Dana Chanel Ordered to Pay Up After Misleading Customers

Dana Chanel Ordered to Pay Up After Misleading Customers

Attorney General Michelle Henry made an announcement about a settlement that resolves a lawsuit involving online personality Dana Chanel and Philadelphia-based companies that the influencer co-owns and promotes.

Dana Chanel, who had an online following of almost 800,000 consumers, promoted a credit repair business called Defendant Credit Exterminators, Inc. and a mobile app developer known as Alakazam Apps.

The lawsuit claimed that Chanel and the businesses, which she co-owned, violated state consumer protection laws by deceiving consumers and not providing the goods and services they had purchased.

The settlement grants restitution payments, civil penalties, and costs to numerous affected consumers, totaling over $87,000.

Dana Chanel and the businesses are prohibited from promoting or selling credit repair and mobile app services, as stated in the settlement.

“Advertising in today’s world has changed, and people trust personalities they follow online to promote desirable goods,” Attorney General Henry said. “In these cases, consumers were misled by the influencer and businesses that did not deliver on purchases. My office has taken a hard stance against potential harm inflicted on Pennsylvanians online.”

Dana Chanel, also known as Casey Olivera, promotes various products and services to her followers on Instagram and other online platforms.

The Office of the Attorney General has taken legal action following complaints from several of Dana Chanel’s social media followers who claimed to have been deceived by Credit Exterminators/Earn Company and/or Alakazam Apps.

These dissatisfied consumers alleged that the companies provided false information about the quality and worth of the products and services they purchased. Some consumers even stated that they never received the items or services they had paid for.

The lawsuit was resolved by a Consent Petition (settlement) that requires court approval between the Commonwealth and the defendants.

Additionally, the Consent Petition prohibits the defendants from engaging in any deceptive conduct in their businesses in the future, including:

  • failing to deliver goods and services;
  • misrepresenting the quality or value of services; and
  • contracting with consumers under different terms than those advertised.

As per the settlement, the defendants will be obligated to pay $87,269.91 in consumer restitution, $31,000 in legal costs, and $6,000 in civil penalties.

Furthermore, an extra $55,000 in civil penalties will be suspended under the condition that the Defendants adhere to the terms of the Consent Petition.

The Consent Petition, which is currently awaiting approval from the Court, has been filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

About The Author

Subscribe To Our Newsletter