Sondors Fact Finding. Due Diligence. Scrutiny.

[pxpaulx]

Google ads ain't cheap! Not to mention the big articles that vaulted the campaign into the stratosphere. I can imagine perhaps Sondor's original vision would have seen his goal met maybe 2-3 fold, perhaps a pie in the sky ten fold - now that it is 100 fold the original goal the ambulance chasers are out in full force.

 

[FTC Complaint]

In terms of taking personal responsibility, and to reiterate, If you care to file a concern about false or misleading advertising find this FTC complaint template as it can be used by you as a starting point;

The "Storm-Sondors crowdfunding" campaign has been centered around the sale of an electronic bicycle being sold to consumers for $499 ( $599 and then $649) This campaign has raised near $5,290,000 in several weeks based on false representations made to the public and members of the press.

The product being sold is a known product with clearly documented parameters. Materially false and misleading statements were made as part of this campaign to include range, weight, specification, legality of operation and expected performance.

Illustratively, the most brazenly-false representation made pertains to a claimed range of 50 miles versus a reality of approximately 15 miles or less. This claim has been widely published through advertisements appearing on the internet. This claim, among with many others that have been made, is and are irrefutably false. The parties involved in this offering, individually separately together or in part, including Storm aka Sondors ebike, Indiegogo, and/or Agency 2.0 have continually refused to remedy the gross inaccuracies of this offering.

On April 9th 2015, a lawsuit alleging fraud was filed by Agency 2.0 against Storm-Sondors for failure to pay for services rendered. This lawsuit represents an additional risk to the delivery of a product that was purchased via crowd-funding.

Consumers have been led to falsely assume, and have been deceived through implication, that this business would meet all standards and would be a going concern and thus be able to warrant this product. Should a product be delivered, no assurance exists that consumers will be able to find recourse in terms of either support or product liability. Additional, no assurance exists that this product will meet regulatory requirements pertaining to bicycles, electric bicycles, or lithium batteries. In this regard, false assurance was given by all three parties at the time of sale and in follow on communications through the Indiegogo platform both individually and in synergy with each other.

I hereby ask the Federal Trade Commission act in the public interest by remedying this situation through litigation against all three parties.

https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/GettingStarted?NextQID=251&Url=#&panel1-8#crnt

If you like, copy this post and send it to the FTC.. (or write your own based on facts) In the text name three parties.

Sondors ebike c/o Indiegogo 965 Mission Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103.
Indiegogo 965 Mission Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103.
Agency 2.0 co Indiegogo 965 Mission Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103.

Then copy your complaint against the three parties to the CA Attorney General with this form;

https://oag.ca.gov/contact/consumer-complaint-against-business-or-company

 

[Credible Hulk]

In terms of taking personal responsibility, and to reiterate, If you care to file a concern about false or misleading advertising find this FTC complaint template as it can be used by you as a starting point;

Unfortunately I'm in Canada and wouldn't be able to file a complaint with the FTC. However, your template is still useful for anyone who wants to file a written complaint either to their government or their credit card provider.

 

[FTC Complaint]

Unfortunately I'm in Canada and wouldn't be able to file a complaint with the FTC. However, your template is still useful for anyone who wants to file a written complaint either to their government or their credit card provider.

You have protection under US law whether or not you are a citizen. Just mail hard-copy letter(s) to;

Federal Trade Commission
901 Market Street, Suite 570
San Francisco, CA 94103

Office of the Attorney General
455 Golden Gate, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

You might want to try asking Indiego for a full refund in writing. 1) it is not as if they are unaware of numerous issues and concerns regarding this campaign. 2) the disclaimers may mean very little and may not hold 3) Indiegogo has deep pockets and a reputation to maintain 4) It is not as if these parties are disconnected to any extent, in fact they look intimately connected based on this picture and the insurance offering which gave them insights into "Storm's business plan" to say this effort was the result of a single distinct party would be disingenuous. If you need help with a letter find a template in the next post below.

 

[FTC Complaint]

A Sample Letter.. It costs you little or nothing to ask

1) Personalize the letter
2) It is important to be neutral, polite, and non-accusatory.
3) It is important to be factual
4) Certified is always a good idea.

Mr. S Rubin
Indiegogo 965 Mission Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103.

Date:

I would appreciate if your company would refund $xxx which I paid in consideration for the pre-sale of a Storm Sondors e:bike. The monies which I extended for this product are important to me and I am concerned that a lawsuit was filed by Agency 2.0 against Storm-Sondors for non-payment. If Agency 2.0 has not been paid, then how am I going to receive a bike that meets the specifications that were outlined in the offering, that will be properly supported, will be legal to operate in my locality, and will be safe to operate?

I would ask that you step in as the strongest party in this transaction and refund my money at this time. I would hope your team could then work with Storm to resolve any and all concerns.

Regards.

.............

They might write you back to say no, they might refund your money, they might ignore the letter, they might say it is not a sale, they might say it is not their concern, they might point to the disclaimer. But, You will have a record that you asked them for help, that you paid money for a product, and that you were in a contractually weak bargaining position (and are the weakest) party in the transaction. You can then wait should there be any future actions filed, or if the bike is delivered. Frankly, I am surprised this is working out so quickly and so ironically. Shame that you have to hunt down folks before they become responsible. The letter gives Indiegogo one more chance to be responsible. They don't realize it, but solving the problem now it is a gift to them.

 

[Admin]

Please remember to keep this thread on topic and clear of personal bashing and opinions, it is being cited in articles like this http://www.businessinsider.com/more-troubles-for-indiegogo-ebike-maker-2015-4 which may influence the outcome of this campaign (or those who enforce the legality of how it is being run).

Thanks again for your combined input and patience on this topic, I realize it has been turbulent and emotionally jarring for those who have contributed funds expecting a perk.

 

[stevenast]

Please remember to keep this thread on topic and clear of personal bashing and opinions, it is being cited in articles like this http://www.businessinsider.com/more-troubles-for-indiegogo-ebike-maker-2015-4 which may influence the outcome of this campaign (or those who enforce the legality of how it is being run).

Thanks again for your combined input and patience on this topic, I realize it has been turbulent and emotionally jarring for those who have contributed funds expecting a perk.

FTC complaint plans. Right on topic! Thanks, Court, you are correct. The whole ebike marketing system has a propensity for generating emotional reactions. And of course the crowd sourced issue even more so.

Calm, and to the point is the theme!

 

[FTC Complaint]

I want to mention that Trek is recalling thousands of its bikes because a flaw in them caused a rider to become paralyzed. Trek is a well known company with adequate insurance, depth of customer support, and significant technical depth in design engineering and testing.

It is a major issue and concern that Storm Sondors will try to deploy 8000+ (millions of dollars of) bikes without a fraction of the business, technical, and financial depth that Trek has at its disposal.

Nor is there enough money on a per-unit margin basis to pay for testing by an independent engineering lab, to hire a customer support staff, or to provide insurance.

This failure to unstated expectation is what I am calling deception through implication.

The consumer is unaware of what it takes to sell and support an ebike. I mentioned Chris Nolte from LI electric bikes who could easily speak to that issue.

 

[Ann M.]

That is why @FTC Complaint the manufacturer, in this case Storm's company, is supposed to have manufacturer's insurance. Since as you point out, even the most reputable of companies, like Trek, can have a flawed product. Other than Pedego's battery recall and Currie Tech's Tricruiser issue, not too many production issues for ebikes make it to the CPSC's table since these are very small companies compared to Trek, Giant, etc. My shop's experience has been that the ebike manufacturers try to make a fix or send parts to the dealers as a stop gap to prevent a recall. With all of these internet ebike purchases coming directly from China with no organized supplier support there will be issues not so easily solved.

 

[FTC Complaint]

Storm's company, is supposed to have manufacturer's insurance

My experience is that manufacturer (which in this case is Sondors as an OEM manufacturer, is the legal perspective in China where the OEM buyer assumes all liability, and with US law where liability exists across the chain of distribution eg anyone that touches the product) is supposed to have product liability insurance, retailers would also carry insurance as well as distributors. There will be several layers of endorsements the parties would most likely be named as defendants in an injury case.

These three parties would also support the product in depth. With Storm there is no entity that will take responsibility and there will be no accountability either to customers, through lawsuits, or through regulatory agencies.

An independent bike should would be foolish to, and will most likely refuse, to service a Storm bike because of parts and liability problems.

There is no layering of insurance or support capability. There is not enough money per unit to support the bike, and that is not Storm's style.

I don't think it will make it to court unless there is a significant personal injury to justify the cost of litigation. To justify litigation, you would have to attack and dissect an intentionally confusing and complex business structure. You would have to have damages such as a major injury, and then prove that the consumer purchased a good, possibly that purchase was made under false pretenses, and that the terms of the sale were unconscionable.

Before Agency 2.0 sued for fraud, I was thinking that folks will receive a cheap unsupportable Chinese bike. Amazing to me that people don't want to make any connection between Agency's 2.0 action and the lack of legitimacy of this offering. It is downright delusional.

I would recommend that people that purchased this bike ask for a refund.

 

[stevenast]

It is a major issue and concern that Storm Sondors will try to deploy 8000+ (millions of dollars of) bikes without a fraction of the business, technical, and financial depth that Trek has at its disposal.

@FTC Complaint The more you think about it, the more you realize how unlikely the success of this enterprise will be.

Are you looking at the other two crowd-funded concepts being discussed on this board?

One of them seems as bad, or worse than Sonders, to me. I've come to believe that the second one may be sincere, at least. Have you been evaluating them as well?

 

[FTC Complaint]

@FTC Complaint The more you think about it, the more you realize how unlikely the success of this enterprise will be.

Are you looking at the other two crowd-funded concepts being discussed on this board?

One of them seems as bad, or worse than Sonders, to me. I've come to believe that the second one may be sincere, at least. Have you been evaluating them as well?

I don't think they will go "viral." I think an honest mistake was made by a member of the press (Dan Tynan). Dan has the personal integrity, confidence, and intelligence to evaluate his perceptions, thus he printed a retraction. We need more Dan Tynan's!

Less responsible members of the press including the "Los Angeles Times and Julie Bort" were looking for benefit through association with the hype. I tried to reach out to the Los Angeles Times and Bort and they were both defensive instead of corrective. I hope, they and, the editors of their respective journals read this missive.

The retraction, and even the lawsuit by Agency 2.0, are not going be allowed to carry the same weight as the original viral article. Although Kate from Gizmodo did a nice job of pointing out the irony of this endeavor. http://gizmodo.com/one-of-indiegogos-biggest-successes-is-getting-sued-for-1699188819

I did not realize how flawed crowdfunding was until this offering was made. I would advise staying away from crowd funding offerings because they put the consumer at a distinct disadvantage. To call these campaigns "bad business" would be an understatement.

Almost every bike that Court takes the time to evaluate is a better option for the consumer, and a better value per dollar spent.

 

[stevenast]

I don't think they will go "viral." I think an honest mistake was made by a member of the press that had the personal integrity, confidence, and intelligence to evaluate his perceptions. Almost every bike that Court takes the time to evaluate is a better option for the consumer, and a better value per dollar spent.

I do think are people giving them money however...

 

[flymeaway]

With Storm there is no entity that will take responsibility and there will be no accountability either to customers, through lawsuits, or through regulatory agencies.

He Incorporated in the state of California; Pacific Storm, Inc,

My guess, he did it to insulate his personal finances from the crowd funded project (Genius!). If it goes belly-up, Pacific Storm, Inc. is the legal entity responsible. My guess, they have no product liability insurance......but it's only a guess (could you imagine an insurance company agreeing to underwrite the policy....makes me chuckle). The legal recourse for any individual would be to file suit against the corporation and it's officers, good luck collecting a judgement.

 

[scmike]

Ah, the Pacific Storm, that's a great bowling ball... So Ivars incorporated... so what... there won't be any money left to go after... And he wasn't inc. before he signed with 2.0. My guess is "they" will build as many bikes as they can until the money runs out... and ship what they build to the early funders... people who got in late well... the paid for, in part, the early ones... Oversimplified,... sure..

 

[scmike]

According to Manta, Pacific Storm Inc., is a privately held company in Coos Bay, OR established in
2001 and coincidentally they sell eBike kits... what are the odds... But they are inc. in OR so maybe Ivars will be allowed to inc. in CA??

 

[flymeaway]

According to Manta, Pacific Storm Inc., is a privately held company in Coos Bay, OR established in
2001 and coincidentally they sell eBike kits... what are the odds... But they are inc. in OR so maybe Ivars will be allowed to inc. in CA??

It's a bizarre situation...here's a reference article it explains who the defendants are in the suit filed.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/storm-ebike-creator-sued-for-fraud-by-his-own-pr-116935222729.html

"Papers filed on April 9 in Los Angeles Superior Court accuse Sondors, his crowdfunding partner Jon Hopp, and the company he created, Pacific Storm Inc., of “contractual fraud” with regard to Agency 2.0"

 

[JRA]

Who is Jon Hopp?

 

[FTC Complaint]

The motor seems to have changed; it is no longer a bafang, 8fun motor, as they would be too expensive.

 

[JoePah]

Looks like Storm is moving along with his record run of eBike orders.. 3rd week in April and he's got manufacturing in full production.

Another immigrant finding opportunity and wealth in the USA.. Good to see.

Can definitely see Storm shipping some bikes by the end of May.. Probably one container?