Blue Hippo Elderly Abuse!! Ripped off my 75 year old Mother who has early Alzheimers & very low income!! Baltimore Maryland

When speaking at an event for developmentally disabled adults about internet and computer safety I was asked to give advice to several people who had signed contracts with Blue Hippo. They had been approached by sales men and had been talked into signing a contract for monthly payments on computers (that they never received). Because of their limited income (most of them can not hold jobs, or are on extremely limited part time wages) their families requested that their contracts be canceled and for their money to be refunded.

Blue Hippo refused to cancel the contracts and continued to deduct money out of their accounts. After the money was no longer available they turned them in to vicious collections companies that used abusive and threatening tactics. These were adults that were obviously incapable of making these types of decisions without referring to their caregivers or family. Yet the Blue Hippo sales people signed them up on the spot after using very predatory tactics. The company has a ethical responsibility to respect disabled people and not take unfair advantage of them. There is no way that the sales people did not know that these adults were disabled, and the company should have canceled the contracts and disciplined their employees.

Unfortunately I did not have any good advice for these adults other than to contact the Better Business bureau. Their families had already presented the company with their issue and offered to send copies of legal orders and psychological assessments, and financial statements that would prove that these adults should have never been allowed to sign up for this type of service. I am not sure how their ordeal turned out, but at that time they had not ever received a computer and were dealing with harassing collections people on a daily basis. Even if they had received the computers most of them would not have been able to use them at all.

To the commenter who stated that it was not Blue Hippos responsibility because they were unable to tell the mental capacity of the customer over the phone. I don't see how that relieves them of all ethical responsibility once they have been presented with the information? What type of company or individual continues to take unfair advantage of others after they are aware the person is ill and unable to care for themselves? Especially since the company had not lost their inventory due to it never being shipped in the first place.

When speaking at an event for developmentally disabled adults about internet and computer safety I was asked to give advice to several people who had signed contracts with Blue Hippo. They had been approached by sales men and had been talked into signing a contract for monthly payments on computers (that they never received). Because of their limited income (most of them can not hold jobs, or are on extremely limited part time wages) their families requested that their contracts be canceled and for their money to be refunded.

Blue Hippo refused to cancel the contracts and continued to deduct money out of their accounts. After the money was no longer available they turned them in to vicious collections companies that used abusive and threatening tactics. These were adults that were obviously incapable of making these types of decisions without referring to their caregivers or family. Yet the Blue Hippo sales people signed them up on the spot after using very predatory tactics. The company has a ethical responsibility to respect disabled people and not take unfair advantage of them. There is no way that the sales people did not know that these adults were disabled, and the company should have canceled the contracts and disciplined their employees.

Unfortunately I did not have any good advice for these adults other than to contact the Better Business bureau. Their families had already presented the company with their issue and offered to send copies of legal orders and psychological assessments, and financial statements that would prove that these adults should have never been allowed to sign up for this type of service. I am not sure how their ordeal turned out, but at that time they had not ever received a computer and were dealing with harassing collections people on a daily basis. Even if they had received the computers most of them would not have been able to use them at all.

To the commenter who stated that it was not Blue Hippos responsibility because they were unable to tell the mental capacity of the customer over the phone. I don't see how that relieves them of all ethical responsibility once they have been presented with the information? What type of company or individual continues to take unfair advantage of others after they are aware the person is ill and unable to care for themselves? Especially since the company had not lost their inventory due to it never being shipped in the first place.

When speaking at an event for developmentally disabled adults about internet and computer safety I was asked to give advice to several people who had signed contracts with Blue Hippo. They had been approached by sales men and had been talked into signing a contract for monthly payments on computers (that they never received). Because of their limited income (most of them can not hold jobs, or are on extremely limited part time wages) their families requested that their contracts be canceled and for their money to be refunded.

Blue Hippo refused to cancel the contracts and continued to deduct money out of their accounts. After the money was no longer available they turned them in to vicious collections companies that used abusive and threatening tactics. These were adults that were obviously incapable of making these types of decisions without referring to their caregivers or family. Yet the Blue Hippo sales people signed them up on the spot after using very predatory tactics. The company has a ethical responsibility to respect disabled people and not take unfair advantage of them. There is no way that the sales people did not know that these adults were disabled, and the company should have canceled the contracts and disciplined their employees.

Unfortunately I did not have any good advice for these adults other than to contact the Better Business bureau. Their families had already presented the company with their issue and offered to send copies of legal orders and psychological assessments, and financial statements that would prove that these adults should have never been allowed to sign up for this type of service. I am not sure how their ordeal turned out, but at that time they had not ever received a computer and were dealing with harassing collections people on a daily basis. Even if they had received the computers most of them would not have been able to use them at all.

To the commenter who stated that it was not Blue Hippos responsibility because they were unable to tell the mental capacity of the customer over the phone. I don't see how that relieves them of all ethical responsibility once they have been presented with the information? What type of company or individual continues to take unfair advantage of others after they are aware the person is ill and unable to care for themselves? Especially since the company had not lost their inventory due to it never being shipped in the first place.

When speaking at an event for developmentally disabled adults about internet and computer safety I was asked to give advice to several people who had signed contracts with Blue Hippo. They had been approached by sales men and had been talked into signing a contract for monthly payments on computers (that they never received). Because of their limited income (most of them can not hold jobs, or are on extremely limited part time wages) their families requested that their contracts be canceled and for their money to be refunded.

Blue Hippo refused to cancel the contracts and continued to deduct money out of their accounts. After the money was no longer available they turned them in to vicious collections companies that used abusive and threatening tactics. These were adults that were obviously incapable of making these types of decisions without referring to their caregivers or family. Yet the Blue Hippo sales people signed them up on the spot after using very predatory tactics. The company has a ethical responsibility to respect disabled people and not take unfair advantage of them. There is no way that the sales people did not know that these adults were disabled, and the company should have canceled the contracts and disciplined their employees.

Unfortunately I did not have any good advice for these adults other than to contact the Better Business bureau. Their families had already presented the company with their issue and offered to send copies of legal orders and psychological assessments, and financial statements that would prove that these adults should have never been allowed to sign up for this type of service. I am not sure how their ordeal turned out, but at that time they had not ever received a computer and were dealing with harassing collections people on a daily basis. Even if they had received the computers most of them would not have been able to use them at all.

To the commenter who stated that it was not Blue Hippos responsibility because they were unable to tell the mental capacity of the customer over the phone. I don't see how that relieves them of all ethical responsibility once they have been presented with the information? What type of company or individual continues to take unfair advantage of others after they are aware the person is ill and unable to care for themselves? Especially since the company had not lost their inventory due to it never being shipped in the first place.

I hope this helps some one:

BlueHippo Defendants Will Pay up to $5 Million to Settle FTC Charges
Two companies that offer to finance the sale of personal computers to consumers with poor credit ratings have agreed to pay up to $5 million for consumer redress to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they violated federal laws.

According to the FTC's complaint, BlueHippo Funding, LLC and BlueHippo Capital, LLC offered to extend credit to consumers to finance purchases of personal computers and other consumer electronics with down payments of $99 to $124 and a year of weekly or bi-weekly payments ranging from $36 to $88. In nationwide television and radio commercials, and on their Web site, the defendants touted the ability of consumers with less than perfect credit, bad credit, no credit to finance the purchase of a computer. Many consumers who ordered products paid hundreds of dollars and received nothing in return, the complaint alleges.

According to the complaint, the defendants required consumers to agree to a series of automatic, periodic debits from their bank accounts to purchase their products, promising that they would deliver the product once the consumer made 13 weekly, or seven bi-weekly, payments. In many instances, the defendants debited consumers' accounts without first disclosing that consumers could not get a refund even if they cancelled before delivery of the product, and regardless of the reason for cancellation.

Consumers who ordered products by calling a toll-free number were told that they would receive a shipping verification form with sale terms and shipping information, and that they had to sign and return the form to ensure product delivery, the complaint alleges. The form contained terms that were not disclosed previously, including disclosures regarding finance terms. The defendants often failed to provide the forms and revolving account agreements before they debited accounts, so the finance terms and refund policy were not disclosed before consumers started making non-refundable payments.

According to the complaint, many consumers did not receive the merchandise they ordered or refunds. The FTC alleges that the defendants failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose their policy of not providing refunds before debiting accounts, in violation of the FTC Act, and consumers had no opportunity to make a timely and informed decision about whether or not to risk the potential loss of advance payments. The defendants also allegedly failed to deliver the products after consumers made 13 weeks of payments, as promised during the sales call, also in violation of the FTC Act.

The defendants also are charged with violating the FTC's Mail Order Rule by failing to ship merchandise in a timely manner or give consumers the right to cancel and receive a refund. They allegedly violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z by failing to make certain written disclosures before a transaction is made under an open-end consumer credit plan, and they allegedly violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E by conditioning the extension of credit to consumers on repayment by preauthorized electronic debits.

Under the proposed stipulated final order, the defendants are barred from misrepresentations in the marketing of consumer electronics or any product requiring four or more periodic payments before shipment. They also are barred from misrepresenting refunds, cancellations, exchanges, or repurchases of products without disclosing clearly and conspicuously, before receiving payment, the terms and conditions, and any policy of not refunding all payments when a consumer cancels the contract before product delivery. In addition, they are permanently prohibited from violating the Mail Order Rule, the TILA and Regulation Z, and from conditioning the extension of credit on mandatory preauthorized transfers in violation of the EFTA and Regulation E.

The settlement includes a monetary judgment of at least $3.5 million and up to $5 million. This money will be used to provide redress to consumers who entered into contracts with the defendants before March 2006, made payments, and did not receive the ordered products, refunds, or other restitution. If valid consumer claims exceed $3.5 million, the defendants will be required to pay up to an additional $1.5 million to pay those claims. The settlement also requires the defendants to stop collecting money from purchasers who are entitled to redress, to stop furnishing derogatory information about such purchasers to credit reporting agencies, and to notify any agency to which they have provided such information that the person's account is in good standing. The settlement contains monitoring and record keeping provisions to ensure their compliance.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order for permanent injunction was 5-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has reason to believe that the law has been
or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. The stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge.

Copies of the complaint and stipulated final order are available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,600 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm.


MEDIA CONTACT:
Frank Dorman,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2674

Do you ask for proof of mental competency every time someone calls you? Probably not. You can't expect call centers and businesses that work soley over the phone to it either. You probably should have taken over her finances sooner. It's unfortunate that this happened but Bluehippo doesn't know the difference. Someone calls in saying they saw the commercial and wanted to buy whatever they are selling. The person on the other end of the phone is not going to ask if your mentally capable to use your money for your own purchases. Obviously, you learned from it, took over her affairs and now you need to move on. This is not a rip off.