IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

DANIEL PILGRIM, Individually and ) CASE NO.

on Behalf of All Others Similarly )
Situated ) JUDGE
6165 Butler Road )
Macon, MS 39341 )
) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
and )
) (Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon)
PATRICK KIRLIN, Individually and )
on Behalf of All Others Similarly )
Situated )
101 Gladstone Road )
Lansdowne, PA 19050 )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
)
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARD, LLC )
c/o John A. Armstrong, Statutory Agent)
3939 Everhard Road )
Canton, OH 44709 )
)
and )
)
COVERDELL & COMPANY, INC. )
c/o Brian Branchick, Registered Agent )
1718 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 276 )
Atlanta, GA 30309 )
)
Defendants. )

Plaintiffs, Patrick Kirlin and Daniel Pilgrim, by their attorneys, Hermann, Cahn

& Schneider, LLP and Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C., as and
for their class action complaint, allege, with personal knowledge as to their own

actions, and upon information and belief as to those of others, as follows:

Nature of this Case

1. This action seeks to redress a deceptive and otherwise improper

business practice that Defendants Universal Health Card LLC (“UHC”) and

Coverdell & Company, Inc. (“Coverdell”) are perpetrating; specifically, Defendants

have established one of the largest consumer health benefits scams in the United

States through the placement of deceptive advertisements in various newspapers

across the country. The advertisements promote membership in a health care

program – the Universal Health Card – that purportedly provides discounts for

various medical services. Because the medical providers that Defendants claim

accept the Universal Health Card (hereinafter “Card”) do not in fact accept it – and

most have not even heard of the Card – Defendants’ advertisements serve as a

pretext for gaining access to consumers’ credit and debit card information in order

to charge fees for nonexistent services.

2. Defendants have preyed upon Plaintiffs and thousands of Americans

like them by luring unsuspecting consumers in need of affordable health care to

enroll in the Card membership program, charging Plaintiffs and other vulnerable

consumers “registration” and monthly fees for worthless memberships in a program

that neither provides health care, nor can be used to gain discounts at various

medical providers that Defendants claim accept the Card.

 3. Consumers almost never legitimately join Defendants’ Card

membership program with the knowledge that the medical providers that Defendants

claim accept the Card, in fact, do not accept it. Nor would Plaintiffs and consumers

authorize Defendants to charge their credit cards or debit from their bank accounts

any monies if they knew the truth. Moreover, when consumers contact Defendants

to request that they remove and refund the fees charged to their credit or debit

cards, they are given the runaround, and are unable to obtain refunds of the

charges.

4. Thus, as a result of Defendants’ deceptive and improper actions,

consumers, such as Plaintiffs, have been charged “registration” fees and monthly

charges for a product which cannot be used as promised, resulting in Defendants’

improper and unlawful monetary gain and benefit.

5. This suit is brought pursuant to the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act,

Ohio R.C. 1345.01, et seq. (“OCSPA”), and the common law of this State as well as

similar consumer protection laws of other states, on behalf of a nationwide class of

all persons who were charged fees by Defendants, or any one of their subsidiaries,

for the Card maintained and/or administered and promoted by Defendants during

the period from January 1, 2006, to the present. It seeks, inter alia, compensatory

damages, including, but not limited to, a refund of all fees charged to consumers for

the Card; reimbursement of expenses, interest and fees incurred by Class members

as a result of Defendants’ scheme; attorneys’ fees; and the costs of this suit.

Jurisdiction and Venue

3
 6. Jurisdiction in this civil action is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(d), as each Plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from both Defendants, there are

more than 100 class members, and the amount in controversy is in excess of $5

million.

7. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state and

common law causes of action, including claims based on violations of Ohio R.C.

1345.01, et seq., and the common law of this State, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

8. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in

the Northern District of Ohio.

9. Venue is also proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), on the

grounds that a substantial part of the events relating to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in

the Northern District of Ohio.

Parties

10. Plaintiff Patrick Kirlin is a citizen and resident of the State of

Pennsylvania, County of Delaware. Mr. Kirlin was deceived into paying for the Card,

and UHC charged Mr. Kirlin’s credit card for the Card.

11. Plaintiff Daniel Pilgrim is a citizen and resident of the State of

Mississippi, County of Noxubee. Mr. Pilgrim was deceived into paying for the Card,

and UHC debited Mr. Pilgrim’s checking account for the Card.

4
 12. Defendant Universal Health Card, LLC is a limited liability company

established under the laws of the State of Ohio, with its principal place of business in

Massillon, Ohio.

13. Defendant Coverdell & Company, Inc. is a corporation established

under the laws of the State of Georgia, with its principal place of business located in

Chicago, Illinois. Coverdell administers the Card program.

14. Defendants UHC and Coverdell do actual business throughout the State

of Ohio, including through operating and maintenance of interactive websites –

universalhealthcard.com and coverdell.com – accessible to consumers in, and

residents of, the State.

Operative Facts

A. The Skyrocketing Costs Of Health Care And

The Devastating Impact On American Families

15. According to the National Coalition on Health Care, total national health

care expenditures rose at approximately two times the rate of inflation in 2008.

These skyrocketing costs significantly affect the availability of affordable health care

for millions of American families.

16. The United States Census Bureau reported that, in 2005, more than 15

percent of the population had no health insurance. The results of no insurance or

inadequate health insurance are dramatic. Studies have shown that 50% of all

personal bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses. And, studies

have documented that more than 25% of housing problems have resulted from

5
medical debt, including the inability to make rent or mortgage payments and the

development of bad credit ratings. Indeed, the National Coalition on Health Care

reports that approximately 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every

year due to unaffordable medical costs.

17. Since the early 1990s, the availability of affordable health care has

been the subject of national political debate. The United States is one of the few

industrialized nations in the world without universal health care. “Universal health

care” is a concept commonly understood as health care coverage that is extended to

all eligible residents of a governmental region and often covers medical, dental, and

mental health care. Although many countries have implemented the concept of

universal health care in different ways, the common denominator for all such

programs is some form of government action aimed at extending access to health

care as widely as possible and setting minimum standards.

18. Support for health care reform appears overwhelming with recent polls

indicating that 66% of Americans support universal health care. Not surprisingly,

news of health care reform and universal health care for Americans has dominated

the media for months.

B. Defendants Have Taken Advantage Of The Health Care Crisis

By Selling Worthless Memberships In The Universal Health Card

19. Defendant UHC purports to offer a comprehensive discount medical

plan that is marketed and administered through Defendant Coverdell. When

6
consumers sign up for the Card, they speak to customer service representatives

based in Canton, Ohio and are charged by UHC from its headquarters in Ohio.

20. Defendant Coverdell administers the Card, and describes itself as a

discount medical plan organization (“DMPO”). When consumers register for the Card

either by calling UHC or through www.universalhealthcard.com on the internet, they

purportedly enter into an agreement with Coverdell as administrator of the program.

21. By using the name “Universal Health Card” – which is deceptively

similar to “universal health care” – Defendants prey upon the uninsured and

underinsured. For example, UHC’s website states: “The Universal Health Card

reduces the financial barriers everywhere within the healthcare system. This enables

our members to get the most out of their healthcare spending and while accessing

the health solutions they need and deserve.” Thus, UHC assures consumers that:

The Universal Health Card is a comprehensive discount

medical plan that was founded by a group of highly
respected professionals. These professionals united
because they shared a common vision; to provide
affordable healthcare solutions for everyone.

Universal’s discount medical plan provides access to over

561,000 healthcare professionals across the country.
Members can easily access our nationwide healthcare
network where they’ll receive significant discounts on a
broad range of healthcare services that include: doctors,
dentists, hospitals, chiropractors, vision, hearing care,
diabetic supplies and pharmacies.

22. For those without health insurance facing soaring health care costs,

Defendants’ statements hold great promise. However, Defendants’ statements are

7
false. Few, if any, health care providers provide discounts for Card members and the

Card offers no real savings to consumers.

C. Defendants’ False And Misleading Newspaper “Advertisement”

23. Defendants also market memberships in the Card in full-page

newspaper “advertisements.” Designed to appear as news articles, these so-called

advertisements are published uniformly in newspapers across the country. (A copy

of Defendants’ advertisement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.) Defendants’

deceptive full- page newspaper advertisement proclaims in the headline:

“Cut off set for free Universal Health Card.”

In addition, a sidebar to the purported news item states in large, bold typeface:

“How to get the FREE Universal Health Card.”

24. Defendants make every effort to imbue their false news story with

indicia of legitimacy. For example, in addition to the headline and sidebar, there is a by-

line with an author’s name and an apparent news agency, “Universal Media Syndicate.”

However, “Universal Media Syndicate” is not an actual news bureau like the similarly

named United Press International or the Associated Press; rather, it is a print

advertising company. The length of the advertisement, four columns of newspaper text,

further suggests that the advertisement is an actual news story.

25. Thus, the advertisement at first glance seems like a legitimate news

item, when in fact it is a paid advertisement touting the Card, which the advertisement

states gives you free “affordable care provided by 561,000 doctors, dentists,

pharmacists and hospitals.” By prominently touting the “free” Card, Defendants lead

8
consumers to believe that such consumers will not, in fact, be charged for obtaining the

Universal Health Card. But the Card is not free; consumers must pay an $18.00

“registration fee” to get a 30-day “free” trial. Thereafter, consumers must pay $49.00

per month to continue using the Card. However, the $49.00 monthly fee is obscured in

the advertisement and never printed numerically.

26. Defendants’ use of the word “free” to promote a card that is subject to a

fee runs afoul of Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) regulations. As the FTC has made

clear:

Because the purchasing public continually searches for the

best buy, and regards the offer of ‘Free’ merchandise or
services to be a special bargain, all such offers must be
made with extreme care so as to avoid any possibility that
consumers will be misled or deceived.

16 C.F.R. Part 251.1(a)(2). Given the seriousness of advertising a product or service

as “free,” the FTC requires:

When making ‘Free’ or similar offers all the terms,

conditions and obligations upon which receipt and
retention of the ‘Free’ item are contingent should be set
forth clearly and conspicuously at the outset of the offer so
as to leave no reasonable probability that the terms of
the offer might be misunderstood. Stated differently, all
of the terms, conditions and obligations should appear in
close conjunction with the offer of ‘Free’ merchandise or
service.

16 C.F.R. Part 251.1(c) (emphasis added).

9
 27. Similarly, the Ohio Attorney General has promulgated rules that specify

how the word “free” can be used in advertising, which rules Defendants have

violated. For example, the Ohio Attorney General prohibits using the word “free” in

consumer transactions unless “all the terms, conditions, and obligations upon which

receipt and retention of the ‘free’ goods or services are contingent [are] set forth

clearly and conspicuously at the outset of the offer.” Ohio Admin Code § 109:4-3-04.

28. Defendants’ bogus news story is intended to incite a false sense of

urgency among consumers desperate for affordable health care. As such, Defendants’

advertisement states “For the next 48 hours, the new Universal Health Card is available

to individuals and entire families and you don’t have to be over 65 or have low income

to get the new card.” (emphasis added). Attributing a statement to Kenneth J. Geis, the

“Director of the National Hotline,” Defendants’ fake news story further provides: “Our

reason for the 48-hour deadline is simple; we want to make sure that everyone gets to

speak to a real person who can instantly register and then issue the free card.”

Accordingly, consumers feel pressured to act quickly in order to obtain a “free card” for

affordable health care. In reality, however, the Card is not free and is available without

any temporal limitation.

29. Defendants also assure those in need of health care that, “All health

care needs are being provided at affordable rates by over 561,000 health care

professionals, including Doctors and Hospitals locally and across the nation.” However,

Defendants’ claim that more than 561,000 medical providers accept the Card is false.

10
Plaintiffs and other Class members that have contacted the medical providers listed on

the Card’s website have found that most – if not all – of the doctors, dentists,

pharmacists and hospitals that the Defendants claim accept the Card do not in fact

accept it, nor have most even heard of, the Card. Thus, consumers are deceived into

paying for a Card which is worthless as it cannot be used as promised: for discounts at

various medical providers across the country.

30. Plaintiffs and consumers like them responding to the deceptive

advertisements are enrolled in the bogus Universal Health Card program without

their knowledge or consent that the Card does not, in fact, give consumers discounts

on health care. Defendants also promise consumers that certain doctors participate

in the program, only to have Plaintiffs later find out that their medical providers do not

accept the Card. Some consumers have even dropped their regular health insurance

policies for the Card thinking it was cheaper, not realizing that the Card is not a

substitute for health insurance, and that most doctors and hospitals do not accept it

anyway.

31. Moreover, many consumers may not even realize that they are paying

for the “free” Card as Defendants do not even send bills to consumers requesting

payment or authorization for payment. Instead, Defendants collect fees for the Card by

directly charging consumers’ credit cards, bank accounts, and debit cards.

D. Consumer Advocates Condemn Defendants’ Deceptive Practices

32. Throughout the country, legitimate news agencies and consumer

11
advocates have roundly condemned Defendants’ deceptive practices. For example,

a story broadcast on WAFF-TV in Alabama reported on the advertisement’s

deceptive claims. The reporter contacted a number of the medical providers listed

on the Universal Health Card website, and found that they did not accept the Card.

The broadcast also noted that the Alabama Better Business Bureau contacted some

of the Card’s listed medical providers and found that most did not accept the Card.

33. WAAYYTV in Huntsville, Alabama broadcast a similar investigative

report, and the Massachusetts North Adams Transcript published a story on insurance

scams generally, including deceptive claims relating to the Card.

34. In addition, the ombudsman of the North Carolina News & Observer

even took his newspaper to task for accepting the Card’s advertisement, as he found

the claims made in the advertisement were either deceptive or outright false.

35. The Rhode Island Office of the Health Insurance Commission issued a

consumer alert after the Card’s advertisements appeared in the Providence Journal.

John Cogan, the Executive Counsel/Executive Assistant for Policy and Program

Review for the Rhode Island Office of the Health Insurance Commission, identified

several reasons for the consumer alert, including: (a) Defendants’ advertisement is

misleading because it appears to be a news article, which it is not; (b) the

advertisement suggests the Card is “free,” but the Card is subject to a fee; (c) the

monthly charge is obscured and the amount $49 is never printed numerically – it is

spelled out and difficult to find in the lengthy advertisement; (d) the advertisement

12
does not explain what the discounts are; and (e) the advertisement claims that

thousands of health care providers accept the Card, which is not true.

36. The Better Business Bureau (“BBB”) serving the Canton, Ohio region

has assigned a grade of “F” to UHC. According to the BBB, it assigns grades from A to

F with pluses and minuses. A+ is the BBB’s highest grade and F is the lowest. The

grade “represents BBB’s degree of confidence that the business is operating in a

trustworthy manner and will make a good faith effort to resolve any customer concerns.”

Thus, UHC’s failing grade from the BBB confirms that it is not operating in a trustworthy

manner or addressing customer concerns.

E. Defendants Deceived Plaintiffs Regarding The Universal Health Card

(1) Plaintiff Patrick Kirlin

37. Plaintiff Kirlin resides in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania. In early February

2009, Plaintiff saw a full page advertisement in the Philadelphia Inquirer for the Card.

The advertisement, as described above, promised free “affordable care provided by

561,000 doctors, dentists, pharmacists and hospitals.” Reading the advertisement,

Plaintiff believed that a significant number of healthcare providers accepted the Card

and that it would provide him and his family with affordable health care, which they

needed for the treatment of his wife’s multiple sclerosis.

38. Plaintiff called the phone number listed on the Card’s advertisement,

and provided his personal information including his name, address and credit card

number. Thereafter, on or about February 11, 2009, Plaintiff’s credit card was charged

13
an $18.00 “free” registration fee as payment for enrolling in the Universal Health Card

membership program.

39. After paying the registration fee, Plaintiff discovered that there were no

medical providers who accepted the Card within reasonable driving distance from his

home. Plaintiff called several medical providers listed on the Card’s website and was

shocked to learn that they did not in fact accept the Card. Plaintiff then uncovered

many complaints on the internet about the Card, most of which complained that the

Card was a scam.

40. It was at this time that Plaintiff realized that the Card was worthless, and

that the advertisement for the Card was deceptive and untrue. He therefore attempted

to cancel his Card membership. He was told he would not be charged the $49.00

monthly membership charge, but that the $18.00 “registration” fee was non-refundable.

41. Plaintiff was enrolled in membership for the Card without his knowledge

or consent that in fact the Card was worthless, and could not be used at any medical

providers within reasonable driving distance from his home. He has derived no benefit

from his “membership” in the Card.

(2) Plaintiff Daniel Pilgrim

42. Plaintiff Daniel Pilgrim resides in Macon, Mississippi. He is an

independent truck driver without health insurance and is thus responsible for his own

health care costs. On or about March 15, 2009, Plaintiff saw a full page

advertisement for the Card in his local newspaper, the Clarion Ledger based in

Jackson, Mississippi. The advertisement, as described above, promised free

14
“affordable care provided by 561,000 doctors, dentists, pharmacists and hospitals.”

Reading the advertisement, Plaintiff did not know that the Card was not free; that he

would have to pay an $18 “registration fee” to get a 30-day “free” trial, and that he

would have to pay $49 per month to continue using the Card.

43. Plaintiff was unaware that the Card cannot be used as a replacement

for traditional health insurance, but can be used only to obtain purportedly a small

discount at participating doctor’s offices, hospitals and pharmacies. As such, Plaintiff

was deceived into enrolling in a program promising discounts at participating medical

providers, rather than purchasing actual health insurance coverage for himself.

44. Plaintiff called the phone number listed on the Card’s advertisement,

and provided his personal information including his name, address and checking

account number. Thereafter, Plaintiff’s checking account was debited the $18.00

registration fee as payment for enrolling in the “free” Card membership program.

45. After paying the registration fee, Plaintiff uncovered many complaints on

the internet about the Card, most of which complained that the Card was a scam. At

that point, Plaintiff decided to call approximately a dozen medical providers in his

geographic area that the Card’s website claimed accepted the Card. None of the

medical providers with whom Plaintiff spoke had ever heard of the Card, and therefore

would not accept it. Plaintiff was also shocked to find out that some of the phone

numbers provided for the medical providers listed on the Card’s website were

disconnected.

15
 46. It was at this time that Plaintiff realized that the Card was worthless, and

that the advertisement for the Card was deceptive and untrue. He, therefore, on or

about March 16, 2009, attempted to cancel his Card membership. He was told he

would not be charged the $49.00 monthly membership charge, but that the $18.00

“registration” fee was non-refundable.

47. Plaintiff was enrolled in membership for the Card without his knowledge

or consent that in fact the Card was worthless, and could not be used at any of the

medical providers in his area as listed on the Card’s website. Thus, he has derived no

benefit from his “membership” in the Card.

48. The imposition upon Plaintiffs of the $18.00 charge represents a

deliberate profit-making scheme by Defendants. Enrollment in Defendants’ sham

Card membership program provides Defendants with a consistent, lucrative and

substantial source of revenue.

49. There have been numerous consumer complaints to various Federal

and State authorities about the Card, web sites are full of consumers who have

complained about Defendants’ unfair and deceptive practices, and newspaper articles

have been written about the Defendants’ deceptive Card advertisement.

50. As referred to above, no adequate notice has been provided to

Plaintiffs, and no consent or bargained-for approval has been granted by Plaintiffs or

other consumers who purchased the Card. Nor do Defendants provide any notice,

adequate notice or full disclosure of their unfair and deceptive scheme of charging

16
Plaintiffs and other members of the Class fees for a worthless membership in the Card

program.

Class Action Allegations

51. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and additionally, pursuant

to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a nationwide class (the

“Class”) of all persons in the United States who were charged fees by Defendants, or

any one of their subsidiaries, for the Card marketed, promoted, maintained and/or

administered by Defendants, during the period from January 1, 2006, to the present.

52. Excluded from the Class are Defendants; any parent, subsidiary, or

affiliate of Defendants; any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest,

or which Defendants otherwise control or controlled; and any officer, director, employee,

legal representative, predecessor, successor, or assignee of Defendants.

53. This action is brought as a class action for the following reasons:

a. The Class consists of thousands of persons and is therefore so

numerous that joinder of all members, whether otherwise required or permitted, is

impracticable;

b. There are questions of law or fact common to the Class that

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including:

i. whether Defendants violated the Ohio Consumer

Sales Practices Act, Ohio R.C. 1345.01, et seq. or similar consumer protection laws

of other states;

17
 ii. whether Defendants are being unjustly enriched by,

among other things, charging Plaintiffs and the Class fees for the Card; and

iii. whether Plaintiffs and the Class have sustained

damages and, if so, the proper measure thereof.

c. The claims asserted by Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the

members of the Class;

d. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

Class, and Plaintiffs have retained attorneys experienced in class and complex

litigation, including related litigation involving consumer fraud;

e. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair

and efficient adjudication of the controversy, for at least the following reasons:

i. Absent a class action, Class members as a practical

matter will be unable to obtain redress, Defendants’ violations of their legal

obligations will continue without remedy, additional consumers and purchasers will

be harmed, and Defendants will continue to retain their ill-gotten gains;

ii. It would be a substantial hardship for most individual

members of the Class if they were forced to prosecute individual actions;

iii. When the liability of Defendants has been

adjudicated, the Court will be able to determine the claims of all members of the

Class;

18
 iv. A class action will permit an orderly and expeditious

administration of Class claims, foster economies of time, effort, and expense and

ensure uniformity of decisions; and

v. The lawsuit presents no difficulties that would

impede its management by the Court as a class action.

f. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to Class

members, making class-wide monetary and injunctive relief appropriate; and

g. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the

Class would create a risk of incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants and of

inconsistent or varying adjudications for all parties.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act,
Ohio R.C. §1345.01, et seq. and Equivalent State Causes of Action)

54. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 53 above as if fully set forth herein.

55. Through their conduct described above, Defendants have engaged in

deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act,

Ohio R.C. 1345.01, et seq. (“OCSPA”), the purpose of which is to prohibit deceptive and

unconscionable acts and practices by Ohio suppliers in connection with consumer

transactions irrespective of the location of the consumer.

56. Defendants are “suppliers” of services within the meaning of the

OCSPA because they are persons “engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting

consumer transactions, whether or not the person deals directly with the consumer” as

19
defined in Ohio R.C. § 1345.01(c). Specifically, Defendants each have engaged in

unfair and deceptive conduct by falsely promoting, marketing and/or administering the

“free” Universal Health Card which is not in fact “free” and cannot be used to obtain

discounts at over 500,000 medical providers as promised.

57. Defendants’ actions in marketing, soliciting, registering, enrolling, and

administering the Universal Healthcare Card program emanate from the State of Ohio.

58. Defendants’ deceptive actions are proscribed by rules promulgated by

the Ohio Attorney General, including but not limited to Ohio Admin Code § 109:4-3-04,

and Federal Trade Commission regulations, including but not limited to 16 C.F.R. Part

251.1(a)(2). These rules prohibit the use of the word “free” in advertising in the manner

used by Defendants because the advertisements do not clearly state the conditions to

obtain the purportedly free product and/or service.

59. Defendants’ advertising and marketing also violate Ohio Admin Code §

109-4-3-02 in that Defendants’ print advertising and other promotional materials do not

clearly and conspicuously disclose all the exclusions, reservations, limitations and

conditions associated with membership in the Card. For example, the monthly charge

is obscured and the amount $49.00is never printed numerically. In addition, the

advertisement does not explain what the discounts are.

60. Defendants’ acts are unconscionable and in violation of Ohio R.C. §

1345.03 because Defendants know that consumers will not receive a substantial benefit

from the Card and that the terms upon which consumers agree to obtain the Card are

substantially one-sided in favor of Defendants. Moreover, Defendants have made

20
misleading statements in their advertising and marketing materials on which consumers

are likely to rely to their detriment.

61. Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered an ascertainable loss of money or

property as a result of Defendants’ actions.

62. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated the OCSPA and

are liable to Plaintiffs and the Class, pursuant to Ohio R.C. §1345.09 and similar laws of

other states, for the damages that they have suffered as a result of Defendants’ actions,

the amount of such damages to be determined at trial, plus attorneys’ fees.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unjust Enrichment)

63. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 62 above as if fully set forth herein.

64. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants have unjustly

enriched themselves at the expense of Plaintiffs and the Class and are required, in

equity and good conscience, to compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for damages

suffered as a result of Defendants’ actions.

65. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and the

Class for damages incurred as a result of Defendants’ actions, the amount of such

damages to be determined at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment

against Defendants as follows:

1. Certifying this action as a class action, with a class as defined above;

21
 2. On Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action, awarding against Defendants the

damages that Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class have suffered as a result

of Defendants’ actions, the amount of such damages to be determined at trial, plus

attorneys’ fees and costs;

3. On Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action, awarding against Defendants the

damages that Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class have suffered as a result

of Defendants’ actions, the amount of such damages to be determined at trial;

4. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class interest, costs and attorneys’ fees;

and

5. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class such other and further relief as this

Court deems just and proper.

s/Hugh D. Berkson
Anthony J. Hartman 0021226)
Hugh D. Berkson (0063997)
Jay H. Salamon (0029192)
HERMANN CAHN & SCHNEIDER LLP
1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 500
Cleveland, OH 44114
Tel: 216.781.5515
Fax: 216.781.1030
ahartman@hcsattys.com
hberkson@hcsattys.com
jsalamon@hcsattys.com

22
 Jeffrey I. Carton
Jerome Noll
Christine M. Ford
MEISELMAN, DENLEA, PACKMAN,
CARTON & EBERZ P.C.
1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
White Plains, New York 10605
(914) 517-5000
jcarton@mdpcelaw.com
jnoll@mdpcelaw.com
cford@mdpcelaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JURY DEMAND

A jury of the maximum number allowed by law is hereby demanded at the trial
of the within matter.

s/Hugh D. Berkson
Anthony J. Hartman (0021226)
Hugh D. Berkson (0063997)
Jay H. Salamon (0029192)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23