Beware - Misleading CG Renewal site

[CSY Man]

Yup, they threatened me too, lawsuit, take a lien in my boat, etc.
Sleaze balls. Hope they go out of business and crawl back under the rock they came from.

[Island Time O25]

Under the circumstances, the best and the only effective way to fight these scammers is to take them to your local small court. And hope your state's laws have teeth. Here in MA you can get not only your $$ back plus the filing costs (here for under $500 claims it's only $40), but also treble damages, in this case add'l $225. That's on top of the initial scam amount of $75.00+$40 court filing fees. And if yo come to the hearing with an attorney he/she can get his reasonable attorney fees as well. In most jurisdictions such attorney's fees would amount to at least 1 hr at prevailing rates and much more if you have to chase them for payment.

You get enough small claim suits going against them and they most likely will hang in the towel as the costs to defend them, especially across the country would be astronomical for them. As far as jurisdiction/venue of your local small claims court is concerned, if they challenge it, proffer that the nexus for venue is the fact that they are impostoring USCG paperwork and as long as your location is under the jurisdiction of one of the Coast Guard districts your venue should be OK.

And no, such solicitations are not "legal" in any jurisdiction where there is a consumer protection statute. In MA this is Chapter 93A of Mass General Laws (easy to google) and I'm pretty sure most states have something similar to it. It specifically prohibits "unfair and deceptive business practices" and IMO masquerading under the names and logos extremely similar to USCG squarely falls under this definition. No question about it. Now, if they had an ad or a mailing stating "Joe Shmoe's USCG documentation help center, we help you navigate gov't bureaucracy maze, blah-blah" that would probably be OK but not the way they present it currently.

[wingless]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

Yup, they threatened me too, lawsuit, take a lien in my boat, etc.
Sleaze balls. Hope they go out of business and crawl back under the rock they came from.

There is no basis for them to sue when the "Courtesy Notice" is discarded.

However, if the offer is accepted, but then payment is retracted when requested by the credit card holder, then that violates the explicit agreement with U.S. Vessel Documentation.

According to the Authorization check box on the U.S. Vessel Documentation web site:

"I agree to pay the above total amount according to the card issuer agreement and hereby authorize the charge for the total amount above for the processing of selected USCG documents. I understand that my application will be processed in the order in which it is received by U.S. Vessel Documentation. I understand that application and processing fees are non-refundable as per U.S. Vessel Documentation and as per 46 CFR 67.500(e)"

Are those the events in your case?

Has a valid documentation certificate been obtained? How?

What is the current status w/ U.S. Vessel Documentation?

[wingless]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Under the circumstances, the best and the only effective way to fight these scammers is to take them to your local small court. And hope your state's laws have teeth.

What is the basis for filing the suit?

The U.S. Vessel Documentation service already identifies themselves as a third party.

Copyright 2017 U.S. VESSEL DOCUMENTATION | All Rights Reserved. U.S. Vessel Documentation is NOT the U.S. Coast Guard or the National Vessel Documentation Center; we are a third party agency that handles USCG Documentation processing to NVDC.

I understand that U.S. Vessel Documentation is NOT the U.S. Coast Guard or the National Vessel Documentation Center.

I understand that U.S. Vessel Documentation does not represent any government agency and is not endorsed by any governmental agency.

I understand I am submitting my application through a private company.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by wingless

What is the basis for filing the suit?

I've looked the website over. I see no basis to sue.

If anyone insists on sueing I suggest going to the NEA. With the money spent on education in this country I'd think someone should have mention to read the fine print.

[CSY Man]

. Has a valid documentation certificate been obtained? How?

In my case it was not a renewal but a change of ownership.
I did not pay much attention to the website, but called them for help filling out the application.
Just to make sure I asked: You are the US Coast Guard right?
He said Yes we are.
Ok, no problem.
Paid my $479 and finished the application.
Then several weeks later they tried to extract more money saying I needed to pay for lien release.
I smelled a rat and called the real US Coast Guard. They said the lien is released and the document issued.
Sent an email to the scammers and said I would dispute the Visa charge as services was not rendered.
That is when I got a long, nasty and threatening email saying they would sue me, put a lien on my boat and warn the world about be defrauding an honest business.
Huh...?
I said you guys are the scammers and you better send me the Document with express mail.
Adventialy they did.
They also denied saying they were the real USCG on the phone and I asked them to play the tape but they stated the transcript did not show such a statement.
Since I did not record the conversation I was dead in the water and ate the $479.
A month later I had to do the process over again and this time I used the real USCG.
Very helpful on the phone and total charge about $129.
My loss $350.
Yes, they are sleaze balls.

[Bluejacket]

It appears I may have touched a nerve.
Yes, all valid points.
However, while not a lawyer
False Advertising def.
"Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities"
(Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. - 1125(a) )
Further review of this Appellate court ruling appears to put US Documentation squarely in the cross-hairs. Should be interesting to see what the reaction is should small claims action(s) be filed.

For the edification of all and for the sake of full disclosure:
Corporate Name: U.S. VESSEL DOCUMENTATION
CA Corporate Number: C3876911
Corporate address: 1900 E. Ocean Blvd #1804, Long Beach, CA 90802
CEO & CFO Maria G. Carlos (same address)
Secretary John Soria, 18639 Fieldbrook St #1804 Rowland
Heights, CA 91748

Agent for Service of Process:
John Soria, 18639 Fieldbrook St Rowland Heights, CA 91748

[lancelot9898]

You know if this sort of crap is legal........then changes to the law is needed to stop such deception with substantial fines, etc. !

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

I've looked the website over. I see no basis to sue.

If anyone insists on sueing I suggest going to the NEA. With the money spent on education in this country I'd think someone should have mention to read the fine print.

The NEA is the National Endowment for the Arts. You know, the ones who paid for 30ft tall hideous statues with taxpayer money.

The DoED is the Dept. of Education.

[CSY Man]

Originally Posted by Bluejacket

It appears I may have touched a nerve.
Yes, all valid points.
However, while not a lawyer
False Advertising def.
"Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities"
(Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. - 1125(a) )
Further review of this Appellate court ruling appears to put US Documentation squarely in the cross-hairs. Should be interesting to see what the reaction is should small claims action(s) be filed.

For the edification of all and for the sake of full disclosure:
Corporate Name: U.S. VESSEL DOCUMENTATION
CA Corporate Number: C3876911
Corporate address: 1900 E. Ocean Blvd #1804, Long Beach, CA 90802
CEO & CFO Maria G. Carlos (same address)
Secretary John Soria, 18639 Fieldbrook St #1804 Rowland
Heights, CA 91748

Agent for Service of Process:
John Soria, 18639 Fieldbrook St Rowland Heights, CA 91748

If not false advertising, at least misleading on purpose, no doubt.
There really should be a law against cockroaches and if it is, these guys should be squashed: Anybody with common sense would agree that the website and their services is designed to make people think they are dealing with the real thing.
If you don't agree, you need proffesional help, really.

[wingless]

Originally Posted by Bluejacket

False Advertising def.
"Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities"
(Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. - 1125(a) )

U.S. Vessel Documentation states they will provide documentation and there are multiple on-line examples where they have fully complied with everything that was represented and everything that was agreed between the parties.

The huge benefit from this company is their positive effect on the deplorable dearth of reading comprehension that is widespread throughout America. Their company has made a unilateral improvement in reading skills.

My solitary voice on that topic has been lost in the wind. That company has blown through the US boating community and is restoring the long-lost art of reading.


GO, GO, GO U.S. Vessel Documentation!!!

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

The NEA is the National Endowment for the Arts. You know, the ones who paid for 30ft tall hideous statues with taxpayer money.

The DoED is the Dept. of Education.

I was going with the National Education Associaton; the teacher's labor union.

The real power.

[LH32]

Received what I thought was the USCG NVDC annual renewal letter. Turns out to be a "fake" letter from a private service by the name U.S. Marine Surveyors reportedly owned by USCG licensed Captain John Soria. This renewal letter looked like the real thing. It was very well disguised and did not indicate it was from a private service. I was fooled. Age has crept up on me and I should have known better. Anyway, I was tricked into paying $75.00 for renewal when the actual charge is $26.00. I have been renewing directly with the USCG/NVDC for over 15 years! Watch out! I have asked for a refund. Not holding my breath. I did file a complaint with the USCG/NVDC and DHS. If you got one of these letters, I urge you to do the same so that others are not fooled.

[LH32]

Thanks for this info. I think folks should write letters to the USCG/NVDC. At the very least, perhaps they can require Mr. Soria to clearly indicate that they are a private service and not affiliated with the USCG/NVDC. The renewal letter that I got from them was intentionally vague, had official looking seals, official looking web addresses, etc. IT DID NOT HAVE ANY FORM OF DISCLAIMER...it was intended to fool you into thinking it was an official USCG/NVDC notice.

[mogulskibum]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I think you are stretching things to suggest using a .us web address is "illegal". It is no more illegal for a US company to have a .us address than for a UK company to have a .uk address.

I agree their tactics are not in keeping with the practices we might like to see. But it seems a stretch to say they are illegal.

All US government web sites use .gov to distinguish from private web sites. The US government does not use .us.

If the intent is to deceive the consumer, then yes it is "illegal." It's not a criminal crime, but a civil crime, and the FTC is who enforces that law.

People tend to think that "small print disclaimers" are a get out of jail free card for scammers - but the reality is that they are not. It's just that many of the big time scams are well known enough that people don't fall for them.

If enough people are deceived by advertising, that is all the proof that the FTC needs to enact fines (although they might get off with a warning if they could convince a regulator that they didn't mean to mislead).

Think about it: misleading advertising is a violation of civil law (I could dig up the CFR reference if you really want) - if people are misled by someone's advertising, then that is de facto proof that truth in advertising regulations were violated.

"But XYZ industry makes ridiculous claims in their advertising all the time" - yes, but people don't fall for those claims/misrepresentations, so there's a pretty good built in defense that the advertising wasn't in fact misleading. If almost no one is ever misled, then it's hard to argue that the advertising was misleading.

A bunch of people saying "I really thought this was the official USCG notice and instructions, and I ended up spending a lot of money on a 'service' that I didn't need or want" is all the evidence that the FTC needs to start cracking down on them, and no amount "fine print" will get them out of it.

There may never a big X thousand dollar fine that would make all of us happy, but if enough people complain to the FTC to get it onto their radar, they can, and will, hassle these jerks and generally make their business miserable.

You almost never want to be a small business that's on the wrong side of federal regulator...