1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS

PLAINTIFF, v. CASE NO.

JAMIL JARALLAH SAID HINDI aka JAY HINDI, an individual; JIMMY TEMKIN, an individual; ISSAM HAMDAN SALEH, an individual; YAZAN ISSAM SALEH, an individual; WICKEDTRONICS, INC., a Florida corporation; USA BOARDS DIRECT INC., a Florida corporation; HOVERBOARDER LLC, a Florida limited liability company; GO HAMSA L.L.C., a Florida limited liability company; EMPIRE WEB MANAGEMENT INC, a Florida corporation; EWHEELSUSA INC, a Florida corporation; and EPOWERUSA INC, a Florida corporation;

DEFENDANTS. _______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,

DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS (“Plaintiff” or the “Attorney General”), hereby sues

Defendants JAMIL JARALLAH SAID HINDI aka JAY HINDI, an individual (“Hindi”); JIMMY

TEMKIN, an individual (“Temkin”); ISSAM HAMDAN SALEH, an individual (“Issam Saleh”);

YAZAN ISSAM SALEH, an individual (“Yazan Saleh”) (collectively, the “Individual

Defendants”); and further sues WICKEDTRONICS, INC., a Florida corporation; USA BOARDS

DIRECT INC., a Florida corporation; GO HAMSA L.L.C., a Florida limited liability company;

HOVERBOARDER LLC, a Florida limited liability company; EMPIRE WEB MANAGEMENT

INC., a Florida corporation; EWHEELSUSA INC, a Florida corporation; and EPOWERUSA INC,

Filing # 69252582 E-Filed 03/14/2018 01:01:38 PM

18-005622 (12)

2

a Florida corporation (collectively, the “Corporate Defendants” and together with the Individual

Defendants, the “Defendants”); and alleges as follows:

1. The Attorney General brings this action pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and

Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes (“FDUTPA”), to obtain equitable

relief including temporary and permanent injunctions, restitution, disgorgement, dissolution of an

enterprise, as well as civil penalties, attorney’s fees and costs, and any additional statutory, legal,

or equitable relief this Honorable Court deems proper.

INTRODUCTION

2. The Defendants in this case operate an e-commerce enterprise that deceptively

markets and sells self-balancing, two-wheel electric scooters, commonly known as “hoverboards,”

exclusively via the internet.

3. For three consecutive holiday shopping seasons since October 2015, Defendants

(collectively referred to as the “Hoverboard Enterprise”) have advertised and sold hoverboards

to consumers across the United States through the Hoverboard Enterprise’s e-commerce websites.

Each season, despite lacking the inventory advertised or the ability to process and ship the orders

within the represented timeframe, the Hoverboard Enterprise has continued accepting new orders,

charging consumers, and failing to provide the purchased goods or refunds despite consumers’

abundant pleas.

4. Instead of dealing with the numerous consumer complaints lodged against them,

Defendants merely change their name and merchant processor and gear up to perform the very

same scheme the next holiday season. In the past three years, the Hoverboard Enterprise has left

countless consumers without their purchased gifts or a refund to buy replacement gifts just before

Christmas.

3

5. The Attorney General brings this action to halt the Defendants’ unlawful acts and

practices, and to provide redress for the injuries to consumers that Defendants have caused.

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND APPLICABLE LAW

6. This action is brought for and on behalf of the State of Florida by the Attorney

General pursuant to the provisions of FDUTPA.

7. The Attorney General conducted an investigation and determined that an

enforcement action serves the public interest, as required by Section 501.207(2), Florida Statutes.

8. This Court has subject-matter and personal jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions

of FDUTPA and Section 26.012, Florida Statutes.

9. Venue for this action properly lies in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit pursuant to

the provisions of Sections 47.011, 47.021, and 47.501, Florida Statutes.

10. The actions at issue herein accrued in Broward County, Florida, as well as other

counties within the State of Florida and across the country. Additionally, the Defendants operated

as a common enterprise from offices and other business locations within Broward County, Florida.

Upon information and belief, the Individual Defendants each also reside within Broward County,

Florida.

11. The Defendants’ actions material to this Complaint have occurred within four (4)

years of the filing of this action.

12. At all material times, the Defendants engaged in trade or commerce as defined by

Section 501.203(8), Florida Statutes.

13. At all material times, the Defendants directly and indirectly advertised, solicited,

provided, offered, or distributed, goods and services to consumers in the State of Florida and across

the country.

4

14. Accordingly, the Defendants are subject to the provisions of FDUTPA.

15. As set forth in greater detail herein, the Individual Defendants controlled or had the

authority to control one of more the Corporate Defendants’ operations, or directly participated in

one or more of the Corporate Defendants’ deceptive acts and practices, or both, and possessed

actual or constructive knowledge of all material acts, practices, and activities complained of herein.

THE PLAINTIFF

16. The Attorney General is an enforcing authority of FDUTPA pursuant to Section

501.203(2), Florida Statutes, and is authorized to pursue this action to enjoin violations of

FDUTPA, as well as to obtain legal, equitable or other appropriate relief, including, inter alia,

restitution, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and other relief as may be provided pursuant to

Section 501.207, Florida Statutes.

17. The Attorney General is also authorized to seek civil penalties and attorney’s fees

and costs pursuant to Sections 501.2075, 501.2077, and 501.2105, Florida Statutes.

THE DEFENDANTS The Corporate Defendants

18. Wickedtronics, Inc. (“Wickedtronics”) is a voluntarily dissolved Florida

corporation with a principal place of business located at 3403 Powerline Road, Suite 804, Oakland

Park, Florida. Wickedtronics is the owner of the fictitious name “Quality Repair Parts.”

19. Defendant Hindi was Wickedtronics’ sole officer and registered agent from

approximately April 24, 2014 until filing articles to voluntarily dissolve the company on or about

February 27, 2017.

20. Upon information and belief, Wickedtronics marketed and sold hoverboards to

consumers through the website www.USABoardsDirect.com from September 2015 until mid-

5

December 2015, when its merchant account was terminated. Thereafter, Hindi and his co-

conspirators used the consumer funds received for unfulfilled orders and approximately 3,000 units

of leftover hoverboard inventory to fund the Hoverboard Enterprise’s continued operations.

21. USA Boards Direct Inc. (“USA Boards”) is an administratively dissolved Florida

corporation that was formed by Defendant Hindi on or about October 27, 2015. USA Boards was

part of the Hoverboard Enterprise, and operated from the Hoverboard Enterprise’s warehouse and

office space located at 3403 Powerline Road, Suite 804, Oakland Park, Florida.

22. Upon information and belief, USA Boards marketed and sold hoverboards to

consumers briefly in December 2015 via the website www.BalanceScooterUSA.com, coinciding

with the Wickedtronics’ merchant account termination.

23. Sometime between the end of December 2015 and January 2016, the Hoverboard

Enterprise website www.BalanceScooterUSA.com was redirected to the website

www.ElectricEmpireUSA.com, where USA Boards was referred to as a “SELLER” on the “Terms

& Conditions” page.

24. Go Hamsa L.L.C. (“Go Hamsa”) is an administratively dissolved Florida limited

liability company, with a principal place of business listed as 1451 Cypress Creek Rd. #334, Fort

Lauderdale, Florida, a virtual office. Go Hamsa was part of the Hoverboard Enterprise and

operated from the Hoverboard Enterprise’s warehouse and office space in Oakland Park.

25. Defendant Temkin formed Go Hamsa on or about January 13, 2015 and was its sole

owner and officer.

26. Upon information and belief, Go Hamsa marketed and sold hoverboards on behalf

of the Hoverboard Enterprise to consumers through the websites www.ElectricEmpireUSA.com

and www.HoverGoGo.com from approximately January 2016 until approximately December 12,

6

2016. During this time, its merchant accounts were frozen due to high risk activity, and it was

inspected by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

27. Hoverboarder LLC (“Hoverboarder”) is an administratively dissolved Florida

limited liability company, with a principal place of business listed as 132 NE 22nd St., Suite 2,

Miami, Florida, a nonexistent address. Hoverboarder was part of the Hoverboard Enterprise and

operated from the Hoverboard Enterprise’s warehouse and office space in Oakland Park.

28. Defendant Temkin formed Hoverboarder on or about January 7, 2016 and was its

managing member and registered agent. Upon information and belief, Hoverboarder marketed and

sold hoverboards on behalf of the Hoverboard Enterprise to consumers through the website

www.Hoverboarder.com from approximately January 2016 until approximately December 12,

2016, when its merchant accounts were frozen.

29. As banks were not likely to open new merchant accounts in the name of

Wickedtronics, or with Hindi listed as the principal due to the negative history associated with his

earlier merchant accounts, Go Hamsa and Hoverboarder were formed to obtain merchant accounts

and process consumers’ payments so that the Hoverboard Enterprise could continue to sell

merchandise.

30. Empire Web Management Inc. (“Empire”) is a Florida corporation, which was

formed by Defendant Hindi on February 2, 2016, naming himself as its sole owner and officer

with the same principal place of business as Go Hamsa at 1451 Cypress Creek Rd. #334, Fort

Lauderdale, Florida. Empire was part of the Hoverboard Enterprise and operated from the

Hoverboard Enterprise’s warehouse and office space in Oakland Park.

31. Upon information and belief, Empire took over Wickedtronics’ inventory

(approximately 3,000 hoverboards) after Wickedtronics’ merchant accounts were terminated.

7

32. Empire continued the Hoverboard Enterprise by assuming virtually all of

Wickedtronics’ prior business functions, with the exception of processing consumer payments,

which was strategically separated into a function of the Hoverboard Enterprise entities Go Hamsa

and Hoverboarder.

33. EWheelsUSA Inc (“eWheelsUSA”) is a Florida corporation with a principal place

of business listed at 6011 Rodman Street, Suite 105, Hollywood, Florida. eWheelsUSA is a part

of the Hoverboard Enterprise and operates from the Hoverboard Enterprise’s warehouse space

located at 3501 NW 10th Avenue, Oakland Park, Florida.

34. Defendant Issam Saleh formed eWheelsUSA on or about March 17, 2017 and is

eWheelsUSA’s sole owner and officer.

35. Upon information and belief, eWheelsUSA currently markets and sells hoverboards

on behalf of the Hoverboard Enterprise to consumers through the websites

www.eWheelsUSA.com and www.QualityHover.com.

36. As banks were not likely to open new merchant accounts for any company with

Defendants Hindi or Temkin listed as principals due to the negative history associated with the

Hoverboard Enterprise’s earlier merchant accounts, Defendants obtained merchant accounts under

eWheelsUSA’s name to process consumers’ payments so that the Hoverboard Enterprise could

continue to sell merchandise

37. EPowerUSA Inc (“ePowerUSA”) is a Florida corporation with a principal place

of business located at 3501 NW 10th Avenue, Oakland Park, Florida. ePowerUSA is part of the

Hoverboard Enterprise and operates from the Hoverboard Enterprise’s warehouse and office space

in Oakland Park.

8

38. Defendant Hindi formed ePowerUSA on or about May 3, 2017 and is

ePowerUSA’s sole owner and officer.

39. Upon information and belief, ePowerUSA operates the website

www.ePowerUSA.com.

40. Upon information and belief, ePowerUSA and eWheelsUSA continued the

Hoverboard Enterprise by assuming virtually all of Empire, Go Hamsa, and Hoverboarder’s prior

business functions.

41. Websites operated or utilized by the Hoverboard Enterprise

(www.USABoardsDirect.com, www.BalanceScooterUSA.com, www.ElectricEmpireUSA.com,

www.HoverGoGo.com, www.Hoverboarder.com, www.eWheelsUSA.com,

www.QualityHover.com, and www.ePowerUSA.com) are collectively referred to as the

“Hoverboard Enterprise Websites.”

The Individual Defendants

42. Jamil Jarallah Said Hindi aka Jay Hindi is an adult male over the age of twenty-

one and is sui juris. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hindi is not in the military service

and currently resides in Broward County, Florida.

43. In connection with the matters alleged herein, Hindi has also used the name “Jay

Hindi.” Hindi is the mastermind behind the Hoverboard Enterprise, and operates from the

Hoverboard Enterprise office and warehouse spaces in Oakland Park.

44. Defendant Hindi has been, and is presently, registered with the Florida Department

of State, Division of Corporations (“FDOC”), as an officer, director, owner, or manager of

numerous entities that are affiliated with the Hoverboard Enterprise, including but not limited to

Defendants Wickedtronics, USA Boards, Empire, and ePowerUSA.

9

45. At all material times hereto, Defendant Hindi, whether acting alone or in concert

with others, controlled, had the authority to control, and directly participated in the acts and

practices of the Hoverboard Enterprise set forth in this complaint.

46. Defendant Hindi is involved in the day-to-day operations of the Hoverboard

Enterprise. Among other things, Defendant Hindi sources hoverboards from vendors; purchases

supplies, and warehouses, the sourced hoverboards sold by the Hoverboard Enterprise; accesses

customer orders on the Hoverboard Enterprise Websites; and ships the hoverboards from the

Hoverboard Enterprise warehouse space directly to consumers.

47. In addition, Hindi registered one or more of the Hoverboard Enterprise Websites,

entered contracts to lease the warehouse space utilized by the Hoverboard Enterprise, and has

supervised and paid Hoverboard Enterprise employees.

48. On September 16, 2015, Hindi, as guarantor for Wickedtronics, entered into a

merchant processing agreement with Wells Fargo Merchant Services LLC to process credit and

debit charges for online hoverboard sales through www.USABoardsDirect.com.

49. On December 16, 2015, Hindi registered an online business/merchant account on

behalf of USA Boards (with PayPal, Inc.) and listed the business website as

www.BalanceScooterUSA.com.

50. Hindi has direct contact with consumers, including by email

(usaboardsdirect@gmail.com, electricempireusa@gmail.com, support@hoverboarder.com)

wherein he has been made aware of and responded to consumers’ complaints regarding late

shipments, receipt of different hoverboards than purchased, and defective hoverboards, among

other complaints.

10

51. Hindi has handled consumers’ warranty, return, and replacement requests for

defective hoverboards and he has issued refunds to consumers from Empire’s checking account.

52. In addition, Hindi responded to consumer complaints sent to Hoverboarder by the

Better Business Bureau (Support@hoverboarder.com) and sent to USA Boards by the Florida

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

53. Defendant Hindi was also present during an inspection of the Hoverboard

Enterprise warehouse and office space by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on

December 12, 2016.

54. Jimmy Temkin is an adult male over the age of twenty-one and is sui juris. Upon

information and belief, Defendant Temkin is not in the military service and currently resides in

Broward County, Florida.

55. Temkin transacted business on behalf of the Hoverboard Enterprise from the

Enterprise’s office and warehouse space in Oakland Park.

56. Defendant Temkin has been an officer, director, owner, or manager of numerous

entities that are affiliated with the Hoverboard Enterprise, including but not limited to Defendants

Go Hamsa and Hoverboarder.

57. At all material times hereto, Defendant Temkin, whether acting alone or in concert

with others, controlled, had the authority to control, and directly participated in the acts and

practices of the Hoverboard Enterprise set forth in this complaint.

58. Among other things, Defendant Temkin registered merchant accounts utilized by

the Hoverboard Enterprise to process consumer payments, paid Hoverboard Enterprise employees,

paid for internet marketing tools used to drive business to the Hoverboard Enterprise Websites,

11

purchased hoverboards from suppliers, and signed shipping receipts for hoverboards sent to the

Hoverboard Enterprise’s warehouse and office space from suppliers.

59. Temkin was aware of the consumer complaints regarding shipping and product

performance and had direct contact with consumers, including by phone and by email

(questions@electricempireusa.com and hoverboardresolution@gmail.com) wherein he

communicated with consumers regarding issues with their purchases from the Hoverboard

Websites.

60. In addition, Temkin wrote refund checks to consumers from the Hoverboarder

checking account for receipt of wrong and defective hoverboards.

61. Defendant Temkin was present during an inspection of the Hoverboard Enterprise

warehouse and office space by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on December 12,

2016.

62. After the inspection, Temkin signed an affidavit stating, “My firm is a consumer

direct, e-commerce retailer of hoverboards. We purchase inventory from US based suppliers and

sell them online. Our products do not come with certifications of any kind and we do not know if

the hoverboards meet UL standard 2272.” Temkin also represented that Hoverboarder would

immediately stop the sale of its current inventory until they could determine compliance with said

standard.

63. Issam Hamdan Saleh is an adult male over the age of twenty-one and is sui juris.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Issam Saleh is not in the military service and currently

resides in Broward County, Florida.

64. Defendant Issam Saleh is an officer, director, owner, or manager of entities that are

affiliated with the Hoverboard Enterprise, including but not limited to Defendant eWheelsUSA.

12

65. At all material times hereto, Defendant Issam Saleh, whether acting alone or in

concert with others, controlled, had the authority to control, and directly participated in the acts

and practices of the Hoverboard Enterprise set forth in this complaint.

66. Defendant Issam Saleh opened a business account on behalf of Defendant

eWheelsUSA (the “eWheelsUSA depository account”) where consumer funds are deposited from

online hoverboard purchases, and he signs payroll checks issued to Hoverboard Enterprise

employees.

67. The eWheelsUSA depository application signed by Defendant Issam Saleh

describes the business as “motorcycles wholesales” and the industry as “wholesale trade,” while

failing to disclose the company’s sale of hoverboards, an arguably higher-risk business.

68. Yazan Issam Saleh is an adult male over the age of twenty-one and is sui juris.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Yazan Saleh is not in the military service and currently

resides in Broward County, Florida.

69. At all material times hereto, Defendant Yazan Saleh, whether acting alone or in

concert with others, controlled, had the authority to control, and directly participated in the acts

and practices of the Hoverboard Enterprise set forth in this complaint.

70. Defendant Yazan Saleh is the owner of the fictitious name “Empire Services,”

which was filed on December 22, 2016 with the mailing address 1234 S Dixie Hwy, Coral Gables,

Florida 33146, a pack and ship location.

71. Defendant Yazan Saleh is the president of Empire Collection Services Corp, an

administratively dissolved Florida corporation that utilized the same business address as Defendant

eWheelsUSA for banking purposes (6011 Rodman Street, Suite 105, Hollywood, Florida).

13

72. On January 18, 2016 Defendant Yazan Saleh purchased the domain name

www.ePowerWheels.com, which briefly marketed hoverboards to consumers using the same

format and representations as prior Hoverboard Enterprise Websites and shipped hoverboards from

the Hoverboard Enterprise office and warehouse space in Oakland Park.

73. Yazan Saleh is an authorized signer on the eWheelsUSA depository account,

through which he signs checks for products, employee payroll, and other business expenses. In

addition, Yazan Saleh’s email address (y.saleh@noblevwireless.com) is listed as eWheelsUSA’s

merchant contact.

74. Yazan Saleh holds himself out as eWheelsUSA’s manager to consumers and

responds to consumer complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau on behalf of the

Hoverboard Enterprise via info@ewheelsusa.com. Yazan Saleh has responded to consumer

complaints regarding shipping misrepresentations and receipt of defective hoverboards.

COMMON ENTERPRISE

75. The Defendants, collectively by and through the various entities identified herein,

have operated and functioned as a common enterprise while engaging in the deceptive acts and

practices and other violations of law alleged in this Complaint. The Corporate Defendants are

conducting the business practices described herein through an interrelated network of companies

that have common officers, managers, business functions, employees, or office locations, and have

commingled funds.

76. The Hoverboard Enterprise is operated by the Individual Defendants who have

utilized numerous legal entities and website domains in order to conceal prior consumer

complaints and secure new merchant processors, so they can continue taking consumer money for

hoverboard orders they know they cannot fulfill as advertised.

14

77. While Defendants purport to be separate and distinct entities with separate and

distinct business functions, this is in name only. In truth and in fact, the Individual and Corporate

Defendants have wholly commingled their bank accounts, operations, procedures, and practices.

For example, Defendants share office and warehouse space, employees, websites, and advertising

and marketing costs and materials, among other things.

78. The majority of the Hoverboard Enterprise’s business operations are conducted

from the same warehouse and office space in Oakland Park leased by Defendant Hindi, or by

Corporate Defendants owned by Defendant Hindi.

79. Employees of the Hoverboard Enterprise are shared and paid by multiple Corporate

and Individual Defendants. For example, employee J.J. received payments from Wickedtronics,

Empire, and Defendant Temkin; employee C.F. received payments from Empire and

Hoverboarder; and employee V.B. received payments from Empire and eWheelsUSA and worked

as a customer service representative for Hoverboarder.

80. The Hoverboard Enterprise uses the same basic website template in each variation

of the Hoverboard Enterprise Websites. See Images 1 and 2.

[Image 1]

[Image 2]

15

81. The Hoverboard Enterprise shares inventory. For example, approximately 3,000

hoverboards from Wickedtronics’ inventory was transferred to Empire and sold on Hoverboard

Enterprise Websites.

82. After Wickedtronics’ merchant account was terminated, the Hoverboard Enterprise

continued operating by strategically dividing the business into multiple entities: The “Supplier”

entities (Corporate Defendants USA Boards, Empire, and ePowerUSA) and the “Seller” entities

(Go Hamsa, Hoverboarder, eWheelsUSA).

83. The Defendants have strongly interdependent economic interests; all or

substantially all of the hoverboards sold through the Hoverboard Enterprise Websites have been

supplied by Defendant Hindi, or through the “Supplier” entities which he controls, and the “Seller”

entities are his only clients/source of revenue. Thus, neither the “Supplier” entities nor the “Seller”

entities can function without the other.

84. Upon information and belief, the Defendants share profits and expenses based on a

“percentage of sales” or “distribution.”

85. Even though the Corporate Defendants purport to have separate and distinct roles,

responsibilities are commonly shared. For example, Supplier entity owner, Defendant Hindi,

directly responds to consumer emails sent to the Seller entities (electricempireusa@gmail.com,

support@hoverboarder.com). Hindi and Supplier entity employees also receive and answer

consumer phone calls to the numbers listed on the Seller entities’ websites.

86. Likewise, Seller entity owner, Jimmy Temkin, performs Supplier entity functions

such as purchasing hoverboards directly from vendors, paying freight costs to ship the hoverboards

to the Hoverboard Enterprise warehouse space, and signing freight delivery receipts at the

Hoverboard Enterprise warehouse space for products shipped to Supplier entities.

16

87. In fact, the Supplier and Seller entities are so intertwined, purchase orders sent to

vendors by the Supplier entities list Seller’s websites in the letterhead. See Image 3.

[Image 3]

88. Furthermore, at least one Seller entity’s email account is linked to a server

maintained by Supplier entity owner Defendant Hindi. In fact, consumers report receiving emails

from the address “balancescooterus@server.jhindi.com on behalf of ElectricEmpireUSA

<questions@electricempireusa.com>.”

89. As a result of their common enterprise, each Corporate Defendant is jointly and

severally liable for the acts and practices alleged herein.

90. In addition, as discussed above and in more detail below, the Individual Defendants

have formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, and participated in the acts and

practices of the Corporate Defendants that constitute the Hoverboard Enterprise.

THE DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS PRACTICES

91. Since approximately October 2015, the Defendants have marketed themselves as

“the number one American retailer” of hoverboards “committed to providing a quality product and

the highest level of customer support.” Consumers who place an order through the Hoverboard

17

Enterprise Websites pay between $150 and $350 per hoverboard, which in many instances is

charged immediately upon completion of their order.

92. In numerous instances, consumers who purchase a hoverboard from Defendants

receive their purchase after significant delays, receive a materially different or defective

hoverboard, or never receive a hoverboard at all. Furthermore, in numerous instances, Defendants

have not provided refunds to consumers whose orders are delayed or defective upon arrival.

Defendants’ Deceptive Sales and Advertising

93. Each holiday season, Defendants spend significant funds on internet search

optimization and other internet marking tools to drive business to the Hoverboard Enterprise

Websites. This marketing gives Hoverboard Enterprise Websites’ advertisements prominent

placement in consumers’ search results when they search for a hoverboard to purchase online.

94. In addition to prominent search result placement, advertisements for the

Hoverboard Enterprise Websites have also been placed on well-known retailers’ websites. For

example, Defendants’ sponsored advertisements were featured on www.Walmart.com’s

hoverboard product page, leading consumers to believe they were purchasing from a reputable

company.

95. Defendants’ paid advertisements offer consumers quality hoverboards, fast and free

shipping, and a warranty, among other representations. Consumers who click on the Hoverboard

Enterprise’s paid advertisements are directed to the promoted Hoverboard Enterprise Website.

96. The Hoverboard Enterprise Websites prominently advertise “FREE SAME DAY

SHIPPING ON ALL ORDERS PLACED BY 4PM.” See Images 4 and 5.

18

[Image 4]

[Image 5]

97. Additionally, the fine print of Defendants’ shipping policy emphasizes that “all

deliveries take 2-4 business days” and are “usually shipped the same business day… but may take

up to 1 business day to ship.” Thus, the reasonable consumer is led to believe that their hoverboard

will be shipped out the same or next day, and will be received within two to four business days.

98. Defendants further assure consumers that, “any item you see on our website is

currently in stock,” and that, “In the event that an item is out of stock we will contact you within

1 business day and allow you to wait for the original item purchased, select another item or cancel

the order.” Thus, the reasonable consumer is led to believe that if the hoverboard they purchase is

not in stock, they will be contacted within one business day and be able to cancel their order.

19

99. These express representations are false and misleading to consumers. Defendants

knew they were unable to ship all product orders within 24 hours, yet they continued to advertise

“same day shipping” and take consumers’ money for orders they knew they could not ship out on

time.

100. On at least two of the Hoverboard Enterprise Websites, Defendants posted a

shipping notice recognizing that a high ordering volume was causing “slight delays in shipping,”

but still representing that delays were ranging from only three to five days before orders would

ship.

101. This representation was also false and misleading, as Defendants were fully aware

(both from current conditions and past holiday season experience) that the delays were much

longer than that and steadily increasing as they continued accepting new orders. Numerous

consumer orders were not shipped out until weeks after they were placed. Some consumers did

not receive their orders for over a month.

102. Additionally, the Hoverboard Enterprise claims that they are “Staffed with

experienced professionals,” and guarantees that consumers’ “concerns will never be ignored” and

their “questions will be answered quickly and accurately.”

103. However, consumers are often unable to reach Defendants by phone or email. Some

call multiple times a day, leaving voice messages that are never returned.

104. After visiting the Hoverboard Enterprise Websites and relying on their express and

implied representations, consumers place orders with Defendants by selecting the hoverboard of

their choice and entering their credit card, billing, and shipping information.

105. Soon after receiving consumers’ orders, in many instances, Defendants send

consumers an email claiming their “order has been completed” and immediately charge

20

consumers’ credit or debit cards for the price of the merchandise. Defendants then provide

consumers a tracking number or tell them one will be emailed shorty.

106. However, Defendants’ representations are false and misleading and their charges

are premature. After days and sometimes weeks pass without receiving a tracking update,

numerous consumers contact Defendants, usually by phone or email, to inquire about the status of

their order.

107. In numerous instances, Defendants, directly or through their representatives, tell

consumers that, “we will have this order shipped today,” or “your board will be shipped Monday.”

However, these representations are false and misleading, as Defendants repeatedly failed to ship

the hoverboards as promised. These representations also cause consumers to wait for their orders

to arrive rather than purchasing replacement gifts for family members in time for the holidays.

108. Over and over again, consumers are given the same excuses for why their

hoverboards have not shipped, for example, “high order volume from current sale” or “a back log

of orders that are delayed due to the high demand.”

109. Defendants send consumers emails admitting that, “We are aware of the excessive

delays that have been going on with receiving your orders,” and then reiterate that consumers’

orders will be shipped soon or “by the end of the week.”

110. Numerous consumers complain directly to Defendants by phone about their

unshipped orders, and many demand refunds.

111. Contrary to Defendants’ representations regarding their “Expert Customer Care

Professionals” and customer service, consumers often report difficulty reaching Defendants by

phone about the status of their unshipped orders. Some call multiple times a day, leaving voice

messages that are never returned.

21

112. Despite consumers’ complaints and demands for refunds, in numerous instances,

consumers’ orders are not shipped until days or weeks after Defendants’ advertised shipping times

and their refund requests are ignored or not promptly provided.

113. Yet, despite clear knowledge of their backlog, shipping delays, and inability to

fulfill current orders, Defendants continue to take new orders and make knowingly false

representations about fast shipping time to new customers.

114. Defendants also represent that their hoverboards are of the highest quality made

with certified parts, backed up by “the industry’s best warranty for your assurance.” They even

include images of certification documents.

115. However, a number of consumers who paid Defendants for hoverboards receive a

materially different or defective hoverboard.

116. When consumers call or email the Hoverboard Enterprise to request an exchange

or refund for materially different or broken merchandise, or to initiate a repair/exchange of

defective merchandise pursuant to Defendants’ advertised “Warranty,” the Defendants take weeks

to send a replacement or refund, and in some instances, are either non-responsive or deny their

claims. In a few instances, consumers who shipped defective or merchandise back to Defendants

never received a replacement or a refund.

Individual Defendants Were Aware of the Consumer Complaints, Failed to Address the Consumer Complaints, Continued Making False Representations, and Continued Taking

Consumers’ Money and Failing to Fulfill Orders as Advertised

117. At all material times, Defendants continued taking orders and funds from

consumers when they knew or should have known that they would not be able to ship the

merchandise according to the representations made on the Hoverboard Enterprise Websites.

22

118. Beginning as early as November 2015, consumers complained to Defendants

directly through email and phone calls and filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau

against USA Boards (www.USABoardsDirect.com), which complaints were sent directly to the

Defendants. Consumers complained about not receiving the paid goods within the timeframe

specified, and unhelpful or unresponsive customer service.

119. In fact, on or about December 20, 2015, www.USABoardsDirect.com posted a

notice (“December 20, 2015 Notice”) on their website claiming, “NOTE: DUE TO THE HIGH

RISK OF THE PRODUCT, OUR CREDIT CARD PROCESSOR IS NO LONGER ALLOWING

US TO PROCESS ORDERS. OUR CREDIT CARD MERCHANT HAS ALSO PLACED OUR

FUNDS ON HOLD SO WE ARE UNABLE TO FULFILL ORDERS. IF YOU PLACED AN

ORDER THAT WAS NOT RECEIVED YOU WILL NEED TO CONTACT YOUR CREDIT

CARD COMPANY TO REQUEST A REFUND.” See Image 6.

[Image 6]

120. Nevertheless, the Hoverboard Enterprise continued operating and transferred the

“HIGH RISK” inventory sold on www.USABoardsDirect.com to other Corporate Defendants to

23

eventually be sold on www.ElectricEmpireUSA.com, www.HoverGoGo.com, and

www.Hoverboarder.com, without any such disclaimer to potential new customers.

121. Defendant Hindi knew that his inventory and shipping procedures were ineffective

(and thus the Enterprise’s representations to consumers were false and misleading) as early as

November 2015. Hindi also knew that unshipped orders and failures to get a refund were the

primary types of complaints. Nevertheless, Hindi never put a system in place to rectify those

complaints. Instead of changing his business practices, he brought in Defendant Temkin to open

new entities as an attempt to shield himself from liability, obscure the tainted company names

from new consumers, and continue selling hoverboards.

122. Beginning on or about June 2016, Defendants began receiving and responding to

consumer complaints filed against www.ElectricEmpireUSA.com, www.HoverGoGo.com, and

www.Hoverboarder.com. Once again, consumers made the same complaints outlined in Paragraph

118 above.

123. On or about December 14, 2016, Defendants posted a notice (“December 14, 2016

Notice”) on their website claiming, “As requested by the Federal Government,

Hoverboarder.com/ElectricEmpireUSA.com can no longer ship out the hoverboards we have in

stock” advising consumers, “IF YOU PLACED AN ORDER THAT WAS NOT RECEIVED YOU

WILL NEED TO CONTACT YOUR CREDIT CARD COMPANY TO REQUEST A REFUND.”

Defendants claimed that they were “forced to go out of business.” See Image 7.

24

[Image 7]

124. Defendant Temkin and Defendant Hindi again knew that they could not fulfill new

orders as promised.

125. Nevertheless, instead of changing their business practices, the Hoverboard

Enterprise brought in Issam Saleh and Yazan Saleh to open new entities, to facilitate and continue

the Hoverboard Enterprise’s deceptive business practices under different names.

126. Beginning as early as November 2017, consumers complained to Defendants

directly through email and phone calls and filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau

against www.eWheelsUSA.com and www.QualityHover.com. Consumers once again raised the

25

same complaints that were raised by the consumers who placed orders on

www.USABoardsDirect.com, www.ElectricEmpireUSA.com, www.HoverGoGo.com, and

www.Hoverboarder.com.

127. Defendant Issam Saleh, Defendant Yazan Saleh, and Defendant Hindi knew or

should have known that their inventory and shipping procedures were ineffective (and thus their

representations to consumers were false and misleading) as early as November 2017. Issam Saleh,

Yazan Saleh, and Hindi also knew or should have known that undelivered orders, defective orders,

and failure to get a refund were the primary types of complaints. Nevertheless, Issam Saleh, Yazan

Saleh, and Hindi never put a system in place to rectify those complaints, and instead willfully

continued making shipping and other representations that they knew they could not fulfill.

128. Thus, Defendants Hindi, Temkin, Issam Saleh and Yazan Saleh, not only controlled

or had the authority to control the Corporate Defendants’ acts and practices, but they directly

participated in and had knowledge of the Enterprise’s unfair and deceptive acts and practices.

129. Defendants’ actions were likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the

circumstances, and consumers were in fact misled.

CONSUMER INJURY

130. The above-described acts and practices of Defendants have injured and will likely

continue to injure and prejudice the public and consumers in the State of Florida and elsewhere.

In addition, the Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their deceptive acts or

practices. Unless Defendants are permanently enjoined from engaging further in the acts and

practices complained of herein, the continued activities of Defendants will result in irreparable

injury to the public and to consumers in the State of Florida and elsewhere, for which there is no

adequate remedy at law.

26

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA’S DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT

131. Plaintiff adopts, incorporates herein and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 130 as if

fully set forth herein.

132. FDUTPA provides that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any

trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.” Misrepresentations, false statements or

omissions of material fact constitute deceptive acts or practices prohibited by FDUTPA.

133. The provisions of FDUTPA shall be “construed liberally to promote the protection”

of the “consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair

method of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of

any trade or commerce.” Section 501.202, Fla. Stat.

134. Any person, firm, corporation, association, or entity, or any agent or employee of

the foregoing, who willfully engages in a deceptive or unfair act or practice is liable for a civil

penalty of $10,000 for each violation; willful violations occur when the person knew or should

have known that the conduct in question was deceptive or unfair or prohibited by rule. Section

501.2075, Fla. Stat.

135. In numerous instances, in connection with the marketing, advertising, or sale of

hoverboards, Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication that:

a. After receiving a consumer’s completed order, Defendants will ship the

consumer’s selected hoverboard(s) within the advertised time frame,

b. Consumers will receive a new functioning hoverboard in the color and model

selected, and

27

c. Defective hoverboards will be repaired or replaced with reasonable diligence

pursuant to Defendants’ written warranty.

136. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances, after receiving consumers’ completed

orders, Defendants fail to ship consumers’ hoverboards within the advertised time frame. When

consumers contact Defendants to inquire about the status of their orders or to request a refund for

unshipped orders, they are told their orders will be shipped on a date that frequently passes without

shipment, or they are ignored. Many consumers who call Defendants are unable to reach anyone

by phone.

137. In numerous other instances, when consumers’ long-awaited orders finally arrive,

the hoverboards are a different color or model than what was ordered, are broken and unusable, or

malfunction shortly after use. When consumers contact Defendants to request a replacement, a

refund, or a repair pursuant to Defendants’ warranty, some consumers wait weeks or months after

shipping the defective hoverboard back to Defendants for their corrected order to arrive; other

consumers have their requests denied or simply ignored; and a few consumers never receive a

refund or replacement.

138. The Defendants’ acts and practices have a tendency to mislead, and do mislead,

consumers who reasonably believe the merchandise they ordered and purchased from the

Hoverboard Enterprise Websites would in fact actually be shipped in the timeframe represented,

would actually arrive functioning and in the color and model represented, and would actually be

repaired or replaced if it malfunctioned within Defendants’ warranty period.

139. Defendants, individually and collectively through their common enterprise, have

violated and will continue to violate FDUTPA, by among other things, using deceptive and unfair

trade practices in the advertising and sale of merchandise through the internet.

28

140. Defendants willfully engaged in deceptive and unfair conduct, because they

continued soliciting orders for merchandise through the internet that they knew they could not

fulfill as advertised.

141. The Individual Defendants controlled or had the authority to control the common

enterprise’s operations, directly participated in the common enterprise’s deceptive acts and

practices, and possessed actual or constructive knowledge of the material acts, practices, and

activities, as set forth in this Complaint.

142. As a result of Defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices, Defendants have

injured consumers in the State of Florida and elsewhere. Unless the defendants are permanently

enjoined from engaging further in the acts and practices contained herein, the continued activities

of Defendants will result in irreparable injury to the public and consumers in the State of Florida

and elsewhere for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF THE MAIL, INTERNET, OR TELEPHONE ORDER MERCHANDISE RULE (CONSTITUTING PER SE FDUTPA VIOLATIONS)

143. Plaintiff adopts, incorporates herein and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 130 as if

fully set forth herein.

144. Section 501.203(3), Florida Statues, establishes that a violation of (a) Any rules

promulgated pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act [FTC Act], 15 U.S.C. ss. 41 et seq.;

(b) The standards of unfairness and deception set forth and interpreted by the Federal Trade

Commission or the federal courts; or (c) Any law, statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance which

proscribes unfair methods of competition, or unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices,

is a per se violation of FDUTPA and is subject to the penalties and remedies provided for such

violations.

29

145. Pursuant to its rule-making authority under the FTC Act, the Federal Trade

Commission has promulgated the Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule, 16 C.F.R.,

Part 435 (the “Rule”). Under the Rule, a “Mail, Internet, or telephone order sale” is defined as:

“sales in which the buyer has ordered merchandise from the seller by mail, via the Internet, or by telephone, regardless of the method of payment or the method used to solicit the order.”

16 C.F.R., Section 435.1(a).

146. The Rule further provides that, in connection with any Internet order sales, it

constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a seller to:

(a) Solicit an order for the sale of merchandise to be ordered by the buyer through the mail, via the Internet, or by telephone unless, at the time of the solicitation, the seller has a reasonable basis to expect that it will be able to ship any ordered merchandise to the buyer…within the time clearly and conspicuously stated in any such solicitation. 16 C.F.R., Section 435.2(a)(1).

(b) Where the seller is unable to ship the merchandise within the time

clearly and conspicuously stated the solicitation, to fail to offer to the buyer clearly and conspicuously and without prior demand, an option to consent to a delay in shipping or cancel the buyers order and receive a prompt refund…within a reasonable time after the seller first becomes aware of its inability to ship…but in no event later that the time stated in any such solicitation. C.F.R., Section 435.2(b)(1).

(c) Wherever the buyer has a right to cancel an order by notifying the

seller prior to shipment, to fail to furnish the buyer with adequate means, at the seller’s expense, to exercise such option or to notify the seller regarding cancellation. 16 C.F.R., Section 435.2(b)(3).

(d) To fail to deem an order cancelled and make a prompt refund to the

buyer whenever…the seller has not shipped the merchandise within the time clearly and conspicuously stated in any such solicitation and fails to offer the option prescribed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 16 C.F.R., Section 435.2(c)(5).

147. At all material times, the Defendants have engaged in the sale of merchandise

ordered by the mail, telephone or the Internet, within the meaning of the Rule.

30

148. In numerous instances, after having solicited orders for merchandise and received

“properly completed orders,” as that term is defined in 16 C.F.R. § 435.1(c), and having been

unable to ship the merchandise to the buyer within the time clearly and conspicuously stated in

any such solicitation (“applicable time”) as provided in Section 435.2(a)(1) of the Rule,

Defendants have:

a. Violated Section 435.2(a)(1) of the Rule by soliciting orders for the sale of

telephone, mail, or Internet order merchandise when they had had no reasonable

basis to expect that they would be able to ship some or all of such merchandise

within the time stated in the solicitation;

a. Violated Section 435.2(b)(1) of the Rule by failing within the applicable time (the

time stated in any such solicitation) to offer to the buyer, clearly and conspicuously

and without prior demand, an option either to consent to a delay in shipping or

receive a prompt refund;

b. Violated Section 435.2(b)(3) of the Rule by failing to furnish the buyer with

adequate means to cancel their orders, where the buyer has a right to exercise such

option or to notify the seller regarding cancellation; and

c. Violated Section 435.2(c)(5) of the Rule by failing to deem an order cancelled and

make a prompt refund to the buyer, when Defendants failed to ship within the time

stated in any solicitation or failed to offer the buyer an option either to consent to a

delay in shipping as prescribed in Section 435.2(b)(1) or to cancel the order and

receive a prompt refund.

31

149. Accordingly, the Defendants’ acts and practices described above violate various

provisions of the Rule, which constitutes per se violations of FDUTPA, and subjects the

Defendants to the penalties and remedies provided for such violations under FDUTPA.

150. The Defendants have violated and will continue to violate FDUTPA by engaging

in acts and practices that violate the Rule, as more particularly set forth above.

151. The above-described acts and practices of the Defendants have injured and will

likely continue to injure and prejudice the public and consumers in the State of Florida and

elsewhere. Unless the defendants are permanently enjoined from engaging further in the acts and

practices contained herein, the continued activities of Defendants will result in irreparable injury

to the public and consumers in the State of Florida and elsewhere for which there is no adequate

remedy at law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of

Legal Affairs, respectfully requests that this Court:

A. ENTER judgment against the Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff for each Count

alleged in this Complaint;

B. GRANT permanent injunctive relief against Defendants, their officers, agents,

servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with the

Defendants who receive actual notice of this injunction to prevent future FDUTPA violations;

C. Permanently ENJOIN Defendants and their officers, affiliates, agents, employees,

attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice

of this injunction from engaging in, marketing, advertising, or otherwise offering for sale any

merchandise through Internet order sales;

32

D. AWARD relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting

from Defendants’ violations of FDUTPA, including but not limited to, rescission or reformation

of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies;

E. ASSESS civil penalties in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) as

prescribed by Section 501.2075, Fla. Stat., or Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) for

victimized senior citizens and military service members as prescribed by Section 501.2077, Fla.

Stat., for each act or practice found to be in violation of FDUTPA;

F. AWARD attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Section 501.2075, Fla. Stat., or as

otherwise authorized by law;

G. AWARD such equitable or other relief as is just and appropriate pursuant to Section

501.207, Fla. Stat.; and

H. GRANT such equitable or other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and

proper.

Dated this 14th day of March 2018. Respectfully Submitted,

PAMELA JO BONDI Attorney General of the State of Florida

/s/ Josie Warren By: Josie Warren, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Florida Bar No. 118956 Josie.Warren@myfloridalegal.com

Ronnie Adili, Esq. Senior Assistant Attorney General Florida Bar No. 140473 Ronnie.Adili@myfloridalegal.com

Office of the Attorney General Consumer Protection Division 110 SE 6th Street, Fl. 10 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: (954) 712-4600 Facsimile: (954) 527-3708