|
To Whom It May Concern:
I was just directed to your website ironically by the
information posted on the Kids.com website. I am very interested
to know more about those lawsuits the Philadelphia Inquirer
reported. Were they in Philadelphia or New Jersey? What
was the basis of those suits? I also am a "naive" parent
who fell, hook, line & sinker for the lines fed to
us by Kids.com. I am an educated person, a skeptic and
even an attorney, but I guess when it comes to my children,
I ignored all of my "gut" feelings and gave them
what they wanted.
We did pay about $500-$600 "up front" b/c the
other contract w/o the "up front" payment put
a tremendous burden of "marketing" our child
upon us & I figured that we would leave that to the
professionals.
But now, two years later, having gotten our daughter's
pictues updated regularly as required, I am more frustrated
with the situation and wonder if there is anything that
can be done.
Like I said, I am an attorney & I happen to practice
in NJ so filing a lawsuit would be easy as long as I know
the basis —what the other people sued for, where,
etc., thank you for any help you can provide and if I can
be of any assistance in "validating" your points,
I will gladly—because I have done all that was required
by me under the contract & I wonder what else Kids.com
has done besides put my daughter's picture on their website.
We have had NO calls, etc., during this time.
Thank you.
To answer your question about getting your money back,
apparently there were different legal arguments used by
the parents who took Kids.com to court and won all their
money back.
I am not an attorney, but the legal research I have done
leads me to the same conclusion as the Philadelphia Inquirer,
i.e: Kids.com is operating without the required employment
agency license in New Jersey.
Since you practice in NJ, would you be able to do legal
research to find precedent cases of employment agencies
operating without a license, and how the courts ruled?
Do you still have the Kids.com contract you signed two
years ago? Does it state they will take a percentage of
any work they get for your daughter? That could be all
you need to prove Kids.com meets the legal definition of
an employment agency and, since they meet the legal definition
yet don't have an employment agency license, their business
is illegal. Therefore all fees collected by their illegal
business must be returned.
Documentary evidence Kids.com takes a commission on jobs
would be very convincing before a judge of the legal argument
Kids.com meets the legal definition of an agency. Could
you quote or email a copy of the Kids.com contract?
I have access to Westlaw (a legal research cite) & can
look up all NJ cases easily so tonight I will work on what
you have told me & will gladly share the information
with you. As far as the contract goes, I still have it & the
wording is:
- Should the enrolled child, or any other children of
the family, be booked through KIDS.COM, a commission
of 15% will be paid to KIDS.COM. An additional 10% of
the childs earnings will be paid to the modeling agenty
for T.V. and film or 15% for print advertising.
Thank you for your time & advice.
Did you initially receive a letter from Kids.com in which
they said, "Your child has been brought to our attention"?
And if so, did you take that to mean they had received
a referral?
Yes - I did get a letter like that - did not save a copy
though - interesting enough - don't know what database
they use to send out those letters b/c I have periodically
(since signing the contract) still have gotten the solicitation
letters (I think they may have then come in my maiden name
- I have credit cards in both married names & maiden
names).
You're an attorney. Do you think Kids.com, based on what
you have read, meets the legal definition of an employment
agency?
“Employment agency” means any person who, for a fee, charge or
commission:
(1) Procures or obtains, or offers, promises or attempts to
procure, obtain, or assist in procuring or obtaining employment
for a job seeker or employees for an employer; or
(2) Supplies job seekers to employers seeking employees on
a part-time or temporary assignment basis who has not filed
notification with the Attorney General pursuant to the provisions
of section 1 of P.L.1981, c. 1 (C.56:8- 1.1); or
(3) Procures, obtains, offers, promises or attempts to procure
or obtain employment or engagements for actors, actresses,
performing artists, vocalists, musicians or models; or
(4) Acts as a placement firm, career counseling service, or
resume
service; or
(5) Acts as a nurses’ registry.
Under that definition, definitely...obviously especially
under subsection 3.
Do you think that most agencies or companies ask their
general counsel to review their business plan and business
model before they start, or shortly thereafter, to make
sure they are not going to do anything illegal?
Several weeks ago, I asked the CEO of Kids.com which attorney
they consulted before they started, who was their general counsel,
but he didn't answer.
I think I also asked him if he could produce a signed statement
from an attorney saying he or she had reviewed Kids.com's business
plan and does not believe they require an employment agency
license, i.e: a legal opinion from a licensed lawyer.
Again, no answer. Yet he still maintains Kids.com does not
need an employment agency license.
So I told him, Look, you're not an attorney, why should I listen
to you? You're giving a legal opinion, but you're not a lawyer.
So I said, since you can't give a legal opinion, give me a
legal argument. Show you know the law. Quote it, tell me how
and why you don't meet the legal definition.
He wouldn't answer that, either.
But he says they have met with Consumer Affairs and the BBB,
and they said they are not an agency, so don't need a license.
I thought, Really? Since when does the BBB give legal opinions?
I can't see them doing anything of the sort.
I asked the BBB if they had the type of meeting Kids.com claimed.
No reply.
So I had someone call the Regulated Business Section of Consumer
Affairs, which oversees and enforces the employment agency
laws, to ask if they had a meeting with Kids.com.
The answer was, No, they had no record of any meeting with
Kids.com.
So I contacted Kids.com's CEO again, and I told him, There
is no record of any meeting between Kids.com and Consumer Affairs.
When did this meeting take place? Who was at the meeting?
He said, We have a record of the meeting. But he would not
tell me who was at the meeting and when it occurred.
The bottom line: I think you have a very good legal argument
to win your case.
What do you think of this argument before a judge:
1. Kids.com is an employment agency under the legal definition
of New Jersey state law. Here is my contract with Kids.com
which proves they meet the legal definition.
2. Kids.com does not have an employment agency license. The
Regulated Business section, which grants agency licenses, said
they don't have the agency license.
3. Kids.com needs an employment agency license to do business
as an employment agency. They did business with me without
the required license. That was business they had no legal right
to do. Therefore the money they took from me was taken without
any legal right. Therefore I have a right to get that money
back.
That sounds like a good argument to me - I'm also wondering
if I could throw in the NJ Consumer Fraud Act - I'm familiar
w/ certain aspects of it - not sure if what they do/did
fit into that act - if so, they are liable for treble damages
(3x the contract price)/
Thank you for giving me the start/motivation to start
- I will let you know what I find out from my research
- also, once I file suit, I'm entitled to ask for the minutes/notes
of those meetings, legal opinions, etc...all it would cost
me is the money to file the suit which in this case I think
is worth it.
Thanks again & I will keep you informed.
In addition to your $595 refund, you may also be entitled
to $2,000 for Kids.com's violation of the Employment Act:
- "Penalties for violations. In addition to any
other penalty provided by law, a person who violates
any of the provisions of this act shall be liable for
a penalty of not more than $2,000 for the first offense
and not more than $5,000 for the second and each subsequent
offense."
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/reg/rb.htm (34:8-61.)
Does the Consumer Fraud Act cover deceptive and unfair
trade?
You could probably argue violation of the Consumer Fraud Act
based on their deceptive introduction letter which makes it
sound as if they received a referral when the reality is they
bought your child's name from a list of birth records.
The unfair argument would be the extremely high failure rate
at getting kids work.
Wouldn't yoy like to see them produce the numbers in discovery?
(They refuse to answer their clients' and reporters' questions
about how many or what percentage of the kids signed up receive
paying work.)
|
