Modeling Industry Legal History
What Busted Modeling Scams Look Like
1. "In 1974 the FTC
issued a complaint charging National Talent Associates and its officers
with misrepresenting their ability to place children as models and entertainers.
In 1975 the company signed a consent order permanently prohibiting misrepresentations
of its ability to obtain modeling positions for its clients, requiring
it to disclose specified information and providing customers with a three-day
cooling-off period. In 1979 the Commission charged National Talent Associates
and its officers violated the 1975 order by misrepresenting the placement
and employment figures and gross annual earnings of their clients. A consent
judgment settling the charges required the company to pay a $25,000 civil
penalty and also permanently prohibited it from violating the 1975 order."
2. "The Federal Trade Commission has charged a talent agency and its officers with violating a 1975 consent order by misrepresenting its ability to place children in paid modeling positions. The company will pay a $150,000 civil penalty to settle the charges under a consent decree filed by the Department of Justice to day in federal court at the request of the FTC. The decree is subject to court approval. The 1975 order settled charges that National Talent Associates Inc., of New Jersey and Illinois, misrepresented its expertise in finding modeling positions and its past success record." Ibid.
3. "A federal District Court in New Jersey has issued a permanent injunction against a New Jersey seller of child-modeling services, at the Federal Trade Commission's request. National Talent Associates (NTA) and its president, Jerome P. Ashfield, had been charged by the FTC with misrepresenting their ability to place children in high-paying modeling and acting jobs, in violation of a previous consent order. The court also ordered the defendants to pay a $160,000 civil penalty. The court order stems from FTC charges filed in June 1996 against National Talent Associates, Inc. and Mr. Ashfield. NTA is headquartered in Fairfield, N.J., and has offices in the Philadelphia, New York, Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan areas." "FTC Wins Permanent Injunction Against Talent Broker," FTC, May 26, 1999.
4. "On January 17, 1997, Adkison, without admission of violation of any law, entered into a stipulated final judgement in San Francisco City & County Superior Court. This judgment permanently restrains Adkison from acting as a talent agency in any capacity in the state of California without a valid license as a talent agent or from advertising or implying directly or indirectly that he is a talent agent without first obtaining a license.... Adkison agreed to pay $50,000 to the San Francisco District Attorney's office in settlement of their cause of action against him and has agreed to abide by the terms of the injunction." http://www.goldengatebbb.org/compid=27345 [July 16, 2004]
5. "The court also found that the defendants derived almost all their income from the sale of photographs that Dupont employees told consumers they must have in order for the agency to promote them to clients.... Judge Norma L. Shapiro entered a judgment of $2,343,506 against du Pont, and both defendants are liable. Funds collected on the judgment will be used for consumer redress." "David Du Pont Found Liable in Modeling Agency Scam," FTC, Jan. 31, 1992.
6. "David Du Pont Held in Contempt of Court for Violating Previous Court Order," FTC, July 20, 1992.
7. Chris Krewson, "Attorney General Penalizes Modeling Agency," Centre Daily Times, July 2, 1998, p. 5A.
8. "Bogus "Talent Scouts" Use Smoke Screen To "Screen Test" Consumers," FTC, May 27, 1999.
9. Traci Hukill, "Powers That Be," Metro Active, Dec. 9, 1999. http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.09.99/powers-9949.html
10. Kurt Streeter, "Two at Talent Agency Get 30 Days in Jail for False Promises," Los Angeles Times, Jan. 30, 1999.
11. Caroline E. Mayer, "Modeling Agencies Settle With FTC," Washington Post, Sept. 1, 1999, p. E1.
12. "Under the settlement signed Wednesday by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Horowitz, Lord must pay $38,000 in civil fines plus $12,000 in other damages." "Modeling School Owner Agrees to $50,000 in Fines," Los Angeles Times, Feb. 2, 1995.
13. "On May 1, 2001, defendants Johnson and Gill filed papers with the North Carolina Secretary of State's office to organize Face as a limited liability company and began operations as a modeling agency. Prior to opening Face, defendant Johnson operated a modeling company in Georgia called Xtra Model Management, Inc. The State of Georgia sued defendant Johnson and his company for engaging in unfair or deceptive practices in connection with the operation of his modeling company, and defendant Johnson signed a judgment agreeing, among other things, never to engage in employment with, directing, or acting as an agent or consultant for a modeling or talent agency located in the state of Georgia. He further agreed to pay the State of Georgia $30,000 to be used as restitution and attorney fees." North Carolina v. Face National Models and Talent LLC, §6.
14. Arthur O. Murray, "State sues agency for model behavior," Tar Heel Tatler, Business North Carolina, Aug. 2002. http://www.businessnc.com/archives/2002/08/tar_heel_tattler.html
15. North Carolina v. Face National Models and Talent LLC.
16. Laura Weinert, "Manager Valentino and Photographer Kraft Convicted," Backstage West, Apr. 26, 2001.
17. Laura Weinert, "Malibu Talent Hits the Highway," Backstage West, Sept. 26, 2002.
18. "In February of 2000, the Los Angeles District Attorney's office filed a Criminal complaint in Los Angeles District Superior Court charging the company, and its principals, with fraud and misrepresentation in association with their business practices. The company's principals remain out on bail. Glamour closed its doors shortly after. On March 27, 2001, the Los Angeles District Attorney filed a nine-count amended Felony Complaint (case # BA198638) against the above named defendants. The Complaint charged the couple with Conspiracy to Defraud, and Grand Theft, in connection with the business practices used by Glamour Models. The complaint alleged the company misled clients into believing that by purchasing a photo portfolio, they would obtain employment in the modeling industry, and, without a Talent Agency License, they could not procure employment for their clients. The couple pled "No Contest" to all counts." BBB Report for Glamour Models, Inc.
20. "On August 21, 2000, the City of San Diego's Consumer & Environment Protection Unit settled a criminal complaint with Orange Talent International, dba John Robert Powers and John Robert Powers Entertainment Company; and Patricia Ann Pascucci, aka Patricia Inge Valenz, Patricia Pascucci, and Patricia Pascucci Stewart, individually and as President of Orange Talent International, Inc. Without admitting guilt, the company may no longer: charge customers of John Robert Powers, directly or indirectly, a registration fee of any kind in violation of Civil Code section 1812.512(c); make or cause to be made, any false, misleading or deceptive advertisment [sic] or representation regarding any person that has been represented or trained by John Robert Powers or about the success of John Robert Powers in obtai[n]ing jobs for its clients. The company agreed to pay restitution to several clients as well as fines and penalties." BBB Report for John Robert Powers San Diego. [May 5, 2003]. "Pascucci Productions: The corporation pleaded no contest in a criminal case to violations of laws governing employment services. The business was placed on probation for three years and ordered not to make false, misleading or deceptive advertisements or representations regarding any person that has been represented or trained by John Robert Powers or about the success of John Robert Powers in obtaining jobs for its clients. The business was also ordered to pay $16,980 restitution to victims named in the Complaint, and to pay fines totaling $4,000." "Consumer Fraud - San Diego Attorney," http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/cnty/cntydepts/safety/da/protecting/consumpro.html [May 5, 2003]
21. "The suit said
approximately 120 customers were charged about $1050 each for photo-shoots
and "composite" photo cards (which cost the agency about $240),
while the agency's revenue from its share of actual modeling assignments
was under $50. "The agency's representation that it made money when
models made money was patently false," Miller said. "People were
led to believe that their selection by Lauren Ashly staff was the beginning
of a modeling career, but we alleged all they received were the composite
22. "While claiming that Models International was not a modeling school or agency, Valencia's program included: a photo shoot with professional photographers, hairdressers and make-up artists; prints for a portfolio and 100 zed cards (which are like a model's business card); professional coaching and training." "Criminal Charges Filed Against Owner of Models International," Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, Feb. 13, 2003. http://www.scvmed.org/" In February 1997, when she was 60 years old and size 16, Stone paid Pro Images Studios $300 for their guarantee of three paid modeling assignments within the next year.... Finally, in October 2000, Stone took them to Charlottesville's small claims court and won. The next month she received a check for the $300 fee plus court costs." Barbara Nordin, "Fearless Consumer: Model seduction II: the model's revenge," The Hook, Feb. 14, 2002. http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2002/02/14/fearlessConsumerModelSeduc.html
24. "When actor
Casey Reidling agreed to pay his new management company $195 to place his
photo and resumé on its website, the check was cashed, he said, but the
photo never appeared online. Actor Deborah Ramaglia claimed to have faced
a similar situation; after the company cashed her check, it placed her
photo on a separate website — a website that, she said, she never
knew existed. When their attempts to get a refund failed, the actors took
the Van Nuys-based International Actors Management Company to court. While
company owner Keith Kaminsky claimed all the allegations were false, a
Small Claims Court judge ordered IAMC to pay the actors restitution." Laura
to the Jungle," Backstage West, July 24, 2003.
25. "It is hereby ordered that Respondent Charlie Rairdoni, an individual dba Photo Casting Productions aka Rairdoni Productions, pay petitioner Heidi Kortenbach $700.00 for unlawfully collected fees, $23.51 for interest on these fees, and $700.00 in penalties under Labor Code section 1700.40, for a total of $1,423.51." Heidi Kortenbach vs. Charlie Rairdoni, No. TAC 25-97, 1997. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/TAC/25-97.pdf
26. "It is hereby ordered that Respondent Andy Anderson, an individual dba The Andy Anderson Agency, pay petitioner Shawn Asselin $340 for unlawfully collected fees, $31.45 for interest on these fees, and $340 in penalties under Labor Code section 1700.40, for a total of $711.46." Shawn Asselin vs. Andy Anderson, dba Andy Anderson AGENCY, No. TAC 14-97, 1997. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/TAC/14-97.pdf
27. "The written agreement was part of a package of material which included "Clymer's Model and Talent Agency Contract" which consisted of three pages. Also included in the package (at pages 8-10) is material describing a "Model Workshop Program" available only to models under contract with Clymer. The stated price for the workshop was $2,550.00.... Respondent Clymer shall pay to Petitioner Padilla a total of $1,800.00 for reimbursement of unlawfully collected fees, and $1,800.00 for penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 1700.40, for a total of $3,600.00." Dina Padilla vs. Penny Clymer, No. TAC 60-94, 1998. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/TAC/60-94.pdf
28. Marie Bristol v. Kids.com LLC, SC-001665-2000, $610.00, June 27, 2000.
29. Kristen Phillips v. Kids.com LLC, SC-003981-2001, $611.00, Jan. 30, 2002.
30. "A modeling
agency has agreed to pay $70,000 in restitution to Ohio consumers to settle
a consumer complaint.... Petro alleged that Z Models Inc. and Z Studios
Inc., which commonly do business under the name Z Model Management, led
consumers to believe the modeling jobs paid $55 an hour, when instead they
were asked to buy a pricey portfolio with the promise that it would lead
to a modeling job that was not delivered."
31. "Sims traded
under names including Central Casting, Boomerangs New Century, Little Stars
and Shirley Temple Australia. He placed advertisements in Sydney and regional
newspapers offering work as a model or film extra for adults, children
and even pets. For fees ranging from $147 to $995 people with stars in
their eyes were promised photo sessions for a portfolio and then work.
His victims include a Liverpool woman who was told her children, aged 15
and 13, were wanted to model athletic clothing during the Olympics; a Newcastle
man who was promised work for film extras and atmosphere-type people in
a 1960s nostalgia film; a St George woman who was promised that her dogs
could earn her big money in dog food commercials; and a Macarthur woman
who was told that her toddlers, aged just three and one, were wanted for
a bridal magazine shoot. Time after time Sims failed to deliver on his
promises." — John Watkins, Minister for Fair Trading, New South
John Sims And The Department Of Fair Trading," Ministerial Statement,
NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard, June 8, 2002, p. 6942.
Marquee Talent, Inc., Wendy Gallatin, and Tommy Gallatin charge artists
approximately $350.00 per person for photographs, headshots, inclusion
on a headbook, comp cards, and a disk containing the photographs so the
artists could have them printed. These items were never received by the
artists. Some artists were able to obtain a copy of the disk which was
not able to be printed because of the poor quality of the photographs." Texas
v. Marquee Talent, Inc., Wendy Gallatin, and Tommy Gallatin (Cause No.
02-02594), §13. http://www.license.state.tx.us/marquee/marqueetalentsuit.htm. "The
G-134th District Court, Dallas County, entered a total judgment of $152,103.06.
Included in this amount is $73,210.33 in restitution to injured consumers;
return of property or the $3,896.48 value of the property; $30,000 in civil
penalties, and $44,996.25 in attorney fees and investigative costs. Marquee
must also pay a $1,000 administrative fine previously assessed by TDLR.
Furthermore, the court ordered TDLR to distribute the $10,000 surety bond,
posted by Marquee Talent, on a pro rata basis as a partial payment of the
$73,210.33 restitution. In reaching its decision, the court ruled that
Marquee Talent, Wendy Gallatin, and Tommy Gallatin "engaged in unconscionable,
false, misleading, and deceptive trade practices" in violation of
DTPA and that they operated a talent agency knowing that its state registration
had expired. "Court Rules that Marquee Talent Violated Deceptive Trade
Practices Act; Issues Permanent Injunction and Orders Restitution," Texas
Department of Licensing and Regulation, Aug. 14, 2002.
33. "Maryland Higher Education Commission. The MHEC notified the firm in August, 2003 that it must cease and desist offering modeling training in Maryland since it lacked the proper licensing from the Commission. It was further ordered to provide refunds to students enrolled for such training at that time. Montgomery County Division of Consumer Affairs Action. On September 30, 2003 the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County ordered the company to cease advertising representations that it provided or offered modeling employment to customers. The company was ordered to provide a written 7 day cooling off period on contracts and to obtain proper registration/licensing with all applicable Maryland agencies." "BBB Company Report: Dynasty Productions," BBB DC. http://www.dc.bbb.org/report.html?compid=W36000243&national=Y [July 27, 2004].
34. "After seeing the ads and hearing the sales pitches, prospective models were convinced that these agencies could make them stars. But these clients never received the promised jobs, and after Yes Models took hundreds of dollars for photographs, they said no to taking their calls. Others who actually got work were charged excessive fees," the Commissioner added. After receiving 14 complaints from victims of Yes Models, DCA launched an undercover investigation into the modeling agency." "Modeling Scam Press Release," NYC Consumer Affairs, Mar. 13, 1999. http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dca/html/pressmodeling.html [May 31, 2000].
35. "Plus Models, which also does business as Swift Kids, was charged with operating without the required DCA license and overcharging clients for whom they found jobs. Complaints against Swift Kids and Plus Models allege that the agency owner, Pat Swift, withheld models' payments for jobs and took 20% in placement fees." "Modeling Scam Press Release," NYC Consumer Affairs, Mar. 13, 1999. http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dca/html/pressmodeling.html [May 31, 2000].
36. "At Next Stop Ideals in Queens, one consumer who filed a complaint charged that after responding to the unlicensed Queens company's newspaper advertisement for "models wanted," she was told that she could earn thousands of dollars per day. However, the agency owners illegally required her to pay $160 for photographs and makeup services that would be done in-house. The consumer received neither a job nor a refund." "Modeling Scam Press Release," NYC Consumer Affairs, Mar. 13, 1999. http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dca/html/pressmodeling.html [May 31, 2000].
37. "A modeling agency was charged with 30 counts of unfair practices under the Business Practices Act by the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services. Consumer witnesses stated that they were pressured and misled into signing contracts and paying for photo portfolios and video shoots through promises of work that never materialized. When they attempted to rescind (cancel) the contract they were told that their payments were non-refundable. The company and the individual charged entered guilty pleas on 30 counts. There was a global fine imposed of $8,000. Partial restitution was negotiated for the consumer victims, and a cheque for more than $43,000 was received by the Crown for distribution." "Consumer Lookout: Modelling," Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Business Services, 2002. http://www.cbs.gov.on.ca/mcbs/english/56UUVH.htm [Sept. 8, 2004].
38. "On Friday, April 16, Santa Monica Police detectives arrested a local man on charges of posing as a modeling agent and swindling young women. Thomas Daniel Martinez, 45, was arrested at his Santa Monica apartment on Friday afternoon and taken to Santa Monica jail. He later posted bail. Martinez faces 21 criminal counts stemming from his operation of a fraudulent modeling agency ring. The criminal complaint, filed by the Santa Monica City Attorney, charges that several different young women were lured to Martinez's apartment on promises of modeling jobs. Martinez then obtained cash payments of between $25.00 and $40.00 from the women, and took photographs of them in various stages of undress. Martinez kept the money, never produced the promised jobs for the women, and kept the photographs." "Santa Monica Man Arrested in Modeling Agency Scam," Santa Monica City Attorney Press Release, Apr. 19, 1999. [Sept. 19, 2004].
Crimes of Persuasionon