Light Harmonic (LH Labs). Scam? USD$6 million not delivered since 2014

[Mike Rubin]

11 minutes ago, LHCommSquad said:

 Could also mean he doesn't want to put himself out there where everyone would just call him a liar regardless. Maybe both. It's easy to speculate both ways with zero proof of intentions either way. If i hear something, I'll announce it. 

Even if that's the case, sometimes you need to do something risky simply to establish that you act in good faith.  It's been a long time since anything resembling credible information came from LH or Light Harmonic or whatever entity is planning to make good on the IGG contract originally in place between LH and its customers.  Something that's more transparent and less calculated would go a long way towards assuring at least some people they haven't been defrauded by plan, even if those people continue to harbor doubts that they actually will see their payments turn into anything. 

 

It's a fine line sometimes, to be sure, between ineptitude and bad judgment, on the one hand, and, on the other, orchestrating an intentionally fraudulent scheme.  You won't quiet all the naysayers, but you might at least have a sincere apology accepted by others if there's an explanation of where money went and what realistically can be expected at this point if there isn't enough left of it to build promised products. 

[Mike Rubin]

This spreadsheet has aggregated claims of almost $165,000 at the moment:

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vE7_LByDDY6w8J-E-l4njfkvXcggTasrG90z11swJww/htmlview

 

When do we plan to submit this to the State AG and who is taking the lead in drafting a cover letter for its submission?  I don't know if claims still are coming in at a rate that makes it wise to wait or whether it's smarter to go ahead and just submit this now. 

[Mike Rubin]

Just had another look at the online  State AG complaint submission form at  https://oag.ca.gov/contact/consumer-complaint-against-business-or-company

 

The instructions require claimants to provide this information in support of a filed complaint:

 

Please include the following information in the text of your message if relevant:

• If you have a foreign (non-US) address.
• If you are shareholder, member, or limited partner.
• Name of the product or service involved.
• The dollar amount in dispute.
• The date of the transaction.
• Was the product or service advertised? If so, indicate where and on what date?
• Was a contract signed?
• Identify your attempts to resolve the issue(s) with the company, corporation, or organization.
• Have you contacted another agency for assistance? If so, what agency?
• Have you contacted an attorney? If so, what is the attorney's name, address, and phone number?
• Is court action pending?
• Have you lost a lawsuit in this matter?
• Briefly describe the resolution you are seeking

[Mike Rubin]

29 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

How about filling out a lot of this information on behalf of everyone, then attaching the spreadsheet; and noting in the cover letter that we all have these facts in common, as well as the fact that what's on the spreadsheet is a fraction of the millions of dollars collected from many more people without delivery of product.

 

I'd propose that you, me, and Mike get together via email to compose the cover letter, and that it go out over either Mike's name, or all three names with Mike's first, since he's a California resident.

Sounds good, Jud.  If I can do so over the weekend, I will try to draft something for our consideration and I will send it to you guys for polishing. 

[Mike Rubin]

21 hours ago, Cecil said:

I've done a bit of research into the process of lodging a complaint with the California AG and it appears to me we may all be required to lodge separate complaints. I can't see how to lodge a complaint on behalf of multiple complainants, but would be more than happy to be proven wrong.

 

I don't live in California, or even the US for that matter, so have no local knowledge whatsoever. Can anyone who may know better please comment?

I think that you are correct about this.

 

At this point, I have begun drafting a complaint to file on behalf of Blake, Jud, Markus (if he authorizes it), and myself.  We will be asking that the AG demand that LH make refunds.

 

When we file, we will attach the spreadsheet.  We will have to disclose that we can offer it as proof only of the extent and nature of the harm caused by LH as we are not authorized to represent any of those on the spreadsheet other than the four of us, but we specifically will ask that any remedy afforded us should be made available to all backers similarly situated.  That shouldn't prevent anyone from filing their own claim on top of or even before ours.  I've posted a link to the complaint form and the AG's list of what it wants complainants to address.

[Mike Rubin]

46 minutes ago, noshortcuts said:

Mike Rubin, Your previous post confuses me a bit so I'm hoping a couple of questions will help clarify for myself (and for others it they're also unclear): How/why are you drafting a letter for four people when you seem to think it needs to be individually done? If it works to include four at once then could it work to include more?

Thank you.

 

I will be filing on behalf of two and maybe three other individuals who will review what I plan to send and will specifically authorize me to submit on their behalf.  What I meant by my general comment was that we couldn't just take a spreadsheet with barebones information and claim we are acting on behalf of everyone who furnished data for the spreadsheet. 

 

If I were to have everyone who did post to the spreadsheet provide full names, addresses, and citizenship information[ give me written authorization to act for him or her; and allow me to use personally-identifiable information across national borders, I suppose I could agree to file on behalf of everyone.  Unfortunately, I don't have the resources to undertake the effort to obtain those consents from everyone who contributed to the spreadsheet and to have everyone review and sign off on my complaint document prior to its submission. 

 

What I can promise is that there will be an explicit request that the relief granted to the four named complainants be made available to anyone similarly damaged by LH. 

[Mike Rubin]

10 hours ago, clipper said:

In order to prevail on a fraud claim, you'd have to allege and prove all five elements (a through e).  

 

If you come up short proving even one, you've got a problem...

Correct.  Fraud is not technically what we allege here. It's unfair and deceptive practices.  

 

LH probably was more inept than fraudulent, but lots of its communications have been deceptive and it compounded its errors by stringing us along for five years with promises and factual representations that it clearly had no basis for making. 

[Mike Rubin]

8 hours ago, marflao said:

 

OK...I can start an attempt to contact all guys who particpated so far asking for the above bold info.

Then I would add the additional info in a copied spreadsheet which I would share with you only.

 

Does this make sense?

 

Cheers,

Markus

 

EDIT:

Just re-read your post, Mike, and I presume the last step, everybody has to review and sign off is the bottleneck.

Hmm...any option we can overcome this situation?
Maybe you share the complaint doc with me and I get back to all the guys? And will put you in cc?

Markus, that approval would be the bottleneck, yes.  If you think you can manage that process, I don't object to your getting sign-offs.  What I don't want is to negotiate about language in a long document with 50 guys. 

 

I have sent a very rough draft to Jud and Blake for review and for additional explanation of the unfair and deceptive practices with respect to products other than the Source. (Since that is the only product that LH owes me, it is the only one about which they emailed me.) They probably will have a lot of comments.  It might be a little while before there is a final version for circulation to others. 

[Mike Rubin]

1 hour ago, Cecil said:

 

Thank you, Mike.

 

I agree it would create a bottleneck for you to file on behalf of all those who have added their data to the spreadsheet, however I am hoping the AG may allow other individual complaints to be joined to your initial complaint (with Blake, Jud and Markus). If that can be done it would probably be necessary for backers to individually lodge their basic details with reference to your complaint so in that way all complaints could be dealt with as one, in a similar way to a class action.

 

I will wait to see what we learn from your experience with the AG's office and will be happy to follow up in whatever way is required.

 

Many thanks to you, Blake, Jud and Markus for getting the ball rolling on this.

This all sounds workable. It may be a few weeks before we get the draft to a state in which we can get it on file with the AG.  I can keep you posted here and, at the proper time, will provide whatever information is necessary for others to join in the complaint.  

[Mike Rubin]

On 4/1/2019 at 4:04 AM, Anselmus said:

Added all my outstanding products with a total value of $ 9.347,- (and that does not even include the soundbar) to the spreadsheet (thanks Markus). As a lawyer I am happy to read along and comment on any writ of claims. I also have a good record of all announcements and email communications by LHL since 2014.

 

Anselmus, we still are working on the draft of a consumer complaint to the California State AG.  It's not a writ or a pleading in a legal proceeding, although we are going to allege specific legal theories of recovery. 

 

As I only am owed a Source, I don't have emails or other communications regarding other products.  PM me if you wish to provide details regarding representations concerning and communications about other products.  We could easily work them into the draft and, indeed, will need them to document the claims.

 

Note that I am a retired California attorney on inactive State Bar status.  I therefore will be filing in pro per and explicitly not as counsel for anyone who joins me as a joint pro per filer who has authorized me to sign and submit for him or her.

[Mike Rubin]

All, I have not forgotten that I promised to create a final draft of a complaint to the California AG's office that we can file jointly.  I made some revisions to the first draft after input from others, but, unfortunately, have been without access to my desktop computer for a few weeks due to remodeling of my home.  (I have access to my iPad, but can't edit a long Word document on that device.)  

 

I also have been awaiting input from several people who have offered it and for IGG to provide copies of the terms in effect while the campaigns were underway.  (I recall that the current IGG terms are not identical to those in effect when we funded the campaigns.)  I only am owed a Source, so I don't have emails, updates, and other correspondence relating to other products.  Please contact me via pm if you can forward copies of anything from LH about other products that states or suggests that production will start or that delivery of a product is imminent or that asks for additional money; I will provide an email address to which you can send these materials.

 

I apologize for the delay, but there is a lot of information to collate and a big story to tell.  

[Mike Rubin]

The latest revision of the proposed California Attorney General complaint is circulating among the drafters and sponsors.  We believe we are making great progress.  There still are sections that need additional data before the document can be filed, which we are tracking down, but the main arguments have been identified and drafted. 

 

After we finalize the text we wish to submit, we will circulate the draft to those who contributed to Markus' spreadsheet.  Anyone who is happy with the draft can join as a co-filer and authorize me to submit on his or her behalf.  I will consider additional input, as well, but cannot negotiate and get sign-off from everybody for each proposed change to the draft. 

 

In any event, we think we are on the home stretch.  Thanks to everyone for the patience. 

[Mike Rubin]

The complaint to the California State AG has gone through fact gathering and numerous drafts that have circulated among the authors.  We expect to finish it sooner than LH ships its next product.  We have determined that, due to various jurisdictions' rules governing transmission of personally-identifiable information, we cannot identify the names of people who want to join in the complaint, but we definitely will include as an appendix a copy of the spreadsheet with the various claimants' loss listing.  We also will let everyone know what and where we file.  Then, people can choose to refer to the filing if they care to make their own submissions incorporating ours.  Be aware, though, that we are asking for relief for everyone who paid into the crowdfund, even if not identified in the complaint individually.

 

On a lighter note, I opened a ticket at LH for a Pulse Fi firmware update, to see if later revs allow me to play native DSD in JRiver Media Center.  (I seem only to be able to play DSD as DoP.)  I know from Jarek's posts here that no one is responding to LH tech support requests at all right now, but I nonetheless got this response:

 

"Dear Mike Rubin,

"We would like to acknowledge that we have received your request and a ticket has been created.

"A support representative will be reviewing your request and will send you a personal response.(usually within 24 hours).

"To view the status of the ticket or add comments, please visit 
https://support.lhlabs.com/helpdesk/tickets/81074

"Thank you for your patience.

"Sincerely,
"LH Labs Support Team"

 

Usually within 24 hours?   The clock is running....

 

Jarek, if you are reading this, I strongly urge you to have the autoresponder revised to state that LH no longer provides technical support for its products and that there will be no further responses to support tickets.  We are owed that courtesy.

 

 

[Mike Rubin]

On 11/21/2019 at 8:55 PM, Mike Rubin said:

The complaint to the California State AG has gone through fact gathering and numerous drafts that have circulated among the authors.  We expect to finish it sooner than LH ships its next product.  We have determined that, due to various jurisdictions' rules governing transmission of personally-identifiable information, we cannot identify the names of people who want to join in the complaint, but we definitely will include as an appendix a copy of the spreadsheet with the various claimants' loss listing.  We also will let everyone know what and where we file.  Then, people can choose to refer to the filing if they care to make their own submissions incorporating ours.  Be aware, though, that we are asking for relief for everyone who paid into the crowdfund, even if not identified in the complaint individually.

 

On a lighter note, I opened a ticket at LH for a Pulse Fi firmware update, to see if later revs allow me to play native DSD in JRiver Media Center.  (I seem only to be able to play DSD as DoP.)  I know from Jarek's posts here that no one is responding to LH tech support requests at all right now, but I nonetheless got this response:

 

"Dear Mike Rubin,

"We would like to acknowledge that we have received your request and a ticket has been created.

"A support representative will be reviewing your request and will send you a personal response.(usually within 24 hours).

"To view the status of the ticket or add comments, please visit 
https://support.lhlabs.com/helpdesk/tickets/81074

"Thank you for your patience.

"Sincerely,
"LH Labs Support Team"

 

Usually within 24 hours?   The clock is running....

 

Jarek, if you are reading this, I strongly urge you to have the autoresponder revised to state that LH no longer provides technical support for its products and that there will be no further responses to support tickets.  We are owed that courtesy.

 

 

After further discussion among the authors, we will use a different process than explained in the last post to ensure that those on the spreadsheet can more easily join in the complaint.

 

(1). We will circulate the final draft of the document by email to those who provided information for the spreadsheet.

 

(2). Recipients of the draft will have about a week to review and decide whether to join in the filing.  Anyone who wants to join in the filing will forward an authorization both for me to sign on his or her behalf and to utilize the personally-identifiable information that he or she provides.

 

(3).  After great effort to edit this document into the most precise and accurate document that we can create and to avoid further delay, we will not entertain requests for additional edits for any reason other than to address inaccuracies.  If someone does find an error and we correct it in a revised draft, we will circulate the revised draft to everyone before filing with the California State Attorney General.  Anyone who doesn't like what we have created is free to file a complaint on his or her own.  We will furnish State Attorney General contact information and I can refer you to the Attorney General website page that specifies the required information.

 

(4).  After we file, we will forward an electronic copy of the final submission to all participants.  Afterwards, we will forward any responses that we receive from the Attorney General's office.

 

(5).  We should clarify some things and offer some disclaimers:
 

(a).  People  have been referring to this as a "class action."  THIS IS NOT A LAWSUIT, SO IT IS NOT A CLASS OR ANY OTHER SORT OF "ACTION."

 

(b).  Instead of being a lawsuit, this will be a request that the State Attorney General use its authority to redress consumer grievances. We have decided to pursue this potential remedy instead of litigation because of the costs of litigation, the "small” amounts of money (by lawsuit standards) at stake for any individual claimant,  practical difficulties in creating a litigation class comprised of people from around the world with claims that a court might not consider identical in nature, and what it would take to find counsel who would pursue a contingent fee complaint against defendants who aren’t exactly well-established businesses.
 

(c).  When we file the complaint, this will be a matter within the discretion of the Attorney General's office.  It may go to bat for us or decide to do nothing.  We will do our best to obtain redress for all of the participants, but this is not within our control.  
 

(d).  If you wish to pursue a lawsuit, whether on your own or to try to create a judicial class action, this will not prevent you from so doing.  You may consult an attorney who can advise you on matters such as where you can file a lawsuit against LH and related parties and if there are statute of limitation issues that will affect a lawsuit.

 

(e).  BY FILING THIS COMPLAINT, NONE OF THE DRAFTERS IS ACTING AS YOUR ATTORNEY.  Although several of us happen to be attorneys, we, like you, will file this document jointly to seek redress for our *own* losses and not in any representative capacity.  We are inviting you all to join us in filing these claims, but are not assuming any legal obligation to you as members of the bar in the jurisdictions in which we are admitted or in any other jurisdiction.  
 

(f).  Your communications with us are not attorney-client communications, which is why we have been discussing the complaint in public rather than in confidential communications.  Because LH has an agent participating in this very public thread, you and we must assume that everything we have said in this thread is known also to LH. 
 

if you have questions, you may private message me, but I hope this addresses everyone’s concerns.  If Blake, Jud, Anselm, or Mattias want to correct, add, or clarify anything, I hope they will feel free to do so.  I thank them for their immense help and diligent efforts to get this ball rolling.

 

 

[Mike Rubin]

46 minutes ago, Mike Rubin said:

After further discussion among the authors, we will use a different process than explained in the last post to ensure that those on the spreadsheet can more easily join in the complaint.

 

(1). We will circulate the final draft of the document by email to those who provided information for the spreadsheet.

 

(2). Recipients of the draft will have about a week to review and decide whether to join in the filing.  Anyone who wants to join in the filing will forward an authorization both for me to sign on his or her behalf and to utilize the personally-identifiable information that he or she provides.

 

(3).  After great effort to edit this document into the most precise and accurate document that we can create and to avoid further delay, we will not entertain requests for additional edits for any reason other than to address inaccuracies.  If someone does find an error and we correct it in a revised draft, we will circulate the revised draft to everyone before filing with the California State Attorney General.  Anyone who doesn't like what we have created is free to file a complaint on his or her own.  We will furnish State Attorney General contact information and I can refer you to the Attorney General website page that specifies the required information.

 

(4).  After we file, we will forward an electronic copy of the final submission to all participants.  Afterwards, we will forward any responses that we receive from the Attorney General's office.

 

(5).  We should clarify some things and offer some disclaimers:
 

(a).  People  have been referring to this as a "class action."  THIS IS NOT A LAWSUIT, SO IT IS NOT A CLASS OR ANY OTHER SORT OF "ACTION."

 

(b).  Instead of being a lawsuit, this will be a request that the State Attorney General use its authority to redress consumer grievances. We have decided to pursue this potential remedy instead of litigation because of the costs of litigation, the "small” amounts of money (by lawsuit standards) at stake for any individual claimant,  practical difficulties in creating a litigation class comprised of people from around the world with claims that a court might not consider identical in nature, and what it would take to find counsel who would pursue a contingent fee complaint against defendants who aren’t exactly well-established businesses.
 

(c).  When we file the complaint, this will be a matter within the discretion of the Attorney General's office.  It may go to bat for us or decide to do nothing.  We will do our best to obtain redress for all of the participants, but this is not within our control.  
 

(d).  If you wish to pursue a lawsuit, whether on your own or to try to create a judicial class action, this will not prevent you from so doing.  You may consult an attorney who can advise you on matters such as where you can file a lawsuit against LH and related parties and if there are statute of limitation issues that will affect a lawsuit.

 

(e).  BY FILING THIS COMPLAINT, NONE OF THE DRAFTERS IS ACTING AS YOUR ATTORNEY.  Although several of us happen to be attorneys, we, like you, will file this document jointly to seek redress for our *own* losses and not in any representative capacity.  We are inviting you all to join us in filing these claims, but are not assuming any legal obligation to you as members of the bar in the jurisdictions in which we are admitted or in any other jurisdiction.  
 

(f).  Your communications with us are not attorney-client communications, which is why we have been discussing the complaint in public rather than in confidential communications.  Because LH has an agent participating in this very public thread, you and we must assume that everything we have said in this thread is known also to LH. 
 

if you have questions, you may private message me, but I hope this addresses everyone’s concerns.  If Blake, Jud, Anselm, or Mattias want to correct, add, or clarify anything, I hope they will feel free to do so.  I thank them for their immense help and diligent efforts to get this ball rolling.

 

 

Too late for me to edit my post above Jud’s, but the shout-out to “Mattias" should be to Markus, who really is responsible for starting this whole project.  I blame bad iPad autocompletion and senile proofreading.  Thanks again, Markus. 

[Mike Rubin]

Thanks, Markus.

[Mike Rubin]

2 hours ago, Blake said:

As a refresher for those joining our complaint, you can easily find the details concerning your Indiegogo campaign contributions by logging on to your Indiegogo account. 

 

After logging in to your account, in the upper right-hand corner you will see your account name and when you click on it you will see a pull-down menu with "My Campaigns" and "My Contributions" options. You can then see the amounts and dates of your LH Labs product contributions.

 

 Use this information to fill in the details where noted for our Complaint.

 

 

Thanks, Blake.  
 

Another reminder:  also go through your LH emails and verify if you purchased perks or additional products via email solicitation rather than the indiegogo site.  In my own case, I found  several hundred dollars in upgrades beyond what I contributed at IGG.  Further, I am certain that LH has no accurate records of contributions, so it will be our burden to establish what we have contributed.

[Mike Rubin]

53 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

Hate to see @bernardperu and others going through this, specially since the amounts are significant. Good luck with that. Sorry to ask, but, I remember hearing that  Kickstarter and IndieGogo are not exactly.. hmm not sure how to put it...  your are not buying anything... is kind of like an investment... so I have heard that people  that get stuck in failed campaigns,  are not owed anything and should treat it like investment losses - is that accurate? I hope is not the case, but if its, at least from now on, I won't even consider putting money in those kind of things - I actually considered and almost put money on LH products - glad I did not.

 

v

Generally, it is true that you run the risk of nondelivery with crowdfunding, but there are limits on how much accountability campaigners can avoid when they act in bad faith, fraudulently, or in violation of fair business practices statutes.

[Mike Rubin]

12 minutes ago, Jud said:

From Chris's link. Sounds familiar:

 

"In September 2016, the Oregon Justice Department confirmed that it was investigating the Coolest Cooler, according to The Oregonian newspaper. Although some backers had never received their perks, the product was being sold on Amazon, it reported. In 2017, the company settled with the Oregon Department of Justice, where they were required to deliver to over 800 people who still hadn’t gotten coolers, The Oregonian reported."

 

* * *

 

"[O]n August 29, 2018, The Verge reported the FTC is back investigating crowdfunding. After campaigns on both Indiegogo (2015) and Kickstarter (2016), the iBackPack netted over $700,000, it reported. But the backpacks haven’t shipped yet, The Verge reported, and iBackPack's website no longer works. The campaign runner last updated in 2017, according to the product's Kickstarter campaign page."

 

In terms of money collected and numbers of products not delivered, the LHL projects are bigger than both the situations described above.

 

If Larry Ho is reading this: Perhaps this would be a good time to think about the swift delivery of refunds.

 

 

Thanks, Chris and Jud. Terrific snd timely information.

 

In my cover letter to the California AG, I will make a point, especially, of calling attention to the Oregon AG action. I am certain that California' consumer protection attorneys already are aware of it, but I will point out that the LH case is a substantially larger dollar take that affected many more people.  

 

It's hard to get the FTC's attention these days, given our current Administration's admiration of rather than disdain for a well-crafted grift, but that might be Plan B because of the geographic scope of the LH victim population.

[Mike Rubin]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

He’s quite real but IMO not at all spectacular.

Ouch!

 

No one should drag poor Teri Hatcher anywhere near this discussion.

[Mike Rubin]

6 hours ago, AgentXXL said:

I've only just come across this forum but will do my best to add my information to the complaint being filed against LH Labs. I'm owed over $5K US worth of gear, including the Pulse DAC Infinity that started all the hype. The only items I've received from LH Labs are the now-useless LPS4 power supply, the Pulse Blue, a Pulse Geek Infinity and an assortment of cables.

 

I've been in failing health for the last 2.5 years so I've not followed up often on the whole LH Labs fiasco. Just thinking about the funds I gave them has me furious now, especially since I'm on disability and don't have the money to buy alternates to what I ordered.

 

Larry Ho should be ashamed of himself for taking advantage of the community as he has. It may not be entirely his fault, but as he's the primary at Light Harmonic and LH Labs, he's the one who's still wasting our hard-earned contributions on his own lifestyle.

 

FYI - I don't know if LH still makes a 3rd party audio system for Tesla owners, but I did warn Tesla owners (I'm not one) of the potential for LH to scam them as well.

 

I'll now go collect my info on my contributions and try to add it to the complaint.

 

It does not appear that I can send you a private message here, so please see if you can send me one to which I can respond.  I would like to update you regarding the status of the AG complaint.  

[Mike Rubin]

2 hours ago, montpierjazz said:

 

Hey Mike - just submitted my info and signed consent form to Markus.  BIG THANK YOU to Mike & Markus and everyone else involved in getting this off the ground. 

 

Today's the deadline so anyone who has griped about the behavior of Larry Ho with respect to LH Labs should take the time to submit their information to [email protected] and (to paraphrase the infamous Gavin Fish....) Join us and 20,000 passionate audiophiles to obtain refunds for never delivered game-changing ultra high performance audio gear.

 

(And Mike, was glancing back at recent thread posts and the above comment is hilarious.  Too bad Seinfeld is no longer around.  Imagine an episode which starts with George steaming about contributing to a crowdfunding campaign that turned out to be a fraud and sending Kramer to China to confront those responsible...) 

Thanks for the reminder to the crew that we need as many folks as possible to pile on here.  Please review the draft complaint and send Markus your completed authorizations ASAP.  

 

In reviewing the draft, please be aware there is a known issue with the page numbering, an artifact of conversion from Word .docx to .pdf. I am working on this as the pagination obviously needs to be right when we submit. 

 

Will keep all participants posted. Thanks for your support. 

 

And montpier, Seinfeld was insidiously funny.  LH remains merely insidious! 

[Mike Rubin]

14 hours ago, stuck limo said:

 

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. When you click on the "Pay Now" it brings up the correct price($1,299), so there's obviously a disconnect between our site (old promotion) and PayPal (correct, normal) price. We're working on fixing that ASAP as well as some other website issues. 

Jarek, hi.  As long as we have you on the line and are talking about the Pulse, what are the chances that we will get an ASIO driver that works in Windows 10?  My support ticket remains unaddressed.

[Mike Rubin]

4 minutes ago, stuck limo said:

There are no plans at this time for that driver. 

Thank you for responding.

[Mike Rubin]

31 minutes ago, Cecil said:

 

No Chris, I haven't, but then again I haven't gone out of my way to find it.

 

However, I am aware of two separate actions in relation to this particular crowdfunding fiasco that are being undertaken to try to bring about some sort of accountability and recompense. 

We called out the following enforcement actions in the cover letter to the California State AG that accompanied our complaint:

 

• In 2014, the Washington State Attorney General obtained restitution from a crowdfunded company that failed to deliver playing cards sold through the Kickstarter.com funding site.  https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-makes-crowdfunded-company-pay-shady-deal

 

• In 2015, the Federal Trade Commission entered a cease-and-desist settlement with a crowdfunder that failed to deliver a board game funded at Kickstarter.com.  https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/06/crowdfunding-project-creator-settles-ftc-charges-deception.

 

• In 2017, the Oregon Attorney General obtained monetary relief for purchasers of a beverage cooler sold at Kickstarter.com.  https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2018/06/kickstarter_fiasco_coolest_coo.html.

 

• In 2017, the Pennsylvania Attorney General settled a case with a Kickstarter.com crowdfunder who failed to deliver t-shirts or delivered defective products.  https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/press-releases/attorney-general-shapiro-announces-settlement-in-kickstarter-consumer-scam-t-shirt-case/. 

 

• In 2019, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had charged an IGG fundraiser who had failed to deliver backpacks despite a succession of IGG campaigns, alleging the received funds were used for personal living expenses and costs of marketing successive campaigns. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/05/ftc-charges-operator-crowdfunding-scheme.  The Texas State Attorney General has a follow-on case pending.  https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxtons-office-files-lawsuit-against-operator-crowdfunding-scheme.