85.  FTC v. Screen Test U.S.A., Inc., Civil Action No. 99-2371 (WGB) (D.N.J. filed May 24, 1999)

Defendants: Screen Test U.S.A., Inc., Fred Vanore d/b/a Vanore Productions, World Wide Casting, Inc., American Child Actor and Modeling Association, Inc., Premier Marketing, Inc. d/b/a Screen Test U.S.A., Alice B. McManus, R. J. Ims Corp. d/b/a Screen Test U.S.A., Richard J. Ims, Jr., Premier Marketing, Inc. d/b/a Screen Test U.S.A., Showbiz Central of Westchester, Inc. d/b/a Screen Test U.S.A., John T. Yannielli, Tomorrow's Stars, Inc., Edward J. Bauer, and Helen J. Bauer, Angela Ims, Jeffrey C. McManus and JCM Marketing, Inc., and Thomas J. Yannielli

Type:  Modeling

The Commission alleges that, via television, radio, Internet and newspaper ads, Screen Test U.S.A. deceptively markets a $45 "screen test" and other services to consumers. To add credibility to their activities, Screen Test U.S.A. encourages parents to check the company out with the American Child Actor and Modeling Association (ACAMA) -- a purported non-profit organization at www.acama.com. According to the FTC, ACAMA is actually a shell corporation of the owner of Screen Test U.S.A., Fred Vanore.

On May 24, 1999 the FTC filed suit under Section 5 of the FTC Act alleging that defendants have misrepresented the objective or professional quality of their "screen tests" and pictures, customers’ rates of success, and the independent status of ACAMA. The FTC also alleged violations of the Cooling-Off Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 429.

On February 3, 2000, the FTC announced settlements with all defendants, including four added to an amended complaint. The settlement permanently banned defendants from marketing and selling their purported "screen test services" and prohibited them from misrepresenting: 1) the need for or use of photographic services; 2) the experience or professional qualifications of any person; 3) the likelihood of business or employment success; and 4) the independence or objectivity of any nonprofit organization. The order also barred defendants from violating the Cooling-Off Rule and from distributing or selling their customer lists or identification information. The settlements also called for payment of $972,000 in consumer redress.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1999/9905/screen.htm (press release - complaint / TRO)