Business ProfileforAffordable Spa Covers, Inc.

The following describes a pending government action that has been formally brought by a government agency but has not yet been resolved. We are providing a summary of the government’s allegations, which have not yet been proven.

On December 27, 2022, the Florida Attorney General filed an action against Affordable Spa Covers, Coverlex, and Alejandro Flores-Ramirez (collectively “Defendants” or “Defendant Enterprise”), seeking injunctive relief, consumer restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, attorney’s fees and costs, and other statutory and equitable relief, brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida.

Upon information and belief, the Defendant Enterprise conducted the business practices alleged herein through ASC and Coverlex, which are two interrelated companies that shared common ownership, a physical business location, managers, business functions, and employees. The consumer complaints collectively allege over Ninety Thousand dollars ($90,000) paid by consumers to the Defendant Enterprise for products that were never received, were damaged or were received months after they were originally scheduled to be delivered. Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes states that “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

COUNT I

The Attorney General alleges the Defendant Enterprise violated FDUTPA, at a minimum, when it (1) made material misrepresentations, including but not limited to, that they would provide “fast” shipping, the “fastest turnaround” or the “best customer service”; (2) failed to deliver or timely deliver products ordered and paid for by consumers; (3) failed to conspicuously disclose accurate delivery timeframes at the time of sale; (4) failed to provide refunds to consumers even though the Defendant Enterprise agreed to cancel the consumers’ orders and provide a refund; (5) charged consumers expedited shipping fees and failed to provide expedited shipping; (6) charged consumers cancellation fees despite the Defendant Enterprise’s production and fulfillment delays and failure to comply with promised delivery timelines; (7) charged consumers cancellation fees and then failed to provide a refund of the remaining amount paid by the consumers; (8) failed to provide refunds to consumers who received damaged products; and (9) made material misrepresentations regarding their failure to provide refunds.

The matter is pending. For more details go to (http://www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsreleases/191EF019DB97331785258925005944BA)