Ifrah PLLC represents businesses and individuals in legal disputes involving Internet advertising and marketing, direct and indirect online sales, electronic-payment processing and interactive gaming.
Through extensive experience, we have developed in-depth understanding of the federal statutes that regulate Internet commerce. Collectively, the lawyers on our team have litigated a wide array of these cases, from defending an online retailer against the fraudulent practices of an unscrupulous marketing agency to preventing the government seizure of an e-payment processing company’s bank accounts.
Our team includes a former staff attorney for the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. We have handled a number of high-profile FTC and CFTC investigations and enforcement actions involving Internet marketing campaigns and related issues such as the scientific substantiation of advertising claims.
We also represent companies targeted by state attorneys general for matters relating to allegedly false or deceptive advertising. In a recent Florida case in which our client received multiple subpoenas from the state attorney general, we were able to resolve the matter with no finding of wrongdoing or payment of penalties by our client.
When an Internet retailer of consumer products discovered fraud by the direct marketing agency it had retained to promote its products online, Ifrah PLLC helped the retailer turn the tables.
Although the direct marketing agency, or affiliate network, agreed to craft a marketing campaign that complied with all advertising and consumer protection laws, it failed to do so. The network drove millions of leads to the retailer, a substantial number of those turned out to be from webpages containing claims the retailer did not approve.
This resulted in a substantial loss of advertising dollars for our client, the possible loss of good will among its customers, and exposure to state and federal consumer protection claims.
After we advised the retailer to stop paying the affiliate network, it filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit in federal court in California seeking $2.5 million in damages. We responded by filing a countersuit for the non-compliant webpages.
In our analysis of the lawsuit, we discovered a legal flaw in the agency’s case that would require the court to dismiss it. Rather than immediately attempt to litigate this issue, we contacted the agency’s lawyers and gave them several opportunities to withdraw the case voluntarily.
When the agency ignored our invitation, we filed a motion to dismiss its lawsuit based on the flawed filings. The judge not only granted our motion, but he also chastised the agency for ignoring our invitations to resolve this without involving the court.
Because our litigation of the motion unnecessarily required our client to incur legal fees, we then filed a request that the judge order the agency to pay our client’s fees. Just as vigorously as it had fought our first motion, the agency fought that request. The judge awarded our client legal fees not only for the motion to dismiss, but also for having to fight its fee request.
In the end, we resolved the dispute in an out-of-court settlement on terms favorable to our client.
Ifrah Law’s client, a Russian corporation, was charged in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia with violating the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
The company is comprised of a group of financial and investment companies that provide
online trading services. The government alleged that the defendants operated a foreign
currency exchange business over the Internet, which served U.S. customers but did not
register with the CFTC, as is required by law. The government was seeking $280,000 in
potential fines and the worldwide shutdown of the lucrative web site.
After the government obtained a default judgment against the defendant, they turned to
Ifrah Law. With our representation and expertise in financial matters, the case was settled
for a small fine and the web site remains operable outside of the United States.
(CFTC v. InstaForex, Case No. 1:11-cv-00188 (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia))
A dispute arose between an e-commerce merchant and an interactive advertising agency
involving over $2.5 million in damages. The merchant retained Ifrah Law and we utilized
our experience representing individuals and corporations in the online marketing arena to
negotiate a favorable settlement for the e-commerce merchant and obtain a dismissal of
The ad agency was a large network that rolled out a sales campaign for the merchant’s
product. They claimed they were owed commissions from the merchant’s sales and
brought a case against our client and sued the individuals associated with the company, as
We argued that they you couldn’t assess liability against individuals for the liability of
the company unless there was a specific basis to do so and we moved to dismiss. The
advertising agency challenged us, and we won a judgment for the plaintiff as well as for
our attorney fees.
Then the advertising agency litigated that result – and lost. The judge found our legal fees
to be fair and reasonable.
By the time this wrangling was completed, Ifrah had won a judgment of $250,000 before
the actual case had even started. Normally, it’s impossible for a defendant to win legal
fees – but not with Ifrah Law.