Celestin v. Martelly, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2023 WL 6385 (E.D.N.Y. 2023)
Plaintiffs alleged Martelly, the then-President-elect of
Haiti, devised a “wide-ranging scheme” to impose fees and fix prices on money
transfers, food remittances, and international calls made to and from Haiti.
Martelly allegedly “promoted, marketed, advertised and sold” the Fees to the
public as necessary “to finance free education for impoverished children,”
knowing that wasn’t true: a program to fund free education in Haiti allegedly
does not exist. While the Government of Haiti purports to receive at least an
estimated $132 million per year from the Fees, there was allegedly no public
accounting.
The Sherman Act claims failed because they were antitrust
claims.
State law deceptive advertising claims were based on the
following statements:
1. “$1.50 and $0.05 added to money transfer and telephone
calls to Haiti are lawful taxes/fees imposed to raise revenue to fund free
education.”
2. “Taxes imposed to finance free education.”
3. “For all transfers, Receivers may receive less due to
foreign taxes.”
4. “Recipient may receive less due to fees charged by
recipient’s bank and foreign taxes.”
First, the plaintiffs didn’t allege the corporate defendants
(telecom/transfer companies) made any representations at all about the fees;
“recipient may receive less due to foreign taxes” was a generic disclaimer that
didn’t say anything about the lawfulness or validity of Haiti’s fees and was,
indeed, true. Nor did the allegations show that corporate defendants knew of
the education falsity. As for the rest, there was no allegation of reliance. “Moreover,
it is unclear how the education plan could be material in Plaintiffs’ decision
to send money or make phone calls to Haiti.” Indeed, the plaintiffs continued
to send money and make phone calls to Haiti despite their knowledge that the
funds are being misused.
FDUTPA specifically only applies to actions within Florida,
which weren’t sufficiently alleged.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment