In the Matter of the Complaint Against SAMMY Y. IP at 5628 Montezuma Road San Diego, CA 92115-2828 MARKETING INTERNATIONAL at P. O. Box 0197 San Diego, CA 92115-0870 COMMISSION MAILING DIVISION at P. O. Box 0197 San Diego, CA 92115-0870 COMMISSION MAILING at P. O. Box 15967 San Diego, CA 92115-0790 MARKETING INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION MAILING DIVISION at P. O. Box 15967 San Diego, CA 92115-0790 MARKETING INTERNATIONAL at P. O. Box 15967 San Diego, CA 92115-0790 NATIONAL DIVISION at P. O. Box 15877 San Diego, CA 92115-0790 DEPT. A NATIONAL DIVISION at P. O. Box 15877 San Diego, CA 92115-0790 P.S. Docket No. 20/65; 07/05/85 Mason, Randolph D. APPEARANCES FOR COMPLAINANT: Na n M. Kalthoff, Esq. James A. Harbin, Esq. Consumer Protection Division Law Department United States Postal Service Washington, DC 20260-1112 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Sammy Y. Ip, pro se 5628 Montezuma Road San Diego, CA 92115-2828
This proceeding was initiated on December 10, 1984, when the Postal Service filed a Complaint alleging that Respondents are engaged in conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money or property through the mail by means of false representations concern ing a work-at-home program in violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3005. Respondents deny any violation of the statute has occurred.
The Amended Complaint alleged that Respondents, by means of classified advertisements in publications of general circulation, falsely represent that potential participants in the program:
"4. a. Will earn $360 a week or more; and
b. The money earned is for work consisting primarily of mailing circulars.
The Amended Complaint further alleges that persons responding to such classified advertisements receive direct mail circulars which, considered singularly, or in conjunction with the above-described classified advertisements, falsely represent that potential partici pants:
"7. a. Will be paid for work consisting primarily of stuffing circulars into pre-addressed stamped envelopes and mailing them;
b. Will typically make hundreds of dollars weekly in net earnings;
c. Will receive an income limited only by the amount of time spent stuffing and mailing circulars;
d. Will be paid by the CMA and/or CM/NA for their at-home work;
e. Will be paid for each circular stuffed and mailed; and
f. Will receive from the CMA and/or CM/NA any amount of envelopes and circulars that they want."
On January 7, 1985, Complainant and Respondents (hereafter some times referred to as "Respondent") agreed to consider portions of the record in a related case, P.S. Docket No. 20/33, as evidence in this case. By order of the same date, the undersigned agreed to hold the record open so that the parties would have an opportunity to submit additional evidence from Docket No. 20/33.
On January 11, 1985, an evidentiary hearing was held before the undersigned in Santa Ana, CA. Complainant's oral motion to amend the Complaint to include additional names and addresses was granted at the hearing (Tr. 16-17). Complainant's witnesses were Postal Inspectors Lynn Bautista and John Neff, and an expert in the areas of direct response and mail order marketing, Mr. Roger Lourie. Sammy Y. Ip testified for himself. At the conclusion of the hear ing, the undersigned asked Respondent to produce the direct mail circular for the National Division address (Tr. 187). Respondent did so by letter dated January 14, 1985 (ALJ 1).
On January 31, 1985, Complainant moved to amend the Complaint to conform to the evidence adduced. This motion was granted by Order dated February 26, 1985.
Respondent and Complainant, on March 26, 1985, and April 5, 1985, respectively, submitted references to those portions of the record in P.S. Docket No. 20/33 to be considered as evidence in this case. The testimony cited was that of Donald Myers, Melba Myers and Wayne Hairston, all of whom were actual purchasers of the CMA and CM/NA program; Robert Bobowski, a mail order expert; Isiah Ward, a Postal Inspector; and Michael Narcum, one of the Respondents in Docket No. 20/33.
At the hearing Complainant was represented by counsel and Respondent appeared pro se. Both parties were afforded a full opportunity to be heard, adduce relevant evidence and examine and cross-examine witnesses. Both parties filed Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on or before May 4, 1985, which have been duly considered.
To the extent indicated below, proposed findings and conclusions have been adopted; otherwise they have been rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the evidence. Based on the entire record herein, including my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, the exhibits, stipulations, and other relevant evidence adduced at the hearing, I make the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
1. Respondent Sammy Y. Ip is an individual whose mail order activities are subject to 39 U.S.C. § 3005 (Ans., § 1,2.). Mr. Ip resides at 5628 Montezuma Road, San Diego, CA 92115-2828 (Ans., § 2) and conducts business at Post Office Boxes 0197, 15967 and 15877 at San Diego, CA 92115 (CX 3,4,5, Tr.27-30).
2. Respondent uses a two-step solicitation approach to obtain money or property through the mails for his work-at-home program. First, Respondent places classified advertisements under the heading of "Business Opportunities" in publications of general circulation. These advertisements invite readers to write to Respondent for information about a circular mailing income opportunity (CX 1,2, 2-a). The names and addresses of persons responding to such adver tisements are property because they have value in the compilation of mailing lists of business opportunity seekers (Tr. 92). Second, Respondent sends a direct mail circular to such persons (CX 6,7; ALJ 1). Respondent's direct mail circulars invite the reader to send money through the mails for a beginner's package and the right to participate in the CMA and CM/NA Plan B (CX 6,7; ALJ 1).
3. Respondent's classified advertisements and direct mail cir culars direct readers to send money or property through the mails. The classified advertisements direct inquiries to: 1) Marketing International, Box 0197, San Diego, CA 92115 (CX 1), 2) Commission Mailing, Box 15767, San Diego, CA 92115 (CX 1), 3) Marketing Inter national, Box 15967, San Diego, CA 92115 (CX 2-a), and 4) National Division, Box 15877, San Diego, CA 92115 (CX 2). The direct mail circulars direct remittances to: 1) Marketing International, Com mission Mailing Division, Box 15967, San Diego, CA 92115 (CX 6), 2) Commission Mailing Division, Box 0197, San Diego, CA 92115 (CX 7), and 3) Department A, National Division, Box 15877, San Diego, CA 92115 (ALJ 1).
4. As alleged in § 4(a)-(b) of the Amended Complaint, Respond ent's classified advertisements represent that participants in Respondent's program will earn $360 a week or more; and that the money earned is for work consisting primarily of mailing circulars. Respondent admits that his classified advertisements represent that participants in his program will be paid for work consisting prima rily of mailing circulars (Ans., § 4(b). Also, each of Respondent's classified advertisements promises earnings of "$360 weekly/up" (CX 6,7; ALJ 1).
5. Respondent's direct mail circulars refine the classified advertising claims about the nature of Respondent's business oppor tunity. The concept of payment primarily for mailing circulars continues. As alleged in § 7(a) of the Amended Complaint, Respondent represents that CMA participants will be paid for work consisting primarily of stuffing circulars into pre-addressed stamped envelopes and mailing them. The circulars emphasize the routine task of stuffing and mailing circulars. Banner headlines describe a 'HOME OPERATED CIRCULAR MAILING VENTURE' (CX 6, ALJ 1) or an opportunity for a 'NICE SECOND INCOME BY STUFFING COMMISSION CIRCULARS INTO ENVELOPES AND MAILING THEM' (CX 7). Additional boldface headlines proclaim the need for "MAILERS" and promise that you may "MAIL AT YOUR OWN PACE" (CX 6, 7, ALJ 1). The circulars state (CX 6, 7; ALJ 1):
"The work you will be doing is not difficult. Mainly, you will be stuffing commission circulars into pre-addressed, stamped envelopes and mailing them."
6. The overall impression created by Respondent's advertising is that participants in his program will be paid primarily for
stuffing circulars into envelopes and mailing them. Respondent does advise purchasers that they must "follow our proven directions for getting stamped, addressed envelopes" (CX 6,7, ALJ 1). Discovering this "well guarded process by which you receive only the amount of envelopes you want" requires purchasing the right to participate in Respondent's program (CX 6,7, ALJ 1). Reference to these undis closed directions does not alert the reader that he will primarily be obtaining names of prospective purchasers by purchasing classi fied advertisements.
7. As alleged in § 7(b) of the Amended Complaint, Respondent makes the representation that participants in the CMA program will typically make hundreds of dollars weekly in net earnings. In addi tion to the classified advertisement's reference to "$360 weekly /up," the circular promises that "YOU CAN MAKE HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS PER WEEK" (CX 6,7). Additional bold face headlines promise that mailers will "MAKE HUNDREDS WEEKLY" (CX 6,7, ALJ 1) and state that this "income will be net earnings" (CX 6,7, ALJ 1, § 5).
8. The limited disclaimers in Respondent's direct mail circu lars do not dispel the above earnings claims. Respondent states that its circulars "will provide you with an average of $10-360 or more per week" (CX 6,7, ALJ 1, § 3). This statement is ambiguous in view of the clear impression conveyed by the classified advertise ments that earnings will be $360 or more per week. Also, any impact created by the word "average" is made meaningless by the qualifier "or more". This ambiguous language does not dispel the impression that hundreds of dollars will be earned each week.
9. As alleged in § 7(c) of the Amended Complaint, Respondent represents that CMA participants will receive an income limited only by the amount of time spent stuffing and mailing circulars. This is implied by Respondent's per piece method of payment, i.e., "for every so many circulars you mail, you will make a certain amount of money," such as, "$200 per 100 mailed" (CX 6,7, ALJ 1). He later promises that "if you have plenty of time" you can mail thousands of circulars, and "there is no set minimum on how many you do. This way, how much money you earn is up to you" (CX 6,7, ALJ 1 at § 7). Dollar amounts earned and number of circulars mailed are specific ally correlated to time. Language making this correlation includes:
"Perhaps you want to work only a few hours per week and
... mail out 50 or 100. Or you can spend more time at it, and mail out 300.
...some people are interested in making only about $50 extra per week while others are spending more time at it, and earning several hundred dollars per week" (CX 6,7, ALJ 1, § 3-4).
10. As alleged in § 7(d) of the Amended Complaint, Respondent represents that CMA participants will be paid by the CMA and/or CM/NA for their at-home work. CM/NA is described as merely one of many companies in need of independent commission mailers. Commis sions are purportedly "paid by these fine companies" to the inde pendent mailers (CX 6,7, ALJ 1, § 3). Respondent implies that the CMA and/or CM/NA pays for mailing these circulars in the same manner as these other firms by promising "you will get paid by cash-in advance commissions in the CMA, and/or CM/NA Plan B, or by weekly checks" (CX 6,7, ALJ 1, § 5).
11. As alleged in § 7(e) of the Amended Complaint, Respondent represents that CMA participants will be paid for each circular stuffed and mailed. Participants are to be paid a "certain amount" for every so many circulars you mail" with the amounts varying because of the "many different circulars available." This implies that the CMA participant is paid for each circular stuffed and mailed but that the amount paid per circular may vary for each of the different circular types. The method of payment cited as an example by Respondent, "$200 per 100 mailed," also implies that program participants are paid for each circular stuffed and mailed (CX 6,7, ALJ 1, § 4).
12. As alleged in § 7(f) of the Amended Complaint, Respondent represents that CMA participants will receive from the CMA and/or CM/NA any amount of envelopes and circulars that they want. In this regard, Respondent's advertisements give this impression by stating: "No quotas" (CX 1,2,2-a), "Do as many as you can and have time for" (CX 6,7, ALJ 1, § 3), "No set minimum on how many you do" (CX 6,7, ALJ 1, § 3), and "You receive only the amount of envelopes you want" (CX 6,7, ALJ 1, § 7). CMA promises to "provide your materials" including "circulars available through us" (CX 6,7, ALJ 1, § 4,6). Customer testimony also shows that the ordinary consumer would so interpret Respondent's advertisements (CX-15, pp.9,22,32).
13. Respondent's "beginner's package" primarily seeks to per suade program participants to operate a commission mailing business similar to Respondent's. The "beginner's package" consists of the following items: 1) instructions for participating in the CMA and CM/NA program (CX 9), 2) a sample CM/NA circular (CX 10), 3) other advertising enclosures (CX 11,12,13) and, 4) the "Personal Success Manual" (CX 14; Tr. 38-41, 105-106). The "Personal Success Manual" provides a detailed description of Respondent's program. It welcomes the reader to "the highly-profitable field of commission circular mailing and 'mail order'" (CX 14, p.2). It advises that "one of the most profitable fields" is "opportunity offers" selling "books or information about how to make money" (CX 14, p.3). It urges participants to sell products similar to Respondent's by means of "inquiry advertising" similar to Respondent's (CX 14, p.3,4,9).
14. Respondent advises his customers to use a two-step solicita tion approach (CX 14, p.3,4,5). First, inquiries are sought by:
1) Placement of "posters on bulletin boards in college campuses, stores, laundromats, community centers and on telephone booths near entrances to large public buildings" (CX 14, p.3).
2) Placement of "small classified advertisements in local weekly papers" (CX 14, p.4) or in "monthly magazines" (CX 9), and
3) Placement of advertising circulars "in grocery stores and public places" (CX 14, p.4). Second, money is sought through direct mail circulars sent to inquirers (CX 14, p.4-5). Respondent supplies his customers with sample classified advertisements (CX 14, p. 9, CX 9) and sample circulars (CX 10). He also supplies the names of other companies that provide circulars and a means of filling orders for these various opportunity offers (CX 14, p.5,8).
15. Roger Lourie is a well-qualified expert in the areas of direct response and mail order marketing. His testimony is in accord with the informed consensus (Tr. 77). He has a masters degree in business and in international business (Tr. 48). He has worked in the direct response industry for 15 years in executive and professional positions (Tr. 48-49). He published several articles and a book, The Five Track Learning Manual of Direct Marketing, that teaches "new people in the field the basics of direct response" and helps "people who are not novices in the field open themselves to new ideas..." (Tr. 48-51). He actively consults in the direct response marketing field (Tr. 51). This work has involved use of independent contractors to make direct response sales (Tr. 52). As a member of the Direct Mail Marketing Association, the trade asso ciation of the direct response industry, he serves as Chairman of the Ethics Committee (Tr. 53). He was an invited lecturer on the basics of direct response and mail order at Direct Marketing Asso ciation meetings (Tr. 55). He has testified previously as an expert in the fields of mail order and direct response marketing (Tr. 55). His testimony was largely corroborated by the expert testimony of Robert Bobowski in P.S. Docket No. 20/33 (CX-15; RX-5).
16. Direct response marketing is the business of selling directly a product or a service to an individual user without benefit of a middle man (Tr. 50). Mail order and space advertising campaigns are a means of selling via direct response (Tr. 50).Successful direct response marketers must possess a variety of skills (Tr. 59). The success of their campaigns is dependent upon these skills as well as many other factors (Tr. 59). Skills impor tant in conducting a direct response campaign are organization, business expertise, past work, education, hard work and discipline (Tr. 59-60,62). Other factors determining the success of a direct response campaign are: 1) product or service, 2) structuring of offer, 3) audience selection, 4) price, and 5) presentation of advertisement (Tr. 59). Routine tasks such as stuffing circulars into envelopes and mailing the envelopes are not significant factors in operating a successful direct response campaign (Tr. 60; CX-15, pp.57-58).
17. The representation that CMA participants are paid for work consisting primarily of stuffing circulars into pre-addressed envelopes and mailing them is false (Amended Complaint, § 4(b), 7(a)). CMA participants must conduct their own mail order business to receive payment for their work (CX 9,14, FOF 13). The ability to conduct such a business does not depend on one's proficiency in processing envelopes. The real work for which CMA participants receive payment is placing advertisements, conducting research to find appropriate media or mailing lists, getting circulars, analy zing responses and creating mailing pieces or ads (Tr. 76) and keeping records (Tr. 77). Respondent's "Personal Success Manual" shows that the work of the commission mailer is primarily distri buting or placing advertisements (CX 14, p.3,4), maintaining records of income and expenses (CX 14, p.7), and developing sources of supplies and potential customers (CX 14, p.8,9).
18. Persons purchasing Respondent's products are unlikely to be successful in operating their own direct mail campaign (Tr. 63-68). Respondent's advertisements appeal to "an audience that would like to make some money fairly quickly with relatively little work" (Tr. 64). Such persons are probably not very well educated and are at a lower income level (Tr. 64; CX-15, pp.93-96). They are not willing to devote the discipline and hard work necessary to make a direct response campaign a success (Tr. 65).
19. The measure of success or failure of a direct response cam paign is its "response rate" (Tr. 61). The response rate is defined as the number of orders received from a direct mail campaign or a space advertising campaign divided by the number of pieces of mail sent out or the circulation of a specific magazine (Tr. 60). Response rates for the solicitation approach recommended by Respond ent will not typically generate hundreds of dollars in weekly net earnings because of poor audience pre-selection (Tr. 70-73). Placing posters on bulletin boards in college campuses, stores or laundromats, circulars in grocery stores or small advertisements in weekly papers (CX 14, pp.3-5) results in minimal response rates (Tr. 69-73). Respondent's customers are unlikely to place adver tisements in monthly magazines in a manner that will generate the promised earnings. Such advertisements are too expensive to be typically used by Respondent's customers (Tr. 74-75).
20. The representations that participants in Respondent's program will make $360 a week or more or will typically make hundreds of dollars weekly in net earnings are false (Amended Complaint, § 4(a), 7(b)). The target audience attracted by Respond ent's advertising and the inadequacy of his product will cause typical earnings to be less than those promised.
21. Respondent's and Mr. Narcum's testimony does not establish that persons following Respondent's program will make the promised earnings. Respondent's personal testimony is of limited relevance since he was not attracted to this program by means of advertise- ments such as those he uses to attract customers (Tr. 136). Con sequently, he is not part of the target audience whose typical earnings are at issue. Also, Mr. Ip does not know how much money his customers earn (Tr. 148). He sells his product by means other than that which he advises his customers to use. He advertises in maga zines whose readers he believes are "interested in having their own business" (Tr. 141,151). He tracks his response rate from various different advertisements (Tr. 134). He never used posters on bul letin boards to sell this particular product (Tr. 142). Mr. Narcum has sold 70,000 Personal Success Manuals CX-15, p. 177), but makes weekly payments to only 20 to 25 program participants. Some of these participants were attracted to the program through methods other than the purchase of this manual (Id., pp. 184-185). Finally, Respondent's evidence of Treasury Department Statistics regarding average income of people in the mail order business generally (RX-1,2) has little probative value with respect to earnings in the instant business.
22. The representation that CMA participants will receive an income limited only by the amount of time spent stuffing and mailing circulars is false (Amended Complaint, § 7(c)). Program participants are paid not for "just stuffing envelopes," but for "all the expert ise required to run a business correctly" (Tr. 77). Respondent's Personal Success Manual concedes the relative lack of importance of time spent stuffing and mailing circulars. It states that the "most important" aspects of commission mailing are knowing "where to get products or items which are sold via commission mailing" and "how to obtain the names of people who will be interested in what their circulars offer" (CX 14, p.2). To the extent that time is important, much of that time is spent on activities other than stuffing and mailing circulars.
23. The representation that CMA participants will be paid by the CMA and/or CM/NA for their at-home work is false (Amended Complaint, § 7(d)). The work offered by CMA is the right to participate in CM/NA Plan B (CX 6,7; RX 1; CX 14, p.8). CM/NA Plan B directs participants to conduct a two-step solicitation in which inquiries are initially sought by classified advertising and followed up with direct mail circulars soliciting orders for the products described therein and remittances in payment for such orders (CX 9). Plan B participants retain these remittances and forward the orders to Department A, Division Headquarters, Box 464, Woodstock, IL 60098 (CX 9). Plan B participants are paid by their own customers, not by CMA or CM/NA.
24 a. The representation that CMA participants will be paid for each circular stuffed and mailed is false (Amended Complaint, § 7(e)). CM/NA Plan B participants are only paid by those circular recipients who order the product from the participant.
b. The Personal Success Manual also lists other sources of commission mailing circulars. These circular sources are described as "prime sources" (Cx 14, pp. 5,8). Prime sources pay their mailers as follows:
After the mailer stuffs their envelopes and mails out their circulars, they start receiving orders. Each order will have the full purchase price of the product, item or offer along with it. The mailer simply takes their commission out of the full purchase price and forwards the order along to the prime source for filling (CX 14, p.5).
25. The representation that CMA participants will receive from the CMA and/or CM/NA any amount of envelopes and circulars that they want is false (Amended Complaint, § 7(f)). CMA through CM/NA Plan B only supplies "sample" circulars which participants must reproduce at their own expense (CX 9). Envelopes are supplied by persons responding to a participant's classified advertising rather than CMA or CM/NA (CX 9).
1. Each of Respondent's advertisements must be considered as a whole and the meaning is to be determined in light of the probable impact of this material on a person of ordinary mind. Donaldson v. Read Magazine, 333 U.S. 178, 189 (1948); Peak Laboratories, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 556 F.2d 1387, 1389 (5th Cir. 1977). The impres sion of advertising on the ordinary mind is a question of law for the presiding officer to determine and testimony on interpretation is not required to make that determination. Vibra-Brush v. Schaffer, 152 F.Supp. 461 (S.D.N.Y. 1957), rev'd on other grounds, 256 F.2d 681 (2nd Cir. 1958). Express misrepresentations are not required. It is the net impression which the advertisement is likely to make upon individuals to whom it is directed which is important, and even if an advertisement is so worded as not to make an express representaion, if it is artfully designed to mislead those responding to it, the false representation statute is applicable. G.J. Howard Co. v. Cassidy, 162 F.Supp. 568 (E.D.N.Y. 1958); See also, Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976).
2. Applying the foregoing standards, I find that Respondent's advertisements make the representations alleged in § 4(a)-(b) and § 7(a)-(f) of the Amended Complaint. The language contained in the advertisements, when read in context, which directly or impliedly makes these representations is set forth in the Findings of Fact.
3. As set forth in the Findings of Fact, the representations set forth in paragraphs 4 and 7 of the Amended Complaint are materially false.
4. Respondent's argument that Roger Lourie is not qualified to testify in this matter is rejected. Mr. Lourie's background and experience make him well-qualified to testify regarding all aspects of the mail order business, including the "inquiry advertising" method employed by Respondent (Tr. 55,57-58,78-79). Furthermore, an expert may testify with respect to a product even though he has not personally purchased or tested the product in issue. Original Cosmetics Products, Inc. v. Strachan, 459 F. Supp. 496 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), aff'd mem. No. 78-6165 (2d Cir. April 30, 1979).
5. Complainant has met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the reliable and probative evidence of record. S.E.C. v. Savoy Industries, Inc., 587 F.2d 1149, 1168 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
6. The representations made by Respondent are material because they have a tendency to persuade readers to order and pay for Respondent's product.
7. Respondent argues that a violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3005 cannot be found unless the Complainant proves the element of fraudulent intent. This argument is rejected. In 1968 the statute was amended to remove proof of intent to deceive as a necessary element for violation of the statute. See, Lynch v. Blount, 330 F. Supp. 689 (S.D.N.Y. 1971), aff'd 404 U.S. 1007 (1972): Sauna Belt, Inc., Docket No. 3/43 (P.O.D. October 4, 1972).
8. Respondent is engaged in the conduct of a scheme for obtain ing remittances of money or property through the mail by means of false representations in violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3005.
9. Respondent notes that the classified advertisements seek only self-addressed, stamped envelopes ("SASE's") containing the names of prospective purchasers, and that these advertisements do not seek the remittance of money through the mail. Respondent argues that the statute should not preclude Respondent from receiving the SASE's. (Respondent's Answer to Motion to Amend Complaint, Feb. 19, 1985). These SASE's constitute "property" which is sent through the mail in response to false representations within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. § 3005. Moreover, Respondent should be precluded from receiving the SASE's because they relate to the envelope stuffing scheme. American Association of Home Income Programs or AAHIP, P.S. Docket No. 8/19 (P.S. D. on Request for Clarification of Mail Stop Order, July 29, 1980).
10. The attached False Representation Order and Cease and Desist Order should be issued.
Randolph D. Mason
Administrative Law Judge
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER NO.
RE: SAMMY Y. IP, et al.
P.S. Docket No. 20/65
IT IS ORDERED that Respondent, SAMMY Y. IP and his agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the advertising, offering for sale or distribution of any envelope stuffing, addressing and/or mailing program in which the remittance of money or property is sought through the United States mail, do forthwith cease and desist from representing, directly or indirectly, in substance and effect, whether by affirmative statements, implications or omission that:
a. Program participants will be paid for work consisting primarily of stuffing circulars into envelopes, addressing envelopes and/or mailing envelopes;
b. Program participants will typically earn or receive any stated, or gross, or net, amount of earnings or profit unless, in fact, the earnings represented are those of a substantial number of participants in the community or geographical area in which such representations are made and accurately reflect the average earnings of the participant under circumstances similar to the participants to whom the representation is made;
c. Program participants earnings are limited only by the amount of time spent stuffing, addressing, and/or mailing envelopes;
d. Program participants earnings are limited only by the number of envelopes stuffed, addressed and/or mailed;
e. Program participants are paid for their work by IP or persons or entities affiliated with IP;
f. Program participants will be paid for each envelope stuffed, addressed, and/or mailed; and
g. IP or persons or entities affiliated with IP will furnish program participants with envelopes and circulars for stuffing, addressing and/or mailing, unless all material conditions upon which the receipt of such envelopes and circulars are dependent, are fully and conspicuously disclosed in the promotional material or device that solicits the remittance of money through the mail.