense at all! (Another joke.)



As long as we have freedom of speech, the "bad guys" will be on the run. Even when SLAPPed, we should not stop. If handled in a professional manner (no "personal" attacks or outrageous accusations) their "suits" can't do a thing. I was a lucky one, I didn't send them a cent. I wonder other victims got refunds.......
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#8 Consumer Comment

What erks me is that Alyon is announcing all over the internet that they have been "vindicated" by the ruling ..The FTC should be investigated for dropping this!

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

Thank you Lupe! The way this list went quiet shows how a handful of people can intimidate many...or that their shady practices have stopped.



What erks me is that Alyon is announcing all over the internet that they have been "vindicated" by the ruling and are actually trying to sell to others how to make money on the internet. They got caught, corrected their practices (I hope) before they got fined and maybe will fade away. To keep things in perspective, Alyon compared to most companies, is something that most companies would scrape off of their shoe.



As far as the "typo" thing, it was more of a joke. I'm notorious for lousy typing, between that and dyslexia, I surprised I make any sense at all! (Another joke.)



As long as we have freedom of speech, the "bad guys" will be on the run. Even when SLAPPed, we should not stop. If handled in a professional manner (no "personal" attacks or outrageous accusations) their "suits" can't do a thing. I was a lucky one, I didn't send them a cent. I wonder other victims got refunds.......
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#9 Consumer Comment

What erks me is that Alyon is announcing all over the internet that they have been "vindicated" by the ruling ..The FTC should be investigated for dropping this!

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

Thank you Lupe! The way this list went quiet shows how a handful of people can intimidate many...or that their shady practices have stopped.



What erks me is that Alyon is announcing all over the internet that they have been "vindicated" by the ruling and are actually trying to sell to others how to make money on the internet. They got caught, corrected their practices (I hope) before they got fined and maybe will fade away. To keep things in perspective, Alyon compared to most companies, is something that most companies would scrape off of their shoe.



As far as the "typo" thing, it was more of a joke. I'm notorious for lousy typing, between that and dyslexia, I surprised I make any sense at all! (Another joke.)



As long as we have freedom of speech, the "bad guys" will be on the run. Even when SLAPPed, we should not stop. If handled in a professional manner (no "personal" attacks or outrageous accusations) their "suits" can't do a thing. I was a lucky one, I didn't send them a cent. I wonder other victims got refunds.......
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#10 Consumer Comment

I stand corrected and offer my profuse apologies to ED

AUTHOR: Wally - (Australia)

Thanks to JC Walker for setting the record straight for a dim witted Aussie. I had been following the Alyon saga for a long time and I was astounded when I read ED's condescending, come to bed with Alyon story! I now understand that your legal system forced this statement to be made by ED. Please accept my sincere apologies and I will be making a donation to the cause as soon as I get my foot out of my mouth and can sign a cheque.



It is a wonderful site because it allows we Aussies to see what scams are heading our way in the new future. They (scams) always seem to hit the States first and we have fair warning from this site and similar ones before they hit down under.



Keep up the good work guys (and ladies) and don't forget to visit Australia on your next vacation. Caloundra, the home of the Crocodile Hunter, awaits you www.caloundratourism.com.au will give you a preview. Fortunately no other Aussies are as dumb as me.



Kind Regards to all
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#11 Consumer Comment

FTC Settles Charges in Billing Scheme - agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges Stephane Touboul settled FTC charges $17 million in consumer complaints

AUTHOR: New York State Consumer Protection Board - (U.S.A.)

FTC Settles Charges in Billing Scheme
A company that allegedly sent bills to consumers for services they did not order has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the scheme violated federal law.

TelCollect Inc. is barred from billing consumers without their consent and is required to monitor the actions of vendors it uses.

In May 2003, the FTC charged TelCollect -- working on behalf of Alyon Technologies Inc., and its principal, Stephane Touboul -- with illegally billing consumers for adult videotext services purportedly accessed online.
According to the FTC, Alyon downloaded a dialing program onto consumers' computers, allegedly after consumers clicked on a button to agree to the terms for the download.

The dialing program then disconnected consumers' Internet connections and reconnected them to the defendants' network. Consumers were billed
$4.99 for each minute they had supposedly purchased the services, regardless of whether they had authorized the purchase.

The FTC's complaint said TelCollect was responsible for collecting on past-due payments, allegedly sending bills to consumers on company letterhead. TelCollect also was responsible for answering a toll-free hotline number listed on some of the allegedly delinquent bills.

Last December, Alyon and Stephane Touboul settled FTC charges and dropped their claim to more than $17 million in consumer bills.

New York State Consumer Protection Board
5 Empire State Plaza -- Suite 2101
Albany, N.Y. 12223
www.nysconsumer.gov
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
X