Caught in the Act: ConsumerDirect’s $3.9 Million Penalty for Branding Deceit

In a courtroom spectacle that could rival a Netflix legal drama, ConsumerDirect, the internet financial platform, is reeling from a colossal $3.9 million in punitive damages. But how did this financial heavyweight land in such hot water? Strap in for a rollercoaster of trademark turmoil, alleged deceit, and a document that’s causing quite a stir.

Setting the Stage: ConsumerDirect Takes on Array

The saga began when ConsumerDirect went head-to-head with Array, claiming ownership of trademarks like IDLock.COM and CreditMonitoring.COM. With a preliminary injunction in hand, ConsumerDirect seemed to be on the winning side.

Plot Twist: The True Trademark Owner Emerges

Hold onto your hats because here comes the twist. Array, digging into the legal trenches, discovered that the real owner of the disputed trademarks was Consumer Information Systems (CIS), a non-party to the case. CIS had a white label agreement with ConsumerDirect, granting the latter a license to use CIS’ trademarks for a financial services platform.

The Fabrication Fallout: Enter the 2020 Amendment

ConsumerDirect, cornered on the ownership front, made a surprising admission—they didn’t actually own the trademarks. However, they argued they had the right to pursue legal action based on a 2020 amendment to the CIS agreement. The catch? No one could produce a signed copy. To untangle this legal web, the court ordered a forensic examination of email and Dropbox data.

Forensic Revelations: The Missing Piece of the Puzzle

The forensics report dropped a bombshell—there was no trace of the alleged 2020 amendment until May 24, 2022, a date well after the preliminary injunction was secured. The suspicion loomed large that ConsumerDirect might have fabricated the amendment to retroactively claim ownership.

Judge Selna’s Verdict: Cutting Through the Smoke

Enter Judge James Selna, the voice of reason in this legal maelstrom. His ruling on sanctions minced no words, stating unequivocally that there was zilch evidence supporting the existence of the 2020 amendment, except for statements from ConsumerDirect’s CEO. A clear and resounding judgment.

Adverse Inference Instruction: Jury, the Ball’s in Your Court

But that wasn’t the end of it. Judge Selna went a step further, issuing an adverse inference instruction to the jury. Translation: “Hey, jury, the court suspects ConsumerDirect and CIS might have conjured up the 2020 amendment. Use your judgment when considering their testimony.”

Punitive Damages: The Price of Deception

In a legal climax, a Central California jury delivered a staggering blow—$3.9 million in punitive damages against ConsumerDirect. This isn’t just a financial setback; it’s a stark reminder of the consequences that follow in the wake of deception.

The Takeaway: Authenticity Over Deception

What’s the lesson for brands navigating the turbulent waters of the business world? Honesty reigns supreme. Fabricating documents and playing fast and loose with the truth can lead to legal storms and hefty fines. This saga serves as a cautionary tale that, in the realm of branding, credibility is the ultimate currency.

As the dust settles on ConsumerDirect’s legal misadventure, one truth emerges clear—the world of branding demands authenticity, not legal theatrics.



  1. Mark Beck Avatar

    The court’s decision to order a forensic examination of email and Dropbox data is a wise move to untangle the web of information and get to the bottom of the dispute. This case serves as a reminder of the critical role documentation plays in legal matters and the need for transparency in contractual agreements.

  2. William Bentick Avatar
    William Bentick

    Consumer Information Systems (CIS) is a surprise in the case.

Join the Discussion

Discover more from Domain Magazine

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Verified by ExactMetrics