Business ProfileforAmerican Screening, LLC
Current Alerts For This Business
On Aug 4, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission filed an action in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, against American Screening, LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company; Ron Kilgarlin Jr. and Shawn Kilgarlin, both individually and as officers of American Screening, LLC to obtain permanent injunctive relief, restitution, rescission or reformation of contracts, the refund of money or return of property, the payment of damages, and other equitable relief for Defendants' acts or practices in violation of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices of the FTC Act 15 and in violation of the Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (MITOR).
According to the FTC, the defendants created shipping labels shortly after an order was received, but didn't actually ship products for weeks or even months. Under the Mail Order Rule, at the time sellers solicit an order, they must have a reasonable basis they will be able to ship: 1) within the stated time; or 2) if no time is stated, within 30 days. If a shipment is delayed, the Rule lays out sequential if-then steps sellers must take to ensure buyers aren't left in the lurch. One key consumer protection built into the Rule is that if sellers can't ship within the required time, they must send a shipping delay notice that offers the buyer a choice either to consent to wait or to cancel the order and get a prompt refund.
Online retailer American Screening marketed hand sanitizer, masks, gowns, and PPE in bulk to hospitals, nursing homes, and local governments, as well as to individual consumers. The defendants promised on their website that items were "in stock" and would be shipped "within 24-48 hours." But according to the complaint, in many instances, the defendants didn't ship until weeks later. They also failed to follow the procedures in the Mail Order Rule for delayed shipments. In granting the FTC's summary judgment motion, the Court ruled that American Screening and its owners didn't have a reasonable basis for their shipment promises, didn't give customers the consent-or-refund option the Mail Order Rule requires, and didn't give "prompt refunds." Citing "The egregious nature of Defendants' conduct," the Court concluded that injunctive relief was warranted and appropriate. The order also included a $14.6 million financial remedy. The FTC will use the money collected to provide consumer refunds.
Read more at https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/08/two-decisions-highlight-mail-order-rule-compliance-during-pandemic-beyond
U.S. Judge Ronnie L. White of the Eastern District of Missouri on April 6, 2022, granted the FTC’s motion for summary judgment in all respects except the amount of equitable monetary relief to be paid by the retailer, American Screening LLC, for customer restitution. In a May 9 status report, the parties reported to the court that they were unable to reach an agreement as to the amount of monetary damages to be paid. Upon the FTC’s motion for reconsideration, Judge White on July 14 granted the original summary judgment motion in all respects and ordered the sum of $14,651,185.42 to be placed in escrow to satisfy customer refund requests.
Judge White concluded that there was no dispute as to the $14,651,185.42 sought by the FTC as the appropriate amount of monetary relief. Noting that some of the retailer’s customers may have been satisfied with their orders even if delayed, Judge White ordered that the FTC implement a plan that required customers to make refund requests rather than receiving the funds outright. Customers were to submit refund requests directly to the FTC and the FTC was to return to American any of the funds that remained unclaimed, less the FTC’s costs in administering the program, no later than 120 days after customers were notified of the refund program, Judge White stated.
Judge White also ordered all defendants — the retailer, its founder and CEO Ron Kilgarlin Jr. and its quality manager and quality management representative, Shawn Kilgarlin — permanently enjoined from advertising or selling protective goods and services and allowed the FTC to establish compliance monitoring, concluding that such sanctions were warranted by the defendants’ “egregious conduct.” Judge White stated that the relief granted would not unduly harm the defendants or put them out of business, but rather would ensure further compliance with the FTC Act.
Judge White filed his final order and judgment for permanent injunction and monetary relief on Jan. 31, 2023.
FTC v. American Screening, LLC, No. 23-1616 (8th Cir. 2024)
During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, American Screening, LLC, a Louisiana company, promised buyers that it would ship personal protective equipment (PPE) more quickly than it actually did. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued American Screening, alleging that its shipping policies and practices violated the FTC Act and the Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (MITOR). The company's website contained a shipping policy that stated orders would be processed and shipped within a few days. However, in practice, it took about six weeks for PPE to be shipped after the customer had purchased it.
The district court granted the FTC summary judgment and ordered American Screening to return almost $14.7 million to consumers and permanently enjoined it from advertising or selling PPE. American Screening challenged the district court's ordered remedies on appeal.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court rejected American Screening's contention that the court should have considered whether each individual consumer had relied on American Screening's shipping representations and had sustained an injury as a result. The court also disagreed with American Screening's argument that the district court's equitable monetary relief went beyond what was necessary to redress consumers and so amounts to an award of exemplary or punitive damages. The court found that the relief was tailored to ensure that dissatisfied consumers are made whole while also ensuring that American Screening does not have to pay unharmed customers as punishment.
Finally, the court rejected American Screening's challenge to the scope of the permanent injunction barring it from advertising or selling PPE. The court agreed with the district court that the egregiousness of American Screening's conduct weighed in favor of the injunction. The court also found that the injunction's effect on American Screening was more modest than its breadth might suggest on June 27, 2024.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/23-1616/23-1616-2024-06-27.html
At-a-glance
Related Categories
Business Details
This is a multi-location business.
- Location of This Business
- 9742 Saint Vincent Ave STE 100, Shreveport, LA 71106-7129
- BBB File Opened:
- 12/18/2006
- Years in Business:
- 20
- Business Started:
- 1/1/2004
- Business Started Locally:
- 1/1/2004
- Type of Entity:
- Limited Liability Company (LLC)
- Hours of Operation
Primary
- M:
- 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM
- T:
- 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM
- W:
- 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM
- Th:
- 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM
- F:
- 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM
- Business Management
- Mr. Ron Kilgarlin, Owner
- Contact Information
Principal
- Mr. Ron Kilgarlin, Owner
Customer Contact
- Mr. Ron Kilgarlin, Owner
- Additional Contact Information
Fax Numbers
- (318) 798-3386Primary Fax
Phone Numbers
- (318) 798-3306Other Phone
Email Addresses
- Primary
- (318) 798-3386
Customer Complaints
6 Customer Complaints
Need to file a complaint? BBB is here to help. We'll guide you through the process. How BBB Processes Complaints and Reviews
File a ComplaintMost Recent Customer Complaint
05/17/2022
- Complaint Type:
- Product Issues
- Status:
- Resolved
Customer Reviews
43 Customer Reviews
What do you think? Share your review.
Most Recent Customer Review
Amy W
09/19/2024
BBB Business Profiles may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.
BBB Business Profiles are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. BBB asks third parties who publish complaints, reviews and/or responses on this website to affirm that the information provided is accurate. However, BBB does not verify the accuracy of information provided by third parties, and does not guarantee the accuracy of any information in Business Profiles.
When considering complaint information, please take into account the company's size and volume of transactions, and understand that the nature of complaints and a firm's responses to them are often more important than the number of complaints.
BBB Business Profiles generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Profiles are subject to change at any time. If you choose to do business with this business, please let the business know that you contacted BBB for a BBB Business Profile.
As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business. Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation.