Highlights from the MSP Class Action Lawsuit Against Matterport12371
Pages:
1
 WGAN ForumFounder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
 Screen Grab from the Matterport Service Partner Class Action Lawsuit agains Matterport Highlights from the MSP Class Action Lawsuit Against Matterport Hi All, Here are the highlights from the 25-page Matterport Service Partner Class Action Lawsuit against Matterport. COUNT I -Violations of the Business Opportunity Sales Laws, Seller-Assisted Marketing Plan Acts, and Cognate Laws of Other Jurisdictions [Matterport] failed to comply with registration requirements for seller assisted marketing plans, business opportunities, and franchises, namely [21 jurisdictions]. [Matterport Service Partners (MSPs)] have suffered injury in fact and harm, actual damage and losses, and are entitled to rescind their contracts and obtain judgment for actual damages, statutory damages, and other damages, in an amount according to proof --- COUNT II - Violation of California Business & Profession Code ... for Engaging in Unlawful, Unfair, and Deceptive Business Acts and/or Practices 77. As alleged above, Defendants have engaged and continue to unlawfully engage in fraudulent, unfair, and unlawful business practices by making false representations and omissions of material fact regarding the market for 3D camera services, the profitability of 3D camera services, the ease of learning how to use the 3D cameras to create scans, the nature and efficacy of Defendants’ assistance in rendering 3D camera services, and that Matterport would become a direct competitor for scanning business against the camera purchaser and/or MSPs. 79. Defendants’ representations, solicitations, advertisements, and marketing materials falsely represent that their MSP program will provide a lucrative business opportunity and that, with their “lead filtering,” the initial purchase price of Matterport’s program and equipment will pay off the initial investment for the 3D cameras, and will “pay for itself in 6 months.” Plaintiff, and upon information and belief the National Class Members, have received little or no leads, cannot profit from their equipment, and continue to pay monthly fees to access their scanned images and avoid losing access to images they created, which Matterport contends is its intellectual property even though Matterport did nothing to capture the initial images. --- COUNT III - Violations of the False Advertising Law, California Business & Professions Code 87. California Business & Professions Code ... prohibits untrue or misleading advertising that is known, or which reasonably should be known, to be untrue or misleading. 88. Defendants’ representations, solicitations, advertisement, and marketing materials falsely represent that their MSP program will provide a lucrative business opportunity and that with their “lead filtering,” the initial purchase price of Matterport’s program and equipment will pay off the initial investment for the 3D camera, and will “pay for itself in 6 months.” Plaintiff, and upon information and belief the National Class Members, have received little or no leads, cannot profit from their equipment, and continue to pay monthly fees to access their scanned images and avoid losing access to images they created, which Matterport contends is its intellectual property even though Matterport did nothing to capture the initial images. Defendants have made false representations and omissions of material fact regarding the market for 3D camera services, the profitability of 3D camera services, the ease of learning how to use the 3D cameras to create scans, the nature and efficacy of Defendants’ assistance in rendering 3D camera services, and that Matterport would become a direct competitor for scanning business as against the camera purchaser and/or MSPs... 35. At all relevant times, [Matterport] failed to disclose that they were actually setting up their own scanning network where they set the price, and actually become a direct competitor for scanning business against the camera purchaser and/or MSPs. Specifically, after an MSP built a Matterport-based website for their business opportunity, participants in the program were, in effect, just free marketers and promoters of the Matterport equipment and required cloud service arrangements. 36. Even after Plaintiff and other MSPs learned the technical issues relating to making 3D scans, Matterport failed to disclose that it would be using the data generated by MSPs to then enter their local geographic markets and offer to provide scans at a fraction of the cost that would otherwise be borne by MSPs, thereby cannibalizing the market and harming MSPs’ ability to earn money from their Matterport scanning business. Thus, not only did Matterport fail to ever deliver on vetted leads or prospective leads, by entering the market and undermining the cost or service fees of its MSPs, Matterport undercut the ability of MSPs to market scanning services in their communities. Defendants’ actions to enter local markets, failure to provide the promised business leads, and lack of technical support, basically renders the MSP program worthless, and actually invites MSP clients to seek out Matterport directly since Matterport has access to this information through the program. --- Your thoughts? Dan |
||
| Post 1 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Video: WGAN-TV - Matterport Satisfaction and New Feature Survey - WGAN Forum Founder Dan Smigrod | 18 September 2017 ---      --- Hi All, Regarding ... "At all relevant times, [Matterport] failed to disclose that they were actually setting up their own scanning network where they set the price, and actually become a direct competitor for scanning business against the camera purchaser and/or MSPs. Specifically, after an MSP built a Matterport-based website for their business opportunity, participants in the program were, in effect, just free marketers and promoters of the Matterport equipment and required cloud service arrangements." I could imagine that the Matterport 2017 Satisfaction and New Feature Service will be one of the documents used in discovery leading up to the jury trial because Matterport asks questions that one might ask if Matterport was planning to compete with Matterport Service Partners (with the now known, Matterport Capture Services Program.) As I stated at 10:35 into the video (above), Matterport collects a lot of information about MSPs and then uses this information compete with us: information that is not necessary to collect - such as our pricing - to determine satisfaction or new features. Later in the WGAN-TV Live at 5 show that aired 18 September 2017, I talk about the specific questions - that in hindsight - was likely used to conceive and create the Matterport Capture Services Program. Your thoughts? WGAN Forum Related Discussions ✓ WGAN-TV: Matterport Satisfaction & New Feature Survey ✓ Matterport Competes with Service Providers ✓ Matterport Satisfaction/Feature Survey-Index Index of WGAN Forum Posts for Each Section of the Survey ✓ 1-Matterport Survey 2017-Overall Thoughts ✓ 2-Matterport Survey 2017-Matterport Spaces ✓ 3-Matterport Survey 2017-Matterport Workshop ✓ 4-Matterport Survey 2017-Matterport Cloud ✓ 5-Matterport Survey 2017-Matterport Virtual Reality (VR) ✓ 6-Matterport Survey 2017-2D matFloor Plans ✓ 7-Matterport Survey 2017-Billing and Pricing ✓ 8-Matterport Survey 2017-3D Showcase for iOS ✓ 9-Matterport Survey 2017-Matterport Service Providers ✓ 10-Matterport Survey: Customer Support/Transfer/Rights ✓ 11-Matterport Survey 2017-End of Survey Info Dan P.S. If you find relevant questions in the survey that was likely used to conceive and create the Matterport Capture Services Program (to compete with Matterport Service Partners), please provide the Matterport survey questions and timecode. |
||
| Post 2 • IP flag post | ||
|
Changesin3d private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Great Point! I am wondering what it was like for Board of Directors to get served? Many appear to be from investment firms, I wonder if they had their clients money in play and if there were any other complaints on these issues. I bet discussion in forums about "promised leads" also factor in showing that Matterport knew of this issue and did nothing. I bet some Attorneys have full email boxes tomorrow morning. Maybe there is some sort or rebate / return offer that is given, I for one will put my name in the hat. |
||
| Post 3 • IP flag post | ||
Pages:
1This topic is archived. Start new topic?